/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080922.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, September 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 188
Headlines
AMERICAN EQUITY: Annuities Lawsuits Still Pending in California
ANTHEM BLUE: Cheated on Insurance Payments, Calif. Suit Alleges
AUTOMAKERS: Faces Suit Over Car Price Discrepancy in US & Canada
BUDGET RENT: Overcharges For Rental Car Damages, Pa. Suit Says
CALIFORNIA CLUBS: Dancers Say "Gentlemen's Clubs" Strip Wages
CUMULUS MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Cloud Merger Suits in Georgia
CUMULUS MEDIA: Settles Delaware Suit Over Cloud Merger Agreement
DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Proposed Settlement Notification Begins
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Maine Suit Over Misrepresented Charges
GULFPORT ENERGY: Wants Robotti Lawsuit in Delaware Thrown Out
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Suit's Dismissal Still on Appeal
INTERSECTIONS INC: Settles Suit Over Credit Monitoring Service
JAKKS PACIFIC: Hearing on WWE Suit Dismissal Bid is Oct. 2008
JUPITERIMAGES CORP: Fla. Court Grants Motions in FACTA Lawsuit
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Florida
MERCURY CASUALTY: Charges Extra for Medical Policy, Suit Claims
PFF BANCORP: Settles California Suit Over FBOP Merger Agreement
PFIZER INC: Court Allows "Donaldson" to Proceed as Class Action
PHOTON DYNAMICS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Orbotech Merger Deal
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 7
RELIANCE STANDARD: Faces Miss. Suit Over Retained Asset Account
SECURE COMPUTING: Court Sets Nov. 21 Hearing for "Rosenbaum"
ST. JOSEPH'S CARPENTER: Court Dismisses Camden Homeowners' Suit
STARTEK INC: Wants Amended Complaint in Colo. Lawsuit Dismissed
SWEDISH MOTOR: Calif. Suit Alleges Backdated Purchase Contracts
TARRAGON CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in New York
TEPPCO PARTNERS: Unitholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Delaware
TEPPCO PARTNERS: Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in Louisiana
U.S. GOVERNMENT: Sued for Wiretapping and Spying on Americans
UTSTARCOM: Court Allows Dismissal Bids in Calif. Securities Suit
UTSTARCOM INC: Wants Amended Complaint in "Rudolph" Thrown Out
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: KGS Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
FIRST TRUST: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Illinois
HARRIS STRATEX: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
LORD ABBETT: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Fraud Suit
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files California Securities Suit
NORTHERN TRUST: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
QUEST ENERGY: Shuman Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Oklahoma
REDDY ICE: Pomerantz Firm Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
SIGNALIFE INC: Sarraf Gentile Files S.C. Securities Fraud Suit
*********
AMERICAN EQUITY: Annuities Lawsuits Still Pending in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Co. is still facing
several purported class-action lawsuits in connection with
annuities that the company issued.
The company was named as a defendant in two such cases seeking
class-action status. They are:
1. "Stephens v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance
Company, et. al.," filed before the San Luis Obispo
Superior Court, San Francisco, California (complaint
filed on Nov. 29, 2004) (SLO Case); and
2. "In Re: American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales
Litigation," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (complaint filed on
Sept. 7, 2005) (Los Angeles Case).
The plaintiff in the SLO Case seeks to represent a national
class of individuals who either purchased their annuity from the
company through a co-defendant marketing organization or who
purchased one of a defined set of particular annuities issued by
the company.
American Equity has filed its opposition to a motion to certify
the class in the SLO case, and the hearing on the motion began
on March 18, 2008, but was not completed. The hearing is
scheduled to resume on Oct. 6, 2008.
The Los Angeles Case is a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by individuals and is seeking class-action status
for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by the
company. The allegations generally attach the suitability of
sales of deferred annuity products to persons over the age of
65.
The company is vigorously defending against both class action
status as well as the underlying claims which include
misrepresentation and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, among others.
The company reported no further development regarding the
matters in its Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
Des Moines, Iowa-based American Equity Investment Life Holding
Co. -- http://www.american-equity.com/-- develops, markets,
issues and administers annuities and life insurance.
ANTHEM BLUE: Cheated on Insurance Payments, Calif. Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doctors in the UCLA Medical Group filed a class action lawsuit
in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Anthem Blue Cross
and its Blue Shield affiliates cheated them on insurance
payments, CourtHouse News Service reports.
CourtHouse News did not report on further details or
developments regarding the case.
AUTOMAKERS: Faces Suit Over Car Price Discrepancy in US & Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto-based law firm is expected to file a class-action suit
for $2 billion dollars, open to any Canadian who purchased a new
vehicle between August 2005 and August 2007, Best Syndication
reports. According to the suit, during this particular time
period, the Canadian dollar rapidly appreciated, but Canadian
car prices did not adjust.
The report explains that while the American economy is
struggling and a Canadian dollar is now equivalent to one
American dollar, it is a different case when it comes to car
dealerships. Best Syndication relates that at Canadian car
dealerships, it appears the U.S. dollar is still strong, given
the discrepancies between the cost of a new car purchased in
Canada and one purchased in the U.S.
The report further says that despite the fact the two countries
are similar economically, price differentials on some cars can
be as much as $7,000 to $10,000. For example, a Turbo 2-Liter
Audi A4 Quattro sells for about $32,000 in the U.S., while in
Canada, one will have to shell out more than $40,000 for the
same model. Best Syndication notes that Volvo is where the
pinch is really felt, exposing a 38% markup that costs Canadians
an extra $11,000.
The report says that this is not really news, as the price
difference always existed. However, it was not obvious until
the value of the American dollar fell, or until the Canadian
dollar caught up.
Best Syndication points out that the class-action lawsuit
charges that automakers worked together illegally in a
conspiracy to create rules a "no-export clause" preventing
Canadians from purchasing a car in the U.S. and returning to
Canada with the vehicle. They also refused to perform warranty
work on those same cars.
The suit names most large automakers, as well as the Canadian
Automobile Dealers Association and the U.S. National Automobile
Dealers Association, as defendants.
The suit also says that dealers have been sucked into the melee,
with some U.S. dealers receiving penalties for knowingly selling
cars headed for exportation, and Canadian dealers receiving
termination threats for non-compliance with the rules.
According to Best Syndication, this is not the first time a case
similar to this one has arisen, but previous cases dragged on
with little resolution. However, now that the American dollar
and the Canadian dollar are at parity, the lawsuit has more
chances of finally bringing about the action Canadians are
seeking.
The report says that in Vancouver and British Columbia, the law
firm of Stephens and Holman can assist consumers in filing as
part of this class action lawsuit to recover damages rightfully
due under law.
BUDGET RENT: Overcharges For Rental Car Damages, Pa. Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Rent A Car is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging it cheats customers who decline purchase of a Loss
Damage Waiver by grossly overcharging them for damages to rental
cars, CourtHouse News Service reports.
This is an action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA), 15 USC Section 1692 et seq., Pennsylvania Fair
Credit Extension Uniformity Act, 73 Pa. C.S. Section 2270.2 et
seq., Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, 73 Pa. C.S. Section 201-1 et seq., and common
law.
Named plaintiff Peter Benson -- who hit a deer -- says Budget
assessed the damage to the car at $5,481, but charged him and
his insurance company $12,920 for it.
The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons who,
during the four years prior to the filing of the complaint,
rented a car from Budget, declined the Loss Damage Waiver,
damaged the car and who were affected by at least one of the
following practices that are the subject of the complaint:
(1) assessment of charged for administrative fees, loss of
rental value and any fees or charges not authorized
under the Agreement;
(2) assessment of charged based on a valuation of the
rental car that exceed the retail fair market value of
the car;
(3) failure to repair the car prior to sale of the rental
car;
(4) use of dealer only auctions for sale of the rental car;
and
(5) collection of amounts based on any of the foregoing
practices.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether Budget has sought and collected fees and
charged not authorized by the Agreement or not legally
due and owing;
(b) whether the defendant's conduct violated the FDCPA;
(c) whether the LDW provisions of the Agreement constitute
illegal and unenforceable penalties; and
(d) whether defendants' conduct violated the Pennsylvania
Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
The plaintiff asks for an order:
-- certifying this action as a class action, with plaintiff
as the representative of the class;
-- declaring defendants' conduct unlawful;
-- awarding plaintiff and the other members of the class
damages in an amount necessary to compensate them fully
for their losses, together with interest;
-- awarding plaintiff treble damages and injunctive relief
for violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and FDCPA, as appropriate;
-- awarding the maximum amount of statutory damages
provided under 15 USC Section 1692k;
-- awarding each member of the class a refund of the
amounts paid to defendants over and above the amounts to
which they were legally entitled;
-- awarding plaintiff his costs of suit, including
attorney's fees and expenses; and
-- granting such other and further relief as is just and
proper.
