/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081014.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, October 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 204 Headlines ADVANTAGE GENERAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations AMARANTH ADVISORS: N.Y. Court Allows Investors to Pursue Claims ANALOG DEVICES: Gainey & McKenna Counsel to 401(k) Suit in Mass. DIEBOLD INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio DIEBOLD INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tenn. Suit Over Buck Merger ESCALA GROUP: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 2 FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Nov. 7 FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C. H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit H&R BLOCK: Settles Penn. Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program LIFE INVESTORS: Sued in Miss. Over Radiation Therapy Non-Payment MAXIM INTEGRATED: California Securities Fraud Litigation Stayed MEDTRONIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit PEOPLESUPPORT INC: Has MOU to Settle Suit on Planned Essar Deal PETTERS GROUP: Zimmerman Reed Files Suit on Behalf of Investors POMEROY IT: David Pomeroy Withdraws Offer, Related Suit Junked QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4 REGIONS MORGAN: 401(k) ERISA Class Consolidated in Tenn. Court ROADTRIPS INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Beijing Olympics Tickets SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 24 TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Middleby Deal WYNN LAS VEGAS: High Court Upholds Dismissal of Dealers' Suit New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTEC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit BIOVAIL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing BIOVAIL CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Suit Filed in N.Y. CANO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: KGS Announces Ariz. Suit Filing NOVATEL WIRELESS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ADVANTAGE GENERAL: Faces Calif. Suit Over Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Advantage General Construction is facing a class-action complaint filed in Ventura County Court, Calif., alleging it violated the Labor Code, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The CourtHouse News Service did not report any updates to the case. AMARANTH ADVISORS: N.Y. Court Allows Investors to Pursue Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, citing the risky nature of speculations, allowed investors to proceed with claims that Amaranth abused its dominant market position to manipulate the price of natural gas futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs have filed this putative class action on behalf of a class of all entities that purchased, sold, or held natural gas futures or options on futures contracts between Feb. 16, 2006 and Sept. 28, 2006 against the Amaranth family of companies, its brokers, its clearing house firm, and certain of their employees. Plaintiffs allege that during the class period, defendants manipulated the prices of NYMEX natural gas futures contracts in violation of Sections 6(c), 6(d) and 9(a)(2) of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). Defendants then moved to dismiss the case. Recently, Judge Scheindlin dismissed and granted in part the defendants' motions. Judge Scheindlin allowed the plaintiffs to pursue their claim that Amaranth manipulated the settlement prices while rejecting the defendants' argument that they never directly manipulated any contract or underlying commodity. She dismissed all claims that did not relate to the alleged manipulation of settlement prices, stating that those plaintiffs who have failed to allege that they were injured by the manipulation have not stated claims. Similarly, as the complaint currently stands, the class period cannot begin earlier than February 23, 2006. The suit is "In Re Amaranth Natural Gas Commodities Litigation, Case No. 07 Civ. 6377," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. ANALOG DEVICES: Gainey & McKenna Counsel to 401(k) Suit in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey & McKenna and Squiteri & Fearon, LLP are counsel to the Plaintiff and the proposed class of all participants in the Analog Devices, Inc. Investment Partnership Plan (the 401(k) who purchased or held shares of Analog stock in the Plan at any time between October 5, 2000 and the present. They have filed a class action in the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts which arises from the options backdating at Analog and alleges that Analog and other fiduciaries of the Plan violated their fiduciary duties to the Plan's participants. The lawsuit alleges that Analog and certain individuals who were responsible for managing and administering the Plan failed to disclose important information to the participants of the Plan, including information about Analog's improper backdating of stock options, and violated their fiduciary duties. The lawsuit alleges that the violations of fiduciary duty caused losses to the Plan and to the participants who invested in Analog stock. Recently, the Court issued an important decision which denied the Company's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. In particular, the decision denied Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss and sustained most of the claims in the action except for the claims against three of the individuals who had been named as fiduciaries -- Defendants Fuller, Johnsen and McAloon. For more information, contact: T.J. McKenna Gainey & McKenna 297 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-1300 e-mail: tjmckenna@gaineyandmckenna.com DIEBOLD INC: Faces Consolidated ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diebold, Inc. is facing a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Initially, several purported class actions were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors, by shareholders and participants in the company's 401(k) savings plan, alleging breaches of fiduciary duties with respect to the 401(k) plan. These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. The suits are: -- "McDermott v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV170 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 24, 2006)." -- "Barnett v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV361 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 15, 2006)." -- "Farrell v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV307 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 8, 2006)." -- "Forbes v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV324 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 10, 2006)." -- "Gromek v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV579 (N.D. Ohio, filed March 14, 2006)." The McDermott, Barnett, Farrell, Forbes and Gromek cases, which allege breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with respect to the 401(k) plan, have been consolidated into a single proceeding, according to the company's Sept. 30, 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: Diebold ERISA Litigation, Case No. 5:06-cv- 00170-PCE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John R. Climaco, Esq. (jrclim@climacolaw.com) Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Ste. 1950 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-621-8484 Fax: 216-771-1632 - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. (mgyandoh@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants are: Donald L. Havermann, Esq. (dhavermann@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-739-5072 Fax: 202-739-3001 - and - John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. (jmnewman@jonesday.com) Jones Day 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-586-7207 Fax: 216-579-0212 DIEBOLD INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Ohio Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:2005cv02873," are appealing the dismissal of the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Initially, several purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Diebold, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and directors, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. These complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecific amount, fees and expenses related to such lawsuits and the granting of extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief. The lawsuits are: -- "Konkol v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2873 (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 13, 2005)." -- "Ziolkowski v. Diebold Inc., et al., No. 5:05CV2912 (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 16, 2005)." -- "New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund v. Diebold, Inc., No. 