/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080814.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 161 Headlines ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Fails in Delaware Securities Lawsuit BAYER CORP: Faces 'One-A-Day' Lawsuit in Illinois Court CUTERA CORP: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid CUTERA INC: Continues to Face TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois DELL INC: Penna. Suit Claims Sale of Defective Nvidia GeForce DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion DRUG COS: Zurich American Files Lawsuit Over Actimmune Marketing FIFTH THIRD: First Charter Shareholders File Lawsuit in Ohio FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Waitresses File Tipping Lawsuit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y. INDIAN TRUST: Judge Provides $455.6MM Restitution Settlement INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Securities Suit INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Derivatives Suit LEHMAN BROTHERS: Gov't Pension Funds Sue Over Sub-Prime Losses LEVI STRAUSS: Court Certifies Class for $5MM Settlement Purposes LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Pa. Court Set to Approve OSB Suit Settlement METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Former Workers Sue Over 2007 Layoffs NISOURCE INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit NISOURCE INC: Wants Sup. Ct. to Review $404M Verdict in "Tawney" NISOURCE INC: Ky. Royalties Suit Certification Hearing is Today PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in Missouri PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit SAIA INC: Wants Georgia Fuel Surcharges Lawsuit Dismissed SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling Over "Cortez" Suit Settlement STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit in Mo. TRUCKING COS: Chimicles Investigates Potential Underpaying Suit UNITED FIRE: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La. New Securities Fraud Cases CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Virginia Securities Fraud Suit HUNSTMAN CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Utah Securities Lawsuit KKR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brower Piven Files New York Securities Suit REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit ********* ADAMS GOLF: Mediation Fails in Delaware Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- No resolution was reached in a mediation session in connection with a consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Adams Golf, Inc. Beginning June 1999, the first of seven class action complaints was filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the three underwriters of its initial public offering. The complaints alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the company's IPO. In particular, the complaints alleged that its prospectus, which became effective Jul. 9, 1998, was materially false and misleading in at least two areas. The plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that unauthorized distribution of the company's products (gray market sales) threatened the company's long-term profits. They also assert that the prospectus failed to disclose that the golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on sales. An operative complaint was filed on Jan. 24, 2006, and discovery closed on Aug. 11, 2006. In November 2006, all summary-judgment briefing was completed. On Dec. 13, 2006, the company learned that the judge from the U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware under whom the case was assigned before was elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. All proceedings had been postponed. On Feb. 7, 2008, the company was notified that the case has been reassigned to Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet. There has been no scheduling conference set yet, and there is no trial date set at this time. The parties participated in a mediation proceeding on April 8, 2008, but no resolution has been reached, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Shockley, et al. v. Adams Golf Inc., et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-00371-KAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Kent A. Jordan presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. (CKeener@rmgglaw.com) Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess Citizens Bank Center Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Phone: 302-656-4433 Representing the defendants are: Kevin G. Abrams, Esq. Abrams & Laster, LLP Brandywine Plaza West, 1521 Concord Pike, #303 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: 302-778-1000 Fax: 302-778-1001 Jeffrey L. Moyer, Esq. (moyer@rlf.com) Richards, Layton & Finger One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Phone: 302-651-7700 - and - John E. James, Esq. (jjames@potteranderson.com) Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP 1313 N. Market St, Hercules Plaza 6th Flr, PO Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Phone: 302-984-6000 BAYER CORP: Faces 'One-A-Day' Lawsuit in Illinois Court ------------------------------------------------------- Bayer Corp. is facing a class-action complaint before the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, over its "One-A-Day WeightSmart" vitamins, CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit claims Bayer fraudulently claimed its "One-A-Day WeightSmart" vitamins would "prevent weight gain" especially for people over 30, "increase metabolism," and paid a $3.2 million fine for violating a Federal Trade Commission order for false advertising. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801 on behalf of all Illinois residents who purchased One-A-Day WeightSmart during the class period. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's practices, representations, and omissions made in connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A- Day WeightSmart were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (b) whether the defendant's practices, representations and omissions made in connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A- Day WeightSmart were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (c) whether the defendant's practices, representations, and omissions made in connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A- Day WeightSmart were false and misleading, thereby violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; (d) whether the defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by the practices, representations, and omissions made in connection with the labeling, advertising, marketing, promotion and sales of One-A-Day WeightSmart within Illinois; (e) whether the defendant's conduct injured consumer, and if so, the extent of the injury; and (f) whether the plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs asks the court to enter an order: -- determining that the action is a proper class action maintainable under 735 ILCS 5/2-801; -- certifying the plaintiff as class representative; -- appointing the plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the class; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class economic, actual, and compensatory damages; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class restitution; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class disgorgement; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class declaratory and injunctive relief as requested; -- awarding plaintiffs and teh class their consequential and incidental damages; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class pre-judgment and post- judgment interest as provided by law; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class punitive damages as provided by law; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class reasonable attorneys' fees and reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of this action; and -- awarding plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "Theodora Camuy et al. v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 08CH29199," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. (eaw@wtwlaw.com) Amber M. Nesbitt, Esq. (amn@wtwlaw.com) Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-346-2222 Fax: 312-346-0022 CUTERA CORP: Court Yet to Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a motion that sought the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Cutera, Inc., and two of its executive officers. Initially, two lawsuits were filed in April 2007 and May 2007, respectively. They were filed following declines in the company's stock price. The plaintiffs claim to represent purchasers of the company's common stock from Jan. 31, 2007, through May 7, 2007. The complaints generally allege that materially false statements and omissions were made regarding the company's financial prospects, and seek unspecified monetary damages. On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases and gave the plaintiffs until Dec. 17, 2007, to file a consolidated, amended complaint. On Jan. 31, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court held a hearing on this motion on May 22, 2008, but has not yet issued its ruling, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Doug Hamilton, et al. v. Cutera, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02128," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Vaughn R. Walker, presiding. The plaintiffs are represented by: Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 e-mail: info@labaton.com Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-685-0969 Fax: 212-685-2306 e-mail: classattorney@aol.com - and - Roy Jacobs & Associates 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000 New York, NY 10118 e-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com CUTERA INC: Continues to