C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 11, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 8 Headlines ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008 SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25 TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio VISA CHECK/MASTERMONEY ANTITRUST: $185M Settlement Checks Out VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: $10M Securities Suit Settlement Approved WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Faces Suits Related to Cipro WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: In Talks to Settle Mass. AWP Lawsuits WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Suit Dismissal Review Junked WORLDCOM INC: Request to Distribute Settlement Fund Filed Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bunnell Action Remanded to Madison Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Judge Sets Chick Sentencing to Feb. 20 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ireland Public Park Closed Due to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suit v. 56 Firms Filed Last Dec. 7 in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ohio Local Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lab Tests Confirm Hazard in Common Products ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquests Set for 2008 on York's "Time Bomb" ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dublin Docklands to Clean Up Bottling Site ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Records $354M Liability at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Corp. Has 38,477 Claims at Sept. 28 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colfax Has $7.5M Liability Reserve at Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.Va. Lawmakers Urged Not to Pass Changes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Del. Panel to Investigate Surge of Filings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Claimants File Appeal to Dana Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $9M Awarded to N.Y. Claimants Last Dec. 17 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Harris’ Bid to Remand Suit v. Viad Junked ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Satterfield Lawsuit v. ALCOA Inc. Continues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Industry Thrives in Indonesia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gov’t to Review Inspection Systems in Tokyo ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Century Objects to Clause in ASARCO Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Motion to Retain Dean Baker Filed in ASARCO ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Braces for Bankruptcy Judge's Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Tex. Senior Center ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Decision in Plymouth's Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Has $57.5M Current Liability at Nov. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling to Favor TIG Insurance ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Worker Sues 72 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: French Court Affirms Decision v. Michelin ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Owes $5T Over Contract, Creditor Says ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navy Worker Sues 71 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: St. George Re to Center on Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Law Firm Warns of Lung Cancer's Danger ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cleanup Begins at Wigginton School in York ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veteran “Demoted” for N.Y. School Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Md. Court Junks Appeal in Silbersack Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Historic Hall Closed After Discovery ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Detected at La Habra City Hall ASBESTOS LITIGATION: More Asbestos Delays Mass. Library Opening ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Removal at Md. Public Schools to Begin June New Securities Fraud Cases INTERNATIONAL COAL: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in West Va. ********* ALLSTATE HOME: Faces Suit Over Terms of Rate Mortgage Loans ----------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Homes Loans is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging it fraudulently failed to disclose terms of its Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage loans, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Paula Idele Keller brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b) on behalf of the following classes: (i) The California Class: all individuals who, within the four year period preceding the filing of plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to the class, received an Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary residence located in the State of California; and (ii) The National Class: all individuals in the United States of America who, within the four year period preceding the filing of plaintiff's complaint through the date notice is mailed to the class, received an Option ARM loan through defendants on their primary residence located in the United States of America. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' acts and practices violate the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601, et seq.; (b) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR Section 226.17; (c) whether defendants' conduct violated 12 CFR SEction 226.19; (d) whether defendants engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving plaintiff and the class members before and during the loan application process; (e) whether defendant, by and through their officers, employees, and agents failed to disclose that the interest rate actually charged on these loans was higher that the rate represented and promised to plaintiff and the class members; (f) whether defendants, by and through their officers, employees and agents concealed, omitted and/or otherwise failed to disclose information they were mandated to disclose under TILA; (g) whether defendants failed to disclose the true variable nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans and adjustable rate home equity loans; (h) whether defendants failed to properly disclose the process by which negative amortization occurs, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans; (i) whether defendants' failure to apply plaintiff's and the class members' payments to principal as promised in the form Notes constitutes a breach of contract, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (j) whether defendants' conduct in immediately raising the interest rate on consumers' loans so that no payments were applied to the principal balance constitutes breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (k) whether defendants' marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate loans, when defendants knew that only the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;" (l) whether the terms and conditions of defendants' Option ARM home loan are unconscionable; (m) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages; (n) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to punitive damages; and (o) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to rescission. Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows: -- an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing plaintiff and their counsel to represent the class; -- for actual damages according to prof; -- for compensatory damages as permitted by law; -- for consequential damages as permitted by law; -- for punitive damages as permitted by law; -- for declaratory relief; -- for a mandatory injunction requiring defendants to permanently include in every Option ARM loan and disclosure statement: (1) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) as required under 12 CFR Section 226.17 by; (2) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) that payments on the variable interest rate loan during the initial period at the teaser rate will result in negative amortization and that the principal balance will increase as required under CFR Section 226.19; and (3) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial interest rate provided is discounted and does not reflect the actual interest that plaintiff and class members would be paying on the Note(s); -- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and -- for such other relief as is just and proper. The suit is "Paula Idelle Keller et al. v. Allstate Home Loans, Inc. et al., Case No. SACV08-0017 DOC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central Disrtict of California. Representing plaintiffs are: David M. Arbogast Ira Spiro Spiro Moss Barness LLP 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Phone: (310) 235-2468 Fax: (310) 235-2456 E-mail: David@SpiroMOss.com or Ira@SpiroMoss.com Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Patrick DeBlase, Esq. Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90211 Phone: (310) 854-4444 Fax: (310) 854-0812 Jonathan Shub Seeger Weiss LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 564-2300 Fax: (215) 851-8029 - and - Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns 19510 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 200 Tarzana, California 91356 Phone: (818) 961-2000 Fax: (818) 867-4820 AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls ATVs to Repair Throttle Position Sensor --------------------------------------------------------------- American Honda Motor Co., Inc. of Torrance, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 40,000 Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs. The company said water can enter the throttle position sensor and freeze, causing permanent damage if the rider forces the throttle lever. This could cause the throttle to stick open, posing a risk of injury or death to riders. Honda has received two reported incidents of the throttle sticking, no injuries have been reported. This recall involves Model Year 2007 Honda TRX 500 ATVs, also known as the Honda Foreman and Foreman Rubicon. The adult-size ATVs are designed for use by riders age 16 and older. The 2007 model year ATVs are available in red, black, blue, olive, and camouflage. The Honda name and wing logo are printed on the fuel tank and the model name is printed on the side panel just below the seat. These recalled ATVs were manufactured in the USA and were sold by Honda ATV dealers nationwide from June 2006 through December 2007 for between $6,500 and $7,600. Pictures of recalled ATVs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08535b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these recalled ATVs and contact any Honda ATV dealer to schedule a free repair. Registered owners of the recalled ATVs have been sent direct notice. For additional information, consumers can contact Honda (866) 784-1870 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.powersports.honda.com. ANDRX CORP: Settles “Lowry” Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrx Corp. has settled the securities fraud suit “Jerry Lowry v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case No. 05-61640,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On October 11, 2005, Jerry Lowry filed a class action complaint on behalf of purchasers of the Andrx’s common stock during the class period (March 9, 2005 through September 5, 2005) against Andrx Corp. and its then Chief Executive Officer, Thomas Rice. The complaint seeks damages under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that during the class period, Andrx failed to disclose that its manufacturing facilities were not in compliance with the U.S. FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMP). The complaint further alleges that Andrx’s failure to be cGMP compliant led to the FDA placing Andrx on Official Action Indicated status, which resulted in not being eligible for approvals of Andrx’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications. On July 24, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the action. On December 8, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. On April 18, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. On October 2, 2007, the parties entered into an agreement in principle settling all outstanding claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are subject to the execution of definitive documentation and approval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The settlement is not expected to materially adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The suit is "Jerry Lowry, et al. v. Andrx Corp., et al., Case No. 05-CV-61640," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing the plaintiffs is: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Bernard M. Gross 450 John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com Representing the defendants is: Louise McAlpin Brais, Esq. Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-789-7715 Fax: 305-789-7799 E-mail: louise.brais@hklaw.com BROWN-FORMAN: Says Underage Drinking Suits Have Been Concluded -------------------------------------------------------------- Brown-Forman Corp. discloses that a series of litigation with regards to alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers is concluded with the dismissal or withdrawal of the cases. The plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers. Nine lawsuits were filed, the first three against eight defendants, including Brown-Forman are: -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183 (November 2003); -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December 2003); and -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)." Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Case No. 1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Ohio. Five similar suits were filed in 2005: -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16, 2005); -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M, (Feb. 17, 2005); -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23, 2005);" -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30, 2005), and -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30, 2005). In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre- lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit in California against many industry defendants, including Brown- Forman, presumably on the same facts and legal theories. The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers, negligently marketed their products to the underage, and fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of: -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or are parents of children whose funds were used to purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants which were consumed without their prior knowledge by their children under the age of 21 during the period 1982 to present; and -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and guardians of all children currently under the age of 21. The lawsuits seek: -- a finding that defendants engaged in a deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage persons and an injunction against such alleged practices; -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately successful, represents significant financial exposure. Brown-Forman and the other defendants have successfully obtained orders to dismiss five of the pending cases: -- Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005, -- Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006, -- Tomberlin (Wisconsin) in March 2006, -- Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006, -- Alston (Michigan) in May 2006, and -- Bertovich (West Virginia) in August 2006. In addition, Konhauzer (Florida), and Sciocchette (New York) voluntarily withdrew their respective suits. Wilson (North Carolina) is pending decision on defendant's motion to dismiss. The respective plaintiffs in the involuntarily dismissed case are appealing. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the Hakki dismissal in June 2007. The consolidated Alston and Eisenberg dismissals were affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in July 2007; plaintiffs filed in November 2007 a motion to withdraw the pending Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado and Wisconsin Courts of Appeals affirmed the Kreft and Tomberlin dismissals, respectively, in October 2007; those opinions now are final. The Bertoviches (West Virginia) filed in November 2007 a stipulation of dismissal of their appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As all of the cases have been dismissed or withdrawn, this series of litigation is concluded, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Brown-Forman Corp. -- http://www.brown-forman.com/-- is a diversified producer and marketer of consumer beverage products, including Jack Daniel's and its family of brands, Southern Comfort, Finlandia, Tequila Herradura, el Jimador Tequila, Canadian Mist, Fetzer, Bolla, Sonoma-Cutrer wines and Korbel Champagne. The Company markets and sells various categories of beverage alcohol products, such as Tennessee, Canadian, and Kentucky whiskies; Kentucky bourbon; California sparkling wine; tequila; table wine; liqueurs; vodka; rum; gin, and ready-to- drink products. CASEY’S GENERAL: Proceedings Stayed in Kans. “Hot