/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091005.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 5, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 196 Headlines ALLERGEN INC: Botox Manufacturer Sued in C.D. Calif. CCA INDUSTRIES: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Mega-T Product FARMERS GROUP: Insurer Sued For Labor Law Violations in Calif. HERTZ CORP: Ohio Lawsuit Complains About "Fuel & Service" Fees INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Employees' Restitution Lawsuit Pending INTELIUS: Accused of Improper Credit Card Billing in C.D. Calif. LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage LUNDAN PARTNERS: Tenants Sue Landlord in Cook County, Ill. MDL 1628: Fresh Del Monte Defeats Pineapple Antitrust Claims MERCK & CO: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms $4.5 Mil. Vioxx "McDarby" Award MOODY'S CORP: Defends Remaining Claims in Merged Securities Suit NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending POZEN INC: District Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action PREFERRED CASH: Philadelphia Payday Lender Sued in State Court RAYTHEON CO: Court Certifies Class in Chemical Contamination Suit SMITH BARNEY: "Asher" Bond Suit v. Citigroup Pending in New York SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Securities Suit v. Citigroup Nixed in July SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Plaintiffs Agree to Junk Falcon Plus Suit SMITH BARNEY: CGM Continues to Face Subprime-Related Actions SMITH BARNEY: Consolidated AIG 2008 Securities Lawsuit Pending SMITH BARNEY: ECA Acquisitions' Amended Complaint Pending in NY TALON INT'L: Awaits Approval of Deal in Calif. Shareholder Suit WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages New Securities Fraud Cases IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint in N.D. Calif. PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Sues Oil & Gas Fund UCBH HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. ********* ALLERGEN INC: Botox Manufacturer Sued in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that Allergan, Inc., which makes Botox, tells doctors to administer the drug in a way that is "grossly unsafe and inappropriate" and could expose patients to HIV or hepatitis, a doctor says in a class action in Los Angeles Federal Court. Allergan advertises vials of Botox as safe for multiple use, and even recommends "Botox parties" in which a single vial is used for multiple patients, even though the drug's label warns against just that, the class claims. Lead plaintiff Ivan Goldsmith says Allergan has aggressively promoted Botox, while jacking up its wholesale price from $400 per vial in 2005 to more than $1,000 per vial today. Sales of the drug have exceeded $1 billion. One single-use vial of Botox contains 50 to 100 units, which must be used or discarded within 4 hours, Mr. Goldsmith says. A typical treatment for wrinkles accounts for just 20 units, and a dosage to treat certain eye disorders takes about 2 units; the rest of the Botox should be discarded, Mr. Goldsmith says. If responsible physicians use Botox as directed on its label, a $500 treatment would not offset the purchase of a single-use $1,000 vial, according to the complaint. Botulinum toxin, the active ingredient in Botox, decreases muscle activity and blocks nerve impulses that trigger muscle contractions. Mr. Goldsmith says the FDA is investigating whether Allergan has promoted Botox for used other than the four that have been approved by the FDA. Sharing a single-use vial among multiple patients violates guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and medical boards, Mr. Goldsmith says. He claims that Allergan misrepresents the correct use of Botox to physicians and provides physicians with unrealistic profit estimates based on multiple use of Botox vials. A Las Vegas-based scandal erupted in February 2008 when the state notified more than 40,000 patients of a chain of clinics "about a potential exposure to hepatitis from multiple uses of single-use vials of Propofol, another drug product approved for single-use administration and often promoted and used in multiple procedures," according to the complaint. "Following this controversy, in May 2008 Allergan began importing and/or repackaging Botox in smaller 50-unit vials. * * * The smaller vials are still promoted for multi-use by Allergan." Mr. Goldsmith says Allergan has spent $41 million marketing the drug to physicians and consumers in a single year -- 2007. Mr. Goldsmith says he "is aware of countless instances of off- label and misleading promotion, both publicly and privately, by Allergan sales representatives. References to 'Botox parties' using a single 100-unit vial across numerous 'party' attendees were included in continuing medical education ('CME') programs and other promotional forums hosted or promoted by Allergan." Mr. Goldsmith seeks class damages for breach of warranty and unfair business practices and an order barring Allergan from pushing Botox for uses warned against on its label. A copy of the Complaint in Goldsmith v. Allergen, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-7088 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/01/BotoxCA.