The suit is "Peter R. Benson, et al. v. Budget Rent A Car
System, Inc., et al., Case No. 08 4512," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Ann Miller, Esq.
Ann Miller, LLC
834 Chestnut Street, Suite 206
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-238-0468
Fax: 215-574-0699
CALIFORNIA CLUBS: Dancers Say "Gentlemen's Clubs" Strip Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dancers at three "gentlemen's clubs" have filed a class action
in Los Angeles Superior Court claiming that managers illegally
classify them as independent contractors, instead of employees,
which allows the clubs to charge them to work instead of paying
wages, Karina Brown writes for CourtHouse New Service.
Named plaintiffs Demetria Leshay and Roxanne Roberts say the
clubs exercise control over dancers as though they are
employees, including scheduling and requiring specific dance
costumes.
According to the complaint, calling dancers independent
contractors, in name, lets the clubs duck taxes and violate
labor laws and regulations.
The report states that the plaintiffs base their objection to
independent contractor status on a 2003 5th Circuit decision,
which found that dancers were employees, where clubs "exercised
significant control over dancers' behavior and opportunity for
profit."
The plaintiffs claim that club decisions about dancers'
schedules also dictated the amount of "house" or "club fees"
that management charges the dancers each shift. Clubs charge
dancers less to work morning shifts than to work evening shifts,
the plaintiffs add.
The plaintiffs further allege the clubs regularly take a
percentage of their tips, in violation of a 2001 California
Department of Industrial Relations decision specifically
prohibiting that. Also, club management requires dancers to
give part of their tips to other club employees, such as
bouncers, DJs, and wait staff.
The plaintiffs want back pay and fines.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Thomas Fox, Esq.
Reed Smith LLP
1301 K St NW, East Tower, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
CUMULUS MEDIA: Seeks Dismissal of Cloud Merger Suits in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of two purported
class-action lawsuits over its merger agreement with Cloud
Acquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, Cloud
Merger Corp.
On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be merged
with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as the
surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud
Acquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company was
terminated in May 2008.
The two purported class-action suits related to the merger
are:
1. "Jeff Michelson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al."
(Case No. 2007CV137612, filed July 27, 2007), which
was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other
directors and the sponsor; and
2. "Paul Cowles v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No.
2007-CV-139323, filed August 31, 2007), which was
filed before the Superior Court of Fulton County,
Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other
directors and the sponsor.
The complaints in the two Georgia lawsuits made similar
allegations initially, but on June 25 and July 11, 2008,
respectively, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, alleging,
among other things, entirely new state law claims, including
breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate
waste, unjust enrichment, rescission and accounting.
The amended complaints further allege, for the first time,
misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchase
or sale of securities. The amended complaints seek, among other
relief, damages on behalf of the putative class.
With respect to the two Georgia lawsuits, the defendants removed
them to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia on July 17, and later filed motions to dismiss both
cases, according to Cumulus Media's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and
operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)
radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the
U.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC
(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving
large-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007,
Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized
U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight
markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta
that are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement
(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one
radio station in the United States in exchange for a management
or consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,
directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336
stations in 64 U.S. markets.
CUMULUS MEDIA: Settles Delaware Suit Over Cloud Merger Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulus Media, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit in
Delaware over a merger agreement with Cloud Acquisition Corp.
and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, Cloud Merger Corp.,
according to Cumulus Media's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be
merged with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as
the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud
Acquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company was
terminated in May 2008.
The suit is entitled, "Patricia D. Merna, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3151," which was filed on Aug. 8, 2007, in the Chancery
Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against the
company, Lew Dickey, the other directors, the sponsor, Cloud
Acquisition and Cloud Merger.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the terminated
transaction was the product of an unfair process, that the
consideration to be paid to the company's stockholders pursuant
to the terminated transaction was inadequate, and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company's
stockholders.
The suit further alleges that the parties to the transaction
aided and abetted the actions of the company's directors in
breaching such fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among
other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the
transaction.
In order to resolve the case, the company reached an agreement
along with the individual defendants in that lawsuit, without
admitting any wrongdoing, pursuant to a memorandum of
understanding dated Nov. 13, 2007. The MOU extended the
statutory period in which holders of the company's common stock
may have exercised their appraisal rights and allowed for
further disclosures in the proxy statement filed in connection
with the terminated transaction as requested by the counsel for
the plaintiff.
Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and
operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM)
radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the
U.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC
(CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving
large-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007,
Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized
U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight
markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta
that are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement
(LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one
radio station in the United States in exchange for a management
or consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates,
directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336
stations in 64 U.S. Markets.
DOMINION TRANSMISSION: Proposed Settlement Notification Begins
--------------------------------------------------------------
A notification program began, as ordered by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, to alert
people who have or had an oil and gas lease in West Virginia
about a proposed class action settlement with Dominion
Transmission, Inc. (formerly known as CNG Transmission, Inc.),
Dominion Exploration & Production, Inc. (formerly known as CNG
Producing Company), Dominion Appalachian Development, LLC, or
their predecessors.
In 2005, the Richmond-based law firm of Allen, Allen, Allen &
Allen and a Charleston, West Virginia firm launched a class
action lawsuit on behalf of two consumers over a mistake by a
Dominion Transmission clerk that federal officials say cost the
natural gas market $200 million to $1 billion (Class Action
Reporter, June 20, 2005).
The suit, which was filed in Kanawha County Circuit Court in
West Virginia, stemmed from a weekly report by Dominion
Transmission, a subsidiary of Dominion Resources Inc., filed in
November with the Energy Information Administration. Energy
traders use the agency's report to gauge natural gas
inventories.
According to the suit, the clerk inadvertently used figures from
the wrong week for the report, which led to an estimate by the
federal agency that two to three times as much gas had been
withdrawn from storage as market observers expected. The error
eventually resulted in the short-term price of natural gas
spiking up by as much as 17% in a single day. After
discovering the error, the suit states that Dominion and the
agency corrected it in its next weekly report, which led to
market prices falling back.
Generally, the lawsuit includes anyone who has or had an oil and
gas lease on lands lying in West Virginia, and who have or had
oil, gas or other hydrocarbon production under that lease and
have received or are due royalty payments after June 22, 1996,
from Dominion.
Notices informing people about their legal rights will be
mailed, leading up to a hearing on January 21, 2009, when the
Court will consider whether to approve the settlement.
The settlement will make payments to people who have or had a
One-Eighth or Flat-Rate lease.
The deadline for exclusions and objections is on November 1,
2008.
The Court has appointed the following to represent the class:
Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
The Masters Law Firm
181 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 800-342-3106
Fax: 304-342-3189
Michael W. Carey, Esq.
Carey, Scott & Douglas, PLLC
901 Chase Tower
707 Virginia Street, East
P.O. Box 913
Charleston, WV 25323
Thomas W. Pettit, Esq.
Thomas W. Pettit, L.C.
945 Main St.
Barboursville, WV 25504
Phone: 304-736-8700
Scott S. Segal, Esq.
The Segal Law Firm
810 Kanawha Boulevard
East Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-344-9100
Fax: 304-344-9105
- and -
David J. Romano, Esq.
Romano Law Office
363 Washington Ave.
Clarksburg, WV 26301-2911
Phone: 304-624-5600
The suit is "Jacquet, et al. v. Dominion Transmission, Inc., et
al., Case Number: 2:2005cv00548," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge John T.
Copenhaver Jr., presiding.
FIRST AMERICAN: Faces Maine Suit Over Misrepresented Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
First American Title Insurance is facing a class-action
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maine alleging it overcharges homeowners and misrepresents
charges, CourtHouse News Service reports.
According to the complaint, First American -- the nation's
largest title insurer -- has for years routinely overcharged
Maine homeowners who refinance their home mortgages, by charging
them premiums for title insurance far in excess of First
American's statutorily required Maine rates.
