/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 12, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 30 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Florida ACXIOM CORP: Faces Suits in Fla., Tex. Over Use of Driver's Data ARIBA INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending BAE SYSTEMS: Court Blocks Saudi Prince From Transferring Funds BED BATH: Objections to Settlement Deal Due on April 11 CHICAGO: Lawsuit Prompts Shorter Holding Time for Arrestees CNH GLOBAL: Attorney Reassures Retirees of Lifetime Benefits DANKA BUSINESS: Court Dismisses Vital Claims in "Edwards" Suit DEVRY: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Case Appeal Dismissal of Claims HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Faces MN Suit Over Improper, Abusive Fees INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Denies Class Certification Bid MARYLAND: MHEC, Officials Face Litigation Over Academic Programs MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Mulls Appeal in Dismissed Ariz. Suit MEMORY GARDENS: Fin'l Firms Blamed for Helping Couple Raid Funds MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Vista" Case MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Settlement of Calif. Gender Bias Suit OK'd NATIONAL MUTUAL: Faces OH Suit Over Vehicle Liability Claims ONTARIO: Court to Decide on Suit on Behalf of Autistic Children PINNACLE LAS VEGAS: Faces Lawsuit Over Construction Delays PLEXUS CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wis. REALTYSOUTH: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Suit Over ABC Fee RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Suit Over Odors SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Blu-Ray Players, Prompts NJ Suit SANTEE COOPER: Faces Utility Rate Increase Lawsuit SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Pa. Couples Files Suit Over Paid Mortgages TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Working to Settle Va. Securities Suit * UK Should Not Follow U.S. Class Action Procedures, CJC Says * William Lerach Gets Two-Year Imprisonment for Kickback Scheme New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit MORGAN KEEGAN: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in TN SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit SUNOPTA INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., and its subsidiary, 1-800-Flowers Retail, Inc., face a class action in Florida, alleging violations of the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007. In October 2007, the defendants were served with a purported nationwide class action, entitled, "Grabein v. 1-800- Flowers.Com., Inc., et al; Case No. 07-22235," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges violation of FACTA based upon the allegation that the Company printed or provided receipts to consumers at the point of sale or transaction on which receipts appeared more than the last five digits of customers' credit or debit card numbers and the expiration dates of such cards. The complaint does not specify any actual damages for any member of the purported class. However, the complaint does seek statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each proven alleged willful violation of the statute, if any, as well as, attorneys' fees, costs, unspecified punitive damages and a permanent injunction. The suit is "Grabein v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-22235-PCH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Paul C. Huck presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John Elliott Leighton, Esq. Leesfield Leighton & Partners 2350 S. Dixie Highway Miami, FL 33133 Phone: 305-854-4900 Fax: 305-854-8266 e-mail: Leighton@Leesfield.com - and - Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq. Jay M. Levy, P.A. 9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard Suite 1510 Two Datran Center Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305-670-8100 Fax: 305-670-4827 e-mail: jay@jaylevylaw.com Representing the defendants are: David E. Block, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1802 Phone: 305-577-7600 Fax: 305-373-4466 e-mail: blockd@jacksonlewis.com - and - Thomas E. Plastaras, Esq. Gallagher Walker Bianco & Plastaras 98 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501-2611 Phone: 516-248-2002 Fax: 516-248-2394 e-mail: tplastaras@1800flowers.com ACXIOM CORP: Faces Suits in Fla., Tex. Over Use of Driver's Data ---------------------------------------------------------------- Acxiom Corp. and several other information providers continue to face purported class actions with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging violations of the Drivers Privacy Protection Act, according to its Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," was originally filed with the state court, but was later removed to federal court in May 2003. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants obtained and used driver's license data in violation of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorneys' fees. To date, a class has not been certified. In addition, in January 2007, two companion cases were filed. The cases are: -- "Sharon Taylor, et al., v. Acxiom, et al.," (U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, 207CV001); and -- "Sharon Taylor, et al. v. Biometric Access Company, et al.," (U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, 2:07-CV- 00018). The suit is "Linda Brooks and Richard Fresco v. Auto Data Direct, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-61063," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Jose E. Martinez presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq. Aronovitz Trial Lawyers 150 W Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Museum Tower Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-372-2772 Fax: 305-375-0243 e-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com Mark S. Fistos, Esq. James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich 3301 Thomasville Road, Suite A-200 Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone: 850-325-2680 Fax: 850-325-2681 Lawrence Dean Goodman, Esq. Devine Goodman Pallot & Wells 777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-374-8200 Fax: 305-374-8208 e-mail: lgoodman@devinegoodman.com - and - James Kellogg Green, Esq. 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1650 Esperante West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-659-2029 Fax: 561-655-1357 E-mail: jameskgreen@bellsouth.net ARIBA INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the second amended complaint in the securities fraud class action filed against Ariba, Inc. On Oct. 31, 2005, a purported class action, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Ariba's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and a former president and director of the Company. The action is brought on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock from June 10, 2003, to Feb. 7, 2005. That case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and an Amended Complaint was filed on November 30, 2006, adding the Company as a defendant. A second amended complaint was filed on May 18, 2007, alleging that the defendants artificially inflated the Company's stock price between those dates by failing to disclose, in public statements that the Company made about its products, market position and performance, that some of those products allegedly infringed patents belonging to a third party. The defendants requested to have the second amended complaint dismissed. As a result, on Nov. 15, 2007, the court sided with the defendants and the case was dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. Ariba, Inc. -- http://www.ariba.com-- provides spend management solutions that allow enterprises to manage the purchasing of non-payroll goods and services required to run their business. AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Dismissal Bid v. N.Y. Suit Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of current and former officers and directors. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005 that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock declined. The class action complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. On Oct. 5, 2005 the court consolidated the class actions as, "In re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05 Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints and also alleged that the Company violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable technology. In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were not dismissed with prejudice. In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which does not assert any claims relating to the company's patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the prior complaint. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages. The Company requested to have the second amended complaint dismissed, which request is pending before the court. The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard William Gonnello, Esq. Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq. Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq. Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 894-7200 Fax: (212) 894-7272 e-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com jwhitman@entwistle-law.com - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 e-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Irwin Howard Warren, Esq. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Phone: (212) 310-8000 Fax: (212) 833-3148 e-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com BAE SYSTEMS: Court Blocks Saudi Prince From Transferring Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia temporarily blocked Prince Bandar bin Sultan from removing real estate sales proceeds from the country pending resolution of the class action, "City of Harper Woods Employees' Retirement System v. Olver et al., Case No. 1:2007cv01646," The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on Sept. 19, 2007, accusing BAE Systems PLC, and its current and former directors of breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with $2 billion or more in alleged illegal bribes paid to Prince Bandar, the former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., in connection with an $86 billion BAE arms sale to Saudi Arabia in 1985. AP reports that Prince Bandar is also named as defendant in the suit, along with the former Riggs Bank of Washington and its successor, PNC Financial Group. Both he and BAE have vehemently denied that illegal payments were made. In a temporary restraining order signed on Feb. 5, 2008, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said that the suit by the City of Harper Woods Employees' Retirement System raises serious questions of law that warrant a temporary order keeping Prince Bandar from taking the proceeds of real estate sales out of U.S.