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-398-8700 CCA INDUSTRIES: Sued for Deceptive Marketing of Mega-T Product -------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Wally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has sued CCA Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. BC422833 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), on Sept. 29, 2009, for deceptive marketing of its Mega-T weight loss product. The plaintiff is represented by: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. Peter J. Farnese, Esq. MILSTEIN, ADELMAN & KREGER, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-396-9600 Fax: 310-396-9635 CCA Industries, Inc. (NYSE Amex: CAW), confirmed recipt of Ms. Wally's lawsuit. The Company believes that the claim is without any merit and intends to vigorously defend the case. CCA Industries Inc. manufactures and markets health and beauty aids, each under its individual brand name. The products include, principally, "Plus+White" toothpastes and teeth whiteners, "Mega-T" Green Tea diet supplements, "Mega-T" Green Tea gum and mint products, "Bikini Zone", medicated topical and shave gels, "Nutra Nail" nail care treatments, "Scar Zone" scar treatment products, "Sudden Change" anti-aging skin care products, "Parfume de Vanille" fragrances, "Solar Sense" sun protection products, "Hair Off" hair removal and depilatory products, "Wash 'N Curl" shampoos and conditioners and Pain Bust RII, an analgesic product. FARMERS GROUP: Insurer Sued For Labor Law Violations in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Stepp, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, has sued Farmers Group, Inc., Farmers Underwriters Association, and Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. BC422817 (Calif. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), alleging labor law violations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Meuser, Esq. MEUSER LAW GROUP, INC. PO Box 5412 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 415-577-2850 Fax: 925-262-4656 HERTZ CORP: Ohio Lawsuit Complains About "Fuel & Service" Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hertz charges a "fuel and service" fee even when customers return rental vehicles with a full tank of gas, according to a class action in Cuyahoga County Court, Cleveland. A copy of the Complaint in King v. The Hertz Corporation, Case No. CV 09 705526 (Ohio Ct. of Common Plead, Cuyahoga Cty.) (O'Donnell, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/10/01/CCAHertz.pdf The plaintiff is represented by: Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. Andrew Samtoy, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Telephone: 440-352-3391 INTEGRATED HEALTHCARE: Employees' Restitution Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit against Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. is at its early stages, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On June 5, 2009, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company by certain hourly employees alleging restitution for unfair business practices, injunctive relief for unfair business practices, failure to pay overtime wages, and penalties associated therewith. Integrated Healthcare Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.ihhioc.com/ -- is a physician owned company that acquired and began operating the four hospital facilities: Western Medical Center in Santa Ana; Western Medical Center in Anaheim; Coastal Communities Hospital in Santa Ana, and Chapman Medical Center in Orange. INTELIUS: Accused of Improper Credit Card Billing in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP initiated Baxter v. Intelius, et al., Case No., 09-CV-1031 (C.D. Calif.), last week. The class action lawsuit alleges that Bellevue, Wash.-based Intelius automatically enrolls California consumers into programs of its affiliate, Adaptive Marketing, improperly and without consent. The complaint describes how defendants automatically bill California consumers' credit cards for these unrequested "memberships", and intentionally frustrate victims' ability to recognize and dispute the charges. If you are a California resident who lost money when Intelius posted unauthorized charges to your credit or debit card, you may be a member of the class represented by the complaint. To receive additional information, participate, or share information you'd like the plaintiff's lawyers to consider, please contact: William R. Restis, Esq. Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-238-1333 E-mail: wrr@classactionlaw.com LIVEDEAL INC: Global Education Services' Suit in Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class-action suit, Global Education Services, Inc. v. LiveDeal, Inc., according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On June 6, 2008, Global Education Services, Inc. (GES) filed a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit against the company in King County (Washington) Superior Court. GES has alleged in its complaint that the company's use of activator checks violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act. GES is seeking injunctive relief against our use of the checks, as well as a judgment in an amount equal to three times the alleged damages sustained by GES and the members of the class. LiveDeal has denied the allegations. Legal proceedings in the matter are ongoing, and discovery began in late January 2009. LiveDeal, Inc. -- http://www.livedeal.com-- delivers best of breed local customer acquisition services for small and medium- sized businesses combined with a classified and Internet Yellow Pages directory platform technology to deliver an affordable way for businesses to extend their marketing reach to local, relevant customers via the Internet. Through its online property, www.livedeal.com, LiveDeal delivers local search engine marketing (SEM) through its LiveAdvisor TM and LiveClicks TM products that combine best-of-breed technology with a strong partnership model and an inside sales team to create an efficient platform local businesses need to create and optimize their Internet search advertising campaigns. Livedeal partners with Google, Yahoo!, MSN, ASK, Miva, Looksmart, Superpages.com and others. LiveDeal, Inc. is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada. LUNDAN PARTNERS: Tenants Sue Landlord in Cook County, Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------- James Dimas and Jessyca Dimas, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, sued Lundan Partners, LP, Case No. 2009-CH-36504 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.), on Sept. 30, 2009, for alleged violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Spinak, Esq. SPINAK & BABCOCK, P.C. 134 N. LaSalle, Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-346-1337 - and - Mark A. Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE, LTD. 225 W. Washington, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: 312-775-1015 MDL 1628: Fresh Del Monte Defeats Pineapple Antitrust Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ David Glovin at Bloomberg News reports that Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., the Grand Cayman-based fruit and vegetable packer, won dismissal of In Re Pineapples Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1628; Master Docket No. 04-md-01628 (S.D.N.Y.), in which it was accused of using monopoly power over the sale of extra-sweet pineapple. U.S. District Judge Richard Berman in New York threw out the 2004 lawsuit last week brought on behalf of purchasers of Fresh Del Monte Gold pineapples, or MD-2 pineapples, from 1996 to the present. The plaintiffs claimed Fresh Del Monte maintained a monopoly over the sale of fresh, whole, extra-sweet pineapple by improperly securing a patent for a variety of the fruit, by threatening competitors, and by pursuing sham litigation. The monopoly "claims fail because MD-2 pineapples do not constitute appropriately a separate submarket, and plaintiffs do not appear to argue that defendants had monopoly power in the broader pineapple market," Judge Berman wrote in a 43-page opinion. Mr. Gloven relates that Judge Berman also said the plaintiffs in the case failed to advance enough evidence for a jury to conclude that Fresh Del Monte pursued sham litigation. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc. is represented by: Carlos M. Sires, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: 954-356-0011 MERCK & CO: N.J. Sup. Ct. Affirms $4.5 Mil. Vioxx "McDarby" Award ----------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Supreme Court issued on May 7, 2009, but just released last week, its ruling dismissing an appeal by Merck & Co. in the McDarby v. Merck, Docket No. L-1296-05 (N.J. Super. Ct., Atlantic Cty.). The case was tried by Weitz & Luxenberg on behalf of John McDarby, a diabetic who suffered a heart attack due to his use of Merck's prescription drug Vioxx. The Order fully affirmed an earlier court's compensatory award of $3 million for Mr. McDarby's pain and suffering and $1.5 million for his wife, Irma McDarby's loss of consortium, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. "Although we are thrilled to finally see this measure of justice for the McDarby family, we are saddened by the fact that Mr. McDarby did not survive the delays in the appellate process," said Jerry Kristal, one of the members of the McDarby trial team. In April 2006, Weitz & Luxenberg attorneys Robert Gordon, Esq., Jerry Kristal, Esq., and Ellen Relkin, Esq., together with Mark Lanier, Esq., of the Lanier law firm, secured a $13.5 million verdict against Merck for plaintiffs Mr. and Mrs. McDarby in a failure-to-warn case involving Vioxx and the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The jury awarded the McDarbys both compensatory, punitive and consumer fraud damages. Subsequently, the New Jersey Appellate Division, the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the compensatory damage awards for personal injury to Mr. McDarby, but overturned the punitive damage and consumer fraud awards. The propriety of the punitive and consumer fraud damages awards was a legal issue of first impression since this was the first New Jersey case in which punitive and Consumer Fraud Act damages were awarded in a pharmaceutical case since the passage of the New Jersey Product Liability Act. The Court found that such relief was not allowed by the Act. Merck appealed the compensatory award to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which granted the drug company certification limited only to the issue of federal preemption, which had yet to be settled before the Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine (06-1249). On March 4, 2009, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wyeth that federal approval of prescription drug labels does not immunize drug companies from being sued, under state law, for inadequately warning of health risks. On the heels of that decision, after extensive briefing before the Supreme Court, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the certification should not have been granted to Merck, thus fully affirming the findings of the Appellate Division regarding the compensatory verdict of $4.5 million. Weitz & Luxenberg said in a written statement that it is gratified that Mr. McDarby's family will finally receive this award to compensate for his injuries arising from Vioxx. Jef Feeley and David Voreacos at Bloomberg News report that Merck still faces at least 18 lawsuits filed by governmental agencies, including those by 10 state attorneys general, alleging the drugmaker violated consumer-protection laws with its marketing of the drug, citing an Aug. 3 regulatory filing. MOODY'S CORP: Defends Remaining Claims in Merged Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody.s Corporation continues to defend the remaining claims in the consolidated class action complaint, In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation. Two purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the company's securities against Moody's and certain of its senior officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws: -- Nach v. Huber, Case No. 07-cv-04071 (N.D. Ill., filed July 19, 2007); and -- Teamsters Local 282 Pension Trust Fund v. Moody's Corporation and Linda S. Huber, Case No. 07-cv-08375 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 26, 2007). Both actions have been consolidated into a single proceeding, In re Moody's Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-08375 (S.D.N.Y.) (Daniels, J.), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 27, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities during the period Feb. 3, 2006 through Oct. 24, 2007. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants issued false and/or misleading statements concerning the company's business conduct, business prospects, business conditions and financial results relating primarily to MIS's ratings of structured finance products including RMBS, CDO and constant-proportion debt obligations. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with the case. The company moved for dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint in September 2008. On Feb. 23, 2009, the court issued an opinion dismissing certain claims and sustaining others, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In the Consolidated Action: Moody's Corporation and Linda S. Huber are represented by: Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq. Stephen Ehrenberg, Esq. Sharon L. Nelles, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Frederick W. Gerkens, III, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1430 Broadway, Suite 1603 New York, NY 10018 - and - Benjamin Jay Hinerfeld, Esq. Jennifer L. Keeney, Esq. Lauren Wagner Pederson, Esq. Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq. BARROWAY TOPAZ KESSLER MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 - and - Aaron D. Hovan, Esq. Daniel Hume, Esq. Ira M. Press, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 13th Floor New York, NY 10022 Moody.s Corporation -- http://www.moodys.com/-- provides credit ratings and related research, data and analytical tools, quantitative credit risk measures, risk scoring software, and credit portfolio management solutions and securities pricing software and valuation models. The company operates in two segments: Moody.s Investors Service and Moody.s Analytics. NOVASTAR FIN'L: Defending Suit by N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to defend an amended purported class-action complaint filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On May 21, 2008, a purported class-action case was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. Defendants in the case include NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation and its individual directors, several securitization trusts sponsored by the company, and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit rating agencies. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to state court. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. Pursuant to a stipulation, the company has not yet filed its initial responsive pleading, and discovery is not yet underway. On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by plaintiff and the purported class members. NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage portfolio manager. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the servicing operations. NOVASTAR FIN'L: To Defend Claims in N.Y. Lawsuit v. J.P. Morgan --------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc. expects to defend any claims asserted in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp., according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On May 6, 2008, the company received a letter written on behalf of J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acceptance Corp. and certain affiliates demanding indemnification for claims asserted against Morgan in a case entitled, "Plumbers & Pipefitters Local #562 Supplemental Plan and Trust v. J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. et al.," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. The case seeks class action certification for alleged violations by Morgan of sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons who purchased certain categories of mortgage backed securities issued by Morgan in 2006 and 2007. Morgan's indemnity demand alleges that any liability it might have to plaintiffs would be based, in part, upon alleged misrepresentations made by the company with respect to certain mortgages that make up a portion of the collateral for the securities at issue. NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage portfolio manager. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the servicing operations. NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to Junked Consolidated Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' appeal to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated amended putative class action complaint remains pending, according to Novastar Financial, Inc.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In February 2007, a number of substantially similar putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The complaints name the company and three of its former and current executive officers as defendants and generally allege, among other things, that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results. The plaintiffs purport to have brought the actions on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock during the period May 4, 2006 through Feb. 20, 2007. Following consolidation of the actions, a consolidated amended complaint was filed on Oct. 19, 2007. On Dec. 29, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims. On June 4, 2008, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints without leave to amend. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the Court's ruling. NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage portfolio manager. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the servicing operations. NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal to 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to appeal the class certification order in the lawsuit filed in relation to the company's 401(k) plan, according to its according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On July 7, 2008, plaintiff Jennifer Jones filed a purported class action case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company, certain of its former and current officers, and unnamed members of its "Retirement Committee." Plaintiff, a former employee of the company, seeks class-action certification on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the company's 401(k) plan from May 4, 2006 until Nov. 15, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in its common stock. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages alleging that the company's common stock was an inappropriately risky investment option for retirement savings, and that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing investment of some of the assets contained in the 401(k) plan to be made in the company's common stock. On Nov. 12, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the Court on Feb. 11, 2009. On April 6, 2009 the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The company sought permission from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the order granting class certification. On May 11, 2009, the Court of Appeals granted the company permission to appeal the class certification order. NovaStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.novastarfinancial.com/-- is engaged in operating as a non-conforming residential mortgage portfolio manager. The company previously originated, purchased, securitized, sold, invested in and serviced residential nonconforming mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities. It retained, thorough the mortgage securities investment portfolio, interests in the nonconforming loans, originated and purchased, and through the servicing platform, serviced all of the loans in which it retained interests. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company discontinued the mortgage lending operations and sold the mortgage servicing rights, which subsequently resulted in the abandonment of the servicing operations. POZEN INC: District Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- On September 29, 2009, the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted POZEN Inc.'s (NASDAQ: POZN) motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit against the it, its chief executive officer and certain of its officers. The plaintiffs in Johnson, et al. v. POZEN Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-00559 (M.D.N.C.), alleged, among other claims, violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 arising out of statements made by the Company concerning its migraine drug candidate, Treximet(R), during the purported class period, July 31, 2006, through August 1, 2007 which were alleged by the plaintiffs to have been false or misleading. The Court dismissed the claims in their entirety with prejudice. Under the federal rules, the plaintiffs have a period of 30 days in which to appeal the court's decision. POZEN -- http://www.pozen.com/-- is a pharmaceutical company committed to developing therapeutic advancements for diseases with unmet medical needs where it can improve efficacy, safety, and/or patient convenience. POZEN's efforts are focused primarily on the development of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of acute and chronic pain and other pain-related conditions. POZEN has development and commercialization alliances with GlaxoSmithKline for Treximet(R), which was approved in 2008 by the United States Food and Drug Administration for the acute treatment of migraine attacks, with or without aura, in adults, and with AstraZeneca for VIMOVO(TM), the proposed trade name for the proprietary fixed dose combination of naproxen with the proton pump inhibitor esomeprazole magnesium in a single tablet for conditions such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are at risk for developing NSAID-associated gastric ulcers. The Company's common stock is traded on The NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol "POZN". PREFERRED CASH: Philadelphia Payday Lender Sued in State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Preferred Cash Loans charges "extortionate rates" on payday loans, a class action claims in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of the Complaint in Clerk v. Preferred Cash Loans, Case No. _________ (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Philadelphia Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/30/Payday.pdf The plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Miller, Esq. Christopher A. Gomez, Esq. Michele A. DiMartino, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 2 Bala Plaza, Suite 603 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-660-0622 RAYTHEON CO: Court Certifies Class in Chemical Contamination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Pittman at the St. Petersburg Times reports that for more than a year, Nancy Sher has been holding her breath to see what a federal judge would say about the lawsuit she and four neighbors filed against Raytheon over chemical contamination spreading beneath their homes. On Wednesday she got an answer. U.S. District Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington ruled that Sher, et al. v. Raytheon Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-00889 (M.D. Fla.), can go forward as a class-action suit. That means Raytheon now could face claims for damages from more than 1,000 property owners in the Azalea neighborhood where its factory stood. "I really feel like it's a blessing," Ms. Sher said. "The people have all stood shoulder-to-shoulder on this." Raytheon spokesman Jonathan Kasle noted that this is just the first step in the case, and in the meantime the company is working with state environmental officials to clean up the contamination. Mr. Kasle pointed out that the Azalea residents dropped their claims that the toxic chemicals are damaging their health, and instead focused on showing the