Fuel” Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Proceedings have been stayed in various “hot fuel” cases that were consolidated for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Initially, Casey’s General Stores, Inc. was named as a defendant in five lawsuits brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of gasoline retailers. The complaints generally allege that the Company, along with numerous other retailers, has misrepresented gasoline volumes dispensed at its pumps by failing to compensate for expansion that occurs when fuel is sold at temperatures above 60F. Fuel is measured at 60F in wholesale purchase transactions and computation of motor fuel taxes in Kansas and Missouri. The complaints all seek certification as class actions on behalf of gasoline consumers within those two states, and one of the complaints also seeks certification for a class consisting of gasoline consumers in all states. The actions generally seek recovery for alleged violations of state consumer protection or unfair merchandising practices statutes, negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and violation of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; several seek injunctive relief and punitive damages. These actions are part of a number of similar lawsuits that have been filed in recent weeks in at least 21 states against a wide range of defendants that produce, refine, distribute, and/or market gasoline products in the United States. On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the pending hot fuel cases be transferred to U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and assigned to the Judge Kathryn H. Vratil for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings, including rulings on discovery matters, various pretrial motions, and class certification issues applicable to all of the cases. All other proceedings, including discovery, have been stayed pending rulings on various motions now pending in that Court, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Casey’s General Stores, Inc. -- http://www.caseys.com/-- operates convenience stores under the name Casey’s General Store in nine Midwest states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois. CASEY’S GENERAL: Former Managers Seek to Amend Mo. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Casey’s General Stores, Inc. seek to file an amended complaint in the matter, to assert additional claims under state wage laws. On May 30, 2007, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa by two former assistant managers, in which the claim is made that Casey’s failed to properly pay overtime compensation properly to two or more of its assistant managers. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the assistant managers were treated as nonexempt employees entitled to overtime pay, but that the Company did not properly record all hours worked and failed to pay the assistant managers overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. The action purports to be a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (essentially equivalent to a class action) brought on behalf of all “persons who are currently or were employed during the three-year period immediately preceding the filing of [the] complaint as ‘Assistant Managers’ at any Casey’s General Store operated by [the] Defendant (directly or through one of its wholly owned subsidiaries), who worked overtime during any given week within that period, and who have not filed a complaint to recover overtime wages.” The complaint seeks relief in the form of back wages owed all members of the class during the three-year period preceding the filing of the complaint, liquidated damages, attorneys fees, and costs. The Company has filed an answer denying the claims. The case is now pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa sitting. The Court has conditionally certified the collective action as to any employees who are or have been employed by Casey’s as an assistant manager at any time since Nov. 1, 2004, and who have unresolved claims for unpaid overtime. The plaintiffs are now seeking leave of the court to file an amended complaint asserting additional claims under state wage laws, for which they seek certification as a class action, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Jones et al. v. Casey's General Stores Inc., Case No. 5:07-cv-04043-MWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa under Judge Mark W. Bennett with referral to Judge Paul A. Zoss. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jon E. Heisterkamp, Esq. Peters Law Firm PC PO Box 1078, 233 Pearl Street Council Bluffs, IA 51502-1078 Phone: 712 328 3157 Fax: 328 9092 E-mail: jeheisterkamp@yahoo.com CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Sued Over Vocational Training Programs ----------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, d.b.a. Bryman and Everest Colleges, is facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 31, 2007 in the Superior Court of California in the County of Santa Clara alleging it cheat students by making misleading statements about their vocational training programs, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Kathryn E. Leask and Judith L. Leask bring this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 on behalf of all California persons who entered into Enrollment Agreements (EA) with defendants for an education as a Medical Assistant during the period within the past four years of the filing of the complaint. Plaintiffs also challenge the legality of various provisions of the EA for the purchase of the education and the financing of same on behalf of the class and in a representative capacity on behalf of individual students, borrowers and the general public pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17204. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether California law has been violated by defendants as alleged; (b) whether defendants participated in and pursued the course of conduct complained of; (c) whether the EA at issue are violations of the Education Code Section 94850 et seq. and/or the Unfair Business Practices Act; (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages, and if so, the proper measure of damages; (e) whether any loans obtained as a result of the EA were or remain valid, and whether refunds should be issued and/or the loans rescinded or canceled. Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof; -- for all consequential and incidental damages; -- in the alternative, for rescission of the entire EA and/or loans pursuant to Education Code Section 94877(a); -- for prejdugment interest at the maximum legal rate; -- for attorney fees and costs under Education Code Section 94877(b); and -- for such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. The suit is "Kathryn E. Leask et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., et al., Case No. 107CV102335," filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. Representing plaintiffs is: John L. Fallat Law Offices of John L. Fallat 523 Fourth Street, suite 210 San Rafael, CA 94901-3349 Phone: (415) 457-3773 Fax: (415) 457-2667 DITECH COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of Cal. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Ditech Communications Corp. are appealing the dismissal of their case. On June 14, 2005, a lawsuit filed by Richard E. Jaffe against Ditech Communications Corp., Timothy K. Montgomery and William J. Tamblyn (Case No. C 05 02406) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Ditech’s stock between Aug. 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Ditech and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Several similar lawsuits were filed. All of them were later consolidated into a single action, captioned, "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. C05-02406- JSW." Although the court has dismissed this action with prejudice, the plaintiffs in this action have appealed the dismissal, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-02406-JSW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease & Tabacco, P.C. 425 California Street, Suite 2025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermanesq.com Representing the defendants is: William S. Freeman, Esq. Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 9406-2155 Phone: 650 843-5000 Fax: 650 857-0663 E-mail: freemanws@cooley.com FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Dismissal of Cal. Consumer Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action, “Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.,” which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, are appealing an order dismissing the class-action complaint. Filed on June 22, 2005, the suit states a claim for damages growing out of certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers from 1995 through 2003. Plaintiffs have further clarified and narrowed the class for which they are seeking certification, which now encompasses all original owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof but not including original purchasers who received an aluminum roof replacement and did not pay for freight. The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class action previously filed in California state court, entitled, “Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al.” The California trial court denied class action certification in the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the California Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a decision issued on May 11, 2006. On March 26, 2007, the federal trial court granted a motion to dismiss the class-action complaint in the Brodhead case, leaving pending only the individual claims of the four named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, but the court denied that motion and dismissed the claims of the four individual plaintiffs on May 29, 2007. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the federal court’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is “Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge George P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. Gergosian and Gralewski 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-230-0104 E-mail: ed@gergosian.com - and - Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Karen Lee Hindin, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo 601 California St., Ste. 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com klh@girardgibbs.com jkl@girardgibbs.com Representing the company are: Howard B. Golds, Esq. Best Best & Krieger 3750 University Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028 Riverside, CA 92502-1028 Phone: 951-686-1450 E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com - and – Lee Ann Anand, Esq. Richard K. Hines, Esq. Nelson Mulins Riley & Scroborough 999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1400 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-817-6000 E-mail: leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Suit by 401(k) Investors for $39M --------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. agreed to pay $39 million to settle a class action brought by employees and retirees, The Detroit News reports citing people familiar with the agreement. In May 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan consolidated three related purported class actions brought under Employee Retirement Income Security Act against General Motors and other named defendants who are alleged to be fiduciaries of the General Motors stock purchase programs and personal savings plans for salaried and hourly employees, under the case caption, “In re General Motors Corp. ERISA Litigation.” In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against General Motors, the Investment Funds Committee of the General Motors board, its individual members, General Motors's chairman and chief executive officer, members of General Motors's Employee Benefits Committee during the putative class period, General Motors's wholly owned subsidiary General Motors Investment Management Corp., and State Street Bank. The complaint alleged that the General Motors defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants by, among other things, investing their assets, or offering them the option of investing, in General Motors stock on the ground that it was not a prudent investment. Plaintiffs purported to bring these claims on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans from March 18, 1999 to the present, and sought to recover losses allegedly suffered by the plans. The complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, and defendants have no means at this time to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On July 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which principally added allegations about General Motors' restated earnings and reclassification of cash flows, but which did not name any additional defendants or assert any new claims. Recently, according to the Detroit News report, lawyers for both sides told U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds they had reached a settlement during a Dec. 13 conference call. She issued an order requiring them to file the proposed settlement by Jan. 15 and set a Jan. 30 hearing to grant preliminary approval to the deal. Under the settlement, employees and retirees will split more than $25 million. The remainder will be split among the three law firms representing employees and retirees. The precise figures were still being negotiated Tuesday by General Motors' outside lawyers, according to the report. As part of the deal, retirees will be offered heavily discounted financial counseling services from Ayco, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs. GM has also agreed to keep in place structural changes it made to its 401(k) plans. INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs' Brief Criticizes Accounting Plan ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. government's plan for giving an estimated 500,000 Native Americans a long-promised accounting of their Individual Indian Trust Accounts falls far short of the legal requirements for an accounting under trust law, a federal judge has been told. In a legal brief submitted to U.S. District Judge James Robertson, lawyers for Indian plaintiffs said that the government's proposal not only fails to meet the basic requirements of an accounting, but it would eliminate hundreds of thousands of Indian accounts from any review. The lawyers said the losses to Indian Trust beneficiaries clearly run into the billions of dollars -- not the millions that some government officials have suggested. The 80-page document suggested conclusions of law was based on evidence submitted during a 10-day trial that Judge Robertson held in October. The judge then told the lawyers to submit final briefs to him by Nov. 30 instead of offering oral arguments. The 11-year-old class action , titled “Cobell v. Kempthorne,” is based on the government's admitted mismanagement of what Congress has called a "Broken Trust" that was established in 1887. It was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West. As the papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was mismanaged by the government almost from its inception. Despite repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is still years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts. The government has “had over 100 years to fulfill their fiduciary obligations to render an accounting. They have not,” the brief noted. Five years after the Interior Department was found by the U.S. District Court to be failing its trust obligations, “nothing has changed,” lawyers for the Indians said. “Plaintiffs are no closer to receiving the accounting than when defendants were first ordered by Congress to do so in 1899 and by this Court in 1999. ”The attorneys said there is “no reason” to allow the defendants to take charge of the accounting process because they will only continue to delay “performance of their accounting obligations.” Attorneys for the Indian plaintiffs, led by Elouise Cobell of Browning, Mont., said that that only 8 percent of the trust records that the government reportedly has at an underground records center in Kansas have yet been examined. "Our lawyers have provided the judged with a detailed examination of the many flaws in the government's plan," said Ms. Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Nation. "The government's proposal is nothing more than a cruel hoax: a plan that would give most Indian Trust beneficiaries little of the information that a true accounting would provide." "And it would eliminate the chance of thousands of Indians of every learning how much money their families never got from their lands because of the government's mismanagement of their lands and their monies. This is never was the government's money. It was always supposed to be Indian money." Judge Robertson has not indicated when he will rule on the type of accounting that the government must conduct. The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Kester Brown, Esq. 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2000 Phone: (775) 542-4938 Fax: 202-318-2372 E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 824-1448 Fax: 202-318-2372 E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com Richard A. Guest, Esq. and Keith M. Harper, Esq. Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976 Phone: (202) 785-4166 Fax: 202-822-0068 E-mail: richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org Elliott H. Levitas, Esq. Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 508-5800 Fax: 202-508-5858 E-mail: elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com Representing the defendants are: Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq. Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq. U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 616-0328 E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov INTERMATIC INC: Recalls Timers Posing Electrical Shock Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Intermatic Inc., of Spring Grove, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,500 Intermatic DT27 Digital Self-Adjusting Timers. The company said the recalled timers could have been wired incorrectly, which poses an electrical shock hazard to consumers. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Intermatic DT27 digital self-adjusting timer with a date code of “04B.” This product is a lamp and appliance timer and is packaged as either the “DT27C Heavy Duty Digital Timer” or the “DT27CL Time All Digital Lamp and Appliance Self-Adjusting Timer.” The timer is white with a rounded top, and measures 3 7/8” tall by 2 3/4” wide by 1 5/8” deep. The brand name “Intermatic” is molded on the front of the timer, and the model number (“DT27”) and date code (“04B”) are printed on the back of the timer. These recalled digital timers were manufactured by Ewig Industries Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd., of Macau, China and were sold at retailers nationwide, including Home Depot and Lowe's, from February 2007 through December 2007 for between $15 and $25. Pictures of the recalled digital timers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08157c.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled timer immediately and unplug before checking the model number and date code. Consumers should contact Intermatic to return the timer and obtain a free replacement. For additional information, or to request a prepaid shipping label, call Intermatic at (800) 704-3595 anytime or visit the company's Web site: http://www.intermatic.com. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Feb. 1 Trial Set for Cal. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A Feb. 1, 2008 trial is set for Marvell Technology Group, Ltd.'s motion that seeks for a dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Between Oct. 5, 2006 and Nov. 13, 2006, four putative class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaints allege that the Company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. The complaints seek, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from Oct. 3, 2001 to Oct. 3, 2006, unspecified damages, interest, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and disbursements. Pursuant to an order of the court dated Feb. 2, 2007, these four putative class actions were consolidated as a single action entitled, “In re Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Securities Litigation.” On Aug. 16, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint. On Oct. 18, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint. The Company’s motion is currently scheduled to be heard on Feb. 1, 2008, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 27, 2007. The suit is “In re Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv-06286-RMW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs are: Julie Juhyun Bai, Esq. Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104-2205 Phone: 415-433-3200 x241 Fax: 415-433-6382 E-mail: jbai@bermanesq.com - and - Stuart L. Berman, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610/667-7706 E-mail: sberman@sbtklaw.com Representing the defendant is: Boris Feldman, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 E-mail: boris.feldman@wsgr.com NORDSTROM INC: $175M Settlement of Cal. Antitrust Suit Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement in the antitrust class action, “Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.,” which names Nordstrom, Inc., as a defendant, has become final after a deadline to appeal an approval of the agreement lapsed. Initially, the company was named as a defendant along with other department stores and specialty retailers in nine separate, but virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998. The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court. In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other retailers as additional defendants. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores. Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the original complaints. While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation. In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994 through July 16, 2003. The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a summary notice of class certification and the terms of the settlement were disseminated to class members. On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety. On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006. Plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006. The remaining objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March 14, 2007 and issued its decision on Aug. 23, 2007, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The deadline for the appellant to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision ended on Nov. 21, 2007. Accordingly, the settlement became final according to its terms on Nov. 22, 2007, according to th company's Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants will provide class members with certain free products with an estimated retail value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, awarded by the Court, of $24 million. The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs is: Guido Saveri, Esq. Saveri & Saveri, Inc. 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94111-5630 Phone: 415-217-6810 Fax: 415-217-6813 E-mail: guido@saveri.com Representing the company is: Larry S. Gangnes, Esq. 1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4100 Seattle, WA 98101-2338 Phone: (206) 223-7036 E-mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com PREMIUM STANDARD: Plaintiffs Exhaust Appeals in Swine Farms Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeals in the purported class action, “Daniel Herrold, et al. v. ContiGroup Companies, Inc, Premium Standard Farms, Inc., and PSF Group Holdings,Inc.,” in which an acquisition of Smithfield Foods, Inc. is named as a defendant, have been exhausted. The suit was filed on May 2004 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Kansas City, Missouri by people living near the Premium Standard Farms, Inc.'s swine farms in northern Missouri. The action seeks to create a class of plaintiffs living within 10 miles of the company's farms in northern Missouri, including contract grower farms, who are alleged to have suffered interference with their right to use and enjoy their respective properties. The court’s order granting PSF’s motion to sever the case, and transfer venue stands, the plaintiffs’ appeals have been exhausted, according to Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. Smithfield Foods, Inc. -- http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/-- is a hog producer, and pork and beef processor. The Company conducts its business through six segments: Pork, Beef, International, Hog Production (HP), Other and Corporate, each of which comprises a number of subsidiaries. QUEST SOFTWARE: Seeks Review of Cal. Securities Suit Rulings ------------------------------------------------------------ Quest Software, Inc. is seeking interlocutory appellate review of a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissing certain plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action filed against the company. The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software, Inc. and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing through various false statements and omissions that they did not properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which were below fair market value on the actual grant date. Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated during the period Nov. 9, 2001 through July 3, 2006. In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs first amended complaint and the defendants response thereto. The first amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March 2007. In October 2007, the Court issued its order on the Company's motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint. The Court dismissed the plaintiffs claims under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the Company and to Doug Garn, the Company's President, which claims have been dismissed without prejudice. The Court also held in abeyance the plaintiffs claims under Section 20A pending plaintiffs filing of an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007. Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as it related to the Company and other individual defendants. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate review, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge David O. Carter, with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Anthony D. Green, Esq. Marian P. Rosner, Esq. Wolf Popper LLP 845 3rd Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 REFCO INC: Ex-Counsel Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $7.6M --------------------------------------------------------------- On December 7, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs in a suit related to the collapse of Refco Inc. presented a $7,600,000 settlement to U.S. District Judge Gerard E. Lynch for preliminary approval and certification of the settlement class. On December 6, 2007, RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC, the institutional investors appointed by Judge Lynch to serve as Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of investors victimized by the Refco affair, signed a settlement agreement with Dennis A. Klejna. Mr. Klejna was Refco's former General Counsel and Executive Vice President. Pursuant to the agreement, Mr. Klejna has agreed to pay to Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, a total settlement amount of $7,600,000, including a personal contribution of $50,000.00 in cash. In addition to the monetary payment, Mr. Klejna has pledged to cooperate with Lead Plaintiffs as they pursue the Class’ claims against other current (and prospective) defendants in the consolidated securities class action. The settlement resolves two categories of claims asserted against Klejna in the Refco class action, namely, claims arising from Refco’s bond and stock offerings in 2004 and 2005, and claims arising out of the purchase of Refco securities in the open market between August 5, 2004 and October 17, 2005 . As part of the settlement, the Class’ claims against Mr. Klejna will be released. This is the second settlement achieved for the Class in the Refco Securities Litigation. Lead Plaintiffs will continue to pursue the Class’ claims against the remaining defendants, which include: -- several former Refco insiders (including former CEO Phillip Bennett), -- Refco’s former board of directors, -- Refco’s former auditor (Grant Thornton LLP), -- the investment banking concern that helped take Refco “public” in August 2005 (Thomas H. Lee Partners L.P. and related entities), and -- a total of fifteen investment banks that sold Refco stocks and bonds to public investors (including Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse and Bank of America). The attorneys who worked to achieve this settlement are partners Sean Coffey, Salvatore Graziano and John Browne and associate Jeremy Robinson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, and partners Stuart Grant, James Sabella, and Megan McIntyre of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. Their work prosecuting the Class’ claims against other defendants in the Refco debacle continues. On December 3, 2007, Lead Plaintiffs RH Capital Associates LLC and Pacific Investment Management Company LLC and Plaintiff PIMCO Funds: Pacific Investment Management Series – PIMCO High Yield Fund filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint complaint which, among other things, collects and consolidates all complaints filed and defendants named to date * including Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown partner Joseph P. Collins, updates Lead Plaintiffs' existing allegations and claims based on recently obtained information and adds new allegations against former Refco Group CFO Robert Trosten. Case Background A securities suit pending against Refco in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, was consolidated in April 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 7, 2006). It claimed the collapsed commodity brokerage hid more than $5 billion off its books, far more than previously thought. It also accuses company executives, company auditors, and investment bankers of negligence. This discovery of the bad debts caused the collapse of the company a mere two months after its Aug. 10, 2005 initial public offering of common stock, and only 14 months after its issuance of 9% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2012. The company filed the fourth largest bankruptcy in U.S. history as a result. The suit is "In re Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 8626 (GEL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Gerard E. Lynch. Representing the plaintiffs are: Max W. Berger, Esq. John P. Coffey, Esq. John C. Browne, Esq. Noam N. Mandel, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berg & Grossmann, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 Stuart M. Grant, Esq. James J. Sabella, Esq. Megan D. McIntyre, Esq. Jeff A. Almeida, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Jill Agro, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Phone: (646) 722-8500 and (302) 622-7000 Fax: (646) 722-8501 and (302) 622-7100 For more details, contact Refco, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., PO Box 9087, Dublin, OH 43017- 0987, Web site: http://www.refcosecuritieslitigation.com. REX ENERGY: Jury Trial in Ill. H2S Emissions Suit Set Aug. 2008 --------------------------------------------------------------- An August 18, 2008 jury trial is set in a putative class action filed against Rex Energy Operating Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois over hydrogen sulfide emissions. In general the suit is asserting that the operation of oil wells that are controlled, owned or operated by the company has resulted in contamination of the areas surrounding Bridgeport and Petrolia, Illinois, with hydrogen sulfide, or H2S. The complaint asserts several causes of action, including violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and willful and wanton misconduct. The company has filed an answer to the complaint specifically denying virtually all of the allegations in the complaint and asserting affirmative defenses thereto. The plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification requesting that the court certify the case as a class action. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a scheduling and discovery order stating that the court will schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification after Aug. 31, 2007. On Jan. 31, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave seeking permission to file an amended complaint that would add a claim against the defendants for alleged violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, making factual allegations similar to those previously asserted in the plaintiffs’ prior pleadings. A final pretrial conference for this case has been set for Aug. 7, 2008, and the case is scheduled for jury trial on Aug. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The parties to this lawsuit have exchanged initial pretrial disclosures as required under the applicable rules and each side has served and responded to pre-deposition written discovery. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Leib et al v. Rex Energy Operating Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-00802-JPG-CJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge J. Phil Gilbert with referral under Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the plaintiffs are: Norman B. Berger, Esq. Varga, Berger et al. Cook County, 224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 350 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-341-9870 Fax: 312-341-2900 E-mail: nberger@vblhc.com - and - Shawn M. Collins, Esq. Collins Law Firm Du Page County, 1770 North Park Street, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563 Phone: 630-527-1595 Fax: 630-527-1193 E-mail: smc@collinslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Kenneth R. Heineman, Esq. Husch & Eppenberger 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-480-1500 E-mail: kenneth.heineman@husch.com - and - Edward Lewis, Esq. Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Phone: 713-651-3760 Fax: 713-651-5246 E-mail: elewis@fulbright.com SAKS INC: Still Faces Ala. Suit Over Merchandise Return Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Saks, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over allegations of breach of contract. Adamson Apparel, Inc. filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff class. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and restitution. The company reported no material development in the matter in its Dec. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05 cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn. Representing the plaintiff are: Richard T. Dorman, Esq. Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown P.O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Phone: 1-251-471-6191 E-mail: rtd@cbycb.com Rachel J. Geman, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-355-9500 Fax: 212-355-9592 E-mail: rgeman@ichb.com - and - David J. Guin, Esq. Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq. Donaldson & Guin, LLC The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-503-4505 Fax: 205-226-2357 E-mail: davidg@dglawfirm.com tstokes@dglawfirm.com Representing the defendant is: Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq. Hand Arendall, LLC 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-324-4400 Fax: 205-397-1310 E-mail: dsinor@handarendall.com SEMTECH CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Semtech Corp. faces two purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2007, a purported class action was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from September 11, 2002 until July 19, 2006. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the Company’s past stock option practices. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary demand. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint. A very similar lawsuit, filed in October 2007 by another plaintiff, has not been served, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is “Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v. Semtech Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-CV-07183,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Denny Chin. Representing the plaintiff is: Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700 Fax: 212.818.0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com Web site: http://www.labaton.com/ SHARPER IMAGE: May, June Hearings Set in Suits Over Purifier ------------------------------------------------------------ May 12, 2008 and June 10, 2008 hearings were set for two lawsuits that were filed against Sharper Image Corp. in relation to its “Ionic Breeze” purifier product. On or before April 15, 2006, there were five class actions filed against the Company related to claims made with respect to the performance, effectiveness and safety of its Ionic Breeze product. The actions are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Ionic Breeze in the State Courts of California (San Francisco) and Florida (Jacksonville), as well as the U.S. District Courts of Maryland, Florida (Miami) and the Central District of California. Only the San Francisco action has been certified for class representation. The Florida State Court action was stayed pending resolution of the ongoing San Francisco case. The Maryland and Central District of California cases have been dismissed. On Jan. 16, 2007, the Company entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release in the case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which if approved by the court would have covered all persons who purchased an Ionic Breeze branded product between May 6, 1999 and the effective date of the Agreement who do not opt out of the Agreement. The proposed settlement would have required the Company to: -- pay up to $1.9 million to the plaintiff’s attorneys for fees and expenses, -- make available free Ozone Guard attachments, -- issue $19 merchandise credits, subject to certain terms and conditions, to members of the Settlement class, and -- agree to certain other measures. Following a fairness hearing, on Oct. 11, 2007, the Court rejected the Agreement. A trial date for the action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has been set for May 12, 2008 and June 10, 2008 for the action filed in the State Court in California (San Francisco). The Florida suit is “Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-21251-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, with referral to Judge Ted E. Bandstra. Representing plaintiffs are: David L. Aronoff, Esq. Thelen Reid & Priest LLP 333 S Hope Street, 29th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-576-8044 Fax: 576-8080 Daniel Dennis Dolan, II, Esq. Robert L. Parks, Esq. Haggard Parks Haggard & Lewis 330 Alhambra Circle, 1st Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: 305-446-5700 Fax: 446-1154 E-mail: bob@haggardparks.com - and - Enrique J. Gimenez, Esq. Stephen J. Rowe, Esq. Jere F. White, Esq. Lightfoot Franklin & White 400 20th Street North The Clark Building, Birmingham, AL 35203-2706 Phone: 205-581-0774 Fax: 581-0799 Representing defendants are: James S. Toscano, Esq. Terry C. Young, Esq. Lowndes Drosdick Doster Kantor & Reed P.O. Box 2809, Orlando, FL 32802-2809 Phone: 407-843-4600 Fax: 843-4444 SMITHFIELD FOODS: Dismissal of Suit Over Pennexx Deal Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed against Smithfield Foods, Inc. In June 2001, the company acquired a 50% interest in Pennexx Foods Inc. and extended Pennexx a $30 million line of credit, secured by Pennexx's assets. In July 2003, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of shareholders of Pennexx Foods, Inc. against Pennexx, its directors, the company and two of its officers who were former directors of Pennexx. Plaintiffs, who sought unspecified compensatory damages, allege that: -- defendants artificially inflated the price of Pennexx stock by disseminating materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's financial performance, business operations and prospects; and, -- the company breached its fiduciary duties owed to the non-controlling shareholders of Pennexx through its scheme to control and undermine Pennexx's business. At that same time, Pennexx defaulted under the Smithfield Credit Agreement. The company subsequently seized all of the tangible property assets of Pennexx and transferred the assets to its wholly owned subsidiary, terminating Pennexx's ability to continue its business. In January 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the class action, which the court granted in part and denied in part in September 2004. In February 2005, the shareholder plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of certain Pennexx shareholders. In June 2005, the court dismissed the class action without prejudice for lack of prosecution. The court took this action following the withdrawal of the lead plaintiff and the failure of any other putative class member to step forward as lead plaintiff. In July 2005, the class action plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the appeal in November 2006. In late September 2007, the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling and the case was dismissed, according to Smithfield Foods' Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 28, 2007. The suit is "The Winer Family Trust v. Queen et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04318-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John R. Padova. Representing the defendants are: Alan K. Cotler, Esq. Robert A. Nicholas, Esq. Milind M. Shah, Esq. Reed Smith, LLP 1650 Market St., 2500 One Liberty Pl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-851-8100, and 215-851-8298 Fax: 215-851-1420 E-mail: acotler@reedsmith.com rnicholas@reedsmith.com mshah@reedsmith.com Edward J. Fuhr, Esq. Terence J. Rasmussen, Esq. Hunton & Williams, LLP Riverfront Plaza, E. Tower, 951 E. Byrd St. Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8201, and 804-788-8632 Fax: 804-788-8218 - and - Eric F. Spade, Esq. Mitts Milavec & Spade, LLC 1835 Market Street, 15TH Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-569-1800 Fax: 215-569-1822 E-mail: espade@mittslaw.com STAR GAS: Discovery in Conn. Securities Fraud Suit Still Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Star Gas Partners, L.P. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against the Partnership and various subsidiaries and officers and directors of the company in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. The suit is “Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA.” Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the PSLRA, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the pending motion to dismiss. On Aug. 21, 2006, the court issued its rulings on defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting the motions and dismissing the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On Aug. 23, 2006, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to alter and reopen the court’s Aug. 23, 2006 judgment of dismissal and for leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint (Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion). On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on or about Nov. 20, 2006. On March 22, 2007 the Court issued its decision denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. On April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a Motion for a Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of Defendants’ legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. On April 24, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion. The Star Gas Defendants’ reply was due on May 8, 2007. On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton’s decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against: * Hanseatic Americas, Inc., * Paul Biddelman, * A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., * RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., * UBS Investment Bank, and * Audrey Sevin On July 6, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas Defendants’ opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and class plaintiffs’ reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007. Oral argument on the appeal was scheduled to take place after Oct. 1, 2007. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com - and - David L. Belt, Esq. Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503-0606 Phone: 203-772-3100 Fax: 203-772-1691 E-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com Representing the defendants are: Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300 Fax: 203-977-7301 E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com - and - Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936 New Haven, CT 06509-1910 Phone: 203-784-8200 Fax: 203-777-1181 E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 25 ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on June 25, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. For a proposed settlement in the matter, “In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK.” The hearing will held before Judge Shirley Wohl Kram in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, located at 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before April 25, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on May 16, 2008. Case Background In July 2005, the defendants (Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games) received four purported class actions. Two of the four complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and one was filed in the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois. The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained “hidden” content, which resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rather than an Adults Only 18+ (AO) rating. The complaints seek unspecified damages, declarations of various violations of law and litigation costs. In January 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a complaint against the company in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging violations of California law on substantially the same basis. The state court actions were removed to federal court (a motion to remand filed by the City of Los Angeles is pending) and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption, “In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD- 1739 (SWK)(MHD).” Settlement In the last half of 2007, defendants reached a settlement in the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third- party Hot Coffee modification; (c) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase. The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits. Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million, in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. A copy of the settlement notice is available at: http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shirley Wohl Kram. The Class Counsel is: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th St. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC Representing the company is: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 909-6000 TICKETMASTER: Ticket Buyer's Suit Alleges Online Billing Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Ticketmaster signs up customers for "an unwanted online coupon service, without the customer's knowledge." Named plaintiff Stephen C. Stearns brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased tickets from Ticketmaster from April 1, 2004 to the present, and who were subsequently enrolled in, and charged fees for, the Entertainment Rewards program. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' actions in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use is false, deceptive, misleading and/or unfair; (b) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants violated the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (c) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants committed fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation; (d) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants committed conversion; (e) whether in signing up and charging customers for a service that they did not want, request or use, defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing in their contracts with class members; and (f) the scope of injunctive relief that should be imposed against defendants to prevent such conduct in the future. Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: -- for restitution; -- for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to, without limitation, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. and California civil Code Section 1780 (a)(2); -- for compensatory damages, the amount of which is to be determined at trial; -- for the value of the unlawful charges; -- for the greater of actual or compensatory damages according to proof or $1000 pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1780; -- for interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sum from and after the date of the unlawful charges; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof pursuant to, without limitation, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq) and California civil Code Section 1021.5; -- for punitive damages according to proof pursuant to, without limitation, California Civil Code Section 1780; -- for any class member who is a senior citizen or a disabled person, an award of $5,000; -- for costs of suit incurred; and -- for such further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Stephen C. Stearns et al. v. Ticketmaster Corp., et al., Case No. CV08-00117," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Eric M. George Michael A. Bowse Dreir Stein Kahan Browne Woods George LLP 450 N. Roxbury Drive, Seventh Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 274-7100 Fax: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: egeorge@dskbwg.com or mbowse@dskbwg.com - and - Lee A. Weiss Rebecca Tingey Dreier LLP 499 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 328-6100 Fax: (212) 652-3801 E-mail: lweiss@dreierllp.com or rtingey@dreierllp.com TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- Tween Brands, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Since Aug. 24, 2007, three purported class action complaints have been filed by purported purchasers of the Company’s common stock against the Company and certain of its officers, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. To date all of these actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. These cases include: -- “June Gruhn v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV 852),” -- “Allison Andrews v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al. (07 CV 894),” and -- “John Sefler v. Tween Brands, Inc., et al (07 CV 925).” These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company’s common stock during various periods beginning as early as Feb. 21, 2007 and ending on Aug. 21, 2007 and allege, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and, in one action, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company’s business and prospects during the class period. These actions also allege that the Company’s CEO sold stock while in possession of adverse non-public information. A status conference was held on Oct. 23, 2007, at which time the actions were consolidated and a preliminary schedule was set. Three plaintiffs have filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. Non-oral hearing on all motions to appoint lead plaintiff was set Dec. 7, 2007. The chosen lead plaintiff has until Feb. 22, 2008 to file a consolidated amended complaint, including a definitive proposed class period and the naming of defendants.