/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091130.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 236 Headlines ALLURA IMPORTS: Recalls 3,700 Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts ATMEL CORP: Inks Stipulation to Settle Micro Shareholder Suit BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kraus" Yaz Laswuit Filed in Philadelphia Ct. CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Investor Opt-Out Deadline is Dec. 28 DISH DBS: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Antitrust Suit DISH DBS: Lawsuits by Retailers Remain Ongoing in Colorado EXXONMOBILE: Tex. Supreme Court Rejects Gasoline Dealer Class GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Lawsuit Complains About LCD Monitors GEOTECH ENGINEERING: Sued in Ohio for Foundation Repair Problems GVI SECURITY: Faces Suit in Delaware Over GenNx360 Merger Plans HEWLETT-PACKARD: Computer Lock-Up Complaint Filed in C.D. Calif. KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Claim Deadline is Wednesday LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa. LG PHILIPS: Chungwhwa Settles & Cooperates with Plaintiffs MDL 1897: Mattel Agrees to Refunds for Lead-Containing Toys MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending NOVASTAR FIN'L: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Missouri Suit NOVASTAR FIN'L: Continues to Defend Claims in New York Lawsuit NOVASTAR FIN'L: Wants N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Dismissed NOVASTAR FIN'L: Appeal of 401(k) Plan Suit Certification Pending POWERCOR: Australian Bushfire Victims Sue Electric Company PRARIE SOUTH: Canadian School District Faces Class Action Lawsuit PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Auto Policyholders Sue Insurer in Calif. SILICON STORAGE: Suit Challenges Technology Resource Transaction SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Agreement Dismissing Suit SYSTEMAX INC: Tully's Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit TALON INTERNATIONAL: Final Fairness Hearing Set for December 10 TEAM WORK TRADING: Recalls 1,500 More Lead-Containing Pendants UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filter Sales in Calif. UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec UNITED COMPONENTS: Status Conference in Unit's Suit Set for Jan. New Securities Fraud Cases NORTHWEST PIPE: Pomerantz Filed Shareholder Suit in W.D. Wash. PROVIDENT ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Shareholder Suit in Idaho SUNPOWER CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. VERASUN ENERGY: Dyer & Berens Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y. ********* ALLURA IMPORTS: Recalls 3,700 Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts ------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Allura Imports Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,700 Girl's Hooded Sweatshirts. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood, which can pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves girl's velour hooded sweatshirts with a zip front. The sweatshirts were sold as a part of a 2-piece set. "Major Diva" is printed on the front of the sweatshirts. The tag on the inside of the sweatshirts reads, "2b REAL." The sweatshirts were sold in hot pink, light pink, ivory and khaki, and in sizes 4, 5/6 and 6X. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10050.html The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at: Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from October 2008 through July 2009 for about $11. Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard, or return the garments to either the place of purchase or to Allura Imports for a full refund. For additional information, contact Allura Imports at (800) 695-4510 between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit the firm's Web site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/ ATMEL CORP: Inks Stipulation to Settle Micro Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Atmel Corporation, on Nov. 17, 2009, disclosed that it has entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release to settle previously disclosed litigation regarding Atmel's response to a subsequently-withdrawn acquisition proposal by Microchip Technology Inc. and ON Semiconductor Corporation, including Atmel's adoption of an amendment to its Amended and Restated Preferred Shares Rights Agreement, dated as of Oct. 18, 1999. The terms of the Stipulation are based on the terms of an agreement-in-principle set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding dated as of Sept. 14, 2009, which Atmel announced in Sept. 18, 2009. The Stipulation provides, on behalf of a non-opt out class consisting of all record holders and beneficial owners of Atmel common stock at any time during the period from Oct. 2, 2008, through and including Nov. 6, 2009, for the full settlement and release of all claims by or against Atmel and all of the defendants related to the allegations and matters set forth in three stockholder class actions consolidated under the caption In re Atmel Corporation Shareholders Litigation filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and a class and derivative action captioned Zucker v. Laub, et. al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California. The suit pending before the Court alleged, among other things, that the definition of "Beneficial Ownership" and "Derivatives Contract" in the Rights Agreement (as amended) were vague and unenforceable under Delaware law. The settlement set forth in the Stipulation is subject to and conditioned upon obtaining final approval by the Court. Under the Stipulation, Atmel agreed that if, prior to Sept. 14, 2012, Atmel adopts a new stockholder rights plan that includes a "Derivative Contract" within the definition of "Beneficial Ownership" (a "New Derivative Rights Plan"), Atmel will clarify that: (i) the term "Derivatives Contract" excludes interests in broad-based index options, broad-based index futures, and broad-based publicly traded market baskets of stock approved for trading by the appropriate federal governmental authority; and (ii) to qualify as or constitute a "Derivatives Contract," a contractual arrangement must include or reference a number of "Notional Common Shares." On Sept. 14, 2009, Atmel's Board of Directors passed a resolution interpreting Section 1(d)(iv) of the Rights Agreement (which defines the term "Beneficial Ownership") consistent with the foregoing. In the Stipulation, Atmel also agreed that if, prior to Sept. 14, 2012, Atmel adopts a New Derivative Rights Plan with an expiration date beyond the date of Atmel's 2010 annual meeting of stockholders, then Atmel will include a proposal for a stockholder advisory vote on the provision including Derivative Contracts in the definition of Beneficial Ownership in its proxy statement for the first annual meeting occurring more than 45 days after the date of such action. Under the terms of the Stipulation, the stockholder vote will not be binding on Atmel or the Board, will not be deemed to be a condition to the effectiveness of the New Derivative Rights Plan, and will not be construed as overruling a decision by the Board, nor to create or imply any additional fiduciary duty by the Board. Atmel agreed to the same advisory vote provision if it extended the expiration date of the Rights Agreement beyond the date of the Company's 2010 annual meeting of stockholders, but the Rights Agreement expired on October 15, 2009, making that provision no longer operative. As part of the settlement, Atmel also has agreed not to oppose plaintiffs' attorneys' application to the Court for an award of fees and expenses up to a limit of $950,000. Pursuant to its pre-existing obligations to indemnify the Board, Atmel shall pay such an award as the Court may approve, up to $950,000. Atmel and the Board entered into the Stipulation without admitting or conceding any merit to any allegation made in the Shareholder Actions solely to eliminate the burden, risk and expense of further litigation. Except as described above, the Stipulation provides for no constraint on the ability of Atmel and/or the Board to respond to any proposed acquisition or other transaction or to adopt or amend a stockholder rights plan in accordance with applicable Delaware law. The Court has scheduled a hearing on Jan. 7, 2010, at 2:30 p.m., to be held at the Court of Chancery, 34 The Circle, Georgetown, Delaware 19947, for the purpose of, among other things: (i) determining whether the settlement set forth in the Stipulation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class, and (ii) hearing and determining any objections to the settlement or the application of plaintiffs' attorneys' for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. Any shareholder desiring further information about the settlement or wishing to be heard at the Court hearing, should consult the Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Class Action Determination, Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Settlement Hearing, and Right to Appear, which is available on Atmel's website. Atmel Corp. -- http://www.atmel.