Refinancing borrowers are entitled to pay substantially reduced
premiums for title insurance obtained from First American. As a
matter of practice, however, First American does not disclose to
these homeowners that they are entitled to hundreds of
dollars in savings when they purchase title insurance, and
misrepresents to them that the inflated rates they are being
charged are the correct rates.
First American's actions violate Maine's Insurance Code,
including, inter alia, 24-A M.R.S.A. Sections 2174, 2304-A,
2316, 2418 and 3201, and Maine common law.
The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order:
(a) certifying this case as a class action pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing
the plaintiffs as class representatives and the
plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;
(b) declaring that the plaintiffs and the class qualified
for refinance rates in connection with their refinance
transactions;
(c) declaring that First American was obligated to give
discounted refinance rates to the plaintiffs and the
class, and to inform the plaintiffs and the class that
they qualified for such discounted rates;
(d) declaring that First American violated Maine law by
charging rates in excess of those permitted by law and
by failing to inform the plaintiffs and the class that
they qualified for reduced rates;
(e) issuing a permanent injunction requiring First American
to identify and notify in writing all residential
consumers who paid premiums for the purchase of title
insurance from it of the conditions upon which they may
qualify for a discounted refinance rate;
(f) ordering First American to refund the illegal amounts
charged to the plaintiffs and the class;
(g) awarding compensatory damages on behalf of the
plaintiffs and the class in an amount to be proven at
trial;
(h) awarding pre-judgment interest;
(i) award attorneys fees and costs; and
(j) for such other and further relief as allowed by law
and as is equitable under the circumstances.
The suit is "Campbell, et al. v. First American Title Insurance
Company, Case Number: 2:2008cv00311," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine, Judge George Z. Singal,
presiding, with referral to Magistrate Judge John H. Rich, III.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James F. Molleur, Esq.
Andrea Bopp Stark
Molleur Law Office
419 Alfred Street
Biddeford, ME 04005-3747
Phone: 207-283-3777
Fax: 207-283-4558
GULFPORT ENERGY: Wants Robotti Lawsuit in Delaware Thrown Out
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gulfport Energy Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a purported
class-action lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware in and for Kent County, Delaware.
The lawsuit was filed on July 27, 2007, by Robotti & Company,
LLC. It alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by Gulfport and its
directors in connection with the pricing of the 2004 rights
offering.
By mutual agreement of the parties, Gulfport was not required to
respond until notified by the plaintiff, which response was
received on Jan. 16, 2008.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Jan. 15, 2008, and,
in early February 2008, Gulfport filed a motion to dismiss the
case and filed a brief in support of its dismissal motion on
April 29, 2008.
The company reported no further development regarding the case
in its Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
Gulfport Energy Corp. -- http://www.gulfportenergy.com/-- is an
independent oil and natural gas exploration and production
company with properties located along the Louisiana Gulf Coast.
The Company's operations are concentrated in two fields: West
Cote Blanche Bay (WCBB) and the Hackberry fields. The company
also holds ownership interests in entities that operate in
Southeast Asia, Canada and the Williston Basin area of western
North Dakota and eastern Montana.
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: N.C. Suit's Dismissal Still on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a consolidated class-action lawsuit against
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are appealing to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit the dismissal of their case by
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina.
On Feb. 15, 2005, the first of five identical purported
shareholder class-action complaints was filed against the
company and certain of its senior officers.
Each complaint alleged violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focused on statements that
are claimed to be false and misleading regarding a Phase 3
clinical trial of the company's dry eye product candidate,
ProlacriaTM (diquafosol tetrasodium).
Each complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the company's securities
between June 2, 2004, and Feb. 8, 2005.
On March 27, 2006, following a consolidation of the lawsuits
into a single civil action and the appointment of lead
plaintiffs, a consolidated class action complaint asserting the
same allegations as the original ones was filed.
The consolidated complaint also asserts claims against certain
parties that served as underwriters in the company's securities
offerings during the period relevant to the complaint.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities
from May 10, 2004, to Feb. 8, 2005.
In May 2006, the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily dismiss their
claims against the underwriters on the basis that they were
time-barred.
On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants asked the
court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted and does not
satisfy the pleading requirements under applicable law.
In July 2007, the court granted Inspire's and the other
defendants' request and dismissed the consolidated action with
prejudice.
On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the company and the
other defendants filed an opposition brief in January 2008,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Mirco Investors, LLC v. Inspire Pharma, et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00118-WLO," filed before the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Judge William
L. Osteen, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Leslie Bruce Mcdaniel, Esq.
Mcdaniel & Anderson, L.L.P.
P.O. Box 58186
Raleigh, NC 27658-8186
Phone: 919-872-3000
Fax: 919-790-9273
e-mail: mcdas@mcdas.com
- and -
Kristi Stahnke Mcgregor, Esq.
(kmcgregor@milbergweiss.com)
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
5200 Town Ctr. Cir., Ste. 600
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Phone: 561-361-5022
Fax: 561-367-8400
Representing the defendants are:
William Mark Conger, Esq.
(mconger@kilpatrickstockton.com)
Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P.
1001 W. Fourth St.
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Phone: 336-607-7309
Fax: 336-734-2633
- and -
Barry m. Kaplan, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: 206-883-2500
Fax: 206-883-2699
INTERSECTIONS INC: Settles Suit Over Credit Monitoring Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intersections, Inc., has reached a settlement for a purported
class-action suit, entitled "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, Capital
One Services, Inc., and Intersections, Inc.," which was filed
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The suit was filed on Dec. 23, 2005. It alleges that the Credit
Inform credit monitoring service marketed by Capital One and
provided by the company violates certain procedural requirements
under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.
The Plaintiff contends that the company and Capital One are
"credit repair organizations" under the CROA and "credit
services organizations" under the PA CSA.
The lawsuit seeks certification of a class on behalf of all
individuals who purchased such services from defendants within
the five-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. It
also seeks an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
By order dated June 12, 2006, the district court granted a
motion by the company, staying the action and ordering the
plaintiff to arbitrate her claims on an individual basis.
The order of the district court was appealed by the plaintiff
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On
Dec. 17, 2007, the Third Circuit denied the plaintiff's appeal.
In January 2008, the plaintiff's motion for rehearing was
denied, and on Feb. 6, 2008, the Third Circuit entered an order
and judgment upholding the ruling by the district court to stay
the action and compel arbitration on an individual basis.
Pursuant to a settlement between the parties in the second
quarter of 2008, the company paid an immaterial amount to the
plaintiff, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed by the
court with prejudice, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Mary Gay v. Credit Inform, et al., Case No. 2:05-
cv-06729-JG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James a. Francis, Esq. (jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com)
Francis & Mailman, PC,
Land Title Building, 19th Floor
100 S. Broad Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19110
Phone: 215-735-8600
Fax: 215-940-8000
- and -
David A. Searles, Esq. (dsearles@donovansearles.com)
Donovan Searles, LLC
1845 Walnut St., Ste. 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-732-6067
Fax: 215-732-8060
Representing the defendants are:
David R. Fine, Esq. (dfine@klng.com)
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Nicholson, Graham, LLP
17 North Second Street, 18th Floor,
Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507
Phone: 717-231-4500
Fax: 717-231-4501
- and -
Mark A. Aronchick, Esq. (maronchick@hangley.com)
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin
One Logan Sq., 27th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-568-6200
JAKKS PACIFIC: Hearing on WWE Suit Dismissal Bid is Oct. 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative October 2008 briefing schedule was established for
the purported class-action lawsuit "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc.
Shareholders Class Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807,"
which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
In November 2004, several purported class action lawsuits were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The suits are:
a. "Garcia v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 04-8807" (filed on Nov. 5, 2004);
b. "Jonco Investors, LLC v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 04-9021" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004);
c. "Kahn v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
04-8910" (filed on Nov. 10, 2004);
d. "Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 04-8877" (filed on Nov. 9,
2004); and
e. "Irvine v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 04-9078" (filed on Nov. 16, 2004).
The class-action complaints alleged that the company and certain
individual defendants issued positive statements concerning
increasing sales of the company's World Wrestling Entertainment
Inc. licensed products which were false and misleading because
the WWE licenses had allegedly been obtained through a pattern
of commercial bribery, its relationship with the WWE was being
negatively impacted by WWE's contentions, and there was an
increased risk that the WWE would either seek modification or
nullification of the licensing agreements with the company.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the company misleadingly failed
to disclose the alleged fact that the WWE licenses were obtained
through an unlawful bribery scheme.
