/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080410.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 71 Headlines ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Washington ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia" ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Service Mark-Ups ARCTIC GLACIER: Accused by Grocer of Freezing Out Competition ATA AIRLINES: Nichols Kaster & Anderson Brings WARN Act Lawsuit BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files 3rd Suit Citing ERISA Breach EQUITY INNS: Lawsuit in Tenn. Over Company's Sale Moves Forward FIFTH THIRD BANK: Suit Over Mismanagement of Trust Assets Nixed FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Challenged IGE: Warcraft Gamer Sues Over Online Real-Money Trading JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Considers Appeal of Stockholders' Lawsuit JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.Y. ERISA Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Litigation JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims in Interchange Fees Suit MCDONALD'S ISRAEL: Sued for ILS100MM Over Sodium Content in Food MR. LUBIE STORES: Sued for Selling Low-Grade Motor Oil NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Avondale Mills Suit Over Train Wreck NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Another Suit Over Traffic Fines OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Certified in Penna. District Court PALM INC: May 2 Hearing Set for Treo Suit Settlement in Calif. PETROLEUM DEV'T: Court Grants 90-Day Stay in Royalties Lawsuit PLASTECH ENGINEERED: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Racial Harassment REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Over ERISA Violations SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla. SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation SERVICE CORP: Faces Arizona Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations SERVICE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Texas Casket Antitrust Suits STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over RICO Violations New Securities Fraud Cases ARTHROCARE CORP: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida HUMANA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY MERCK & CO: Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in PA RAYMOND JAMES: Girard Gibbs Announces NY Securities Suit Filing SUNTRUST BANKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces Consumer Fraud Suits in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., is facing two purported consumer fraud class actions over ChoiceDek composite decking, which suits are both pending with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's April 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Pelletz Litigation On Feb. 26, 2008, plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew. The suit is captioned, "Pelletz v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Lowe's Companies, Inc.," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs, who filed suit on behalf of the purported class, named as defendants AERT, Weyerhaeuser Co., and Lowe's Cos., Inc., asserting causes of action for violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unfair competition or unfair and deceptive trade practices in various states, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs' complaint is April 18, 2008. Jamruk Litigation On March 10, 2008, additional plaintiffs filed a purported class action seeking to recover on behalf of the purchasers of ChoiceDek composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew. The suit is captioned, "Joseph Jamruk et al vs. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Company," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs named as defendants AERT and Weyerhaeuser Company, asserting causes of action for misrepresentation, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. By agreement, the deadline for AERT to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiffs’ complaint is April 18, 2008. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (AERT) -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. The Company's products are sold by national companies, such as the Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp. Its composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components, windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle, MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor decking and Basics outdoor decking. AERT has manufacturing facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas; Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana. ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida has yet to certify a class in the case against Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006. The suit (Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32) was filed by Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia against: -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., -- Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, * d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, * f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. The Plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004, are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia, who essentially claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be located. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at the cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this is due to poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the cemetery. They are also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. No class has been certified in this matter. SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Pa. Suit Over Back Wages, Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face purported federal class action over its alleged failure to pay back wages and overtime to thousands of employees, including workers at funeral homes that it owns, according to SCI's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 8, 2006. The Lead plaintiffs were identified as Deborah Prise of Shadyside and Heather Rady of Greensburg, two former Alderwoods (Pennsylvania), Inc. employees (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006). The suit purports to have been brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all Alderwoods and SCI affiliated employees who performed work for which they were not fully compensated, including work for which overtime pay was owed. The court has conditionally certified a class of claims as to certain job positions for Alderwoods employees. The Plaintiffs allege causes of action for violations of the FLSA, failure to maintain proper records, breach of contract, violations of state wage and hour laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, quantum meruit, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence. They seek injunctive relief, unpaid wages, liquidated, compensatory, consequential and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest. On three occasions, the court has denied without prejudice plaintiffs' request for certification of claims against SCI, and has dismissed such claims without prejudice. The suit is "Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01641-JFC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Charles H. Saul, Esq. (csaul@margolisedelstein.com) Margolis Edelstein 310 Grant St., Suite 1500, Grant Bldg. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-4256, Representing the defendants is: Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com) Jones Day One Mellon Center, 31st Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-3939 ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Service Mark-Ups --------------------------------------------------------------- Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face a purported class action over its alleged non-disclosure of markups on funeral service contracts. The suit is pending with the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. The suit, "Richard Sanchez et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al., Case No. BC328962," was filed in February 2005. It seeks to certify a nationwide class on behalf of all consumers who purchased funeral goods and services from the company. The plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule requires the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts. They further allege that the company has failed to make such disclosures. The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages, attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief. SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. ARCTIC GLACIER: Accused by Grocer of Freezing Out Competition ------------------------------------------------------------- Suburban Milwaukee grocer V. Richards is suing Arctic Glacier Wisconsin over a market lock on the packaged ice business, the Associated Press reports. V. Richards says Arctic Glacier has conspired to freeze out competition. V. Richards' attorney John Cabaniss, Esq., told AP that he intends to ask the court to certify the case as a class action so other sellers of Arctic Glacier products can join the lawsuit. According to AP, the lawsuit was filed in Milwaukee County following a federal lawsuit filed in Minnesota in March by Ridge Plaza of Milwaukee, alleging federal antitrust violations by Arctic Glacier and two other ice