Face TCPA Violations Suit in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Cutera, Inc., continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Originally, the suit was filed against the company in January 2008 in the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County, by Bridgeport Pain Control Center, LTD. It seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and other relief. The complaint alleges that the company violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by facsimile to the plaintiffs and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. Under the TCPA, the recipients of unsolicited facsimile advertisements may be entitled to damages of $500 per violation for inadvertent violations and $1,500 per violation for knowing or willful violations. On Feb. 22, 2008, the company removed the case to the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and then filed its response to the complaint on Feb. 29, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Bridgeport Pain Control Center, Ltd. Vs. Cutera, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-01116," filed in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge William J. Hibbler, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. (ccombs@edcombs.com) Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-739-4200 Representing the defendants is: Eric Stephen Mattson, Esq. (emattson@sidley.com) Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-7000 DELL INC: Penna. Suit Claims Sale of Defective Nvidia GeForce ------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Inc. and Nvidia Corp. are facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging Dell sells notebook computers with defective Nvidia GeForce 8M Series graphics processing units that ruin the computers, CourtHouse News Service reports. The GPU allegedly causes video functions to fail, multiple images on the screen, random images to appear on the screen, and horizontal or vertical lines on the screen. The plaintiff brings this class action suit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all others who purchased a notebook PC manufactured by Dell that was equipped with a NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series graphics processing unit. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (i) whether the defendants have breached the implied warranty of merchantability to the Class; (ii) whether the Notebooks are merchantable as a result of the design defect; (iii) whether Defendant Dell was unjustly enriched by the retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred by Plaintiff and members of the Class; (iv) whether the Notebooks are defective because they are equipped with NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs composed from a weak material set of die/package combination; (v) whether the defendants knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the Notebooks are defective; and (vi) whether, as a result of the defendants' misconduct, the plaintiff and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, equitable relief or other relief, and the amount and nature of such relief. The plaintiff requests that the Court: a. certify this action as a class action under Rule 23; b. order the defendants to pay the plaintiff and the class an amount of actual damages to be determined at trial; c. order a recall of the Notebooks in the Class States; d. issue an injunction preventing the defendants from manufacturing and selling the Notebooks equipped with the NVIDIA GeForce 8M Series GPUs; e. issue an order granting the plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney's fees; and f. grant such other relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "Cindy Poirier et al. v. Dell Inc. et al., Case No. 2:05-mc-02025," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiff are: Alfred G. Yates, Jr. Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq. Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., PC 519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-391-5164 Fax: 412-471-1033 e-mail: yateslaw@aol.com Robert B. Weiser, Esq. Debra S. Goodman, Esq. The Weiser Law Firm, PC 121 N. Wayne Ave.,Suite100 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: 610-225-2677 Fax: 610-225-2678 Paul O. Paradis, Esq. Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. Gina M. Tufaro, Esq. Edward Y. Kroub, Esq. Horwitz, Horwitz & Paradis Attorneys at Law 28 West 44th Street - 16th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-404-2200 Fax: 212-404-2226 James V. Bashian, Esq. Law Offices of James V. Bashian, PC 271 Route 46 West, Suite F207 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Phone: 973-227-6330 Fax: 973-808-8665 - and - Brant C. Martin Esq. Wick Phillips, LLP 2100 Ross Ave., Suite 950 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-692-6200 Fax: 214-692-6255 DISH NETWORK: April 2009 Trial Scheduled for Retailers' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An April 2008 trial is scheduled for a class-action suit filed in California against DISH Network Corp. by certain of its retailers. During 2000, two lawsuits were filed by retailers in Colorado state and federal court attempting to certify nationwide classes on behalf of certain of the company's retailers. The plaintiffs request that the courts declare certain provisions of, and changes to, alleged agreements between the company and the retailers invalid and unenforceable, and to award damages for lost incentives and payments, charge backs, and other compensation. The federal court action has been stayed during the pendency of the state court action. The company filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts and against all the state court action plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a motion for additional time to conduct discovery to enable them to respond to the motion. The state court granted limited discovery that ended in 2004. The state court action plaintiffs, however, claimed that the company did not provide adequate disclosure during the discovery process. The state court agreed, and recently denied the company's motion for summary judgment as a result. The final impact of the state court's ruling cannot be fully assessed at this time. In April 2008, the state court granted the plaintiffs' class certification motion. Trial has been set for April 2009, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. DISH Network Corp. -- http://www.dishnetwork.com/-- is a provider of satellite delivered digital television to customers across the United States. DISH Network services include hundreds of video, audio and data channels, interactive television channels, digital video recording, high definition television, international programming, professional installation and around the clock customer service. DISH NETWORK: Calif. Court Denies "Brantley" Dismissal Motion ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied a motion that sought the dismissal of a purported class- action suit, entitled "Rob Brantley et al. v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv06101," which names DISH Network Corp. as a defendant. On Sept. 21, 2007, a purported class of cable and satellite subscribers filed the antitrust action against the company before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit also names as defendants DirecTV, Comcast, Cablevision, Cox, Charter, Time Warner, Inc., Time Warner Cable, NBC Universal, Viacom, Fox Entertainment Group, and Walt Disney Co. The suit alleges, among other things, that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to provide customers with access only to bundled channel offerings as opposed to giving customers the ability to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis. The company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which motion the court denied in July 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Rob Brantley et al v. NBC Universal, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06101-CAS-VBK," filed in ith the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. (mblecher@blechercollins.com) Blecher & Collins 515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-622-4222 Representing the defendants are: Arthur J. Burke, Esq. (arthur.burke@dpw.com) Davis Polk and Wardwell 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-752-2005 John D. Lombardo, Esq. (john.lombardo@aporter.com) Arnold and Porter 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90017-2513 Phone: 213-243-4000 - and - Steven F. Cherry, Esq. (steven.cherry@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-663-6321 DRUG COS: Zurich American Files Lawsuit Over Actimmune Marketing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Genentech Inc. and Intermune Inc. are facing a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging they fraudulently marketed Actimmune for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Zurich American Insurance Co. alleges substantive and conspiracy violations of the RICO in violation of 18 USC Section 1962(c) and (d), as well as violations of various state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all third-party payors, health insurance companies, third-party administrators, health maintenance organizations, self-funded health and welfare benefit plans, and any other health benefit provider in the United States and its territories. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the alleged conduct by defendants violated laws as alleged in the complaint; (b) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to damages as a result of defendants' conduct; (c) whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to equitable and injunctive relief; (d) whether defendants' unlawful, unfair and deceptive practices harmed plaintiff and the class members; and (e) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by their deceptive practices. The plaintiff request that: -- the court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to plaintiff's claims for declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief, and Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims of damages, and declare plaintiff and its counsel as proper representatives of the class; and designating such 23(c)(4)(A) class issues and 23(c)(4)(B) subclasses as appropriate; -- the court enter an order appointing plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; -- the conduct alleged be declared, adjudged and decreed to be unlawful; -- plaintiff and the class be granted an award of damages in such amount to be determined at trial, with treble damages as provided by law, and prejudgment interest on all damages; -- plaintiff and the class be granted an award of punitive damages in such amount to be determined at trial; -- defendants be enjoined from continuing the illegal activities alleged; -- plaintiff and the class recover their costs and expenses of this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees as provided by law; and -- plaintiff and the class be granted such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper by the court. The suit is "Zurich American Insurance Co. et al. v. Genentech Inc. et al., Case No. 08 3797 MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiff is: Kim E. Miller, Esq. Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 12 E. 41st Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-455-1400 Fax: 504-455-1498 FIFTH THIRD: First Charter Shareholders File Lawsuit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C., has filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all former shareholders of First Charter Corp. who acquired the common stock of Fifth Third Bancorp. in connection with Fifth Third's acquisition of First Charter on June 6, 2008, and who were shareholders of First Charter as of November 26, 2007, and were solicited to vote on this acquisition. On August 16, 2007, First Charter announced that it signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by Fifth Third for $31.00 per share, which would be paid in the form of 70% Fifth Third common stock and 30% cash. In connection with Fifth Third's acquisition of First Charter, Fifth Third filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Registration Statement and Prospectus on Form S-4 on November 7, 2007, amended on November 29, 2007. The complaint alleges that Fifth Third and some of its senior officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by filing a Registration or Proxy Statement that was materially false and misleading. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Registration or Proxy Statement failed to disclose: (a) the Company's increasing exposure to certain poorly performing real estate markets, including Florida, Ohio, and Michigan; (b) the Company's growing exposure to late payments and defaults on mortgages and other non-performing loans; (c) the extent of the decline in the quality of the Company's Tier 1 capital base; (d) the deteriorating credit trends and increasing expenses in the Company's consumer loan portfolio; (e) the negative trends in the Company's home equity and commercial construction loans; and (f) the deterioration in the credit quality of its loans. The truth began to emerge on June 18, 2008, when Fifth Third announced that it was in need of capital and was planning a $1 billion convertible preferred stock offering, a sale of "non- core businesses" to raise an additional $1 billion in capital, and a 66% reduction of its quarterly dividend, from $0.44 per share to $0.15 per share. On this news, the price of Fifth Third common stock declined 27% from its previous close of $12.73 per share, to close on June 18, 2008, at $9.26 per share on very heavy volume. The June 18, 2008 announcement of the previously concealed material facts revealed that the market price of Fifth Third stock on the five trading days prior to the June 6, 2008 closing of the merger, upon which the exchange ratio of First Charter shares was based, did not reflect the true value of Fifth Third shares. The true value of Fifth Third shares during the five day valuation period was materially less than the market value of Fifth Third shares because of the non-disclosure of these material facts. As a result, First Charter shareholders did not receive Fifth Third shares worth $31.00, but instead received Fifth Third shares worth substantially less and should have received additional Fifth Third shares in order to receive the $31 value merger consideration that they agreed to, pursuant to the Prospectus and Proxy statement. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 19, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. The suit is "Sam McGee v. Fifth Third Bancorp., et al., Case No. 1:08-CV-539" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. FRANCHESCO'S RESTAURANT: Waitresses File Tipping Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Waitresses, represented by James Bormes, filed a class action tipping lawsuit, claiming Franchesco's Restaurant illegally deducts 5% from tips that customers pay with credit cards, CourtHouse News Service reports. Waitresses claim that they end up working for less than minimum wage. To contact Mr. Bormes: James Bormes Law Office of James X. Bormes, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60603 GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., is facing a consolidated antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over guaranteed investment contracts (GIC). Between March and July 2008, the company was named along with several other GIC industry participants as defendant in several class-action suits, alleging federal antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble damages. In June 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name, "In re Municipal Derivative Antitrust Litigation." Genworth Financial, Inc. -- http://www.genworth.com/-- is a financial security company dedicated to providing insurance, investment and financial solutions that help meet the homeownership, life security, wealth management and retirement security needs of more than 15 million customers, with a presence in more than 25 countries. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through three segments: Retirement and Protection, International and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. Retirement and Protection segment offers a variety of protection, wealth accumulation, retirement income and institutional products. Through the International segment the Company is a provider of mortgage insurance products in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan and multiple European countries. In the U.S., the company offers mortgage insurance products predominantly insuring prime-based, individually underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow mortgage insurance. INDIAN TRUST: Judge Provides $455.6MM Restitution Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ After 12 years of litigation, a federal judge rejected claims that the government owed American Indians $47 billion for mismanaging their money held in a special trust fund, but ruled they were owed less than 1% of the amount sought, Tom Doggett writes for Reuters. According to Bismarck Tribune, U.S. District Judge James Robertson's ruling on Aug. 7 provided a $455.6-million restitution settlement in "Cobell vs. Kempthorne." Judge Robertson, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, referred to case law as grounds for his equitable settlement figures, calling for "accurate evaluations of difficult evidence," while not allowing a windfall for victims "or punishment for wrongdoers." Case Background The lawsuit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana, against the U.S. Interior Department. It was originally assigned to Judge Royce Lamberth, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the case reassigned in 2006. The class action suit is based on the government's admitted mismanagement of a land trust, which the Congress called a "Broken Trust," that was established in 1887. The Broken Trust was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West. As the papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was mismanaged by the government almost from its inception. Despite repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government was years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts, (Class Action Reporter Jan. 8, 2008). Reuters recounts that the trust includes 10 million acres of land owned by individual Indians and 46 million acres belonging to Indian tribes. On these lands, the department manages more than 100,000 leases and the money they generate from mineral mining, oil and gas drilling, timber, livestock grazing, recreational and agricultural uses are deposited into the trust. That money is disbursed by the department to individuals and tribes. The government had proposed in March 2007 to pay $7 billion partly to settle the lawsuit. However, the proposal was rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimated that the government's liability could exceed $100 billion. The Interior Department estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in the past five years. In late January 2008, a Legal Times report wrote, Judge Robertson issued a 165-page opinion concluding that the Interior Department is incapable of performing an accurate accounting of the land trust fund. According to another report by the Associated Press, Judge Robertson said that the department's accounting for billions of dollars owed to America Indian landholders has been "unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately impossible. Judge Robertson's Recent Ruling Reuters says that Judge Robertson