The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuits were described as
purchasers of the company's common stock from as early as
Oct. 26, 1999, to as late as Oct. 19, 2004.
The class action complaints sought compensatory and other
damages in an undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by the
individual defendants.
On Jan. 25, 2005, the court consolidated the class action suits
under the caption "In re JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class
Action Litigation, Civil Action No. 04-8807."
A request by the defendants to dismiss the case was fully
briefed and arguments occurred on Nov. 30, 2006. The motion was
granted in January 2008 to the extent that the class action
claims were dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiffs' right
to seek leave to file an amended complaint based on statements
that the WWE licenses were obtained from the WWE as a result of
the long-term relationship with WWE.
The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint. A briefing
schedule has been established with respect to the defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion is
scheduled for argument in October 2008.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Aug. 11, 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 JAKKS Pacific, Inc. Shareholders Class Action
Litigation, Case No. 04-8807," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Eric James Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@labaton.com)
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0790
Fax: 212-883-7579
- and -
Ken H. Chang, Esq. (kchang@wolfpopper.com)
Wolf, Popper, L.L.P.
845 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-451-9667
Fax: 212-486-2093
Representing the defendants are:
Michael H. Gruenglas, Esq. (mgruengl@skadden.com)
Skadden, Arps, Slate,Meagher & Flom, LLP
Four Times Square, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Phone: 212-735-3567
Fax: 917-777-3567
- and -
Jonathan Honig, Esq. (jhonig@fkiwsb.com)
Feder Kaszovitz Isaacson Weber Skala Bass & Rhine, LLP
750 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-986-1116
Fax: 212-888-5968
JUPITERIMAGES CORP: Fla. Court Grants Motions in FACTA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted a motion for summary judgment and a motion to stay
discovery that were filed in connection with the matter "Grabein
v. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No. 1:2007-cv-22288."
On or about Aug. 31, 2007, Wayne Grabein brought a claim against
Jupiterimages Corp. -- doing business as clipart.com -- for
alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended
by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act.
Specifically, Mr. Grabein alleges in his complaint that
Jupiterimages violated FACTA by "providing and/or printing"
prohibited information on a purported receipt allegedly provided
to Mr. Grabein. Mr. Grabein seeks nationwide class action
certification for all individuals who have received similar
receipts.
Mr. Grabein also seeks to recover for himself and the defined
class for alleged willful violations of FACTA: statutory
damages, punitive damages, cost and attorneys' fees, interest as
permitted by law, and a permanent injunction.
Jupiterimages has denied the allegations in the complaint and
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.
The court has issued a scheduling order setting the case for
jury trial in September 2008. No motion for class certification
has been filed yet. The parties are currently engaged in
discovery.
Jupiterimages, on April 30, 2008, filed a motion for summary
judgment and a motion to stay discovery. The court has ruled in
favor of the motions, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Grabein v. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No.
1:2007cv22288," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John Elliott Leighton, Esq. (Leighton@Leesfield.com)
Leesfield Leighton & Partners
2350 S. Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305-854-4900
Fax: 305-854-8266
Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq. (jay@jaylevylaw.com)
Jay M. Levy, P.A.
9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard
Suite 1510, Two Datran Center
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-670-8100
Fax: 305-670-4827
- and -
Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. (msarelson@sarelson.com)
Sarelson, P.A.
1401 Brickell Avenue, Suite 510
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 3053790305
Fax: 8004219954
Representing the defendants is:
Todd R. Legon, Esq. (tlegon@lpflaw.com)
Legon Ponce & Fodiman PA
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2150
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-444-9991
Fax: 305-444-9937
LIBERTY NATIONAL: Faces Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty National Life Insurance is facing a class-action
complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida over allegations that it discriminates
against black Haitian-Americans and limits their coverage
despite "aggressively" targeting them for sales and despite
paying millions of dollars to settle a previous class action
suit accusing it of decades of racial discrimination, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
The report relates that this is a class action seeking redress
for an intentional scheme and common course of conduct involving
discrimination and unconscionable conduct by Libery relating to
the marketing, sale and administration of life insurance
policies to members of the black Haitian-American community of
South Florida.
This case is brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) and (b)(1) and (2) on behalf of all black Haitian-
Americans who have, or had at the time of the policy's
termination, an ownership interest in one or more life insurance
policies issued by Liberty, and whose policies were issued and
administered under Liberty's discriminatory scheme and common
course of conduct described in the complaint and who were
thereby harmed.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether Liberty discriminated against class members by
limiting the amounts of life insurance policies offered
to similarly situated white customers;
(b) whether Liberty discriminated against class members by
offering only substandard ALX policies to black Hatian-
Americans;
(c) whether Liberty discriminated against class members by
terminating term life insurance policies issued to
black Haitian-Americans;
(d) whether Liberty acted with intent when discriminating
against class members;
(e) whether Liberty engaged in a statewide discriminatory
course of conduct in targeting the sale of life
insurance to an economically disadvantaged and
unsophisticated segment of the population;
(f) whether Liberty routinely failed to disclose to
plaintiff and class members material information about
the ALX insurance policies;
(g) whether Liberty's conduct was undertaken with malice or
reckless indifference to the rights of the class
members to be free from discrimination; and
(h) whether Liberty's conduct in discriminating against
black Haitian-Americans warrants an award of punitive
damages, and the amount of punitive damages that should
be awarded to deter Lieberty from similar conduct.
The plaintiff asks the court for:
-- an order certifying this action as a class action
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b);
-- an order finding that Liberty has engaged in
discriminatory conduct in violation of 42 USC Section
1981 and Section 1982;
-- an order granting injunctive relief to prevent
recurrence of Liberty's discriminatory conduct;
-- an award to plaintiff and the class of compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
-- an award of punitive damages in an amount to be
determined at trial;
-- an award to plaintiff and the class of the costs,
interest and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
bringing this action pursuant to 42 USC Section 1988;
and
-- all further relief as may be just.
The suit is "Marlene Joseph et al. v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case 1:08-cv-22580-JAL," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
Gail A. McQuilkin, Esq.
Kozyak Tropin & Thockmorton, PA
2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: 305-372-1800
Fax: 305-372-3508
MERCURY CASUALTY: Charges Extra for Medical Policy, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mercury Casualty Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
Los Angeles Superior Court alleging it charges extra for a "no
excess, no reimbursement" medical policy, by which it promises
not to demand reimbursement or offset for injured customers who
receive money from any third parties responsible for the
accident -- but then demands reimbursement anyway, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
CourtHouse did not report on additional details and any further
development regarding the case.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert Gianelli, Esq.
Gianelli & Morris
626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2921
Phone: 213-488-9667
Fax: 213-488-9208
PFF BANCORP: Settles California Suit Over FBOP Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
PFF Bancorp, Inc., settled a purported class-action lawsuit in
California over a merger agreement among the company, FBOP
Corp., and California Madison Holdings, Inc., according to the
company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
On June 13, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with FBOP Corp. and California Madison Holdings.
Under the terms of the Agreement, which was unanimously approved
by the company's board of directors, and upon the consummation
of the transaction contemplated by the Agreement, stockholders
will receive $1.35 in cash for each share of the company's
common stock.
On June 18, 2008, an alleged stockholder of PFF Bancorp filed a
purported class-action lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court
against the company, its board of directors (which includes one
of the company's officers), and FBOP.
Among other things, this action alleges that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to
our stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger. The suit
primarily seeks to enjoin the merger, as well as other ancillary
remedies.
While the company believes that the action has no merit, on or
around Aug. 8, 2008, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to resolve the case on a class-wide basis.
The Memorandum of Understanding outlines a proposed settlement
that will be subject to court approval and is not expected to
delay the merger.
PFF Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.pffbancorp.com-- is a
diversified financial services company. It conducts its
business principally through its wholly owned subsidiary, PFF
Bank & Trust. The company's business also includes Glencrest
Investment Advisors, Inc., a registered investment advisor.
Glencrest provides wealth management and advisory services to
high-net-worth individuals and businesses. In addition, the
company's business includes Diversified Builder Services, Inc.,
a provider of financing and consulting services to home builders
and land developers. In addition, it owns 100% of the common
stock of two unconsolidated special purpose business trusts PFF
Bancorp Capital Trust I, PFF Bancorp Capital Trust II and PFF
Bancorp Capital Trust III created for the purpose of issuing
capital securities. Its market areas include eastern Los
Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside and northern Orange counties.
