/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091001.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, October 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 194 Headlines APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Complaint C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical Center's Lawsuit is Dismissed CACI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals on "Saleh" Remain Under Advisement CELL GENESYS: Settlement of Consolidated Merger Suit Pending CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing DIEDRICH COFFEE: Paid Full Settlement of Labor Suit in FY 2009 DIEDRICH COFFEE: "Willems" Settlement Got Final Okay in Sept. DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Fears Disaster from Class Action Lawsuit EL POLLO LOCO: Employee Suit filed in Los Angeles County GILMAN CIOCIA: Shareholder's Suit Over Sale of Offices Ended GRETNA POLICE: Partial Class Certification for Katrina Victims HEALTHSOUTH: Settlement of Securities Suit Gets Final Approval INTERGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: $14 Mil. Ponzi Scam Alleged in N.J. KAPLAN INC: Cook County Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime KELLOGG USA: Where's the Fruit in Kellogg's Froot Loops Cereal? ORACLE CORP: Faces Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit SARA LEE: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit Pending SKYPE INC: Class Claims Skype Takes Their Money TAM CAPITAL: Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions Ongoing * Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Reaches 700-Case Milestone New Securities Fraud Cases IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. UCBH HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Fraud Complaint in N.D. Calif. ********* APPLIED ENERGETICS: Securities Class Action Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Energetics, Inc. (Nasdaq: AERG) disclosed that the proposed settlement in Wood, et al. v. Ionatron, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00354 (D. Ariz.), has received final approval. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 5, 2009, under the terms of the settlement of the class action lawsuits, the underlying securities-related lawsuits are dismissed with prejudice, and Applied Energetics and all other defendants receives a full and complete release of all claims asserted against them in the litigation, in exchange for the payment of an aggregate of $5.3 million in cash and the issuance of previously unissued shares of common stock by Applied Energetics valued at $1.2 million. Based on the formula set forth in the settlement agreement, the Company will issue 2,883,887 shares of its common stock. There was no admission of liability by any of the defendants. Insurance proceeds of $6.2 million, less amounts previously reimbursed to Applied Energetics to pay expenses of the stockholder litigations (approximately $700,000 to date), were used to fund the settlement payments and related costs. The remaining cash payments and the stock issuance are being made by Applied Energetics. Joseph Hayden, Chief Operating Officer of Applied Energetics commented, "As stated in the settlement documents, Applied Energetics denies any liability in connection with the litigation and denies the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the complaints. However, Applied Energetics believes this settlement is in the best interest of Applied Energetics and its stockholders, as it eliminates the uncertainties, distractions, burden and further expense associated with the litigations." About Applied Energetics, Inc. Applied Energetics, Inc. -- http://www.appliedenergetics.com/-- is based in Tucson, Arizona, and is a leader in the advancement and application of high-powered technology and products including ultra-short pulse lasers, solid state high voltage electronics and particle acceleration technologies for the defense and commercial business sectors. Applied Energetics pioneered the development of Laser Guided Energy(TM) (LGE(TM)) and the use of high voltage for counter-IED applications. BANK OF AMERICA: Consolidated Amended Securities Fraud Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law.com reports that Andrew Longstreth at The American Lawyer reports that although the rejected Securities and Exchange Commission settlement with Bank of America for alleged disclosure deficiencies in BofA's merger with Merrill Lynch has been getting all the attention, the pending securities class action against the company could end up being more important -- at least in terms of BofA's liability. On Monday, the lead plaintiffs -- an ad hoc group of public pension funds from Texas, Ohio, the Netherlands and Sweden -- in In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 09 MDL 2058 (S.D.N.Y.) (Chin, J.), filed their consolidated class action complaint against BofA. A copy of the highly detailed, 132-page Complaint is available at http://is.gd/3MBgKfrom the Ohio Attorney General's Web site. Mr. Longstreth's story is available at http://is.gd/3MBtj C.R. BARD: St. Francis Medical Center's Lawsuit is Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ John Kell, writing for Dow Jones Newswires, reports that C.R. Bard Inc. said all counts in a class-action lawsuit captioned St. Francis Medical Center, et al. v. C. R. Bard, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-00031 (E.D. Mo.), that alleged the company conspired to exclude competitors from the urological catheter market, have been dismissed. The medical center in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Mr. Kell relates, was seeking damages of up to $200 million, a figure C.R. Bard said was "unsupported by the facts." The maker of medical devices, along with Tyco International Inc., had faced a class-action complaint in early 2007 led by Southeast Missouri Hospital. The complaint was later amended to add St. Francis Medical Center and was later renamed when Southeast's motion to serve as class representative was dismissed. Tyco was also later removed from the action. St. Francis further alleged the company sought to maintain market share by engaging in conduct in violation of state and federal antitrust laws, C.R. Bard disclosed in its 10-Q Securities and Exchange Commission filing in July. St. Francis can appeal the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. C. R. Bard, Inc. -- http://www.crbard.com/-- headquartered in Murray Hill, N.J., is a leading multinational developer, manufacturer and marketer of innovative, life-enhancing medical technologies in the fields of vascular, urology, oncology and surgical specialty products. CACI INTERNATIONAL: Appeals on "Saleh" Remain Under Advisement -------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals on the class-action complaint, Saleh, et al. v. Titan Corp., et al., remain under advisement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a 26-count class-action complaint on June 9, 2004, originally on behalf of seven named Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated Plaintiffs, against a number of corporate Defendants and individual corporate employees. The complaint, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, named CACI International Inc, CACI, INC.