5:06CV40 (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 6, 2006)." -- "Rein v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No. 5:06CV296 (N.D. Ohio, filed Feb. 9, 2006)." -- "Graham v. Diebold, Inc., et al., No.5:05CV2997 (N.D. Ohio, filed Dec. 30, 2005)." The Konkol, Ziolkowski, New Jersey Carpenter's Pension Fund, Rein and Graham cases, which allege violations of the federal securities laws, have been consolidated into a single proceeding. On Aug. 22, 2008, the court dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in the consolidated securities litigation and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. On Sept. 16, 2008, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities litigation filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, according to the company's Sept. 30, 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: Diebold Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:2005cv02873," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Peter C. Economus, presiding. Representing the plaintiff are: Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 Lauren Block, Esq. (lblock@milbergweiss.com) Milberg, Weiss & Bershad One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-631-8630 Fax: 212-868-1229 - and - John R. Climaco, Esq. Climaco, Lefkowitz, Peca, Wilcox & Garofoli Ste. 1950 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-621-8484 Fax: 216-771-1632 e-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com Representing the defendants are: John M. Newman, Jr., Esq. Jones Day 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-586-7207 Fax: 216-579-0212 e-mail: jmnewman@jonesday.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Discovery Ongoing in Tenn. Suit Over Buck Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action filed against Dollar General Corp. over its agreement and plan of merger with Buck Holdings L.P. and Buck Acquisition Corp. Initially, seven purported class action s were filed. The suits alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the proposed sale of the company to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings and Buck Acquisition. Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, that Dollar General's directors engaged in "self-dealing" by agreeing to recommend the transaction to the shareholders of Dollar General and that the consideration available to Dollar General shareholders in the proposed transaction is unfairly low. At the plaintiffs' request, each of these cases was transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth Judicial District, at Nashville, Tenn. Then by order dated April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the court under the caption, "In re: Dollar General, Case No. 07MD- 1." The Court then denied the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction to block the shareholder vote that was then held on June 21, 2007. On June 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint making claims substantially similar to those in the original complaint. The matter is currently 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 Aug. 1, 2008. Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com/-- is a discount retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices. Through its stores, the Company offers a focused assortment of basic consumable merchandise, including health and beauty aids, packaged food and refrigerated products, home cleaning supplies, housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic clothing and domestics. Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle- and fixed-income families. ESCALA GROUP: N.Y. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec. 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set a Dec. 2, 2008 hearing for the final approval of the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re: Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-CV-3518 (AKH)." The complaint was filed in May 2006 on behalf of shareholders and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Escala securities from Sept. 5, 2003 through and including May 8, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007). It claims that Escala and a number of individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b) and 78t of the Commerce and Trade Code, and SEC Rule 10b-5, Section 240.10b-5 of Title 17 of the Code of Federal Regulations promulgated thereunder. Escala is a New York City-based global collectibles merchant and auction house network. On Sept. 28, 2005, Escala announced that it had changed its name from Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., to Escala Group, Inc. Prior to the name change, Escala traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol GMAI. According to the plaintiff's complaint, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts necessary to make those statements not misleading, concerning Escala's financial results throughout the class period. Among other things, defendants: -- claimed they were achieving record results, which were actually achieved in part as a result of questionable and potentially illegal activities of the company's majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. of Spain; -- failed to maintain adequate internal systems, procedures, and controls such that the company's officers and directors were able to allow these questionable and potentially illegal activities to continue; and -- did not prepare Escala's financial statements in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or SEC regulations. On May 9, 2006, news emerged that Spanish officials had raided the Madrid offices of Escala and its majority shareholder, Afinsa, concerning what Spanish authorities described as a glorified pyramid scheme. Nine people have since been arrested in Spain in relation to the scheme. In reaction to this news, Escala's stock fell by approximately 85% on heavy trading over the next few days while news continued to be released regarding the alleged pyramid scheme. On July 10, 2006, competing motions for consolidation of related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 29, 2006, a hearing on these motions was held and on Aug. 31, 2006 Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein signed an order consolidating all related actions into one class action, entitled "In re Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 06-cv-3518," and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Oct. 13, 2006, lead plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint. On Dec. 18, 2006 defendant's filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 19, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to a settlement reached in the matter. The settlement is subject to various conditions, including notice to the class and final approval by the court. The proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuit provides for the company to contribute an aggregate of $6 million in cash and 4 million newly issued shares of its stock to a settlement fund for the benefit of the class; provided that if the average closing price per share on the scheduled date of distribution is less than $2, the company will issue additional shares so that the total value of the shares issued is $8 million. In the event the average closing price per share on the scheduled date of distribution is below $2 (and in certain other circumstances), the company has the right to substitute cash for stock. A substantial portion of the cash contribution will be funded by insurers. The settlement hearing for both proposed settlements will be held on Dec. 2, 2008, at 4:00 p.m., before Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Oct. 3, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 19, 2008. The suit is "In Re: Escala Group, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-CV-3518 (AKH)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 - and - Roy Laurence Jacobs, Esq. (rljacobs@pipeline.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 867-1156 Fax: (212) 504-8343 Representing the defendants are: Arthur Harlod Aufses, III, Esq. (aaufses@kramerlevin.com) Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-715-9234 Fax: 212-715-8000 - and - Thomas Louis Kent, Esq. (thomaskent@paulhastings.com) Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP 75 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212)-318-6060 Fax: (212)-230-7899 FANNIE MAE: Lead Plaintiff Application Deadline Set Nov. 