PFIZER INC: Court Allows "Donaldson" to Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
issued an order permitting the lawsuit -- "Donaldson et al. v.
Pharmacia Pension Plan et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00003-JPG-PMF,"
which names Pfizer Inc. as a defendant -- to proceed as a class
action.
In 2006, several current and former employees of Pharmacia Corp.
filed a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois against the
Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia
& Upjohn Co. and Pfizer.
The plaintiffs claim that the Plan violates the age-
discrimination provisions of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 by providing certain credits to certain
current and former participants in the Plan only to age 55.
At the request of the parties, in May 2008, the court issued an
order permitting the case to proceed as a class action,
according to Pfizer, Inc.'s Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 29, 2008.
The suit is "Donaldson et al. v. Pharmacia Pension Plan et al.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00003-JPG-PMF," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge J. Phil
Gilbert, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq. (marmstrong@uselaws.com)
Schlichter, Bogard et al. - St. Louis
Generally Admitted
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-621-6115
Fax: 314-621-7151
Representing the defendants are:
Carol Connor Cohen, Esq. (flowe.carol@arentfox.com)
Arent Fox PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-857-6000
William F. Conlon, Esq. (wconlon@sidley.com)
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: 312-853-7000
- and -
Michael J. Nester, Esq. (mnester@ilmoattorneys.com)
Donovan, Rose et al.
Generally Admitted
8 East Washington Street
Belleville, IL 62220
Phone: 618-235-2020
PHOTON DYNAMICS: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Orbotech Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Photon Dynamics, Inc., is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California over a merger agreement with Orbotech Ltd.
On June 26, 2008, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger and Reorganization with Orbotech and PDI Acquisition
Inc. -- an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Orbotech.
On July 25, 2008, Capital Partners, a purported stockholder of
the company, filed a complaint in California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County, against the company, each of the company's
directors and Orbotech. The suit is captioned "Capital Partners
v. Dr. Malcolm J. Thompson, et al. (Case No. 1-08-CV-118315)."
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger, that the company's preliminary proxy statement relating
to the merger omits material information and that Orbotech has
aided and abetted the company's directors in their alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties.
The relief sought by the plaintiff includes a determination that
the class-action status is proper, an injunction barring the
merger (or if the merger is consummated, a rescission of the
merger), corrective disclosures and the payment of compensatory
damages and other fees and costs.
On July 29, 2008, the complaint was formerly served on the
company and the individual defendants. On Aug. 1, 2008, the
company and the individual defendants removed the case to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Capital Partners also filed an application in California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County, seeking expedited discovery,
a temporary restraining order that would bar the merger pending
such discovery, and a hearing following such discovery on a
preliminary injunction that would bar the merger pending a trial
on the merits.
The parties have not yet responded to the foregoing filings, nor
have they been acted upon by any court. However, the company
and the individual defendants previously had agreed to provide
expedited discovery, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Capital Partners v. Thompson et al., Case No. 5:08-
cv-03688-RS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Richard Seeborg, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
550 West C. Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-338-1133
Fax: 619-338-1139
Representing the defendants is:
Stephanie E. Lockwood, Esq. (lockwood@dpw.com)
Davis Polk & Wardwell
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: 650-752-2000
Fax: 650-752-3666
REDDY ICE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline is on Oct. 7
-----------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminded investors of an Oct. 7,
2008 deadline for them to move to be a lead plaintiff in a
securities class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Reddy
Ice Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: FRZ) between August 10, 2005, and
March 6, 2008, including shares acquired through the Company's
401(k) savings plan.
The shareholder lawsuit is pending with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Reddy Ice's financial performance and
prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of Reddy Ice
stock.
For more information, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: 215-638-4847
Toll-Free: 888-638-4847
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/
RELIANCE STANDARD: Faces Miss. Suit Over Retained Asset Account
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Delphi
Financial Group, Inc., is facing a purported class-action
lawsuit in Mississippi, entitled "Moore v. Reliance Standard
Life Insurance Company," according to Delphi Financial's Aug. 8,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The complaint, filed on July 3, 2008, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi, challenges RSLIC's
ability to pay certain insurance policy benefits through a
mechanism commonly known in the insurance industry as a retained
asset account and contains related claims of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.
The suit is "Moore v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00161-WAP-SAA," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Judge W. Allen
Pepper, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jason L. Nabors, Esq. (jason@smithphillips.com)
Smith, Phillips, Mitchell & Scott
P.O. Drawer 1586
Batesville, MS 38606
Phone: 662-563-4613
- and -
Ronald R. Parry, Esq. (rparry@pdfslaw.com)
Parry Deering Futscher & Sparks, PSC
P.O. Box 2618
Covington, KY 41012-2618
Phone: 859-291-9000
Representing the defendants are:
Dan W. Webb, Esq. (dwebb@webbsanders.com)
Webb Sanders & Williams, PLLC
P.O. Box 496
Tupelo, MS 38802-0496
Phone: 662-844-2137
- and -
Phillip E. Stano, Esq.
Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP
1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2415
Phone: 202-383-0100
SECURE COMPUTING: Court Sets Nov. 21 Hearing for "Rosenbaum"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
scheduled a Nov. 21, 2008 status conference for a lawsuit
entitled "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," which named Secure Computing Corp. and
certain of its directors and officers as defendants.
The lawsuit was filed against the company by Rosenbaum Capital,
LLC, on Jan. 19, 2007. The alleged plaintiff class includes
persons who acquired the company's stock between May 4, 2006,
through July 11, 2006.
Rosenbaum Capital was appointed lead plaintiff in the action,
and filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007. The amended
complaint alleges generally that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about our business condition and prospects
for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, in violation of
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. It seeks unspecified monetary damages.
After the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 2, 2007,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. The trial
court denied that motion on March 4, 2008. The defendants then
filed answers to the amended complaint on April 25, 2008, and
discovery is proceeding.
The next status conference with the court is scheduled for
Nov. 21, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Rosenbaum Capital, LLC v. McNulty et al., Case No.
3:07-cv-00392-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge Judge Samuel Conti,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Elizabeth C. Guarnieri, Esq. (ecg@classcounsel.com)
Green Welling, LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-477-6700
Fax: 415-477-6710
Representing the defendants is:
Michael L. Charlson, Esq.
(michael.charlson@hellerehrman.com)
Heller Ehrman LLP
275 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-3506
Phone: 650-324-7000
Fax: 650 324-0638
ST. JOSEPH'S CARPENTER: Court Dismisses Camden Homeowners' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Sept. 11, 2008, homeowners
from the Baldwin's Run subsidized housing development in East
Camden marched from the City Hall to the federal courthouse on
Sept. 8 to file a class-action lawsuit against St. Joseph's
Carpenter Society, the non-profit agency that headed the
development of their neighborhood.
In the lawsuit, the residents said that St. Joseph's "committed
fraud by withholding vital information" about limits on the
profit they would make if they sold their homes.
The CAR report notes that, in exchange for state and other
subsidies, the Baldwin's Run homes came with deed restrictions.
One requires that homes must be sold to other low- or moderate-
income homeowners if they are sold within 10 years. Another
requires the owner to get only a portion of the profit when the
home is sold at fair market value. The rest will go to the
state Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency to build more
affordable housing.
The homeowners said they did not know about the restriction
until they got a letter describing it from the state last fall
-- years after they had bought their homes between 2002 and
2004.
Angel Cordero, a community activist, handed the clerk a stack of
sworn statements from about 60 residents. Mr. Cordero said the
residents put together the lawsuit themselves because they could
not afford a lawyer. He said they've asked the state to
investigate.
In an update, Cherry Hill, of the Courier Post, writes that a
judge has dismissed the class-action lawsuit.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman said that the
lawsuit was not presented in the proper format and did not
clearly allege a violation of any federal law. He also said
that the residents could not represent themselves in a class-
action case. Judge Hillman said that the residents would have
to hire an attorney.
According to the report, the judge gives the residents 20 days
to amend their complaint.
Mr. Cordero, however, told Courier Post that he was not sure the
homeowners would amend the federal lawsuit because it could cost
several hundred dollars more to refile.
"These are poor people trying to get something done and he just
dismissed it like that," Mr. Cordero said. "That was really,
really harsh."
