/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081013.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 203 Headlines AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Travel Insurance Refunds BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulated ARS Market, California Suit Says CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Faster Youth Parole-Revocation Hearings CHEMVALLEY PROPERTIES: Proposes to Settle 2006 Tire Fire Suit DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit DEL MONTE: Defendants Want Pet Food & Snack Lawsuit Decertified DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit DELL INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas DELL INC: Texas Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Lawsuit EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Several Employees' Lawsuits in California GEORGIA: State Secretary Sued Over Voter Identity Verification HANSEN NATURAL: Notifies Shareholders of Deadline in Calif. Suit JOS. A. BANK: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Maryland CINCINNATI: Suit Challenges Prohibition of Partisan Politics PARKER-HANNIFIN: Wants Marine Hose Price-Fixing Suit Dismissed PERINI CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts SAKS INC: Settles Alabama Lawsuit Over Merchandise Return Fees SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss FCRA Violations Suits in California New Securities Fraud Cases FANNIE MAE: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Files Ariz. Securities Suit MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman Files Securities Suit in Ariz. PRIMARY FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit SPECTRANETICS: Brian Felgoise Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit ********* AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Fla. Suit Over Travel Insurance Refunds --------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Company is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, alleging AmEx refuses to refund travel insurance it charges cardholders who cancel their trips, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a putative class action complaint brought on behalf of all American Express Credit Card holders who American Express knowingly and illegally charged with travel insurance paid for an American Express credit card even though the travel for which the insurance was obtained was canceled in advance. The plaintiff demands judgment for damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs, and for any other relief that the court considers just and appropriate. The suit is "Irving Kass, et al. v. American Express Company, et al., Case No. 50 2008 CA 030762," filed in the Circuit of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida. Representing the plaintiff are: Gerald F. Richman, Esq. John R. Whittles Richman Greer, PA One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1504 250 Australian Avenu South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-803-3500 Fax: 561-820-1608 BANK OF AMERICA: Manipulated ARS Market, California Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging insiders at the bank manipulated the market for auction rate securities to increase their profits at the expense of small investors, CourtHouse News Service reports. The suit states that Kenneth Lewis, Bank of America Chairman, CEO and President, and the other directors "stabilized" the market for auction rate securities, in which the company invested heavily, when the market showed any signs of not being liquid. Their illegal maneuvers included bidding on their own accounts without informing customers, allowing revised bids to be submitted after the market deadline and collaborating with some customers by having them bid at auctions and then compensating them in the secondary market with rates higher than the clearing rate set at the auction. According to the report, by 2007, more auctions were failing than succeeding as the market began to implode. The directors allegedly sold the securities to unsuspecting investors, leaving thousands of investors with millions of dollars of highly illiquid and essentially worthless investments. The scheme could cost the company billions of dollars in settlements, fines and lost business and has made it the subject of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York Attorney General, according to the suit. The plaintiffs want their money back, more corporate oversight for Bank of America and other relief the court deems appropriate. The suit is "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Kenneth D. Lewis, et al., Case No. C 08 4651," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael F. Ram, Esq. Karl Olson, Esq. Levy, Ram & Olson LLP 639 Front St., 4th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-433-4949 CALIFORNIA: Court Orders Faster Youth Parole-Revocation Hearings ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton has ordered reforms to the parole revocation system for California juveniles, including an accelerated schedule of hearings to quickly determine whether revocation is merited, Denny Walsh writes for the Sacramento Bee. According to the report, the Sacramento judge earlier ruled that the failure of state authorities to hold probable cause hearings and appoint counsel for juvenile parolees violated the U.S. Constitution and two landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions. SacBee relates that Judge Karlton issued a statewide permanent injunction ordering state officials to: * notify a juvenile parolee of the charges within three days of placing a hold on the parolee. * make sure a juvenile parolee has an attorney throughout the revocation process. * provide a hearing within eight business days after notification of the charges if a defense lawyer has made a good argument there is no basis to hold the parolee. Otherwise, provide a hearing within 13 days of the hold to find out if there is probable cause to detain the parolee. * convene a final revocation hearing on or before the 35th calendar day after placement of the hold. * set up "a clearer, prompt appeal system," with appeals of revocation to be decided within 10 business days. The report notes that under the injunction's terms, those and other changes in juvenile parole revocations must be implemented by Dec. 15. The class action lawsuit was filed more than two years ago challenging the way California treats juveniles arrested on alleged parole violations, SacBee recounts. According to SacBee, the injunction's provisions were earlier agreed to by attorneys for juvenile parolees, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and state officials in charge of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Justice, Board of Parole Hearings, and Juvenile Parole Board. Judge Karlton retains jurisdiction over the case to enforce the terms of the injunction. He has appointed a special master -- Chase Riveland, who is a corrections consultant from Deer Harbor, Wash. -- to monitor compliance. "There should be a more accurate outcome of revocation actions, because the parolee now will have the ability to understand and make an intelligent contribution to the proceedings," said Michael Bien, Esq., an attorney for the parolees. "The state has also committed to consider alternatives to