/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/110829.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 29, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 170 Headlines ACCUTANE: October 2011 Trial Set for Class Action AK STEEL: "Schumacher" Suit Pending for Damages Determination AK STEEL: Discovery on Damages Issue Ongoing in "Patrick" Suit AK STEEL: Oral Argument in "Lipker" Suit Scheduled for Oct. 5 AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits AK STEEL: $31.7 Million in Payments to VEBA Trust Due This Month ALLIED WORLD: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Shareholders Suit in Colorado BB&T CORPORATION: Appeals in Debt Transaction Suits Remain Pending BITTORRENT USERS: USCG Evidence in File Sharing Suit Weak BJ'S WHOLESALE: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-related Suit CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit CIT GROUP: Mediation in Securities Class Action Set This Month CLASSMATES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending in Md. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Suit CSC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits in N.Y. DENDREON: May Expand Class Period in Securities Class Action DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Workers' Class Action Gets Initial Approval DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Approval of Merger-related Suit Settlement DUKE ENERGY: Katrina-related Suit vs. PEC & PEF Remains Pending EBIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits GIRL SCOUTS: Faces Class Action in California GROUPON: Certain Claims in False Ad Class Action Can Proceed HEALTH NET: Continue to Defend Suits Relating to Disk Drive Loss HEART CHECK: Not All Customers Can Participate in Class Action KRAFT FOODS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Dismissed MGM RESORTS: Call Center Class Suit in Early Stages of Litigation MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Amended "Stratte-McClure" Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement Pact in WaMu Suit MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Lehman Securities Litigation MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Suit in New York NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Ill. NVR INC: Suits Still Stayed Pending Developments in N.Y. Suit OMNICARE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action PENN NATIONAL: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Dismissal Appeal PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas POPULAR INC: Conference on "Hoff" Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 2 POPULAR INC: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement POPULAR INC: Motion to Dismiss "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit is Pending POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Lamadrid" Suit PUBLIC SERVICE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Begay" Suit SANFORD BROWN: Faces More Suits Over False Promises on Programs SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product Corrosion Suits SINOTECH ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Subscriber Class Action Settlement TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay Texas Suit UNITED STATES: DOJ to Fight $90.MM Fee Bid in Black Farmers Suit UPONOR PEX: Attorneys Available to Review Plumbing Claims USA TRUCK: OK of Settlement in "Cerdenia" Suit Expected Late 2011 VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery to End November 17 WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defend Piedmont REIT Class Suit WILLIS GROUP: Hearing on Compensation Suit Deal Set for Sept. 14 WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Suit ********* ACCUTANE: October 2011 Trial Set for Class Action ------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at Accutane Lawsuit News by Ryan Green, patients who have sustained debilitating side effects from anti-acne drug Accutane, such as Accutane Crohns disease or inflammatory bowel disease, might be hoping to avoid a costly trial and instead negotiate an out-of-court Accutane settlement. But is a pre-trial Accutane settlement more likely to result from an individual lawsuit that joins centralized litigation, or from an Accutane class action suit? Accutane class action suit A class action lawsuit refers to a case in which one individual plaintiff goes to trial representing an entire group of other complainants. Each individual case is not tried separately as its own lawsuit. Instead, one lawsuit, along with its verdict, must stand for the rest. In a hypothetical Accutane class action suit, any potential damages awarded by a jury would be split evenly amongst all the members of the class. Accutane class action suit might not accurately represent many cases There is no record of a current Accutane class action suit. One possible reason for this is that the downside to a potential Accutane class action suit for plaintiffs is the fact that their own individual cases, along with their unique injuries and related financial losses, may not directly correspond to, or be perfectly represented by, the nominal class plaintiff. In other words, in an Accutane class action suit, plaintiffs may find their fates hitched to another's case that does not completely mirror their own circumstances. Accutane class action suit versus Accutane mass tort Other forms of aggregate litigation offer alternatives to an Accutane class action suit. One such option is the mass tort. Currently, there are over 5,169 mass tort Accutane lawsuits pending in New Jersey Superior Court under the oversight of Judge Carol E. Higbee. Mass torts group together in one court a large number of lawsuits that all concern the same product or drug. All of the cases must also be deemed to share common issues of facts and legalities. Unlike with a class action suit, however, each plaintiff maintains his or her own individual status, and each lawsuit is guaranteed the right to a jury trial, barring a pre-trial settlement, such as an Accutane settlement. In the New Jersey mass tort, all of the lawsuits allege that the powerful anti-acne drug, originally developed as a form of chemotherapy, caused debilitating gastrointestinal side effects, such as Accutane Crohn's disease, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, and surgical removal of the rectum and colon. In a number of cases these side effects have led to depression and suicide. All of the plaintiffs seeking an Accutane settlement additionally allege that drug maker Hoffman-LaRoche knew or should have known about the serious risk of side effects such as Accutane Crohn's disease, but did not do enough to alert patients and doctors about these risks. Accutane multidistrict litigation Mass torts involve lawsuits filed in state courts; a comparable form of aggregate litigation occurs in federal courts, and goes by the name of multidistrict litigation (MDL). A federal panel of judges may consolidate lawsuits from around the country into a single MDL for the purpose of simplifying pre-trial procedures and avoiding duplicate judicial rulings. It is generally assumed that MDL results in a higher frequency of pre-trial settlements. As a result, plaintiffs may have their best shot of reaching an out-of- court Accutane settlement if their federal lawsuits are centralized into MDL. At least 12 New Jersey mass tort Accutane lawsuits are being prepared by Accutane lawyers for trials that are set to begin in October 2011 and January 2012. AK STEEL: "Schumacher" Suit Pending for Damages Determination ------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action filed by William Schumacher remains pending for determination of damages, according to AK Steel Holding Corporation's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On October 20, 2009, William Schumacher filed a purported class action against the AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Pension Plan, or AK RAPP, and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:09cv794. The complaint alleges that the method used under the AK RAPP to determine lump sum distributions does not comply with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code and resulted in underpayment of benefits to him and the other class members. The plaintiff and the other purportedly similarly situated individuals on whose behalf the plaintiff filed suit were excluded by the Court in 2005 from similar litigation previously reported and now resolved (the class action litigation filed January 2, 2002 by John D. West) based on previous releases of claims they had executed in favor of the Company. There were a total of 92 individuals who were excluded from the prior litigation and the potential additional distributions to them at issue in the litigation total approximately $3.2, plus potential interest. The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on March 22, 2010. On August 11, 2010, the plaintiff filed his motion for class certification. On January 24, 2011, that motion was granted. On March 15, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. After being fully briefed, that motion was granted on June 27, 2011. The case remains pending for a determination of damages. No trial date has yet been set. The defendants intend to contest this matter vigorously. AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. AK STEEL: Discovery on Damages Issue Ongoing in "Patrick" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit filed by Judith Patrick in Ohio is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of damages, according to AK Steel Holding Corporation's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On October 20, 2005, Judith A. Patrick and another plaintiff filed a purported class action against the Company's unit AK Steel Corporation and the AK Steel Corporation Benefit Plans Administrative Committee in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1:05-cv-681. The complaint alleges that the defendants incorrectly calculated the amount of surviving spouse benefits due to be paid to the plaintiffs under the applicable pension plan. On December 19, 2005, the defendants filed their answer to the complaint. The parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the applicable plan language had been properly interpreted. On September 28, 2007, the United States Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued a Report and Recommendation in which he recommended that the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment be granted and that the defendants' motion be denied. The defendants filed timely objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. On March 31, 2008, the court issued an order adopting the Magistrate's recommendation and granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the issue of plan interpretation. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted by the Court on October 27, 2008. The case is proceeding with respect to discovery on the issue of damages. No trial date has been set. AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. AK STEEL: Oral Argument in "Lipker" Suit Scheduled for Oct. 5 ------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument with respect to the appeal filed by AK Steel Holding Corporation on the order granting Margaret Lipker's summary judgment motion is scheduled for October 5, 2011, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On May 27, 2009, a case was filed against the Company's unit AK Steel Corporation by Margaret Lipker in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Case No. 09-00050. The Complaint in the Lipker Litigation alleged that AK Steel incorrectly calculated the amount of Ms. Lipker's surviving spouse benefits due to be paid under the applicable pension plan (which was a different plan from that at issue in the Patrick Litigation). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On February 23, 2010, the Court in the Lipker Litigation granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and found that Ms. Lipker is entitled to a surviving spouse benefit of approximately four hundred sixty three dollars per month. AK Steel appealed that February 23, 2010, decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 11, 2010, Case No. 10-5298. The issues in the appeal have been fully briefed by the parties. In addition, counsel representing the plaintiffs in the Patrick Litigation filed an amicus curiae brief on July 20, 2010, on the ground that the decision in the Lipker Litigation could impact the merits of the issues in the Patrick Litigation. The amicus curiae brief requested the Court of Appeals to affirm the district court's decision in the Lipker Litigation on the issue of plan interpretation and liability. Oral argument in the appeal of the Lipker Litigation is scheduled for October 5, 2011. The defendants intend to contest both of these matters vigorously. AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. AK STEEL: Continues to Defend Price-Fixing Class Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation continues to defend itself in several purported class action lawsuits filed by companies that have purchased steel products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In September and October 2008, several companies filed purported class actions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, against nine steel manufacturers, including the Company. The case numbers for these actions are 08CV5214, 08CV5371, 08CV5468, 08CV5633, 08CV5700, 08CV5942 and 08CV6197. An additional action, case number 10CV04236, was filed in the same federal district court on July 8, 2010. On December 28, 2010 another action, case number 32,321, was filed in state court in the Circuit Court for Cocke County, Tennessee. The plaintiffs are companies which claim to have purchased steel products, directly or indirectly, from one or more of the defendants and they purport to file the actions on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased steel products for delivery or pickup in the United States from any of the named defendants at any time from at least as early as January 2005 to the present. The complaints allege that the defendant steel producers have conspired to restrict output and to fix, raise, stabilize and maintain artificially high prices with respect to steel products in the United States. On January 2, 2009, the defendants filed motions to dismiss all of the claims set forth in the Complaints. On June 12, 2009, the court issued an Order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss. Discovery has commenced. No trial date has been set. The Company intends to contest this matter vigorously. AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. AK STEEL: $31.7 Million in Payments to VEBA Trust Due This Month ---------------------------------------------------------------- AK Steel Holding Corporation disclosed that it was scheduled to make a total of $31.7 million in payments to a VEBA Trust this month for a class of Butler Workers retirees and to their counsel as part of a settlement agreement, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On June 18, 2009, three former hourly members of the Butler Armco Independent Union filed a purported class action against AK Steel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Case No. 1-09CV00423, alleging that AK Steel Corporation did not have a right to make changes to their healthcare benefits. The named plaintiffs in the 2009 Retiree Action sought, among other things, injunctive relief for themselves and the other members of a proposed class, including an order retroactively rescinding certain changes to retiree healthcare benefits negotiated by AK Steel with its union. The proposed class the plaintiffs sought to represent consisted originally of all union-represented retirees of AK Steel other than those retirees who were included in the class covered by the Middletown Works class action litigation referred to in Note 4. On October 14, 2009, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to prevent certain scheduled January 2010 changes to retiree healthcare from taking effect. On January 29, 2010, the trial court issued an opinion and order granting plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and barring AK Steel from effecting any further benefit reductions or new healthcare charges for Butler Works hourly retirees until final judgment in the case. Absent a reversal of the decision to impose the preliminary injunction, the negotiated changes to retiree healthcare for the Company's Butler Works retirees would have been rescinded and the Company's OPEB obligations would have increased by approximately $145.0 based upon then-current valuation assumptions. This amount reflects the value of the estimated additional healthcare and welfare benefits AK Steel would pay out with respect to the Butler hourly retirees. In the third quarter of 2010, the Company reached a tentative settlement agreement with the Butler Works hourly retirees who initiated the litigation. The participants in the Hourly Class Settlement consist generally of all retirees and their surviving spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from AK Steel on or before December 31, 2006. After reaching the Hourly Class Settlement, the Company was notified that a separate group of retirees from the Butler Works who were previously salaried employees and who had been members of the Butler Armco Independent Salaried Union were asserting similar claims and desired to settle those claims on a basis similar to the settlement with the hourly employees. The participants in this group consist generally of all retirees and their surviving spouses who worked for AK Steel at Butler Works and retired from AK Steel anytime from January 1, 1985, through September 30, 2006. If the Salaried Class Members were to prevail on their claims, the Company's OPEB would have increased by approximately $8.5 based upon then-current valuation assumptions. This amount reflects the value of the estimated additional healthcare and welfare benefits AK Steel would pay