Mr. Cordero said the residents might try filing their lawsuit in
a different court or pressing the Attorney General's office to
investigate. Meanwhile, he said, he's asking community
organizations such as the Latino Leadership Alliance to advocate
for them. Keith Benson, executive committee member of the NAACP
(National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in
Camden, said he would bring up the issue at the October meeting.
City Council President Angel Fuentes and Councilman Frank Moran
have also proposed a resolution urging the state Legislature to
revise the "95/5" rules so that homeowners can get a higher
percentage of profit from selling their homes, the report says.
The resolution will be considered this week.
STARTEK INC: Wants Amended Complaint in Colo. Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
StarTek, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers
are seeking the dismissal of the amended complaint in a
consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against
them in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Initially, the company and others were named as defendants in
two purported class action suits in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado:
1. "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. StarTek,
Inc., et al.," filed on July 8, 2005; and
2. "John Alden v. StarTek, Inc., et al.," filed on
July 20, 2005.
The federal court later consolidated those actions. The
consolidated action is a purported class action suit brought on
behalf of all persons who purchased shares of the company's
common stock in a secondary offering by certain of the company's
stockholders in June 2004, and in the open market between
Feb. 26, 2003, and May 5, 2005.
The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made
false and misleading public statements about the company and its
business and prospects in the prospectus for the secondary
offering, as well as in filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and in press releases issued during the
class period, and that the market price of the company's common
stock was artificially inflated as a result.
It also alleges claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs in both cases seek compensatory damages on behalf
of the alleged class and award of attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.
On May 23, 2006, the company and the individual defendants asked
the court to dismiss the action in its entirety.
On March 28, 2008, the motion was denied with respect to the
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, except that the claim under Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 was dismissed
against two of the individual defendants.
On the same date, the motion was granted with respect to the
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of
1933 without prejudice to the plaintiffs filing an amended
complaint with respect to such claims.
On May 19, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On
June 5, 2008, the company and the individual defendants moved
the court to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety,
according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2008.
The suit is "West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v.
Startek, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01265-PSF-OES," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge
Phillip S. Figa, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Matthew M. Wolf, Esq. (mwolf@allen-vellone.com)
Allen & Vellone, P.C.
1600 Stout Street, #1100
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-534-4499
Representing the company are:
James E. Nesland, Esq. (neslandje@cooley.com)
Matthew Voss, Esq. (mvoss@cooley.com)
Cooley Godward, LLP
380 Interlocken Crescent, #900
Broomfield, CO 80021-8023
Phone: 720-566-4000
Fax: 720-566-4099
SWEDISH MOTOR: Calif. Suit Alleges Backdated Purchase Contracts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swedish Motor Cars of Orange County and Saab Cars USA are facing
a class-action complaint filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California alleging it backdated purchase contracts and
misstated interest rates and finance charges, CourtHouse News
Service reports.
The suit says that the defendants' conduct violates, inter alia,
the Automobile Sales Finance Act (Civil Code Section 2981 et
seq.), the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1750
et seq.), and the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq.).
This action is brought, and may be properly be maintained, as a
class action pursuant to the provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 382 and Civil Code Section 1781(a), on
behalf of all persons since Sept. 10, 2004 who purchased a
vehicle from Saab of Sant Ana for personal use on a later date
rescinded their original purchase contract and signed a
subsequent or second contract for the purchase of the same
vehicle, which contract was dated the date of the original
purchase contract and involved financing at an annual percentage
rate greater than 0.00%.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether SSA's practice of backdating subsequent
purchase contracts violates California's consumer
protection statutes including, inter alia, the CLRA,
the ASFA, and the UCL;
(b) the amount of revenues and profits SSA received, and
the amount of monies or other obligations imposed on,
or lost by, class members as a result of such
wrongdoing;
(c) whether class members are threatened with irreparable
harm and are entitled to injunctive and other equitable
relief, and, if so, what is the nature of such relief;
and
(d) whether class members are entitled to rescission,
payment of actual, incidental, consequential,
exemplary, punitive, and statutory damages plus
interest thereon, and, if so, what is the nature of
such relief.
The plaintiff asks the court for:
-- an order certifying the class under the appropriate
provisions of California law, and appointing the
plaintiff and its counsel to represent the class;
-- declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief as
permitted under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
Business & Professions Code Section 17203;
-- general, special, and actual damages as appropriate
to each cause of action, and according to proof at
trial;
-- rescission and restitution of all amounts required to be
expended;
-- incidental and consequential damages according to proof
at trial;
-- the specified causes of action, punitive and statutory
damages;
-- pre-judgment interest at the legal rate;
-- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as
specified under, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1021.5, and Civil Code Sections 1717, 1780(d),
1794(d) and 2983.4; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems
just and proper under the circumstances.
The suit is "Juan Miguel Ortin, et al. v. Swedish Motor Cars of
Orange County, LLC, Case No. 00100290," filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Hallen D. Rosner, Esq.
Christopher P. Barry, Esq.
John W. Hanson, Esq.
Rosner & Mansfeld, LLP
10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92131
Phone: 858-348-1005
Fax: 858-348-1150
TARRAGON CORP: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tarragon Corp. continues to face a consolidated securities fraud
class-action lawsuit before the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Aside from the company, three of its officers -- William S.
Friedman, chairman of the board of directors and chief executive
officer; Robert P. Rothenberg, president and chief operating
officer; and Erin D. Pickens, executive vice president and chief
financial officer -- as well as Beachwold Partners, L.P. (a
Texas limited partnership composed of William S. Friedman, as
general partner, and members of his family, as limited
partners), and the company's independent registered public
accounting firm, were also named as defendants in the matter.
The consolidated suit, captioned "In re Tarragon Corporation
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-7972," was originally
filed on Sept. 11, 2007, on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between Jan. 5, 2005, and Aug. 9, 2007.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Aug. 11, 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 Tarragon Corporation Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 07-7972," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Judge P. Kevin Castel,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com)
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, L.L.P.
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-279-5050
Fax: 212-279-3655
Representing the defendants is:
Theresa Ann Foudy, Esq. (tfoudy@cm-p.com)
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP
101 Park Avenue South 35th Floor
New York, NY 10178
Phone: 212-696-6000
Fax: 212-697-1559
TEPPCO PARTNERS: Unitholder's Lawsuit Still Pending in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------------
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. (Parent Partnership), continues to face a
lawsuit filed by a TEPPCO unitholder in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware.
On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed the complaint in his individual capacity
as a putative class action on behalf of:
-- Parent Partnership's other unitholders, and
-- derivatively on its behalf.
The complaint named the company as a nominal defendant. It also
named as defendants:
-- Texas Eastern Products Pipeline;
-- the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products;
-- the parent companies of Texas Eastern Products,
including EPCO Inc., a privately held company
controlled by Dan L. Duncan;
-- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and certain of its
affiliates; and
-- Dan L. Duncan.
The suit concerns proposals made to TEPPCO's unitholders in its
definitive proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on Sept. 11, 2006, and other transactions
involving the Parent Partnership or its affiliates (Class Action
Reporter, May 26, 2008).
The complaint alleges that certain of the transactions proposed
in the proxy statement, including a proposal to reduce the Texas
Eastern Products' maximum percentage interest in the company's
distributions in exchange for limited partner units, are unfair
to its unit holders and constitute a breach by the defendants of
fiduciary duties owed to its unit holders and that the Proxy
Statement fails to provide its unit holders with all material
facts necessary for them to make an informed decision whether to
vote in favor of or against the proposals.
The complaint further alleges that, since Mr. Duncan acquired
control of Texas Eastern Products in 2005, the defendants, in
breach of their fiduciary duties to the company and its unit
holders, have caused the company to enter into certain
transactions with Enterprise or its affiliates that are unfair
to it or otherwise unfairly favored Enterprise or its affiliates
over the company.
These transactions are alleged to include the Jonah Gas
Gathering Company joint venture entered into by the company and
an Enterprise affiliate in August 2006, the sale by the company
to an Enterprise affiliate of the Pioneer plant in March 2006
and the impending divestiture of company's interest in MB
Storage in connection with an investigation by the Federal Trade
Commission.
As more fully described in the Proxy Statement, the Audit and
Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of Texas Eastern
Products recommended the Issuance Proposal for approval by the
Board of Directors of Texas Eastern Products.
The complaint also alleges that Richard S. Snell, Michael B.