companies. A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman told AP that agents are investigating possible anticompetitive conduct in the packaged ice business. ATA AIRLINES: Nichols Kaster & Anderson Brings WARN Act Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- On April 8, 2008, a former employee of ATA Airlines, Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit against ATA Airlines, Inc. and Global Aero Logistics, Inc. for violations of the Worker's Retraining and Notification Act. The lawsuit alleges that ATA and Global Aero Logistics violated the WARN Act when they laid off 1,000 or more employees on or about April 3, 2008 without 60 days notice as required by the WARN Act. ATA is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of Indiana on April 2, 2008. The Plaintiff, who worked for ATA in Indianapolis, Indiana, brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others who worked at ATA's qualifying work sites across the country. Plaintiffs' attorney Matthew Helland explained, "We believe that ATA and Global Aero Logistics did not provide employees with the proper notice before ending their employment. It is our understanding that some employees learned in the middle of the night that they were not to report to work the next day. As a result, there are now hundreds, if not over a thousand, former employees of ATA out of work and trying to find jobs. This is the very sort of thing the WARN Act is meant to prevent." The suit is "Batman, et al v. ATA Airlines, Inc., et al, Adv. Pro. No. 08-50208," Bankr. S.D. Ind. ATA's bankruptcy proceeding is Case No. 08-03675-BHL-11, Bankr. S.D. Ind. BEAR STEARNS: Hagens Berman Files 3rd Suit Citing ERISA Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a third complaint against Bear Stearns (NYSE: BSC) on behalf of current and former employees, claiming the company violated ERISA laws concerning the management of the Employee Stock Ownership Plan. The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court in New York by plan participant Rita Rusin, seeks to represent all employees that invested in the ESOP from December 14, 2006, until the present. The lawsuit claims the company's failure to adequately manage the plan and its investments resulted in the depletion of hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement savings and anticipated retirement income for plan participants. "We've received calls from employees looking for help," said Hagens Berman managing partner and lead attorney Steve Berman. "They are upset that Bear Stearns didn't warn them that the company stock might be in trouble." Mr. Berman also noted that the firm has received calls from current Bear Stearns employees, afraid the company could retaliate against them if they participate in the legal action. "I urge any employee who wants to speak up to do so without fear," Mr. Berman noted. "There are very strong laws that protect employees when they come forward on cases such as this." Hagens Berman filed its first suit against Bear Stearns on March 24, 2008, after the company announced JPMorgan Chase & Co. was purchasing Bear Stearns for $2 per share, 90 percent less than the company's market value the week prior. Trouble for plan participants began in 2007 when the company's profits fell 90 percent, including a loss of $859 million in the fourth quarter alone. Beginning in early 2008 reports surfaced of inquiries into Bear Stearns' hedge funds collapse. Once investors learned of the company's extremely risky pool of mortgage-backed securities the investigation turned to the company itself. The complaint states that Bear Stearns heavily invested in the sub-prime mortgage market, including CDOs and other mortgage- backed securities, and by some accounts was the biggest packager of residential U.S. mortgage-backed securities from 2004 until 2007. These investments created not only an unacceptable and imprudent risk for anyone invested in company stock, but also an incredibly unstable amount of debt, which couldn't be sold. In mid-March 2008, Bear Stearns approached JPMorgan and the Federal Reserve to bail the company out and on March 15, 2008 the company was sold to JPMorgan for $2 per share -- a total of $236 million. The offer later rose to $10 a share, but that did little to recoup the massive losses suffered by plan participants. During the class period the company stock experienced a tremendous decline -- starting at $157.89 per share on Dec. 14, 2006, and closing with a 98% drop on March 17, 2008, at only $3.17 before moving up to $10.40 yesterday. The filed complaint lists five counts against Bear Stearns including breach of fiduciary duties, failure to provide plan participants with accurate information on the stock's true risks, and failure to properly monitor all fiduciaries and remove those whose performance was inadequate. For more information, contact: Steve Berman, Esq. (Steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Mark Firmani, Esq. (Mark@firmani.com) Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 EQUITY INNS: Lawsuit in Tenn. Over Company's Sale Moves Forward --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit, filed against hotel real estate investment trust Equity Inns Inc. and one-time company directors, will move forward, The Commercial Appeal reports. On Sept. 28, 2007, the Individual Retirement Accounts of Donald J. Roberts, Dr. James M. Byers, Patrick Svoboda and Svoboda Realty Inc. filed the suit, asking for unspecified damages more than three months after Memphis-based Equity Inns directors agreed to sell the company to an affiliate of Wall Street giant Goldman Sachs. Equity Inns was a real estate investment trust that owned 133 hotels. Whitehall Street Global Real Estate Limited Partnership 2007 paid $23 for each share of common stock in Equity Inns. Recently, Shelby County Circuit Court Judge Jerry Stokes denied the directors' move to have the case dismissed. From the time the deal was announced until the lawsuit was filed, the preferred shares dropped about 30 percent in value. Preferred stock is sort of a cross between common shares and bonds dividends on shares are set as a percentage of the original price (in this case, $25) like interest on a bond. "We'll be moving shortly for certification as a class action," said Alan Crone, Esq., of Crone & Mason in Memphis, who represents the plaintiffs. Mr. Crone believes the investors face "significant hurdles" in getting the suit approved as a class action and winning on the merits of the case. However, the lawyers agreed it will take several months before the class-action status is determined. Equity Inns, Inc. [NYSE: ENN], based in Memphis, Tennessee, USA, is a self-advised real estate investment trust and the largest US REIT focused on the upscale extended stay, all-suite and mid-scale limited-service segments of the hotel industry. Equity Inns became publicly traded in 1994 and is now the oldest public hotel REIT in the USA with 132 hotels in 35 states. At March 31, 2007, Equity Inns' total assets were $1.2 billion. FIFTH THIRD BANK: Suit Over Mismanagement of Trust Assets Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati District Court Chief Judge Sandra Beckwith has dismissed without trial a lawsuit filed by a disgruntled trust beneficiary against Fifth Third Bank, according to the Business Courier of Cincinnati. Judge Beckwith ruled that the lawsuit, filed in May 2007, is precluded by a federal law that governs class-action complaints for securities fraud. The individual claims by plaintiff Daniel Segal of Montgomery were also dismissed because, the judge explained, federal courts lack jurisdiction to try claims based on state law where both parties reside or do business in the state. As previously reported by the Business Courier, Mr. Segal had alleged that the Cincinnati-based Fifth Third (NASDAQ: FITB) improperly managed assets in a trust account in order to reduce its expenses and boost fees earned by its affiliated Fifth Third mutual funds. Mr. Segal contended that Fifth Third sold a family trust's interest in a Clifton Heights investment property so that it could invest the cash proceeds in Fifth Third mutual funds. Mr. Segal was a beneficiary of the trust, which was managed by Fifth Third. The previous Business Courier report, published on Sept. 7, 2007, stated that Mr. Segal's attorney, Richard Greenfield, Esq., of Easton, Maryland, sought to have the Segal lawsuit certified as a class action on behalf of thousands of other beneficiaries of Fifth Third-managed accounts whose money was invested in Fifth Third mutual funds at any time since March 2001. Since the Segal lawsuit was filed, dozens of other beneficiaries have contacted Mr. Greenfield, the report indicated. Fifth Third had asked the court to dismiss the class-action complaint on the grounds that is was pre-empted by federal law and that Mr. Segal's complaint did not allege any actions not permitted under Ohio law. The bank also said the property cited by Mr. Segal was sold for more than its estimated market value based on either of two appraisals it had done. FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Challenged ------------------------------------------------------------ The Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group based in Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the Sacramento Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the massive Ford Explorer lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee reports. The class action was brought on behalf of all people and entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000. Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle. The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from the profits Ford earned on California Explorer sales, and other legal costs. The Settlement The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co- counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the settlement applies to about one million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas. It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said. The settlements apply to Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said. The settlement is still subject to the approval of the Sacramento judge, scheduled April 15 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 29, 2007). Clarence M. Ditlow, the center's executive director, criticized the agreement and challenges to block the deal. Filed less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the consumer group claims the deal approved in December rewards lawyers in the case with $25 million in fees but provides Explorer owners with "no real benefits." Mr. Ditlow said in court papers that the deal offered consumers is "virtually worthless." According to the report, the claim stems from a class action suit filed on behalf of more than 414,000 Californians who bought Explorers and later claimed they had lost resale and trade-in value because of reports about rollover accidents and a nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone tires in 2000. Ford contended the vehicles were safe, but eventually agreed to a settlement that would pay attorneys in the case $25 million and offer most of the affected customers vouchers giving them $300 to $500 off the purchase of new Ford, Lincoln or Mercury products. A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to $30,000. See Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com/ The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270." Representing the plaintiffs is: Henry Rossbacher, Esq. (hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com) The Rossbacher Firm 611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 895-6500 Fax: (213) 895-6161 Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com IGE: Warcraft Gamer Sues Over Online Real-Money Trading ------------------------------------------------------- A local World of Warcraft player is suing gold trading firm IGE for damaging the game's economy and ruining the game experience, Eurogamer reports, citing a report in the South Florida Sun- Sentinel. Antonio Hernandez, a former assistant manager at a game shop in Orlando, is seeking certification of his suit as a federal class action. Eurogamer relates that Mr. Hernandez's case is thought to be the first brought by a player seeking to ban real-money trading in an online world, and if certified, it would be the first class-action lawsuit involving MMO gaming. As such, the case could establish precedent in the fledging field of online property rights, the report says. "The real significance of this case is, 'What are the rights of the [virtual world] community members when they go online?'" C. Richard Newsome, Esq., who represents Mr. Hernandez, said in the lawsuit. According to Eurogamer, Blizzard has expressed support for Mr. Hernandez in the case. Chief operating officer Paul Sams said, "We believe that shutting down gold farming and real-money transfer is in the interest of all World of Warcraft players, and that a victory in this case would have a positive long-term effect on the online gaming industry as a whole." Meanwhile, IGE's lawyers contended that Mr. Hernandez has no ownership or property rights within the game, and cannot show actual damages. To this, Mr. Newsome countered that IGE is breaking the game's terms and conditions. IGE's attorney, James M. Miller, Esq., told the Sun-Sentinel that IGE is no longer involved in the virtual gold business. Eurogamer says that the Florida Attorney General's Office is opening a consumer protection investigation into IGE, but the company is fighting off its subpoena. JPMORGAN CHASE: Court Considers Appeal of Stockholders' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal of the dismissal with prejudice issued by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in a matter involving JPMorgan Chase & Co. Initially, a consolidated class action suit by JPMorgan Chase stockholders was filed against the firm, alleging that it issued false and misleading press releases and other public documents relating to Enron Corp. in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, without prejudice, in March 2005. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2005. The firm moved to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court then granted with prejudice on March 28, 2007. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, which is fully briefed and pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the firm's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking association with branches in 17 states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is the Company's credit card issuing bank. JPMorgan Chase's principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm. The bank and non- bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative offices and subsidiary foreign banks. JPMORGAN CHASE: Second Circuit Mulls Appeal in N.Y. ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal regarding the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of a purported class action suit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. that alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The putative class action was filed on behalf of JPMorgan Chase employees who participated in the firm's 401(k) plan. It alleges claims under the ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and negligence by JPMorgan Chase, its directors and certain officers. In August 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed some of their claims. In September 2005, the firm moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the ERISA lawsuit in its entirety. In September 2006, the court granted summary judgment in part, and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause as to why the remaining claims should not be dismissed. On Dec. 27, 2006, the court dismissed the litigation with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal, which is now fully briefed and pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, according to the firm's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking association with branches in 17 states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is the Company's credit card issuing bank. JPMorgan Chase's principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm. The bank and non- bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative offices and subsidiary foreign banks. JPMORGAN CHASE: Expert Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- Expert discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732," which was filed with the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The putative consolidated class action names the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan (together with the predecessor plans of the JPMorgan Chase & Co. predecessor companies) and the JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s Director of Human Resources as defendants. Current and former participants in the Plans filed the suit, alleging various claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiffs' claims are based on alleged violations of ERISA arising from the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula under the Plans to calculate the participants' pension benefits. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that: -- the conversion to and use of a cash balance formula under the Plans violated ERISA's proscription against age discrimination (age discrimination claim); -- the conversion to a cash balance formula violated ERISA's proscriptions against the backloading of pension benefits and created an impermissible forfeiture of accrued benefits; and -- defendants failed to adequately communicate to Plan participants the conversion to a cash balance formula and in general the nature of the Plan. In October 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the firm's motion to dismiss the age discrimination and notice claims, but granted the firm's motion to dismiss the backloading and forfeiture claims. On May 30, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified a class in this action. The class includes current participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan with claims relating to inadequate notice of plan changes for the current period back to Jan. 1, 2002, and age discrimination claims going back as far as Jan. 1, 1989. The class excludes former participants who have elected to receive a lump sum cash payment of their retirement benefits. The Court reserved the right to revisit class certification pending resolution of a similar case that is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On July 31, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and certification of the May 30, 2007 Order. Fact discovery, which was limited to the period Jan. 1, 2002, and thereafter, is now complete, and expert discovery is ongoing, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732," filed with the District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com) Kirby