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures, and sells a range of integrated circuits products, including microcontrollers, advanced logic, mixed-signal, nonvolatile memory and radio frequency components. BAYER HEALTHCARE: "Kraus" Yaz Laswuit Filed in Philadelphia Ct. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announced that Dana Kraus, on behalf of her sixteen-year old daughter, Katie Kraus, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical Corporation for severe and lasting injuries caused by Bayer's prescription drug Yaz. The lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. "While prescribed Yaz, my daughter developed several pulmonary emboli, which obstructed her pulmonary artery and caused her to suffer cardiac arrest. My baby was dead for almost three minutes," stated Dana Kraus. "She was in excellent health prior to taking Yaz. This was a terrifying experience. We almost lost her. We were so lucky. The doctors at Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh were able to save her life." Pulmonary emboli are blood clots in the lungs that can lead to abnormally low blood pressure and sudden death. "As alleged in the Complaint, Yaz is a dangerous prescription drug sold without adequate warnings about the risks of serious and fatal injuries," stated attorney Wendy R. Fleishman. "Bayer failed to warn doctors and patients that Yaz poses a greater risk of serious side effects than previous generations of oral contraceptives." "The FDA's adverse event database for Yaz reveals many serious adverse events associated with use of the drug, including many deaths, strokes, heart attacks, blood clots gallbladder and kidney disease in young and healthy women" said attorney David H. Rosenberg of the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, law firm of Handler Henning & Rosenberg, LLP. Attorney Fleishman added, "Bayer must take legal responsibility for injuries Yaz has inflicted on young women and teenagers across America." Legal Resources for Patients Injured By Yaz and Yasmin Birth Control Drugs The law in most states provides several personal injury claims for persons who have been seriously injured by a medical device or prescription drug with dangerous, undisclosed side effects. If you or a family member have suffered a serious injury or a loved one died after being prescribed Yasmin or Yaz, please visit http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com/medical/yasmin-yaz.htm to learn more about your legal rights and submit a complaint. About Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP: Founded in 1972, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is an over-fifty-attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. For the last seven consecutive years, the National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in America. For our personal injury cases, we bring a team of experienced lawyers. In addition, we have on staff multiple nurses, legal assistants, scientific analysts and case clerks to assist the attorneys. About Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP: Since 1922 the personal injury attorneys at Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP have been helping seriously injured people in Pennsylvania. For over 87 years, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP has been representing injured people against powerful insurance companies and corporations. Handler, Henning & Rosenberg represents many plaintiffs throughout the state of Pennsylvania with similar cases against Bayer involving the birth control drugs Yaz and Yasmin. For more information please visit the Firm's Web site at: www.hhrlaw.com/pages/prod_yaz_yasmin_side_effects.html CHARLES SCHWAB: YieldPlus Investor Opt-Out Deadline is Dec. 28 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Securities Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A., representing numerous aggrieved investors throughout the nation, advises all Charles Schwab (Nasdaq: SCHW) YieldPlus Fund investors who are class members in In Re Schwab Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-cv-01510 (N.D. Calif.) (Alsup, J.), that any request for exclusion from the Class Action must be received by the claims administrator by December 28, 2009. The Class Action was filed on behalf of investors who purchased shares in the Schwab YieldPlus Fund. The YieldPlus Fund sold two classes of shares: Investor Shares (Nasdaq: SWYPX) and Select Shares ( SWYSX). Presently, K&T represents many investors from across the nation who purchased shares of the YieldPlus Fund from Charles Schwab, in securities arbitration claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"). These investors chose to pursue their claims individually rather than participate in the class action because they suffered large losses. K&T reminds investors of the benefits of filing an individual securities arbitration claim, as opposed to participating in a class action lawsuit. By participating in a class action lawsuit, an investor may only recover a nominal amount. However, if one has experienced significant losses in the YieldPlus Fund, it may be more beneficial for them to file an individual securities arbitration claim. In 2003, K&T conducted a detailed study of securities arbitration versus class action. The study concluded that investors who file a securities arbitration claim traditionally obtain an overall higher rate of recovery as opposed to participating in a class action lawsuit. To view the full results of the comparison, please visit K&T's Web site at: http://www.nasd-law.com/documents/classvr.pdf Retail and institutional investors who purchased shares of the YieldPlus Fund from Charles Schwab and sustained significant losses can contact K&T to explore their legal rights and options. The attorneys at K&T are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses. K&T, an experienced, qualified and nationally recognized securities litigation law firm, practices exclusively in the field of securities arbitration and litigation. It continues its representation of investors throughout the world in securities arbitration and litigation matters against major Wall Street brokerage firms. If you wish to discuss this announcement or have investment losses of $100,000 or more in Schwab's YieldPlus Fund, please contact: Steven D. Toskes, Esq. Jahan K. Manasseh, Esq. Klayman & Toskes, P.A. Telephone: 888-997-9956 http://www.nasd-law.com/ DISH DBS: Plaintiffs Appeal Court's Dismissal of Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in an antitrust action against DISH DBS Corp. have appealed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed an antitrust action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis. On Oct. 16, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed. DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to subscribers through its Dish Network segment. The Company is based in Englewood, Colorado. DISH DBS: Lawsuits by Retailers Remain Ongoing in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------- DISH DBS Corp. continues to defend