ruled that the model used to estimate how much money was withheld by the government was faulty because it "did not make use of the best available evidence and did not make fair or reasonable comparisons of data." He said the there was no evidence of the "prodigious pilfering of assets from within the trust system" that the Indian plaintiffs had claimed and that they failed to prove the government used any money from the fund for its own benefit. Instead, Reuters notes, the judge accepted the Interior Department's position that it was 99% confident that no more than $455.6 million was missing from the trust fund. "This statement has the character of an admission -- by responsible civil servants -- that there are limits to what can be confidently stated with respect to the (trust fund), and that a history of accounting nonfeasance makes such a substantial error plausible," Judge Robertson wrote in his ruling. The judge has yet to determine how the $455.6 million restitution will be awarded, Bismarck Tribune relates. And his opinion also states the Cobell litigation does not resolve "any claims that IIM holders may have for damages against the government." Plaintiffs Disappointed Over Ruling Ms. Cobell, the lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit, told Bismarck Tribune that lawyers representing thousands of the American Indian landowners will appeal Judge Robertson's final ruling. Ms. Cobell said that the appeal will be filed soon, adding that the litigation unfairly put the burden of proof for financial mismanagement on Indian landholders instead of the Interior Department. "Expectations have been very high in Indian Country about this case for a long time," said John Dossett, Esq., an attorney representing the National Congress of American Indians, the largest and oldest Indian advocacy organization in the country. He described Judge Robertson's opinion as "disappointing" and "a blow" because of its narrow scope in determining how much money was owed to landowners. Mr. Dossett contended that Judge Robertson only considered two basic questions -- How much money was collected by the Interior Department's agencies, including the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and how much money should the department disburse to Indian account holders. "The department is gratified that the court recognized the complexities and uncertainties involved in this case," James E. Cason, associate deputy secretary of the Interior, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with the court, the Congress and the plaintiffs to bring the case to final closure." "We always believed much more of the money was never collected in the first place," Mr. Dossett added. "And that's always been the biggest flaw in the BIA's system, is that they didn't have an accounts receivable system in which they were able to make collection efforts," if someone failed to pay. "Far more has never been collected than what was inaccurately distributed." "It's a horrendous slap in the face after 120 years of injustice to have this kind of ruling come down," said William Lomax, president of the Native American Finance Officers Association, or NAFOA, a financial management watchdog organization in Phoenix, of the recent ruling. Mr. Lomax told Bismarck Tribune that he is encouraging tribal leaders to attend the NAFOA conference in Chicago on Sept. 3-4, so they can continue to fight for accountability of Indian trust funds. He said tribal leaders will be asked to "step up" as the appeal process moves forward. INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- InfoSonics Corporation reached a settlement in the consolidated class action lawsuit "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Six securities action complaints, originally filed between June and July 2006, were consolidated as "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231." The plaintiffs' consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 14, 2007, asserting claims for violation of section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and associated Rule 10b-5, 20(a) and 20A in connection with the company's restatement announced June 12, 2006, and allegedly false and misleading statements and accounting related to the company's distribution agreement with VK Corp. The suit seeks a declaration that it is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3), as well as unspecified damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, other costs, and other unspecified relief. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock during the period Feb. 6, 2006, to Aug. 9, 2006. On Oct. 1, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. In April 2008, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' dismissal motion. In June 2008, the Court dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs' claims based on the defendants' restatement of first quarter 2006 earnings and dismissed without prejudice all claims against a certain individual defendant (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2008). Recently, the parties in the case entered into a Memorandum of Understanding -- which will be followed by Stipulations of Settlement -- regarding settlement terms. The settlement, which is subject to among other things preliminary and final Court approval after appropriate notice, would resolve all the claims in the lawsuits. The company settled these lawsuits to avoid the expense and continued disruption to the business of protracted litigation and the Company and its current and former officers and directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, and in exchange for dismissals of the lawsuits and releases, the Company has agreed to authorize payment of $3.8 million (said sum to be inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, in an amount to be determined by the Court). It is anticipated that these settlement payments will be funded entirely by the company's insurer. The suit is "In Re: InfoSonics Corp. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1231," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 INFOSONICS CORP: Reaches Comprehensive Deal in Derivatives Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- InfoSonics Corporation reached a settlement in the derivative action "In Re: InfoSonics Corporation Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 06 CV 1336" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. This lawsuit relates to the company's restatement of its first quarter 2006 financial statements and a grant of stock options in December 2005. The parties in the case entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (which will be followed by Stipulations of Settlement) regarding the settlement terms. The settlement, which is subject to among other things preliminary and final Court approval after appropriate notice, would resolve all the claims in the lawsuit. The company settled this lawsuit to avoid the expense and continued disruption to the business of protracted litigation and the Company and its current and former officers and directors deny any liability or responsibility for the claims made and make no admission of any wrongdoing. As part of the settlements, and in exchange for dismissals of the lawsuits and releases, the company has agreed to make certain corporate governance changes and to authorize payment of up to $350,000 for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. It is anticipated that this settlement payment will be funded entirely by the company's insurer. Headquartered in San Diego, California, InfoSonics Corporation (NASDAQ:IFON) -- http://www.infosonics.com/-- is a distributor and provider of wireless handsets and accessories in Latin America and the United States. The company distributes products of several original equipment manufacturers, including Samsung, LG, Novatel and others. InfoSonics is also involved in the designing, sourcing and distributing of a line of products under its own verykool brand, which includes entry level, mid-tier and high-end products. From its facility in Miami, Florida, where the company has its Latin America sales and executive offices, InfoSonics operates a warehouse and distribution center. This distribution center services customers in Latin America and the United States. The company has wholly owned subsidiaries in Latin America, which conduct some of its business activities in their respective regions of Latin America. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Gov't Pension Funds Sue Over Sub-Prime Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- Two local government pension funds are leading a U.S. class action law suit against Lehman Brothers over sub-prime losses, Professional Pensions reports. According to the report, the Lothian Pension Fund and the Northern Ireland Local Governmental Officers Superannuation Committee are leading a group of pension funds from around the world in the case. The schemes allege that investment banking giant Lehman Brothers caused them major financial losses as a result of sub-prime investments. A Lehman Brothers spokesman told Professional Pensions that the company believes "that this suit is completely without substance." Sackers partner Peter Murphy shared with Professional Pensions that this new case could trigger a shift in U.K. scheme attitude towards class action suits. He said that, "There has been a historic reluctance for UK schemes to get involved in US class action cases. But there is a current growth in awareness and recognition by trustees that they should be considering the pros and cons of getting involved." "The case against Lehman Brothers is about the credit crunch. This could be a catalyst for schemes to say that the time is right to become more involved," Mr. Murphy added. "Obviously it is less attractive when news is good about investments, when the market is doing well there is not such as incentive. The current market may put more pressure on people to take action, where previously they decided not to." Mr. Murphy further noted that local authority schemes have traditionally been more involved in class action suits than private schemes. LEVI STRAUSS: Court Certifies Class for $5MM Settlement Purposes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified as a class action the suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," for purposes of a proposed settlement valued at $5 million in cash. The suit is in connection with the company's April 6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings. Aside from Levi Strauss, the suit also names as defendants: -- the company's chief executive officer, -- its former chief financial officer, -- its corporate controller, -- its directors, and -- its underwriters. The court previously appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel in the matter. The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's prospectuses dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to Oct. 9, 2003. The action makes claims under the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements. Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's financial statements and other public statements during this period materially overstated its net income and other financial results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper. The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be artificially inflated. They seek compensatory damages as well as other relief. On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and, after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter under submission. On Sept. 11, 2007, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of the Section 11 and 15 claims. The Court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before March 21, 2008, subject to court approval. On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The parties finalized their settlement agreement, and filed a request for preliminary approval of the settlement with the court on June 18, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2008). Recently, the suit has been certified as a class action for purposes of the proposed $5 million settlement. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte at 9:00 a.m. on October 17, 2008, to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate and to consider the application of lead counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on September 26, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on November 7, 2008. The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Timothy DeLange, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 888-924-1888 Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/ - and - Ira M. Press, Esq. Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-371-6600 Web site: http://www.kmllp.com/ Representing the defendants are: Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com) Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com) Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP One Montgomery St., 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-393-8276 415-393-8210 Fax: 415-374-8458 LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Pa. Court Set to Approve OSB Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is expected to approve Louisiana-Pacific Corp.'s settlement of a purported class-action suit, captioned "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv-00826-PD," by the fourth quarter of 2008. Initially, the company was named as one of a number of defendants in multiple class action complaints filed on or after Feb. 26, 2006, before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. These complaints were dismissed or consolidated into two complaints under one caption, "In Re OSB Anti-Trust Litigation, Master File No. 06-CV-00826 (PD)." The first complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint filed on March 31, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who directly purchased OSB (oriented strand board) from the defendants from May 1, 2002, through the date the complaint was filed (the direct purchaser complaint). The second complaint is a consolidated amended class action complaint, filed on June 15, 2006, on behalf of plaintiffs who indirectly purchased OSB from the defendants from May 1, 2002, through the date the complaint was filed (the indirect purchaser complaint). The plaintiffs in both amended and consolidated complaints moved for and received class certification and sought treble damages totaling approximately $4.8 billion alleged to have resulted from a conspiracy among the defendants to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices at which OSB is sold in the U.S., in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. The plaintiffs in the indirect purchaser complaint also seek similar remedies under individual state anti-trust and competition laws as well as consumer protection laws. The company believes that the claims asserted were without merit, but after being ordered to settlement conference by the judge in the cases, LP decided that in order to limit the risks and costs associated with a prolonged trial schedule, it would settle the direct and indirect lawsuits. The settlement agreements are subject to court approval, which is expected to occur in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "In Re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Master File No. 06- CV-00826 (PD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs 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 defendants are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com) James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com) James H. Schink, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 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 METROLOGIC INSTRUMENTS: Former Workers Sue Over 2007 Layoffs ------------------------------------------------------------ Metrologic Instruments employees who were laid off last year filed a lawsuit against the company in federal court, saying the company did not give them 60 days notice as required by law, Philadelphia Inquirer reports. According to Philadelphia Inquirer, the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Camden, seeks class-action status along with damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses on behalf of 13 South Jersey residents who were among a group of more than 100 workers terminated on June 8, 2007. The suit asserts that Blackwood, N.J.-based Metrologic Instruments violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and owes the workers 60 days' pay and benefits. The report says that other defendants named in the purported class action lawsuit include Honeywell International Inc., which acquired Metrologic a few weeks after the layoffs were announced and now operates Metrologic as part of Honeywell Security. Darius Adamczyk, who was named chief executive of Metrologic three months before the layoffs, also is a defendant. The plaintiffs are being represented by New Jersey labor lawyer Robert F. O'Brien, Esq. NISOURCE INC: Discovery Continues in W.Va. "Stand Energy" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia that alleges certain "select shippers," including certain subsidiaries and affiliates of NiSource, Inc., have engaged in an "illegal gas scheme" that constituted a breach of contract and violated state law. Initially, on July 14, 2004, Stand Energy Corp. filed a complaint before the Kanawha County Court in West Virginia. This suit is styled "Stand Energy Corp., et al. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al." The complaint contains allegations against various NiSource subsidiaries and affiliates, including Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf, and asserts that those companies and certain "select shippers" engaged in the illegal gas scheme, constituting a breach of contract and violated state law. The "illegal gas scheme" relates to the Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf gas imbalance transactions that were the subject of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission enforcement staff investigation and subsequent settlement approved in October 2000. Columbia Transmission and Columbia Gulf filed a notice of removal with the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia on Aug. 13, 2004, and a motion to dismiss the suit on Sept. 10, 2004. In October 2004, however, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which clarified the identity of some of the "select shipper" defendants and added a federal antitrust cause of action. On Jan. 6, 2005, the court denied the Columbia companies' motion to strike the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. To address the issues raised in the Second Amended Complaint, the Columbia companies revised their briefs in support of their previously filed motions to dismiss. In June 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part the Columbia companies' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Columbia companies have filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint. One of the plaintiffs, Atlantigas Corp., was dismissed from the case, and has appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. On Dec. 1, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the case as a class action. The defendants filed their opposition to this motion in March 2008. All briefing has been completed. Oral argument was heard on June 3, 2008, and the parties are awaiting a decision by the court. Discovery continues on the merits, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Stand Energy Corp. v. Columbia Gas Transmission Corp., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00867," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Joshua