-based accounts, according to the AP report. The order directs that such sales proceeds "be deposited and/or invested pursuant to a prudent man standard" in U.S. accounts. However, the order specifically notes that it "does not prevent him from selling real property" and "only interferes with his ability to invest and/or deposit any sales proceeds in a minimal way." The order further notes that "it may, of course, be terminated or modified upon application to the Court by Prince Bandar." AP reports that a hearing was set for Feb. 14, 2008 on whether to issue a preliminary injunction extending the temporary order. The retirement system suit maintains that Prince Bandar used funds illicitly obtained from BAE Systems to acquire U.S. real estate, including a Colorado ranch and mansion once placed on the market at $135 million, and the former William Randolph Hearst mansion in California, offered for sale last summer at $165 million, AP reports. The suit is "City of Harper Woods Employees' Retirement System v. Olver et al., Case No. 1:2007cv01646," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Roger M. Adelman, Esq. 1100 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 730 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 822-0600 Fax: (202) 822-6722 e-mail: radelman@erols.com - and - Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619 231-1058 Fax: 619 231-7423 e-mail: patc@csgrr.com Representing the defendants are: Lawrence Byrne, Esq. LINKLATERS LLP 1345 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10105 Phone: (212) 903-9000 e-mail: larry.byrne@linklaters.com - and - Christopher Talbott Lutz, Esq. Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 429-6440 e-mail: clutz@steptoe.com BED BATH: Objections to Settlement Deal Due on April 11 ------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 22, 2008, U.S. retailer Bed, Bath & Beyond settled a consumer-fraud lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that it inflated the thread counts of its bedding and linens. The lawsuit, filed on February 23, 2007, alleges that Bed Bath & Beyond, as well as Synergy Inc., misrepresented the thread count in its two-ply bedding products sold in stores and on its Web site by stating the number of threads in the warp and filling directions in one square inch of fabric, rather than the number of yarns. According to the CAR report, the company advertised thread counts of 600, 800 and 1,000 on sheet sets, pillowcases, bed skirts, down comforters, duvets and shams. But the advertised thread counts were double the actual counts. Thread counts, or the number of threads per square inch of fabric, should be based on the number of vertical and horizontal threads. Bed Bath & Beyond and Synergy deny any wrongdoing and believe the signage, labeling and product samples available to their customers at the time of purchase provided their customers with complete and accurate information. The parties have reached a proposed settlement of the lawsuit, which has been preliminarily approved by the Court. Any person who purchased multi-ply sheet sets, pillowcases, down comforters, bedskirts, shams, duvets or down pillows that were labeled as "plied," "two-ply" or "2-ply" from Bed Bath & Beyond between Aug. 1, 2000, and Nov. 9, 2007, may have a claim for benefits in the proposed class action settlement. A complete listing of the multi-ply products that are covered by the proposed settlement are contained in the "List of Covered Products" page of http://www.bbbthreadcountsettlement.com/ Under the proposed settlement, claimants who timely submit a valid Claim Form indicating that they purchased Covered Products between Aug. 1, 2000, and Nov. 9, 2007, are entitled to receive either a refund, a $10 Bed Bath & Beyond gift card, or a 20% discount certificate, depending on the proof of purchase documentation they have retained. In order to receive any of these options, claimants must submit a valid Claim Form on or before May 13, 2008. Those who have purchased Covered Products but do not want to remain part of the class must submit a request to opt-out of the settlement postmarked no later than March 21, 2008. Individuals who wish to object to the settlement must file an objection by April 11, 2008. The suit is "White v. Bed Bath & Beyond et al., Case No: 2:2007cv00891," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, under Magistrate Judge Ronald J. Hedges with referral to Magistrate Judge Esther Salas. Representing the plaintiffs is: Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq. Lite, Depalma, Greenberg & Rivas, LLC Two Gateway Center 12th floor Newark, NJ 07102 Phone: (973) 623-3000 e-mail: bgreenberg@ldgrlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Robert Alan White, Esq. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540 Phone: (609) 919-6600 e-mail: rwhite@morganlewis.com - and - Scott A. Resnik, Esq. Katten, Muchin & Rosenman, LLP 575 Madison Avenue 14th floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 940-8543 e-mail: scott.resnik@kattenlaw.com CHICAGO: Lawsuit Prompts Shorter Holding Time for Arrestees ----------------------------------------------------------- The Chicago Police Department is shortening the amount of time it can hold prisoners who have not been charged or appeared before a judge, Chicago Tribune reports. According to the report, the change was made on the eve of a settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by people who claimed that they were held by police more than 48 hours without charges. Michael Kanovitz, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, argued that holding suspects for more than two days is unconstitutional. The suit is being settled for as much as $38 million, the report says, citing unnamed sources. Neither city officials nor Mr. Kanovitz, however, would confirm the figure or discuss whether the case was being settled on Friday. But the city is conceding that police should not hold people more than 48 hours without charges, saying the new order "as clearly as possible explains the current state of the law." The Tribune relates that detectives were informed on Thursday last week that suspects have to appear before a judge within 48 hours of arrest or be released. The previous practice required only that charges be approved by prosecutors within that time frame. Because of court schedules and the availability of judges, the report cites law enforcement sources as saying, the change will result in police being able to hold suspects for only one day in some cases before securing charges or letting them go. The policy affects suspects arrested by police without a warrant, and now states: "Under no circumstances, will such a person appear in court any later than 48 hours from the time of arrest." Holding suspects longer "jeopardizes the criminal case and exposes both the department member and the city to liability," police spokeswoman Monique Bond told the Tribune in an e-mail. "This does not mean that we have 48 hours to have the subject charged. It means they must appear in court within 48 hours of their arrest." Detectives said that the change will put them under much greater pressure to assemble cases hastily, the report notes. The Tribune points out that the length of time the Chicago police hold suspects before charging them has been controversial for years, and the department has faced allegations of coercing confessions from suspects by wearing them down over days, and in some cases, torturing them. In 2003, more than a dozen people added their names to a federal lawsuit filed by Joseph Lopez against Chicago police in an effort to turn his case into a class-action suit. The people alleged that police mistreated them in interrogation sessions lasting two or more days, keeping them from sleeping and eating, and in some cases, denied them access to attorneys. Mr. Lopez, the report recalls, was sued in 2001. He said that police held him for four days and was charged with murder, but was released when someone else confessed. The plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Kanovitz, Esq. Loevy & Loevy 312 North May Street Suite 100 Chicago, IL 60607 Phone: (312) 243-5900 Fax: (312) 243-5902 Web site: http://www.loevy.com CNH GLOBAL: Attorney Reassures Retirees of Lifetime Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------ Roger McClow, Esq., of Southfield, Mich., the attorney representing former CaseIH-CNH Global retirees and their spouses in a health-care lawsuit, offered reassurances to them in a meeting in Davenport last week, Quad-Cities Online reports. The report recounts that in August 2007, a federal judge in Michigan granted a summary judgment that hourly employees retiring after July 1, 1994, are entitled to lifetime health- care benefits from CNH America LLC, formerly Case Corp. The ruling covers more than 3,000 retirees and their surviving spouses, or about 4,500 people. CNH is expected to appeal the decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Quad-Cities relates. The retirees' benefits will remain in place during the appeal, Mr. Roger McClow said. A final judgment is expected to be filed with the court next week. According to Quad-Cities, Mr. McClow met with about 60 people on Thursday to answer questions and provide an update. He was in town on other business unrelated to the Case-CNH lawsuit. The report recalls that CNH filed a lawsuit in 2004, saying the company was not obligated to cover health care benefits for those who retired after July 1, 1994, through May 2004, when the Case-UAW contract expired. "These people had a plant closing agreement from 2002 that extended the agreement until the plant closed," Mr. McClow argued. The plaintiffs are represented by: Roger J. McClow, Esq. Klimist, McKnight, Sales & McClow & Canzano PC 400 Galleria Officentre, Suite 117, Southfield, MI 48034-2161 Phone: (248) 354-9650 e-mail: rmcclow@kmsmc.com DANKA BUSINESS: Court Dismisses Vital Claims in "Edwards" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed certain claims in the purported class action captioned "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al.," which effectively defeats the plaintiff's ability to represent a class or serve as a potential class member. In June 2003, Danka Industries, a unit of Danka Business Systems plc, along with American Business Credit Corp., was served with a putative class action complaint, entitled, "Stephen L. Edwards, et al., v. Danka Industries, Inc., et al." The suit -- which was filed with the state court in Tennessee and later removed to the U.S. District Court for Middle District of Tennessee -- alleges claims of breach of contract, fraud/ intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, violation of the Florida Deception and Unfair Trade Protection Act, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify the class, which the company has opposed. The company had also filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiffs had opposed. On Oct. 13, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Danka's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims regarding shipping and handling charges, which served as the basis of the putative class claim. The U.S. District Court ruling effectively defeats Stephen Edwards' ability to represent a class or serve as a potential class member, according to Danka Business' Feb. 6, 2008 form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Edwards v. Danka Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00575," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Judge John T. Nixon presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. 