several class-action lawsuits filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. During 2000, lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal courts attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's retailers. The plaintiffs are requesting the Courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. The company has asserted a variety of counterclaims. The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state court action. The company has filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to the company's motion. The state court granted limited discovery, which ended during 2004. The plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery process. The state court agreed, and denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result. In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered an order excluding certain evidence that the company can present at trial based on the prior discovery issues. The state court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss the company's counterclaims. In April 2008, the state court granted plaintiff's class certification motion and in January 2009, the state court entered an order excluding certain evidence that we can present at trial based on the prior discovery issues. The state court also denied plaintiffs' request to dismiss our counterclaims. In May 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for default judgment based on new allegations of discovery misconduct. DISH DBS Corp. (formerly known as EchoStar DBS Corp.), a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation, provides direct broadcast satellite services to subscribers through its Dish Network segment. The Company is based in Englewood, Colorado. EXXONMOBILE: Tex. Supreme Court Rejects Gasoline Dealer Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Korris at The Southeast Texas Record reports that gasoline dealers who claim ExxonMobil tricked them into paying for their own rebates can't pursue a class action, the Supreme Court of Texas decided on Nov. 20. "The dealers here point to nothing in the contracts that prohibited Exxon from taking rebate costs into account in setting prices," the justices wrote, reversing 13th District appeals judges in Corpus Christi, who affirmed a class certification order from Nueces County Court of Law Judge James Klager. Dealers Dan Gill, Howard Granby and Patrick Morrow originally sued on behalf of a national class. They complained that ExxonMobil promised economic benefits but secretly recouped them by factoring them into prices. They alleged breach of agreement, breach of promise and breach of good faith. ExxonMobil denied that it fully recouped its costs or hid facts from dealers. The oil company pleaded that the dealers alleged fraud, not breach of contract. The distinction matters because a fraud plaintiff must prove he relied on a defendant's misconduct while a breach plaintiff doesn't have to prove reliance. After the state Supreme Court clamped down on national class actions in a case that involved Compaq computers, the dealers limited their claim to Texas. However, their lawyers filed class action claims for dealers of other states in federal courts. In Nueces County, Judge Klager certified a Texas class on all three kinds of breaches. On appeal, ExxonMobil asked 13th District judges to follow a Supreme Court decision from 2004 that stopped a class action against Shell Oil. Dealers in that case claimed Shell Oil dishonestly charged prices that would force them out of business so Shell Oil could own more stations. Shell Oil dealers alleged price discrimination under Texas uniform commercial code, but the Supreme Court held that they didn't overcome a presumption of good faith. Requiring sellers to justify every price "would mean that in every case the seller is going to be in a lawsuit," the Justices ruled. The Shell Oil precedent didn't impress appeals judges on the ExxonMobil case, who distinguished the cases by reasoning that ExxonMobil dealers asserted specific claims. Justice Dori Garza identified "specific promises of economic remuneration for keeping stores open specified hours and selling specified volumes of gasoline." The Supreme Court replied, "We do not see the distinction." The justices wrote that claims of Shell Oil dealers were "just as specific, and certainly as reprehensible, as those asserted by the dealers in the present case." They didn't convert the breach claims to fraud claims as ExxonMobil urged, but they distilled the breach claims to a simple question. They asked if ExxonMobil violated commercial code by failing to disclose that it recouped rebate costs, and they wrote: "The answer is no." They wrote, "Thus, it appears that the dealers' claim lacks merit." A federal judge in New York reached the same conclusion last year in litigation from the other 49 states, the court said. They wrote that Judge Klager and the 13th District misconstrued and misapplied the Shell Oil decision, and they directed Judge Klager to vacate his class certification order. The justices didn't tell him to deny class certification, instead advising him to determine the effect of the Shell Oil precedent on the requirements for certification. David Gunn represented ExxonMobil, along with Richard Godfrey, Mark Lillie, Andrew Kassof, Russell Post, John Adcock and Tony Canales. David Bright, James Roy, Bob Wright, Walter Thompson Jr., James White III, Fredric Levin, Troy Rafferty, William Denton, Spencer Hosie, John McArthur, William Large, William Hoese, Robert Josefsburg and James McCartt represented the dealers. GATEWAY INC: C.D. Calif. Lawsuit Complains About LCD Monitors ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Gateway's expensive XHD3000 30-inch LCD monitors fail prematurely, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Lima v. Gateway, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-01366 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/Gateway.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Tracy H. Tien, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: 415-398-8700 - and - Mila F. Bartos, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP The Duval Foundry 1050 30th Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202-337-8000 - and - Gordon M. Fauth, Jr., Esq. Alexis A. Phocas, Esq. LITIGATION LAW GROUP 1801 Clement Avenue, Suite 101 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: 510-238-9610 GEOTECH ENGINEERING: Sued in Ohio for Foundation Repair Problems ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Geotech Engineering failed to properly repair foundations and refused to back up their guarantee or issue refunds, a class action claims in Hamilton County Court, Cincinnati. A copy of the Complaint in Kunkel, et al. v. Watts, et al., Case No. A0911079 (Ohio Common Pleas Ct., Hamilton Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/CCAGeotech.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Theodore R. Saker, Jr., Esq. SAKER LAW OFFICES 1374 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43212 Telephone: 614-488-9900 GVI SECURITY: Faces Suit in Delaware Over GenNx360 Merger Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- GVI Security Solutions, Inc., faces a class action complaint filed on Nov. 9, 2009, relating to its Agreement and Plan of Merger with GenNx360 GVI Holding, Inc. On Nov. 9, 2009, a class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by Stephen Haberkorn, as Trustee of the Haberkorn Family Trust, against the Company and all of its directors, as well as GenNx360, the Sponsor and their affiliates. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the vompany's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders in connection with the negotiation and execution of the Merger Agreement and the Offer. The complaint seeks an order that the action may be maintained as a class action, preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants from proceeding with and consummating the proposed transactions, rescinding the proposed transactions in the event they are consummated, an accounting by the defendants to plaintiffs for damages sustained by them, and requiring payment of plaintiff's costs and attorneys' fees. The company is currently evaluating the complaint, according to its Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. GVI Security Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.gviss.com/-- incorporated in August 1996, through its subsidiaries, provides video surveillance and products for a variety of applications and for use in markets including educational institutions, retail stores and warehouses, gaming establishments, theme parks, public works projects, bank branches and offices, and many other homeland security applications. GVI's product line includes cameras designed for specific applications, recording systems, displays, management software and other necessary ancillary products. The company's customers include distributors and system integrators that specialize in the supply and distribution of video surveillance and security products and services, such as access control and intrusion detection. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Computer Lock-Up Complaint Filed in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Hewlett-Packard HP Pavilion Elite Desktop PCs, e9000 Series and m9600t Series computers freeze and lock up too often, a class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Johanning, et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Case No. 09-cv-08609 (C.D. Calif.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/HP.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Patrick DeBlase, Esq. KIESEL BOUCHER LARSON LLP 8648 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: 310-854-4444 - and - Oren Giskan, Esq. Catherine E. Anderson, Esq. GISKAN SOLOTAROFF ANDERSON & STEWART LLP 11 Braodway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-847-8315 - and - Michael Boni, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: 610-822-0200 - and - Johathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: 215-553-7980 KNAUF PLASTERBOARD: Chinese Drywall Claim Deadline is Wednesday --------------------------------------------------------------- Chrissie Cole at InjuryBoard.com reminds readers that the deadline for homeowners to join a class-action lawsuit against a manufacturer believed to be a source of defective Chinese drywall is just two days from today. To participate in the lawsuit against Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co., homeowners must sign up by December 2. In doing so, homeowners must show proof, including a photo or sample that clearly labels the defective drywall. The class-action case is scheduled in federal court in Louisiana on January 25. Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin (KPT) is a Chinese subsidiary of a German company which allegedly imported much of the contaminated drywall into the United States between 2004 and 2006. The defective drywall emits a sulfuric smell which has been linked to health problems and can cause corrosion to copper and other metals. Problem drywall has been found in 32 states and the District of Columbia, with most cases coming from Florida and Louisiana. Some 4,000 to 7,000 Louisiana homes are believed to contain Chinese drywall and collectively face $3 billion in repairs, according to insurance industry and government estimates. New Report The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) released a new report that finds a 'strong association' between the chemicals in Chinese drywall and the corrosion of pipes and wires, a conclusion that supports complaints made by thousands of homeowners. This is the second report on the potentially defective building materials. The report also suggests a "possible" association between health problems reported by homeowners and higher-than- normal levels of hydrogen sulfide gas emitted from the wallboard along with formaldehyde, which is commonly found in new homes. The first report was inconclusive and stopped short of linking the drywall to health problems. While it is too soon to entertain specifics of any financial assistance to homeowners, CPSC said it can now proceed with additional studies to identify effective remediation of the problem and potential assistance from the federal government. LAND O'LAKES: Denies Claims in Consolidated Amended Suits in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Land O'Lakes, Inc., MoArk, LLC, and Norco Ranch, Inc., continue to deny the allegations in the consolidated amended class action complaints pending in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Between September 2008 and January 2009, a total of twenty-two related class action lawsuits were filed against a number of producers of eggs and egg products in three different jurisdictions alleging violations of antitrust laws. MoArk was named as a defendant in twenty-one of the cases. Norco was named as a defendant in thirteen of the cases. The company was named as a defendant in seven cases. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two separate consolidated amended class action complaints have been filed, which supersede the earlier filed complaints: -- one on behalf of those persons who purchased eggs or egg products directly from defendants, and -- the second on behalf of "indirect" purchasers (i.e. persons who purchased eggs or egg products from defendants' customers). The consolidated amended complaints allege concerted action by producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase the price of shell eggs and egg products. The Plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- is a dairy co-op in the U.S. It provides its members with wholesale fertilizer and crop protection products, seed, and animal feed. Its oldest and best known product, LAND O' LAKES butter, is the top butter brand in the US. Land O'Lakes also produces packaged milk, margarine, sour cream, and cheese. The co-op's animal-feed division, Land O'Lakes Purina Feed, is a leading animal and pet food maker. LG PHILIPS: Chungwhwa Settles & Cooperates with Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------- Julius Melnitzer at the Financial Post reports that class action plaintiffs' counsel in the U.S. continue to adopt criminal prosecutors' tactics by settling with certain defendants and then having the settled parties co-operate with plaintiffs' counsel. Canadian counsel are buying into and taking advantage of the practice. That's evident, Mr. Melnitzer says, from the Nov. 23 ruling of Justice Wofram Tausendfreund in Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology v. LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd., a class action that is a "copycat" to a similar U.S. proceeding. The price-fixing case involves a host of LCD panel, TV and computer manufacturers. One of the defendants, Chungwhwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., settled the U.S. case. Part of the settlement involved Chungwhwa's agreement to co-operate with the plaintiffs. Subsequently, Chungwhwa provided documents indicating that the defendants held meetings at which they agreed to certain price- fixing targets. The lawyers who brought the Canadian action: Charles M. Wright, Esq. Andrea DeKay, Esq. Siskind Cromarty Ivey & Dowler 680 Waterloo Street P.O. Box 2520 London, Ontario N6A 3V8 CANADA sought to rely on the documents, which were attached to an affidavit from Chungwhwa's U.S. counsel, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP. The defendants objected, but Mr. Justice Tausendfreund ruled that the evidence was admissible on a certification motion despite the fact that it was hearsay because it complied with the Rules of Civil Procedure. MDL 1897: Mattel Agrees to Refunds for Lead-Containing Toys ----------------------------------------------------------- If in 2007 or earlier you or your child purchased or received as a gift a new Mattel or Fisher-Price toy, you may be entitled to a payment from a class action settlement in In re Mattel, Inc., Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1897; Master Docket No. 07-ml-01897 (C.D. Calif.). The Settlement provides refunds to anyone who purchased or received as a gift new Mattel or Fisher-Price