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP reminds investors of Federal National Mortgage Association a.k.a Fannie Mae's $2 billion offering of 8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T that were initially offered to the public on or about May 13, 2008 (the Class Period), through September 6, 2008, that November 7, 2008 is the deadline to petition the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. The class includes investors who purchased shares on the offering or afterwards, in the market. The Preferred Shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Pomerantz filed a class action in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, against: -- Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; -- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.; -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated; -- UBS Securities LLC ; and -- Wachovia Capital Markets LLC; (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"); and four senior executives of the company. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Offering involved the sale of approximately 80 million shares of non-cumulative, non-convertible, perpetual fixed-rate preferred stock, at an offering price of $25 per share. It was part of Fannie Mae's effort to raise at least $6 billion in new capital through public offerings of new securities during May, 2008. The new capital was to help shore up the Company's balance sheet so that capital requirements could continue to be satisfied, enhance shareholder value and provide stability to the secondary mortgage market. Fannie Mae's senior officers, defendants here, repeatedly assured the marketplace that this round of capital-raising would put the company on a sound financial footing and that they believed that additional infusions of cash would not be necessary for the foreseeable future. The five Underwriter Defendants were the managing underwriters for the Offering. As such, they participated in the review and drafting of the Offering Circular, which was the official sales document for the Offering, solicited sales of the shares, and identified themselves, on the cover of the Offering Circular, as the underwriters for the Offering. The Underwriter Defendants purchased 14 million shares each of the Offering, delivered the Offering Circular to prospective investors, and resold those shares to investors in the Offering. The complaint alleges that the Underwriter Defendants' statements made in connection with the Offering were materially false and misleading because: (a) they grossly overstated Fannie Mae's capitalization, claiming that the Company had a substantial capital surplus when, in fact, it was including on its balance sheet, at full value, about $36 billion in deferred tax assets that were, in fact, valueless; (b) they failed to disclose the serious risk that current account changes under consideration by the FASB could force the Company to bring over $2 trillion of currently off-balance-sheet obligations onto its financial statements, depleting its capital surplus even further; and (c) the individual defendants falsely asserted that management believed that the current securities offerings of the company would be adequate to see the Company through the end of the year. For more information, contact: Teresa Webb Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5516 Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW e-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com FORCE PROTECTION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in S.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- Force Protection, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, according to the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. On March 10, 2008, the first of 10 related class actions was filed against the company and certain of its former and current board members or officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on behalf of a proposed class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period between Aug. 14, 2006 and Feb. 29, 2008. The complaints seek class certification, and the allegations include but are not limited to allegations that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and made false or misleading public statements and/or omissions concerning our business, internal controls, and financial results. The plaintiffs assert that as a result of the defendants' allegedly wrongful acts and omissions, members of the proposed class have suffered significant losses and damages. The individual class-action lawsuits were consolidated on June 10, 2008 under caption "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH." On June 20, 2008 a group of investors consisting of the Laborers' Annuity and Benefit System of Chicago, Gary Trautman, David J. Jager, Bhadra Shah, Panteli Poulikakos, George Poulikakos, and Niki Poulikakos was appointed lead plaintiff. The suit is "In Re Force Protection, Inc. Securities Litigation, Action No. 2:08-cv-845-CWH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge C. Weston Houck, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. (jblock@bermanesq.com) Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt and Pucillo 1 Liberty Square Eighth Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 615-542-8300 - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jscowart@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman and Gross 110 Park Avenue 26th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 Representing the defendants are: Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com) King and Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-572-2820 - and - Eleni Maria Roumel, Esq. (eleni.roumel@nelsonmullins.com) Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough P.O. Box 1806 Charleston, SC 29402 Phone: 843-853-5200 H&R BLOCK: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Lawsuit v. RSM Subsidiary ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a purported class action filed with the California Superior Court, Orange County regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc. The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137," filed on July 11, 2006. The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified damages, restitution and equitable relief. 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 31, 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation," are appealing the dismissal of their case against H&R Block Inc. On April 6, 2007, a putative class action styled, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's operations. It sought unspecified damages and equitable relief. On Oct. 5, 2007, the court dismissed the complaint and granted the plaintiffs leave to re-file the portion of the complaint pertaining to the Company's financial statements. On Nov. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed the complaint, alleging, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements and failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. At the defendant's behest, the court dismissed the re-filed complaint on Feb. 19, 2008. On March 11, 2008, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. 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 31, 2008. The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06- 0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles F. Speer, Esq. (cspeer@speerlawfirm.com) Speer Law Firm 104 West 9th Street, Suite 305 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-472-3560 Fax: 816-421-2150 - and - Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq. (jcampisi@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-7714 Representing the defendants are: Sameer Advani, Esq. (sadvani@willkie.com) Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 7thAvenue New York, NY 10019-6099 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 - and - Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-320-4858 Fax: 650-565-5100 H&R BLOCK: Settles Penn. Suit Over Electronic Filing Fees --------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc., reached a settlement in the matter, "Erin M. McNulty and Brian J. Erzar v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CIV-4654," which was filed in the Court of Common Please of Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. The suit, filed on Aug. 30, 2002, contains allegations that the defendants deceptively portray electronic filing fees as a necessary and required component of standard tax preparation services and do not inform tax preparation clients that they may: -- file tax returns free of charge by mailing the returns, -- electronically file tax returns from personal computers either free of charge are at significantly lower fees, and -- be eligible to electronically file tax returns free of charge via telephone. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and disgorgement of all electronic filing, tax preparation and related fees collected during the applicable class period. Class certification was granted in the case on Sept. 5, 2007. In March 2008, the company reached a tentative agreement to settle the suit for an amount not to exceed $2.5 million and have accrued $1.7 million, representing the company's best estimate of ultimate loss. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on June 27, 2008, with a final fairness hearing scheduled for September 2008. 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 31, 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. H&R BLOCK: Still Faces Lawsuits Over Peace of Mind Program ---------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., a unit of H&R Block, Inc., is still facing purported class actions in Illinois and Texas in relation to the its Peace of Mind (POM) Program. Illinois Litigation One of the cases is the purported class action, "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004," which was filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois. The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2002 and granted class-action status on Aug. 27, 2003. The plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM Program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes: -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license; -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it); and -- a breach of fiduciary duty. In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final judgment: -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member; -- reside in certain class states and were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member. Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class. The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set. Texas Litigation There is one other putative class action pending against the company in Texas that involves the POM guarantee. This case involves the same plaintiffs' attorneys that are involved in the Marshall litigation, and contains similar allegations. No class has been certified in this case. 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 31, 2008. H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com/-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. LIFE INVESTORS: Sued in Miss. Over Radiation Therapy Non-Payment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Life Investors Insurance of America (fka Equity National Life Insurance) is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi alleging it refuses in bad faith to pay for radiation therapy for cancer sufferers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all Mississippi residents injured as of April 1, 2006 under Life Investors Insurance Company of America (fka Equity National Life Insurance), cancer policy form ENCAN2, ENCAN3, all riders thereto, and other "similar policies" as defined in the complaint. The "similar policies" means a Life Investors or Equity National policy providing benefits for the treatment of cancer where benefits are calculated on "actual charges" made or some multiple thereof. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether under Mississippi insurance law the undefined term "actual charges" in the defendants' cancer policies, upon which benefits are based, means the amount of the actual charged billed by healthcare providers, as has been the practice since issuance of the policies, or the reduced amount ultimately accepted by providers from other insurance of third-party payors; (b) whether defendant's prior standard practice and uniform course of conduct establishes that the term "actual charges" in the policy means and refers to the amount billed by healthcare providers for treatments; (c) whether class members are entitled to a declaratory judgment holding that "actual charges" with respect to policy benefits for claims are amounts on the billing statements showing actual amounts charged, as opposed to the reduced amounts subsequently paid to said providers by third-party payors s reflected in EOBs or similar statements; (d) whether defendant has systematically refused and/or failed to pay the proper amount of "actual charges" as that term is properly applied; (e) whether defendant systematically notified plaintiff and members of the class by way of notices that it would refuse to pay benefits in the amount of "actual charges" as reflected in healthcare provider billing statements; (f) whether the letter was an anticipatory repudiation of certain obligations arising under its Cancer Only Policies with class members; (g) whether defendant has systematically refused and/or failed to pay the proper amount of "actual charges" as that term is properly defined; (h) whether class members who have been paid reduced amounts based on the defendant's new interpretation and practice are entitled to recover the difference by which the amounts of their benefits were reduced; (i) whether defendant's unilateral change in benefits was contrary to its contractual obligations under its contract for insurance and its implied duties of good faith and fair dealing under Mississippi law; and (j) whether the actions of defendant were intentional and of such a nature as to render the said defendant liable, under Mississippi law, for punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the wrongdoers, to deter similar conduct by the defendant in the future, and to serve as an example to deter like conduct by others, in addition to actual damages. Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: -- determining that this action is a proper class action and certifying an appropriate class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- appointing named plaintiff as lead plaintiff and his counsel as counsel for the class; -- granting declaratory relief in the form of an Order of this Court, declaring the rights and liabilities of the parties under the subject contracts of insurance; -- granting injunctive relief in the form of an Order addressing the conduct of the defendant as requested, or in such other manner as the court deems appropriate; -- awarding the members of the class actual damages in the amounts shown by mathematical computation of the same in accordance with the ruling of the court regarding Mississippi law and the obligations of the defendant under the contracts of insurance, and for the costs of prosecuting this action by the plaintiff and the class, including attorneys' fees and expenses; -- assessing punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the defendant and to serve as an example to deter similar conduct by the defendant or others in the future taking into consideration the factors and procedures set forth in "Philip Morris USA v. Williams," and other applicable law regarding the constitutionality and purposes of punitive damages, including the factors enumerated in the Mississippi Punitive Damage Statute; -- awarding named plaintiff her expenses and a reasonable sum by way of compensation for her actions in bringing the defendant to justice; -- awarding plaintiffs' costs, expenses and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this action; -- awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as the court deems appropriate; and -- granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper, including imposition of a constructive trust and/or such extraordinary equitable relief as permitted by law, equity or statutory provisions as the court deems proper to prevent unjust enrichment of the defendant and to ensure that the plaintiff and all class members have an effective remedy for the damage caused and injury suffered as a result of the defendant's wrongdoing. The suit is "lee Berta Brown et al v. Life Investors Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 2:08cv217-P-S," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. Representing plaintiffs are: Richard T. Phillips, Esq. Jason L. Nabors, Esq. Smith, Phillips, Mitchell Scott & Nowak P.O. Drawer 1586 Batesville, MS 38606 Phone: (662) 563-4613 Fax: (662) 563-1546 MAXIM INTEGRATED: California Securities Fraud Litigation Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported securities fraud class action that was filed against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. in California federal court has been stayed. On Feb. 6, 2008, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. It seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements. The action has been stayed pending completion of the restatement of the company's consolidated financial statements, according to the company's Sept. 30, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008. The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 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 - and - Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Promenade II, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 Representing the defendants are: Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-443-3000 - and - David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Fax: (415) 395-8095 MEDTRONIC INC: Seeks Dismissal of Minn. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc., is seeking for the dismissal of the consolidated complaint in the matter, "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-04564," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. On Nov. 8, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased securities of Medtronic during the period June 25, 2007, through Oct. 15, 2007. It alleges that "materially false and misleading" representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate Medtronic's stock price. Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation," and a consolidated putative class action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint with prejudice, and a hearing date is scheduled for Nov. 5, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 25, 2008. The suit is "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07- 04564," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 3rd Ave New York, NY 10022 212-451-9620 - and - Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. (rhagstrom@zelle.com) Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette 500 Washington Ave. S. Ste. 4000 Mpls, MN 55415 Phone: 612-339-2020 Fax: 612-339-9100 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-937-7220 - and - Patrick S. Williams, Esq. (pwilliams@briggs.com) Briggs & Morgan, PA 80 S. 8th St. Ste. 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-977-8400 Fax: 612-977-8650 PEOPLESUPPORT INC: Has MOU to Settle Suit on Planned Essar Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- PeopleSupport Inc. reached a memorandum of understanding to settle the consolidated class action, "In re PeopleSupport, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. BC396257," which was filed in California state court in connection to a proposed merger agreement between the company and Essar Services, according to the company's Oct. 2, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 2, 2008. On Sept. 11, 2008, PeopleSupport, Inc., a Delaware corporation, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission its definitive proxy statement relating to a special meeting of stockholders to be held on Oct. 8, 2008 to consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated Aug. 3, 2008, by and among PeopleSupport, Essar Services, Mauritius, a company organized under the laws of Mauritius, and Easter Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Essar. Shore Litigation A purported class action, "Larry Shore v. PeopleSupport, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County against PeopleSupport and the PeopleSupport Board of Directors in connection with the merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that: -- the PeopleSupport Board of Directors violated its fiduciary duties to the PeopleSupport stockholders by approving the merger and certain terms of the merger agreement related to termination of the merger agreement set forth in Section 7.6 of the merger agreement and PeopleSupport's ability to consider or accept alternative proposals set forth in Section 5.2 of the Merger Agreement, -- PeopleSupport aided and abetted the PeopleSupport Board of Directors' alleged breach of fiduciary duty and -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate for reasons including but not limited to a temporarily low stock price and a prior acquisition offer. The complaint seeks, among other things, an injunction prohibiting PeopleSupport and ESM from consummating the merger, rescission of the merger to the extent already implemented, and attorneys' fees and expenses. Maness Litigation On Sept. 8, 2008, a purported class action, "Robert Maness v. PeopleSupport, Inc. et al.," was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County naming as defendants PeopleSupport and the PeopleSupport Board of Directors, along with Essar and Merger Sub. The Maness complaint makes allegations similar to the Shore complaint and in addition alleges that the Proxy Statement fails to disclose certain information which the plaintiff alleges renders the Proxy Statement materially incomplete and misleading. Consolidation & Settlement On Sept. 19, 2008, the Shore and Maness cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re PeopleSupport, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. BC396257." On Oct. 2, 2008, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding, which is subject to the approval of PeopleSupport's Board of Directors, to settle each of the lawsuits. PeopleSupport, Inc. -- http://www.peoplesupport.com/-- is an offshore business process outsourcing (BPO) provider offering customer management, transcription and captioning, and additional BPO services from its centers in the Philippines, Costa Rica and the U.S. The company provides outsourced services to a range of primarily U.S.-based clients that operate predominantly within the travel and consumer, financial services, technology, telecommunications, healthcare, insurance and media industries. It offers a range of customer management services through multiple integrated communications channels, such as customer service, inbound sales, direct response sales services and accounts receivable management services. The transcription services involve transcribing voice recordings into customized client reports. Its captioning services include both real-time and offline captioning. Its BPO services, including credit application processing, mortgage processing, title searches and data verification. PETTERS GROUP: Zimmerman Reed Files Suit on Behalf of Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmerman Reed announced its filing of a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. This lawsuit is filed on behalf of more than one hundred individuals, including area pastors, schools, and founders and supporters of charitable and non-profit organizations. The named Plaintiffs in the action are two investment groups, called AI Plus and IOC; the two investment groups filed on behalf of the losses of their 110 members. The Complaint also is brought as a class action, on behalf of all other individuals and non-profits who invested in their transactions using Metro Gem, Inc. as its broker. The Class Action Complaint names: -- Petters Group Worldwide, -- Petters Company, Inc. (PCI), -- Enchanted Family Buying Company, -- Nationwide International Resources, Inc., -- Thomas Joseph Petters, -- Robert Dean White, -- Deanna Coleman, -- Michael Catain, and -- Larry Reynolds, for violations of federal, state and common laws. The complaint alleges that Petters and the other Defendants perpetrated a fraudulent scheme upon investors, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices (RICO) Act, the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Uniform Securities Act, Fraudulent Inducement, Conversion, Accounting and Unjust Enrichment. According to the Complaint, Defendants effectuated the fraudulent scheme by creating fictitious documents, provided to current and potential investors as evidence that PCI was buying and selling substantial goods and merchandise for a profit. These goods, however, never existed. The complaint also alleges that Defendants fraudulently pledged the non-existent goods and merchandise as security for the investments, so that investors believed their investments were secured. Plaintiffs are predominantly investors from the Twin City community who are non-profit organizations, founders and managers of charitable organizations, pastors, faith-based schools and supporters who have strong ties to these organizations. Most of these individuals have served their community for decades. The investors and their families have suffered devastating financial losses as a result of Defendants' racketeering and illegal scheme to defraud. Many have lost their life savings. Defendants targeted Plaintiffs and illegally obtained Plaintiffs' money by using brokers and agents who were trusted and known to the charities and non-profit community. