/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080902.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, September 2, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 174 Headlines AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Lawsuit AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued in California Over Illegal Gambling AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill AMERICAN EXPRESS: Subsidiary Spin-Off Suit Dismissal Confirmed AMERICAN MEDICAL: "Overbilling" Suit Still Pending in Washington FASTENAL COMPANY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement to Settle Suit FIFTH THIRD: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio Court FIFTH THIRD: Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit Pending in N.Y. FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Lawsuit Appeal HITACHI LTD: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over HD Television Defects HOPITAL HONORE: C. Difficile Victims' Family Launch $10MM Suit INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Miller" Lawsuit KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Derivative Suit in Tenn. KLA-TENCOR: September Hearing Set for $65MM Securities Suit Deal KLA-TENCOR: Wants "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit Thrown Out KLA-TENCOR CORP: Wants Class Claim in Derivative Suit Dismissed LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Face South Dakota Suit Over Mowers' Horsepower MCKESSON CORP: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Prepare for $12BB RICO Trial in Dec. OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: New York Court Approves $9M Suit Settlement PAYPAL INC: E-mails Sent in Consumer Protection Programs Suit R&G FINANCIAL: Amended Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Filed ROCKWOOL: Caused Rise in Brain Cancer Cases, N.Y. Suit Claims SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Prescription Drug "Ketek" SCOR HOLDING: Reaches 2 Proposed Settlements in Securities Case SPARKLETTS WATER: Charges for Undelivered Goods, Suit Claims SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Transfers "Vukson" Lawsuit to Florida Court TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Lawsuits Over HP Labels in Lawnmowers WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit * Victims of Illegal Rallies in Korea May Demand Compensation * Susman Godfrey Wins 3 Cases In One Day in Tex. Supreme Court New Securities Fraud Cases CHINA SHENGHOU: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York GT SOLAR: Nixon Raiche Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Commences Mass. Securities Fraud Suit SIGNALIFE INC: Vianale Files South Carolina Securities Lawsuit ********* AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Katrina-Related Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the purported class-action suit "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," which names AES Corp. as a defendant, are appealing the dismissal of their case to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In April 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on behalf of certain individual plaintiffs and all residents and property owners in the State of Mississippi who allegedly suffered harm as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and against the company and numerous unrelated companies, whose alleged greenhouse gas emissions allegedly increased the destructive capacity of Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs assert unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy/aiding and abetting, public and private nuisance, trespass, negligence, and fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment claims against the defendants. They seek damages relating to loss of property, loss of business, clean-up costs, personal injuries and death, but do not quantify their alleged damages. On Aug. 30, 2007, the court dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have filed their notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: F. Gerald Maples, Esq. (federal@geraldmaples.com) Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. (mmayberry@geraldmaples.com) F. Gerald Maples, PA 902 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Phone: 504-569-8732 - and - Randall Allan Smith, Esq. (rasmith3@bellsouth.net) Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. (smwiles@smithfawer.com) Smith & Fawer 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504-525-2200 Fax: 504-525-2205 AMERICAN CENTURY: Sued in California Over Illegal Gambling ---------------------------------------------------------- American Century Cos. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging it blew investors' money by putting it into illegal gambling operations that were busted in the summer of 2006, CourtHouse News Service reports. The named defendants in the complaint are: -- American Century Companies Inc., -- American Century Investment Management Inc., -- James Stowers Jr., -- Jonathan Thomas, -- Thomas Brown, -- Andrea Hall, -- Donald Pratt, -- Gale A. Sayers, -- M. Jeannine Strandjord, -- Timothy Webster, -- William Lyons, -- Mark Mallon, -- Wade Slome, -- Bruce Wimberly, -- Jerry Sullivan, and -- American Century Mutual Funds Inc. -- d/b/a American Century Ultra Fund, nominal defendant. The complaint states that Kansas City, Mo.-based American Century allegedly put money invested in its Ultra Fund into "entities whose primary business constituted illegal gambling." These unlawful investments, the suit says, suffered significant losses when the government began arresting principles of the gambling enterprises during a law enforcement crackdown beginning in the summer 2003. The complaint does not state how much of the plaintiff's money the defendants lost in the alleged gambling operations. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on whether: (a) defendants' acts and conduct as alleged violated RICO; (b) defendants breached their fiduciary and other duties to plaintiff; (c) defendants committed negligence; (d) defendants' wrongful conduct proximately caused injury to plaintiff; and (e) defendants are required to forfeit all fees, commissions or other profits received from the time that they first violated their fiduciary duties to plaintiff. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- compensatory damages for individual shareholders representing the reduction in value of their investments resulting from defendants' wrongful conduct; -- compensatory damages for the Ultra Fund representing the reduction in value of its investments resulting from defendants' wrongful conduct; -- forfeiture and disgorgement of any commissions, fees or profits received by defendants from the time of their first wrongful conduct; -- treble damages; -- punitive damages; -- recovery of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, and costs and disbursements of suit; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and -- such other and further relief to which plaintiff is deemed entitled by the court and/or the jury. The suit "Laura Seidl, et al. v. American Century Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. CV 08 4117," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Crystal G. Howard, Esq. (choward@simmonscooper.com) John Bruegger, Esq. (jbruegger@simmonscooper.com) SimmonsCooper LLC 100 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 1350 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 310-322-3555 Fax: 310-322-3655 AMERICAN COMMERCIAL: Faces La. Lawsuits Over July 23 Oil Spill -------------------------------------------------------------- American Commercial Lines, Inc., is facing several purported class-action lawsuits over an incident at the Mississippi River that resulted in an oil discharge, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008. The company has been notified that it has been named as a defendant in the following class action lawsuits, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against the company and American Commercial Lines LLC (ACLLLC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of the company: * "Austin Sicard et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4012," filed on July 24, 2008; * "Stephen Marshall Gabarick and Bernard Attridge, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4007," filed on July 24, 2008; * "George C. McGee, and Sherral Irvin, and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co., Ltd., DRD Towing Co, LLC, American Commercial Lines, LLC and New Orleans Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4025," filed on July 25, 2008; * "Bernadette Glover, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, DRD Towing Company, LLC, and American Commercial Lines, Inc., Case No. 08-4031," filed on July 25, 2008; * "James Roussell, Daniel Hingle, and Prince Seals on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4058," filed on July 29, 2008; * "James Joseph, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated vs. Laurin Maritime (America) Inc., Whitefin Shipping Co. Limited, D.R.D. Towing Company, LLC, American Commercial Lines, Inc. and the New Orleans-Baton Rouge Steamship Pilots Association, Case No. 08-4059," filed on July 29, 2008; * "Jefferson Magee and Acy J. Cooper, Jr. vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4055," filed on July 29, 2008; and * "Vincent Grillo and Anthony Buffinet vs. American Commercial Lines, Inc., DRD Towing Co., LLC, M/V Mel Oliver in rem, M/V Tintomara in rem, Whitefin Shipping Co. Ltd. and Laurin Maritime AB, Case No. 08-4060," filed on July 29, 2008. These claims stem from the incident on July 23, 2008, involving one of ACLLLC's tank barges that was being towed by DRD Towing Company, L.L.C., an independent towing contractor. The tank barge was involved in a collision with the motor vessel Tintomara, operated by Laurin Maritime, at Mile Marker 97 of the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area. It was carrying approximately 9,900 barrels of # 6 oil. The tank barge was damaged in the collision and partially sunk, while there was no damage to the towboat. There were no injuries reported to the crews of either vessel in the incident. The Timtomara incurred minor damage. The amount of oil discharged from the barge is unknown at this time. The actions include various allegations of adverse health and psychological damages, destruction and loss of use of natural resources, and seek unspecified economic and compensatory damages for claims of negligence, strict liability, trespass, nuisance, and claims under Oil Pollution Act of 1990. American Commercial Lines, Inc. -- http://www.aclines.com/-- is a marine transportation and service company. ACL provides barge transportation and related services, and manufactures barges, towboats and other vessels, including ocean-going liquid tank barges. Barge transportation accounts for the majority of the Company's revenues, and includes the movement of grain, coal, steel, liquids and other bulk products in the U.S. ACL operates in two primary business segments: transportation and manufacturing. ACL's transportation segment includes barge transportation operations in North America, and domestic fleeting facilities that provide fleeting, shifting, cleaning and repair services at various locations along the inland waterways. The manufacturing segment constructs marine equipment for external customers, as well as for the company's transportation segment. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Subsidiary Spin-Off Suit Dismissal Confirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota confirmed the dismissal of a class action complaint against American Express' February 2005 spin-off of its subsidiary, American Express Financial Advisors, and American Express Financial Advisors' adoption of the Ameriprise brand, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a putative class action brought by Judith Klosek and Linda Davenport against: -- The American Express Company, -- Ameriprise Financial, Inc., and -- Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. The case arises out of The American Express Company's decision in February 2005 to spin off its subsidiary, American Express Financial Advisors, and American Express Financial Advisors' subsequent adoption of the Ameriprise brand. The plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the Minnesota Franchise Act, and tortious interference with contract. The defendants moved to dismiss. In a Report and Recommendation dated June 3, 2008, the Honorable Jeanne J. Graham, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the defendants' motions to dismiss be granted. The plaintiffs objected, and the defendants responded. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record. According to CourtHouse, the plaintiffs begin their objections by arguing that the magistrate judge fundamentally misunderstood their claims. They assert that the magistrate judge misconstrued their claims as premised on an assertion that Defendants could never replace the American Express brand with another. The plaintiffs expressly disclaim this assertion: "To be clear: Plaintiffs do not dispute that American Express Financial Advisors . . . retained the right to substitute the American Express brand," according to the report. The plaintiffs instead maintain that their claims are premised on the contention that any brand substitution required that the new brand be well- recognized. The Court rejects the plaintiffs' assertion that the magistrate judge misunderstood their claims. The magistrate judge repeatedly acknowledged the plaintiffs' contention that Ameriprise Financial Services breached its obligation to provide a well-recognized brand and ultimately concluded that the franchise agreements unambiguously indicate that Ameriprise Financial Services had no obligation to supply a well-recognized brand. Having conducted a de novo review of the record, the Court overrules the plaintiffs' objections. The Court adopts the recommendation to dismiss this case and ordered that: 1. defendants' motions to dismiss [Docket Nos. 11, 13, 20, 21] are granted; 2. to the extent the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment regarding the covenants not to compete in their franchise agreements, the case is dismissed without prejudice; and 3. all other claims in the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. The suit is "Judith Klosek, et al. v. The American Express Company, et al., Civil No. 08-426 (JNE/JJG)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. AMERICAN MEDICAL: "Overbilling" Suit Still Pending in Washington ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Medical Response, a unit of Emergency Medical Services L.P., continues to face a purported class action lawsuit in Washington for allegedly overbilling patients. On Dec. 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action was commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County (Class Action Reporter, March 5, 2008). The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third-party payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at a higher level than contractually permitted. It also alleges that the company engaged in an ongoing practice of overcharging patients under a contract sanctioned and monitored by city government (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007). The suit specifically alleges that patients picked up within the city of Spokane are billed for more-expensive "advanced life support" services when they only need cheaper "basic life support". The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate of $348. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Spokane residents Lori E. Davis-Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon. It was certified as a class action in June 2006. However, the size and membership of the class has not yet been determined, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The company also reported no further development in the matter in its regulatory filing. For more details, contact: D. Roger Reed, Esq. (drreed@reedgiesa.com) Reed & Giesa, P.S. 222 North Wall, Suite 410 Spokane, WA 99201 Phone: 509-838-8341 Fax: 509-838-6341 - and - Paul J. Dayton, Esq. Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC Wells Fargo Center 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98104-4088 Phone: 206-682-3333 Fax: 206-340-8856 FASTENAL COMPANY: Reaches Preliminary Agreement to Settle Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Fastenal Company reached a preliminary agreement to settle a purported class action lawsuit relating to the classification of its assistant general managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California, Oregon, and Pennsylvania state statutes. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 18, 2007, against Fastenal Co. on behalf of two former employees claiming to represent all those employed in the store position of Assistant General Manager in the U.S. within three years prior to the filing date (four years for California employees) (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 26, 2008). The suit alleges that Fastenal misclassified its Assistant General Managers as exempt for purposes of the overtime provisions of the FLSA and California and Pennsylvania state statutes. It also alleges that Assistant General Managers in California did not receive sufficient meal breaks and paid rest periods under the California Labor Code. The complaint seeks overtime pay, meal and rest period penalties, liquidated damages, restitution, attorneys' fees, costs and interest. It also seeks class-action status. The suit is "Calhoun et al. v. Fastenal Company, Case No. 3:2007cv05326," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Marilyn H. Patel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Matthew C. Helland, Esq. (helland@nka.com) Nichols Kaster & Anderson, LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-277-7235 Fax: 415-277-7238 Representing the defendants is: Leslie Erin Wallis, Esq. (leslie.wallis@ogletreedeakins.com) Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 633 West Fifth Street, 53rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 FIFTH THIRD: Faces Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp is facing two purported securities fraud class-action suits before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The two putative class-action complaints were filed in June and July 2008 against the Bancorp and its chief executive officer, among other parties, alleging violations of federal securities laws related to disclosures made by Bancorp in press releases and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding its quality and sufficiency of capital, credit losses and related matters. The suit is seeking unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased the Bancorp's securities, interest, attorney and expert fees and other costs and litigation expenses. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. FIFTH THIRD: Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit Pending in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Third Bancorp continues to face a consolidated antitrust class-action suit, captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa, MasterCard, and several other major financial institutions. The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Fifth Third reported no new development in the matter its Aug. 7, 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 Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720- JG-JO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge John Gleeson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. (djboggs@locklaw.com) Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-339-6900 Fax: 612-339-0981 Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 Representing the company is: Patrick F. Fischer, Esq. (pfischer@kmklaw.com) Keating Muething & Klekamp One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-579-6400 Fax: 513-579-6457 FIFTH THIRD: First Circuit Yet to Rule in TJX Lawsuit Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to rule on the defendants' appeal of a series of rulings entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in the consolidated cases brought by financial institutions that now fall under the caption "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation," which names Fifth Third Bancorp as one of the defendants. Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies, and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card information, the explains. Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filed against the company in various federal and state courts. The federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJX Security Breach Litigation." The state court actions have been removed to federal court and have been consolidated into that same case. The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJX Companies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of the customers' non-public information and alleged violations of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons who transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during the period of the alleged intrusion. Another complaint was filed by financial institutions and seeks unquantified damages on behalf of other similarly situated entities that suffered losses in relation to the alleged intrusion. The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion to dismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remain pending. On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the consolidated cases brought by financial institutions. On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order in the Financial Institution Track litigation: -- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, without prejudice; -- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and -- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County of Middlesex. TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court's order transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and an emergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Court proceedings pending the appeal. On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stay until a further order by the Court. Fifth Third then filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit solely as to that portion of the District Court's order transferring the case to the Massachusetts State Court. On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal in the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court's Dec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverse rulings" including, without limitation, the District Court's denial of class certification and dismissal of various claims. Both TJX and the Bancorp amended their Notices of Appeal to likewise appeal all adverse rulings by the District Court. Fifth Third reported no new development in the matter its Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com/-- is a diversified financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers, including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida, Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors and Fifth Third Processing Solutions. HITACHI LTD: Faces Texas Lawsuit Over HD Television Defects ----------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei in Dallas has filed a lawsuit against the American subsidiary of Japanese consumer electronics giant Hitachi over alleged defects in the company's high-definition television sets. According to the lawsuit, tens of thousands of consumers who bought the high-end TVs may be experiencing the same trouble. Plaintiff Anthony Partida of Dallas says he and other owners of Hitachi's 50V500A model LCD rear projection television are experiencing a design defect that creates green "blobs," red "blooms," green haze, blue dots, yellow lines and other color anomalies on their TV screens. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status on behalf of every owner of the 50V500A model, says the defect makes the televisions useless for their intended purpose. In the lawsuit against Hitachi America Ltd., filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, attorneys for Mr. Partida say Hitachi has known of the defect since early 2005, but the company has continued to sell the defective sets. Despite the company's knowledge of the problem, the lawsuit continues, Hitachi has been unable or unwilling to develop a solution. "Hitachi has been more than willing to take people's money for these TV sets and they should be more than willing to fix them," says attorney Eric D. Pearson, Esq., of Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei, who represents Mr. Partida in the case. "In some cases, people paid $3,500 or more for these TVs. You can't take that kind of money and deliver a defective product." Brisbane, Calif.-based Hitachi America is a subsidiary of Tokyo- based Hitachi, Ltd., a telecommunications, electronics, power systems, digital media and consumer products giant that employs more than 400,000 people worldwide. For more information, contact: Mark Annick, Esq. Heygood, Orr, Reyes, Pearson & Bartolomei 2331 W. Northwest Highway, 2nd Floor Dallas, TX 75220 Phone: 800-559-4534 214-213-1754 (mobile) HOPITAL HONORE: C. Difficile Victims' Family Launch $10MM Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Relatives of patients who either got infected or died from C. difficile diarrhea during an outbreak at a St. Hyacinthe hospital in 2006 have launched a class action against the local health authority, seeking up to CDN$10 million in damages, The Gazette reports. The Gazette recounts that the outbreak at Hopital Honore Mercier was one of the worst in Quebec, killing 16 people. In total, 70 patients picked up a virulent strain of Clostridium difficile while being treated in the hospital. "We want to send a strong message that infection-control must be maintained as a priority by hospitals, administrators and staff," medical malpractice lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard told a news conference last week. Mr. Menard added that the Honore Mercier outbreak is especially tragic since Quebec had already dealt with C. difficile outbreaks in 2004-2005, yet the South Shore community hospital did not appear to have learned from the experience. According to The Gazette, a coroner's report in 2007 into the Honore Mercier outbreak blamed shoddy infection control and hospital cutbacks in maintenance and room cleanliness for causing the outbreak. However, the report also noted that the situation improved following a change in the administration. The Gazette cites that one of those who died was 60-year-old Marie-Andree Dorion, who was initially admitted to the hospital to be treated for diverticulitis -- an inflammation of the part of the intestine. However, while she was in the hospital, Ms. Dorion contracted C. difficile and died following an emergency operation to remove her colon. Ms. Dorion's sister, Sylvie Dorion, said that almost two years after, she is still furious over what happened. Sylvie said that her family had been kept in the dark by the hospital when her sister contracted C. difficile colitis. "The hospital has never apologized to my family over this," she added. Mr. Menard has filed a request in Quebec Superior Court for authorization to file a class action. According to the report, officials at the Centre de sante et des services sociaux Richelieu Yamaska -- which runs Honore Mericer -- refused to give a comment on the court action. However, hospital officials have said in the past that they did everything possible to contain the outbreak and had been dealing with a particularly virulent strain of spore-forming bacterium. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Parties Agree to Dismiss "Miller" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.," which names International Game Technology, Inc., as defendant, have entered into a stipulation that dismisses the lawsuit, according to the company's Aug. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between Acres Gaming and International Game and sought to enjoin and void the merger agreement among other forms of relief (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008). The other defendants named in the suit are: -- Floyd W. Glisson, -- Todd L. Bice, -- Roger B. Hammock, -- Richard Furash, -- David R. Willensky, -- Robert W. Brown, and -- Ronald G. Bennett. On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. The plaintiff then requested the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition. In November 2003, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint to recover damages. The defendants then pointed to the amended complaint's failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint on Sept. 9, 2004. On April 7, 2006, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal to U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the action to state court, which was granted by order dated Aug. 15, 2006. Thus, on Nov. 30, 2006, the case was transferred to business court and discovery continues. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 5, 2007, which request was later denied. The plaintiff then filed a petition for Writ of Mandamus, or in the alternative, prohibition seeking to have the Nevada Supreme Court vacate the District Court's order denying class certification. On May 9, 2008, the Nevada Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition. In August 2008, the parties to the action entered into a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice as to All Parties. The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al., Case No. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court, Judge Michelle Leavitt, presiding. Representing the defendants are: Paul R. Hejmanowski, Esq. (phejmanowski@lionelsawyer.com) Lionel Sawyer & Collins 1700 Bank America Plaza 300 S. Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: 702-383-8880 Fax: 702-383-8845 KING PHARMACEUTICALS: Agrees to Settle Derivative Suit in Tenn. --------------------------------------------------------------- On August 21, 2008, King Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE:KG) entered into a settlement with shareholders to settle a shareholder derivative lawsuit, that was pending in Chancery Court for Sullivan County at Bristol, Tennessee and accused the company , among other things, of breaching its fiduciary duty by certain former officers and certain current and former directors by underpaying commitments to Medicaid. Beginning in March 2003, four purported shareholder derivative complaints were filed in Tennessee State Court alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by some of the Company�s current and former officers and directors (Corporate Litigation Reporter, Sept. 13, 2007). In June 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint, seeking to name as defendants additional current and former officers and directors and the Company�s independent auditors and to add additional claims. Under the settlement King Pharmaceuticals Inc agreed to make changes to its corporate governance, including changes to its internal auditing procedures that would create separate positions for both the chairman and CEO, new accounting policies, and duties for various committees on the board of directors, and to pay $13.5 million plus escrow account interest for counsel for the plaintiffs as full and complete compensation for all their services in the action. According to an Aug. 27, 2008 filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, this amount will be paid on the Company's behalf by its insurance carriers. The settlement is subject to court approval. According to a press release dated from August 7, 2006, King Pharmaceuticals Inc. had already paid $38.25 million in the class-action lawsuit settlement. Bristol, Tenn.-based King Pharmaceutical Inc. makes branded pharmaceuticals, including cardiovascular, critical care, and neuroscience products. Among the Company's most popular drugs are cardiovascular treatment Altace and Levoxyl, a thyroid disorder drug. The firm contracts its excess manufacturing capabilities to outside pharmaceutical companies. KLA-TENCOR: September Hearing Set for $65MM Securities Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative September 2008 hearing is set to consider final approval of a $65-million settlement in the matter, "In re KLA- Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065," which was filed against KLA-Tencor Corp., according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. KLA-Tencor and various current and former directors and officers of the company were named as defendants in a putative securities class-action suit filed on June 29, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Two similar complaints were filed later in the same court, and these were subsequently consolidated with the first action. The consolidated complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Section 14(a), Section 20(a), and Section 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a result of the company's past stock option grants and related accounting and reporting. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock between June 30, 2001, and May 22, 2006, who allegedly suffered losses as a result of material misrepresentations in the company's SEC filings and public statements during that period. The lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent the class, are: * the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, * the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, and * the City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement. Aside from the company, other defendants named in the suit are: -- Edward W. Barnholt, -- H. Raymond Bingham, -- Robert T. Bond, -- Gary E. Dickerson, -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr., -- Jeffrey L. Hall, -- Stephen P. Kaufman, -- John H. Kispert, -- Kenneth Levy, -- Michael E. Marks, -- Stuart J. Nichols, -- Kenneth L. Schroeder, -- Jon D. Tompkins, -- Lida Urbanek, and -- Richard P. Wallace. This litigation is at an early stage. Discovery has not commenced, and the court has not yet determined whether the plaintiffs may sue on behalf of any class of purchasers. The company and all other defendants filed motions to dismiss the case in June 2007. However, the dismissal motions have been taken off calendar and stayed due to the agreement between the parties to resolve the suit. On June 5, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval to the parties' settlement deal. Under the terms of the settlement, the company will be required to make a payment of $65 million to the settlement class. The settlement, which is subject to final court approval at a hearing now scheduled to occur in September 2008, provides for the dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and a full release of KLA-Tencor and the other named defendants in connection with the allegations raised by the plaintiffs and all members of the settlement class. The suit is "In re KLA-Tencor Corp. Securities Litigation, No. C06-04065," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: 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 - Lesley Ann Hale, Esq. (lhale@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo 425 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-433-3200 Fax: 415-433-6382 Representing the defendants is: Benjamin P. Smith, Esq. (bpsmith@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP One Market, Spear Street Tower San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 KLA-TENCOR: Wants "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" Lawsuit Thrown Out --------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class- action suit -- "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv- 02249-CRB" -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Chris Crimi, filed the putative class-action complaint on Sept. 4, 2007, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of persons who held KLA-Tencor common stock between Sept. 20, 2002, and Sept. 27, 2006. The suit alleges causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and rescission based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the company's past stock option grants. It seeks unspecified damages based upon purported dilution of the company's stock, injunctive relief, and rescission. Aside from the company, the defendants named in the suit are: -- Edward W. Barnholt, -- H. Raymond Bingham, -- Robert T. Bond, -- Richard J. Elkus, Jr., -- Stephen P. Kaufman, -- Kenneth Levy, -- Michael E. Marks, -- Dean O. Morton, -- Kenneth L. Schroeder, -- Jon D. Tompkins, and -- Richard P. Wallace. The company filed a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of other option-related litigation, as well as a demurrer asking the court to dismiss the case on the ground that the claims have no merit. On Feb. 29, 2008, the court sustained the company's demurrer and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint reasserting his original claims and adding a claim under section 1507 of the California Corporations Code on April 1, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the company removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and again filed a motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiff has again amended his complaint, and the company expects to file a further motion to dismiss, to be heard in September 2008, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Crimi v. Barnholt et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-02249- CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Charles R. Breyer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. (mweiler@morganlewis.com) Attorney at Law One Market, Spear Street San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 Phone: 415-442-1000 Fax: 415-442-1001 KLA-TENCOR CORP: Wants Class Claim in Derivative Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- KLA-Tencor Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a class-action claim filed in a derivative lawsuit that remains pending in the Delaware Chancery Court. As part of the derivative lawsuit, which was filed on July 21, 2006, a plaintiff claiming to be a KLA-Tencor shareholder recently asserted a separate putative class action claim against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers alleging that shareholders incurred damage due to purported dilution of KLA-Tencor common stock resulting from historical stock option granting practices. The company has moved to dismiss this claim, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. KLA-Tencor Corp. -- http://www.kla-tencor.com/-- is a supplier of process control and yield management solutions, for the semiconductor and related microelectronics industries. LAWNMOWER MAKERS: Face South Dakota Suit Over Mowers' Horsepower ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Class Action Reporter reported on Aug. 20, 2008, that a class action lawsuit was filed in New Jersey charging that manufacturers of lawnmowers have purposely misstated horsepower valuations on their products in order to justify higher prices. Josh Verges, of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, writes that another suit against the same defendants has been filed by three South Dakota residents. Argus Leader relates that the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court, alleges that the leading lawnmower makers have conspired to lie about the amount of power in their engines. Specifically, the suit targets: -- Sears & Roebuck Co., -- John Deere; -- Tecumseh Products Co., -- Briggs & Stratton, -- Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA., -- MTD Products, -- The Toro Co., -- American Honda Motor Co., -- Electrolux Home Products, -- The Kohler Company, -- Platinum Equity LLC, and -- Husqvarna Outdoor Products. The report notes that