toys that were recalled or withdrawn from market in 2006 and 2007, due to lead, lead paint, or magnets that could become loose. Parents and guardians who had their child's lead level tested within 6 weeks after the Recall announcements of the Recalled Toy(s) to which their child was exposed may also receive reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs for one test per child. You qualify as a Class Member if you purchased or acquired (including by gift) a new "Recalled Toy" for or on behalf of yourself or a minor child over whom you have custody or control as a parent or guardian, or to be given as a gift to another person; or if you are a parent or guardian of a minor child who purchased or acquired (including by gift) a new "Recalled Toy." A "Recalled Toy" means a product made by or for Mattel, Inc., and its subsidiaries, including Fisher-Price, that was subject to Mattel's November 21, 2006, August 2, 2007, August 14, 2007, September 4, 2007, or October 25, 2007 recalls, as well as certain toy blood pressure monitor cuffs withdrawn from sale. If you are a Class Member, your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act. Read the Notice posted at: https://www.mattelsettlement.com/Prod/Content/PDF/exC.pdf For more information, visit http://www.mattelsettlement.com/or contact the Claims Administrator by calling 1-888-955-2715, or by writing to: In re Mattel, Inc., Toy Lead Products Liability Lit. c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC P.O. Box 808054 Petaluma, CA 94975-8054 Co-Lead Counsel to the Plaintiff class are: John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Mattel is represented by: Hugh R. Whiting, Esq. JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 - and - Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. Michael L. Rice, Esq. JONES DAY 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201-1515 Other lawyers involved in this MDL proceeding are: Gilbert Scott Bagnell, Esq. BAGNELL AND EASON PO Box 11852 Columbia, SC 29211 - and - Frank Baliant, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALIANT PC 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 - and - Matthew C. Branic, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 - and - Robert H. Brunson, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH PO Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29402 - and - Michael G. Crow, Esq. CROW LAW FIRM LLC 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1175 New Orleans, LA 70163 - and - Stuart A. Davidson, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 - and - John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201-2924 - and - Burton H. Finkelstein, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON & LOUGHRAN Duvall Foundry 1050 30th St. NW Washington, DC 20007 - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER 850 Third Avenue, 14th Fl. New York, NY 10022 - and - Andrew C. Friedman, Esq. BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT 2901 N Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 - and - Paul J. Geller, Esq. PAUL J GELLER LAW OFFICES 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 - and - Richard M. Golomb, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK 121 South Broad Street, 9th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107 - and - Michael D. Gottsch, Esq. CHIMICLES AND TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Center 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041-0100 - and - Donald R. Hall, Esq. KAPLAN FOX AND KILSHEIMER 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Steven Michael Hayes, Esq. HANLY CONROY BIERSTEIN SHERIDAN FISHER & HAYES LLP 112 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 - and - Steven Randall Hood, Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER 1539 Healthcare Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 - and - Walter J. Lack, Esq. ENGSTROM LIPSCOMB & LACK 10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-4107 - and - Karen Jennifer Marcus, Esq. FINKLESTEIN THOMPSON LLP 1050 30th Street NW Washington, DC 20007 - and - Deirdre Shelton McCool, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH PO Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29402 - and - Chad A. McGowan, Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD & FELDER 1539 Healthcare Drive Rock Hill, SC 29732 - and - Mark J.R. Merkle, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 - and - Stephen G. Morrison, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH P O Box 11070 Columbia, SC 29211 - and - Marc T. Quigley, Esq. KRIEG DEVAULT LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2800 Indianapolis, IN 46204 - and - Elizabeth A. Shonson, Esq. COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN AND ROBBINS 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432-4809 - and - David L. Woloshin, Esq. WOLOSHIN AND KILLINO 1800 John F Kennedy Boulevard, 11th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103-2925 MICHAEL FOODS: Dismissal Plea for Two Suits Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Michael Foods, Inc.'s motions to dismiss two consolidated amended class-action complaint remains pending, according to the company's Nov.13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct.3, 2009. In late 2008 and early 2009, some 22 class-action lawsuits were filed in various federal courts against the company and several other defendants who are producers of shell eggs, manufacturers of processed egg products, and egg industry organizations, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws in connection with the production and sale of shell eggs and processed-egg products. Plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide classes of direct and indirect purchasers, and allege that defendants conspired to reduce the supply of eggs by participating in animal husbandry, egg-export and other programs of various egg-industry associations. In December 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of all cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and/or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Subsequently, the direct-purchaser and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs each filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On April 30, 2009, the company filed motions to be dismissed from each CAC, and joined other defendants in motions for dismissal of both CACs. As of Nov. 13, 2009, there had been no ruling on these motions. Michael Foods, Inc. -- http://www.michaelfoods.com/-- is one of the leading US producers of shell eggs and value-added egg products (frozen, liquid, pre-cooked, dried). It has other operations, but eggs account for 70% of its sales. The spuds come in with its Northern Star subsidiary, which pre-shreds and mashes potatoes. The company's Crystal Farms subsidiary packages and distributes cheese, butter and other dairy products. Michael's customers include food processors, foodservice distributors, and retail grocery stores throughout North America, as well as in the Far East, South America, and Europe. Investment firm, Thomas H. Lee Partners, owns almost 90% of the company. NOVASTAR FIN'L: Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Missouri Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri's dismissal of a consolidated amended putative class action complaint against Novastar Financial, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 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. On Sept. 1, 2009 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 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: Continues to Defend Claims in New York Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc. continues to defend any claims asserted in relation to a putative class action lawsuit filed against J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corp. 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. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. 