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages and other remedies under federal, state, and common law. The suit is "AI Plus, Inc et al. v. Petters Group Worldwide et al., Case Number: 0:2008cv05456," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing plaintiffs is: Carolyn Glass Anderson Zimmerman Reed 651 Nicollet Mall, Suite 501 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Phone: (612) 341-0400 POMEROY IT: David Pomeroy Withdraws Offer, Related Suit Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomeroy IT Solutions, a technology and services solutions provider, announced that its Board of Directors received confirmation from David B. Pomeroy, II, that the joint proposal he made to acquire the Company, along with his ComVest Investment Partners III LP, is withdrawn. On May 22, 2008, the Company disclosed that its Board of Directors had received a letter from Mr. Pomeroy, the Company's founder and largest stockholder, proposing to acquire, with ComVest as his financial partner, all of the outstanding common stock of the Company not owned by him for a price of $6.00 per share. Mr. Pomeroy has now informed the Board that he is no longer pursuing the acquisition of the Company with ComVest and that he does not intend to seek out another financial partner or other alternative financing for such purpose. The non-binding indication of interest from Mr. Pomeroy and ComVest had been referred to a Special Committee for review. The Special Committee that was formed to review Mr. Pomeroy's offer as well as explore a range of other alternative transactions that could enhance stockholder value will continue to review alternatives presented to the Committee. "Notwithstanding the efforts that the Special Committee may have been engaged in relative to Mr. Pomeroy and ComVest, the Company has remained focused on our primary goal of returning Pomeroy to consistent profitability," said Keith Coogan, CEO and President of Pomeroy IT Solutions. The Company also announced the dismissal of the purported class action complaint that was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky Boone Circuit Court against the Company, its directors, two of its executive officers, and ComVest. The plaintiff's complaint, which alleged, among other things, that the directors and officers of the Company were in breach of their fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with the letter that the Company received from Mr. Pomeroy, proposing to acquire, with ComVest, all of the outstanding stock of the Company not owned by him, was, upon motions made to the Court by the various defendants, dismissed without prejudice by an order entered in the case on October 6, 2008. "The Company and its directors believed that the allegations in the complaint were without merit, that it was premature for a shareholder action to be filed in response to our mere receipt of an unsolicited, non-binding indication of interest to acquire the Company, and the Court's dismissal of the case is the proper result," commented Mr. Coogan. Pomeroy IT Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.pomeroy.com-- is a leading provider of IT infrastructure solutions focused on enterprise, network and end-user technologies. Leveraging its core competencies in IT Outsourcing and Professional Services, Pomeroy delivers consulting, deployment, operational, staffing and product sourcing solutions through the disciplines of Six- Sigma, program and project management, and industry best practices. Pomeroy's consultative approach and adaptive methodology enables Fortune 2000 corporations, government entities, and mid-market clients to realize their business goals and objectives by leveraging information technology to simplify complexities, increase productivity, reduce costs, and improve profitability. QUEST RESOURCE: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set Nov. 4 -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC reminds shareholders that November 4, 2008 is the deadline to file lead plaintiff applications in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. The securities lawsuit is filed on behalf of purchasers of the common units of Quest Energy Partners L.P. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering on November 7, 2007 through August 25, 2008, and all persons who purchased the securities of Quest Resource Corporation between May 2, 2005 and August 25, 2008. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 e-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com REGIONS MORGAN: 401(k) ERISA Class Consolidated in Tenn. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Samuel H. Mays, Jr. consolidated the Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA cases filed on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries of the Regions Financial Corporation 401(k) Plan, the AmSouth Bancorporation Thrift Plan and the Morgan Keegan & Company Revised Profit Sharing and Retirement Plan. The Court also appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Stember Feinstein Doyle & Payne, LLC as Interim Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed Class. "In re Regions Morgan Keegan ERISA Litigation" is currently pending in the United States District Court Western District of Tennessee. The litigation is on behalf of a Class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans whose accounts included investments in Regions Financial Corp. common stock and/or whose accounts included investments in the Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (RMK Select Funds), which underperformed and had high fees, and/or whose accounts included investments in the RMK Select Intermediate Bond Fund or the RMK Select High Income Fund (RMK Bond Funds), which lost substantial value because of over investment in high risk asset and mortgage backed securities and CDOs. Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries by: (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans' assets held in Regions common stock; (2) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans' assets held in the RMK Select Funds and/or the RMK Bond Funds; (3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to the Class; (4) failing to monitor fiduciaries; (5) co-fiduciary liability; and (6) engaging in prohibited transactions. For more information, contact: Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal Keller Rohrback L.L.P. Phone: (800) 776-6044 e-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com ROADTRIPS INC: Faces Tex. Suit Over Beijing Olympics Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------ 3P http://www.courthousenews.com/ Roadtrips, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas alleging it cheated customers nationwide by selling "guaranteed" tickets to the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies and failing to produce them, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiffs file this Class Action seeking damages on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for breach of contract. Plaintiffs and all Class Members purchased tickets to the Opening Ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics from Defendant Roadtrips. Roadtrips allegedly solicited numerous customers throughout the United States and the world to purchase "guaranteed" ticket and travel packages for the Beijing Olympics. Roadtrips allegedly failed to perform its end of the bargain, specifically by failing to provide tickets to the Olympic Opening Ceremonies. Roadtrips' failure to provide the tickets allegedly caused Plaintiffs and the other Class Members to suffer direct and consequential damages. This suit is brought as a Class Action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all natural persons, excluding the Defendant, its officers, directors, and employees and any judge who may be assigned to hear this controversy, who purchased Beijing Olympics Opening Ceremony tickets from Roadtrips and did not receive them. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: a. Whether Roadtrips breached its contracts with the Plaintiffs and other Class Members; b. Whether the Plaintiffs and other Class Members are entitled to the consequential damages of all amounts paid for their airfare, hotel, ground transportation and other travel expenses, in addition to the amounts they paid for Opening Ceremony tickets; and c. The type and measure of damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class Members. Plaintiffs request that the Court: -- Certify this case as a Class Action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members their actual and consequential damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, for the wrongful acts of the Defendant; -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members the costs of suit, including discretionary costs pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- Award reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Section 38.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies code; -- Award Plaintiffs and the other Class Members pre- judgment and postjudgment interest; -- Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Barry Connelly et al. v. Roadtrips Inc., Civil Action No. 4:08-CV-02987," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Representing plaintiffs is: James R. Moriarty Moriarty Leyendecker Erben, P.C. 