plaintiffs Mike Kaitfors of Spearfish and Doug Eidahl of Mitchell allege an ongoing conspiracy to mislead the public and conceal the true horsepower of their mowers. They claim that more expensive mowers with higher horsepower ratings actually contain identical engines as cheaper mowers. Furthermore, the plaintiffs say the horsepower ratings reported to the government under the Clean Air Act are far different from that advertised to consumers. "The true horsepower of Defendants' engines is significantly less than the horsepower represented by Defendants in advertising, marketing and selling their lawn mowers and lawn mower engines to the public," the complaint states. Messrs. Kaitfors and Eidahl seek to represent all South Dakotans who have purchased a gas-powered lawn mower up to 30 horsepower from one of the defendants since 1994. The suit says that more than $5 million is at stake if the class action is certified, the report notes. MCKESSON CORP: Massachusetts Court Dismisses Price-Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Patti B. Saris dismissed a potential class-action lawsuit against McKesson Corp. that alleged the drug distributor engaged in unlawful price fixing, CNNMoney.com reports. According to CNN Money, Judge Saris granted the company's motion to dismiss the case, saying the plaintiffs, led by the New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, failed to show that competition was hurt by a "conspiracy to increase prices." The report recounts that the suit alleged that McKesson collaborated with First DataBank, a publishing unit of Hearst Corp., to inflate drug prices through lists of so-called average wholesale prices for brand-name drugs. Case Background The suit, entitled "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277," was filed on December 10, 2007. In this proposed national class action, the plaintiffs alleged that McKesson, a drug wholesaler, engaged in unlawful price- fixing by entering into an agreement with First DataBank, a publishing company, to inflate the average wholesale price for numerous prescription pharmaceuticals beginning in late 2001. The plaintiffs alleged that McKesson's price-fixing scheme violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws. The proposed class includes third-party payors and consumers that paid for the drugs. The allegations in this complaint are based on the same set of operative facts as alleged in the plaintiffs' civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit, captioned "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund v. First DataBank, Inc., 1:05-cv-11148." McKesson moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to allege any anti-competitive effects from the conspiracy to increase prices. This motion was granted by Judge Saris. The case is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston), Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edward Notargiacomo, Esq. Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. (Tom@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP One Main Street, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: 617-374-3738 617-482-3700 Fax: 617-374-3003 617-482-3003 Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants are: James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com) Lori A. Schechter, Esq. (lschechter@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94107-2406 Phone: 415-268-7000 Fax: 415-268-7522 MCKESSON CORP: Plaintiffs Prepare for $12BB RICO Trial in Dec. -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys representing consumers in a case accusing McKesson Corp. (NYSE: MCK) of illegally rigging the price of virtually every prescription drug have crossed the final procedural hurdles and are now preparing for a trial set for December 1 in U.S. District Court in Boston. Steve W. Berman, Esq., filed the suit in 2006 on behalf of third-party payers and consumers, claiming that McKesson engaged in a scheme to fraudulently inflate the price of more than 400 prescription drugs, including blockbusters such as Prozac, Lipitor, Zocor, Vioxx and more. On March 18, 2008, Judge Patti Saris for a second time rejected McKesson's motions to dismiss the case, citing the strength of the evidence, which includes volumes of e-mail exchanges by McKesson executives discussing the price-fixing scheme. The plaintiffs in the case peg the damages at $4 billion, which puts McKesson at risk of a $12-billion judgment with the tripling of damages allowed by the RICO statute under which the suits were filed. RICO -- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- allows for civil action against those believed to participate in conspiracies to commit crimes or illegally reap profits. The law calls for the disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and the tripling of damages. Judge Saris earlier this week dismissed a related case charging the drug giant of antitrust violations. This related case is captioned "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Case No. 1:07-cv-12277." "We believe the antitrust laws were intended to address the sort of disingenuous behavior McKesson exhibited, but we recognize that the allegations presented a context not directly addressed by prior case-law," Mr. Berman said. "We understand and appreciate Judge Saris' ruling, and are eager to move forward with the strongest case -- the RICO charges." The case represents two classes: i. consumer purchasers, which includes anyone who made a co- payment for prescription medication from August 1, 2001, through May 15, 2005; and ii. all third-party payers that made a payment or reimbursement based on the inflated average wholesale price (AWP) during the class period. The suit claims McKesson and First DataBank, a publishing company, reached a secret agreement on how the average wholesale price would be set for brand-name drugs and, in doing so, raised the spread between the published AWP and the actual acquisition costs from 20 to 25 percent in an effort to increase profits. According to documents cited in the case, McKesson communicated the price increase to First DataBank, who published the information, even amid questions by manufacturers who recognized the impact to consumers and third-party payers. McKesson did so to raise the profits for its large clients like Rite Aid and Walgreen's. Earlier this year, First DataBank settled with plaintiffs, leaving McKesson as the sole defendant. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 15, 2008, First DataBank has agreed to pay $1 million to settle the purported class action lawsuit. For more information on this case and to sign up as a consumer or third-party payer you can visit the Hagens Berman Web site at: http://www.hbsslaw.com/ The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: George E. Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com) Barret Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601 Phone: 615-244-2202 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants are: Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbaum@skadden.com) Thomas E. Fox, Esq. (tfox@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-3000 Fax: 212-735-2000 - and - James P. Bennett, Esq. (jbennett@mofo.com) Christopher E. Babbitt, Esq. (CBabbitt@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94107-2406 Phone: 415-268-7000 Fax: 415-268-7522 OSI PHARMACEUTICALS: New York Court Approves $9M Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved a proposed $9,000,000 settlement in the class-action suit entitled "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," according to OSI Pharma's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. On or about Dec. 16, 2004, several purported shareholder class- action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the company, certain of its current and former executive officers, and the members of its board of directors. These lawsuits were brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock during certain periods in 2004. The court appointed a lead plaintiff who, on Feb. 17, 2006, filed a consolidated amended class action complaint seeking to represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock during the period from April 26, 2004, through Nov. 22, 2004. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made material misstatements and omissions concerning the survival benefit associated with the company's product, Tarceva, and the size of the potential market of Tarceva upon the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the drug. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On April 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The Court then granted in part and denied in part the dismissal motion. Specifically, the Court dismissed claims against some of the individual defendants and dismissed the Section 11 and 15 claims, but granted the plaintiff 30 days leave to replead the Section 11 claim in accordance with the Court's order and to renew the Section 15 claim. The plaintiff did not amend, and thus those claims were dismissed with prejudice. The parties have subsequently reached an agreement to settle the action for $9.0 million, which deal was approved by the court in May 2008. Approximately $500,000 will be paid by the company, and the balance of the settlement will be paid by its insurer. The suit is "In re OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-05505-JS-WDW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Joanna Seybert, with referral to Judge William D. Wall. Representing the plaintiffs are: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. (frank@spornlaw.com) Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, PC. 