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: Wants N.J. Carpenters' Health Fund Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- NovaStar Financial, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss an amended purported class-action complaint filed by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 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. On Aug. 31, 2009 the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims. 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 of 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. 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. No further developments were reported in the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. 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. POWERCOR: Australian Bushfire Victims Sue Electric Company ---------------------------------------------------------- ABC Western Victoria reports that a group of victims of the Horsham bushfire on Black Saturday bushfires are taking legal action against power company Powercor. Lawyers for the group have served a writ on the company in the Supreme Court in Horsham, seeking compensation for loss and damage. The Bushfires Royal Commission has heard that powerlines sparked the fire on Black Saturday. The group's lawyer: Brendan Pendergast MADDENS 1a Liebig Street PO Box 320 Warrnambool Victoria 3280 AUSTRALIA Telephone: (03) 5560 2035 said they will accuse Powercor of negligence, by failing to properly maintain its assets. "On behalf of the fire victim my firm is making many allegations of negligence against Powercor in relation to its failure to maintain safe and appropriate standards of inspection and maintenance to the Remlaw spur line." The case is expected to go to court next year, ABC reports. PRARIE SOUTH: Canadian School District Faces Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lyndsay McCready at The Moose Jaw Times Herald reports that the Prairie South School Division has been added to the number of school divisions in Saskatchewan facing a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit came forth after a parent in Regina made an inquiry about a textbook charge she received from their child's school. Tony Merchant, a Regina layer with the Merchant Law Group, said because Saskatchewan Law states that kindergarten to Grade 12 education is free, if a student is taking a core class that is required to obtain a high school diploma, the school can not charge for required supplies for that class. "The school boards started to charge small sums around 15 to 20 years ago (for recreational activities and such) and those types of charges are permissible, provided it doesn't deprive someone of getting an education. "But if you are required to take a cooking class (for example) in order to get a Grade 12 diploma and in that class you are required to work from a cook book, the schools are not permitted by law to charge a student for that text." PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Auto Policyholders Sue Insurer in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Progressive Direct Insurance Co. steers policyholders to auto repair shops that agree to reduce the insurer's costs "without regard to the interests, rights, and safety of the insureds," a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. SILICON STORAGE: Suit Challenges Technology Resource Transaction ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Directors of Silicon Storage Technology are selling the company too cheaply to Technology Resource Holding and Prophet Equity, for $201 million, though the company reported revenue of $316 million in 2008, shareholders say in Santa Clara County Court, Calif. A copy of the Complaint in Fisher v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 109CV157444 (Calif. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/24/SCASST.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff S. Westerman, Esq. MILBERG LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Ave., Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: 213-617-1200 - and - Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Anne Marie Vu, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: 212-594-5300 SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Approves Agreement Dismissing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved an agreement between SS&C Technologies, Inc. and the plaintiffs to a dismissal of the class action and verified derivative complaint, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. On May 1, 2009, the company and its parent, SS&C Technologies Holdings, Inc. were served with a class action and verified derivative complaint filed against the company and its parent, and other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation. On June 4, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. On Sept. 11, 2009, the court approved an agreement between the company and its parent, and the plaintiffs to a dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims against the company without prejudice. The dismissal was subject to the execution of a tolling agreement between the company, its parent, and the plaintiffs tolling the statute of limitations on the plaintiffs' claims until Dec. 31, 2009. The plaintiffs' derivative claims against the company and its parent alleged breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence in the duties as administrator to two of the Rye group of funds, which the plaintiffs alleged provided Bernard L. Madoff with infusions of assets and were operated through defendant Tremont Group Holdings, Inc. as part of the MassMutual Financial Group. The plaintiffs' complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, prejudgment interest, punitive damages and costs. SS&C Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.ssctech.com/--is a provider of software products and software-enabled services to help financial services providers to automate business processes and manage their information processing requirements. The company's portfolio of software products and software-enabled services helps automate and integrate front-office functions, such as trading and modeling, middle-office functions, such as portfolio management and reporting, and back-office functions, such as accounting, performance measurement, reconciliation, reporting, processing and clearing. The company provides its solutions globally to more than 4,500 clients, principally within the institutional asset management, alternative investment management and financial institutions sectors. In addition, its clients include commercial lenders, corporate treasury groups, insurance and pension funds, financial markets, municipal finance groups and real estate property managers. SYSTEMAX INC: Tully's Subsidiary Continues to Defend Suit --------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against Tully's, a subsidiary of Systemax Inc., remains pending in court, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Tully's in California state court by a former store employee alleging that Tully's failed to provide meal and rest periods for its employees. The company anticipate thats the plaintiff will seek class action certification on behalf of all hourly employees in Tully's California stores. The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been filed in California against many other companies. Systemax Inc. -- http://www.systemax.com/-- is a direct marketer of brand name and private-label products. The company's operations are organized in three business segments: Technology Products, Industrial Products and Hosted Software. Technology Products segment sells computers, computer supplies and consumer electronics, which are marketed in North America and Western Europe. Except for certain personal computer (PC) products that the Company assembles themselves and sells under the trademarks Systemax and Ultra, substantially all of its products are manufactured by other companies. The company also sells certain computer-related products manufactured for them to its own design under the trademarks Global, GlobalIndustrial.com and Nexel. Industrial products accounted for 8% of the company's net sales during the year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Jan. 10, 2008, the Company acquired CompUSA's e-commerce business and 16 of its retail leases and related fixtures. TALON INTERNATIONAL: Final Fairness Hearing Set for December 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has set a final fairness hearing on the settlement of the purported shareholder class-action suit, Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., for Dec. 7, 2009, according to Talon International Inc.'s Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. Talon International was formerly Tag-It Pacific. 