I. Barrett, Esq. Rudolph L. DiTrapano, Esq. Molly McGinley Han, Esq. Lonnie C. Simmons, Esq. Ditrapano Barrett & Dipiero 604 Virginia Street Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-342-0133 Fax: 304-342-4605 Web site: http://www.ditrapanolaw.com/ - and - Robert C. Sanders, Esq. The Law Office of Robert C. Sanders 12051 Upper Marlboro Pike Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-2922 Phone: 301-574-3400 Fax: 301-574-2153 Representing the defendants are: Michael S. Becker, Esq. (mbecker@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis Suite 1200, 655 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-879-5000 Fax: 202-879-5200 - and - John H. Tinney, Esq. (JackTinney@tinneylawfirm.com) The Tinney Law Firm P. O. Box 3752 Charleston, WV 25337-3752 Phone: 304-720-3310 Fax: 304-720-3315. NISOURCE INC: Wants Sup. Ct. to Review $404M Verdict in "Tawney" ---------------------------------------------------------------- NiSource, Inc., along with other defendants in the purported class-action suit entitled "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," is seeking a review by the U.S. Supreme Court of a $404-million verdict in the case, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The plaintiffs, who are West Virginia landowners, filed the lawsuit before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County in early 2003. The suit alleges that the defendants underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for the gas. In December 2004, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources, as defendants. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-production charges. The court certified the case as a class action that includes any person who, after July 31, 1990, received or is due royalties from CNR (and its predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary of the state of West Virginia. Although NiSource sold CNR in 2003, NiSource remains obligated to manage this litigation and for the majority of any damages ultimately awarded to the plaintiffs. On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all defendants in the amount of $404.3 million, which is comprised of $134.3 million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages. In January 2008, the defendants filed their petition for appeal, and on March 24, 2008, they filed their amended petition for appeal before the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On May 22, 2008, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals refused the defendants' petition for appeal. The defendants are preparing a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is due August 20, 2008. The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed before the West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County, Judge Thomas Evans, III, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marvin Masters, Esq. 181 Summers Street Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-342-3106 Fax: 304-342-3189 Representing the defendants is: Timothy Miller, Esq. 400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St. P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25326 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 NISOURCE INC: Ky. Royalties Suit Certification Hearing is Today --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has scheduled an Aug. 14, 2008 hearing on oral argument for class certification of the matter, "John Thacker, et al. v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C.," which names NiSource, Inc., as a defendant. On Feb. 8, 2007, John Thacker filed the purported class action suit, alleging that Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., failed to pay royalty owners the correct amounts pursuant to the provisions of their oil and gas leases covering real property located within the state of Kentucky. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2007, which, among other things, added NiSource and Columbia Natural Resources as defendants. On March 31, 2008, the court denied a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case. The defendants then filed their answers to the complaint on April 25, 2008. On June 3, 2008, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all persons entitled to payment of royalty by Chesapeake under leases operated by Chesapeake at any point after Feb. 5, 1992, on real property in Kentucky. The defendants' response to this certification motion was filed on July 18, 2008. The court has scheduled oral argument on class certification today, Aug. 14, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No. 7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Kentucky, Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas E. Meng, Esq. (tmeng@stites.com) Stites & Harbison PLLC 250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington Financial Center Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-226-2300 Fax: 859-425-7902 Representing the defendants are: Anne Adams Chesnut, Esq. (aac@gdm.com) Greenebaum, Doll & McDonald, PLLC 300 W. Vine Street, Suite 1100 Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-288-4613 Fax: 859-255-2742 - and - Nora Clevenger Price, Esq. (pricenc@steptoe-johnson.com) Steptoe & Johnson 1000 Fifth Avenue, Suite 250 P.O. Box 2195 Huntington, WV 25722-2195 Phone: 304-522-8290 Fax: 304-526-8089 PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Two Securities Fraud Suits in Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Co. continues to face two purported securities fraud class-action suits filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On Jan. 25, 2008, and Feb. 26, 2008, two purported class action lawsuits were filed against the company and three of its current or former executive officers by the Western Washington Laborers- Employers Pension Trust and by Sue Trachet, respectively, on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock during the period between Nov. 1, 2005, and July 26, 2006. Each complaint alleges that the company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 under the U.S. Exchange Act in connection with its disclosure of system-wide sales and earnings guidance during the period from Nov. 1, 2005, through July 26, 2006. Also, each complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The company reported no development in the matters in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008. Panera Bread Co. -- http://www.panerabread.com/-- operates retail bakery-cafes. As of Dec. 26, 2007, the company operated, directly and through area development agreements with 39 franchisee groups, 1,167 bakery-cafes (501 company-owned and 666 franchise-operated, bakery-cafes) under the Panera Bread and Saint Louis Bread Co. names. Bakery-cafes are principally located in suburban, strip mall and regional mall locations, and operate in 38 states. The menu includes a variety of year-round favorites, complemented by new items introduced seasonally. Panera Bread operates as three business segments: the company- owned, bakery-cafe operations segment; the franchise operations segment, and the fresh dough operations segment. On Feb. 1, 2007, the company purchased 51% of Paradise Bakery & Cafe, Inc. During fiscal year ended December 25, 2007, it opened 148 bakery-cafes, acquired 36 bakery-cafes from its franchisees, closed eight bakery-cafes, and sold one company-owned, bakery- cafe to a franchisee. PANERA BREAD: Still Faces Labor-Related Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, entitled "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC." The suit was filed on Feb. 22, 2008, against the company and one of its subsidiaries by a former employee of the company, Pati Johns. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code for failure to pay overtime and termination compensation. It seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008. The suit is "Johns v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01071-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, Judge Samuel Conti, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com) Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Fax: 816-714-7101 Representing the defendants is: Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com) Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Phone: 415-433-1940 Fax: 415-743-6641 PANERA BREAD: Still Faces California Labor Code Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Co. continues to face a purported class-action suit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California. The suit was filed on March 19, 2008, against the company and one of its subsidiaries by Marion Taylor, a former employee. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code for failure to pay termination compensation and failure to provide rest and meal periods. It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 24, 2008. The suit is "Taylor v. Panera Bread Company et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-01519-BZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, Judge Bernard Zimmerman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: George A. Hanson, Esq. (hanson@stuevesiegel.com) Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-714-7100 Fax: 816-714-7101 Representing the defendants is: Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. (MHEdwards@littler.com) Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation 650 California Street, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108-2693 Phone: 415-433-1940 Fax: 415-743-6641 SAIA INC: Wants Georgia Fuel Surcharges Lawsuit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Saia, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action complaint that was filed in a litigation over fuel surcharges. Initially, a lawsuit was filed in late July 2007 before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against Saia and several other major Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) freight carriers alleging that the defendants conspired to fix fuel surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws and seeking injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys' fees. Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been filed against Saia and other LTL freight carriers, each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates. The cases were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the plaintiffs are seeking class action certification. The plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint on May 23, 2008. They voluntarily dismissed these carriers as defendants from the Amended Consolidated Complaint without prejudice: -- R&L Carriers, Inc.; -- New England Motor Freight, Inc.; -- Southeast Freight Lines, Inc.; -- AAA Cooper Transportation; -- Jevic Transportation, Inc.; and -- Sun Capital Partners. They also voluntarily dismissed Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc., without prejudice. On June 25, 2008, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint on the grounds that it failed to adequately plead collusion and conspiracy, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a trucking company that provides a variety of transportation and supply chain solutions to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical and manufacturing industries. Saia serves a variety of customers by offering regional and interregional less-than-truckload (LTL) services and selected national LTL, and guarantee services. The company operates through its subsidiary, Saia Motor Freight Line LLC (Saia Motor Freight), which is a multi-regional LTL carrier that serves 33 states in the South, Southwest, Midwest, Pacific Northwest and the West. SAIA INC: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling Over "Cortez" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter, "Hoany G. Cortez v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05388-R-E," is appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that denied preliminary approval to the proposed settlement in the matter. The company is a defendant in a lawsuit originally filed in July 2007 in California state court on behalf of California dock workers, alleging various violations of state labor laws. The claims also include the alleged failure of the company to provide rest and meal breaks and the alleged failure to reimburse the employees for the cost of work shoes. In August 2007, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In January 2008, the parties negotiated a conditional class-wide settlement under which the company would pay $0.8 million to settle these claims. In March 2008, the District Court denied preliminary approval of the settlement and the named plaintiff filed a petition before the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit seeking permission to appeal this ruling. The petition is now pending, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Hoany G. Cortez v. Saia Motor Freight Line, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05388-R-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregg A. Farley, Esq. (gfarley@farleyfirm.com) Law Offices of Gregg A. Farley 11755 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1300 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-445-4024 Fax: 310-445-4109 Neal J. Fialkow, Esq. (nfialkow@pacbell.net) Neal J. Fialkow Law Offices 215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: 626-584-6060 - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. Sahag Majarian II Law Offices 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Phone: 818-609-0807 Representing the defendants is: Pamela Carrolll Calvet, Esq. (pccalvet@bryancave.com) Bryan Cave 120 Broadway, Ste 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Phone: 310-576-2390 STIFEL FINANCIAL: Faces Auction Rate Securities Lawsuit in Mo. -------------------------------------------------------------- Stifel Financial Corp. and Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. are facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri over allegations the companies violated securities laws by misleading investors about auction rate securities, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Joseph Merrick claims that the defendants represented to investors that auction rate securities were cash equivalents or better than market money funds, and that the ARS were highly liquid and meant for short-term investing. But, according to the complaint, ARS are actually complex, long-term instruments with 30-year maturity dates or longer and that they were only liquid at the time of the sale because the defendants were artificially supporting and manipulating the market. The suit states that on Feb. 13, 2008, 87% of all ARS markets failed when all the other major broker-dealers refused to support the market, leaving holders of more than $300 billion in ARS with no means of liquidating the investments. The class consists of all people who bought ARS from the defendants between June 11, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008. The plaintiff asks the court for judgment: -- determining that this action is a proper class action, designating plaintiff as lead plaintiff and certifying plaintiff as class representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiff's counsel as lead counsel; -- awarding compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the other class members against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of defendants' wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon; -- awarding plaintiff and the class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert fees; -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Joseph A. Merrick, et al. v. Stifel Financial Corp., et al., Case 4:08-cv-01167-HEA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Representing the plaintiff are: James R. Rosemergy, Esq. Joseph P. Danis, Esq. Michael Flannery, Esq. Corey D. Sullivan, Esq. Carey & Danis, LLC 8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-725-7700 Fax: 314-721-0905 TRUCKING COS: Chimicles Investigates Potential Underpaying Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Chimicles & Tikellis LLP is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against trucking companies for allegedly underpaying their drivers. Many truck drivers work pursuant to an employment contract that calls for them to be paid based on the number of miles that they actually drive. Certain other benefits also accrue based on these 'actual' mileage figures. Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating whether certain trucking companies may be systematically shortchanging their drivers by calculating these mileage figures in an arbitrary and inaccurate manner, such as by reference to the Household Mover's Guide and other mileage charts. It has been reported that certain publications that may be used by some trucking companies measure mileage between cities based on arbitrarily designated physical locations, rather than based on the actual distance to a delivery location. As a result, certain trucking companies may be systematically underpaying their drivers. Chimicles & Tikellis is investigating whether calculating the mileage figures in a manner other than by reference to the 'actual' miles driven amounts to a breach of the uniform employment contract with the trucking company. If you know of a truck driver who may have been under-compensated based on improper mileage calculations by their employer, please contact the attorneys listed below. For more information, contact: Joseph G. Sauder (JosephSauder@chimicles.com ) Benjamin F. Johns (BenJohns@chimicles.com ) Chimicles & Tikellis LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: 610-642-8500 UNITED FIRE: Still Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suits in La. --------------------------------------------------------------- United Fire & Casualty Co. continues to face various lawsuits relating to disputes arising from damages that occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, according to the company's Aug. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. As of June 30, 2008, there were in excess of 400 such cases pending, approximately 20 of which were styled as class actions. These cases have been filed in both Louisiana state courts and federal district courts. These cases involve, among other claims, disputes as to the amount of reimbursable claims in particular cases, as well as the scope of insurance coverage under homeowners and commercial property policies due to flooding, civil authority actions, loss of use and business interruption. Certain of the cases also claim a breach of duty of good faith or violations of Louisiana insurance claims-handling laws or regulations and involve claims for punitive or exemplary damages, while other cases claim that under Louisiana's so- called "Valued Policy Law," the insurers must pay the total insured value of a home that is totally destroyed if any portion of such damage was caused by a covered peril, even if the principal cause of the loss was an excluded peril. Other cases challenge the scope or enforceability of the water damage exclusion in the policies. Several actions pending against various insurers, including the company, were consolidated for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion practice under the caption, "In re Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation, Civil Action No. 05-4182," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. In light of an April 8, 2008 Louisiana Supreme Court decision finding that flood damage was clearly excluded from coverage, state and federal courts have been reviewing the pending suits