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, NY 10038 Phone: 212-964-0046 Fax: 212-267-8137 Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Kichline, Esq. Dechert LLP Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Phone: 215-994-4000 PAYPAL INC: E-mails Sent in Consumer Protection Programs Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Garden City Group sent an e-mail to certain PayPal users about a settlement in a class action lawsuit against PayPal filed in 2005, Ina Steiner writes for AuctionBytes Blog. In March 2005, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in New York state court on behalf of themselves and the Class. The lawsuit alleges claims against PayPal and eBay arising out of representations contained in certain provisions of the PayPal User Agreement regarding PayPal's policies and practices for responding to refund requests (or "Buyer Complaints") from those customers who pay for transactions through PayPal using funds from sources other than a credit card. In particular, the lawsuit alleges that PayPal's policies and practices constitute deceptive trade practices, fraudulent inducement and misrepresentations, and breach of the PayPal User Agreement. The lawsuit also alleges claims against Essex, a company that sold goods through eBay, arising out of alleged misrepresentations about Essex's goods and services. In April 2005, this lawsuit was removed to federal court, where it is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Senior United States District Court Judge I. Leo Glasser is in charge of this action. In 2006, PayPal reached a $3.5 million preliminary settlement agreement with a proposed class of PayPal customers in an action pending in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, PayPal did not admit any liability for any of the allegations in the case. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on November 17, 2008. Deadline to file for exclusion and objections is on October 31, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on December 14, 2008. More details regarding the Steele Settlement is found at http://www.steelesettlement.com/ The suit is "Steele, et al. v. Paypal, Inc., et al., Case Number: 1:2005cv01720," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Senior-Judge I. Leo Glasser, presiding, with referral to Magistrate-Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. R&G FINANCIAL: Amended Allocation Plan in Securities Suit Filed --------------------------------------------------------------- The lead counsel in "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for its approval an amended plan of allocation for the $51 million settlement of this action. The amended plan of allocation now includes specific provisions for R&G's Noncumulative Perpetual Monthly Income Preferred Stock -- Series A, B, C and D (the "Preferred Shares"), which, as publicly-traded securities of R&G during the Class Period, are part of the Class and Settlement in this action. Case Background On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial, claiming that the financial holding company issued false and misleading financial statements to the investing public (Class Action Reporter, March 4, 2008). The class action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and including April 25, 2005. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were materially false and misleading when made because the defendants failed to disclose: -- that the company's earnings quality had been significantly weakened by the company's use of more aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income, as well as to the value it retained in its interest only residuals in securitization transactions; -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused the company to overstate its financial results by at least $50 million; -- that the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the investing public when it announced that it would restate its earnings for 2003 and 2004. On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low. On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed in court. Judge John Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25-26, 2005, signed an order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006). Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Alan Barrack, Esq. (jbarrack@barrack.com) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 Fax: 215-963-0838 - and - Eric Todd Kanefsky, Esq. (erick@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1467 Fax: 212-554-1444 Representing the defendants are: Maite Aquino, Esq. (aquinom@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-558-4000 - and - Diana L. Weiss, Esq. (dweiss@orrick.com) Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP Columbia Center 1152 15th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20005-1706 Phone: 202-339-8984 Fax: 202-339-8500 ROCKWOOL: Caused Rise in Brain Cancer Cases, N.Y. Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwool Industries is facing a class-action complaint filed in Clinton County Court (New York) alleging the insulation company, which has been closed since 1991, caused an increase in brain cancers and other illnesses, Joe Harris writes for the CourtHouse News Service. Also named defendants in the complaint are Susquehanna Corp., of Delaware, and its parent company, Eteroutremer, of Belgium, as was a former Rockwool manager. The plaintiffs claim Rockwool dumped toxic chemicals at or near the plant from 1974 to 1982 and that Rockwool buried hazardous waste near the plant and in a local quarry. The report states that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the Environmental Protection Agency recently told Cameron residents that soil tests near the plant and quarry revealed high levels of lead and arsenic, but that the levels were not high enough to threaten health. Sixty-eight Cameron residents returned surveys reporting cases of brain tumors to the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services as part of an investigation of whether there was a cancer cluster in the town, the report says. SANOFI-AVENTIS: Faces Ill. Suit Over Prescription Drug "Ketek" -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi-Aventis is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging it fraudulently promoted its prescription drug Ketek (telithromycin) for off-label uses and it damaged patients' livers, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff, Dorothy Ray, brings this class action against Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC and Sanofi-Aventis, who conspired to conceal facts and evidence regarding the dangerous side effects of the prescription drug Ketek by engaging in conduct and activities for the purpose of concealing, falsifying, endorsing, and staging clinical studies that would conceal a multitude of side effects, including severe liver damage and death, in order to realize billions of dollars in profits from the sale of KETEK. The complaint alleges that through a series of fraudulent schemes the defendants implemented, calculated and engaged in fraudulent activities in furtherance of their scheme. The suit says that the defendants unlawfully marketed and promoted KETEK through its conspiracies, and deliberately mislead physicians and consumers into believing that KETEK was safe and effective. The plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class suffered injuries resulting from the defendants' illegal and fraudulent activities. The plaintiff and the members of the class seek to recover damages suffered as a result of these schemes under sections 1962(c) and 1962(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who purchased, were prescribed and ingested KETEK manufactured by Defendants. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: a. whether defendants' transmission of payments paid to physicians, ghost-authors and others to make fraudulent statements in furtherance of the scheme to promote KETEK constitutes wire fraud; b. whether defendants' agreement and activities in furtherance of its agreement with members of the KETEK Marketing Enterprise in furtherance of the scheme to promote KETEK, constitute an "enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(4) that is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce; c. whether the policies and practices described herein constitute defendants' conduct or participation, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; d. whether defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); e. whether defendants have conspired, under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d), to engage in activities and conduct described; f. whether defendants concealed adverse information from plaintiff and the KETEK Class regarding KETEK; g. whether plaintiff and the class members are entitled to recover compensatory, exemplary, punitive, and other damages as a result of defendants' fraudulent and unlawful conduct; h. what is the proper mechanism for assessing and awarding damages and administering relief to class members, including the relief to reduce the threat of future harm to class members; i. whether defendants' conduct in selling and promoting and marketing and distributing KETEK fell below the duty of care owed by defendants to plaintiff and members of the plaintiff class; j. whether the defendants negligently, recklessly, or intentionally concealed information about the safety of KETEK from the plaintiff and plaintiff class, as well as their physicians, hospitals, healthcare professionals, and the FDA; k. whether the defendants under-reported the adverse events associated with KETEK; l. whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent concealment; m. whether defendants' conduct constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud; n. whether plaintiff class members have sustained irreparable harm and whether they are entitled to equitable relief including restitution and refund and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages; o. whether the plaintiff class is entitled to compensatory damages and, if so, the nature and extent of such damages; p. whether defendants are liable for punitive damages and, if so, how much is necessary and appropriate to punish it for its conduct, deter others and fulfill the policies and purposes of punitive and