out with respect to the Salaried Class Members. After negotiation with counsel representing the Salaried Class Members, the Company also reached a tentative settlement agreement with the Salaried Class Members. The Butler Retiree Settlement with both the Hourly Class Members and the Salaried Class Members was subject to approval by the Court. On September 17, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint and an Unopposed Amended Motion for an Order Conditionally Certifying Classes, and the parties jointly filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreements and Proposed Class Notice. On September 24, 2010, the Court held a hearing on these motions and issued orders granting the joint motion for preliminary approval of the Butler Retiree Settlement, conditionally certifying the two classes, and allowing the filing of a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint was deemed filed as of September 24, 2010 and defined the class represented by the plaintiffs to consist of the Class Members. On January 10, 2011, the Court issued written orders granting final approval to the Butler Retiree Settlement, as well as the proposed attorney fee award. The final judgment formally approving the Butler Retiree Settlement and the attorney fee award also was entered on January 10, 2011. The Butler Retiree Settlement became effective on that date. No appeal from that Judgment has been taken and the time for filing such an appeal has expired. Pursuant to the Butler Retiree Settlement, AK Steel agreed to continue to provide company-paid health and life insurance to Class Members through December 31, 2014, and to make combined lump sum payments totaling $91.0 to a VEBA Trust and to plaintiffs' counsel. AK Steel will make three cash contributions to the VEBA Trust as follows: approximately $22.6 on August 1, 2011; approximately $31.7 on July 31, 2012; and approximately $27.6 on July 31, 2013. The balance of the lump sum payments will be paid to plaintiffs' attorneys on August 1, 2011, to cover plaintiffs' obligations with respect to attorneys' fees. Effective January 1, 2015, AK Steel will transfer to the VEBA Trust all OPEB obligations owed to the Class Members under the Company's applicable health and welfare plans and will have no further liability for any claims incurred by the Class Members after December 31, 2014, relating to their OPEB obligations. The VEBA Trust will be utilized to fund all such future OPEB obligations to the Class Members. Trustees of the VEBA Trust will determine the scope of the benefits to be provided to the Class Members. For accounting purposes, a settlement of the Company's OPEB obligations will be deemed to have occurred when AK Steel makes the last payment called for under the settlement in 2014. AK Steel Holding Corporation's operations consist of seven steelmaking and finishing plants located in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio and Pennsylvania that produce flat-rolled carbon steels, including premium-quality coated, cold-rolled and hot-rolled products, and specialty stainless and electrical steels that are sold in hot band, sheet and strip form. ALLIED WORLD: Continues to Defend Merger-related Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Allied World Assurance Company Holdings, AG, continues to defend itself from putative class action lawsuits challenging its merger with Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2011, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Allied World entered into a definitive agreement and plan of merger on June 12, 2011 with GO Sub, LLC, a newly formed Delaware limited liability company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World ("Merger Sub"), and Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation. The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub with and into Transatlantic, with Transatlantic continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allied World. Transatlantic offers reinsurance capacity for a full range of property and casualty products, directly and through brokers, to insurance and reinsurance companies, in both the domestic and international markets on both a treaty and facultative basis. Upon completion of the merger, Allied World will be the parent company of Transatlantic and Allied World's name will be changed to "TransAllied Group Holdings, AG." In connection with the merger between the Company and Transatlantic, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed against Transatlantic and the members of the Transatlantic board of directors challenging the merger: Ivers v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware), Clark v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York and amended on June 22, 2011), Sutton v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 17, 2011 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York), Jaroslawicz v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 21, 2011 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York) and Kramer v. Transatlantic Holdings, Inc., et al. (filed June 30, 2011 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware). Each of the Lawsuits has been filed against Transatlantic, the members of the Transatlantic board of directors, and Holdings. In addition, other than the Jaroslawicz action, each of the Lawsuits names as a defendant GO Sub, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. Plaintiffs in each Lawsuit assert that the members of the Transatlantic board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and that Holdings and its subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. In addition, in the Clark action, plaintiffs allege that Transatlantic aided and abetted its directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Lawsuits seek, among other relief, to enjoin the merger. On June 29 to 30, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss or stay the three actions pending in New York -- the Clark, Sutton, and Jaroslawicz actions -- on the grounds that the Ivers and Kramer actions are parallel proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking the same relief as the three New York actions. On July 25, 2011, the plaintiffs in the three New York actions moved to consolidate those actions into a single action. The court has not ruled on either of these motions. On July 21, 2011, Vice Chancellor Parsons of the Delaware Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware entered an order consolidating the two Delaware actions and requiring the Delaware plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. The Delaware plaintiffs filed the Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and a Motion for Expedited Proceedings on August 1, 2011. On August 8, 2011, the defendants moved to dismiss the Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint and to oppose the Delaware plaintiffs' Motion for Expedited Proceedings. The motions are currently pending before the court. The Company, Transatlantic, and their directors believe these lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. AMERICAN PUBLIC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Gaer" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- American Public Education, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed by Donald N. Gaer in West Virginia, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On August 12, 2010, a putative class action lawsuit was commenced against the Company, Wallace E. Boston, Jr., Frank B. McCluskey and Harry T. Wilkins, in the United States Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Martinsburg Division), encaptioned Douglas N. Gaer v. American Public Education, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 3:10 CV-81. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's stock between February 22, 2010 to August 5, 2010. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false misleading statements or omissions concerning the Company's prospects, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not, at this time, specified the amount of damages being sought in this action. In an order dated November 10, 2010, Douglas Gaer and the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust were appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel was approved. On January 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting the same statutory claims against the Company, Boston and Wilkins. On or about March 10, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. On or about April 25, 2011, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. On May 16, 2011, the defendants filed a reply memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. The parties are now awaiting a decision from the Court. ASPENBIO PHARMA: Continues to Defend Shareholders Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------ Aspenbio Pharma, Inc., continues to defend itself from a purported class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between February 22, 2007, and July 19, 2010, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On October 1, 2010, the Company received a complaint, captioned John Wolfe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AspenBio Pharma, Inc. et al., Case No. CV10 7365. This federal securities purported class action was filed in the United States District Court in the Central District of California on behalf of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased common stock of AspenBio Pharma, Inc. during the period between February 22, 2007 and July 19, 2010, inclusive. The complaint names as defendants certain officers and directors of the Company during such period. The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against all defendants, and of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, all related to the Company's blood-based acute appendicitis test in development known as AppyScore. On the Company's motion, this action was also transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by order dated January 21, 2011. The action has been assigned a District of Colorado Civil Case No. 11-cv-00165-REB- KMT. On July 11, 2011, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to represent the purported class. The lead plaintiff is expected to file an amended complaint on or about August 10, 2011, after which time the Company anticipates filing a motion to dismiss the case. If the plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, the Company expects to renew its pending motion to dismiss. Based on a review of the plaintiff's currently operative complaint, the Company and the individual defendants believe that the plaintiff's allegations are without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. BB&T CORPORATION: Appeals in Debt Transaction Suits Remain Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ BB&T Corporation disclosed that its appeals in three purported class action lawsuits relating to the Company's daily ordering of debt transactions remain pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company is a defendant in three separate cases primarily challenging its daily ordering of debit transactions posted to customer checking accounts for the period from 2003 to 2010. The plaintiffs have requested class action treatment, however, no class has been certified. The court initially denied motions by the Company to dismiss these cases and compel them to be submitted to individual arbitration. The Company then filed appeals in all three matters. There have been numerous subsequent procedural developments, and at present the issues raised by these motions and/or appeals remain pending. If the motions or appeals are granted, they would preclude class action treatment. Even if those appeals are denied, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses against these matters, including class certification. Because of these appeals, and because these cases are in preliminary proceedings and no damages have been specified, no specific loss or range of loss can currently be determined. BB&T Corporation, headquartered in Winston-Salem, N.C., is among the nation's top financial-holding companies with $159 billion in assets and market capitalization of $18.7 billion, as of June 30, 2011. BITTORRENT USERS: USCG Evidence in File Sharing Suit Weak --------------------------------------------------------- TorrentFreak reports that the U.S. Copyright Group has sued more than 100,000 alleged BitTorrent users since last year. But, a recent filing in a U.S. class action lawsuit filed against the group shows that these cases may be built on shoddy evidence. It cites a German court ruling where the company responsible for providing the evidence could not prove that defendants actually shared any files. In addition there was evidence of a pirate honeypot. A few months ago, the U.S. Copyright Group (USCG), who pioneered the mass-BitTorrent lawsuits in the United States, were themselves sued for fraud, abuse and extortion. The class-action lawsuit targets the movie studio Achte/Neunte, their lawyers and the tracking company who went after thousands of people who allegedly downloaded and shared the movie 'Far Cry' on BitTorrent. Through the lawsuit BitTorrent users, spearheaded by Dmitriy Shirokov, are seeking relief based on 25 counts including extortion, fraudulent omissions, mail fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud and abuse, racketeering, fraud upon the court, abuse of process, fraud on the Copyright Office, copyright misuse, unjust enrichment and consumer protection violations. The case is ongoing in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts and thus far not much progress has been booked by either of the parties involved. However, previously unreported filings reveal that the evidence the copyright holders claim to have against the alleged file-sharers may be even weaker than expected. The court filing in question shows how USCG is basically a front for the partnership between the German based pirate tracking outfit GuardaLey and the law firm Dunlap, Grubb and Weaver. Unlike the image often portrayed in the media, the plaintiffs claim that GuardaLey is the main motivating power behind the lawsuits. One e-mail brought in as evidence clearly shows the company actively approaching law firms to work with them and plugging their scheme to various copyright holders. It is clear that the evidence gatherers are by no means an objective party. On the contrary, it can be argued that this German based company is the prime reason why more than 200,000 people have been sued in the United States. And if it couldn't get any worse, the evidence GuardaLey actually collects against the BitTorrent users may be totally useless. The documents filed by the attorneys of the plaintiffs, law firm Booth Sweet, reveal that GuardaLey's evidence gathering techniques are far from optimal. The attorneys refer to a German court case where GuardaLey was sued by one of the law firms (Baumgarten Brandt) they partnered with. The law firm filed suit after it discovered that GuardaLey was aware of several technological flaws concerning their evidence, but chose not to disclose them. The law firm won the case. Based on an independent review the German judge concluded that GuardaLey's evidence gathering technology does not check whether the accused actually downloaded (or uploaded) content. A major flaw that was previously exposed by the University of Washington, where copyright holders accused a printer of pirating. The findings are especially troubling because some major BitTorrent trackers insert random IP-addresses into BitTorrent swarms. These IP-addresses are not actually trying to download any files, but they may be accused of doing so based on GuardaLey's evidence. TorrentFreak contacted attorney Jason Sweet of Booth Sweet who believes that GuardaLey has continued to use the same technology in all of its U.S. based cases. "That's what the lawsuit in Germany was about. That Guardaley knew of the flaw, but continued using it to identify infringers. We haven't seen anything that would indicate they've corrected the problem or are using different methods. I believe they've even made statements to the contrary -- that they use the same tech for all of their cases," attorney Jason Sweet told TorrentFreak. This means that among the more than 100,000 BitTorrent users who were sued by USCG in the U.S., many are likely to be wrongfully accused. "The real issue is that innocent people are getting swept up along with the infringers, and no effort is being made to sort them out. That's because despite Achte's protestations, this case was designed to do one thing only -- generate revenue. And for them an innocent person's money is just as good as a guilty person's," Mr. Sweet said. And there is more. Documents filed at the German court further suggest that GuardaLey might also operate pirate honeypots. "GuardaLey operates a 'honeypot' -- that is they represent "by means of a falsified bit field, that it was always in possession of 50% of the file being sought." If the actual file is being offered than an implied license is operative. If it is a garbage file, than no infringement occurs. In either instance, IP addresses are being identified that did not infringe," the plaintiffs assert. The above is a very worrying discovery that may become a pivotal issue in the ongoing lawsuits in the U.S. Could it be that the evidence used by GuardaLey in the cases against the thousands of BitTorrent users in America is just as weak? Unfortunately, in these pay-up-or-else schemes the evidence never gets as far as a proper review because the copyright holders are only after settlements. However, the class-action lawsuit against USCG and partners could get to the bottom of this. If the evidence turns out to be as weak as described, it would probably mean the end of the "extortion-like" practices. BJ'S WHOLESALE: Robbins Umeda Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Umeda LLP disclosed that the firm commenced a class action lawsuit on July 27, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who hold shares of common stock of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. against BJ's Wholesale Club and its board of directors for violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the proposed acquisition of BJ's by Leonard Green & Partners, L.P. and CVC Capital Partners Advisory (U.S.), Inc. The complaint arises out of a June 29, 2011 press release announcing that BJ's Wholesale Club entered into a definitive merger agreement with LGP and CVC, pursuant to which BJ's Wholesale Club shareholders would receive $51.25 for each share of BJ's Wholesale Club they own. The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants, in connection with Proposed Acquisition, breached or aided and abetted the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, as well as federal securities laws. The complaint further alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the Proposed Acquisition, the defendants filed a false and materially misleading Form 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be material in assisting BJ's Wholesale Club shareholders in making an informed decision whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all BJ's Wholesale Club shareholders as of June 29, 2011. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Umeda LLP. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from August 23, 2011. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esq. of Robbins Umeda LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder information form on our Web site or by e-mail at info@robbinsumeda.com Any member of the 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. Robbins Umeda LLP -- http://www.robbinsumeda.com-- is a California-based law firm with significant experience representing investors in securities fraud class actions, merger-related shareholder class actions, and shareholder derivative actions. BURGER KING: Continues to Defend Calif. Class Action Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Burger King Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit filed in a California district court, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On September 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged that all 96 Burger King restaurants in California leased by the Company and operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law. In September 2009, the court issued a decision on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In its decision, the court limited the class action to the 10 restaurants visited by the named plaintiffs, with a separate class of plaintiffs for each of the 10 restaurants and 10 separate trials. In March 2010, the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with respect to the 10 restaurants and, in July 2010, the court gave final approval to the settlement. In February 2011, a class action lawsuit styled Vallabhapurapu v. Burger King Corporation, No. C11-00667 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) was filed with respect to the other 86 restaurants. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the lawsuit, but the Company is unable to predict the ultimate outcome of this litigation. CAPITAL FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Capital Financial Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself from two class action lawsuits alleging various securities or conduct violations, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company operates in a legal and regulatory environment that exposes it to potentially significant litigation risks. As a result, the Company is involved in various disputes and legal proceedings, including litigation, arbitration and regulatory investigations, including a number of investigatory matters and legal proceedings arising out of customer allegations related to past commissioned sales of alternative investment products. In 2007 through the first quarter of 2009 a substantial amount (approximately 10% to 20%) of the Company's sales of commissioned products were in private placements of alternative products, two of which as of December 31, 2009 (Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities and Provident Royalties, LLC and related issuer entities) were placed in receivership by action of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and issuers of certain other alternative products sold by the Company are in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy or may have financial difficulties. Additionally, difficult economic conditions in general and the stock market decline have contributed to decline in broker-dealer subsidiary client portfolio values. As a result of such alleged failings of alternative products and the uncertainty of client recovery from the various product issuers, the Company is subject to regulatory scrutiny and a number of recently instituted legal or arbitration proceedings, including two recently instituted proceedings seeking certification as class actions which name the Company as one of a number of defendants and allege various securities or conduct violations, one with respect to private placements of Medical Capital Corporation and related issuer entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $100 million of debt securities and the other with regard to private placements of Provident Royalties, LLC and related issuer entities for which the broker-dealer subsidiary placed approximately $60 million of debt securities. The Company intends to vigorously contest the allegations of the various proceedings and believes that there are multiple meritorious legal and fact based defenses in these matters. Such cases are subject to many uncertainties, and their outcome is often difficult to predict, including the impact on operations or on the financial statements, particularly in the earlier stages of a case. The Company makes provisions for cases brought against it when, in the opinion of management after seeking legal advice, it is probable that a liability exists, and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The current proceedings are subject to uncertainties and as such, the Company is unable to estimate the possible loss or a range of loss that may result from each individual matter. There is a contemplated settlement regarding both Medical Capital Corporation and Provident Royalties, LLC, by which the Company would contribute monies to a settlement fund. The contemplated settlement, in the amount of $200,000, was recorded in the books of the Company as a liability, though the settlement is subject to approval by a number of entities and there is no assurance that the settlement will be completed. CENTER FINANCIAL: Awaits Approval of Deal in Merger-related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Center Financial Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement it entered into in a purported class action lawsuit challenging its proposed merger with Nara Bancorp Inc., according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On December 9, 2010, Center Financial and Nara Bancorp, Inc. entered into a definitive agreement to merge. The boards of directors of both companies have unanimously approved the transaction. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval, the approval of the shareholders of both Center Financial and Nara Bancorp, and other customary closing conditions. The Company anticipates that the regulatory approval process will take several months and, therefore, expects to complete the merger during the fourth quarter of 2011. On May 2, 2011, a purported class action was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company, the Company's directors and Nara Bancorp alleging, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their approval of the proposed merger with Nara Bancorp and that the Company breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the disclosures it made regarding the proposed merger. On July 29, 2011, the parties to the litigation agreed to settle all claims asserted in the action, subject to, among other things, the execution of a stipulation of settlement and court approval. As part of the settlement, Nara Bancorp and the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures included in an amendment to the registration statement for the Nara Bancorp shares to be issued at the completion of the merger. In addition, defendants have agreed to pay up to $400,000 in plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, if and to the extent approved by the court. The payment would be due only if the merger is consummated and be payable by the combined company. If approved by the court, the settlement also would result in the release by the plaintiff and the proposed settlement class of all claims that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the merger agreement, the merger and any disclosures made in connection therewith (but excluding any properly perfected claims for statutory appraisal in connection with the merger, certain claims arising under the federal securities laws and any claims to enforce the settlement). CHINA NORTH: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company is involved in three securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the Company, these actions include as defendants certain of its officers and directors. The three class actions assert claims under the federal securities laws. The three actions are: (1) Rosado v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4577 (MGC), filed June 11. 2010; (2) Weissmann v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 4775 (MGC), filed June 18, 2010; and (3) Moore v. China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited, et al., 10 CV 5263 (MGC), filed July 9, 2010. The three securities class actions were consolidated as In re China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited Securities Litigation 10 CV 4577 (MGC). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on January 14, 2011 adding several new defendants, including former officers and directors of the Company. On March 22, 2011, the Company, on behalf of itself and the Individual Defendants, filed a motion to dismiss. Other defendants filed motions to dismissal as well. The Court heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss on May 12, 2011 and, at that time, requested supplemental briefing, which the parties have provided to the Court. The motions to dismiss await further action from the Court. CIT GROUP: Mediation in Securities Class Action Set This Month -------------------------------------------------------------- A non-binding mediation in the consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed by shareholders of CIT Group, Inc., is set this month, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In July and August 2008, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of CIT's pre-reorganization stockholders against CIT, its former CEO and its former CFO. In August 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the New York District Court by a holder of CIT-PrZ equity units against CIT, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller and certain members of its current and former Board of Directors. In May 2009, the Court consolidated these three shareholder actions into a single action and appointed Pensioenfonds Horeca & Catering as Lead Plaintiff to represent the proposed class, which consists of all acquirers of CIT common stock and PrZ preferred stock from December 12, 2006 through March 5, 2008, who allegedly were damaged, including acquirers of CIT-PrZ preferred stock pursuant to the October 17, 2007 offering of such preferred stock. In July 2009, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, it is alleged that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO, former Controller, and a former Vice Chairman violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions regarding CIT"s subprime home lending and student lending businesses. The allegations relating to the Company's home lending business are based on the assertion that the Company failed to fully disclose the risks in the Company's portfolio of subprime mortgage loans. The allegations relating to the Company's student lending business are based upon the assertion that the Company failed to account in its financial statements or, in the case of the preferred stockholders, its registration statement and prospectus, for private loans to students of a helicopter pilot training school, which it is alleged were highly unlikely to be repaid and should have been written off. The Lead Plaintiff also alleges that the Company, its former CEO, former CFO and former Controller and those current and former Directors of the Company who signed the registration statement in connection with the October 2007 CIT-PrZ preferred offering violated the 1933 Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's student lending business. Pursuant to a Notice of Dismissal filed on November 24, 2009, CIT Group Inc. was dismissed as a defendant from the consolidated securities action as a result of its discharge in bankruptcy. On June 10, 2010, the Court denied the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The action continues as to the remaining defendants and CIT's obligation to defend and indemnify such defendants continues. The case is in the discovery stage. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, unspecified damages and interest. Non-binding mediation is scheduled for August 2011. CLASSMATES.COM: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- BlogWorld reports that Classmates.com is being hit with a class action lawsuit for privacy violations. The settlement is for anyone residing in the United States who were registered with or subscribed to http://www.classmates.comat any time beginning on October 30, 2004 through February 23, 2011. The lawsuit claims "Classmates sent e-mail to subscribers of www.classmates.com that violated the law and the privacy rights of subscribers", among other things. Classmates has denied any wrongdoing, but has agreed, because of risks and expenses of continuing this lawsuit, that a settlement is appropriate. What will you get if you join the settlement? They've guesstimated around $10 per person, payable through Paypal or a physical check. That's obviously not a lot of money, but most likely people will join the lawsuit to make a statement regarding their privacy. This lawsuit opens up some interesting questions as to what can happen if the public's privacy is violated. Facebook has beefed up their privacy and others might want to take note of this. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Merger-Related Suit Remains Pending in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and Exelon Corporation remains pending in Maryland, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On April 28, 2011, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Exelon. At closing, each issued and outstanding share of common stock of the Company will be cancelled and converted into the right to receive 0.93 shares of common stock of Exelon, and the Company will become a wholly owned subsidiary of Exelon. In late April and early May 2011, shortly after the Company and Exelon announced their agreement to merge the two companies, 12 shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City in Maryland. Each class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of the shareholders of the Company against it, members of its board of directors, and Exelon. The shareholder class actions generally allege that the individual directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the proposed merger because they failed to maximize the value that the shareholders would receive from the merger, and failed to disclose adequately all material information relating to the proposed merger. The class actions also allege that the Company and Exelon aided and abetted the individual directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits challenge the proposed merger, seek to enjoin a shareholder vote on the proposed merger until all material information is provided relating to the proposed merger, and ask for rescission of the proposed merger and any related transactions that have been completed as of the date that the court grants any relief. The class action lawsuits also seek certification as class actions, compensatory damages, costs and disbursements related to the action, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and rescission damages. Plaintiffs in three of the twelve lawsuits subsequently filed motions to consolidate all the lawsuits. The court has granted the motion to consolidate and all actions are now proceeding as a single lawsuit. Given that these lawsuits were recently filed, that the court has not certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their potential damage claims, the Company is unable at this time to provide an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of these lawsuits or their possible effect on the Company, or its subsidiary Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's, financial results or their possible effect on the pending merger with Exelon. Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries and joint ventures organized around three business segments: a generation business, a customer supply business, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Discovery Still Ongoing in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a securities consolidated class action lawsuit in Maryland is still ongoing, according to Constellation Energy Group, Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Three federal securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures, of the Company between January 30, 2008 and September 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class actions generally allege that the Company, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with the Company's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class actions also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages. The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed in Maryland to the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred for coordination with the securities class action filed there. On June 18, 2009, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed a consolidated amended complaint on September 17, 2009. On November 17, 2009, the defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On August 13, 2010, the District Court of Maryland issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim with respect to the claims of the common shareholders under the Securities Act of 1934 and restricting the lawsuit to those persons who purchased Debentures in the June 2008 offering. Given that the discovery phase has just begun, that the court has not certified any class and the plaintiffs have not quantified their potential damage claims relating to the June 2008 offering, the Company is unable at this time to provide an estimate of the range of possible loss relating to these proceedings or to determine the ultimate outcome of the securities class actions or their possible effect on the Company, or Baltimore Gas and Electric Company's financial results. Constellation Energy Group, Inc. is an energy company that conducts its business through various subsidiaries and joint ventures organized around three business segments: a generation business, a customer supply business, and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. CSC HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Fox Programming Suits in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- CSC Holdings, LLC, continues to defend itself from a consolidated class action lawsuit in New York filed by customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16, 2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new affiliation agreements for these stations and networks and carriage was restored. Several class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on February 22, 2011. The plaintiffs have asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss this action. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits with certainty or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss. DENDREON: May Expand Class Period in Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP disclosed that it is investigating whether to expand the Class Period alleged in the lawsuit it filed against Dendreon to include investors who purchased DNDN securities between August 3, 2010, and August 3, 2011. Hagens Berman filed its lawsuit on August 5, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Dendreon between January 7, 2011, and August 3, 2011. The firm is investigating whether an expanded class period might be justified. The case, Ems v. Dendreon, et al., was assigned number 2:11-cv-01294. Dendreon's August 3, 2011, announcement that its financial results would be below analysts' expectations and withdrawal of financial projections for the full year shocked investors and analysts alike. On the news, the company's stock dropped from a closing price of $33.65 on August 3, 2011, to an opening price of $12.73 on August 4, 2011. Dendreon closed at $12.45 on August 23, down nearly 80% from its peak value of $55.43 on May 3, 2010. Dendreon has publicly stated that the reasons for withdrawing earnings include a more gradual adoption of Provenge by doctors, who still fear they may not or will not be reimbursed in a timely manner. If you wish to discuss serving as a lead plaintiff or have any questions concerning this litigation, this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Peter Borkon of Hagens Berman, at 206-623-7292 or via e-mail at Dndn@hbsslaw.com Investors who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must move the court by October 4, 2011. You can also learn more about the case at http://www.hbsslaw.com/dendreon Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of his or her choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. About Hagens Berman Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.meaningfuldisclosure.com-- is an investor-rights class-action law firm with offices in ten cities. Founded in 1993, the firm's mission is to represent plaintiffs in class actions and multi-party, large-scale litigation that has the potential to protect the rights of investors, consumers, workers and the environment. DJSP ENTERPRISES: Ex-Workers' Class Action Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diane C. Lade, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that a federal magistrate in Miami has recommended that former employees of DJSP Enterprises, the legal processing arm of Plantation attorney David J. Stern's once-powerful foreclosure law firm, be given class action status to sue Mr. Stern and his affiliates for violating federal labor laws. The suit, filed on behalf of four employees but which could affect at least 700, claims workers were fired last fall without the 60 days notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act. The action seeks back pay and benefits. DJSP, rocked by scandals involving Mr. Stern's work on behalf of mortgage lenders, voluntarily delisted its stock this year when it failed to meet the Nasdaq's required $1 per share price. The Florida Bar has filed a complaint with the state Supreme Court, seeking disciplinary action against Mr. Stern, and his law practice still is under investigation by the Florida Attorney General. U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro in Miami will make the final decision on the class certification. In April, she ruled the employees could sue as individuals. DUKE ENERGY: Awaits Approval of Merger-related Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Corporation is awaiting approval of a settlement in a consolidated class action lawsuit relating to its proposed merger with Progress Energy, Inc., according to the Company's August 10, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. During January and February 2011, Progress Energy and its directors were named as defendants in 11 purported class action lawsuits with 10 lawsuits brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C., and one lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, each in connection with the merger. The complaints in the actions allege, among other things, that the Merger Agreement was the product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, in that it allegedly does not provide for full and fair value for Progress Energy's shareholders; that the Merger Agreement contains coercive deal protection measures; and that the Merger Agreement and the Merger were approved as a result, allegedly, of improper self- dealing by certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the Merger Agreement. The complaints in the actions also allege that Progress Energy aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. As relief, the plaintiffs in the actions seek, among other things, to enjoin completion of the Merger. The defendants believe that the allegations of the complaints in the actions are without merit and that they have substantial meritorious defenses to the claims made in the actions. In each of the actions, the parties have agreed that the defendants need not move, plead, or otherwise respond to the complaint until thirty days after the plaintiff has filed an amended or consolidated amended complaint, or advised the defendants that it will not be filing such pleadings. These actions brought in the Superior Court, Wake County, N.C., have all been designated as Complex Business Cases and assigned to the North Carolina Business Court. The court scheduled an initial hearing and status conference for March 31, 2011, which by order dated March 30, 2011, the court continued until further notice. Additionally, the complaint in the federal action was amended in early April 2011 to include allegations that the defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with statements contained in the Registration Statement. Given the new allegations invoking federal securities laws, the defendants intend to move, plead, or otherwise respond to the amended federal complaint consistent with the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which now governs the federal action. On March 31, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent a derivative demand letter to Mr. William D. Johnson, Chairman, President and CEO of Progress Energy, demanding that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the Merger, make certain disclosures, and engage in an auction of the company. Also on March 31, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders. On April 13, 2011, counsel for the federal action plaintiff sent another derivative demand letter to Mr. Johnson further demanding that the Progress Energy board of directors desist from moving forward with the Merger unless certain changes are made to the Merger Agreement and additional disclosures are made. Also on April 13, 2011, the same counsel sent Mr. Johnson a substantially identical derivative demand letter on behalf of two other purported Progress Energy shareholders. On April 25, 2011, the Progress Energy board of directors established a special committee of disinterested directors to conduct a review and evaluation of the allegations and legal claims set forth in the derivative demand letters. By order dated June 17, 2011, the court consolidated the state court cases. On June 21, 2011, the plaintiffs in the state court actions filed a verified consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated state court actions alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants, and that Progress Energy aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The verified consolidated amended complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement and amendments filed on April 8, April 25, and May 13, 2011 failed to disclose material facts, giving rise to plaintiffs' claims. On July 11, 2011, solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and to allow its shareholders to vote on the proposals required in connection with the Merger at its special meeting of its shareholders, Progress Energy entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs in the consolidated state court actions and other named defendants to settle the consolidated action and all related claims that were or could have been asserted in other actions, subject to court approval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the memorandum of understanding, the claims will be released and the consolidated amended complaint will be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, Progress Energy agreed to make available additional information to its shareholders in advance of the special meeting of shareholders of Progress Energy scheduled for August 23, 2011 in Raleigh, N.C. to vote upon the proposal to approve the plan of merger contained in the Merger Agreement. The additional information is contained in a Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 11, 2011 and filed by Progress Energy with the SEC on July 15, 2011. In addition, Progress Energy has agreed to pay the legal fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel not to exceed $550,000 and ultimately determined by the court. At a hearing on July 29, 2011, the court indicated that it would provide preliminary approval of the settlement so that the special meeting of the shareholders to vote on the merger could proceed as scheduled for August 23, 2011. The court will schedule a final hearing on the settlement during the fourth quarter of 2011. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated. The details of the settlement will be set forth in a notice to be sent to Progress Energy's shareholders prior to a hearing before the court to consider both the settlement and plaintiffs' application to the court for attorneys' fees and expenses. The settlement will not affect the merger consideration to be paid to shareholders of Progress Energy in connection with the proposed Merger or the timing of the special meeting of shareholders mentioned above. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. DUKE ENERGY: Katrina-related Suit vs. PEC & PEF Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed against Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), relating to losses suffered during Hurricane Katrina remains pending, according to Duke Energy Corporation's August 10, 2011 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. In May 2011, Carolina Power & Light Company d/b/a Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) and Florida Power Corporation d/b/a Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (PEF), were named in a complaint of a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Plaintiffs claim that PEC and PEF, along with numerous other utility, oil, coal and chemical companies, are liable for damages relating to losses suffered by victims of Hurricane Katrina. Plaintiffs claim that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina. The Company believes the plaintiffs' claim is without merit; however, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. EBIX INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suits ---------------------------------------------------- Ebix, Inc., continues to defend itself from several securities class action lawsuits, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Between July 14, 2011 and July 29, 2011, nine securities class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the Southern District of New York, and one class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the Northern District of Georgia. These complaints have yet to be consolidated. The complaints allege that between May 6, 2009 and June 30, 2011 the Company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and financial results, and the adequacy of its internal controls in earnings reports, SEC filings, press releases, and other public statements, which allegedly caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The Company believes that the complaints are not justified, that it has meritorious defenses to each of the plaintiffs' claims, and it intends to vigorously defend itself against these actions. As of June 30, 2011, no liability in the Company's financial statements has been recognized with respect to these class action complaints, as presently a loss is not probable nor able to be reasonably estimated. GIRL SCOUTS: Faces Class Action in California --------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a Los Angeles Superior Court class action claims the Girl Scouts of Greater Los Angeles illegally requires employees to pay Girl Scout dues as a condition of employment. GROUPON: Certain Claims in False Ad Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge said parts of a false advertising lawsuit can proceed against online coupon distributor Groupon, according to one attorney who attended a court hearing on Aug. 24. A proposed class action was filed against Groupon earlier this year by a tour operator in San Francisco, accusing Groupon of bait and switch advertising. Groupon allegedly buys tour-related keywords on Google's AdWords service, but often does not actually offer tour coupons when customers arrive at the site, the lawsuit alleges. The practice drives up the cost of keywords for the tour company while the prominence of its ads in Google searches declines, the lawsuit states. Groupon is aiming for a mid- to late- September initial public offering, despite recent market tumult that has shelved some flotations, several people familiar with the company's plans who spoke on condition of anonymity told Reuters. Groupon asked a federal judge in Oakland, California to dismiss the lawsuit. At a hearing on Aug. 24, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled from the bench that certain allegations against Groupon can proceed, said Steven Williams, an attorney for the plaintiff who was at the hearing. Other claims against Groupon were dismissed, with a chance for the plaintiffs to refashion their allegations, Mr. Williams said. A Groupon representative declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. "We're very happy we're going to get to go forward with these claims to address what we think is classic bait and switch advertising," Mr. Williams said. "Only now its done through Google instead of through the newspaper." The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is San Francisco Comprehensive Tours LLC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Groupon et al., No. 11-cv-1300. HEALTH NET: Continue to Defend Suits Relating to Disk Drive Loss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Health Net, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated putative class action and two other class actions arising from the loss of hard disk drives containing customer information, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM), which handles the Company's data center operations, notified the Company that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had been used in its data center located in Rancho Cordova, California. The Company has since determined that personal information of approximately two million former and current Health Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, the Company provided written notification to the individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect the personal information of affected individuals, the Company offered them two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if needed. On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this incident was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and similar actions were later filed against the Company in other federal and state courts in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and the two remaining actions are currently pending in San Francisco County Superior Court and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California is filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of our current or former members who received the written