re-incarceration, such as drug treatment programs and halfway houses," he added. "That's good for public safety, good for the state, and good for our clients." The injunction "will definitely strengthen the parole system and make sure it protects the rights of youths as well as the public," Chuck Supple, executive officer of the Juvenile Parole Board, said. "We've already met a number of requirements of the order. . . . Since February, every youth has been provided with legal counsel. Since April, every youth has received a probable cause hearing." As of Oct. 1, there were 2,207 juvenile parolees, 1,826 of which were out of custody and under supervision, the report points out. There were 127 unaccounted for, with warrants issued for their arrests. Moreover, of the 254 parolees pending revocation proceedings, 173 were confined at local jails or juvenile halls, and 81 confined to a state juvenile or adult facility. SacBee says that other mandates of Judge Karlton's injunction include: * Sentencing of a juvenile for a parole violation will be fixed and no more than a year; * A disabled juvenile parolee will be given more time with an attorney to prepare for hearings, supplied with forms that accommodate the disability, and provided -- as needed -- with interpreters, hearing aids, computer readers and magnifying devices; and * A grievance process will be put in place to address claims that disability accommodations were denied. CHEMVALLEY PROPERTIES: Proposes to Settle 2006 Tire Fire Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLESTON, W.Va., Oct. 9, 2008 -- A notification program began as ordered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to alert those who lived in the Nitro or St. Albans area on May 4, 2006, during the tire fire in connection with a proposed settlement involving a class action lawsuit against ChemValley Properties, Inc. (including employees, officers, and directors) and U.S. Tire Recovery, LLC (including members and partners). The lawsuit alleges that approximately 40,000 tires were stored in the Nitro warehouse that burned and that the amount of tires stored in the warehouse posed a danger to area residents due to the risk of toxic fumes and vapors if the tires caught fire. The lawsuit also claims that the fire caused property damage, the loss of use and enjoyment of property, loss of property value, inconvenience and emotional distress. The settlement does not mean that any law was broken or that the Defendants did anything wrong. The Defendants deny all legal claims in this case. The Class includes homeowners and leaseholders (including renters) who lived in the Nitro or St. Albans area on May 4, 2006 and were part of the shelter-in-place advisories issued during the tire fire. The local authorities in Nitro and St. Albans issued warnings to their residents to remain indoors during the tire fire. The shelter-in-place advisories were issued for residents in the area that included Nitro/St. Albans Bridge to 40th Street in Nitro, West Virginia, and the area from 2nd Street to Ordinance Park in St. Albans, West Virginia. A map of the area included in the settlement is available. Notices informing Class members about their legal rights will be mailed, and are scheduled to appear in a local newspaper leading up to a hearing on December 15, 2008, when the Court will decide whether to grant final approval to the settlement. The Court has appointed The Calwell Practice, PLLC law firm of Charleston, West Virginia to represent the Class as "Class Counsel." Those affected by the settlement can send in a claim form to ask for payment, or they can ask to be excluded from, or object to, the settlement. Claim forms must be postmarked no later than January 7, 2009. Only one claim per household is allowed. The deadline for exclusions and objections is December 1, 2008. More details regarding the Nitro Fire Settlement can be found at http://www.NitroFireSettlement.com/ DEL MONTE: Discovery Ongoing in Florida "Blaszkowski" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class-action lawsuit, captioned "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida and named Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants. The suit was filed against companies having a combined approximate 70% of the market share in the $16-billion-a-year pet food industry (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2008). Aside from Del Monte, the defendants in the suit are: -- Mars Inc. -- Proctor and Gamble Co. -- Colgate Palmolive Company -- Nestle U.S.A. Inc. -- Nurto Procucts Inc. -- Menu Foods, Inc. -- Menu Foods Income Fund -- Publix Supermarkets, Inc. -- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. -- Pet Supermarket, Inc. -- Petsmart Inc. -- Target Corp. -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The plaintiffs -- Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia Davis -- allege that the defendant-companies have spent $300 million a year in making false and misleading marketing statements regarding the contents of their pet food to the dog and cat loving American public. While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them, plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible" slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood. The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and additives. Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed in the mix, the plaintiffs contend. The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all. The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised, marketed, distributed and sold by any of the defendants which lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including, but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural," "balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained ingredients that were not represented in the defendants' marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never disclosed to the plaintiffs or class representatives or the class prior to purchase. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines, ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat, euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts in advertising; (b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts; (c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food products that were, including but not limited to, safe, healthy balanced and complete for pets of the plaintiffs and class members when in fact such pet food was not safe, healthy, balanced or complete; (d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food products; (e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any express warranty on these pet food products; (f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied warranty on these pet food products; (g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet its essential purpose; (h) whether defendants' intended that the products be purchased by the plaintiffs and the class members or others; (i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed the products to their pets; (k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or processing the pet food products; (l) whether the purchase and use of pet food to feed cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to the plaintiffs and the class; (m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs and the class; (n) whether the plaintiffs and the class suffered damages; (o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic substances, and was not nutritionally complete as advertised; (p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and (q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of the consumer. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, ask the court: -- for an order awarding actual consequential damages; -- pursuant to Section 501.2075, for $10,000 for each violation of willfully using a method, act, or practice declared unlawful under Section 501.204; -- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as allowed by law; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees; -- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the court and such other relief the court deems just and proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment; -- for an order awarding punitive damages; and -- for an order granting such other and further relief as allowed by law. The company has filed various motions to dismiss the Blaszkowski case, which requests were denied by the court. On April 11, 2008, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint. The company has filed an answer to the fourth amended complaint and is now involved in discovery. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36 The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. (cmacivor@mflegal.com) Maltzman Foreman PA 2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1803 Phone: 305-358-6555 Fax: 374-9077 DEL MONTE: Defendants Want Pet Food & Snack Lawsuit Decertified --------------------------------------------------------------- A state court in Las Vegas, Nevada, has yet to rule on a motion to deny certification of a class in a purported class-action lawsuit over Del Monte Foods Co.'s and other defendants' recalled pet foods and snacks. The lawsuit, "Picus v. Del Monte," was filed on April 30, 2007, and generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's and other defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products. It also contains allegations of false and misleading advertising by the company. The plaintiffs in the matter are seeking class certification as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against further distribution of the allegedly defective products. On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Picus case. The state court granted in part and denied in part the dismissal. On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to deny class certification. The court has not issued a ruling on that motion. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008. Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market. The segments in which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The Pet Products segment. DEL MONTE: Oct. 14 Hearing Set for $24MM Settlement in N.J. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 14, 2008, to consider final approval of the proposed $24,000,000 settlement in the matter entitled "In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850," which names Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants. Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods, Inc., in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers, including Del Monte, announced recalls of their own select products. The company currently believes there are over 90 purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls. The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases, related to its pet food and pet snack recall: -- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California; -- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California; -- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before the state court in Los Angeles, California; -- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri; and -- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products. By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger, and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850). The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a settlement deal to resolve their dispute. On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement. Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and publication beginning June 16, 2008. A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008. If approved, the class will be certified and the total settlement will aggregate $24 million. The portion of the company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be $0.25 million. The company reported no further development regarding the matter in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008. Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet products for the U.S. retail market. The segments in which the Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The Pet Products segment. DELL INC: Consolidated Securities Suit Still Pending in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Dell, Inc., and several of its current and former directors and officers are still facing a consolidated securities fraud class- action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Initially, four putative securities class-action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Dell and certain of its current and former officers. These complaints have been consolidated as "In re Dell Inc. Securities Litigation" and Judge Sam Sparks named Union Asset Management Holding AG as lead plaintiff in the matter. The lead plaintiff has asserted claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on alleged false and misleading disclosures or omissions regarding our financial statements, governmental investigations, known battery problems, business model, and insiders' sales of the company's securities. The action also includes the company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as a defendant. The company reported no development regarding the matter in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2008. The suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S. District Court of for the Western District of Texas, Judge Sam Sparks, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: James M. Hughes, Esq. (jhughes@motleyrice.com) Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. (lantonino@motleyrice.com) Motley Rice LLC P.O. Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Phone: 843-216-9000 Fax: 843-216-9290 DELL INC: Texas Court Dismisses Certain Claims in ERISA Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas dismissed certain claims in a consolidated class-action lawsuit entitled "In Re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation," filed against Dell, Inc. Initially, several putative class-action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the the Western District of Texas by purported participants in the Dell 401(k) Plan. These actions were later consolidated and lead plaintiffs have been appointed by the court. The lead plaintiffs have asserted claims under ERISA based on allegations that Dell and certain current and former directors and officers imprudently invested and managed participants' funds and failed to disclose information regarding its stock held in the 401(k) Plan. On June 23, 2008, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' claims under ERISA based on allegations of imprudence, but the court denied the dismissal motion as to the claims under ERISA based on allegations of a failure to accurately disclose information, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2008. Dell, Inc. -- http://www.dell.com/-- is a technology company, which offers a range of product categories, including desktop personal computers (PC), servers and networking products, storage, mobility products, software and peripherals, and services. The company designs, develops, manufactures, markets, sells, and support a range of products that in many cases are customized to individual customer requirements. EINSTEIN NOAH: Settles Several Employees' Lawsuits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., reached a settlement for several purported class-action lawsuits in California that were filed by various company employees. Mathistad Litigation On Sept. 18, 2007, Eric Mathistad, a former store manager, filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc., before the Superior Court of California for the State of California, County of San Diego. The plaintiff alleges that the company failed to pay overtime wages to "salaried restaurant employees" of its California stores who were misclassified as exempt employees, and that these employees were deprived of mandated meal periods and rest breaks. On Nov. 14, 2007, Bernadette Mejia, another former store manager, filed a similar case and these cases were subsequently consolidated. Weber Litigation On Feb. 8, 2008, non-exempt employees Gloria Weber and Hakan Mikado filed a putative class-action suit against the company in the Superior Court of California for the State of California, County of San Diego. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to pay minimum wages, failed to pay overtime and failed to provide rest periods and meal breaks, among other charges. On Aug. 27, 2008, the company reached an agreement in principle for the settlement of these lawsuits with the plaintiffs. These settlements provide for payment of up to an aggregate of $2.5 million by the company. Each settlement is subject to completion of a settlement agreement to be signed by the parties, preliminary and final court approvals and the participation of a sufficient percentage of each of the putative classes, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Aug. 27, 2008. Lakewood, Colorado-based Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. -- http://www.einsteinnoah.com/-- commenced operations as an operator and franchisor of coffee cafes in 1993, is an owner/operator, franchisor and licensor of bagel specialty restaurants in the U.S. As of Jan. 2, 2008, the company has 612 restaurants in 35 states plus the District of Columbia primarily under the Einstein Bros. Bagels (Einstein Bros.), Noah's New York Bagels (Noah's) and Manhattan Bagel Co. (Manhattan Bagel) brands. Its restaurants specialize in foods for breakfast, lunch and afternoon snacks in a caf� atmosphere with a neighborhood emphasis. Collectively, concepts span the nation with Einstein Bros. restaurants in 32 states and in the District of Columbia, Noah's restaurants in three states on the west coast and Manhattan Bagel restaurants concentrated in the Northeast. Einstein Bros. and Noah's restaurants are company- owned or licensed, while Manhattan Bagel restaurants are predominantly franchised, with one company-owned location. GEORGIA: State Secretary Sued Over Voter Identity Verification -------------------------------------------------------------- Voting rights groups sued Secretary of State Karen Handel on behalf of Cherokee County resident Jose Morales who they said has been the victim of a methodical effort to deny him the right to vote, Aaron Gould Sheinin and Mary Lou Pickel write for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Atlanta, seeks to halt the state of Georgia's attempts to verify the identities and citizenship of registered voters so close to the Nov. 4 election. The suit also seeks to become a class action. U.S. District Judge Jack Camp scheduled a hearing on Friday morning on a request for a temporary restraining order. Atlanta Journal-Constitution relates that the suit comes the day after the U.S. Department of Justice said the state's actions to verify identity and citizenship appear to violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The law requires states with a history of discriminatory voting practices to get approval from the federal government before making certain changes to voting and election policy. "The Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act were intended to protect voters from 'October surprises,' the last-minute purging of registered voters on questionable data," said Neil Bradley, associate director of the ACLU Voting Rights Project, one of the groups representing Morales. Secretary Handel said in a press release issued Thursday night that she is "disappointed" with the lawsuit. "Unfortunately, some groups appear to want to open the door to allow non- citizens to register and vote in the General Election," she wrote. County election officials still have more than 100,000 voter registration applications to process, Ms. Handel said. Her office will ensure that all applications are processed and verified for election day, she added. As for the dispute with the Department of Justice, Secretary Handel's spokesman, Matt Carrothers, said in a telephone interview with Atlanta Journal-Constitution that his office is working with the attorney general to address the Justice Department's questions. The report notes that Mr. Morales, who will graduate from Kennesaw State University in December with a bachelor's degree in international affairs, became a U.S. citizen in November 2007. He registered to vote last month, but about two weeks later, he received a letter from Cherokee County indicating he would not be able to vote unless he provided evidence of his citizenship, the lawsuit said. The letter also indicated Morales would be eliminated from the voter list if he did not prove his citizenship. The suit also said that Mr. Morales went through the steps needed to prove his citizenship, including making a visit to the county Elections and Registrations Office and showing his passport to the clerk. He was told he would soon be receiving his voter registration card in the mail. He received the card Oct. 3, the lawsuit said. However, earlier last week, Mr. Morales received another letter from the office indicating he may not be qualified to vote because he may not be a U.S. citizen, the lawsuit said. It said if Morales did not contact the Cherokee Elections and Registration Office before Oct. 15 or appear at a court hearing on the same date, his name would be removed from the list of registered voters. "Despite all the steps he has gone through, Mr. Morales' right to vote is still being threatened," the lawsuit said. "Mr. Morales wants to vote, particularly in the upcoming election, and wants to make sure his vote is counted." Also representing Mr. Morales are the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the New York-Based Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and Atlanta attorney Brian Spears. As of the first week of October, Secretary Handel's office told Atlanta Journal-Constitution it had asked counties