Bracy and Murray H. Hutchison, constituting the three members of
the Audit and Conflicts Committee of the Board of Directors of
Texas Eastern Products, cannot be considered independent because
of their alleged ownership of securities in Enterprise and its
affiliates and their relationships with Mr. Duncan.
The complaint seeks an order:
-- requiring the Parent Partnership to issue a proxy
statement that corrects the alleged misstatements and
omissions in the Proxy Statement;
-- enjoining the Oct. 26, 2006 meeting of unitholders
provided for in the Proxy Statement;
-- rescinding transactions in the complaint that have been
consummated, or awarding rescissory damages in respect
thereof, including the impending divestiture of our
interest in MB Storage;
-- awarding damages for profits and special benefits
allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the
alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and
-- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
and expenses of his attorneys and experts.
The company reported no development regarding the case in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common
carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleum
gases in the U.S.
TEPPCO PARTNERS: Faces Property Damage Lawsuit in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
TEPPCO Partners, L.P., is facing a property damage lawsuit that
was filed back in 1991 before the 26th Judicial District Court
of Bossier Parish, Louisiana, under the caption "Jimmy R. Green,
et al. v. Cities Service Refinery, et al."
The plaintiffs in this matter reside or formerly resided on land
that was once the site of a refinery owned by one of the
company's co-defendants. The former refinery is located near
the company's Bossier City facility.
The plaintiffs have claimed personal injuries and property
damage arising from alleged contamination of the refinery
property. They have pursued certification as a class and have
significantly increased their demand to approximately $175.0
million.
The company reported no development regarding the matter in its
Aug. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008.
TEPPCO Partners, L.P. -- http://www.teppco.com/-- is a common
carrier pipeline of refined products and liquefied petroleum
gases in the U.S.
U.S. GOVERNMENT: Sued for Wiretapping and Spying on Americans
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Jan. 3, 2007, that the
Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a purported class action in
a California court against AT&T Corp., accusing the
company of violating its customers' privacy rights by opening
its records and systems to secret spying by the National
Security Agency. The suit seeks to force the federal court
system to consider the legality of the Bush administration's
warrantless domestic phone taps.
According to a report by Ryan Singel of Wired News, the civil
liberties group filed another lawsuit over wiretapping. This
recent suit now names the government and top officials involved
in the spying.
Wired News says that by suing the government directly, the EFF
is attempting to undermine the government's plan to use a new
power handed to it by Congress in July 2008. The so-called
telecom immunity provision nearly automatically forces a judge
to dismiss lawsuits against companies accused of helping the
government spy -- without court approval -- on the phone and
Internet communications of Americans.
The report recounts that earlier this month, the government told
a federal court judge overseeing some 38 cases against the
telecoms that it would file those papers on AT&T's behalf.
The recently filed lawsuit against the government -- filed in
federal district court in Northern California -- seeks a halt to
the program, an accounting of who was spied on and damages for
the five named plaintiffs.
Wired News notes that the suit also names high government
officials -– in their official and personal capacities --
putting them at risk of fines they would be personally liable
for. Among those listed are former Attorney General John
Ashcroft, former Attorney General and White House Counsel
Alberto Gonzales, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Cheney's
chief-of-staff David Addington, along with current and former
heads of intelligence agencies involved in the spying.
"In addition to suing AT&T, we've now opened a second front in
the battle to stop the NSA's illegal surveillance of millions of
ordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those who
authorized or participated in the spying program," senior staff
attorney Kevin Bankston, Esq., told Wired News.
The suit argues that the spying violated federal wiretap law,
the First Amendment's guarantee of anonymous speech and the
Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches.
Others have previously challenged the government program
directly, but no one has succeeded so far, the report says. The
EFF hopes the whistle-blower evidence it has used to keep the
AT&T case alive will also work to prove it has a right to sue
the feds as well.
Wired News adds that the EFF plans to contest the legality of
the so-called telecom immunity powers, but wants to have another
avenue to pursue its goal of having the program declared
illegal. Though the full extent of the secret spying is not
known, media reports indicate the government collected phone
calls and e-mails, with the help of American telecoms, where one
party was inside the U.S. and one was outside the country.
Until recently, wiretapping law required court orders to collect
that information inside the U.S. The FISA Amendments Act of
2008, which largely legalized the action, did not immunize the
government or government officials.
The recent suit against the government is captioned "Jewel v.
NSA," while the earlier suit against AT&T suit is known as
""Hepting v. AT&T."
UTSTARCOM: Court Allows Dismissal Bids in Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
is allowing UTSTARCOM, Inc., and the individual defendants in a
lawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," to file a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the fourth amended complaint in the case.
Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action
complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed
against the company and various officers and directors. The
actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc.
Securities Litigation."
The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended
consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was brought
on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the
company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004.
On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the
class period to Oct. 6, 2005. In addition to the company
defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. The
plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an
unspecified amount.
On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21,
2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the
second amended complaint. The court, however, granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the
plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007.
On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third
amended complaint. This was granted by the court, but with
leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs
also did on May 14, 2008.
On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008
dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed
objections to the form and content of the fourth amended
complaint.
On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated
that the company and the individual defendants would be
permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the
fourth amended complaint, according to the company's Aug. 11,
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: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-288-4545
Fax: 415-288-4534
- and -
Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
Glancy & Binkow, LLP
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-9150
Fax: 310-201-9160
e-mail: info@glancylaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-565-5100
- and -
Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan & Cromwell
1870 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: 650-461-5600
Fax: 650-461-5700
UTSTARCOM INC: Wants Amended Complaint in "Rudolph" Thrown Out
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTSTARCOM, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of the second amended
complaint in a class action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v.
UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," which was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.
The purported shareholder class-action suit was filed on
Sept. 4, 2007, against the company and some of its current and
former directors and officers. It alleges violations of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed
improper accounting practices concerning the company's
historical equity award grants.
The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the company's common stock between
July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007.
On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as
lead plaintiff. On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by
the company to dismiss the amended complaint.
The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second
amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead
plaintiff did so. On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a
motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended
complaint, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended
June 30, 2008.
The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq.
(cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com)
Finkelstein Thompson LLP
100 Bush Street, Suite 1450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-398-8700
Fax: 415-398-8704
- and -
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com)
Attorney at Law
1050 30th Street
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-337-8000
Representing the defendants is:
Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com)
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-565-5100
New Securities Fraud Cases
BANKUNITED FINANCIAL: KGS Files Securities Fraud Suit in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, commenced a securities class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of BankUnited Financial Corporation (NASDAQ: BKUNA) during the
period between April 18, 2006, and June 18, 2008.
The complaint charges BankUnited and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company including that:
(a) the true risk associated with investing in the Company,
given its undisclosed lack of underwriting standards;
(b) the Company's true exposure to losses related to its
sale of billions of dollars of pay-option arms, which
were sold to unqualified borrowers at rates that were
allowed to be set at artificially low levels;
(c) BankUnited had adopted inadequate appraisal process and
procedures, the purpose and effect of which was to
qualify borrowers for over-valued mortgages; and
(d) other illegal and improper practices related to the
purchase and sale of subprime and nonprime mortgages.
When the true impaired condition of the Company was ultimately
made known to investors, shares of the Company collapsed and
shareholders were damaged.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq. (Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com)
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
Poydras Center
650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
FIRST TRUST: Holzer & Fistel Files Securities Suit in Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against First Trust Portfolios, L.P., and certain of its
officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of First Trust
Strategic High Income Fund, First Trust Strategic High Income
Fund II and First Trust Strategic High Income Fund III between
July 26, 2005, and July 7, 2008, inclusive.
The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of
1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in
its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the
lawsuit alleges the First Trust misrepresented and failed to
disclose the actual level of risk associated with the Funds.
For more information, contact:
Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. (mfistel@holzerlaw.com)
Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com)
Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC
1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107
Atlanta, GA 30338
Toll-free: 888-508-6832
Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/
HARRIS STRATEX: Izard Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Del.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status before the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware on behalf of those who purchased the securities of
Harris Stratex Networks, Inc., between January 29, 2007, and
July 30, 2008.
Also included are those who exchanged shares of Stratex
Networks, Inc., for shares of Harris Stratex pursuant to the
registration statement or prospectus that became effective on
January 8, 2007.
The Complaint charges that Harris Stratex and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements about its
financial condition prior to and following its formation in
early 2007 through the date of the merger of Stratex Networks,
Inc. and the Harris Microwave Communications Division.