seeking class certification and other pending suits in order to expedite pre-trial discovery and to move the cases towards trial. However, little has actually occurred, as many courts were waiting on a request that the Louisiana Supreme Court reconsider its decision. That request was denied on July 8, 2008. The company expects litigation activity to resume now that the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled on the flood issue. United Fire & Casualty Co. -- http://www.unitedfiregroup.com/-- is engaged in the business of writing property and casualty insurance, and life insurance. The company operates in two segments: property and casualty insurance, and life insurance. The property and casualty insurance segment markets forms of commercial and personal property, and casualty insurance products, including surety bonds and reinsurance. The company is licensed as a property and casualty insurer in 42 states, primarily in the Midwest, West and South and is represented by 865 independent agencies. The company's life insurance subsidiary is licensed in 28 states, primarily in the Midwest and West and is represented by 927 independent agencies. United Fire focuses on its commercial lines, which represented 92.6% of its property and casualty premiums written for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. United Fire's principal life insurance products are single premium annuities, universal life products and traditional life products. New Securities Fraud Cases CARMAX INC: Holzer & Fistel Files Virginia Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, commenced a shareholder class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of CarMax Inc. common stock during the period between April 2, 2008, and June 17, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges CarMax and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges CarMax misrepresented its ability to meet its financial expectations and failed to disclose material changes that increased the Company's funding costs. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. 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, GA 30338 Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free) HUNSTMAN CORP: Schiffrin Barroway Files Utah Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, gave notice that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Huntsman Corporation from June 26, 2007, through June 18, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges Huntsman and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huntsman is a manufacturer and marketer of differentiated chemicals and pigments. In or about May 2007, Huntsman began to contact potential buyers about a sale of the Company. On June 26, 2007, the Company announced that it had agreed to be acquired by Basell AF for $25.25 per share. Following this announcement, on July 3, 2007, the Company announced that it had received a superior merger proposal from Hexion Specialty Chemicals, Inc., an affiliate of private equity firm Apollo Management, L.P., for $27.25 per share. On July 12, 2007, the Company announced that it has agreed to be acquired by Hexion for $28.00 per share. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Hexion merger proposal included a financing condition, and the debt financing of the acquisition was not fully committed; (2) that the Company had significantly understated its future net debt estimate prior to entering the Merger Agreement, and its net debt had dramatically increased since such time; (3) that the Company had significantly overstated its future net earnings prior to entering the Merger Agreement, and its future net earnings had dramatically decreased since such time; (4) that the Company's Pigment, Textile Effects and Performance Products segments were significantly underperforming relative to estimates and expectations, and in a disproportionate manner compared to other companies engaged in the chemical business; (5) that as a result, the equity value of Huntsman had significantly declined throughout the Class Period to the point where Hexion would be unable to obtain a solvency opinion necessary to complete the merger; (6) that the increase in total debt and decrease in earnings had caused the Company's financial health to significantly deteriorate and to trigger a material adverse effect ("MAE") in the Merger Agreement; (7) that due to the MAE, combined with the fact that Hexion could not secure a solvency opinion necessary for the merger, Hexion would be unable to complete the merger with Huntsman; (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (9) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and business prospects, including the consummation of the merger with Hexion, were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. Following the Company's original and subsequent merger announcements, and the announcement that the Company had received a superior merger proposal from Hexion, the Company's shares dramatically increased in value. In the weeks and months following Huntsman's announcement that it had signed a definitive Merger Agreement with Hexion, and with the Company's securities trading at artificially inflated prices, Company insiders sold 57,082,420 shares of the Company's stock for gross proceeds of over $1.3 billion. Then on June 19, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced that Hexion had filed a lawsuit against Huntsman seeking to terminate the Merger Agreement. The suit filed by Hexion revealed that three of Huntsman's five business segments had significantly underperformed relative to expectations, estimations and projections. Further, citing the combination of Huntsman's decreased earnings potential, as well as its significant increase in net debt, Hexion disclosed that it was unable to secure a financing Commitment Letter or solvency opinion -- both necessary for the merger to successfully close. Huntsman's deteriorating financial health -- given the dramatic increase in net debt and decline in earnings -- meant that the company had suffered a MAE, and in all likelihood the merger will not be completed. On this news, the Company's shares fell $8.00 per share, or 38.35 percent, to close on June 19, 2008 at $12.86 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 Sept. 15, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, 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 KKR FINANCIAL: Brower Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of KKR Financial Holdings, LLC, pursuant or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its May 4, 2007 merger and share issuance. The complaint charges KKR and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. No class has yet been certified in the above action. KKR is a specialty finance company that invests in multiple asset classes. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus were false and misleading in that they misrepresented and omitted material facts, including understating the risks attributable to real-estate-related assets held by the Company, the sufficiency of the Company's capital and KKR's mortgage- related exposure. The complaint also alleges that when, on August 15, 2007, KKR issued a release which revealed that KKR would be selling $5.1 billion in mortgage backed securities at a loss, the value of KKR shares fell substantially below the original offering price. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-332-0030 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ NOVAGOLD RESOURCES: Brower Piven Files New York Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of NovaGold Resources, Inc., during the period between October 25, 2006, and November 23, 2007, inclusive. The complaint charges NovaGold and certain of its officers and directors with violations under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NovaGold is engaged in the business of exploration and development of mineral properties. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely portrayed NovaGold as a rapidly growing company moving from an exploration and development company to a gold and copper production company. The complaint further alleges that included in the materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period were those confirming the economic viability of the Company's Galore Creek project. After announcing one October 25, 2006 that development of the Galore Creek project would require capital costs of CDN$2.2 billion, in April 2007, the Company raised hundreds of millions of dollars in a secondary stock offering. When, on November 26, 2007, the Company announced that it would suspend activities at Galore Creek based on the results of an updated feasibility study which estimated the capital costs for the Galore Creek project to be Cdn $5 billion, the value of the Company's shares declined. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 6, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-332-0030 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ REDDY ICE: Holzer & Fistel Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC, commenced a shareholder class action lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of purchasers of Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., common stock during the period between August 10, 2005, and March 6, 2008. The complaint charges Reddy Ice and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges Reddy Ice misrepresented the Company's financial performance and prospects and engaged in the unlawful restraint of trade. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. 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, GA 30338 Phone: 888-508-6832 (toll-free) ********* 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 S. Senorin, Janice M. Mendoza, Freya Natasha F. Dy, and Peter A. 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 * * *