to check the status of 2,675 individuals statewide whose driver's license records indicated they were not citizens, but who had registered to vote. Some counties, like Cobb and Cherokee, scheduled hearings where voters' citizenship could be verified. Cobb County had already canceled plans for those hearings, because of the Justice Department's letter. In Cobb and Fulton counties, elections officers say they only got lists of voters with questionable citizenship in September, and they acted on them promptly. Cobb County spokesman Robert Quigley said the Cobb elections office received notice Sept. 12 that it should look up a state report outlining voters whose citizenship was questioned. The secretary of state's office sent out another letter on Sept. 24 to all counties clarifying what they should do to check citizenship. Cobb County then sent out 234 letters to voters asking them to produce proof of citizenship or come to a hearing Oct. 13 to determine the matter. In the meantime, 99 people mailed, faxed or personally brought documents that verified their citizenship to the Cobb office. Others never received the letter in the first place because they had moved, Mr. Quigley said. Cobb County on sent out 135 letters notifying voters it had canceled this week's hearing. "We made the decision to cancel this on our own," Mr. Quigley said. "We knew it hadn't been pre-cleared by the Department of Justice and it could be a problem." Fulton County, on the hand, sent out 130 letters after it received the Sept. 24 letter from the secretary of state's office, April Pye, interim director of the Fulton County Department of Registration and Elections, told Atlanta Journal- Constitution. "That was the only list we have received from the secretary of state's office," Ms. Pye said. "I don't know how often we were supposed to get them, or mail them out." The state is also facing questions from the Social Security Administration over the state's high volume of requests to verify voter identities, the report relates. Georgia's 2 million requests surpassed those of any other state. Only newly registered voters who did not have a valid state identification were supposed to be checked against the SSA database. The state double-checks information on all newly registered voters and also on established voters if they have changed their name, driver's license number or Social Security number, Mr. Carrothers explained. The Help America Vote Act requires states to verify voter information using those databases. According to the report, a mismatch, and thus a question about a voter�s eligibility, could be triggered by a name change, such as for a marriage or divorce, that's reported to a county voter registration office, but that doesn't appear in one of the other government databases. For new citizens, the letters could be triggered if someone applied for a license when they had a green card, but subsequently became a citizen. HANSEN NATURAL: Notifies Shareholders of Deadline in Calif. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- PR-USA.net, Bulgaria -- There is a deadline coming up in the shareholder lawsuit against Hansen Natural Corporation (NASDAQ: HANS) over allegedly false and misleading statements. The deadline will expire on November 10, 2008. On September 11, 2008, a shareholder has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Hansen Natural Corporation (NASDAQ: HANS) common stock during the period between May 23, 2007, and November 8, 2007 against Hansen Natural Corporation over alleged materially false and misleading statements concerning its sales of certain energy drinks, etc. According to the complaint Hansen Natural Corp. and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The stockholder alleges that between May 23, 2007, and November 8, 2007, the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements. The lawsuit states that on November 8, 2007, Hansen Natural Corp. issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ended September 30, 2007. For the quarter, the Company reported lower than expected revenue growth and decreasing profit margins. According to the complaint this earnings announcement, shares of the Hansen Natural Corp.'s common stock fell $13.17 per share, or 23%, to close at $43.50 per share, on heavy trading volume. For more information, contact: Shareholders Foundation, Inc. 3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 423 92108 San Diego Phone:+1-858-779-1554 Fax:+1-858-605-5739 JOS. A. BANK: Securities Fraud Lawsuit Still Pending in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., is still facing a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Initially, a lawsuit was filed by Roy T. Lefkoe on July 24, 2006, against the company and Robert N. Wildrick, the company's chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The case takes the civil action number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN. On Aug. 3, 2006, another lawsuit substantially similar to the Lefkoe suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86. This suit takes civil action number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN. The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those in the class action and purported to assert the same claims and seek the same relief. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action were consolidated under case number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed. Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action and has filed a consolidated class action complaint. R. Neal Black, the company's president, and David E. Ullman, the company's executive vice president and chief financial officer, have been added as defendants. On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5, 2005, and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during the class period. The suit seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company reported no further development regarding the matter in its Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 2, 2008. The suit is "Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge William M. Nickerson, presiding . Representing the plaintiffs is: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 1-215-561-3600 Fax: 1-215-561-3000 Representing the defendants is: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 1-212-937-7220 Fax: 1-212-230-8888 CINCINNATI: Suit Challenges Prohibition of Partisan Politics ------------------------------------------------------------ Cincinnati City workers challenge the city's prohibition on doing political work on their own time in a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the report, Cincinnati prohibits city workers from donating to election campaigns or participating in partisan politics, even outside of work. Two city workers say that's unconstitutional. The plaintiffs say they also want to donate to other candidates for other offices, and to distribute campaign literature - outside of work. The Cincinnati City Charter prohibits this. The City Council amended the ordinance recently, but it's still unconstitutional, the plaintiffs say. The amendment makes it legal for city workers to make "voluntary financial contributions for office in non-Ohio federal elections," but still bars distributing "partisan campaign literature." This action is