/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/091201.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 237 Headlines AT&T INC: Sued in W.D. Mo. for Collecting Illegal Taxes BANK OF AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Merrill Lynch Action BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees" BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending BLUE CROSS: Alabama MDs Say Insurer Isn't Abiding By Settlement BOBCAD CAM: Accused of Sexual & Religious Discrimination in Fla. CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending HUMANETICS CORP: Zylotrim Diet Pill Claims Draw Fire in Calif. IMS HEALTH: Shareholders Sue In Del. To Get More from TPG Capital LAWYERS TITLE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Improper Deed Procedures LONGEVITY LLC: Calif. Suit Says Vinotrol is a Dangerous Product MINNESOTA: Lawsuit Challenges Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations MITSUBISHI: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges TV Parts Are Defective NEW YORK: Sexual Predators Sue to Halt Indefinite Confinement PARTNER COMMS: Non-Religious Subscribers Allege Discrimination STORK CRAFT: Multiple Canadian Class Actions Follow Crib Recall TD AMERITRADE: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated ARS Suit TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y. TD AMERITRADE: Case Conference in "Holders" Suit Set for Dec. 10 TIGRENT INC: Wants Class Claims Against Whitney Info Dismissed TIGRENT INC: Florida Court Dismisses Durham/Friedman Lawsuit TIGRENT INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of "Teach Me To Trade" Items TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Lying About Prius Hybrid Performance YOUNG CHANG: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Piano Manufacturing Problem New Securities Fraud Cases STEC INC: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Lawsuit in C.D. Calif. ********* AT&T INC: Sued in W.D. Mo. for Collecting Illegal Taxes ------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T charges state and local taxes for Internet access, which is illegal in Missouri, a class action claims in Jefferson City Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Pauley v. AT&T, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-04248 (W.D. Mo.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/AT&T.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward D. Robertson, Jr., Esq. Mary D. Winter, Esq. Anthony L. DeWitt, Esq. BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, P.C. 715 Swifts Highway Jefferson City, MO 65109 Telephone: 573-659-4454 - and - Matthew A. Clement, Esq. Timothy W. Van Ronzelen, Esq. COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, P.C. 231 Madison Street Jefferson City, MO 65101 Telephone: 573-635-7977 - and - Craig S. Johnson, Esq. BERRYWILSON LLC 304 E. High Street P.O. Box 1606 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: 573-638-7272 Harry Huge, Esq. Theodore Huge, Esq. THE HUGE LAW FIRM LLC 1080 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., Suite 3016 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202-965-4672 - and - Theodore Huge, Esq. THE HUGE LAW FIRM LLC 31 Broad Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: 843-793-4702 BANK OF AMERICA: Moves to Dismiss S.D.N.Y. Merrill Lynch Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Bank of America Corp. filed an 87-page motion to dismiss In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, and Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-02058 (S.D.N.Y.), last week. BofA says the plaintiffs fail to allege that anyone was misled about $3.6 billion of bonuses that Merrill paid, and that it was well-publicized that payments would be made. BofA also says "it was no secret" that Merrill was losing money, and that it had no legal obligation to reveal Merrill's losses and outlook on an "ad hoc" basis, which it said could have whipsawed investors in unsettled markets. BofA also repeated that Merrill's losses accelerated after December 5 shareholder votes on the merger rather than before. "There was no misrepresentation or failure to disclose required facts of any nature whatsoever," the bank's lawyers Mitchell Lowenthal, Esq., a partner at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP; and Peter Hein, Esq., a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, wrote in last week's filing. They urged U.S. District Judge Denny Chin to dismiss the case with prejudice. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., continues to defend the extended viewing fee putative class-action case, Cohen v. Blockbuster. The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas). Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies. Such claims were brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18, 1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration clause. In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since Feb. 18, 1994. On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes. On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal. On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes. 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face a putative class-action complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran, Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint. The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40, corporations. They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates' websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007. The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites. They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required to respond to the pending complaint at this time, 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. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott settlement. The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas). Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999 and April 2001. These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental product beyond the initial rental term. Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment. In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and made certificates available to class members for rentals and discounts through November 2005. 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Hazell Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face William Robert Hazell's putative class-action lawsuit in British Columbia, Canada. The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct. The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and exemplary and punitive damages. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: "Hedley" Contract Breach Suit Pending in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face a putative class-action lawsuit by Douglas R. Hedley. Mr. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19, 2002. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys' fees. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Lampone's Suit Over "No Late Fees" ----------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., intends to defend Nicholas Lampone's putative class action over the company's "no late fees" program. On May 20, 2009, Nicholas Lampone filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, alleging Blockbuster's "no late fees" program is a breach of contract and violates California's consumer protection and unfair competition statutes prohibiting unfair, unlawful and deceptive business practices. Plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution, injunctive relief, general damages, special damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, interest, and costs. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Defends Amended Complaint Over VPPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., is defending an amended a putative class action complaint under the Video Privacy Protection Act. On April 9, 2008, Cathryn Elaine Harris filed a putative class action complaint under VPPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On June 3, 2008, plaintiff Harris filed her first amended class action complaint adding Mario Herrera and Maryam Hosseiny as additional named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are purporting to act on behalf of every individual who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster online during the same time period since Nov. 6, 2007, whose name, and/or address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented,sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third parties by Blockbuster without the informed written consent of such individuals obtained at the time the disclosure was made. Plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA when it knowingly distributed plaintiffs video tape rental and sales records to Facebook, a third party, without plaintiffs consent at the time of the disclosure. Plaintiffs seek class certification, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Creighton's "No Late Fees" Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., remains a defendant in Beth Creighton's lawsuit arising out of the company's "no late fees" program. On March 4, 2005, Ms. Creighton filed a putative class-action suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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 Oct. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct-to- video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLUE CROSS: Alabama MDs Say Insurer Isn't Abiding By Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Working with 20 specialist physicians and practices, Anne Zieger at FierceHelathcare.com reports, the Medical Association of the State of Alabama has filed formal complaints arguing that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama hasn't been following the terms of a class-action settlement. The settlement, which took place in 2007, regarded payment practices of 30 health plans affiliated with the BlueCross BlueShield Association, including the Alabama plan. Physicians say that the Alabama Blue plan has failed to give doctors enough notice of planned fee schedule changes, has not paid for claims including CPT modifiers 25 and 59, and has never formed a specialty physician advisory committee as required by the agreement. Settling this matter is particularly important to physicians given that the Alabama Blues hold an estimated 89 percent market share in the state, according to AMA projections. That makes the plans the dominant single-state health insurer within the states tracked by the AMA. The complaint follows other controversies over compliance with the settlement agreement. In August, Independence Blue Cross of Pennsylvania was ruled to be in violation of the agreement when it attempted to collect what it deemed to be overpayments going out to surgeons. American Medical News provides additional coverage of this matter at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/23/bisd1123.htm BOBCAD CAM: Accused of Sexual & Religious Discrimination in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a boss at Bobcad Cam sexually harassed and threatened her, and she was told she had to attend Scientology classes "to go anywhere in the company," then she was fired for complaining, a woman claims in Pinellas County Court, Fla. A copy of the Complaint in Serecka v. Bobcad Cam, Inc., Case No. 09-20117-ci-20 (Fla. Cir. Ct., 6th J. Cir., Pinellas Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/EmployScien.