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 set a hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement on Aug. 17, 2009. On Aug. 24, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Notice has been provided to class members and the Court has set a final fairness hearing on the settlement for Dec. 7, 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 TEAM WORK TRADING: Recalls 1,500 More Lead-Containing Pendants -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Team Work Trading, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,500 Children's Metal Pendants. This is in addition to 1,500 pendants previously recalled in September 2009. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. The recalled children's pendants contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall involves eleven types of metal pendants sold with silver-colored chains. The pendants feature symbols from the following animations/cartoons: "Bleach," "Death Note," "Naruto" and "One Piece." Pictures of the recalled products are available at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10049.html The recalled pendants were manufactured in China and sold at The Teamwork Trading Store in Los Angeles, Calif. and other toys stores and gift shops nationwide from November 2008 through March 2009 for between $3 and $4. Consumer should immediately take the recalled pendants away from children and contact Team Work Trading to receive a full refund or replacement product. For additional information, contact Team Work Trading collect at (213) 680-4489 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through Friday. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filter Sales in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. No further developments on the case were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filter Sales in Ontario Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., still faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of 14 defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. The action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14 defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on. No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filter Sales Pending in Quebec --------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada. The action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on. No further developments were reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Status Conference in Unit's Suit Set for Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois scheduled the status conference in an amended purported class- action complaint, which name United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as defendant, for Jan. 13, 2010, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009. The class action alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Direct Purchaser Litigation As of April 21, 2009, the company and Champion have been named as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle from each of those actions without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of New Jersey. All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present. Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Indirect Purchaser Litigation United Components and Champion were also named as two of multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of California. These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1, 2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the present. The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America ("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. On that same date, Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint. JPML Order On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009. The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed until after it rules on the motions to dismiss. On April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed United Components from its case without prejudice. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009. The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed until after it rules on the motions to dismiss, 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 Nov. 5, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint. Also on Nov. 5, 2009, the Illinois District Court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. In particular, the Illinois District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Count II - the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' nationwide claim for unjust enrichment - limited the damages periods for claims based on the antitrust laws of Nebraska, New Hampshire, Utah and Wyoming and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' consumer protection law claims under the laws of Kansas, Maine, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York and Rhode Island. Champion and the other defendants must file their answer to the remaining claims in the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint by Dec. 28, 2009 and the Illinois District Court scheduled a status conference for Jan. 13, 2010. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. New Securities Fraud Cases NORTHWEST PIPE: Pomerantz Filed Shareholder Suit in W.D. Wash. -------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Haflich at AMM.com reports that a New York law firm appears to be first in court with a class-action lawsuit against Northwest Pipe Co. in the wake of the company's recent disclosure of an accounting probe at the producer of water transmission pipe and tubular goods. Richard v. Northwest Pipe Company, et al., Case No. 09-cv-05724 (W.D. Wash.) (Leighton, J.), seeks unspecified damages as well as attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. A copy of the Complaint is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/SCANWPipe.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 1904 3rd Ave., Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 - and - Marc I. Gross, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 PROVIDENT ENERGY: Keller Rohrback Files Shareholder Suit in Idaho ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A. filed a class action lawsuit in the District of Idaho on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Provident Energy 1, LP, Provident Resources 1, LP, Provident Energy 2, LP, Provident Energy 3, LP, Shale Royalties II, Inc., Shale Royalties 3, LLC, Shale Royalties 4, Inc., Shale Royalties 5, Inc., Shale Royalties 6, Inc., Shale Royalties 7, Inc., Shale Royalties 8, Inc., Shale Royalties 9, Inc., Shale Royalties 10, Inc., Shale Royalties 12, Inc., Shale Royalties 14, Inc., Shale Royalties 15, Inc., Shale Royalties 16, Inc., Shale Royalties 17, Inc., Shale Royalties 18, Inc., Shale Royalties 19, Inc., Shale Royalties 20, Inc., or Shale Royalties 21, Inc., from Securities America, Inc., Summit Retirement Advisors LLC, Bradley K. Hofhines, or any of their affiliates between November 25, 2006, and the present. The complaint is also brought under the Idaho Uniform Securities Act ("IUSA") and the Idaho Consumer Protection Act ("ICPA") on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities in one or more of the Provident Entities on or after November 25, 2004, who reside within or purchased or otherwise acquired the Provident Securities within the State of Idaho, or from Defendants Bradley K. Hofhines or Summit Retirement Advisors LLC, or any of their Idaho affiliates. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants violated federal securities laws and the Idaho Uniform Securities Act by: (1) offering and selling Provident Securities in violation of state and federal registration requirements; and (2) providing materially untrue and misleading offering materials regarding Provident Securities. The complaint also alleges that Defendants and their affiliates violated the Idaho Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair and deceptive practices in the offer and sale of the Provident Securities. According to the lawsuit, the private placement memoranda and related offering materials ("PPMs") pursuant to which the Provident Securities were offered and sold were materially false and misleading because they misrepresented and omitted material facts pertaining to the terms of the offering and the use of funds, including that certain investments were kept afloat via improper intra-fund transfers, that investor funds raised in later offerings were used to pay "dividends" and "returns of capital" to earlier Provident investors, and other material facts pertaining to the terms of the securities and the risks of investment in the Provident Securities. The lawsuit also alleges that the Provident Securities should have been registered under federal securities laws and Idaho state law, but were not. The case is Toomey, et al. v. Hofhines, et al., Case No. 09-cv-00613 (D. Id.) (Lodge, J.). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be obtained from Keller Rohrback L.L.P. or Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A. If you purchased Provident Securities stock during the Class Period, you may request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this notice. 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 Keller Rohrback or Greener Burke Shoemaker, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact any member of our team: (1) Keller Rohrback L.L.P., at 1201 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, by telephone, toll- free at (800) 776-6044 (paralegal Bob McFadden or attorneys Mike Woerner, Beth Leland or Havila Unrein), via e-mail at investor@kellerrohrback.com, or online at http://www.krclassaction.com/ All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the Provident Securities Litigation; or (2) Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A., at 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 900, Boise, Idaho 83702, by telephone at (208) 319-2600 (attorneys Richard Greener or Soo Kang), or via email at investor@greenerlaw.com. Keller Rohrback is one of America's leading law firms handling securities-related litigation. We are committed to helping investors protect their investment options. Keller Rohrback serves as lead and co-lead counsel in numerous class action cases. Keller Rohrback has successfully provided class action representation for over a decade. Its trial lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of clients in excess of seven billion dollars. Greener Burke Shoemaker P.A. has some of the most experienced litigators in all of Idaho, ranking among the most capable trial firms in the Pacific Northwest. The attorneys at Greener Burke Shoemaker are skilled plaintiff counsel in complex, high-stakes litigation. SUNPOWER CORP: Howard G. Smith Files Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of SunPower Corporation (Nasdaq:SPWRA) (Nasdaq:SPWRB), has filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased SunPower securities between April 17, 2008, and November 16, 2009, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Complaint charges SunPower and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. SunPower designs, manufactures and delivers high-performance solar electric systems worldwide for residential, commercial and utility-scale power plant customers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company made unsubstantiated accounting entries during the Class Period; (2) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (3) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 16, 2009, SunPower shocked investors when it announced an internal investigation by its Audit Committee of certain unsubstantiated accounting entries related to cost of goods sold in the Company's Philippines operations. SunPower disclosed that the Company's Audit Committee concluded that the Company's previously issued interim financial statements for each of the 2009 quarterly periods, the previously reported financial results for the fiscal year ending December 28, 2008, the financial information in its quarterly reports on Form 10-Q for the 2009 quarters, the financial information in the 2008 annual report on Form 10-K, and the guidance provided by the Company for the 2009 fiscal year, should no longer be relied upon. This news caused SunPower's Class A common stock to decline $5.04 per share, or approximately 18.51%, to close on November 17, 2009, at $22.19 per share, and SunPower's Class B common stock declined $4.43 per share, approximately 18.54%, to close on November 17, 2009, at $19.47 per share, on heavy trading volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. If you purchased SunPower securities between April 17, 2008, and November 16, 2009, you have certain rights, and have until January 19, 2010, to move for lead plaintiff status. To be a member of the class you need not take any action at this time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215)638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ VERASUN ENERGY: Dyer & Berens Files Shareholder Suit in S.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP -- http://www.DyerBerens.com/-- has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of VeraSun Energy Corp. (PINKSHEETS: VSUNQ) between March 12, 2008, and September 16, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the court no later than January 11, 2010. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. DYER & BERENS LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 861-1764 E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com Any member of the putative class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: (i) VeraSun was, in part, a speculative commodities trader in addition to an ethanol producer; (ii) VeraSun engaged in speculative and risky derivate transactions that exposed the Company to substantial financial and liquidity risk; (iii) VeraSun experienced substantial losses on speculative derivative transactions causing margin pressures on the Company; (iv) as a result of margin pressures from bad speculative derivative transactions, the Company sold out of a large short position in corn and incurred substantial losses; (v) the Company entered into highly risky "accumulator" contracts that obligated VeraSun to purchase increasing amounts of corn after the price of corn fell in price per bushel; and (vi) VeraSun's financial condition and especially its liquidity were negatively impacted as a result of speculative commodity transactions, ultimately causing the Company to file for bankruptcy. On September 16, 2008, VeraSun announced that it commenced a public offering of 20 million shares of its common stock to raise money for "general corporate purposes." The true purpose of this public offering was to raise capital in an effort to prevent a disastrous impact from the huge losses experienced by the Company as a result of its speculative trading and risky bets on the price of corn. In response to the Company's announcement on September 16, 2008, shares of the Company's stock fell $3.81 per share, or 70%, from a close of $5.22 per share before the announcement, to close at $1.41 per share on September 17, 2008, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of VeraSun investors. The plaintiff is represented by Dyer & Berens LLP, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions involving financial fraud. The firm's extensive experience in securities litigation, particularly in cases brought under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, has contributed to the recovery of hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved investors. ********* 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 * * *