On July 30, 2008, Harris Stratex announced that it had
discovered accounting errors which rendered its previously
issued financial statements to be incorrect.
According to the announcement, the Company will restate earnings
reports from 2005 through the present. The Company reported
these accounting errors will cut previously reported pre-tax
income by $18 million to $25 million.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 14,
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/
LORD ABBETT: Finkelstein & Krinsk Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
against Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC and Lord Abbett Distributor LLC
on behalf of investors who received class A shares of certain
multi-class Lord Abbett stock mutual funds after investing less
than $50,000, and thus paid a sales charge of 5.75%.
The complaint alleges Lord Abbett violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.
The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey and covers the period September 11, 2003, to present.
The complaint alleges Lord Abbett defrauded investors by
disseminating prospectuses containing incomplete and misleading
information for the following mutual funds:
-- Affiliated Fund;
-- All Value Fund;
-- Developing Growth Fund;
-- Growth Opportunities Fund;
-- Large Cap Core Fund;
-- Large Cap Growth Fund;
-- Large Cap Value Fund;
-- Mid Cap Value Fund;
-- Small Cap Blend Fund;
-- Small Cap Value Fund;
-- Value Opportunities Fund;
-- Alpha Strategy Fund;
-- Diversified Equity Strategy Fund (formerly Income
Strategy Fund);
-- Global Allocation Fund;
-- International Core Equity Fund;
-- America's Value Fund;
-- Balanced Strategy Fund;
-- Diversified Income Strategy Fund;
-- Growth & Income Strategy Fund (formerly World Growth &
Income Strategy Fund);
-- International Dividend Income Fund; and
-- Developing Local Markets Fund.
The complaint asserts that Lord Abbett knowingly marketed class
A shares as the best performing alternative, when class B and/or
class C shares, otherwise identical, would have been the best
investment choice.
The misleading disclosures actually omitted information from the
fund prospectuses and allowed Lord Abbett to earn greater
profits at the expense of plaintiff and class members. As a
result, investors suffered considerable damages.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq.
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
501 W. Broadway, Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92101
Toll-Free: 877-493-5366
e-mail: fk@classactionlaw.com
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
600 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-230-0800
- or -
Andrew Friedman, Esq.
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman and Balint P.C.
2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Toll-Free: 800-847-9094, ext. 5977
e-mail: classactions@bffb.com
NEXTWAVE WIRELESS: Izard Nobel Files California Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status before the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased the
common stock of NextWave Wireless Inc. betweenMarch 30, 2007,
and August 7, 2008.
The Complaint charges that NextWave and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing
materially false statements. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose these facts:
(i) NextWave did not have adequate sources of liquidity to
continue operations as it executed its growth strategy;
(ii) defendants had no reasonable basis to make favorable
statements that the Company's WiMAX semiconductor
products would be available for commercial sale in the
first half of 2008;
(iii) NextWave's growth and acquisition strategy was not
financially successful and did not provide the basis
for continued growth because it was straining
NextWave's fragile liquidity position and NextWave did
not have the financial resources to continue its world-
wide operations through the end of 2008; and
(iv) NextWave failed to timely disclose that it had invested
all of its marketable securities in extremely high-risk
and illiquid auction rate securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,
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/
NORTHERN TRUST: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against Northern Trust Securities, Inc., Northern Trust
Corporation, and Northern Trust Company that alleges violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers
of Northern Trust's auction rate securities during the period
between September 16, 2003, through February 13, 2008,
inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Northern
Trust materially misrepresented the liquidity of and risks
associated with auction rate securities and omitted material
facts about the auction rate securities market, including:
1) misrepresenting that auction rate securities were like
cash and were highly liquid, safe investments for short-
term investing;
2) misrepresenting that the auction rate securities offered
by Northern Trust were equivalent to cash or money
market funds and were safe, highly liquid short-term
investment vehicles and that cash could be received in a
matter of days;
3) failing to disclose to purchasers of auction rate
securities material facts about these securities; and
4) failing to disclose that these securities were not cash
alternatives, like money market funds, and were instead,
complex, long-term financial instruments with 30-year
maturity dates, or longer.
In fact, as alleged in the Complaint, even though a number of
auctions began to fail in the Summer of 2007 and thereafter,
Northern Trust continued to encourage investors to purchase
auction rate securities and continued to represent to investors
that these securities were like cash or money market accounts
and were highly liquid, safe investments for short-term
investing, without adequately disclosing the risks associated
with the securities. As further alleged, on February 13, 2008,
87% of all auctions of auction rate securities failed when all
of the major broker-dealers, including UBS, Goldman Sachs,
Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and Merrill Lynch, among others,
refused to continue to support the auctions. As a result of the
withdrawal of support by all of the major broker-dealers, the
market for auction rate securities collapsed, rendering more
than $300 billion of outstanding securities illiquid.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
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
- and -
Laurence D. King, Esq.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-772-4700
Fax: 415-772-4707
e-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com
QUEST ENERGY: Shuman Law Files Securities Fraud Suit in Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shuman Law Firm commenced a lawsuit seeking class action
status in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma on behalf of all those who purchased the common stock
of Quest Energy Partners, L.P., between November 7, 2007, and
August 25, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges Quest Energy and certain former and
present officers, and controlling entities, including Quest
Resource Corporation, with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of Quest Energy's issuance
of a materially inaccurate Registration Statement in connection
with Quest Energy's Initial Public Offering in that Quest Energy
failed to properly disclose related party transactions between
its former CEO and an entity controlled by him.
On August 25, 2008, Quest Energy announced that its former CEO
Jerry Cash had resigned following an inquiry by the Oklahoma
Department of Securities in connection with questionable
transfers of, among other things, Quest Energy funds to an
entity controlled by Mr. Cash. Quest Energy also announced that
it had constituted a special committee to conduct an internal
investigation. As a result of these adverse disclosures, the
price of Quest Energy shares dropped significantly.
Interested parties may move the court no later than November 5,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com)
Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com)
The Shuman Law Firm
885 Arapahoe Avenue
Boulder, CO 80203
Phone: 866-974-8626
Fax: 303-484-4886
Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/
REDDY ICE: Pomerantz Firm Files Michigan Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc., and
certain officers of the company for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of the Company between August 10, 2005, and August 6,
2008.
Reddy Ice is a Delaware corporation which maintains its
principal executive office in Dallas, Texas. The company
manufactures and distributes packaged ice. The Company is one
of very few packaged ice companies operating in the United
States.
On March 6, 2008, the Company announced that federal officials
had executed a search warrant directed by the Antitrust Division
of the United States Department of Justice in connection with an
investigation into the packaged ice industry. On this news, the
Company's shares fell 33.45 percent. Subsequently Home City Ice
Company, a competitor of Reddy Ice, pleaded guilty to conspiring
with other packaged ice firms to allocate customers and
territories in the market.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
(1) that the Company had engaged, and continued to engage,
in illicit business practices with its competitors in
the packaged ice industry;
(2) that the company had joined with its competitors in the
packaged ice industry in colluding and agreeing to
allocate territories and customers in the United
States' packaged ice market;
(3) that the Company had agreed with competitors in the
industry to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices
for packaged ice in the United States market;
(4) that the Company's revenues had been significantly
increased through the use of such illicit business
practices;
(5) that, as a result, the Company's financial statements
were false and misleading at all relevant times;
(6) that such illicit business practices, when they were
revealed, would initiate an investigation by the
federal authorities into the Company's business
practices;
(7) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(8) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements about its financial well-being and future
business prospects were lacking in any reasonable
basis.
Interested parties may move the court no later than October 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Teresa Webb, Esq.
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017-5516
Phone: 888-476-6529
888-4-POMLAW
Web site: http://tlwebb@pomlaw.com/
SIGNALIFE INC: Sarraf Gentile Files S.C. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of those who purchased the securities of
Signalife, Inc., between January 29, 2004, and April 11, 2008,
inclusive.
The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina. The complaint names as defendants Signalife
and several of its present and former officers.
According to the complaint, 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 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, according
to the complaint.
As a result, the complaint alleges that 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 and the Company was recently delisted from the
AMEX.
Interested parties may move the court no later than October 28,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
Sarraf Gentile LLP
11 Hanover Square
New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-868-3610
Fax: 212-918-7967
web site: http://www.sarrafgentile.com/
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel 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 * * *