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. Gregory A. Owens, Esq. FLORIN, ROEBIG, P.A. 777 Alderman Road Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Telephone: 727-786-5000 CANO PETROLEUM: Bid to Nix Amended Securities Fraud Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss an amended purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Cano Petroleum, Inc., the company's outside directors and its underwriters is pending in New York. On Oct. 2, 2008, the following lawsuit (08 CV 8462) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against David W. Wehlmann; Gerald W. Haddock; Randall Boyd; Donald W. Niemiec; Robert L. Gaudin; William O. Powell, III, and the underwriters alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The plaintiff seeks to certify the suit as a class-action. The lawsuit alleges that the prospectus for the June 26, 2008 public offering of Cano common stock contained statements regarding Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and overstated Cano's proved reserves. Messrs. Wehlmann, Haddock, Boyd, Niemiec, Gaudin and Powell were outside directors of Cano on June 26, 2008. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for the class if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. On July 2, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that adds as defendants Cano, Cano's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Jeff Johnson, Cano's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Morris B. "Sam" Smith, Cano's current Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Ben Daitch, Cano's Vice President and Principal Accounting Officer, Michael Ricketts and Cano's Senior Vice President of Engineering and Operations, Patrick McKinney, and drops Gerald W. Haddock, a former director of Cano, as a defendant. The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus for the Secondary Offering contained statements regarding Cano's proved reserve amounts and standards that were materially false and overstated Cano's proved reserves. The plaintiff is seeking to certify the lawsuit as a class action lawsuit and is seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Cano is cooperating with its Directors and Officers Liability insurance carrier regarding the defense of the lawsuit. On July 27, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit. No further updates regarding the lawsuit 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. Cano Petroleum, Inc. -- http://www.canopetro.com/-- is an independent oil and natural gas company that is primarily utilizing waterflooding and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques to increase production and reserves at its existing properties. The company's assets are located onshore United States in Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Cano's proved oil and natural gas reserves as of June 30, 2008, were prepared by Miller and Lents, Ltd., international oil and gas consultants. As of September 10, 2008, it had 17 wells containing multiple completions. On Sept. 10, 2008, the Company had total acreage of 74,200 gross acres and 70,805 net acres, all of which was considered developed acres. Cano sells its crude oil and natural gas production to several independent purchasers. HUMANETICS CORP: Zylotrim Diet Pill Claims Draw Fire in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Zylotrim, the Obesity Research Institute, and Humanetics Corp. push "Zylotrim" weight- loss products with "blatantly false claims," a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. IMS HEALTH: Shareholders Sue In Del. To Get More from TPG Capital ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors of IMS Health are selling the company too cheaply through an unfair process to TPG Capital, for $5.2 billion or $22 a share, stockholders say in Delaware Chancery Court. A copy of the Complaint in City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Carlucci, et al., Case No. 5093 (Del. Ch. Ct.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/SCAIMS.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Michael J. Barry, Esq. Mary S. Thomas, Esq. Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A. 1201 N. Market St. Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: 302-622-7000 - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. Amy Miller, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: 212-554-1400 LAWYERS TITLE: Accused in Calif. Suit of Improper Deed Procedures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Lawyers Title Co. conspires with notaries to execute blank documents that are used to change deeds of trust without notifying property owners, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court LONGEVITY LLC: Calif. Suit Says Vinotrol is a Dangerous Product --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Thomas Shipley and Andrew Survilo push potentially dangerous stuff they call Vinotrol, through their companies Longevity, Urban Nutrition, and a host of others, a class action claims in Alameda County Court, Oakland. A copy of the Complaint in Panos v. Shipley, et al., Case No. 09-485615 (Calif. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/DietSupp.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Clarke, Jr., Esq. Timothy A. Dolan, Esq. ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 201 Spear Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105-1667 Telephone: 415-543-4800 MINNESOTA: Lawsuit Challenges Issuance of Misdemeanor Citations --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association claims the Minnesota Department of Public Safety has no right to issue its members misdemeanor citations for violating federal regulations, in a class action in Hennepin County Court, Minneapolis. A copy of the Complaint in Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., et al. v. State of Minnesota, et al., Case No. _________ (Minn. Dist. Ct., 4th J. Dist., Hennepin Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/Govt.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul D. Cullen, Sr., Esq. Daniel E. Cohen, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Jr., Esq. THE CULLEN LAW FIRM, PLLC 1101 30th St., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: 202-944-8600 - and - Albert Turner Goins, Sr., Esq. GOINS LAW OFFICES 301 4th Ave. S., Suite 378N Minneapolis, MN 55415 Telephone: 612-339-3848 MITSUBISHI: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges TV Parts Are Defective --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Mitsubishi's WD series of TVs fail prematurely because of defective electronic parts, a class action claims in Hartford Federal Court. A copy of the Complaint in Fisher v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, et al., Case No. 09-cv-01899 (D. Conn.) (Chatigny, J.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/23/CCATVs.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur S. Wells, Esq. 13 Winifred's Way Rutland, MA 01543 Telephone: (508) 873-5182 E-mail: aswells@charter.net - and - Thomas P. Sobran, Esq. Thomas P. Sobran, P.C. 7 Evergreen Lane Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (781) 741-6075 E-mail: tsobran@sobranlaw.com NEW YORK: Sexual Predators Sue to Halt Indefinite Confinement ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that a class of more than 127 "sexually violent predators" claims former Gov. George Pataki imprisoned them indefinitely in psychiatric facilities after they did their time in prison. The class also sued a host of psychiatric center executives and Department of Corrections employees for wrongful detainment. "The putative class is compromised of all 'All individuals who while in prison were determined to be Sexually Violent Predators ("SVP") and committed to a State psychiatric hospital or a designated secure inpatient psychiatric program pursuant to New York State Mental Hygiene Law Sec. 9.27 between September 2005 and April 13, 2007," according to the 97-page complaint. The plaintiffs say they should have been released, or should have been released sooner. The complaint adds: "The Class includes over 127 individuals, approximately 78 of whom have been released from psychiatric incarceration and, due to their 'sex offender' designation by the State, frequently have great difficulty securing permanent residence. Consequently, given the peripatetic nature of most of the Class, it will difficult to locate the individual members." The case details individual claimants' plights. For example, after a "brief" meeting with a physician, one prisoner, Leon Smith, says he has been "unlawfully confined, against his will, in Central New York Psychiatric Center" from 2006 until today. "During the entirety of his confinement," the complaint alleges, "Smith has not been permitted to leave, and has been kept in a segregated wing behind double locked doors." The plaintiffs seek damages for unlawful imprisonment, assault and battery, and abuse of process. A copy of the Complaint in Smith, et al. v. Pataki, et al., Index No. 09116457 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/11/25/SexOffenders.pdf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Reza Rezvani, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF REZA REZVANI 61 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10006 Telephone: 212-608-2100 PARTNER COMMS: Non-Religious Subscribers Allege Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Partner Communications Company Ltd. (Nasdaq:PTNR)(TASE:PTNR), a leading Israeli mobile communications operator, disclosed last week that it was served with a lawsuit requesting certification as a class action, filed against Partner, Pelephone Communications Ltd, Cellcom Israel Ltd. and the Minister of Communication in the District Court of Jerusalem. The claim alleges that the Cellular Operators discriminate against the non-religious subscribers by not offering them certain tariffs and terms that are offered to the religious sector. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Defendants is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 900 million (for all Defendants together). Partner is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and at this preliminary stage is unable to evaluate the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if any, with any degree of certainty. Partner Communications Company Ltd. is a leading Israeli provider of telecommunications services (cellular, fixed-line telephony and internet services) under the orangeT brand. The Company provides mobile communications services to over 3million subscribers in Israel (as of September 30, 2009). Partner's ADSs are quoted on the NASDAQ Global Select Market(TM) and its shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (Nasdaq:PTNR) (TASE:PTNR). Partner is an approximately 45%-owned subsidiary of Scailex Corporation Ltd. Scailex's shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the symbol SCIX and are quoted on "Pink Quote" under the symbol SCIXF.PK. Scailex currently operates in three major domains of activity: 1) the sole import, distribution and maintenance of Samsung mobile handset and accessories products primarily to the three major cellular operators in Israel; 2) distribution and sale of various manufacturers' mobile handsets, accessories and provision of maintenance