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, Texas 77005 Phone: (713) 528-0700 Fax: (713) 528-1390 SPECTRANETICS CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Nov. 24 -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP -- representing shareholders of The Spectranetics Corporation -- announced that November 24, 2008, is the deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit. All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of The Spectranetics Corporation between April 19, 2007 and September 4, 2008, inclusive, including shares acquired through the Company's 401(k) Savings/Retirement Plan, may move the Court not later than November 24, 2008, to serve as lead plaintiff; however, you must meet certain legal requirements. The class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Complaint charges Spectranetics and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and operations caused Spectranetics' stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Spectranetics develops, manufactures, markets and distributes single-use medical devices used in minimally invasive procedures within the cardiovascular system for use with Spectranetics' excimer laser system. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Spectranetics' business and operations were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company lacked effective regulatory compliance controls; (2) that the Company was illegally and extensively marketing its laser and catheters for uses that had not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"); (3) that the Company failed to report to the FDA that tests found its laser caused significant damage to stents it was using in the clinical trial; (4) that the Company illegally tested several products on patients without FDA approval; (5) that the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial results were materially inflated. On September 4, 2008, Spectranetics shocked investors when reports surfaced that Federal Officials had served search warrants on the Company and NASDAQ halted trading of Spectranetics' common stock. That evening, Spectranetics issued a press release disclosing that the Company was jointly served by the FDA and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with a search warrant relating to the promotion, use, testing, marketing, and sales of certain Spectranetics products, and payments made to medical personnel and an identified institution for this application. The search warrant also requested information about two post-market studies completed during the period from 2002 to 2005 and payments to medical personnel in connection with those studies, as well as information regarding compensation packages for certain Spectranetics personnel. On this news, NASDAQ subsequently halted trading of shares in Spectranetics, but only after Company shares had already fallen $4.27 per share, or 47 percent, to $4.73 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, September 5, 2008, shares of Spectranetics were allowed to resume trading and closed at $5.63 per share, a decline of $3.37 per share, or 37 percent, from the September 3, 2008 closing price of $9.00 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. For more information, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Ga. Lawsuit Over Middleby Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ TurboChef Technologies, Inc., is facing a purported class action in Georgia, challenging TurboChef's proposed merger with Middleby Corp. On Sept. 9, 2008, a purported shareholder class action was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on behalf of the public stockholders of TurboChef. The complaint names TurboChef, Middleby and the current members of TurboChefs board of directors as defendants. Among other things, the complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty by TurboChef's directors in connection with approval of the Merger Agreement, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2008 Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 16, 2008. TurboChef Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.turbochef.com/-- is a provider of equipment, technology and services focused on the high-speed preparation of food products. The company's speed cook ovens employ combinations of heating technologies to cook food products at higher speeds than conventional heating methods. TurboChef caters to the global commercial primary cooking equipment market. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the company entered the U.S. residential oven market with the introduction of its first speed cook oven model for the home. Its first residential products target the premium segment of the residential oven market and are priced at a point that is appropriate for a consumer purchase. TurboChef also generates revenues from licensing its technologies to food service equipment manufacturers. WYNN LAS VEGAS: High Court Upholds Dismissal of Dealers' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Nevada Supreme Court rejected a class action filed by two Wynn Las Vegas dealers over the resort's controversial tip- sharing policy, KXNT reports. Dealers Daniel Baldonado and Joseph Cesarz filed the suit on Sept. 13, 2006. It is seeking damages for compensation lost under the new tip-sharing arrangements, which gave casino supervisors a share of dealers' tips (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 29, 2006). Court documents show that the two Wynn Las Vegas dealers believe the Wynn policy violates Nevada state law covering tip pooling because employers are sharing in the tips. The suit asks for class-action status to include more than the 500 dealers affected by the change in the tips policy at the resort. Plaintiffs' lawyer argued that the new tip-sharing policy violates at least three Nevada laws: -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.100, which requires that dealers be paid what they've earned; -- another section of chapter 608 that prohibits improperly withholding earned; and -- Nevada Revised Statutes 608.120 that outlaws charging workers illegal fee or commission to keep their jobs. According to the lawsuit, the two dealers are seeking the wages they lost because of the tip pooling and they want the program stopped. The suit states that the resort breached contracts of employment by unilaterally, illegally, and without cause, withholding certain portions of the casino dealers' tip pool and paying such portions to other persons who were not casino dealers and were not entitled to such payments. The new tip-pooling program, announced to dealers during three separate shift meetings on Aug. 21, was part of a table-games division restructuring designed to lessen the wage disparity between dealers and front-line supervisors. On Sept. 1, Wynn Las Vegas began allowing table game supervisors to share in the tips earned by dealers. On Dec. 6, 2006, Judge Douglas Herndon of the Clark County District Court dismissed the suit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2006). Judge Herndon ruled that there was no contract of employment between the dealers and Wynn, which meant that Nevada law allows an employer to change any tip pooling policies. He noted that the company was not taking away tips, only widening the pool of workers who share in the gratuities. Subsequently, lawyers for Wynn Las Vegas filed a motion seeking nearly $75,000 in attorney's fees after the dismissal (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2007). Recently, the state's high court unanimously upheld Judge Herndon's decision. The high court's ruling, written by Justice Michael Douglas, says the issue does not belong in the courts and instead should be taken up with the state labor commissioner. The court also held that because the dealers are so-called "at-will employees," meaning they don't have a contract, the employer has the right to change the terms of the job at any time. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC -- http://www.wynnlasvegas.com/-- owns and operates the Wynn Las Vegas hotel and casino resort on the Las Vegas Strip, which opened in April 2005. The company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, Ltd. and finances itself on a restricted group basis. New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTEC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Fla. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of AuthenTec, Inc. between April 28, 2008 and September 5, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges AuthenTec and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects, caused AuthenTec's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. AuthenTec is a mixed-signal semiconductor company that provides fingerprint authentication sensors and solutions to the high- volume personal computer, wireless device, and access control markets. The Company's sensors enable users to access and control multiple functions on an electronic device by touching or sliding a finger across the sensor. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning AuthenTec's business and operations were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company's sales growth was slowing; (2) that AuthenTec was flooding its customers with inventory; (3) as such, the Company's financial results were materially inflated; (4) that the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (5) as a result, statements made by the Company's management during the Class Period regarding the Company's financial results and strong revenue growth lacked a reasonable basis. The Complaint further alleges that defendants issued favorable revenue guidance and touted the Company's financial performance, as well as AuthenTec's prospects for sales and revenue growth. For example, on July 28, 2008 the Company provided revenue guidance of $19 million to $20 million for the third quarter of 2008 and $72 million to $78 million for the full year of 2008. On that date, during a conference call with analysts, the Company told investors that "with regard (to) guidance, notwithstanding the macroeconomic weakness that is impacting a number of other technology companies, we expect our strong growth to continue, supported by new product introductions and a robust pipeline of design wins, which will drive increased revenue on a year-over-year basis." Shortly thereafter, on September 7, 2008, AuthenTec shocked investors when the Company issued a press release in which it revised downward its previously issued financial guidance. In the press release, AuthenTec told investors that "the Company attributes the reduction in estimated revenue to an overstocked inventory position at a new customer and the impact of lower than expected sales of higher-end notebooks. ..." Moreover, during a conference call with analysts on the morning of September 8, 2008, the Company further revealed to investors that, "as it turns out, the effect of the downturn that has impacted many others in the semiconductor industry seems to have been masked to us by the fact that one of our newer customers overbought in the second quarter and even into the beginning of this quarter. This has led to an overstocking position on their part and thus reduced forecasts for the remainder of the year ... we are still working to fully understand the impact and the size of the inventory build, but at this point we are assuming that it will take at least a quarter for them to work through this inventory." On this news, AuthenTec's shares declined $3.84 per share, or 60.1 percent, to close on September 8, 2008 at $2.55 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. For more information, contact: Lionel Z. Glancy Michael Goldberg Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com BIOVAIL CORP: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Biovail Corporation securities during the period between December 14, 2006 and July 19, 2007. The complaint charges Biovail and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Biovail is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the formulation, clinical testing, registration, manufacture, and commercialization of pharmaceutical products utilizing advanced drug-delivery technologies. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about a drug in development called BVF-033, a salt formulation of bupropion, an antidepressant commonly known as Wellbutrin XL. Specifically, defendants' statements failed to disclose that while the FDA required a single dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence of generic Wellbutrin XL, defendants had submitted a multiple- dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence of BVF-033. Thus, defendants' FDA application for BVF-033 failed to meet the requirements set forth by the FDA such that approval was likely to be materially delayed. On July 20, 2007, before the market opened, the Company issued a press release announcing that it had received a non-approval letter from the FDA for its new drug application for BVF-033. As a result of this disclosure, Biovail's stock price dropped from $25.51 per share to $20.03 per share in a single day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Biovail securities during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Darren Robbins Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 e-mail: djr@csgrr.com BIOVAIL CORP: Izard Nobel Announces Suit Filed in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announced that a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased Biovail Corporation between December 14, 2006 and July 19, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Biovail and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements about a drug in development called BVF-033, a salt formulation of bupropion, an antidepressant commonly known as Wellbutrin XL. Specifically, defendants' statements failed to disclose that while the FDA required a single dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence of generic Wellbutrin XL, defendants had submitted a multiple-dose study to demonstrate the bioequivalence of BVF-033. Thus, defendants' FDA application for BVF-033 failed to meet the requirements set forth by the FDA such that approval was likely to be materially delayed. On July 20, 2007, before the market opened, Biovail issued a press release announcing that it had received a non-approval letter from the FDA for its new drug application for BVF-033. On this news, Biovail's stock price dropped from $25.51 per share to $20.03. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton Nancy A. Kulesa 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 CANO PETROLEUM: Federman & Sherwood Announces N.Y. Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- On October 2, 2008, a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cano Petroleum, Inc. 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 that the Company issued a series of false and material misrepresentations in its registration statement and prospectus filed with the SEC in connection with its Secondary Public Offering on June 26, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: William B. Federman Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 e-mail: wfederman@aol.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL: KGS Announces Ariz. Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that a securities class action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of purchasers of the stock of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. (NYSE: MRX), between October 30, 2003 through September 24, 2008, inclusive. Medicis and certain of its officers are charged with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for issuing a series of materially false statements that concealed and failed to disclose that the Company had published materially inaccurate and false financial statements since mid-2003. It was only on September 24, 2008, that Medicis first revealed that it would be forced to restate its financial statements for the five year period -- from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2008 -- as a result of failing to properly account for sales returns. Investors then realized Medicis had artificially inflated its results during that time, and shares of the Company immediately declined. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 2, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 e-mail: Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com NOVATEL WIRELESS: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Novatel Wireless, Inc. common stock during the period between February 5, 2007 and August 19, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges Novatel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The class action complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants misrepresented Novatel's financial performance. For instance, defendants failed to disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in violation of its own revenue cut-off procedures and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, thus rendering the Company's publicly reported financial results materially false. The defendants also repeatedly misrepresented the status of an internal accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee. On May 13, 2008, defendants represented that the Company was unable to file its Form 10-Q on time because of a review of a single customer contract which they represented was "substantially completed today." Over three months later, on August 19, 2008, defendants admitted that the review was still ongoing, that it involved at least six transactions representing $9.1 million in revenue, and that when the review was completed a decision would be made as to whether a restatement would be required. As a result of these disclosures, Novatel's stock price declined 25%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Novatel common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 17, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. Dyer & Berens LLP 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 e-mail: jeff@dyerberens.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 * * *