144 Second Avenue North, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: (615) 250-2000 Fax: (615) 250-2020 e-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com Representing the company are: Thomas B. Hatch, Esq. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi 2800 LaSalle Plaza Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015 Phone: (612) 349-8500 e-mail: tbhatch@rkmc.com - and - Andrew J. Pulliam, Esq. Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs 2525 West End Avenue, Suite 1500 Nashville, TN 37203-1423 Phone: (615) 244-0020 e-mail: apulliam@wyattfirm.com DEVRY: Plaintiffs in "Daghlian" Case Appeal Dismissal of Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the matter, "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," are appealing a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that granted motions for summary judgment filed by DeVry, Inc. and DeVry Universtiy, Inc., in the lawsuit, which accuses them of violating state education laws. Saro Daghlian, a former student at a California DeVry University campus, filed a lawsuit over the defendants' alleged violations of state education laws. Originally, Ms. Daghlian brought the putative class action in the California state district court for the County of Los Angeles. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Mr. Daghlian alleges that DeVry's materials distributed to students did not comply with California state statutes including a California Education Code requirement to provide a specified statement to prospective students concerning the transferability of credits. On June 11, 2007, the District Court issued an Order certifying a class under the California Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code, section 17200 (UCL), comprised of students who enrolled and paid tuition at a California DeVry school in the four years prior to the date when the suit was filed. In October 2007, at DeVry's request, the Court entered a Summary Judgment and dismissed all of Mr. Daghlian's class claims under the UCL, on the grounds that the statutory provisions of the California Education Code underlying Mr. Daghlian's claims unconstitutionally discriminated against out-of-state regionally accredited universities, in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also entered judgment in DeVry's favor on Mr. Daghlian's individual claim under the California Education Code. Mr. DeVry had contended that the California Education Code compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. In additionally, the Court vacated the existing trial schedule and granted DeVry leave to file a second motion for summary judgment directed to Mr. Daghlian's remaining individual claims under the UCL and False Advertising Law. On Jan. 8, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to the company's Feb 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Saro Daghlian v. DeVry University, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00994-MMM-PJW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael D. Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 e-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com - and - Janet Lindner Spielberg, Esq. Janet L. Spielberg Law Offices 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-392-8801 e-mail: jlspielberg@jlslp.com Representing the defendants is: Van T. Lam, Esq. Reed Smith 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514 Phone: 213-457-8000 HOMECOMINGS FINANCIAL: Faces MN Suit Over Improper, Abusive Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Homecomings Financial Network, LLC f/k/a Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging it charges improper, abusive fees to drive homebuyers into default, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to CourtHouse, among the abuses, plaintiffs say, are illegal, excessive fees for electronic processing of mortgage payments, and "multiple, unnecessary 'property inspection' fees, sometimes on a monthly basis, and sometimes multiple times in one month. When customers call to ask why the fee was assessed, Homecomings responds that it needs to confirm that someone is still living in the house." The complaint alleges Homecomings has engaged in a nationwide scheme of illegal, unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices that violate both federal and state law in the servicing of home-secured loan transactions and in the provision of certain related services. Homecomings has carried out this scheme by means of a centrally controlled set of policies and practices, and implements the scheme with form documents, form notices and uniform deceptive accounting mechanisms. Homecomings rountinely seeks to collect and does collect various improper fees, costs and charges, including inspection fees, late fees, unneccessary "force-place insurance" premiums, and fees for using its "Speedpay" automated system, which fees and charges are either not legally due or are in excess of amounts legally due. The complaint asserts that Homecomings assesses these improper fees, costs and charges to borrowers' accounts in order to maximize its profits, and with the goal of putting borrowers into default status. It then demands, payoff statements, court pleadings, collection letters and collection calls. Homecomings then collects the improper charges from borrowers' monthly payments, and through recovery from the proceeds of foreclosure sales and loan payoffs. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose loans were serviced by Homecomings, and were assessed improper late fees, default-related fees not authorized by the loan terms, and were subject to any of the additional practices that are the subject of this complaint. Additional practices that are the subject of the complaint means: (a) assessment of improper and excessive force-placed hazard insurance premiums; (b) assessment of charges for unnecessary and unauthorized property inspections; (c) improper and excessive assessment of late fees; and (d) unauthorized and excessive "speedpay" and other electronic payment processing fees. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (1) whether Homecomings has sought and collected fees and charges not authorized by the loan contract or not legally due and owing; (2) whether Homecomings charged borrowers for unnecessary force-placed insurance, and collected excessive amounts for force-placed insurance, premiums for which it received an improper payment from the insurer; (3) whether Homecomings charged borrowers unauthorized and excessive "speedpay" and other electronic payment processing fees; (4) whether Homecomings issued monthly statements that failed to include accurate and required account information; (5) whether Homecomings assessed charges for unnecessary and unauthorized property inspections; (6) whether Homecomings assessed improper and excessive late fees; (7) whether Homecomings has engaged in systematic improper collection practices in violation of the FDCPA; (8) whether Homecomings' unauthorized and inflated charges routinely led to inaccurate loan balances, in violation of TILA; and (9) whether Homecomings' conduct violated the various laws, contracts and applicable standards of conduct as set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs request that the court certify a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)91),(2) and (3) and award: -- actual, special and general damages according to proof; -- statutory damages and penalties; -- restitution and disgorgement according to proof; -- injunctive relief against defendant to ensure uniform standards of servicing conduct towards all class members and to prevent future wrongful conduct; -- predjugment interest at the maximum legal rate; -- punitive, exemplary and enhanced damages according to proof; -- an accounting; -- declaratory judgment as necessary to correct the wrongs inflicted on them; -- litigation expenses and costs of the proceedings; -- reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- all such other and further relief as the court deems just. The suit is "Louis Motley et al. v. Homecomings Financial, LLC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing plaintiffs is: Douglas L. Micko, Esq. Sprenger & Lang PLLC 310 Fourth Avenue, south, Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 871-8910 Fax: (612) 871-9270 e-mail: dmciko@sprengerlang.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Nev. Court Denies Class Certification Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- A Nevada court denied a motion for class certification in the matter, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.," which names International Game Technology, Inc., as defendant. The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between Acres Gaming and International Game and sought to enjoin and void the merger agreement among other forms of relief. The other defendants named in the suit are: -- Floyd W. Glisson, -- Todd L. Bice, -- Roger B. Hammock, -- Richard Furash, -- David R. Willensky, -- Robert W. Brown, and -- Ronald G. Bennett. To recall, on Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. The plaintiff then requested the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition. In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to recover damages. The defendants then pointed to the amended complaint's failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004. On April 7, 2006, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal to U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was granted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006. Thus, on Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and discovery continues. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 5, 2007, which was denied by decision dated Dec. 4, 2007, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al., Case No. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court, Judge Michelle Leavitt presiding. Representing the defendants are: Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq. Lionel Sawyer & Collins 1700 Bank America Plaza 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 383-8880 Fax: (702) 383-8845 e-mail: phejmanowski@lionelsawyer.com MARYLAND: MHEC, Officials Face Litigation Over Academic Programs ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Maryland Higher Education Commission, several of its commissioners, and Maryland's Higher Education Secretary James E. Lyons, faces a purported class action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, The Baltimore Business Journal reports. The federal lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, aims to shut down a handful of academic programs offered at five Maryland universities and redirect the money spent on them to the state's historically black colleges and universities. The Baltimore Business Journal report indicated the suit was filed by the Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education, a group that lobbies on behalf of historically black colleges and universities. According to the suit, the state has violated federal laws by allowing predominantly white public schools to develop programs already offered by nearby historically black colleges and universities. No specific amount to be redirected to the schools was stated in the litigation. The lawsuit started out as a dispute over the legality of a joint MBA program at the University of Baltimore and Towson University, but later ballooned into a case pitting the minority schools against the state's top higher education officials, according to The Baltimore Business Journal report. Since 2002, the state has made a concerted effort to shore up underfunded historically black colleges and universities with nearly $450 million in funds. However, minority leaders contend that despite such spending, the schools are still lagging behind the state's predominantly white public universities in funding, enrollment, retention and graduation rates. MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Mulls Appeal in Dismissed Ariz. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona of the consolidated securities fraud class action, "Siracusano, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al." In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the company, its president and chief executive officer, Carl J. Johnson, and its executive vice president and chief financial officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal securities laws. On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff. The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was filed with the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona. An amended complaint, filed March 4, 2005, included the company's vice president of research and development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant. The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004, the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces. By order dated Dec. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," filed with the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 401 B St., Ste 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 e-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com - and - Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Esq. Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC 2901 N Central Ave, Ste. 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311 Phone: 602-274-1100 Fax: 602-274-1199 e-mail: fbalint@bffb.com Representing the company are: Maureen Beyers, Esq. Osborn Maledon, P.A. 2929 North Central Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85012-2794 Phone: 602-640-9305 Fax: 602-664-2053 e-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com - and - Amy J. Longo O'Melveny & Myers 610 Newport Center Dr., 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-823-7175 Fax: 949-823-6994 e-mail: alongo@omm.com MEMORY GARDENS: Fin'l Firms Blamed for Helping Couple Raid Funds ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen & Malad LLP filed a class-action suit with the U.S. District Court in Indianapolis against New York-based Smith Barney and a Noblesville bank formerly known as Community Trust & Investment Co., seeking more than $20 million from a pair of financial-services firms it says facilitated the transactions that allowed a New Jersey couple to plunder cemetery trust funds, Louis Jones of the Indiana Business Journal reports. The suit is filed on behalf of thousands of customers of Indianapolis-based Memory Gardens Management Corp., which owns Forest LawnMemory Gardens in Greenwood, Lincoln Memory Gardens in Boone County and other cemeteries. According to the report, the case is the latest fallout from a massive fraud investigators say was perpetrated by the New Jersey couple, Robert Nelms and Debora Johnson, who in 2004 agreed to acquire Memory Gardens by making a $13 million down payment and promising to pay the remainder of the $27 million purchase price over time. The suit says the couple came up with the down payment by taking out a short-term loan from a Smith Barney customer who was in on the scheme. Marion County prosecutors last month charged Mr. Nelms, 39, and Ms. Johnson, 48, with nine felony counts each. Investigators say the pair raided $24 million in trust funds that were supposed to maintain cemetery grounds and cover prepaid burials and funerals, the report said. According to the 17-page suit, the misconduct would not have been possible had a Smith Barney broker not conspired with the couple and encouraged them to find a new bank to serve as trustee that would permit the improper transactions. According to the suit, Smith Barney advised the couple that Forethought would not go along "with the unlawful diversion of trust funds" that led to Community Trust's selection as trustee. The Smith Barney broker Mr. Nelms and Ms. Johnson worked with was Mark Singer, a Philadelphia-area man who was charged last spring with theft, conspiracy and money-laundering in a similar cemetery trust fund scheme in Tennessee, Mr. Jones reports. Cohen & Malad attorney Richard Shevitz said the suit seeks $22 million diverted from the funds, plus other damages. To contact Mr. Shevitz: Richard Shevitz, Esq. Cohen & Malad, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: 317-636-6481 Fax: 317-636-2593 e-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com MICROSOFT CORP: Wash. Court Hears Oral Arguments in "Vista" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington recently heard arguments from both sides of lawsuit over Microsoft Corp.'s "Windows Vista Capable" stickers should be granted class-action status, The Joseph Tartakoff of The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. The hearing, which was held last week, will determine whether the lawsuit merited class-action status and whether Washington law applied. Case Background The suit, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," was filed by Dianne L. Kelley on March 29, 2007. Her legal representative in the case is the law firm of Gordon Murray Tilden LLP (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2007). Prior to the availability of Vista, Microsoft launched a marketing campaign that allowed PC makers to place a sticker on computers alerting potential buyers that they could upgrade to Vista when it became available (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3, 2007). Generally, Microsoft defines a PC as "Windows Vista Capable" when it uses "at least" an 800MHz processor, 512 megabytes of RAM, and DirectX 9 compatible graphics card. However, according to the suit, "a large number" of those PCs were only capable of running the Home Basic version of Vista, which lacks many of the features, such as media center, and enhanced graphics, which Microsoft advertises as included in Vista. It was reported that when Microsoft later offered buyers of "Windows Vista Capable" computers free or reduced-price upgrades to Vista, the company offered Home Basic to many customers. Additionally, the suit claims that Bill Gates contributed to the deception by saying on NBC's Today Show, PC users could upgrade to Windows Vista for just $100. A jury trial on the matter is scheduled to begin on Oct. 27, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2007). Recent Hearing The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports that during his opening presentation, plaintiffs' lawyer Jeffrey Tilden, Esq. of Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell quoted from numerous internal e-mails that appeared to show that employees within Microsoft had misgivings about the "Windows Vista Capable" campaign. The documents are under seal pending a ruling by Judge Pechman. Quoting extensively from internal company e-mails, Mr. Tilden argued that the company knowingly misled consumers by allowing PC makers to emblazon "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on PCs that could run only the most bare-bones version of the operating system. In the hearing both sides were given 40 minutes to make their cases, according to The Seattle Post Intelligencer. For his part, Stephen Rummage, Esq., of Davis Wright Tremaine, which is representing Microsoft, argued that the case did not merit class-action status, since each customer who bought a "Windows Vista Capable" computer had different information at the time of the purchase, The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. For instance, a Microsoft Web site provided information about the various editions of Vista, while magazines, blogs, and even some retailers also explained the distinctions. Mr. Rummage pointed out, "We know that there was a wealth of information available to the public." He adds, "They have not presented the court with a single document showing what people were told." However, plaintiffs' attorney Jeffrey Thomas countered that it made sense for the case, which was filed by two plaintiffs, to proceed as a class action, since all the individuals who bought "Windows Vista Capable" PCs were united in that "each person in our class did not get what they paid for." Judge Pechman said she would issue a ruling on the matter on class certification in about 10 days, The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. The suit is �Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP,� filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com MORGAN STANLEY: $16MM Settlement of Calif. Gender Bias Suit OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval to a proposed $16 million settlement of a class action filed against Morgan Stanley alleging gender discrimination under state and federal law, Bloomberg News reports. On June 22, 2006, Morgan Stanley was named in two purported class actions alleging gender discrimination under various state and federal statutes. On Oct. 24, 2007, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval to the settlement reached in "Joanne Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 06- 01142." The approved settlement resolved all of the class-wide and individual plaintiffs claims and included, among other things, a payment to the settlement fund and certain programmatic relief. All similar class wide claims raised in the second purported gender class action captioned, "Jaffe, et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-03903-TEH," which was filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, were subsumed by the Augst-Johnson settlement (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 4, 2008). On Feb. 7, the court, in issuing preliminary approval, was "swayed" by an almost identical settlement in October in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which provided a similar per-plaintiff award, wrote Judge Thelton Henderson. At that time, the second-biggest U.S. securities firm by market value agreed to pay $46 million in a suit claiming it discriminated against women. According to Bloomberg's Nancy Kercheval the settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit filed in California by three women on behalf of 1,300 black and Latino workers claiming they received less pay and fewer promotions than whites. Morgan Stanley denied any wrongdoing. A hearing was scheduled for June 16 to determine final approval for the settlement proposal, the report said. The suit is "Jaffe, et al v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., Case Number: 3:2006cv03903," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californi, the Hon. Thelton E. Henderson, presiding. NATIONAL MUTUAL: Faces OH Suit Over Vehicle Liability Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ National Mutual Insurance Co. and its affiliates are facing a class-action complaint filed Feb. 7 in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio over alleged refusal in bad faith to compensate policyholders for expenses and wages lost to attend mandatory legal hearings for their vehicle liability claims, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Emma Negron brings this suit on behalf of all policyholders and other "insured" persons who, form and after Feb. 7, 1993, did not receive contractual reimbursements due to them under the Auto Liability Coverage Agreement section of defendants' motor vehicle insurance policies. The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants continue to issue or have issued thousands of motor vehicle insurance policies, including Auto Liability Coverage Agreement provisions, to policyholders in the State of Ohio, which defendants drafted, issued and retained copies of, containing policy terms which are the same or substantially similar to the relevant portions of the policy language cited in the complaint. Ms. Negron wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants' failure to reimburse insureds, in addition to the policy Limits of Liability, for mileage, parking and other private or public transportation expenses incurred by the insureds for required attendance at conferences, depositions, arbitrations, hearings or trial is a breach of the insurance contracts issued by defendants; (b) whether defendants' failure to reimburse insureds for postage and delivery expenses, in addition to the policy Limits of Liability, is a breach of the insurance contracts issued by defendants; (c) whether the named plaintiff and the classes were adequately and fully informed of the first-party policy expense reimbursement and provided Proof of Claim forms or alternative means of notification and expense determination whenever defendants requested their insureds to attend conferences, depositions, arbitrations, hearings or trials; (d) whether defendant companies' bad faith conduct is uniformly and systematically carried out in a concerted manner by and for each defendant; (e) whether defendants have engaged in a course of conduct in establishing claims handling practices designed to avoid and conceal their contractual obligations and avoid and conceal their obligation to reimburse the travel related expenses and postage owed under the Auto Liability overage Agreement provision of their policies; (f) whether defendants' established practices constitute a violation of their fiduciary obligation to act in good faith and to engage in fair dealing with insureds; (g) whether the named plaintiff and the classes have sustained damages and the proper measure of those damages; (h) whether the named plaintiff and the classes are entitled to an award of punitive damages against defendants; and (i) whether the named plaintiff and the classes are entitled to recover their costs, attorneys' fees and prejugdment interest. Plaintiff requests that the court enter judgment as follows: -- determining that the action is properly maintained as a class action, certifying the class; certifying the named plaintiff as class representative; and appointing the4 named plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the class; -- awarding compensatory damages, appropriate punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs; -- awarding pre-judgment interest from the date each class member's lawsuit was dismissed and closed; -- awarding suitable equitable and declaratory relief; and -- providing such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. The suit is "Emma Negron et al. v. Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Co., Case No. CV 08 650310," filed with the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Representing plaintiffs is: W. Craig Bashein, Esq. Bashein & Bashein Co., LPA Terminal Tower, 35th Floor 50 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113-2216 Phone: (216) 771-3239 Fax: ((216) 771-5876 e-mail: cbashein@basheinlaw.com ONTARIO: Court to Decide on Suit on Behalf of Autistic Children --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ontario Court of Appeal will decide if a class-action lawsuit on behalf of autistic children seeking treatment within the public school system in the province can continue, Shannon Kari writes for Canwest News. The Canwest report says that this week, a three-judge panel will hear an appeal of a Superior Court decision in March 2007 that allowed part of the lawsuit to continue, based on allegations that the current policy violates the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights. According to the Canadian Press, five families are trying to sue the Ontario government and seven school boards for negligence and damages, accusing them of failing to provide or properly fund expensive therapies in schools. The Ontario government had sought to dismiss the legal action entirely, arguing that the issue has already been decided by a Court of Appeal ruling in 2006 involving age cut-offs for publicly funded autism treatment. According to Canwest, the Ontario government eliminated the age restriction for intensive behavioral intervention treatment for autistic children, although the programs are outside of the school setting. The parents represented in the class action lawsuit, however, are asking for the same treatment for their children as for students with other disabilities, Canwest says. Canadian Press recalls that the families filed the CDN$1.25-billion lawsuit, which has yet to be certified as a class action, arguing their children were victims of discrimination because other kids with special needs receive both therapy and their education within the publicly-funded school system. In March 2007, however, Ontario Superior Court Justice Maurice Cullity sided with the provincial government in striking down several of the key claims, including negligence and damages. Judge Cullity, though, let stand the discrimination claim and by later dismissing the province's demand for CDN$85,000 in legal costs, he recognized the public importance of the issue and gave hope to the families that they might still have a case. "We feel our children are entitled to an education, the same as every other child," Lynn Shane, whose son is autistic, told Canwest. She said that the province is funding over 20 hours of IBI treatment weekly for her son, but the treatment is not within a school setting. David Baker, a lawyer representing the parents, said parents are put in a difficult spot as they have to choose whether to receive the therapy or education for their children, when they could have both. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that does not deliver IBI treatment through the education system, Mr. Baker told Canwest. He pointed out that there are only two children in the province who are receiving IBI therapy while attending a public school full-time, and noted that they have been highly successful. Canwest recalls that before the provincial election last year, the provincial Liberals promised CDN$10 million to fund IBI therapy in schools, in addition to the CDN$130 million the government is currently spending annually on autism treatment. Patricia MacNeil, a spokeswoman for the provincial Ministry of Education, explained that the pledge was a "platform commitment" of the Liberal party and the ministry is now "working on delivering on the commitment." She said, however, that it will take a while as there are challenges with it, such as appropriate space to provide IBI therapy in a school. The Court of Appeal is expected to hand down its decision on whether the class action lawsuit can go ahead after hearing arguments. PINNACLE LAS VEGAS: Faces Lawsuit Over Construction Delays ---------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Las Vegas LLC was recently slapped with a class action lawsuit by frustrated buyers, Tony Illia of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports. According to the report, the proposed $740-million condominium- hotel development at Tropicana Avenue and Cameron Street was first announced in 2005. Three years later, however, construction has not been completed. The project, Review-Journal relates, has changed contractors three times in three years. Dick Pacific Construction, a unit of Pittsburgh-based Dick Corp., replaced Marnell Corrao Associates as builder in mid-2007. Both builders were preceded by Turner Construction Co. Dick Pacific, who came aboard last summer, is also a project partner, the report explains. Green Cable LLC last month sued the project's development team for breach of contract, Review-Journal says. It is seeking at least $5 million in returned deposits, damages and attorney's fees. The lawsuit alleges that buyers bought units with the understanding that Pinnacle would open by August. Pinnacle's design calls for two 36-story, faceted gold glass towers connected by three sky bridges. The twin skyscrapers, designed by YWS Architects, contain 1,100 condo-hotel units that allow buyers to rent out residences as guest rooms when not in use. The concept allows home buyers to generate revenue from their units to help offset the purchase price. Project plans additionally entail resort-like amenities, including a three- acre wet-deck, restaurants, boutiques, a fitness center and a spa. &Opportunities, the real-estate brokerage firm of Sam Schwartz, a principal in Green Cable LLC, represents 16 buyers who each paid 10% deposits for units priced from the $300,000s to more than $1 million. Their agreements contained an addendum with developer benchmarks. For instance, Pinnacle must deliver 306 purchase pacts or it can be found in default. It must also break ground within a certain time frame. Review-Journal says that the lawsuit also claims that the project site is contaminated with high benzene levels as a result of dropping ground water levels. The environmental issue has yet to be resolved, it adds. "Our initial review is that this action is without merit," said Cynthia LaVasseur, Esq., an attorney representing the defendants, which include 4645 Tropicana Partners LLC, Dick Pacific, Falconi Group, Elysium Enterprises, and Praxis Resources LLC. The defendants intend to file a request to dismiss the lawsuit. Pinnacle's current construction status is unknown, the report notes. The project originally was scheduled to break ground in the fall of 2006 -- a date that has since changed repeatedly. The most recent announcement, released in October 2007, says groundbreaking will occur by mid 2008. Officials have yet to publicly announce a construction loan. The defendants are represented by: Cynthia LeVasseur, Esq. Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P. 3883 Howard Hughes Parkway Suite 1000 Las Vegas, NV 89169 Phone: (702) 784-5234 Fax: (702) 784-5252 e-mail: clevasseur@swlaw.com PLEXUS CORP: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Wis. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plexus Corp. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action that remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Feb. 6, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 29, 2007. Initially, two securities class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on June 25 and June 29, 2007, against the Company and certain Company officers and directors. On Nov. 7, 2007, the two actions were consolidated, and a consolidated class-action complaint was filed on Feb. 1, 2008. Aside from the Company, the consolidated complaint names these individuals as defendants: -- Dean A. Foate, President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of the Company; -- F. Gordon Bitter, the Company's former Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and -- Paul Ehlers, the Company's former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer. The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the Company's statements regarding its defense sector business in early calendar 2006. The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 866-264-3995 Fax: 414-482-8001 e-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/ REALTYSOUTH: Appeals Court Reverses Ruling in Suit Over ABC Fee --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a lower court decision that denied class-action status to a lawsuit filed against RealtySouth over its $149 mandatory add-on fee, Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers Group. The suit was originally filed with a federal court by Vicki B. Busby of Jefferson, Alabama. It was intended to cover all consumers forced to pay what the brokerage firm termed its ABC fee -� an administrative brokerage commission. Ms. Busby alleges in the suit that in addition to paying a substantial commission to the Birmingham-based broker, and its sales agent, she was also required to pay the ABC fee. She contends that there was no evidence that the firm had actually performed any extra services -- above and beyond the brokerage services compensated by the commissions -- and therefore the ABC fee violated federal law. The federal court refused to grant class-action status to the case, which thus forced Ms. Busby to appeal the matter to the Eleventh Circuit. In siding with Ms. Busby, the appeals court ruled that the lower court had erred in not considering the factual issue -- was any specific work done to justify the extra charge? -- in making its decision to deny the request for class-action status. The recent ruling brings the case back to the district court, according to Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers Group. The case is the latest in a long-running battle pitting realty, mortgage and title companies against consumers protesting so- called junk fees and settlement sheet add-ons. In the past, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has ruled that any fee imposed in connection with a residential real estate transaction must be for services actually rendered. Some federal courts have disagreed with HUD's interpretation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, while others have agreed. According to Washington attorney Phillip L. Schulman of K&L Gates, an authority on real estate settlement issues, in Busby ruling, the appeals court seems to have "bolstered HUD's interpretation that if a real estate broker cannot produce evidence of the services it performed for the administrative (or other add-on) fees it charges, a violation may exist." In an interview with Kenneth R. Harney of The Washington Post Writers Group, Mr. Schulman pointed out that the court's ruling is not the final word on the matter, but it "underscores the importance of performing actual services in exchange for" fees charged in connection with real estate and mortgage transactions. RENEWABLE ENVIRONMENTAL: Seeks Dismissal of Mo. Suit Over Odors --------------------------------------------------------------- Renewable Environmental Solutions is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against the company, which is alleging that odors from its Carthage, Missouri plant are a nuisance and that the company has been negligent, John Hacker of The Carthage Press reports. The RES plant takes waste turkey parts and other agricultural waste and turns it into a fuel oil using what it calls a thermal conversion process. The plant has been cited by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources several times since it opened in April 2003, and was forced to shut down for a time by the state in 2005, according to The Carthage Press. The suit was filed with the Jasper County Circuit Court by Cynthia Sundy on June 5, 2007. Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron Jones, Esq. of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis and Miles -- seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney fees (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2007). Ms. Sundy the odor from RES "has injured area residents and property owners by diminishing their right to enjoy their property and diminished their property values." She asked that that the case be declared as a class action, and that the class include about half the city of Carthage. The filing noted that there are potentially 6,375 people in 2,406 households in the area affected by the odor from RES. According to The Carthage Press, in July 2007, the Jasper County Circuit Court granted an RES motion to send the case to federal court, but in October 2007, the federal court sent the case back to Jasper County at the request of Ms. Sundy's attorneys. The Carthage Press reports that RES filed a motion to dismiss the case in November 2007, but no decision on that motion was listed in the court records on the Internet. Plaintiffs are represented by: Rhon Jones, Esq. Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034 Fax: (334) 954-7555 e-mail: rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Defective Blu-Ray Players, Prompts NJ Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey accusing it of selling defective Blu-Ray Disc Players, CourtHouse News Service reports. CourtHouse notes that, according to the complaint, Samsung Electronics sells defective Blu-Ray Disc Players that "will not play numerous Blu-ray disc titles." Lead attorneys Chimicles & Tikellis, of Haverford, Pa., claim Samsung has sold the defective goods since June 2006, knowing they are defective, and that Samsung's defective players account for "32% of set-top player sales." According to the complaint, defendant's actions in selling the Defective Blu-ray Disc Players without disclosing this material defect, and failing to issue firmware updates or otherwise promptly take corrective action to repair and replace the Defective Bluray Disc Players with this known defect were negligent, reckless and in breach its statutory and common law duties, and express and implied warranties to its customers. Named plaintiff Robert T. McGovern brings this suit as a class action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased any of the Defendant's Defective Blu-ray Disc Players. Mr. McGovern wants the court to rule on: (a) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by selling Defective Blu-ray Disc Players; (b) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in failing to warn its customers in a timely and effective manner of the compatibility issued regarding its Defective Bluray Disc Players; (c) Whether Defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in failing to take appropriate remedial measures to fix the Defective Blu-ray Disc Players; (d) Whether Defendant breached express and/or implied warranties relating to the sale of its Defective Blu- ray Disc Players; (e) Whether Defendant breached any express or implied warranties when they manufactured and sold the Defective Blu-ray Disc Players; (f) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief; and (g) the appropriate measurement of restitution and/or measure of damages to award to Plaintiff and members of the Class. Plaintiff requests, on behalf of himself and members of the Class, that the Court: -- determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue order certifying the Class as defined; -- award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, and consequential damages to which Plaintiff and Class members are entitled; -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; -- grant appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief, including, without limitation, an order that requires Defendant to repair and replace its Defective Blu-ray Disc Players; -- award reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and -- grant such further and other relief that this Court deems appropriate. The suit is "Robert T. McGovern et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 2:08-cv-00663-JAG-MCA," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing plaintiffs are: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Tel: 610-642-8500 Fax: 610-649-3633 e-mail: JosephSauder@chimicles.com BenJohns@chimicles.com Arthur L. Shingler III Scott + Scott, LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel.: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 e-mail: ashingler@scott-scott.com David R. Scott, Esq. 108 Norwich Avenue P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Tel.: 860-537-5537 Fax.: 860-537-4432 - and - Beth Kaswan, Esq. 29 West 57th Street New York, NY 10019 Tel: 212-223-6444 Fax: 212-223-6334 SANTEE COOPER: Faces Utility Rate Increase Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- A rate increase lawsuit was filed against state-owned Santee Cooper utility, The Post and Courier reports. According to the