brought under the provisions of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all employees of the City of Cincinnati other than elected officials or those in the Legislative Service. The plaintiffs request that the court: -- certify this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. r. Civ. Proc. 23(a) and (b)(2); -- issue a declaratory judgment that the practices at issue in this case violate the constitutional and statutory rights of the class members; -- award compensatory damages to the class representatives in an amount to be shown at trial; -- issue a preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants and all those acting in concert with prohibiting the practices at issue in this action; -- award to plaintiffs reasonable costs, expenses and attorney fees; -- award such other and further relief as the court shall deem just and reasonable. The suit is "Keith Fangman, et al. v. City of Cincinnati, Case No. 1:08CV702," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Esq. (agerhardstein@gbfirm.com) Jennifer L. Branch, Esq. (jbranch@gbfirm.com) Andrea Reino, Esq. (areino@gbfirm.com) Gerhardstein & Branch LPA 432 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-9100 Fax: 513-345-5543 Web site: http://gbfirm.com/ PARKER-HANNIFIN: Wants Marine Hose Price-Fixing Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- Parker-Hannifin Corp. and Parker ITR SLR are seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class-action suit accusing them of "conspiring to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of Marine Hose." Marine Hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transport oil between ships, terminals, buoys and tanks (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2008). Initially, four purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida: -- "Shipyard Supply LLC v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al.," filed May 17, 2007; -- "Expro Gulf Limited v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al.," filed June 6, 2007; -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Trelleborg Industrie S.A., et al.," filed June 25, 2007; -- "Bayside Rubber & Products, Inc. v. Caleca, et al., filed July 12, 2007; and One suit -- "Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Bridgestone Corporation, et al." -- was filed in the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2007. The company is named as a defendant in one case and it filed an answer in that matter. Parker ITR filed a motion to dismiss each of the four cases in which it is a defendant. However, these dismissal motions were denied as moot after all five cases were consolidated in the Southern District of Florida as 08-MDL- 1888. On March 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated class- action complaint that alleges that the defendants, for a period of approximately 21 years, conspired with competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S. The plaintiffs generally seek treble damages, a permanent injunction, attorneys' fees, and pre-judgement and post- judgement interest. The company and Parker ITR have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The company reported no further development regarding the case in its Aug. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com/-- is a full- line diversified manufacturer of motion control products, including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and related components. In addition to motion control products, the Company also is a producer of fluid purification, fluid and fuel control, process instrumentation, air conditioning, refrigeration, electromagnetic shielding and thermal management products and systems. Its manufacturing, service, distribution and administrative facilities are located in 35 states and in 42 foreign countries. Its motion control technology is used in the products of its three principal business segments: Industrial, Aerospace, and Climate & Industrial Controls. The products are sold as original and replacement equipment through product and distribution centers worldwide. Parker products are supplied to over 427,000 customers in manufacturing, transportation and processing industry. PERINI CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ Perini Corp. is facing a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2008 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Aug. 25, 2008. Perini Corp. was named a defendant in a lawsuit filed William B. Isham filed on Aug. 18, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The suit alleges securities law violations against Perini and three current and one former company executives (Ronald N. Tutor, Robert Band, Michael E. Ciskey and Kenneth R. Burk). The suit is seeking to create a class of those who purchased Perini stock between Nov. 2, 2006, and Jan. 17, 2008. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued press releases, filed reports with the SEC and made other public statements that purportedly contained material misrepresentations or omissions regarding the future prospects for Las Vegas construction projects, and that these misrepresentation and omissions purportedly had the effect of supporting an artificially high trading price of Perini's common stock. On Jan. 17, 2008, Perini issued a press release announcing that the developer of one of its Las Vegas projects had received a default notice from its bank lender the prior day. The plaintiff, who alleges he owns Perini stock, also alleges that this announcement and stock sales by the individual defendants made prior to Jan. 17, 2008, support his claims regarding Perini's prior disclosures about the Las Vegas construction market. The plaintiff seeks certification of the matter as a class- action suit, and unspecified damages allegedly incurred by Perini shareholders who had purchased stock during the putative class period. The suit is "Isham v. Perini Corp. et al., Case No. 1:08-cv- 11449-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. (tshapiro@shulaw.com) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 Representing the defendants are: Eric D. Levin, Esq. (elevin@haslaw.com) Hinckley, Allen and Snyder, LLP 28 State Street 30th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-378-4136 Fax: 617-345-9020 - and - Anthony S. Fiotto, Esq. (afiotto@goodwinprocter.com) Goodwin Procter, LLP Exchange Place Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-570-1324 Fax: 617-523-1231 SAKS INC: Settles Alabama Lawsuit Over Merchandise Return Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Saks, Inc., reached a settlement deal for a purported class- action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama over breach of contract allegations. Adamson Apparel, Inc., filed the suit on Dec. 8, 2005. The plaintiff alleges that the company improperly assessed chargebacks, timely payment discounts, and deductions for merchandise returns against members of the plaintiff-class. The suit seeks compensatory and incidental damages and restitution. On June 8, 2008, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which was approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California on July 30, 2008. Pursuant to the settlement, on Aug. 18, 2008, the company paid the plaintiff $370 in settlement of the claims (of which the company was