- FEDERAL, and CACI N.V. as Defendants, along with Titan Corporation. The complaint also named CACI Premier Technology, Inc. employee Stephen A. Stefanowicz as a Defendant. Plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Defendants formed a conspiracy to increase demand for interrogation services in Iraq and violated U.S. domestic and international law. Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, declaratory relief, a permanent injunction against contracting with the government, compensatory damages, treble damages and attorney's fees. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint several times and the action was ultimately transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. In March 2006, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint adding several new counts, adding CACI Premier Technology, Inc. as a Defendant, dropping CACI, N.V., as a Defendant, and adding two former CACI Premier Technology employees, Timothy Dugan and Daniel Johnson, as Defendants. On June 29, 2006, the Court entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to numerous claims, and granting the motions of the three individual Defendants to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Finally, the Court consolidated the Saleh and Ibrahim actions for discovery purposes only. On Aug. 4, 2006, the CACI Defendants filed a summary judgment motion. On Nov. 6, 2007, the Court issued its order denying CACI's motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 6, 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion to have the action proceed as a class action. On Dec. 17, 2007, the Court certified its Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order denying CACI's motion for summary judgment for interlocutory appeal. On Jan. 2, 2008, CACI filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asking for acceptance of an interlocutory appeal of the Court's Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order. On Jan. 4, 2008, CACI filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from the Court's Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order. On Dec. 17, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint. On Jan. 4, 2008, CACI filed a motion to dismiss the fourth amended complaint. On Dec. 21, 2007, the Court granted Titan's motion for entry of a final judgment of the Nov. 6, 2007 Memorandum Order as to Titan, and on Jan. 17, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from that final judgment in favor of Titan. CACI filed a motion with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the decision denying its summary judgment motion. In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted CACI's motion to have all trial court proceedings adjourned until all appeals in the action are resolved. On March 17, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted CACI's request for an interlocutory appeal. On July 28, 2008, CACI submitted its brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding its interlocutory appeal of the decision denying its summary judgment motion. On Oct. 17, 2008, CACI filed its brief in support of its intervention in Plaintiffs' appeal of the November 2007 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granting Titan's summary judgment. On Feb. 10, 2009, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held a hearing on both appeals and took the matters under advisement. CACI International Inc -- http://www.caci.com/-- along with its wholly owned subsidiaries and joint ventures, is an international information systems, technology services and professional services company. The company operates in two segments: domestic operations and international operations. CELL GENESYS: Settlement of Consolidated Merger Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement of a consolidated shareholder class action complaint concerning the proposed merger between Cell Genesys, Inc. and BioSante Pharmaceuticals, Inc., is pending approval by the California Superior Court in San Mateo County. On July 1, 2009, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit concerning the proposed merger was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County (Case No. 485528) naming Cell Genesys, its officers and directors, and BioSante as defendants. On July 6, 2009, a second putative shareholder class action lawsuit naming the same parties and containing essentially identical allegations was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County (Case No. 485613). On July 8, 2009, a third putative shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court in San Mateo County (Case No. 485528), which also named the same parties and contained essentially identical allegations as the two prior lawsuits. On July 15, 2009, the Court consolidated these three lawsuits into one action and appointed interim lead counsel. On Aug. 13, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleging that defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cell Genesys stockholders in connection with the proposed merger, including by failing to engage in a fair sales process, failing to obtain a fair price for the sale of Cell Genesys, and failing to provide Cell Genesys stockholders with material information regarding the proposed merger. Plaintiffs seek an order certifying the lawsuit as a class action, injunctive relief to enjoin the merger or, in the event the merger is completed, a rescission of the merger or rescissory damages. Plaintiffs further seek an accounting for all damages and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation, Cell Genesys and the other defendants have entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in the San Mateo County action pursuant to which Cell Genesys, the other named defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the lawsuits subject to court approval. If the court approves the settlement, the lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice. According to HealthSouth Corp.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 21, 2009, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding, Cell Genesys has agreed to pay to plaintiffs' counsel an amount not more than $240,000 as is approved by court order for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in the San Mateo County action and to make certain additional disclosures, without admitting in any way that the disclosures are material or otherwise required by law. Cell Genesys, Inc. -- http://www.cellgenesys.com-- is a biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of biological therapies for patients with cancer. The company has developed cell-based cancer immunotherapies and oncolytic virus therapies to treat different types of cancer. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Defending "Rivera" Demand in Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc. defends itself against the allegations in a putative class-action demand in arbitration, according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. On May 28, 2008, the putative class-action demand in arbitration captioned, "Rivera v. Sequoia Education, Inc. and Corinthian Colleges, Inc.," was filed with the American Arbitration Association. The plaintiffs are nine current or former HVAC students from the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses. The arbitration demand alleges violations of California's Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500, fraud and intentional deceit, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and unjust enrichment/restitution, all related to alleged deficiencies and misrepresentations regarding the HVAC program at these two campuses. The plaintiffs seek to certify a class composed of all HVAC students in the Company's WyoTech Fremont and WyoTech Oakland campuses over the past four years, and seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, interest, restitution and attorneys' fees and costs. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post- secondary education company in the United States and Canada. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada. The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's, bachelors and master's degrees. The training programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and information technology. Since the company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses. The company offers online education to two categories of students, including those attending online classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Arbitration of FMU Students' Claims Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc. faces arbitration of the claims filed by current and former students in the company's Florida Metropolitan University (FMU) campuses, now known as Everest University, in Florida and online. On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually identical putative class action complaints entitled, "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University," and "Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University." On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint entitled, "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University, Inc." The Alvarez first amended and supplemental complaint named ninety-nine plaintiffs. In addition, the court in the Alvarez case granted the plaintiffs' motion to add an additional seven plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint. The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former students in the company's FMU. The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not transferable to other institutions. The Satz and Travis plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people. The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss. The arbitrator also found that Mr. Satz breached his agreement with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with compelling the action to arbitration. The arbitrator also declared FMU the prevailing party for purposes of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The company is continuing to pursue its remedies against Mr. Satz related to these findings. Furthermore, the company affirmatively filed arbitration actions against Ms. Travis and approximately ninety of the Alvarez plaintiffs seeking damages for their respective breaches of their obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court, and seeking declaratory relief regarding their allegations. The arbitrator ruled against the company in its affirmative claims against Ms. Travis. The company has prevailed on its motions in court to dismiss the court actions and compel arbitration in both the Alvarez and Travis matters. Ms. Travis has filed a motion to certify a class in her arbitration proceeding on behalf of all similarly situated persons, and the company has opposed that motion. The company and the plaintiffs in the Alvarez and Travis matters have agreed to consolidate those actions before a single arbitrator. Following various procedural steps by the parties, on June 1, 2009, the Florida Circuit Court issued a judgment in the Company's favor granting summary judgment, finding that FMU had not violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, dismissing the common law claims against FMU and declaring FMU the prevailing party for all statutory claims. Additionally, the Court denied class certification due to the predominance of individual issues. In order to avoid the expense and uncertainty of an appeal of this dispositive judgment, the company and all of the named plaintiffs have resolved the consolidated Alvarez and Travis matters, according to the company's Aug. 25, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu/-- is a post- secondary education company in the United States and Canada. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (fiscal 2008), the company had a student enrolment of 69,200, and operated 89 schools in 24 states, and 17 schools in the province of Ontario, Canada. The company offers a range of diploma programs and associate's, bachelors and master's degrees. The training programs include healthcare, criminal justice, mechanical, trades, business and information technology. Since the company's formation in 1995, it has acquired 74 colleges and has opened 32 branch campuses. The company offers online education to two categories of students, including those attending online classes exclusively, and those attending a blend of traditional classroom and online courses. DIEDRICH COFFEE: Paid Full Settlement of Labor Suit in FY 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Diedrich Coffee, Inc., during the fiscal year 2009, paid approximately $700,000 to fully settle a purported class-action suit alleging that the company violated labor laws, according to its Sept. 22, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2009. On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class-action complaint entitled, "Jason Reid; Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by two former employees, who worked in the positions of team member and shift manager. The case involves the issue of whether employees and former employees who worked in California stores during specified time periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks. In addition to unpaid overtime, this case seeks to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in the purported class. The company has entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. This settlement has been given preliminary approval by the court. A final approval hearing was set for April 27, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2009). Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer. The company sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans, as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories, through company operated and franchised retail locations. DIEDRICH COFFEE: "Willems" Settlement Got Final Okay in Sept. ------------------------------------------------------------- Diedrich Coffee, Inc., on Sept. 14, 2009, received an Order of Final Approval for its settlement of a purported class-action lawsuit over allegations that it violated California labor laws. The purported class-action complaint is entitled, "Deborah Willems, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al." It was filed in Orange County, California Superior Court on Feb. 2, 2007, on behalf of another former employee who worked in the position of general manager. The case involves the issue of whether employees and former employees who worked in California stores during specified time periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks. In addition to unpaid overtime, the case seeks to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in the purported class. The company entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs in the Willems v. Diedrich lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 28, 2009). As of June 2009, the company estimated that the required amount to settle this claim is $376,000 and has recorded an accrual for this amount, according to Diedrich Coffee's Sept. 22, 2009, Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 24, 2009. Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer. The company sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans, as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories, through company operated and franchised retail locations. DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Fears Disaster from Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Holleran at The West Virginia Record reports that Dominion Transmission, Inc., claims it faces the possibility of bankruptcy and of being forced to lay off all its employees if Drilco Oils and Gas Corporation is allowed to shut down its wells and to buy its meters. In Drilco Oils & Gas Corp. v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-959 (S.D. W.Va.), Drilco asserts class action claims that Dominion is forcing it to sell all its meters to Dominion and that Dominion is shutting down Drilco's wells and taking them out of production for an unspecified period of time while it makes changes. Under an agreement, Drilco transfers natural gas to Dominion from wells, according to the complaint Drilco filed in Roane Circuit Court on Aug. 3, and then transferred to federal court. Drilco operates 113 oil and gas wells in central West Virginia, and about 80 percent of those wells are contracted to Dominion, according to an affidavit filed by Drilco's President Hugh D. Dale Jr. "Averaged over a year Drilco receives approximately $51,000 per month or $609,200 per year from the wells that feed the Dominion lines which is the great majority of annual income of Drilco," Dale's affidavit states. The wells all possess meters that calculate and record the amount of natural gas being transferred from Drilco to Dominion, the suit states. A few months ago, Dominion contacted Drilco and various other companies to say that it overpaid Drilco and the other companies for wells, the complaint says. In turn, Dominion requested an audit and meter charts, Drilco claims. So Drilco sent the requested documents to Gas Analytical Service, which subsequently lost the paperwork, according to the complaint. After the lost paperwork, Dominion raised a number of other issues with Drilco, and the two companies decided to meet on June 30. During the meeting, Drilco and Dominion agreed to a number of unspecified acts which Drilco claims it has performed. Nevertheless, Drilco received a letter from Dominion on July 29 forcing it to sell meters, advising Drilco that Dominion was shutting down its wells for an unspecified period of time on Aug. 4 and informing Drilco that it will operate all gas measuring and payment determinations in the future, according to the complaint. However, in his letter to Drilco, Dominion's manager Daniel T. Stuart says Drilco has not fulfilled its obligation to correct deficiencies discussed during the meeting and has not provided Dominion with necessary charts and information. In addition, Stuart informed Drilco that Dominion is forced to shut down all meters because it has to reset the meters to their original integrity and to make access roads acceptable. But Drilco maintains Dominion is not legally allowed to take such actions. "Drilco also considers it a total usurpation and illegal seizure of Drilco's assets (well meters and wells) without compensation and also as an act that will bankrupt Drilco as its revenues are mainly based [in] the sale of the natural gas from its wells to Dominion under the existing contracts," the suit states. Dominion is attempting to take total control of the accounting, production revenue, gas measurement and other aspects of the natural gas marketing facet of the industry, Drilco says. "Apparently, rather than proceeding directly against those natural gas producers that Dominion believes have been intentionally cheating, falsifying and/or exaggerating their natural gas production, Dominion has elected to undertake an ill considered 'purge' towards a number of other of its natural gas producers in addition to that now being initiated against Drilco," the complaint says. In its complaint, Drilco is seeking a preliminary injunction, and eventually a permanent injunction, against Dominion preventing it from undertaking control of its wells and meters, plus compensatory damages for lost production revenues and punitive and exemplary damages, plus other relief the court seems just. Drilco is also asking the court to certify the case as a class action. Dominion contends Drilco is not entitled to any damages, in part because it failed to mitigate damages. In addition, money Drilco seeks in the complaint may be reduced by any amounts it owes to Dominion, the oil company claims. In its answer to the complaint, Dominion is asking the court to dismiss Drilco's complaint. Dominion filed a counter-complaint against Drilco seeking compensatory and punitive damages, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, plus attorneys' fees, costs and other relief the court deems just. In its counterclaim, Dominion says Drilco is guilty of failing to perform its obligations under an agreement and failed to comply with Dominion's gas tariff. Dominion removed the case to federal court because it involves a federal question that a federal court should answer. In addition, Drilco's case involves a diversity of citizenship because Dominion is incorporated under Delaware law and Drilco is a West Virginia corporation. Other companies that may be included in the class action suit are probably also residents of different states. Dominion is represented by: W. Henry Lawrence, IV, Esq. Amy M. Smith, Esq. STEPTOE & JOHNSON P. O. Box 2190 Clarksburg, WV 26302-2190 Telephone: 304/624-8000 Fax: 304/624-8183 E-mail: Hank.Lawrence@steptoe-johnson.com Amy.Smith@steptoe-johnson.com - and - Jacqueline A. Wilson, Esq. DOMINION RESOURCES SERVICES, INC. 445 West Main Street Clarksburg, WV 26301 Telephone: 304/627-3343 Fax: 304/627-3305 E-mail: Jacqueline_A_Wilson@dom.com Drilco is represented by: Larry L. Skeen, Esq. SKEEN & SKEEN 108 Hills Plaza Charleston, WV 25312 Telephone: 304/344-4748 Fax: 304/720-9070 E-mail: lskeen@suddenlinkmail.com EL POLLO LOCO: Employee Suit filed in Los Angeles County -------------------------------------------------------- Ventura v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., Case No. BC422175 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), alleging labor law violations, was filed on Sept. 21, 2009, by: Brian S. Kesluk, Esq. David A. Cohn, Esq. KESLUK & SILVERSTEIN, P.C. 9255 Sunset Blvd., Suite 411 Los Angeles, CA 90069-3309 