exemplary damages; q. how any and all punitive and exemplary damages awarded to plaintiffs should be equitably allocated among the plaintiff and the plaintiff class; r. whether the defendants acted to defraud, misrepresent, and deceive the plaintiff and the plaintiff class; s. whether defendants failed to adequately test its products; and t. whether the defendants failed to adequately warn of the adverse effects of KETEK. The plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff class members and against the Defendants in the amount provided by law, together with punitive damages to deter such conduct in the future, plus treble damages and attorneys fees as provided by the RICO act, and grant such further relief as may be proper. The suit is "Dorothy Ray, et al. v. Sanofi-Aventis, U.S., LLC, et al., Docket No. 3:08-cv-612-DRH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff is: John J. Driscoll, Esq. 720 Olive Street, #1800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 618-444-6049 SCOR HOLDING: Reaches 2 Proposed Settlements in Securities Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The class Action "In Re SCOR Holding (Switzerland AG Securities Litigatio, Case No. 04 Civ. 7897 (DLC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has been certified as a class action and that the Lead Plaintiff has reached two proposed settlements to resolve all claims in the action. One settlement is with SCOR Holding (Switzerland) AG, formerly known as Converium Holding AG, and the named individual officer defendants for $75,000,000 in cash. The other settlement is with Zurich Financial Services ("ZFS") for $9,600,000 in cash. The certified Class has been defined to include: (i) all persons and entities who purchased Converium American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the Class Period and (ii) all persons and entities who, during the Class Period, were U.S. residents and purchased Converium Common Stock on the SWX Swiss Exchange during the Class Period. A hearing will be held on December 12, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 24, 2008. For more information, contact: Steven B. Singer, Esq. (blbg@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 SPARKLETTS WATER: Charges for Undelivered Goods, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Sparkletts Water, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it delivers goods customers didn't order and don't want and charges for it, CourtHouse News Service reports. Sparkletts Water, Inc. is one of the country's finest providers of pure, refreshing bottled water. It is also the official bottled water of many well-known theme parks, attractions and professional team sponsorships across Southern California. SYSTEMAX INC: N.Y. Transfers "Vukson" Lawsuit to Florida Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has granted a motion that seeks to transfer the purported class- action suit "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-04353," which names Systemax Inc. and two subsidiaries -- TigerDirect and OnRebate -- as defendants, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On Oct. 18, 2007, Kevin Vukson filed a class action complaint against TigerDirect, Inc., OnRebate.com Inc. and Systemax Inc. on behalf of himself and all OnRebate customers whose rebates were denied or delayed. OnRebate.com Inc. is a rebate processing company owned by Systemax. Mr. Vukson's complaint alleges that since 2004, Systemax, TigerDirect, and OnRebate have conducted a deceptive and unlawful enterprise by failing to pay rebates that should have been paid and delaying unnecessarily the payment of other rebates that were paid. Mr. Vukson alleges claims arising under Florida's Unfair, Deceptive Trade Practice Act, the federal Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations statute, along with claims for breach of contract, conspiracy to commit fraud and unjust enrichment. Systemax, TigerDirect and OnRebate have moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the matter to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The court has ruled in favor of Systemax with respect to the motion to transfer the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. However, the court has not ruled on the motion to dismiss, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "Vukson v. TigerDirect, Inc. et al., Case No 2:2007- cv-04353," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Arthur D. Spatt, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Theodore Michael Eder, Esq. (teder@smsm.com) Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney 805 Third Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-912-3661 Fax: 212-912-3667 Representing the defendants is: William Francis Hamilton, Esq. (william.hamilton@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight LLP Suite 4100, 100 N. Tampa Street Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: 813-227-6480 Fax: 813-229-0134 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Faces Lawsuits Over HP Labels in Lawnmowers -------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products, Inc., continues to face several purported class-action suits over the printing of inaccurate horsepower labels on certain of its lawnmowers, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. Original Litigation A nationwide class-action lawsuit filed against the company and other defendants alleged that the horsepower labels on the products the plaintiffs purchased, which included products manufactured by the company's former Engine & Power Train business, were inaccurate (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2008). The plaintiffs sought certification of a class of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995, through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two-stroke or four-stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured by defendants. In April of 2008, the court issued a written opinion dismissing the complaint, but subject to the ability to re-plead certain claims. New Litigation In July, 2008, the plaintiffs re-filed a class action complaint in Illinois and have filed new class action complaints in federal courts in New Jersey and California asserting claims on behalf of consumers in each of those states with respect to lawnmower purchases from Jan. 1, 1994, to the present. Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com/-- is a manufacturer of hermetic compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units, and residential and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps. WMG ACQUISITION: N.Y. Court Considers Dismissal of Pricing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion that seeks the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit over the pricing of digital music downloads, which named WMG Acquisition Corp., a subsidiary of Warner Music Group Corp., as one of the defendants. Originally, more than 30 putative class actions concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been filed. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "In Re: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:2006-md-01780." The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among record companies to delay the release of their content for digital distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for digital downloads. It seeks unspecified compensatory, statutory, and treble damages. All defendants, including the company, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 30, 2007. The Court heard an argument on this motion on March 25, 2008, and reserved its decision, according to its Aug. 7, 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: Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01780-LAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Loretta A. Preska, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq. (fbalint@bffb.com) Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. 2901 N. Central, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-274-1100 Fax: 602-274-1199 Monique Alonso, Esq. Gross & Belsky LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Ste 2200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-544-0200 Fax: 415-544-0201 - and - Brian Joseph Barry, Esq. (bribarry1@yahoo.com) Law Office of Brian Barry 1801 Ave. of The Stars, Suite 307 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-788-0831 Representing the defendant is: Chet Alan Kronenberg, Esq. (ckronenberg@stblaw.com) Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 310-407-7557 * Victims of Illegal Rallies in Korea May Demand Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Victims of illegal rallies in Korea will be able to sue for compensation if the Presidential Council on National Competitiveness and the ruling Grand National Party have their way, The Chosun Ilbo reports. According to the report, the Council and the Grand National Party recently agreed to introduce class action suits as a way to compensate victims of illegal collective actions such as illegal rallies and strikes for damage. "In many cases, victims of illegal rallies cannot even conceive the idea of bringing a claim to court due to the huge amounts of court costs and complicated processes despite the small amount of damage for each victim," an official with the Council told Chosun Ilbo. "But if class action suits are possible, then all victims of such illegal rallies can easily get compensation as they can benefit from the outcome of one person's lawsuit." The report relates that the Council is expected to hold a public hearing on Wednesday to gather expert opinion on the legality of the system and get a bill passed by the National Assembly during its regular session. "The majority opinion in judicial circles is that it is possible to file a class action lawsuit against civic organizations, not necessarily the state or enterprises," a presidential official said. "We expect that it will contribute to improving the protest culture, considering that such a system will