report, the utility is being sued over an electric rate increase that plaintiffs allege was approved as a temporary increase to pay for a building program but continued after the project was paid for. The class-action lawsuit would affect some 6,000 residential and individual business customers in Berkeley County, among 150,000 customers who would get a payback on electric bills dating to 1994 or 1995. Other customers potentially involved in the class-action lawsuit are in Georgetown and Horry counties. The Post and Courier clarifies that the suit affects only the utility's own customers, not electric cooperative customers using Santee Cooper power. The suit was filed in Horry County. In its motion to dismiss the suit, Santee Cooper attorneys maintained that "there is a careful and deliberate process in place to review and make adjustments on a rate adjustment" and that concerns with the rate increase should have been raised during the comment period 12 years ago. "Our position is, we represent a class of retail customers who have been wronged by Santee Cooper. Their position is, wrong or not, they can't be sued," Gedney Howe III, of Charleston, the plaintiff's lead attorney, avers. "They don't think there is a legal remedy. We think there is." The report says that Civil Chief Administrative Judge J. Michael Baxley did not rule from the bench after hearing attorneys from both sides. The ruling is expected within a few weeks. The plaintiffs are represented by: Gedney M. Howe, III, Esq. Gedney M. Howe, III, P.A. 8 Chalmers Street P.O. Box 1034 Charleston, South Carolina 29402 Phone: (843) 722-8048 Fax: (843) 722-2140 e-mail: cmwwest@aol.com SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Pa. Couples Files Suit Over Paid Mortgages ------------------------------------------------------------- Two couples from the County of Berks, in Pennsylvania, filed purported class actions against SunTrust Mortgage Inc., and mortgage broker, Wesley Snyder, The Associated Press reports. Mr. Snyder is awaiting sentencing on fraud charges. He stands accused of running a Ponzi scheme that defrauded homeowners, and investors out of more than $29 million over two decades. AP reports that the 71-year-old pleaded guilty to a federal charge of mail fraud and will be sentenced in March 2007. He faces up to 30 years in prison. In the lawsuit, AP says, the two couples claim that they were cheated by Mr. Snyder, and SunTrust Mortgage. They are seeking credit for tens of thousands of dollars they say they paid on their mortgages. However, SunTrust is claiming it never got the money from the two couples and is now demanding it, according to the AP report. The suits also seek class-action status for all Pennsylvania mortgage customers whom SunTrust got through Mr. Snyder's company, which collapsed in September 2007, AP reports. TIER TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Working to Settle Va. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter, "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," are in the process of resolving that lawsuit, which remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On Nov. 10, 2006, a law firm issued a press release stating that a class action had been filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Tier Technologies, Inc.'s common stock from Nov. 29, 2001, to Oct. 25, 2006. According to the press release, the suit alleges that Tier and certain of its former and current officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, but did not identify the level of damages being sought. Lead counsel The Rosen Law Firm as Lead Counsel filed in February 2007 an amended complaint and a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. On July 24, 2007, however, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied certification for the purported class action. On Dec. 3, 2007, at the defendant's request, the court dismissed the amended complaint, but permitted the plaintiff an opportunity to file another amended complaint. Currently, the parties are in the process of resolving that lawsuit, according to the company's Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 6, 2008. The suit is "Shiring v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01276-TSE-BRP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge T. S. Ellis, III presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Phone: (212) 686-1060, (917) 797-4425 or 1866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 e-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC 1700 K. St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-3817 Phone: (703) 734-3100 Fax: 703-973-8899 * UK Should Not Follow U.S. Class Action Procedures, CJC Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Procedures governing group actions by United Kingdom consumers need to be reformed, but should not resemble U.S. class actions, TheLawyer.com reports, citing results of a research commissioned by the Civil Justice Council. Master of the rolls Sir Anthony Clarke said the research made an important contribution to the debate on what have been loosely termed class actions in the U.K., The Lawyer notes. "As the report makes plain, it is clearly not desirable to import a US-style class action system, nor would it be practical to do so," said Mr. Clarke. "However, it is right to consider whether civil procedure can or should be improved while ensuring proper protection against unmeritorious claims." Nina Goswami of The Lawyer writes that the CJC will now consider the matters that arose from the research and will provide advice to the Government. The 170-page report analyzed consumer claims in common law jurisdictions and in Europe and recommended 19 "building blocks" for improvement. One major issue discussed in the paper is the opt-in nature of group litigation orders, the report says. According to the research report, around 30% of those who suffered loss decide to opt in for GLOs. That said, there have been a total of 62 actions brought since 2000, the year GLOs were introduced. Law firms that used GLOs said that opt-in did not always suit the action as it can be difficult to identify all group members from the outset, The Lawyer relates. Under U.S.-style class actions, people have to opt-out if they do not what to be part of proceedings. The study suggests that following the US model to this extent may not be required. * William Lerach Gets Two-Year Imprisonment for Kickback Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- William S. Lerach, a former partner of the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP, was sentenced to two years in prison and ordered to forfeit $7.75 million for concealing illegal payments to a plaintiff in the class-action lawsuits for which the firm became famous, Michael Parrish The New York Times reports. For the past seven years, Mr. Lerach's name has been associated with an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office into allegations of improper payments to clients by Milberg Weiss (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 30, 2007). Milberg Weiss is accused of reaping $250 million in a scheme in which it paid clients to act as plaintiffs in securities lawsuits. In October 2007, Mr. Lerach entered his plea of one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and make false statements. Under the plea deal, Mr. Lerach, who left Milberg Weiss in 2004 and formed his own firm in California, agreed to forfeit $7.75 million, pay a $250,000 fine and accept a sentence of one or two years in prison. His plea deal protects that firm, Coughlin Stoia, from being charged in the Milberg Weiss case. Sentencing for Mr. Lerach, who resigned from Coughlin Stoia in August, was originally scheduled for Jan. 14, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2007). It was moved to Feb. 11, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008). On Feb. 11, 2008, The New York Times reports that Mr. Lerach, appeared before Judge John F. Walter of U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Monday, and called his conduct "felony stupid" in brief comments before he was sentenced. Mr. Lerach, 61, added that even at the time, "I knew what I did was wrong" but that he lacked the "strength of character" to not join with other lawyers in the scheme, according to The New York Times report. Judge Walter said that he would have liked to sentence Mr. Lerach to a "substantially" longer prison term, but deferred to a plea agreement that was reached with, which called for a maximum of two years. Had the case gone to trial, Mr. Lerach could have faced up to 50 years, The New York Times reports. The New York Times reports that the judge was particularly concerned that Mr. Lerach and his paid plaintiffs had lied to judges. Judge Walter pointed out that "What Lerach and others did goes to the core" of the legal system. The judge added that Mr. Lerach, who accepted disbarment, would never again be able to do "what he was obviously so good at." Mr. Lerach, of La Jolla, Calif., admitted to an arrangement in which his law firm made payments to people to be on call as plaintiffs in class actions that were filed against publicly traded companies when their stock dropped in price, according to The New York Times report. Prosecutors for the U.S. attorney's office of the Central District of California, who worked on the case for seven years, say that Mr. Lerach and others lined up the plaintiffs ahead of time to gain an illegal advantage over other law firms engaged in the same suits. By being designated the lead plaintiff, the law firm stood to reap a larger share of any eventual lawyers' fees, The New York Times reports In his guilty plea, Mr. Lerach admitted to concealing from federal judges his secret payments to one such plaintiff, Dr. Steven G. Cooperman. Prosecutors say that in more than 150 of the firm's class actions from the 1970s to 2005, the law firm earned more than $216 million in lawyers' fees, paying $11 million to these on- call plaintiffs. The bases for the lawsuits were never in question, according to reports. The New York Times reports that Mr. Lerach was also sentenced to two years of probation and 1,000 hours of community service. He was also ordered to pay a $250,000 fine in addition to forfeiting the $7.75 million. He agreed not to appeal his sentencing, but declined to cooperate with the government on forthcoming prosecutions in the case. Mr. Lerach is to report for prison on April 21, 2008. Judge Walter agreed to a request that Mr. Lerach serve his sentence at a minimum-security federal prison at Lompoc, California, according to The New York Times report. New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Finkelstein Thompson Files N.Y. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. common stock during the period between Oct. 19, 2005, and Nov. 26, 2007. The complaint charges Ambac and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Ambac is a holding company whose subsidiaries provide financial guarantee products and other financial services to clients in both the public and private sectors around the world. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results related to its financial exposure on collateralized debt obligations ("CDO") contracts. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and concealed the material facts that: (i) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were adequate, and, as a result, the Company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions and/or manipulated facts; (ii) the Company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its mark-to-market losses; (iii) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to tighten its underwriting standards related to its asset-backed securities, which would have a direct material negative impact on its premium production going forward; (iv) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts containing subprime loans, including even highly rated CDOs, than it had previously disclosed; (v) the Company had far greater exposure to a potential ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings agencies than it had previously disclosed; and (vi) defendants' Class Period statements about the Company's selective underwriting practices during the 2005 through 2007 timeframe related to its CDOs backed by subprime assets were patently false; as the Company's underwriting standards were at best aggressive and at a minimum were completely inadequate. As the truth began to be disclosed, shares of Ambac common stock plummeted, causing substantial losses to investors. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Ambac common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 17, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Donald J. Enright Elizabeth K. Tripodi Finkelstein Thompson LLP Phone: (877) 337-1050 e-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com MORGAN KEEGAN: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suits in TN ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Falls & Veach -- with offices in Nashville, Tennessee and Asheville, North Carolina -- and Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., Hartford, Connecticut, announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Memphis Division, against: -- Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., -- Morgan Keegan Asset Management, Inc., -- Regions Financial Corporation and -- related companies and officers and directors The plaintiffs are investors who lost money in the following Regions Morgan Keegan bond funds: -- RMK Advantage Income Fund -- RMK Strategic Income Fund -- RMK High Income Fund The lawsuit seeks to represent all persons and entities who purchased shares of RMA, RSF and RMH during the period December 6, 2004 through December 6, 2007. The complaint charges the Funds' registrants, the Funds' administrator, Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc., the Funds' adviser, Morgan Asset Management, Inc., Regions Financial Corp. and certain of Morgan Keegan's officers and/or directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that the Funds and the other defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to: (i) the nature of the risk being assumed by an investment in the Funds, (ii) the illiquidity of certain securities in which the Funds invested, (iii) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios contained securities that were illiquid or exhibited the characteristics of illiquid securities so that they were highly vulnerable to suddenly becoming unsalable at the prices at which they were being carried on the Funds' records, (iv) the extent to which the Funds' portfolios were subject to fair value procedures, (v) the extent to which the values of such securities, and, consequently, the net asset values of the Funds, were based on estimates of value and the uncertainty inherent in such estimated values, and (vi) the concentration of investments in a single industry in excess of investment restrictions to which the Funds were subject. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all investors in the Funds during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than sixty days from February 7, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: H. Naill Falls Jr. Falls & Veach 1143 Sewanee Road Nashville, Tennessee 37220 Phone: (615) 242-1826 Facsimile: (615) 242-1823 e-mail: nf@fallsveach.com SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Coughlin Stoia Files Ca. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between October 30, 2007 and February 4, 2008. The complaint charges SiRF and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SiRF, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development and marketing of semiconductor and software products that are designed to enable location-awareness utilizing global positioning system and other location technologies worldwide. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of defendants' false statements, SiRF stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, permitting one of the defendants to sell $9.6 million worth of his SiRF stock at $24.18-$24.29 per share. On February 4, 2008, after the market closed, the Company announced disappointing financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal 2007. On February 5, 2008, SiRF's stock collapsed $8.91 per share to close at $7.36 per share, a one-day decline of 54%. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. was having an adverse impact on SiRF's results due to the similar products sold by Centrality which were cannibalizing SiRF's sales; (b) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive targets set by and for the Company; (c) Centrality's System-on-Chip ("SoC") product line had lower gross margins than SiRF's products and defendants knew that although the Centrality acquisition would increase revenues in the fourth quarter (as it did), it would also significantly lower SiRF's gross margins (as it also did); (d) competitive pressures were having much more of an adverse impact on the Company than acknowledged by defendants, as SiRF's customers were moving to cellular-enabled products which SiRF could not adequately compete with; (e) as of October 30, 2007, one month into the fourth quarter, fourth quarter gross margins would be down significantly because of the lower SoC product line margins; and (f) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SiRF publicly traded securities during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 email: djr@csgrr.com Web site: http://www.csgrr.com SUNOPTA INC: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of SunOpta Inc. between Aug. 8, 2007, and Jan. 25, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges SunOpta and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, Plaintiff claims that Defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial performance caused SunOpta's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. SunOpta primarily operates as a producer and processor of natural and organic foods in the United States and Canada. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the Company was experiencing problems with its internal controls and inventory. On January 24, 2008, following the close of trading, defendants shocked investors when they published a press release that revealed, for the first time, that the Company was performing well below expectations and that defendants expected to cause the Company to take a material restatement charge in the near term -- rendering its prior reported financial statements and reports unreliable, false and materially misleading. The Company said it expected to post a profit of 12 cents to 14 cents per share for the year, citing issues within its fruit and BioProcess groups that led to pretax write-downs and provisions of $12 million to $14 million. Among problems the Company cited were inventories within the Company's Fruit Group's berry operations requiring a write-down to net realizable value, whereby "preliminary estimates indicated that an adjustment in the range of $9 to $11 million for this issue and related items is necessary." The Company disclosed a charge of "approximately $3 million pre-tax, related to difficulties in collecting for services and equipment provided to a customer under the terms of an existing equipment supply contract within the SunOpta BioProcess Group." After SunOpta drastically lowered its fiscal 2007 profit forecast and announced that financial restatements are likely, shares of SunOpta plunged to a low of $6.05 on January 25, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 28, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 e-mail to info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.primenewswire.com SYNTAX-BRILLIAN: Zwerling Schachter Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for District of Arizona on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Syntax-Brillian Corp. (NASD: BRLC) pursuant to a public offering of approximately 25.6 million shares at $5.75 per share on May 24, 2007. The deadline to file a motion seeking to be represent the class is April 7, 2008. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with the May 24, 2007 public offering contained materially false and misleading statements, or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading, concerning Syntax-Brillian's revenue growth, profitability, and its business in China. On September 12, 2007, Syntax-Brillian announced that the results for its first quarter 2008, ending on September 30, 2007, would be significantly below expectations. The Company projected first quarter 2008 revenues of between $170-180 million, when analysts were expecting the Company to report revenues of $254 million, a shortfall of more than 25%. On November 11, 2007, the Company announced that revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, was $150.6 million, a decline of 26.6% from the previous quarter, and that revenue from China in the quarter was $14.6 million, compared with $96.8 million in the prior quarter, a decline of approximately 85%. The Complaint alleges that Syntax-Brillian failed to disclose in the registration statement and prospectus that while the Company shipped hundreds of thousands of LCD televisions to its sole distributor in China during the Class Period, and recorded hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in connection with these shipments, the end-user demand for the Company's LCD televisions in China was much weaker than what investors were led to believe. For more information, contact: Kevin McGee, Esq. Willy Gonzalez Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Tel.: 800-721-3900 Tel.: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 e-mail: kmcgee@zsz.com wgonzalez@zsz.com Web site: http://www.zsz.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2008. 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 * * *