services, through a chain of retail stores and booths ("Dynamic"), to end customers of Cellcom (as part of the acquisition of the controlling stake in Partner, Scailex announced to Cellcom the termination of the distribution agreement through Dynamic, effective July 1, 2010) and; (3) management of its financial assets. STORK CRAFT: Multiple Canadian Class Actions Follow Crib Recall --------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that class-action lawsuits have been filed across Canada on behalf of consumers who bought drop-side cribs now subject to a massive North American recall. The action, filed in six provinces, seeks a full refund for consumers who bought the cribs manufactured by Stork Craft Manufacturing of Richmond, B.C. Tony Merchant, whose law firm is behind the suits, says about 1,000 consumers have signed on to the class action so far. The suits also names Fisher-Price, which sold some of the cribs under its banner, and retailers Sears and Wal-Mart. The recall covers more than 2.1 million cribs and comes after at least 15 infants, including three in Canada, were trapped in the drop-side part of the product. In the U.S., four deaths have been linked to the cribs. News about the recall appeared in the Wed., Nov. 25, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter. TD AMERITRADE: New York Court Dismisses Consolidated ARS Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has ruled on the motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the consolidated class-action lawsuit captioned In re Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., and the lead plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009. Beginning in March 2008, lawsuits were filed against various financial services firms by customers related to their investments in auction rate securities. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in statements to customers about investments in ARS and the manner in which the ARS market functioned in violation of provisions of the federal securities laws. Two purported class-action complaints have been filed alleging such conduct with respect to TDA Inc. and TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. The first case, filed on March 19, 2008, is captioned Humphrys v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al. The second case, filed on April 17, 2008, is captioned, Silverstein v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp. et al. Both complaints were filed on behalf of customers who purchased ARS between March 19, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008. The complaints seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Both cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A motion has been filed by some plaintiffs requesting that the proceedings in the lawsuits against the various financial services firms in effect be consolidated before one judge. The company and the other defendants and several plaintiffs in other cases have filed oppositions to the proposed consolidation. The company and parties in other cases filed oppositions to the motion. An amended complaint was filed in February 2009. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages, equitable relief, interest and attorneys' fees. In April 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Oct. 23, 2009, before the Court ruled on the motion, and the lead plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. TD AMERITRADE: "Ross" Suit Over Yield Plus Fund Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. continues to face a purported class action lawsuit captioned Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. In November and December 2008, two purported class action lawsuits were filed with respect to the Reserve Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuits are captioned: -- Ross v. Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-_____ (S.D.N.Y.); and -- Hamilton v. TD Ameritrade, Inc. et al., Case No. 08-cv-_____ (N.D. Ga.). The plaintiff in the Hamilton case dismissed his complaint without prejudice on March 2, 2009. The Ross lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve Yield Plus Fund. The complaint names as defendants a number of entities and individuals related to The Reserve. The company is also named as a defendant. The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund prospectus and in other statements regarding the fund. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees. No further developments regarding the lawsuit was reported in the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. TD AMERITRADE: Case Conference in "Holders" Suit Set for Dec. 10 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Dec. 10, 2009, hearing has been set for a case conference in the consolidated class action captioned In re TD Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009. A purported class action, Elvey v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-_____ (N.D. Calif.), was filed on May 31, 2007, alleging that there was a breach in TDA Inc.'s systems that allowed access to e-mail addresses and other personal information of account holders, and that as a result account holders received unsolicited e-mail from spammers promoting certain stocks and have been subjected to an increased risk of identity theft. The complaint requests unspecified damages and injunctive and other equitable relief. A second lawsuit, Zigler v. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-______, (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Sept. 26, 2007, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of account holders. The factual allegations of the complaint and the relief sought are substantially the same as those in Elvey. The cases were consolidated under the caption In re TD Ameritrade Accountholders Litigation. The company hired an independent consultant to investigate whether identity theft occurred as a result of the breach. The consultant has conducted four investigations since August 2007, and reported that it found no evidence of identity theft. The parties entered into an agreement to settle the lawsuits on a class basis subject to court approval. On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which had been revised, and set a hearing on final approval for Sept. 10, 2009. Some class members have filed objections and opt-outs. On May 1, 2009, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, which had been revised. Some class members filed objections and opt-outs. The court denied final approval of the proposed settlement on Oct. 23, 2009. The court ruled that the asserted benefits of the settlement to the class were not sufficient to warrant approval and that the proposed settlement was not fair, reasonable and adequate. The court scheduled a case conference for Dec. 10, 2009. TD AMERITRADE Holding Corp. -- http://www.amtd.com/-- is engaged in providing securities brokerage services and technology-based financial services to retail investors and business partners, predominantly through the Internet, a national branch network and relationships with independent registered investment advisors. The company offers touch-tone trading, trading over the Internet, unlimited, streaming, free real-time quotes, extended trading hour, direct access and commitment on the speed of execution to its customers. As of Jan. 24, 2006, the company acquired the U.S. brokerage business of TD Waterhouse Group, Inc.. The client offerings include TD AMERITRADE, TD AMERITRADE Institutional, TD AMERITRADE Izone, Amerivest, TDAX Independence ETFs and TD AMERITRADE Corporate Services. The products available to the clients include common and preferred stock, exchange-traded funds, option trades, mutual funds, fixed income, margin lending and cash management services. TIGRENT INC: Wants Class Claims Against Whitney Info Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Tigrent Inc. asks the court to dismiss the authorization of the class claims against Whitney Information Network, 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 Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, and the company received notice of an Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of Quebec, Canada on behalf of all persons who are alleged to have made various real estate investments at the alleged inducement of, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or the company and/or Jean Lafreniere. The complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the petitioner, unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief. On Oct. 19 and Oct. 20, 2009, the company argued its motions for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the authorization of the class claims against Whitney Information Network. The company awaits a ruling from the court as to two motions. Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training, conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring. Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal finance. The company's courses are available for customers to attend live and in person at various regional locations. Many of Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment over the Internet. Other forms of training program delivery include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well as mentoring and personal phone coaching. TIGRENT INC: Florida Court Dismisses Durham/Friedman Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed a putative class action suit against Tigrent Inc., on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead a securities fraud case, 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 Dec. 28, 2006, Rodney Durham, an alleged shareholder of the company, filed a putative class action suit ("Durham/Friedman Lawsuit") against the company and Russell A. Whitney and Nicholas S. Maturo in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, and attorney's fees and costs for alleged violations of federal securities laws. On July 10, 2007, an amended complaint was filed by new court- appointed lead plaintiff, Arnold Friedman who replaced Mr. Durham. On Dec. 8, 2008, Friedman, on behalf of all investors who acquired the company's common stock from Aug. 11, 2005 through and including Dec. 15, 2006, filed a second amended complaint against the company, Russell A. Whitney, Nicholas S. Maturo, Ronald S. Simon, Alfred R. Novas, John F. Kane, Rance Masheck (all former officers and/or directors of the Company), and Ehrhardt Keefe Steiner & Hottman PC, the company's independent outside auditor. Friedman sought class certification, damages, injunctive relief, attorney costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Florida Court. On Jan. 30, 2009, the company, along with defendants Whitney, Simon, Novas, Kane, and Maturo, moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, arguing that plaintiffs have not and cannot state claims against them as a matter of law and that the claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice. On Nov. 10, 2009, the Florida Court dismissed the Durham/Friedman Lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead a securities fraud case. Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training, conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring. Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal finance. The company's courses are available for customers to attend live and in person at various regional locations. Many of Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment over the Internet. Other forms of training program delivery include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well as mentoring and personal phone coaching. TIGRENT INC: Faces Suit Over Sale of "Teach Me To Trade" Items -------------------------------------------------------------- Tigrent Inc. has received notice of a class action lawsuit resulting from sale of its Teach Me To Trade products and services, 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 October 6, 2009, the company received notice of a class action lawsuit filed by Eric Springer and Maurice J. Seghers, Jr., alleged customers of the company, against the company, two of its subsidiaries, EduTrades Inc., and Wealth Intelligence Academy, Inc., Linda Woolf, David Gengler, Hands On Capital, Inc. and Lashaico, Inc. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs. The complaint alleges that the defendants committed fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, deceptive and unfair trade practices arising out of the sale of the company's TMTT products and services. The purported class consists of all persons who paid to attend a TMTT training and/or purchased TMTT products or services from 2002 through at least 2006. Tigrent Inc. -- http://tigrent.com/-- formerly Whitney Information Network, Inc., is a provider of practical, training, conferences, publications, technology-based tools and mentoring. Through its affiliates, Tigrent Brands, Tigrent Learning, Tigrent eLearning and Rich Dad Education, the company provides a training model that imparts skills and knowledge in investing (real estate and financial instruments), entrepreneurship and personal finance. The company's courses are available for customers to attend live and in person at various regional locations. Many of Tigrent's trainings are offered in a virtual live environment over the Internet. Other forms of training program delivery include on-demand streaming Internet-based courses and packaged compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), as well as mentoring and personal phone coaching. TOYOTA MOTOR: Accused of Lying About Prius Hybrid Performance ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Toyota lied about the mileage its 2004-2007 Prius Hybrids get, especially in city driving, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court YOUNG CHANG: Calif. Lawsuit Alleges Piano Manufacturing Problem --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Young Chang America and Music Corp. made pianos with defective "metal action rail connecting brackets," a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. New Securities Fraud Cases STEC INC: Weiss & Lurie Files Shareholder Lawsuit in C.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weiss & Lurie commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of STEC, Inc. (NASDAQ: STEC) securities from June 16, 2009, through November 3, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that the defendants, who are STEC and certain of the Company's officers, violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company, its financial condition, customers, products, competitive position and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants represented that STEC had no competitors for certain of its solid state disk drive products ("SSDs"), and anticipated increases in the sales of its SSD products and continued profitability despite a worldwide downturn in the disk drive market. As a result of defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements, STEC stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a Class Period high of $41.84 per share on September 10, 2009. During the Class Period, defendants Manouch Moshayedi and Mark Moshayedi sold 9 million shares of their personal holdings of STEC stock in a public secondary stock offering for proceeds of approximately $268 million. On November 3, 2009, STEC announced that one of its largest customers would carry 2009 inventory into 2010, negatively affecting the Company's first quarter 2010 financial prospects. On this news, the price of STEC stock dropped more than $9.00 per share to close at $14.14 per share on November 4, 2009, a loss of more than 38% of the stock's value in a single day. The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors who purchased STEC securities during the Class Period. Plaintiff is represented by Weiss & Lurie, a law firm possessing significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class actions on behalf of shareholders in federal and state courts throughout the United States. Weiss & Lurie has been responsible for collectively recovering more than a billion dollars on behalf of class members and is one of the nation's leading law firms representing shareholders in securities class actions. If you purchased or otherwise acquired STEC securities from June 16, 2009 through November 3, 2009, you may move the court no later than January 5, 2010 for appointment as lead plaintiff. In order to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must meet certain legal requirements. You do not need to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff in order to share in any recovery obtained in the case. If you would like to view a copy of the complaint or additional information about this action and Weiss & Lurie, please visit www.weisslurie.com. If you would like to discuss this action, or have any questions about this notice or your rights as a potential class member, contact: Jordan Lurie, Esq. Leigh Parker, Esq. WEISS & LURIE 10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: 310-208-2800 ********* 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 * * *