reimbursed approximately $118 from an unrelated third party), at which time the lawsuit was formally dismissed, according to the company's Sept. 2, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008. The suit is "Adamson Apparel, Inc. v. Saks Inc., Case No. 2:05 cv-02514-SLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard T. Dorman, Esq. (rtd@cbycb.com) Cunningham Bounds Yance Crowder & Brown P.O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Phone: 1-251-471-6191 Rachel J. Geman, Esq. (rgeman@lchb.com) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP 780 Third Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-355-9500 Fax: 212-355-9592 - and - David J. Guin, Esq. (davidg@dglawfirm.com) Tammy McClendon Stokes, Esq. (tstokes@dglawfirm.com) Donaldson & Guin, LLC The Financial Ctr., 505 20th Street, North Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-503-4505 Fax: 205-226-2357 Representing the defendant is: Andrew J. Sinor, Jr., Esq. (dsinor@handarendall.com) Hand Arendall, LLC 1200 Park Place Tower, 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-324-4400 Fax: 205-397-1310 SEMTECH CORP: Calif. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion that sought the consolidation of two purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits against Semtech Corp. Initially, the company was named as a defendant in two purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In August 2007, a purported class-action suit was filed against the company and certain current and former officers on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired Semtech securities from Sept. 11, 2002, until July 19, 2006. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the company's past stock option practices. The plaintiffs demand a jury trial but make no specific monetary demand. A very similar lawsuit was filed in October 2007 by another plaintiff, which suit has not been served to the company. In February 2008, MPERS filed a motion with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for consolidation of the cases, appointment of MPERS as lead plaintiff, and approval of selection of counsel. The MPERS motion was granted in late March 2008, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 27, 2008. The suit is "Middlesex County Retirement System, et al. v. Semtech Corp. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-07114-CAS-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan I. Ellman, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-818-0477 e-mail: info@labaton.com - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. (mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com) Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 Representing the defendants are: Colleen Elizabeth Huschke, Esq. (colleenhuschke@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker 3579 Valley Centre Drive San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858-720-2500 - and - Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. (robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-699-3665 Fax: 619-699-2701 WET SEAL: Plaintiffs Dismiss FCRA Violations Suits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in purported class-action lawsuits against The Wet Seal, Inc., over alleged violations of credit rules are dismissing their cases against the company, according to the company's Sept. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2008. In January 2007, a class-action complaint was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of The Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Act provides in part that portions of the credit card number may not be printed together with expiration dates on credit or debit card receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators of these rules and regulations where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise, damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the card holder. In February 2007, a second class-action complaint was filed against the company alleging similar violations in the same court. Both parties in the February 2007 complaint have agreed to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. On Dec. 11, 2007, the company reached a tentative agreement to settle the January 2007 suit for less than $0.1 million. However, prior to the receipt of the executed settlement agreement, on Feb. 8, 2008, the company was named in another action, alleging the same violation, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As a result, the company withdrew its offer to settle the January 2007 action. On June 3, 2008, the Credit and Debit Card Receipt Clarification Act of 2007 was enacted. This measure amends the FCRA to declare that a company that printed an expiration date on any receipt provided to a consumer cardholder at the point of sale or transaction between Dec. 4, 2004, and the enactment of this legislation, but otherwise complied with FCRA requirements for such receipt, will not be in willful noncompliance by reason of printing such expiration date in it. On July 1, 2008, and July 14, 2008, dismissals were filed by the plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court Central District of California and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, respectively. The company made nominal settlement payments for both claims and all parties agreed that the actions were dismissed with prejudice and that each party was to bear all of its own costs and attorneys fees. The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35. As of Feb. 2, 2008, the company operated 494 retail stores in 47 states, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. Its products can also be purchased online. The company operates two nationwide, primarily mall-based, chains of retail stores under the names Wet Seal and Arden B. Wet Seal is the junior apparel brand for teenage girls that seek trend-focused and value competitive clothing with a target customer age of 13 to 19 years old. Wet Seal seeks to provide its customer base with a balance of affordably priced fashionable apparel and accessories. Arden B is a fashion brand for the feminine contemporary woman with sex appeal. Arden B targets customers aged 25 to 35 and seeks to deliver contemporary collections of fashion separates and accessories for various aspects of the customers' lifestyles. New Securities Fraud Cases FANNIE MAE: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 8, 2008 -- Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC (WDK) filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae's 8.25% Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S between December 11, 2007, and September 5, 2008, inclusive. Investors who purchased the Series S preferred stock during the Class Period are eligible to pursue lead plaintiff status in this case, and can use the counsel of their choice. In the complaint, filed on October 8, 2008, plaintiffs allege that the defendants -- including several former officers and directors of Fannie Mae and the underwriters responsible for the Series S preferred stock offering -- knew or recklessly disregarded that Fannie Mae was grossly undercapitalized, in violation of Federal regulations, because of its overwhelming investments in subprime and Alt-A mortgages. These assets were not properly accounted for in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Fannie Mae's capital deficiency also was concealed because its deferred tax assets and guaranty obligations were not properly accounted for in violation of GAAP. Since Fannie Mae was placed in conservatorship by the federal government, the price of its Series S preferred stock has declined precipitously from the $25 offering price and reached a low of $1.51/share -- roughly 94% less than its offered value -- on September 18, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC New York, NY 10036 Phone: 205-328-9576 Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com/ MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Brower Piven Files Ariz. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD, Oct. 6, 2008 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. during the period between October 30, 2003, and September 24, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges Medicis and certain of its officers and directors with violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that on September 24, 2008, Medicis announced that it intends to restate its financial statements for all accounting periods beginning July 1, 2003, and ending June 30, 2008. The complaint also alleges that the Company indicated that investors can no longer rely on these financial statements and that the restatements result from Medicis applying an improper accounting method in determining reserves for sales returns during the Class Period. The complaint further alleges that the release of this information by Medicis caused the value of the Company's stock price to decline significantly. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 2, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: 410-332-0030 email: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/ MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: Federman Files Securities Suit in Ariz. --------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, Oct. 8, 2008 -- On October 3, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from October 30, 2003, through September 24, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 e-mail: wfederman@aol.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ PRIMARY FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- SAN DIEGO, Oct. 8, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or held the shares of the Primary Fund (NASDAQ:RFIXX) money market mutual funds offered by The Reserve Fund during the period from September 28, 2007, to September 16, 2008, inclusive, including purchasers and holders in connection with its September 28, 2007 offering. The complaint charges The Reserve Fund, its parent and affiliates and certain of its officers and trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Reserve Fund is a cash management vehicle for institutions, banks, brokerages, advisors and individual investors and is an open-end, management investment company. On September 16, 2008, The Reserve Fund announced with respect to the Primary Fund that the value of the debt securities issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (face value $785 million) and held by the Primary Fund had been valued at zero and, as a result, the net asset value of the Primary Fund was $0.97 per share. This was major news, as this was only the second time in history that a money market fund had "broken the buck" -- that is, reported a share's value was less than a dollar. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were omitted from the Prospectus and other statements made by defendants during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) the Fund was no longer adhering to the stated objectives of preserving capital, but in an effort to achieve greater yields was pursuing riskier instruments; (b) despite the fact that many observers believed Lehman would be the next Wall Street failure after Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008, the Fund continued to hold large amounts of Lehman commercial paper; and (c) the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent defendants from taking on excessive risk. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or holders of the Primary Fund during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from September 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 619-231-1058 QUEST RESOURCE: Cohen Milstein Files Okla. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the common units of Quest Energy Partners L.P. ("Quest Energy" or the "Company") (NasdaqGM:QELP) pursuant and traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering (the "IPO") on November 7, 2007, through August 25, 2008, and on behalf all persons who purchased the securities of Quest Resource Corporation (NasdaqGM:QRCP) between May 2, 2005, through August 25, 2008. The Complaint charges Quest Energy and its parent company, Quest Resource, among others, with violations of federal securities laws. Quest Resource is engaged in the exploration, development, production and transportation of natural gas. Quest Energy is the gas and oil production operation arm of Quest Resource and engages in the acquisition, exploitation and development of oil and natural gas properties. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Quest Resource, and Quest Energy's business and operations were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that related party transactions, which existed at the time of Quest Energy's IPO, between Quest Energy and Rockport Energy -- an entity controlled by Quest Energy's chief executive officer, violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and SEC regulations. These failures by defendants caused Quest Resource's disclosures on related party transactions to be materially incomplete and false. On August 25, 2008, the Company announced, among other things, the resignation of its CEO, Jerry Cash, the formation of a Joint Special Committee to conduct an investigation of improper transfers of Company funds by Cash to Rockport Energy, and an inquiry launched by the Oklahoma Department of Securities in connection with the improper transfers. This announcement shocked the market and caused the Company's stock to fall $2.05 per share, or nearly 30%, to $4.88 per share on August 25, 2008. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 4, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Javier Morla, Esq. (jmorla@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 888-240-0775 202-408-4600 SPECTRANETICS: Brian Felgoise Files Colorado Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, PA, Oct. 7, 2008 -- The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., commenced a securities class action lawsuit against The Spectranetics Corporation and certain key officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of shareholders who acquired The Spectranetics Corporation securities between April 19, 2007, and September 4, 2008, inclusive. The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. For more information, contact: Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. (FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. 261 Old York Road, Suite 423 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Phone: 215-886-1900 ********* 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 * * *