notification, and also names IBM as a defendant. It seeks to state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and seeks statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys' fees and other relief. The Company has not yet filed a response to the consolidated complaint. The other federal court proceeding was instituted on July 7, 2011 in Riverside County Superior Court and is brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class of all former and current members affected by this incident, and seeks to state similar claims against the Company , as well as a claim for invasion of privacy. The Company removed this case to the Central District of California on August 1, 2011. The Company has not yet filed a response to the complaint in this action. The San Francisco Superior Court proceeding was instituted on March 28, 2011 and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California residents who received the written notification, and seeks to state similar claims against the Company, as well as claims for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and seeks similar relief. The Company has moved to compel arbitration of the two named plaintiffs' claims. Health Net, Inc. is a publicly traded managed care organization that delivers managed health care services through health plans and government-sponsored managed care plans. HEART CHECK: Not All Customers Can Participate in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Loni Blandford, writing for KTNV, reports that many customers of a medical imaging company in the Valley were relieved to hear legal action was being taken after that company suddenly closed up shop. But Action News is learning not everyone is included in that class action lawsuit. "My health is great, but I was just curious about it," said Dave Cherkis. That's what Mr. Cherkis says sold him on signing up with Heart Check America. The company had a booth at a convention Mr. Cherkis attended and offered him a free heart scan. So he stopped by their Sahara office in October 2010 and signed up to get a full body scan and a virtual colonoscopy. "All together the whole contract was roughly $3,000," explained Mr. Cherkis. Fast forward 10 months and Heart Check America's Las Vegas office is now closed, along with locations in several states. The closings came after officials in Nevada and Colorado found the company was scanning patients without a doctor's order, which is against state law. "I just don't like to be taken advantage of and they took advantage of me," said Mr. Cherkis. There is a class action lawsuit against Heart Check America. It was filed by a Las Vegas man alleging deceptive trade practices and breach of contract. But not everyone can be part of that lawsuit. "If they financed their contract through chase advance health or through Conrad acceptance and were making payments to either of those entities they automatically fall into the definitions of the class," explained Attorney George West III. But Mr. Cherkis financed his contract through GE Money Bank Carecredit. According to Mr. West, CareCredit customers have a contract clause that prevents them from being part of the class action suit. "That does not mean that they don't have certain remedies at their disposal," explained Mr. West. Mr. West says they're looking at representing customers with contracts through GE CareCredit on an individual basis, through arbitration. Mr. Cherkis says he has since closed his Carecredit account. But he's still fighting to get his money back. While he waits for the legal process, he hopes his experience is a lesson for other consumers. "Be aware of what you sign. I'm one of those trusting people I sign papers yeah I'll read it later," said Mr. Cherkis. Heart Check America could not be reached for comment. GE CareCredit says they encourage any Heart Check America customers who financed through them to call the number on the back of their card. KRAFT FOODS: Class Action Over Unpaid Wages Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Ann Knef, writing for The Madison St. Clair Record, reports that a proposed class action against Kraft Foods Global brought by workers claiming unpaid wages has been dismissed without prejudice by Madison County Circuit Judge Ann Callis. Judge Callis signed an order Aug. 16, a day after attorneys for lead plaintiff Joan Jones and the defendant stipulated to the dismissal. "In that this matter has not been certified as a class action, the parties stipulate that there is good cause for excusing notice of the dismissal," states the stipulation to dismiss. Ms. Jones is represented by Joseph W. Phebus of Phebus & Koester of Urbana. Kraft is represented by Jonathan Garlough and Daniel Kaplan of Foley & Lardner. The suit alleged Kraft violated the Illinois Minimum Wage Act and other wage laws by failing to compensate the estimated 500 potential class members for all of the hours they worked. The class would have included all hourly employees at the Granite City plant who were not paid for all the hours they worked, according to the class certification motion. The case is Madison case number 11-L-082. MGM RESORTS: Call Center Class Suit in Early Stages of Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action lawsuit complaining against the monitoring and recording by MGM Resorts International's call center agents of consumer telephone calls for hospitality-related bookings is in the early stages of litigation, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. A putative class action, entitled, Lori Zaragoza v. MGM MIRAGE, Inc. and MGM Resorts International, Case No. BC 461912, Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed May 18, 2011, alleges that during the one year prior to the filing, defendant's call center reservation agents monitored and recorded consumer telephone calls for hotel room and other hospitality-related bookings, without prior notice to plaintiff and other California consumers in violation of various provisions of the California Penal Code. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class action, compensatory damages including consequential or statutory damages pursuant to California Penal Code Section 637.2, whichever is greater, injunctive relief, prejudgment interest and costs of suit. The case is in its early stages and the Company cannot reasonably estimate a possible range of loss at this time. The Company contests that the complaint has merit and will vigorously defend itself against the claims in this lawsuit. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Amended "Stratte-McClure" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in a purported class action lawsuit filed by Joel Stratte-McClure as set forth in an amended complaint, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On February 12, 2008, a plaintiff filed a purported class action, which was amended on November 24, 2008, naming the Company and certain present and former senior executives as defendants and asserting claims for violations of the securities laws. The amended complaint, which is styled Joel Stratte-McClure, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Subject to certain exclusions, the amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a purported class of persons and entities who purchased shares of the Company's common stock during the period June 20, 2007 to December 19, 2007 and who suffered damages as a result of such purchases. The allegations in the amended complaint relate in large part to the Company's subprime and other mortgage related losses, but also include allegations regarding the Company's disclosures, internal controls, accounting and other matters. Plaintiffs are seeking, among other relief, class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, costs, interest and fees. On April 27, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On April 4, 2011, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint with respect to certain of their allegations. On June 9, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the court's order of April 4, 2011. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. MORGAN STANLEY: Awaits Final Nod of Settlement Pact in WaMu Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley is awaiting final approval of a settlement agreement in In re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co- defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership. In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation is pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On October 12, 2010, the court issued an order certifying a class of plaintiffs asserting claims under the Securities Act related to three offerings by Washington Mutual Inc. in 2006 and 2007 in which the Company participated as an underwriter. The Company underwrote approximately $1.3 billion of the securities covered by the class certified by the court. Morgan Stanley disclosed that it reached on March 29, 2011, an agreement in principle with the class plaintiffs in the action styled In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, to settle this litigation. The settlement agreement has not yet been completed and will be subject to court approval. On July 21, 2011, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement of this litigation by the Company and other defendants. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend Lehman Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Beginning in 2007, Morgan Stanley was named as a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits brought under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act, related to its role as a member of the syndicates that underwrote offerings of securities and mortgage pass through certificates for certain non-Morgan Stanley related entities that have been exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related losses. The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that the registration statements and offering documents for the offerings at issue contained various material misstatements or omissions related to the extent to which the issuers were exposed to subprime and other mortgage-related risks and other matters and seek various forms of relief including class certification, unspecified compensatory and rescissionary damages, costs, interest and fees. The Company's exposure to potential losses in these cases may be impacted by various factors including, among other things, the financial condition of the entities that issued the securities and mortgage pass through certificates at issue, the principal amount of the offerings underwritten by the Company, the financial condition of co- defendants and the willingness and ability of the issuers (or their affiliates) to indemnify the underwriter defendants. Some of these cases, including In Re Washington Mutual, Inc. Securities Litigation, In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation and In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation, relate to issuers (or their affiliates) that have filed for bankruptcy or have been placed into receivership. On July 27, 2011, the court presiding over In re: Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation issued an opinion granting in part and denying in part the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss the current amended complaint. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments?Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. MORGAN STANLEY: Continues to Defend "Abu Dhabi" Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley continues to defend itself in a purported class action captioned Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On August 25, 2008, the Company and two ratings agencies were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance. The case is styled Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, et al. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., et al. and is pending in the SDNY. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading because the ratings did not accurately reflect the risks associated with the subprime residential mortgage backed securities held by the Cheyne SIV. On September 2, 2009, the court dismissed all of the claims against the Company except for plaintiffs' claims for common law fraud. On June 15, 2010, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 20, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs leave to replead their aiding and abetting common law fraud claims against the Company, and those claims were added in an amended complaint filed on August 5, 2010. Since the filing of the initial complaint, various additional plaintiffs have been added to the case. The deadline for new plaintiffs to join the case expired on March 11, 2011. There are currently 15 plaintiffs asserting individual claims related to approximately $983 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV. Plaintiffs have not provided information quantifying the amount of compensatory damages they are seeking and are also seeking unspecified punitive damages. Based on currently available information, the Company believes that the defendants could incur a loss up to the amount of plaintiffs' claimed compensatory damages, once specified, related to their alleged purchase of approximately $983 million of securities issued by the Cheyne SIV plus pre- and post-judgment interest, fees and costs. Morgan Stanley, a financial holding company, is a global financial services firm that maintains significant market positions in each of its business segments-- Institutional Securities, Global Wealth Management Group and Asset Management. NUCOR CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Antitrust Suits in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Nucor Corporation continues to defend itself from antitrust class action lawsuits filed against major steel producers, according to the Company's August 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2011. Nucor has been named, along with other major steel producers, as a co-defendant in several related antitrust class-action complaints filed by Standard Iron Works and other steel purchasers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The cases are filed as class actions. The plaintiffs allege that from January 2005 through 2008, eight steel manufacturers, including Nucor, engaged in anticompetitive activities with respect to the production and sale of steel. The plaintiffs seek monetary and other relief. Although the Company believes the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and will vigorously defend against them, the Company cannot at this time predict the outcome of this litigation or estimate the range of Nucor's potential exposure. NVR INC: Suits Still Stayed Pending Developments in N.Y. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Purported class action lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina remain stayed pending further developments in a similar case filed in New York, according to NVR, Inc.'s August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On July 18, 2007, former and current employees filed lawsuits against the Company in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and Hamilton County, Ohio, in Superior Court in Durham County, North Carolina, and in the Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Maryland, and on July 19, 2007 in the Superior Court in New Jersey, alleging that the Company incorrectly classified its sales and marketing representatives as being exempt from overtime wages. These lawsuits are similar in nature to another lawsuit filed on October 29, 2004 by another former employee in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaints seek injunctive relief, an award of unpaid wages, including fringe benefits, liquidated damages equal to the overtime wages allegedly due and not paid, attorney and other fees and interest, and where available, multiple damages. The suits were filed as purported class actions. However, while a number of individuals have filed consents to join and assert federal claims in the New York action, none of the groups of employees that the lawsuits purport to represent have been certified as a class. The lawsuits filed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey and North Carolina have been stayed pending further developments in the New York action. NVR, Inc.'s primary business is the construction and sale of single-family detached homes, townhomes and condominium buildings. OMNICARE INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of all purchasers of shares of common stock of Omnicare, Inc. during a class period of January 10, 2007 to August 5, 2010. The class action seeks to recover damages on behalf of plaintiff and a class of all other individual and institutional investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Omnicare common stock during the class period. The defendants in the case are Omnicare, Joel Gemunder, David W. Frosel, Jr., and John L. Workman. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing material information and making false and misleading statements relating to Omnicare's business and financial condition, particularly with respect to a widespread scheme to defraud the federal Medicare program and several state Medicaid programs by submitting claims for reimbursement for services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. If you purchased shares of Omnicare common stock between January 10, 2007 and August 5, 2010, you may, no later than October 24, 2011, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff for the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You must meet certain legal requirements to serve as a lead plaintiff. For more information regarding the lawsuit, or to obtain a copy of the complaint filed in the lawsuit, please contact plaintiff's counsel at: Charles A. Germershausen, Esq. Gardy & Notis, LLP 560 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: 201-567-7377 E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com PENN NATIONAL: Awaits Supreme Court Decision on Dismissal Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Penn National Gaming, Inc. is awaiting the Supreme Court's decision regarding plaintiffs' appeal from a court ruling dismissing a purported securities class action lawsuit, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On July 16, 2008, the Company was served with a purported class action lawsuit brought by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's Common Stock between March 20, 2008 and July 2, 2008. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P. and the eventual termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified damages, was filed in federal court in Maryland. The complaint was amended, among other things, to add three new named plaintiffs and to name Peter M. Carlino, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and William J. Clifford, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, as additional defendants. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in November 2008, and the court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on October 21, 2009. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and an oral argument was heard on October 26, 2010. On March 14, 2011, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the lower court. The plaintiffs have requested the U.S. Supreme Court to consider an appeal of the decision. Penn National Gaming, Inc. is a multi-jurisdictional owner and manager of gaming and pari-mutuel properties. PENSON WORLDWIDE: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas -------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood disclosed that on August 23, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Penson Worldwide, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from February 10, 2011 through August 4, 2011. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. If you are a member of the Class as described above, you may move the Court no later than Monday, October 24, 2011, to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action, participate in this or any other lawsuit, or have any questions or concerns regarding this notice, or preservation of your rights, please contact: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com POPULAR INC: Conference on "Hoff" Suit Settlement Set for Nov. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A conference on a settlement entered into by Popular, Inc., in a consolidated securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al., is scheduled for November 2, 2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Between May 14, 2009, and September 9, 2009, five putative class actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al. (consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Montanez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.). On October 19, 2009, plaintiffs in the Hoff case filed a consolidated class action complaint which included as defendants the underwriters in the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock, among others. The consolidated action purported to be on behalf of purchasers of Popular's securities between January 24, 2008 and February 19, 2009 and alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and misleading statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading. The consolidated action also alleged that the defendants violated Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the Securities Act by making allegedly untrue statements and omitting to disclose material facts necessary to make statements made by the Corporation not false and misleading in connection with the May 2008 offering of Series B Preferred Stock. The consolidated securities class action complaint sought class certification, an award of compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees. On January 11, 2010, Popular, the underwriter defendants and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated securities class action complaint. On August 2, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico granted the motion to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants on statute of limitations grounds. The Court also dismissed the Section 11 claim brought against Popular's directors on statute of limitations grounds and the Section 12(a)(2) claim brought against Popular because plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court declined to dismiss the claims brought against Popular and certain of its officers under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder), Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, holding that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that defendants made materially false and misleading statements with the requisite state of mind. The derivative actions (Garcia v. Carrion, et al. and Diaz v. Carrion, et al.) were brought purportedly for the benefit of nominal defendant Popular, Inc. against certain executive officers and directors and alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of assets and abuse of control in connection with Popular's issuance of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and financial reports and the offering of the Series B Preferred Stock. The derivative complaints sought a judgment that the action was a proper derivative action, an award of damages, restitution, costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. On October 9, 2009, the Court coordinated for purposes of discovery the Garcia action and the consolidated securities class action. On October 15, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia complaint for failure to make a demand on the Board of Directors prior to initiating litigation. On November 20, 2009, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and on December 21, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Garcia amended complaint. At a scheduling conference held on January 14, 2010, the Court stayed discovery in both the Hoff and Garcia matters pending resolution of their respective motions to dismiss. On August 11, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Garcia action. The Court dismissed the gross mismanagement and corporate waste claims, but declined to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim. The Diaz case, filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan, was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. On October 13, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants moved to consolidate the Garcia and Diaz actions. On October 26, 2009, plaintiff moved to remand the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance and to stay defendants' consolidation motion pending the outcome of the remand proceedings. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion remanding the Diaz case to the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. On October 13, 2010, the Court issued a Statement of Reasons In Support of Remand Order. On October 28, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved for reconsideration of the remand order. The court denied Popular's request for reconsideration shortly thereafter. On April 13, 2010, the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance in San Juan granted summary judgment dismissing a separate complaint brought by plaintiff in the Garcia action that sought to enforce an alleged right to inspect the books and records of the Corporation in support of the pending derivative action. The Court held that plaintiff had not propounded a "proper purpose" under Puerto Rico law for such inspection. On April 28, 2010, plaintiff in that action moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On May 4, 2010, the Court denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed an appeal before the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals. On June 11, 2010, Popular and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the appeal. On June 22, 2010, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal. On July 6, 2010, plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the Court's dismissal. On July 16, 2010, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's request for reconsideration. At the Court's request, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases discussed the prospect of mediation and agreed to nonbinding mediation in an attempt to determine whether the cases could be settled. On January 18 and 19, 2011, the parties to the Hoff and Garcia cases engaged in nonbinding mediation before the Honorable Nicholas Politan. As a result of the mediation, the Corporation and the other named defendants to the Hoff matter entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle this matter. Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $37.5 million would be paid by or on behalf of defendants. On June 17, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation of settlement and a joint motion for preliminary approval of such settlement. On June 20, 2011, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and set a settlement conference for November 1, 2011, which was subsequently moved to November 2, 2011. On or before July 5, 2011, the amount of $37.5 million was paid to the settlement fund by or on behalf of defendants. Specifically, the amount of $26 million was paid by insurers and the amount of $11.5 million was paid by Popular (after which approximately $4.7 million was reimbursed by insurers per the terms of the relevant insurance agreement). In addition, the Corporation is aware that a suit asserting similar claims on behalf of certain individual shareholders under the federal securities laws was filed on January 18, 2011. On June 19, 2011, such shareholders sought leave to intervene in the securities class action. On June 28, 2011, the Court denied their motion to intervene as untimely. A separate memorandum of understanding was subsequently entered by the parties to the Garcia and Diaz actions in April 2011. Under the terms of this memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions, including court approval of a final settlement agreement, and in consideration for the full and final settlement and release of all defendants, Popular agreed, for a period of three years, to maintain or implement certain corporate governance practices, measures and policies, as set forth in the memorandum of understanding. Aside from the payment by or on behalf of Popular of approximately $2.1 million of attorneys' fees and expenses of counsel for the plaintiffs (of which management expects $1.6 million will be covered by insurance), the settlement does not require any cash payments by or on behalf of Popular or the defendants. On June 14, 2011, a motion for preliminary approval of settlement was filed. On July 8, 2011, the Court granted preliminary approval of such settlement and set the final approval hearing date for September 12, 2011. Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of liability in connection with these settlements. At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are subject to a number of future events, including approval of the settlements by the relevant courts. POPULAR INC: Awaits Final Approval of ERISA Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc., is awaiting final court approval of a settlement of an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Between May 14, 2009 and September 9, 2009, five putative class actions and two derivative claims were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, San Juan Part, against Popular, Inc., and certain of its directors and officers, among others. The five class actions were consolidated into two separate actions: a securities class action captioned Hoff v. Popular, Inc., et al. (consolidated with Otero v. Popular, Inc., et al.) and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class action entitled In re Popular, Inc. ERISA Litigation (comprised of the consolidated cases of Walsh v. Popular, Inc., et al.; Montanez v. Popular, Inc., et al.; and Dougan v. Popular, Inc., et al.). On November 30, 2009, plaintiffs in the ERISA case filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint purported to be on behalf of employees participating in the Popular, Inc. U.S.A. 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan and the Popular, Inc. Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Plan from January 24, 2008 to the date of the Complaint to recover losses pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of ERISA against Popular, certain directors, officers and members of plan committees, each of whom was alleged to be a plan fiduciary. The consolidated complaint alleged that defendants breached their alleged fiduciary obligations by, among other things, failing to eliminate Popular stock as an investment alternative in the plans. The complaint sought to recover alleged losses to the plans and equitable relief, including injunctive relief and a constructive trust, along with costs and attorneys' fees. On December 21, 2009, and in compliance with a scheduling order issued by the Court, Popular and the individual defendants submitted an answer to the amended complaint. Shortly thereafter, on December 31, 2009, Popular and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. On May 5, 2010, a magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended that the motion to dismiss be denied except with respect to Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, as to which he recommended that the motion be granted. On May 19, 2010, Popular filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. On September 30, 2010, the Court issued an order without opinion granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss and providing that the Court would issue an opinion and order explaining its decision. No opinion was, however, issued prior to the settlement in principle. Prior to the mediation in the Hoff and derivative action, the parties to the ERISA class action entered into a separate memorandum of understanding to settle that action. Under the terms of the ERISA memorandum of understanding, subject to certain customary conditions including court approval of a final settlement agreement and in consideration for the full settlement and release of all defendants, the parties agreed that the amount of $8.2 million would be paid by or on behalf of the defendants. The parties filed a joint request to approve the settlement on April 13, 2011. On June 8, 2011, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing, and on June 23, 2011, the Court preliminarily approved such settlement. On June 30, 2011, the amount of $8.2 million was transferred to the settlement fund by insurers on behalf of the defendants. A final fairness hearing was set for August 26, 2011. Popular does not expect to record any material gain or loss as a result of the settlements. Popular has made no admission of liability in connection with these settlements. At this point, the settlement agreements are not final and are subject to a number of future events, including approval of the settlements by the relevant courts. POPULAR INC: Motion to Dismiss "Almeyda-Santiago" Suit is Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit for breach of contract filed against one of Popular, Inc.'s banks remains pending, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On October 7, 2010, a putative class action for breach of contract and damages captioned Almeyda-Santiago v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. The complaint essentially asserts that plaintiff has suffered damages because of Banco Popular's allegedly fraudulent overdraft fee practices in connection with debit card transactions. Such practices allegedly consist of: (a) the reorganization of electronic debit transactions in high-to-low order so as to multiply the number of overdraft fees assessed on its customers; (b) the assessment of overdraft fees even when clients have not overdrawn their accounts; (c) the failure to disclose, or to adequately disclose, its overdraft policy to its customers; and (d) the provision of false and fraudulent information regarding its clients' account balances at point of sale transactions and on its Web site. Plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and provisional remedies against Banco Popular for breach of contract, abuse of trust, illegal conversion and unjust enrichment. On January 13, 2011, Banco Popular submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is still pending resolution. POPULAR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Lamadrid" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Popular, Inc., is awaiting a court ruling on its motion to dismiss a class action complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular, et al., according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On December 13, 2010, Popular was served with a class action complaint captioned Garcia Lamadrid, et al. v. Banco Popular, et al. which was filed in the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance. The complaint generally seeks damages against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, other defendants and their respective insurance companies for their alleged breach of certain fiduciary duties, breach of contract, and alleged violations of local tort law. Plaintiffs seek in excess of $600 million in damages, plus costs and attorneys fees. More specifically, plaintiffs -- Guillermo Garcia Lamadrid and Benito del Cueto Figueras -- are suing Defendant BPPR for the losses they (and others) experienced through their investment in the RG Financial Corporation-backed Conservation Trust Fund securities. Plaintiffs essentially claim that Banco Popular allegedly breached its fiduciary duties to them by failing to keep all relevant parties informed of any developments that could affect the Conservation Trust notes or that could become an event of default under the relevant trust agreements; and that in so doing, it acted imprudently, unreasonably and grossly negligently. Popular and the other defendants submitted separate motions to dismiss on or about February 28, 2011. Plaintiffs submitted a consolidated opposition thereto on April 15, 2011. The parties were allowed to submit replies and surreplies to such motions, and the motion has now been deemed submitted by the Court and is pending resolution. PUBLIC SERVICE: Awaits Ruling on Appeal in "Begay" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Public Service Company of New Mexico is awaiting a ruling on an appeal from a court order dismissing a putative class action captioned Begay v. PNM et al., according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. A putative class action was filed against Public Service Company of New Mexico and other utilities on February 11, 2009 in the United States District Court in Albuquerque. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation. Plaintiffs, including an allottee association, make broad, general assertions that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights-of-way or both. The plaintiffs, who have sued the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, seek a constructive trust. They have also included a breach of trust claim against the United States and its Secretary of the Interior. PNM and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss this action. On March 31, 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. PNM intends to participate in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM-acquired rights-of-way implicated in the appeal. As the administrative appeal process is in its initial stages, PNM cannot predict the outcome of the proceeding at this time or the range of potential outcomes. SANFORD BROWN: Faces More Suits Over False Promises on Programs --------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports that a former student have filed five more lawsuits against Sanford Brown College and its parent company Career Education Corp. More than 30 complaints from more than 100 students claim the school used high-pressure sales tactics and grandiose promises it couldn't back up. At least one class action is among the dozens of complaints, many from multiple plaintiffs, filed against Sanford Brown and Career Education Corp. since 2008. One such complaint, not a class action, has 38 plaintiffs; another has 36. Career Education's Web site boasts that it has 95 schools in 23 states and offers more than 100 programs, including careers in business, criminal justice, culinary arts, design, education, engineering and computer science, health and law. The plaintiffs claim the defendants falsely promised their programs would give students sufficient training to enter the workforce after graduation; that the instructors were adequately trained; that the plaintiffs would earn a high salary after graduation and that the defendants would help place the plaintiffs in such a job; that the plaintiffs would easily be able to pay off their educational loans; and that the defendants' credit hours were transferable to other colleges and universities. The plaintiffs say the defendants concealed that their promised starting salary figures were inflated; that most of their graduates were not employed full time; that Sanford Brown had a poor reputation in the St. Louis business community; that the defendants knew that the only other schools that would accept the defendants' credit hours were schools that had matriculation agreements with the defendants; that excessive loan repayment would be required; and that the defendants' admissions representatives were subject to quotas. The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for fraud and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. All five new complaints were filed in St. Louis County Court. A copy of the Complaint in Wilson v. Career Education Corporation, et al., Case No. 11SL-CC03331 (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis Cty.), is available at: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/23/SanfordCollege.pdf The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary K. Burger, Jr., Esq. CANTOR & BURGER, LLC 12283 Olive Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 542-9999 E-mail: gary@cantorburger.com SIMPSON MANUFACTURING: Continues to Defend Product Corrosion Suits ------------------------------------------------------------------ Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc. continues to defend itself in class action lawsuits over alleged premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Four lawsuits have been filed against the Company in the Hawaii First Circuit Court: Alvarez v. Haseko Homes, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Civil No. 09-1-2697-11 -- Case 1--; Ke Noho Kai Development, LLC v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., and Honolulu Wood Treating Co., LTD., Case No. 09-1-1491-06 SSM -- Case 2 --; North American Specialty Ins. Co. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc. and K.C. Metal Products, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1490-06 VSM -- Case 3 --; and Charles et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. and Third Party Plaintiffs Haseko Homes, Inc. et al. v. Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 09-1-1932-08 -- Case 4. Case 1 was filed on November 18, 2009. Cases 2 and 3 were originally filed on June 30, 2009. Case 4 was filed on August 19, 2009. The Cases all relate to alleged premature corrosion of the Company's strap tie holdown products installed in buildings in a housing development known as Ocean Pointe in Honolulu, Hawaii, allegedly causing property damage. Case 1 is a class action brought by the owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe houses. Case 1 was originally filed as Kai et al. v. Haseko Homes, Inc., Haseko Construction, Inc. and Simpson Manufacturing, Inc., Case No. 09-1-1476, but was voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed with a new representative plaintiff. Case 2 is an action by the builders and developers of Ocean Pointe against the Company, claiming that either the Company's strap tie holdowns are defective in design or manufacture or the Company failed to provide adequate warnings regarding the products' susceptibility to corrosion in certain environments. Case 3 is a subrogation action brought by the insurance company for the builders and developers against the Company claiming the insurance company expended funds to correct problems allegedly caused by the Company's products. Case 4 is a putative class action brought, like Case 1, by owners of allegedly affected Ocean Pointe homes. In Case 4, Haseko Homes, Inc., the developer of the Ocean Pointe development, has brought a third party complaint against the Company alleging that any damages for which Haseko may be liable are actually the fault of the Company. None of the Cases alleges a specific amount of damages sought, although each of the Cases seeks compensatory damages, and Case 1 seeks punitive damages. The Company is currently investigating the facts underlying the claims asserted in the Cases, including, among other things, the cause of the alleged corrosion; the severity of any problems shown to exist; the buildings affected; the responsibility of the general contractor, various subcontractors and other construction professionals for the alleged damages; the amount, if any, of damages suffered; and the costs of repair, if needed. At this time, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable for any property damage allegedly suffered and the extent of such liability, if any, are unknown. Management believes the Cases may not be resolved for an extended period. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in connection with the Cases. Based on facts currently known to the Company, the Company believes that all or part of the claims alleged in the Cases may be covered by its insurance policies. On April 19, 2011, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Simpson Manufacturing Company, Inc., et al., Civil No. 11-00254 ACK. In this action, Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which issued certain Commercial General Liability insurance policies to the Company, seeks declaratory relief in the Cases with respect to its obligations to defend or indemnify the Company, Simpson Strong-Tie Company Inc., and a vendor of the Company's strap tie holdown products. The Company has moved to dismiss or stay National Union's action, and anticipates that it will vigorously defend all claims advanced by National Union and vigorously advance all of its own claims against National Union. Simpson Manufacturing Co., Inc.'s subsidiary, Simpson Strong-Tie Company, Inc., designs, engineers, and manufactures structural connectors, anchors, and other products for new construction, retrofitting, and do-it-yourself (DIY) markets. SINOTECH ENERGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berman DeValerio filed a securities class action lawsuit against SinoTech Energy Limited and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters on August 24, 2011. Berman DeValerio is one of the nation's top law firms representing investors who seek to recover money due to stock fraud. The lawsuit, which is captioned Crayder v. SinoTech Energy Limited, et al., 11-cv-5935, is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. To receive a copy of the complaint, please call Berman DeValerio at (800) 516-9926 or click here. The lawsuit alleges violations of the United States securities laws on behalf of purchasers of SinoTech's American Depository Shares from November 3, 2010 through August 16, 2011, including purchasers of ADSs in the Company's November 3, 2010 initial public offering. Claims for November IPO purchasers arise under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Claims for other Class Period purchasers fall under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The lawsuit asserts numerous problems with SinoTech's previously issued financial statements and declarations about its future prospects. Among other claims, the complaint alleges that: (1) the Company's sole import agent, which accounted for more than $100 million worth of oil drilling equipment orders, is an empty shell company with no sign of operations; (2) the Company's only chemical supplier is also an empty shell company, with little or no revenues; (3) the Company's largest subcontracting customer, which provides the vast majority of SinoTech's revenues, has unverifiable operations with minimal revenues; (4) the financial statements SinoTech issued in the United States are inconsistent with similar filings the Company made in China; (5) the Company has engaged in undisclosed related-party transactions in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; and (6) positive statements the Company made regarding its internal financial controls were false and misleading. On August 16, 2011, a research analyst writing under the name Alfred Little published an investigative report detailing these and other problems at SinoTech. The day the Report was issued, the Company's stock price plummeted more than 40%, falling from $4.02 per share on August 15, 2011 to $2.35 per share at the close of trading on August 16, 2011 -- a decline of $1.67 per share on unusually high trading volume. The NASDAQ halted SinoTech trading after the market closed on August 16, 2011, announcing that trading would remain halted until the Company "fully satisfied NASDAQ's request for additional information." To date, trading has not resumed. If you are a member of the Class, you may, no later than October 18, 2011, request that the court appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. You may contact the attorneys at Berman DeValerio to discuss your rights and interests in the case. Please note: you may also retain counsel of your choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class member. Berman DeValerio -- http://www.bermandevalerio.com-- is a national law firm representing investors for violations of securities and antitrust laws. The firm has 49 lawyers in Boston, San Francisco and Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. SIRIUS XM: Court Approves Subscriber Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Don Jeffrey, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Sirius XM Radio Inc. won court approval for a settlement with subscribers who sued the satellite-radio broadcaster over claims it broke the law by raising prices after acquiring its only rival. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer in Manhattan endorsed the accord in a filing on Aug. 24 over the objections of some subscribers who had argued at an Aug. 8 hearing that the deal paid them too little and the lawyers too much. "I have reviewed the settlement's substantive terms and conclude that they demonstrate sufficient fairness, adequacy and reasonableness," Judge Baer wrote. "The vast majority of class members will benefit in the course of their normal subscription payments." Subscriber Carl Blessing of Florida sued Sirius XM in 2009, claiming the company violated federal antitrust law and state consumer-protection law when it raised some prices and levied a music royalty fee after Sirius Satellite Radio acquired XM Satellite Radio in 2008. The subscribers said New York-based Sirius XM broke promises it made to win approval of the merger from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department. Sirius XM said the increases were imposed to cover higher costs. Antitrust Claim In March, Judge Baer let the federal antitrust claim proceed as a class action, or group lawsuit, on behalf of Sirius XM subscribers from July 29, 2008, to July 5, 2011. He denied class-action status on the state-law claims. The subscriber group and Sirius XM reached a settlement before trial, and Judge Baer gave preliminary approval to the agreement in May. The deal, valued at $180 million, provides that prices for basic service and Internet access, as well as the music royalty fee, will remain at current levels through the end of the year. Subscribers who canceled can reconnect without paying a fee. Those whose plans expire after Dec. 31 can renew before that time at current rates. Subscribers will get no cash. Sirius XM declined to comment on Judge Baer's decision, spokeswoman Kelly Sullivan said in an e-mail. Objectors called the settlement of "dubious value" because Sirius XM hadn't ever said it planned to raise prices this year. They also objected to the $13 million in fees to be paid to the lawyers representing the class. 'Expense Sheets' "I have reviewed the attorney expense sheets as well as the attorney time-keeping records, and found nothing to suggest exorbitant rates nor double billing nor padding of any kind," the judge wrote. The basic monthly charge is $12.99. Sirius XM increased the rate a subscriber paid to get service on an additional radio to $8.99 a month from $6.99. The class also decried a $2.99 charge for Internet access, which had been free. The music charge, assessed after new royalty rates with record companies were set, amounted to $1.98 a month. Sirius had 21 million subscribers as of June 30, 8% more than the previous year. It provides 135 channels of commercial-free music as well as sports broadcasts and talk shows featuring Howard Stern and Martha Stewart, which carry advertisements. Sirius XM rose 5.5 cents, or 3.3%, to $1.75 at 4:30 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have gained 7% this year. The case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, 09-10035, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT: Appeal in Securities Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from a court ruling in a purported securities class action lawsuit filed against Toyota Motor Credit Corporation and certain affiliates remains pending, according to the Company's August 10, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. TMCC and certain affiliates had been named as defendants in a putative bondholder class action, Harel Pia Mutual Fund vs. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., filed in the Central District of California on April 8, 2010, alleging violations of federal securities laws. The plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit on July 20, 2010. On July 22, 2010, the same plaintiff in the federal bondholder action refiled the case in California state court on behalf of purchasers of TMCC bonds traded on foreign exchanges (Harel Pia Mutual Fund v. Toyota Motor Corp., et al., Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles). The complaint alleges violations of California securities laws, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other state law claims. On September 15, 2010, defendants removed the state court action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act and the Class Action Fairness Act. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 15, 2010. After a hearing on January 10, 2011, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice on January 11, 2011. The plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on January 27, 2011. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company is unable, however, to estimate the losses or range of losses that are reasonably possible based upon currently available information. In determining whether it is possible to provide an estimate of loss or range of possible loss, the Company has considered a variety of factors, including the preliminary stage of the proceedings, whether the case would be allowed to proceed as a class action, the unknown size and scope of any class that may be certified, the fact that the damages sought are not specified, meaningful legal uncertainties associated with the claims and the fact that there has been no discovery to date. TRUSTMARK CORP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Stay Texas Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A motion to stay a class action lawsuit filed in Texas against one of Trustmark Corporation's subsidiary is pending, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Trustmark's wholly owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a defendant in a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford, owner of the Stanford Financial Group, and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and aid and abet fraud arising from the facts set forth in pending federal criminal indictments and civil complaints against Mr. Stanford, other individuals and the Stanford Financial Group. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which remain pending, although the plaintiffs have yet to file any responsive briefing. Instead, the plaintiffs have sought to stay the lawsuit pending the conclusion of the federal criminal trial of R. Allen Stanford in Houston, Texas. The court has not ruled on the plaintiff's motion to stay at this time. UNITED STATES: DOJ to Fight $90.MM Fee Bid in Black Farmers Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted at The Blog of Legal Times by Mike Scarcella, the U.S. Justice Department is planning to oppose the $90.8 million legal fee request in the black farmers' loan discrimination case in Washington federal district court. Justice lawyers said in a recent court filing the government will litigate the plaintiffs' attorneys assertion that they should receive 7.4% of the $1.25 billion settlement. The settlement, reached in February 2010, set the fee range between 4.1% and 7.4%. The deal between the government and farmers resolved claims among people who missed a court-imposed deadline to participate in an earlier settlement that involved discrimination allegations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has called the settlement fair and reasonable. But that doesn't mean the government is entirely on board with the plaintiffs' lawyers, who include Gregorio Francis of Morgan & Morgan, Andrew Marks of Crowell & Moring and Henry Sander of Chestnut, Sanders, Sanders, Pettaway & Campbell. "Although the USDA submits that this settlement agreement provides potential class members an opportunity to obtain meaningful relief for their claims while fairly resolving the parties' respective litigation positions, the government does not agree with every point made by plaintiffs in support of final approval of this settlement agreement," DOJ lawyer Tamra Moore of the federal programs branch said in court papers. Ms. Moore did not articulate why the government will oppose the $90.8 million fee request. DOJ lawyers have not yet filed a formal opposition to the fee petition. In two other recent large class actions in Washington where the plaintiffs' lawyers asked for the maximum fee allowed, DOJ called the petitions excessive. DOJ argued in those cases the class members should receive as much of the settlement fund as possible. The Justice Department has also asked Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to strike an expert's declaration that the plaintiffs' lawyers in the black farmers case filed with the fee petition. DOJ called the declaration "improper." Cornell University Law School professor Theodore Eisenberg, who has written several studies on attorney fees and class actions, said in the declaration the plaintiffs' fee petition is reasonable. The benefit the plaintiffs' lawyers obtained for the class, he said, supports a $90.8 million legal fee award. Mr. Eisenberg charged $650 an hour to prepare the declaration. Earlier this month, Precious Martin Sr., an attorney in Jackson, Miss., filed an objection to the settlement on behalf of ten people. Mr. Martin said in court papers that "there are obvious problems" with approving a settlement before discovery. The plaintiffs, he said, lose bargaining leverage with the federal government. Mr. Martin urged Judge Friedman to reject class certification. "Where there is less investigation into what the individual claims may be worth, and less admissible evidence regarding liability obtained from discovery, class counsel has significantly less bargaining power to obtain the best settlement for its clients," Mr. Martin said. Mr. Martin said there's no "particularized evidence" as to what individuals claimants' damages are. "There is no way to determine whether the settlement is fair or not, especially in light of the dearth of discovery in this case," he said. Judge Friedman is scheduled to meet with lawyers in the case on Sept. 1 for a fairness hearing. UPONOR PEX: Attorneys Available to Review Plumbing Claims --------------------------------------------------------- The Uponor lawsuit attorneys working with Class Action.org are available to review claims from property owners who experienced problems with the Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings. An Uponor lawsuit may be an option for these individuals, as it has been alleged that the Uponor PEX brass plumbing fittings were incorrectly designed and manufactured and are prone to premature failure. If you have experienced Uponor PEX failure with these brass fittings, you may be able to seek financial compensation for damages through an Uponor lawsuit. To find out if you are eligible for an Uponor lawsuit, visit http://www.classaction.org/uponor-pex-plumbing-fittings.htmland complete the free, no obligation case evaluation form on the right of the page. According to a putative Uponor class action lawsuit against the company and RTI, a related business, the PEX brass fittings were not properly manufactured or designed. According to reports, these plumbing fittings may be prone to Uponor PEX failure, which may occur within months of installation, when they are exposed to water due to a chemical reaction known as dezincification. Plumbing fittings which experience this reaction can burst or leak and inhibit the plumbing system's ability to distribute water to appliances and fixtures, resulting in reduced water flow. Homeowners who suffered damage due to these brass plumbing fittings may have legal recourse through an Uponor lawsuit. To find out if you can participate in an Uponor lawsuit, visit Class Action.org today for a free evaluation of your claim. On the site, you can also learn more about allegations of Uponor PEX failure and find out how you can identify the fittings which are reportedly prone to Uponor PEX problems. The Uponor lawsuit attorneys working with the Web site are offering this information and initial consultation at no cost and with no obligation. About Class Action.org Class Action.org -- http://www.classaction.org-- is dedicated to protecting consumers and investors in class actions and complex litigation throughout the United States. Class Action.org keeps consumers informed about product alerts, recalls, and emerging litigation and helps them take action against the manufacturers of defective products, drugs, and medical devices. Information about consumer fraud issues and environmental hazards is also available on the site. USA TRUCK: OK of Settlement in "Cerdenia" Suit Expected Late 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Approval of a settlement of a purported class action lawsuit entitled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. is expected later this year, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On July 2, 2010 a former driver team member, filed a lawsuit against the Company titled Hermes Cerdenia vs. USA Truck, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, alleging various violations of the California Labor Code and seeking certification of the lawsuit as a class action to include "all individuals currently and formerly employed in California as drivers, or other similarly titled positions." The Company has successfully removed the case to the United States District Court, Central District of California and has filed an answer denying the plaintiff's allegations. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages for the alleged violations. In February 2011, settlement of the lawsuit was negotiated through mediation subject to the District Court's review and approval. Such approval is expected later in 2011. At June 30, 2011, the Company had fully accrued the agreed upon settlement amount. USA Truck, Inc. operates primarily in the for-hire truckload segment of the trucking industry. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Expert Discovery to End November 17 ------------------------------------------------------------ Expert discovery in a consolidated class action lawsuit involving Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.'s parent is scheduled to end November 17, 2011, according to the Company's August 8, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On September 28, 2010, Biovail Corporation completed the acquisition of Valeant Pharmaceuticals International through a wholly-owned subsidiary pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 20, 2010, with Valeant surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Biovail. On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. seeking damages and alleging that Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL(R). The direct purchaser plaintiff in the Massachusetts federal court lawsuit voluntarily dismissed its complaint on May 27, 2008, and shortly thereafter re-filed a virtually identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. These complaints have now been consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action. On September 10, 2008, Biovail and GSK filed motions to dismiss both the direct and indirect purchaser actions. Those motions were heard on February 26, 2009. In the direct purchaser case, on March 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions, dismissing the Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claim that had been made by the direct purchasers against Biovail. Biovail and GSK answered the remaining claims in the direct purchaser case on April 16, 2009. On March 26, 2009, before an order issued on the motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The pending motions were therefore denied as moot, and new motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims were filed on April 30, 2009. On July 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all indirect purchaser claims except the antitrust claims (limited as to Biovail's concerted actions) in California, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the consumer protection claims of California and Florida. On May 13, 2010, Aetna, Inc. filed a motion to intervene as an indirect purchaser. The Court denied Aetna's motion to intervene on July 21, 2010. Subsequently, the direct purchaser plaintiffs and Aetna Health of California Inc. filed a motion to substitute Aetna Health of California Inc. as the representative of the pending California claims on August 13, 2010. The Court granted this motion on September 22, 2010. Additionally, on September 14, 2010, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add claims under Illinois's Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly Act. The Company and GSK opposed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion. On December 21, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for leave to amend, permitting indirect purchasers leave to amend their complaint to assert claims under New York's Donnelly Act but not under Illinois's Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs have filed motions for class certification. The Company and GSK opposed the motions. A hearing on direct purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion was heard by the Court on April 5, 2011. A hearing on indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion took place on April 29, 2011. The Court has not indicated a timetable for rulings on these motions. Fact discovery ended on June 30, 2011. Expert discovery is scheduled to end November 17, 2011. A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for February 22, 2012. The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and that the Company's challenged actions complied with all applicable laws and regulations, including federal and state antitrust laws, FDA regulations, U.S. patent law and the Hatch Waxman Act. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Biovail Corporation. WELLS MID-HORIZON: Continues to Defend Piedmont REIT Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Mid-Horizon Value-Added Fund I, LLC, continues to defend itself from a class action lawsuit filed by a stockholder of Piedmonth REIT, according to the Company's August 11, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a putative class action and derivative complaint, presently styled In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Leo F. Wells, III; Wells Capital, Inc.; Wells Management, the Company's sponsoring member; certain affiliates of WREF; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, as amended. The complaint sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which attempted to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on February 26, 2007, and derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT. On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On September 16, 2009, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. On September 20, 2009, the defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal immediately the Court's order granting the motion for class certification with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The petition for permission to appeal was denied on October 30, 2009. On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 23, 2009. On December 4, 2009, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. On August 2, 2010, the Court entered an order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting, in part, the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. The Court ruled that the question of whether certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT constituted "material" information required to be disclosed in the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction raises questions of fact that must be determined at trial. A trial date has not been set. Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management believe that the allegations contained in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend this action. Any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully manage Wells VAF I's operations and portfolio of investments. WILLIS GROUP: Hearing on Compensation Suit Deal Set for Sept. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing on the approval of a settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company and other brokers and insurers is set for September 14, 2011, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. Since August 2004, the Company and Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Company (along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported class actions in various courts across the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated into a single action in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey ('MDL'). These actions allege that the brokers breached their duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in other improper activities. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and certain equitable relief. In May 2011, the majority of defendants, including the Company and HRH, entered into a written settlement agreement with plaintiffs. On June 28, 2011, the Judge entered an Order granting preliminary approval to the settlement agreement. Notice of the settlement will be sent to all members of the class and each member will have the opportunity to opt out of the settlement and pursue its own individual claim against any defendant. A Fairness Hearing to decide if the settlement should be given final approval is scheduled for September 14, 2011. The amount of the proposed settlement to be paid by the Company and HRH is immaterial and was previously reserved. WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Approval of Settlement in Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company is awaiting court approval of a settlement it entered into in a class action lawsuit alleging discrimination against female officers and employees, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. In December 2006, a purported class action was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company discriminated against female officers and officer equivalent employees on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2011, the Company reached a monetary settlement with plaintiffs that resolves all individual and class claims. The amount of this settlement is not material. However, this matter cannot be formally and finally settled until the Court approves the settlement and until members of the class are given an opportunity to object to the terms of the settlement. WILLIS GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Troice" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company is awaiting a court ruling on a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against one of its subsidiaries, which acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance for The Stanford Financial Group, according to the Company's August 9, 2011 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2011. The Company has been named as a defendant in six lawsuits relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these actions generally allege that the defendants actively and materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The complaints further allege that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent certificates of deposit. One of the six actions is a class action, Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:09-CV-01274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, among others. On April 1, 2010, plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint, which motions are currently pending. It may be several months or longer before rulings are issued on these motions. ********* 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. Leah Felisilda, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Julie Anne Lopez, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2011. 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 * * *