Telephone: 310-273-3180 GILMAN CIOCIA: Shareholder's Suit Over Sale of Offices Ended ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder's class action and derivative complaint filed against Gilman Ciocia, Inc. has ended, according to the company's Sept. 25, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On Feb. 4, 2004, the company was served with the Summons and a Shareholder's Class Action and Derivative Complaint, Gary Kosseff, Plaintiff, against James Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward Cohen, Steven Gilbert and Doreen Biebusch, Defendants and Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., Nominal Defendant. The nature of the action is that the company, its board of directors and its management, breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty in connection with the sale of certain of the Company's offices. The action was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County under Civil Action No. 188-N. The case was scheduled for trial on June 4, 2007. The trial was postponed without a new date pending settlement negotiations. On Feb. 15, 2008, a written Settlement Agreement was executed settling the lawsuit, subject to approval by the Court of Chancery. At a hearing on Sept. 22, 2008, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware approved the Settlement Agreement and reserved decision on setting an award of attorney's fees and expenses for plaintiff's counsel. On Oct. 31, 2008, Master in Chancery Sam Glasscock III issued a Master's Final Report awarding the plaintiff's attorney's fees in the amount of $1.2 million together with out-of-pocket costs in the amount of $0.1 million. The company filed an exception contesting the Master's Final Report with the Court of Chancery, which was denied during the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The award of attorneys' fees and out-of-pocket costs was then paid by the company's Executive Liability and Organization Reimbursement Policy with National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, ending the lawsuit. Gilman Ciocia, Inc. -- http://www.gilcio.com/-- provides federal, state and local tax preparation services to individuals, predominantly in the middle and upper income tax brackets, accounting services to small and midsize companies and financial planning services, including securities brokerage, investment management services, insurance and financing services. GRETNA POLICE: Partial Class Certification for Katrina Victims -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Purpura at The Times-Picayune reports that a federal judge has partially certified a class action lawsuit against the Gretna Police Department and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office for barring pedestrians from crossing the Crescent City Connection in the days after Hurricane Katrina. U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon on Monday ruled that one of three proposed subclasses can move forward to trial as a class: A group of about 200 Regional Transit Authority employees, their families and friends who tried to cross the bridge the day after the Aug. 29, 2005, storm whose tidal surge caused levee failures that flooded the city. The ruling leaves the plaintiffs' attorneys considering whether to amend their case to name as many as 140 people as individuals who do not fall under a subclass. Attorneys on both sides of the case considered the ruling a victory. "I'm happy with the ruling, and I understand why it is what it is," Baton Rouge attorney Adele Owen, Esq., said. Representing Gretna, Franz Zibilich, Esq.. said, "We are extremely pleased with the court's ruling." A trial date has not been set. "If it doesn't settle, then it will go to trial," Ms. Owen said. Owen sought certification for three subclasses, organized in groups of people by the day they tried to cross the bridge and the circumstances under which they tried. Judge Lemmon found that two of the subclasses did not meet the four criteria required in class certification. Judge Lemmon declined to certify class for a group of more than 800 people who tried to walk up the Tchoupitoulas Street onramp on Sept. 1, 2005. That group was turned away by Gretna police officers, including one who fired a shotgun into the air, court records show. Judge Lemmon also denied certification for a group of about 20 who tried to cross on the Pontchartrain Expressway on Thursday, Sept. 2, 2005. Ms. Owen said people potentially falling under those categories still have legal claims in the lawsuit. "Everybody's individual claims are preserved," she said. The case has six named plaintiffs: Nina Alexander, Jocelyn Askew, Quinton Askew, Frances B. Bowie, Signora Durette and Patryce Jenkins. The people in the RTA class rode out the storm at the agency's administrative building on Canal Street. They tried to cross on Aug. 30, 2005. Ms. Alexander said in a deposition last year that the people walked through flooding about five feet deep to get to the bridge, where officers barred them from crossing. They were able to cross on buses about an hour later, and they were left at the bus terminal in Gretna under the elevated West Bank Expressway. That's when Gretna police pulled up in cars, she said. "Then they jumped out, and they cocked their gun and said, 'Don't nobody f---ing move. If you move, you going to get shot. If we see somebody from this spot, we going to shoot them,'" Ms. Alexander, 28, said in the deposition. Most of the officers left them there to respond to a report of a New Orleans police officer being shot in Algiers, she said. After about an hour under the expressway, they were taken by bus to an RTA facility in Algiers, where they boarded charter buses that took them to Baton Rouge, Ms. Alexander testified. Mr. Zibilich attacked the class, saying they were able to evacuate the area. "This is a very slight inconvenience considering the state of affairs in those first days after the storm," Mr. Zibilich said. "We consider today's ruling another victory in this lawsuit." The Sheriff's Office's attorney, Danny Martiny, Esq., and Mr. Zibilich opposed class certification. In court documents, Mr. Martiny argued that none of the proposed class members "had any interaction with any member" of the Sheriff' Office. The blockade led to four lawsuits in federal court against Gretna and the Sheriff's Office. One has been dismissed entirely, and the Sheriff's Office settled in another lawsuit in which Gretna was dismissed as a defendant. HEALTHSOUTH: Settlement of Securities Suit Gets Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The final court order approving the settlement in the federal consolidated class action captioned In re HealthSouth Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV-03-BE-1500-S, is no longer subject to appeal as of Sept. 15, 2009. According to HealthSouth Corp.'s Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Sept. 21, 2009, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement, the company agreed to issue an aggregate of 5,023,732 shares of its common stock, par value $.01 per share and 8,151,265 warrants to purchase its common stock as part of the consideration for the settlement and release of claims against the company. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Settlement Securities represented consideration valued at $215,000,000. The company anticipates issuing the Settlement Securities on Sept. 30, 2009. The company will not receive any cash proceeds in connection with the issuance of any of the Settlement Securities. The terms and conditions of the issuance of the Settlement Securities in connection with the Settlement were approved, after a hearing upon the fairness of such terms and conditions at which all persons to whom it was proposed to issue the Settlement Securities in the class action had the right to appear, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Accordingly, the Settlement Securities are being issued in reliance on the exemption from registration under Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. Each Settlement Warrant confers upon its holder the right, which may be exercised on any business day until 5:00 p.m. on Jan. 17, 2017, to purchase from the company one share of its common stock upon payment of the exercise price of $41.40 per share. HealthSouth Corp. -- http://www.healthsouth.com/-- provides inpatient rehabilitative services. Operating in 26 states across the country and in Puerto Rico, HealthSouth serves more than 250,000 patients annually through its network of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, long-term acute care hospitals, outpatient rehabilitation satellites, and home health agencies. HealthSouth strives to be the nation's preeminent provider of inpatient rehabilitation services. INTERGLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES: $14 Mil. Ponzi Scam Alleged in N.J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a web of people and companies took more than $14 million from 900 victims in a Ponzi scam, a class action claims in Monmouth County Court. The class claims Interglobal Technologies and Michael Tomayko, who already have been sued by the SEC, led the scam, which involved at least seven other businesses and five other people. The class claims "that the defendants simply conspired to commit widespread fraud to illegally steal money from plaintiff and over 900 others, and then convert the money for their own personal uses. The defendants, through illegal practices, raised over $14.5 million from 900 'investors' -- will or otherwise -- through a fraudulent, unregistered offering of preferred stock and joint venture interests in defendant IGT. During such actions, the defendant knowingly and fraudulently used false and fabricated information to lure investors." The class claims that Mr. Tomayko and Interglobal settled the SEC lawsuit in May 2008 and agreed to pay $100,000 in fines and disgorge more than $10.5 million. "The criminal investigation continues," according to the complaint. "Plaintiff and others similarly situated have not been paid back a dime." Here are the defendants: Dwayne Long, Citywide Financial Services Corp., Lee Schulz, Lee Schulz Financial Services, Linda Palmer, Noemie Dodakian, Michael Tomayko, Canady Holding LLC, Terry Crowdy, Jubilee Ventures, Jubilee Membership Club, Preferred Interest Leasing Ltd., Inter Global Technologies Inc., and the DCSTH Foundation. A copy of the Complaint in Schuren, et al. v. Long, et al., Docket No. MON-L-4254-09 (N.J. Super. Ct., Monmouth Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/29/NJStockScam.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene M. LaVergne, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EUGENE M. LaVERGNE 241 Monmouth Road West Long Branch, NJ 07764 Telephone: 732-728-2500 Fax: 732-728-0500 KAPLAN INC: Cook County Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Slayton v. Kaplan, Inc., et al., Case No. 2009-CH-35412 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), alleging that the test preparation service fails to pay employees overtime, was filed on Sept. 24, 2009, by: Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq. Peter E. Converse, Esq. CONVERSE & BROWN, LLC 105 West Adams Street, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-789-9700 KELLOGG USA: Where's the Fruit in Kellogg's Froot Loops Cereal? --------------------------------------------------------------- Werbel v. Kellogg USA, Case No. 09-cv-44571 (N.D. Calif), complaining that Kellogg's Froot Loops cereal contains no actual fruit of any kind while product's name and principal display panel suggest otherwise, was filed on Sept. 22, 2009, by: Jeffrey Saul Kravitz, Esq. KRAVITZ LAW OFFICE 2310 J. Street, Suite A Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone: (916) 553-4072 Fax: (916) 553-4074 E-mail: KravitzLaw@aol.com ORACLE CORP: Faces Appeal to Dismissal of Calif. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oracle Corp. faces the plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated class-action lawsuit, In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988. Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and its chief executive officer on and after March 9, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008). Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice. On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a former executive vice president as defendants. This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000, through March 1, 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of the company's applications products, while certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws. They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public information. In addition, they also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations. The suit seeks unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. On July 26, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against the company's CEO. In August 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended versions of these motions. The parties' summary judgment motions are fully briefed. On Oct. 5, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against the defendants or various other sanctions because of the defendants' alleged destruction of evidence. The motion is fully briefed. A hearing on all these motions was held on Dec. 20, 2007. The court has not yet ruled on any of these motions. On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who has scheduled a status conference for July 18, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the plaintiffs' sanctions motion. On Sept. 2, 2008, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against all defendants. The order also denied in part and granted in part plaintiffs' motion for sanctions. The court denied plaintiffs' request that judgment be entered in plaintiffs' favor due to the alleged destruction of evidence, and the court found that no sanctions were appropriate for several categories of evidence. The court found that sanctions in the form of adverse inferences were appropriate for two categories of evidence: -- e-mails from the company's Chief Executive Officer's account, and -- materials that had been created in connection with a book regarding the company's Chief Executive Officer. The court then denied defendants' motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer and directed the parties to revise and re-file these motions to clearly specify the precise contours of the adverse inferences that should be drawn, and to take these inferences into account with regard to the propriety of summary judgment. The court also directed the parties to address certain legal issues in the briefing. A briefing scheduled for these revised summary judgment motions has not yet been set. On Oct. 13, 2008, the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation, which did not result in a settlement. On Oct. 20, 2008, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer. The parties also filed several motions challenging the admissibility of the testimony of various expert witnesses. Opposition briefs were filed on Nov. 17, 2008, and reply briefs were filed on Dec. 12, 2008. A hearing on all these motions was held on Feb. 13, 2009. On June 16, 2009, the court issued an order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment against the company's Chief Executive Officer, and it entered a judgment dismissing the entire case with prejudice. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. On July 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, according to the company's Sept. 21, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 31, 2009. The suit is In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988 (N.D. Calif.) (Illston, J.). Representing the plaintiffs is: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: 415-896-1000 Fax: 415-896-2249 E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com Representing the defendants is: Dorian Daley, Esq. 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Phone: 650-506-5200 Fax: 650-506-7114 SARA LEE: Settlement of Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to grant final approval on the proposed settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Sara Lee Corp. The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege economic loss causation because they did not indicate how the alleged fraud caused their economic loss. The court noted that the allegation that stock prices were inflated alone was insufficient. Initially, John Gallo, a purported company stockholder, filed the putative class-action lawsuit on May 13, 2003, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the company common stock between and including Aug. 1, 2002, and April 24, 2003. The complaint named the company, C. Steven McMillan, former chairman, president and chief executive officer of the company, and Lambertus M. de Kool, executive vice president and chief financial and administrative officer of the company, as defendants. The suit seeks, among other things, class action certification, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, and an award of costs and expenses, including counsel fees. Seven other putative class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming the same defendants. The allegations in each of those complaints are substantially similar to the allegations asserted in the first lawsuit. Each of the foregoing actions was later consolidated in a single proceeding captioned "In re Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation." The consolidated amended complaint filed by the plaintiffs contains similar allegations that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly misstating or omitting material adverse facts regarding the company's business, operations, management and financial statements, and the value of the company common stock, which allegedly enabled the company to complete securities offerings, enabled the individual defendants to increase their bonus compensation and caused the purported class to purchase the company common stock at artificially inflated prices. The consolidated amended complaint, however, omitted the previous allegations that the individual defendants or other insiders sold their personally held company stock to the public at artificially inflated prices. On March 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The motion was denied by the court. On Oct. 19, 2005, the company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the plaintiffs' failure to adequately plead loss causation. The motion was fully briefed at the end of November 2005. On July 10, 2006, the motion was granted and the case has been dismissed. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to allege and prove that the defendants' misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct proximately caused plaintiffs' economic losses. On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved for relief from final judgment and for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint under Federal Rules 15(a), 59(e), and 60(b). Briefing on plaintiffs' motion was completed on Oct. 13, 2006, and the company is awaiting the court's ruling. Sara Lee received a settlement demand and the parties are negotiating a settlement. A mediation was held on June 10, 2009, at which time an agreement in principle to settle the action was reached by the parties. The bulk of the settlement will come from insurance proceeds; no settlement amounts will come from any individual director or officer. A court approval is required before any settlement can be finalized and the litigation terminated. The company anticipates that final approval and dismissal of the case will be granted by calendar year end, according to the company's Aug. 26, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 27, 2009. The suit is In Re: Sara Lee Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 03-CV-3202 (N.D. Ill.) (Norgle, J.) Representing the plaintiffs are: Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY, 10119 Phone: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com - and - Miller, Faucher & Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-782-4880 - and - Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C. 200 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-346-3100 - and - Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com SKYPE INC: Class Claims Skype Takes Their Money ----------------------------------------------- June Williams at Courthouse News Service reports that Skype, the Internet videophone service, illegally takes money from what it calls "inactive" customer accounts, a class action claims in Federal Court. Skype says customers' credit balances are "lost" if they don't use the money within 180 days, but the company just takes the money, the class claims. This violates the Gift Cards and Consumer Protection Statutes, according to the complaint. Ebay, Skype's parent company, is also named as a defendant. The class wants its money back and wants Skype enjoined from doing it again. A copy of the Complaint in Barker, et al. v. Skype Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1364 (W.D. Wash.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/29/SkypeCCA.