put substantial pressure on civic organizations that have so far led illegal, violent protests." * Susman Godfrey Wins 3 Cases In One Day in Tex. Supreme Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The litigation boutique, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., won three different appeals for three different clients in three different opinions issued by the Texas Supreme Court. In the first case, "Forest Oil Corporation, et al. v. James Argyle McAllen, et al.," the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to compel arbitration in accordance with the parties' written agreement. The plaintiffs, Mr. McAllen and others, had ignored their written agreement to pursue their claims in an arbitration in Houston, Texas, and, instead, had filed a lawsuit in state court in McAllen, Hidalgo County, Texas, in the city named after Mr. McAllen's ancestors. Susman Godfrey partner Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq., argued the case in the Supreme Court on behalf of Forest Oil back in October 2007. Mr. Harrison urged the Supreme Court to enforce an arbitration agreement contained in the parties' years-earlier settlement agreement. Mr. Harrison argued that an unambiguous waiver-of-reliance provision in that settlement agreement precluded Mr. McAllen's "after-the-fact story" of fraudulent inducement as a matter of law. The Supreme Court agreed and recognized, as Mr. Harrison had argued, that "sophisticated parties represented by counsel in an arm's-length transaction negotiated a settlement agreement that included clear and broad waiver-of-reliance and release-of- claims language." The Court concluded that the "unequivocal disclaimer of reliance in the parties' bargained-for settlement agreement conclusively negates as a matter of law the element of reliance needed to support McAllen's fraudulent-inducement claim." The underlying dispute involves allegations of environmental contamination and intentional battery with allegedly radioactive oil well tubing. Susman Godfrey attorneys Johnny Carter and Rick Hess also worked on the Supreme Court briefs and on all other aspects of the case. In the second case, "In re Poly-America, L.P." the Texas Supreme Court granted conditionally a petition for mandamus to Susman Godfrey's client, Poly-America, LP. The Texas Supreme Court held that Poly-America's arbitration agreement was enforceable and that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it granted the company's motion to compel arbitration. Susman Godfrey partner Erica Harris, Esq., represented Poly-America, LP. In the third case, "Zurich American Insurance Co., et al. v. Nokia, Incorporated No. 06-1030," the Texas Supreme Court held that Zurich American Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company had a duty to defend Susman Godfrey's client, Nokia, Inc., in a series of class actions pending around the U.S. The ruling is a vindication for Nokia which has spent millions successfully defending these claims. Nokia hired Susman Godfrey partner Eric Mayer, Esq., after losing on this issue in the trial court. Mayer and Susman Godfrey lawyers Brian Melton, Ian Crosby and Lexie White argued that Nokia's insurers wrongfully denied coverage. The ruling by the Texas Supreme Court now opens the way for Nokia to recover millions in defense costs and fees from this group of insurers. Mayer argued the appeal for Nokia. For more information, contact: Geoffrey L. Harrison, Esq. (gharrison@susmangodfrey.com) Erica W. Harris, Esq. (eharris@susmangodfrey.com) Eric J. Mayer, Esq. (emayer@susmangodfrey.com) Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Suite 5100, 1000 Louisiana Houston, TX 77002-5096 Phone: 713-653-7807 713-653-7810 713-653-7853 New Securities Fraud Cases CHINA SHENGHOU: Brualdi Files Securities Fraud Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C., commenced a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of China Shenghuo Pharmaceutical Holdings, Inc. common stock during the period between July 23, 2007, and August 20, 2008. The complaint charges that CSP and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements pertaining to CSP's business prospects and condition, and filing materially false financial statements with the SEC. On August 20, 2008, the Company announced that its previously issued financial statements for the fiscal periods ended June 30, September 30, and December 30, 2007, and fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008, should no longer be relied upon and would be restated due to certain accounting errors, internal control issues and related matters. News that the Company's financial statements must be restated caused the Company's stock price to fall dramatically damaging investors. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 22, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, NY 10006 Phone: 877-495-1187 (Toll Free) 212-952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/ GT SOLAR: Nixon Raiche Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.H. ------------------------------------------------------------- Nixon, Raiche, Vogelman, Barry & Slawsky, P.A. filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire against GT Solar International, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors that alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of GT Solar pursuant or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's July 23, 2008 initial public offering. Also named as defendants are certain underwriters of the IPO. The Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2008, GT Solar accomplished its IPO of 30.3 million shares at $16.50 per share for proceeds of $500 million. As further alleged, on July 24, 2008, in its first day of trading, GT Solar's common stock closed at $14.59 per share. However, as alleged, before the market opened on July 25, 2008, LDK Solar Co, Ltd., GT Solar's largest customer, issued a press release announcing it had signed a contract to purchase the same type of equipment it was purchasing from GT Solar from one of GT Solar's competitors and on this disclosure the price of GT Solar's stock declined to as low as $9.30 per share before closing at $12.59 per share on July 25, 2008, representing a 24% decline from the IPO price. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement for the IPO failed to disclose the true extent of the risks surrounding the Company's relationship with LDK, including the fact that GT Solar was at imminent risk of losing out on a contract for future orders from LDK, its single largest customer. Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 30, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Joel B. Strauss, Esq. Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 800-290-1952 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com - or - David P. Slawsky, Esq. (dslawsky@nixonraiche.com) Lawrence A. Vogelman, Esq. Nixon, Raiche, Vogelman, Barry & Slawsky, P.A. 77 Central Street Manchester, NH 03101 Phone: 603-669-7070 Fax: 603-669-7080 PERINI CORP: Izard Nobel Commences Mass. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, disclosed that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of Perini Corp. between November 2, 2006, and January 17, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Perini and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements that failed to disclose: (i) the developer of Perini's Las Vegas, Nevada projects, including the Cosmopolitan Resort & Casino Project, was experiencing financial problems because it failed to secure financing for the entire project and was dependent upon raising the remainder of the financing from the expected sale of residential units. However, the proceeds from the residential unit sales were based on unrealistic and aggressive prices at a time when the condo market in Las Vegas, Nevada was extremely weak; (ii) that the Company's Las Vegas projects were being delayed, and could possibly be halted; (iii) that the developer was at risk of defaulting on its construction loan; and (iv) that Perini's future revenue was dependent upon the Las Vegas projects. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 20, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 800-797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/ SIGNALIFE INC: Vianale Files South Carolina Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on August 28, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Signalife, Inc., between January 29, 2004, and April 11, 2008, inclusive. The complaint names Signalife and several of its present and former officers as defendants. Signalife claims to research, develop and market wireless heart monitoring devices in the United States. The complaint alleges that Signalife (formerly known as Recom Managed Systems, Inc. and before that, Mt. Olympus Enterprises, Inc.), violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff alleges that Signalife issued false positive statements about the Company's ability to manufacture and market its Fidelity 100 Monitor System, a supposedly wireless heart monitoring device. Despite years of highly positive statements about its heart monitor, Signalife has had virtually no sales, and the Company has never had a product that was commercially viable. As a result, Signalife's stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period. Signalife's stock dropped on April 11, 2008, on unprecedented volume of 3,752,100 shares, when the truth came to light that Signalife's Fidelity 100 monitor system was unsalable. The Company recently announced its imminent delisting from AMEX, and its stock price has slumped to 6 cents. Interested parties may move the court no later than October 28, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. (kvianale@vianalelaw.com) Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. (jvianale@vianalelaw.com) 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-392-4750 Toll Free: 1-888-657-9960 ********* 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 * * *