McInerney LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600 Fax: (212) 751-2540 Derek W. Loeser, Esq. (dloeser@kellerrohrback.com) Keller Rohrback L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 224-7562 Fax: (206) 623-3384 - and - Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net) 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-4000 Fax: 212 808-9808 Representing the defendants is: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2000 Fax: (212) 455-2502 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and JPMorgan Chase Director of Human Resources are facing a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that is generally alleging violations of the the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 17, 2007, a separate class-action complaint, entitled "Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan, JPMorgan Chase Director of Human Resources," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and certain predecessor retirement plans (The Cash Plan for Retirement of Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliates, The Retirement Plan of Chemical Bank and Certain Affiliated Companies, and The Retirement and Family Benefits Plan of the Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.; collectively the JPMC Plan), including notice claims that were excluded from the class in "In re JPMorgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06-732." On Nov. 16, 2007, the firm filed a motion to dismiss. In lieu of responding to this motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 21, 2007, reasserting the claims raised in the initial complaint and adding seven additional claims. Specifically, the plaintiff asserts that: -- the JPMC Plan is impermissibly backloaded on other grounds; -- defendants violated ERISA by failing to comply with a provision of the Internal Revenue Service Code; -- the calculation of the accrued benefit of certain participants results in an impermissible forfeiture; and -- defendants failed to provide requested plan-related documents, in violation of ERISA. In accordance with the Courts scheduling order, defendants will file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint by Feb. 25, 2008. The suit is "Bilello v. JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-07379-RJS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard J. Sullivan presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter S. Linden, Esq. (plinden@kmslaw.com) Kirby McInerney LLP 830 Third Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 371-6600 Fax: (212) 751-2540 - and - Edgar Pauk, Esq. (pauk@tiac.net) 144 East 44th Street, Suite 600 New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-4000 Fax: (212) 808-9808 Representing the defendants is: Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. (jyoungwood@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 455-2000 Fax: (212) 455-2502 JPMORGAN CHASE: N.Y. Court Nixes Claims in Interchange Fees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a motion seeking the dismissal of certain claims in a consolidated antitrust class action suit over "interchange fees" that names JPMorgan Chase & Co. as one of the defendants. On June 22, 2005, a group of merchants filed a putative class action complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that VISA, MasterCard, Chase Bank USA, N.A. and JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as certain other banks, and their respective bank holding companies, conspired to set the price of interchange in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. It further alleges tying/bundling and exclusive dealing. Since the filing of the Connecticut complaint, other complaints have been filed in different U.S. District Courts challenging the setting of interchange, as well the associations' respective rules. All cases have been consolidated in the Eastern District of New York for pretrial proceedings. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on April 24, 2006. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims that predate Jan. 1, 2004. On Jan. 8, 2008, the Court granted the motion to dismiss these claims, according to JPMorgan's Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- http://www.jpmorganchase.com-- is a financial holding company. JPMorgan Chase's principal bank subsidiaries are JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking association with branches in 17 states, and Chase Bank USA, National Association, a national bank that is the Company's credit card issuing bank. JPMorgan Chase's principal non-banking subsidiary is J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., its United States investment banking firm. The bank and non- bank subsidiaries of JPMorgan Chase operate nationally, as well as through overseas branches and subsidiaries, representative offices and subsidiary foreign banks. MCDONALD'S ISRAEL: Sued for ILS100MM Over Sodium Content in Food ---------------------------------------------------------------- McDonald Israel franchisers, Alonyal, face a class action lawsuit for ILS100 million alleging an attempt to mislead customers about sodium content in their food, Haaretz.com reports. The salty food poses a health hazard, elevating the risk of heart attacks, plaintiff Yoram Peri stated in his suit. The plaintiff said that McDonald's is presenting its offerings as "health products," even though they are "very far from the reality." McDonald's stopped reporting the sodium content of its food in 2005, and in any case, the sodium levels marked on the packaging were often misleading and incorrect, the suit stated. Nutritional labeling that did appear was not presented in customary nutritional terms, in order to persuade the public to buy products while purposefully hiding their true nutritional value. As an example, Mr. Peri cited the chain's ketchup packets, which contain no information about sodium content. Other nutrition information required by law, such as the calorie count, protein and fat, are based on 10 grams of the product, instead of 100 grams, as is required by law. Mr. Peri is seeking damages of ILS3,000 per customer. The suit estimates 244,000 customers were affected. McDonald's responded that as a pioneer in nutritional labeling, the chain has published brochures listing information collected in independent laboratory analyses, even though it is not required to do so. "Unfortunately, the sodium results were incorrect," it said. "It should be kept in mind that this (corrected) information is less than 15% of the daily recommended amount, and that there is no health risk involved in the correctly labeled amount of sodium. In fact, this is a reasonable and desirable amount," the fast food giant said. The company added that it has already corrected its labeling, nutritional brochures and Web site in response to Mr. Peri's legal action, and called the current claim a bid to obtain money in an out-of-court settlement. "It should also be noted that any customer who is sensitive to sodium can ask for fries or salad without salt or sauce. The company has no vested interest in manipulating or hiding any information from its customers," the chain said. MR. LUBIE STORES: Sued for Selling Low-Grade Motor Oil ------------------------------------------------------ An Indiana resident is suing Seymour-based Mr. Lubie after a Call 6 for Help investigation found that it was selling lower- grade motor oil to people who believed they were buying a higher-grade product, INDYchannel.com reports. INDYchannel.com recounts that Call 6's Rafael Sanchez reported in 2007 that three Mr. Lubie stores in Columbus were charging $34.99 for oil that was purported to be Valvoline, a higher- grade product than oil being used in the stores' standard oil changes, which cost $15.99. A nationally certified laboratory hired by Call 6 determined the oil that the stores sold as Valvoline for the higher price was actually the cheaper oil that is sold in the cheaper service. The substitutions would violate Indiana consumer protection statutes and breach implied and expressed warranties regarding the brand, quality or grade of motor oil, according to the lawsuit filed on behalf of customer Steve Lokey of Vallonia. "It's very early on in the process," said Pete Palmer, Esq., of New Albany, who is representing Mr. Lokey. "He's a really nice fellow who strongly feels that he has been deceived. We think this is a very serious matter." According to the report, Mr. Lubie operates 16 stores in eight counties in Indiana's southern half. The company's owner, Bud Hukill, did not deny the substitutions when Mr. Sanchez talked to him last year. Mr. Hukill said he would be pulling tanks labeled Valvoline and that he was phasing out the product. Mr. Hukill also said last year that he would refund customers who could produce receipts. Since then, he has refused to make refunds, 6News reported. Two former Mr. Lubie employees told Call 6 in 2007 that they were threatened with termination if they told anyone about the substitutions. Mr. Palmer said he has asked the judge to make Mr. Lokey's claims into a class-action lawsuit, encompassing other customers who believe they got the low-grade oil. Attorney General Steve Carter's office has also received six complaints about Mr. Lubie since 2007, the report notes. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Settles Avondale Mills Suit Over Train Wreck -------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corp. has settled a lawsuit filed by a textile company that closed after a 2005 train wreck and toxic chemical spill in Graniteville, S.C. Terms of the agreement between Avondale Mills and the railroad are confidential. The deal was reached nearly a month after the case went to trial in South Carolina. Avondale Mills had sought $420 million in damages from Norfolk Southern. Railroad attorneys had offered to pay Avondale Mills $110 million for damages, a little more than a quarter of what the failed company was seeking, said Terry Richardson Jr., an Avondale Mills attorney. Norfolk Southern said its insurance will not pay for all of the settlement, so the cost will lower its first-quarter profit. The railroad said it expects earnings for the quarter that ended March 31 to fall by 2 cents per share as a result of the Avondale Mills case and other unspecified litigation. Expenses from those cases will increase first-quarter operating costs by $13 million over the first quarter of last year, the railroad said. The railroad is scheduled to release its first-quarter earnings on April 22. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial before Monday's news projected the railroad will post a profit of 77 cents per share. The incident occurred Jan. 6, 2005, when a Norfolk Southern train slammed into a parked train because of an improperly set track switch. The collision ruptured a tank car, releasing deadly chlorine gas. The toxic plume wafted over the area and killed nine people, including the train engineer, injured hundreds and caused more than 5,000 people to be evacuated. During the trial, Avondale Mills' attorneys said equipment in its Graniteville facilities was coated by chlorine, which is corrosive to metal and other materials. The company closed in May 2006, after determining it would cost more to clean the buildings and replace machinery than the business was worth. Lawyers for Avondale Mills argued that Norfolk Southern should be held accountable for the damage because the railroad knew members of the crew operating the Graniteville tracks the night before the crash had worked long hours in violation of company rules. Norfolk Southern's lawyers contended that Stephen Felker Jr., Avondale Mills' chief executive, had already seen the writing on the wall in the failing U.S. textile business when the crash -- and the economic opportunity it could provide in the form of damages and insurance money -- fell into his lap. Norfolk Southern faced a barrage of lawsuits following the crash. In June, a federal judge approved a class action lawsuit to compensate those badly injured in the accident. According to a court filing last month, attorneys for the plaintiffs and Norfolk Southern estimate it will cost $16.2 million to pay those claims. Another class action suit, covering property damage, lost wages, minor injuries and other expenses, was resolved in August 2005. The railroad has paid at least $6.1 million to cover those claims, according to a July 2006 court filing. Lawsuits filed by the families of the nine people killed have all been settled confidentially. At least 15 injury cases are still pending against Norfolk Southern, Richardson said. Other issues from the accident remain. In February, the railroad advised that the Justice Department may seek "civil penalties as well as injunctive relief" if federal environmental laws were violated in the wreck and chemical release. Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com-- through its subsidiaries, engages in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products, and finished goods primarily in the United States and parts of Canada. NORTH DAKOTA: Faces Another Suit Over Traffic Fines --------------------------------------------------- A second federal lawsuit has been filed in North Dakota over traffic fines in the wake of a state Supreme Court ruling against the city of Fargo, Dave Kolpack writes for the Associated Press. According to AP, Bruce Mills of Northwood is suing the city of Grand Forks, saying a $166 fine he got for careless driving should not have exceeded the state limit of $30. He wants the lawsuit to be declared a class action, which means it would affect others with similar fines. The Grand Forks fee collection system is "arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational," Mr. Mills, who earlier lost two appeals of his fines -- to Northeast Central District Judge Lawrence Jahnke and the state Supreme Court -- said in his lawsuit. AP recounts that the Supreme Court recently ruled that Fargo may not charge traffic fines that exceed penalties in state law. The opinion was part of a federal lawsuit filed against the city by Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo. "Certainly there are other cases out there," said Ms. Sauby's attorney, Tim Purdon, Esq. Whether they wind up in court "depends if there are other drivers who have been similarly ticketed who have the same courage as Stephanie Sauby," he said. U.S. District Judge Rodney Webb is deciding whether to grant Ms. Sauby's case class action status. In the meantime, a number of North Dakota cities have taken steps to reduce their traffic fines. "The city of Grand Forks, just as was done in Fargo . . . continues to establish fees for non-criminal traffic violations in excess of the fees allowed under state law," the second complaint said. Randall Bakke, Esq., a Bismarck attorney representing the city of Grand Forks, and Grand Forks City Attorney Howard Swanson, Esq., did not return phone messages to AP on Tuesday. OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Certified in Penna. District Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has certified a class action lawsuit on behalf of consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the following manufacturers in the United States from June 1, 2002 through February 24, 2006: -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp., -- Weyerhaeuser Co., -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp. (Georgia-Pacific), -- Potlatch Corp., -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. (Ainsworth), -- Norbord Industries, Inc., -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB during the period from June 1, 2002, through the present, and alleges violations of the antitrust laws by defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and fixing the price at which it was sold. The cases are consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006. Discovery of millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions is complete. The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007). Meanwhile, Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has entered into an $8.6-million agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs, settling on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007). In addition, Georgia-Pacific and Huber have settled the case and have agreed to cooperate in the continuing lawsuit against the remaining Defendant Manufacturers. Georgia-Pacific, Ainsworth and Huber deny any wrongdoing in the case. The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 - and Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com) Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Representing the company are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com) James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com) James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350 - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 PALM INC: May 2 Hearing Set for Treo Suit Settlement in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a fairness hearing on May 2, 2008, for the proposed settlement in the matter "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-RMW." In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class actions were filed against Palm on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products. These lawsuits are: 1. "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 2. "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 3. "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 4. "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and 5. "Palza v. Palm," filed with the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County. The complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm breached its warranty of these products. They seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. In September 2005, a purported consumer class action, entitled, "Gans v. Palm," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Palm. That suit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product. The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California laws, Palm made false or misleading statements regarding automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product. It seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single judge in that Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated, amended complaint. The parties have agreed to a tentative settlement. On Jan. 7, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement of this action. Palm is proceeding with notice to the settlement class members. A hearing to determine final settlement approval is scheduled for May 2008, according to the company's April 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. The suit is "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-RMW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Glancy & Binkow LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM) Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 - and - Scott K. Johnson, Esq. (skjohnson@sheller.com) Sheller Ludwig & Badey, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (215) 790-7300 Fax: (215) 546-0942 Representing the defendants are: Roger E. Collanton, Esq. (rcollanton@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster LLP 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-295-3345 PETROLEUM DEV'T: Court Grants 90-Day Stay in Royalties Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted a 90-day stay on proceedings in the case, "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No. 1:2007cv01362," while parties pursue mediation of the matter. The case is a consolidated class action, which alleges that the company underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from wells it operated in the State of Colorado State Court Case Initially, a class action was filed with the District Court Weld County, Colorado, on May 29, 2007, by Glen Droegemueller, individually and as representative plaintiff on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Petroleum Development, alleging that the company underpaid royalties on natural gas produced from wells it operated in the State of Colorado. The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and to recover an unspecified amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties paid by Petroleum Development pursuant to leases. Petroleum Development had the case removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 28, 2007, and later filed its responses and affirmative defenses. Federal Litigation A second similar Colorado class action was filed against Petroleum Development with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Dec. 3, 2007, by Ted Amsbaugh, Donald L. Kretsch and Barbara H. Kretsch, as co-trustees of the Kretsch Living Trust; and Buddy Baker, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and to recover an unspecified amount of compensation for alleged royalty underpayments made by Petroleum Development for the wells in which it has a working interest in Colorado. Consolidated Case Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the Court entered an order consolidating the second Colorado action with the Droegemueller Lawsuit. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court granted a 90-day stay in the proceedings while parties pursue mediation of the matter, according to Rockies Region 2006 Private Limited Partnership's April 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Petroleum Development is the designated Managing General Partner of Rockies Region. The suit is "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation, Case No. 1:2007cv01362," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge John L. Kane presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: George A. Barton, Esq. (bartonlaw3@birch.net) George A. Barton, The Law Offices of 800 West 47th Street #700 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-300-6250 Fax: 816-300-6259 Patrick M. Groom, Esq. (pgroom@wobjlaw.com) Witwer, Oldenburg, Barry & Johnson, LLP 822 7th Street #760 Greeley, CO 80631 Phone: 970-352-3161 - and - Larry D. Moffett, Esq. (lmoffett@danielcoker.com) Daniel Coker Horton & Bell, P.A. P.O. Box 1396 265 North Lamar Boulevard #R Oxford, MS 38655 Phone: 662-232-8979 Fax: 662-232-8940 Representing the defendants is: Gale Timothy Miller, Esq. (gale.miller@dgslaw.com) Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP 1550 17th Street #500 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-892-9400 Fax: 303-893-1379 PLASTECH ENGINEERED: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Racial Harassment -------------------------------------------------------------- Plastech Engineered Products is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama claiming it harassed, demeaned, insulted and racially discriminated against black workers and fired them if they complained, CourtHouse News Service reports. This action is brought by 42 African-Americans, who are current and former employees of Plastech on behalf of similarly situated persons of their race and color to redress defendant's continuing systemic racial discrimination in employment opportunities through use of discriminatory selection procedures, racially hostile reputation and working conditions, and unequal terms and conditions of employment. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that defendant has engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of racial discrimination in employment opportunities and that such conduct is unlawful under two statutes: (i) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended in 1972 and 1991, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq.; and (ii) Section One of the Civil Righst Act of 1866, as amended in 1991, 42 USC Section 1981. Such systemic racial discrimination and racial harassment includes the defendant's: (1) failure to promulgate, maintain and enforce effective racial harassment, racial intimidation and/or non- discriminatory employment policies and practices; (2) unequal terms and conditions of employment; (3) promulgation of practices and policies that have a disparate impact on African-American employees that is not related to such employees' skills or qualifications ans is not job-related in accordance with business necessity; and (4) discriminatory selection policies. The plaintiffs seek the following relief: -- a declaratory judgment that the defendant has engaged in systemic racial discrimination in limiting the employment opportunities of African-Americans to lower classifications; -- restructuring of the defendant's selection procedures so that African-Americans are able to learn about and fairly compete in the future for better classifications, compensation levels, and terms and conditions of employment traditionally enjoyed by white employees; -- restructuring of the defendant's workforce so that African-Americans are assigned to the classifications, locations and compensation levels they would have now hold in the absence of the defendant's past racial discrimination; -- refusing to provide a working environment free of racial harassment and retaliation and failure to promulgate, maintain, and enforce effective racial harassment, racial intimidation and non-discriminatory employment policies and practices; -- a permanent injunction against such continuing discrimination/harassment; and -- damages, back pay and other equitable remedies necessary to make the African-American named plaintiffs/class representatives and the class they seek to represent whole from defendant's past discrimination. The suit is "Kerry Lewis et al. v. Plastech Engineered Products, Case No. CV-08-RRA-0608-S," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq. Rocco Calamusa, Jr., Esq. Kevin W. Jent Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Phone: (205) 214-0500 REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tenn. Over ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne LLC, based in Pittsburgh and Birmingham, Ala.-based Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis LLC, brought a class-action complaint on March 31, 2008, in West Tennessee on behalf of Regions employees who participate in the company's 401(k) Plan, The Memphis Daily News reports. The list of defendants named in the suit includes: -- Morgan Asset Management Inc., -- Regions Bank, -- Regions Financial Corp. and -- various members of Regions' board of directors. The complaint names Terry Hamby, a resident of Pinson, Ala., who was employed by Regions through Dec. 3, as one of the plaintiffs, according to The Daily News Online. Other plaintiffs will be determined as the class action unfolds. Potential members of the class include participants and beneficiaries of the company plan between Nov. 4, 2006, and "the date that Regions discloses the full impact of its financial problems," according to the complaint. The complaint was brought to "recover millions of dollars in losses to the plan which . . . (was) caused by the defendants' fiduciary breaches." Part of the logic in filing the suit in Memphis is that Regions' Memphis-based subsidiary Morgan Asset Management is a fiduciary of the bank's pension plan. And the new complaint is related in several respects to the earlier suits involving Morgan Keegan. For one thing, the same mutual fund holdings that hurt investors on an individual basis also impacted thousands of Regions' employee pension plans. The plans were inappropriately loaded with company stock, the suit claims, at a time when Regions' share price was taking a beating because of a variety of housing-related woes. The company also has spent millions to stop the bleeding in its RMK funds. SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corp. International continues to face a consolidated securities class action, captioned "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International, et al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits: 1. "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International, et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; 2. "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International, et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S. District for the District of Nevada; and 3.- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its current and former executive officers or directors. It is a purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach, Florida. SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Representing the lead plaintiff are: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com) 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 - and - Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP Three Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 212-545-4600 Representing the defendants are: Andrew M. Edison, Esq. J. Clifford Gunter III, Esq. Bracewell and Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-221-1371 Fax: 713-221-2144 - and - Roger B. Greenberg, Esq. (rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com) Schwartz Junell et al. 909 Fannin, Ste. 2000 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-752-0017 Fax: 713-752-0327 SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Service Corp. International continues to face a suit filed with the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging that the Service Corp. unit improperly handled remains, did not keep adequate records of interments, and engaged in various other improprieties in connection with the operation of the cemetery. The suit was filed on Dec. 5, 2005, by Maria Valls, Pedro Valls and Roberto Valls, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated against SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Plan a/k/a Flagler Memorial Park, John Does and Jane Does (Case No. 23693CA08). An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2006. The plaintiffs have requested that the court certify this matter as a class action. The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of persons buried at the cemetery. They are seeking monetary damages and have reserved the right to seek leave from the Court to claim punitive damages. In addition, the plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief. SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "David Hijar v. SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp. International, Cause Number 2002-740," voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, all of their claims against the company, thus ending the case. The Hijar Lawsuit -- originally filed in filed in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three -- involved a statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. The plaintiffs alleged that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other legal claims. The plaintiffs sought to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages. They also sought attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief." The company denied that: -- the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations of the Texas Occupations Code or the Rules; -- the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations under the relevant regulations and statutes; -- any breaches of contractual terms occurred; and -- on other grounds, liability on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the company denied that the Hijar Lawsuit satisfies the requirements for class certification. During the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have disputed the proper scope and substance of discovery. Following briefing by both parties and evidentiary hearings, the trial court entered three orders against the company that are subjected to appellate review: -- a January 2005 discovery sanctions order; -- an April 2005 discovery sanctions order; and -- an April 2005 certification order, certifying a class and two subclasses. After a long series of appeals and rehearings, on Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, all of their claims against the company, ending the case, according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling in the matter, "Mary Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al. (Case No. BC324007)," which is pending with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case was filed in 2004 by the plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit filed by David Hijar against SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp. International, (Cause Number 2002-740). The Baudino Lawsuit asserts claims similar to those made in the Hijar lawsuit. However, the Baudino Lawsuit seeks a nation-wide class of plaintiffs. The Hijar Lawsuit, pending with the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three, involves a statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. The plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other legal claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages. They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief." On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiffs claims. The plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling. SCI reported no development in the matter in its March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SERVICE CORP: Faces Arizona Lawsuit Over Alleged FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corp. International is facing a purported class action suit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is entitled, "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83." It was filed on Jan. 17, 2008, against SCI and various related entities and individuals asserting FLSA and other ancillary claims based on the alleged failure to pay for overtime. The plaintiffs seek the same class notice to SCI and related entities that were rejected by the Court in the matter, "Prise, et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv- 01641-JFC," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania The suit is "Stickle, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al. Case No. 08-CV-83," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge Mary H. Murguia. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tod F. Schleier, Esq. (tod@schleierlaw.com) Schleier Law Offices PC 3101 N Central Ave. Ste 1090 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-277-0157 Fax: 602-230-9250 - and - Justin M. Cordello, Esq. (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin Thomas & Solomon LLP 693 East Ave. Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 Representing the defendants are: Amy E. Dias, Esq. (aedias@jonesday.com) Jones Day 500 Grant St. Ste. 3100 1 Mellon Ctr. Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-391-3939 Fax: 412-394-7959 - and - David M. Daniels, Esq. (david@gurneelaw.com) Gurnee & Daniels LLP 2240 Douglas Blvd. Ste. 150 Roseville, CA 95648 Phone: 916-797-3100 Fax: 916-797-3131 SERVICE CORP: Reaches Settlement in Texas Casket Antitrust Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corp. International settled two related antitrust class actions that were both filed back in 2005, according to the company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The first case is entitled, "Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc. v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No 4:05-CV- 03394," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This is a purported class action on behalf of casket consumers throughout the U.S. alleging that we and several other companies involved in the funeral industry violated federal antitrust laws and state consumer laws by engaging in various anti-competitive conduct associated with the sale of caskets. The second case is "Pioneer Valley Casket, et al. v. Service Corporation International, et al., Cause No. 4:05-CV-03399," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The second lawsuit makes the same allegations as the Funeral Consumers Case above and is also brought against several other companies involved in the funeral industry. Unlike the Funeral Consumers Case, the Pioneer Case is a purported class action on behalf of all independent casket distributors that are in the business or were in the business any time between July 18, 2001, to the present. The Funeral Consumers Case and the Pioneer Valley Case seek injunctions, monetary damages, and treble damages. The plaintiffs in the Funeral Consumers Case filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants range from approximately $950 million to $1.5 billion, before trebling. Additionally, the plaintiffs in the Pioneer Valley Case filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants would be approximately $99 million, before trebling. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/-- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in N.Y. Over RICO Violations ------------------------------------------------------ State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York claiming it illegally denied insurance claims to clients it referred for evaluations to Preferred Consulting Services and Hooper Evaluations, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought on behalf of all individuals and entities that were eligible injured persons under State Farm policy form 9332P.6 and New York Private passenger Auto Insurance Policy Endorsement on or after April 3, 2004, and that had their economic loss benefits terminated after undergoing a Physical examination that was demanded by State Farm and received notice of the scheduled Physical examination from either Preferred Consulting Services, Inc. or Hooper Evaluations, Inc. a/k/a D&D-Hooper Evaluations. According to the complaint, State Farm directed both Preferred Consulting and Hooper to procure healthcare providers and schedule physical examinations of State Farm's eligible injured persons. The procured healthcare providers conducted physical exams and created reports. But State Farm failed to provide plaintiffs with the insurance coverage that was required per the State Farm policy Form 9332P.6 and New York law, whereby denying plaintiffs of their basic economic loss benefits. The plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all individuals that were eligible injured persons under State Farm Policy Form 9332P.6 on or after April 3, 2004, and received a scheduling letter for a Physical Examination by either Preferred Consulting or Hooper and were examined by a healthcare provider who created a report that was utilized by State Farm to deny basic economic loss benefits. The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: -- certification of this action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- demand judgment of and from the defendants jointly and severally for actual, compensatory and consequential damages; -- for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, court costs; and -- plus pre and post-judgment interest as the legally allowable limit, in an amount within or exceeding the court's jurisdictional limits. The suit is "Gregory Sundahl et al. v. State Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al., Case No 08 1342," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing the plaintiffs is: Bruce S. Rosenberg, Esq. Rosenberg Law, P.C. 2631 Merrick Road, Suite 301 Bellmore, NY 11710 Phone: (516) 221-1108 New Securities Fraud Cases ARTHROCARE CORP: Dreier LLP Files Securities Lawsuit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Dreier LLP commenced a class action lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased ArthroCare Corp. common stock during the period from August 4, 2006, through January 23, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that ArthroCare and certain of the Company's officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ArthroCare designs, develops, manufactures, and markets medical devices for use in soft-tissue surgery. The complaint alleges that, among other things, during the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by making materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, the complaint alleges that ArthroCare's reported financial results were materially overstated due to the improper recognition of revenue from transactions involving an ArthroCare "sales agent," as well as transactions with a related party. In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices by, among other things: (a) recognizing revenue where payment for the shipment of ArthroCare's products was contingent upon the decision of third-party payers to pay for the product or the successful resolution of personal injury lawsuits; and (b) recognizing revenue from bill-and-hold transactions between the Company and its "sales agent" involving certain products that were to be paid for pursuant to the contingent payment arrangement. The Complaint alleges that the defendants' material misrepresentations artificially inflated the price of ArthroCare stock, causing it to trade as high as $64.84 per share during the Class Period. As a result of adverse news stories and partial disclosures concerning the accuracy of the Company's reported financial results and its business dealings with the "sales agent" and related party, the price of ArthroCare stock fell to approximately $38.11 by January 25, 2008. For more information, contact: Bruce D. Bernstein, Esq. Dreier LLP Phone: 800-952-8897 e-mail: classlaw@dreierllp.com HUMANA INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in KY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Humana Inc. between February 4, 2008, and March 11, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges Humana and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Humana is a health and supplemental benefits company, with approximately 11.5 million medical members. Humana is a full- service benefits solutions company, offering health and supplementary benefit plans for employer groups, government programs and individuals. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's prescription drug plan costs had increased significantly; (2) that the Company was unable to accurately calculate the prescription drug costs of new members; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On March 12, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it was revising the earnings guidance that it had issued a month earlier. The Company stated that its first quarter 2008 diluted earnings per common share was now expected to be $0.44 to $0.46, as compared to the previous guidance of $0.80 to $0.85 per share. Moreover, the Company stated that it expected EPS for full year 2008 to be $4.00 to $4.25 per share, as compared to the previous guidance of $5.35 to $5.55 per share. The Company attributed these revisions to an analysis of pharmacy claims through February 2008, stating that there were higher than expected volumes for stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $6.50 per share, or 13.72 percent, to close on March 12, 2008, at $40.88 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than May 27, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com MERCK & CO: Holzer Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing in PA --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, announced that a shareholder class action has been filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Merck & Co., Inc. and Richard T. Clark on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock who purchased stock between October 22, 2007, and March 28, 2008. The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 when it withheld information concerning the results of clinical trails of VYTORIN, which were not positive for the Company. For more information, contact: Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 Phone: (888) 508-6832 RAYMOND JAMES: Girard Gibbs Announces NY Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate Securities from Raymond James Financial Inc., Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., between April 8, 2003, and Feb. 13, 2008, inclusive. The class action is brought against Raymond James Financial Inc. and its wholly-owned broker-dealer subsidiaries, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. The Complaint alleges that Raymond James violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates. The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, Raymond James offered and sold auction rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate securities sold by Raymond James and other broker- dealers have been unable to liquidate their positions in these securities following the decision on February 13, 2008, of all major broker-dealers to "withdraw their support" for the periodic auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates securities are set. The Complaint alleges that Raymond James failed to disclose the following material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the class: (1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives, like money market funds, but were instead, complex, long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity dates, or longer; (2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the time of sale because broker-dealers were artificially supporting and manipulating the auction rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and stability; (3) broker-dealers routinely intervened in auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and (4) Raymond James continued to market auction rate securities as liquid investments after it had determined that broker dealers were likely to withdraw their support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze" of the market for auction rate securities would result. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com) Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com) Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone number: (866) 981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com SUNTRUST BANKS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Levi & Korsinsky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those who purchased Auction Rate Securities from SunTrust Banks, Inc. (NYSE:STI) between April 1, 2003, and February 13, 2008, inclusive, to recover damages caused by SunTrust Banks, Inc.'s and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc.'s violation of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that SunTrust violated the securities laws by deceiving investors about the investment characteristics of Auction Rate Securities and the auction market in which these securities traded. Auction Rate Securities are either municipal or corporate debt securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set at periodic "auctions." Auction Rate Securities generally have long-term maturities or no maturity dates. The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials and top-down management directives, SunTrust offered and sold Auction Rate Securities to the public as highly liquid cash- management vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual funds. According to the Complaint, those who now hold Auction Rate Securities sold by SunTrust cannot liquidate their positions since the auction market for these securities has collapsed. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 e-mail: info@zlk.com Web site: http://www.zlk.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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 * * *