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roger M. Townsend, Esq. Daniel F. Johnson, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 2230 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: 206-652-8660 - and - Scott A. Burroughs, Esq. DONIGER / BURROUGHS APC 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 355 Culver City, CA 90230-8704 Telephone: (310) 590-1780 TAM CAPITAL: Suits by Panama's & Airline Workers' Unions Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- TAM Capital Inc. remains a party to five class actions, all by the airline workers' union. The total assessed value of those actions was approximately BRL185.5 million at Dec. 31, 2007, and according to the company's legal advisors, BRL7.0 million correspond to claims with a remote chance of loss, BRL165.6 million correspond to claims with a possible chance of loss, and BRL12.8 million correspond to claims with a probable chance of loss. The company has established provisions totaling BRL13 million at Dec. 31, 2007, in respect of all of these claims. For specific actions the company has made court deposits totaling BRl12 million to address labor claims. The provision is based on the company's management's estimate as to likely losses it might incur as a result of the various labor claims filed by current or former employees, according to the company's Sept. 1, 2009 Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. TAM Capital Inc. -- http://www.tam.com.br/-- is engaged in aircraft acquisition and financing. The company is the wholly owned subsidiary of TAM S.A. TAM S.A. is engaged in investing in companies, which carry out air transportation activities. TAM S.A.'s principal subsidiaries include TAM Linhas Aereas S.A. (TLA), which is engaged in the operation of the transportation of passengers and cargo within Brazil and on international routes, and Transportes Aereos del Mercosur S.A. (Mercosur), an airline, which operates in Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia. * Class Action Attorney Fee Digest Reaches 700-Case Milestone ------------------------------------------------------------- Octagon Publishing, Inc.'s Class Action Attorney Fee Digest has been steadily publishing information on attorney fees in class actions and, as of August, it has reached 700 cases reported. Although a matter of public record, most class action settlements go largely unnoticed. With the advent of this legal journal in 2007, tracking these fees became much easier. Editor-in-Chief, Stuart J. Logan, has been tracking class action settlements for twenty-five years. He described the response. "Readers were so excited about our research that they asked for more details. Could we also tell them about objectors and opt- outs and notice provisions? Could we tell them how long cases lasted? The answer is yes. If we can find it, we give it to them." Produced by Octagon Publishing, Inc., a small independent publisher, the Digest contains articles on at least twenty class actions in each monthly issue. These cases come from all over the country in federal and state courts. Most cases they write about are not available in the usual electronic sources. It has been interesting to watch the Digest evolve. One development in the second year was to assemble cases by circuit. Each issue -- conveniently tracking the twelve federal circuits in each of the twelve monthly issues -- provides a chart with the bare essentials of all the previously reported cases in that circuit. With a quick glance, class action lawyers can get a sense of what is happening in their area. Also insightful are the frequent articles by Professor William B. Rubenstein of Harvard Law School. His column, The Expert's Corner, highlights aspects of the class action law debate. His breezy style cuts through the rhetoric and gets the reader thinking about his subjects in new ways. Class Action Attorney Fee Digest has been a welcome addition to the legal research market for all class action practitioners -- whether plaintiff counsel or defense counsel -- as well as judges and academics. Octagon Publishing, Inc. is a small independent publishing company based in Washington, D.C., that provides products and services focusing on class action cases and the attorney fees awarded. Its flagship publication is Class Action Attorney Fee Digest. It also offers smaller, issue-based quarterlies. The staff offers legal research and consulting services for current attorney fee petitions. CONTACT: Stuart J. Logan, Editor-in-Chief Octagon Publishing, Inc. 1929 18th St. NW, #1138 Washington, DC 20009-1710 Telephone: (202) 213-0430 http://www.OctagonPublishing.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- On September 28, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of Immersion Corporation (NASDAQ:IMMR) between May 4, 2007 and June 30, 2009 against certain officers and directors of Immersion pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)] and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC [17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5]. The case name is styled Buell v. Victor Viegas, et al. The civil action number is 09-cv-4561. A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Web site at http://www.whafh.com/ The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants knowing concealed material information from the investing public. Defendants knew that that Company's revenue recognition practices for the Medical line of business failed to comply with GAAP. Defendants also knew that Immersion's reported revenue and earnings were materially overstated, as a result of improper accounting practices. The Company's stock was greatly inflated by the false statements and misleading financial reports prepared by the Defendants. On July 1, 2009, the Company issued a press release entitled "Immersion Corporation Announces Internal Investigation." The market reacted quickly and decidedly negatively to the news, the Company's stock spiraled down over 23% from its previous closing price of $4.94 per share to a closing price of $3.80 per share on July 1, 2009, on a volume of 1.5 million shares. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of Immersion common stock. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased Immersion securities at the inflated prices that were paid. If you purchased Immersion common stock, you may request that the Court appoints you as lead plaintiff no later than November 2, 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 Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has approximately 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in Chicago, New York City, San Diego, and West Palm Beach. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by telephone at (800) 575-0735 (Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., or Derek Behnke), via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at http://www.whafh.com/ All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Immersion. UCBH HOLDINGS: Shalov Stone Files Fraud Complaint in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nygaard, et al. v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-04505 (N.D. Calif.), alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act, was filed on Sept. 24, 2009, by: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Ralph M. Stone, Esq. SHALOV STONE BONNER & ROCCO LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com rstone@lawssb.com - and - Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN WELLING, P.C. 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Fax: (415) 477-6710 ********* 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 * * *