plume damaged property values. "Nobody will say there's no risk" from the chemicals, said Joseph Saunders, one of the attorneys representing the residents. "But the science doesn't rise to the level that we can prove in court." However, Raytheon lost on another front. The judge's 44-page ruling uses the estimate by the plaintiffs' expert, not Raytheon, about how large the plume is now: a mile long and up to 1.7 miles wide. Workers discovered the contamination in 1991 during construction of the Pinellas Trail. It originated from a drum storage area when it belonged to a previous owner, E-Systems. When Raytheon bought E-Systems in 1995, it inherited the pollution headache. In February 1999, Raytheon told state officials the plume was dissipating naturally, so it posed "no imminent . . . risk." But six months later, in August 1999, state and Raytheon officials met to discuss the fact that the plume had begun spreading. No one notified residents of the problem until 2008. Raytheon has submitted a 2,200-page cleanup plan to the state. State officials have until next month to decide whether to approve it. Raytheon Company is represented by: Eugene F. Assaf, Esq. Andrew Clubok, Esq. Christopher Posteraro, Esq. Brian T. Stansbury, Esq. Edwin John U, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP 655 15th St. NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 - and - Landis Vernon Curry, III, Esq. Benjamin H. Hill, III, Esq. Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esq. HILL WARD HENDERSON 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33601-2231 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian H. Barr, Esq. Neil Edward McWilliams, Esq. J. Michael Papantonio, Esq. Amanda R. Slevinski, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ET AL. 316 S. Baylen St., Ste. 400 PO Box 12308 Pensacola, FL 32591 - and - Keith Maxie Carter, Esq. Michael Steven Goetz, Esq. David G. Henry, Esq. Armando T. Lauritano, Esq. Clay M. Townsend, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA One Tampa City Center 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 - and - Steven J. German, Esq. Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq. GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP 200 West 70th Street, Suite 8B New York, NY 10023 - and - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Esq. Kevin J. Madonna, Esq. KENNEDY & MADONNA, LLP 48 Dewitt Mills Rd. Hurley, NY 12443 - and - Christopher Thomas Nidel, Esq. NIDEL LAW, PLLC 1111 14th St., N.W., Suite 777 Washington, DC 20005 - and - Joseph H. Saunders, Esq. SAUNDERS & WALKER, PA PO Box 1637 Pinellas Park, FL 33780-1637 SMITH BARNEY: "Asher" Bond Suit v. Citigroup Pending in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action, Asher, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al., is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On May 11, 2009, the action was filed in New York, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with plaintiffs' investments in certain offerings of preferred stock issued by the Citigroup. On May 15, 2009, plaintiffs in In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation requested that Asher, et al. v. Citigroup Inc., et al. and Pellegrini v. Citigroup Inc., et al. be consolidated with In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation. No further details regarding the case were reported in the regulatory filing. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Securities Suit v. Citigroup Nixed in July ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Zentner v. Citigroup, et al., in July 2009, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is a putative class action concerning In re MAT Two Securities Litigation, In re MAT Three Securities Litigation and In re MAT Five Securities Litigation. On July 8, 2009, the court dismissed this action, without prejudice, in connection with the dismissal of In re MAT Five Securities Litigation. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. SMITH BARNEY: Zentner Plaintiffs Agree to Junk Falcon Plus Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in Zentner v. Citigroup, et al., filed a stipulation dismissing this action on July 6, 2009, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is a putative class action concerning Falcon Plus. On May 19, 2009, the New York Supreme Court issued a letter order, stating that it would approve a settlement of plaintiff's individual claims. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. SMITH BARNEY: CGM Continues to Face Subprime-Related Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to face several subprime- related actions, including putative class actions, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. In its capacity as a member of various underwriting syndicates, CGM has been named as a defendant in several subprime-related actions asserted against various issuers of debt and other securities. Most of these actions involve claims asserted on behalf of putative classes of purchasers of securities for alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. SMITH BARNEY: Consolidated AIG 2008 Securities Lawsuit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class action complaint, In re American International Group, Inc. 2008 Securities Litigation,remains pending, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. On March 20, 2009, four putative class actions were consolidated by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on May 19, 2009. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 arising out of allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the registration statements and prospectuses issued in connection with offerings of American International Group debt securities and common stock, some of which were underwritten by Citigroup Global Markets Inc. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. SMITH BARNEY: ECA Acquisitions' Amended Complaint Pending in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- An amended putative class-action complaint by ECA Acquisitions, Inc. and Norbert Weissberg against MAT Three LLC is pending, according to Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The class-action suit, ECA Acquisitions, Inc. et al. v. MAT Three LLC, et al., as filed by investors in MAT One LLC, MAT Two LLC, and MAT Three LLC. Defendants removed the putative class action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Jan. 21, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a motion for remand on Feb. 27, 2009. (Class Action Reporter, June 5, 2009) On May 1, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court. On July 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. New York-based Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P. is a limited partnership that was organized under the partnership laws of the State of New York on Aug. 13, 1993 to engage, directly or indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests including futures contracts, options, swaps and forward contracts. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. TALON INT'L: Awaits Approval of Deal in Calif. Shareholder Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement of the purported shareholder class-action suit, Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., is awaiting approval. Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc. On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005. On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with certain of its large customers during the purported class period. The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007. On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. The plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class certification. Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 - - the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007. The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008. On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class, reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2009). The District Court has rescheduled the status conference for June 15, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2009). On July 31, 2009, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement intended to settle the matter and result in its dismissal with prejudice. The total settlement proceeds of $5.75 million are to be paid in full by the company's insurers without any contribution from the Company or individual defendants. The Court has set a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 17, 2009. If preliminary approval is given, notice will be provided to class members and the Court will set a final fairness hearing on the settlement, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-7352 (C.D. Calif.) (Real, J.). Representing the plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 - and - Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Jules Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 - and - Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com - and - Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com - and - Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 E-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Panteha Abdollahi, Esq. Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-668-6200 E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com WESTERN DIGITAL: Unit Defends "Durrani" Suit Over Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Western Digital Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Digital Corporation, continues to defend a putative class-action complaint filed by Ghazala H. Durrani, a former employee of the company, in the Alameda County (California) Superior Court. On March 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a putative class-action complaint alleging that certain of the company's engineers have been misclassified as exempt employees under California state law and are, therefore, due unpaid hourly overtime wages and other amounts, as well as penalties for allegedly missed meal and rest periods. By court order dated April 24, 2009, the case was transferred to the Orange County (California) Superior Court, where it is now pending. On June 16, 2009, the company was dismissed from the case without prejudice by stipulation, leaving WDTI as the sole remaining defendant. On June 4, 2009, WDTI filed its Answer to the Complaint, denying the substantive allegations thereof and raising several affirmative defenses. The case is in the preliminary stages, with no formal discovery having occurred. A court hearing on whether the case should be certified as a class action will likely not occur until late calendar 2009 at the earliest, according to the company's Aug. 14, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended July 3, 2009. Western Digital Corporation -- http://www.westerndigital.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and sells hard drives. It sells its products worldwide to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and original design manufactures (ODMs) for use in computer systems, subsystems or consumer electronics (CE) devices, and to distributors, resellers and retailers. The company's hard drives are used in desktop computers, notebook computers and enterprise applications, such as servers, workstations, network attached storage, storage area networks and video surveillance equipment. Additionally, its hard drives are used in CE applications, such as digital video recorders, and satellite and cable set-top boxes. It markets its hard drives under brand names, including WD Caviar, WD Raptor, WD VelociRaptor, WD Scorpio, WD Elements, My Passport, My Book, My DVR Expander and GreenPower. New Securities Fraud Cases IMMERSION CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Complaint 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. Sec. 240.10b-5]. The case 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 website 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 Web site at http://www.whafh.com/ All e-mail correspondence should make reference to Immersion. CONTACT: Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Telephone: (800) 575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Bernstein Liebhard Sues Oil & Gas Fund ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Sept. 30, 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 Oil and Gas fund (NYSE: DUG), 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 DUG Fund. The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names ProShares, ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as defendants. ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down. The DUG Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The DUG Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Oil and Gas Index ("DJOGI"). Accordingly, the DUG Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJOGI, which fell approximately 37 percent from January 2, 2008 through December 31, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. Oil and Gas market. In other words, the DUG Fund should have appreciated by over 74 percent during this period. However, the DUG Fund fell approximately 30 percent during this period. The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act by failing to disclose the following risks, inter alia, in the Registration Statement: (1) if DUG Fund shares were held for a time period longer than one day, the likelihood of catastrophic losses was huge; and (2) the extent to which performance of the DUG Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJOGI -- i.e., the overwhelming probability, if not certainty, of spectacular divergence. Plaintiff in the DUG Action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of ProShares DUG. If you purchased or otherwise acquired ProShares DUG 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 November 23, 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 purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the DUG Fund or any ProShares leveraged funds, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the shares, 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. Bernstein Liebhard has also filed cases concerning the SRS and SKF funds. You can view a copy of the DUG, SKF, or SRS complaints online at http://www.bernlieb.com/or obtain them from the court. CONTACT: Christian Siebott, Esq. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr., Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 799-1414 http://www.bernlieb.com/ UCBH HOLDINGS: Murray Frank Files Shareholder Suit in N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against UCBH Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: UCBH) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased UCBH common stock between April 24, 2008, and September 8, 2009, inclusive, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. UCBH operates as the bank holding company for United Commercial Bank, which provides personal and commercial banking services to small- and medium-sized businesses, business executives, professionals and other individuals, and primarily engages in generating deposits and originating loans. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making materially false and misleading statements to the investing public. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose that: (1) loan terms were inappropriately modified, including the extension of terms, the lowering of interest rates, and the improper use of interest reserve accounts to delay negative consequences; (2) the Company had delayed the recognition of risk rating downgrades and specific reserves; (3) the Defendants misrepresented the credit risk of the Company's loan portfolio; (4) the Company failed to properly reserve for loan losses and record impairment losses on non-performing loans and other real estate owned assets; (5) Defendants misstated the Company's loan loss provision and related allowance, including charge-offs and the resulting change in non-performing loan levels; (6) the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (8) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were overstated and materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On September 8, 2009, UCBH shocked the market when the Company disclosed the conclusions of an Investigation Subcommittee of the Board Audit Committee regarding the recognition of impairment losses on nonperforming loans and other real estate owned assets. According to the Company, the Subcommittee's report identified problems resulting both from weaknesses in the Bank's internal controls and from deliberate and improper actions and omissions of certain Bank Officers, and concluded that those problems were driven by an apparent desire to downplay deteriorating financial conditions by delaying or abating risk rating downgrades and minimizing the Bank's overall loan loss allowance. Moreover, UCBH disclosed that the report raised serious concerns regarding the actions of certain current and former officers at various levels of the Bank's management. As a result of this news, shares of UCBH declined $0.17 per share, or 14.29%, to close on September 8, 2009, at $1.02 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, not later than November 10, 2009, to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by the Court who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you purchased UCBH common stock and wish to discuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us. CONTACT: Brian D. Brooks, Esq. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Telephone: 212-682-1818 E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com http://www.murrayfrank.com/ ********* 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 * * *