/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081029.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, October 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 215 Headlines ALCOA INC: March 24, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Settles Tenn. Lawsuit Over Altered Gems ARCTIC GLACIER: Investors Files $165 Million Lawsuit in Canada BCE INC: Shareholders Class Action Completely Without Merit CANON USA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Calif. Subprime Credit-Card Abuse Suit DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over $480 Early Termination Fees EPICOR SOFTWARE: Sued in Calif. Over Elliott Associates' Offer GOOGLE INC: Reaches Landmark Settlement with Authors, Publishers GPT GROUP: Faces Shareholder Litigation Over Forecast Earnings HONDA MOTOR: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective Michelin PAX Tires MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada MONSANTO CO: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Texas Over Glyphosate MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges OIL REFINERIES: Notified on Legal Claim Filed Against Subsidiary OPES PRIME: Firm Re-Opens AU$100M Lawsuit After Securing Support QANTAS AIRWAYS: Settles Price-Fixing Lawsuit for $20 Million UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal UAL CORP: Dismissed From Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation in N.Y. New Securities Fraud Cases AIG INTERNATIONAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in N.Y. FANNIE MAE: Patton Roberts Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. NOAH EDUCATION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit SPECTRANETICS CORP: Holzer & Fistel Announces Colo. Suit Filing Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* ALCOA INC: March 24, 2009 Trial Scheduled for Tenn. ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A March 24, 2009 trial is scheduled for the class-action suit, "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc., Civil Action No. 3:06cv448," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The suit was filed on Nov. 17, 2006, by plaintiffs representing approximately 13,000 retired former employees of Alcoa or Reynolds Metals Co., and spouses and dependents of such retirees. It alleges that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Labor-Management Relations Act by requiring the plaintiffs, beginning Jan. 1, 2007, to pay health insurance premiums and increased co-payments and co-insurance for certain medical procedures and prescription drugs. The plaintiffs allege these changes to their retiree health care plans violate their rights to vested health care benefits. They additionally allege that Alcoa has breached its fiduciary duty to plaintiffs under ERISA by misrepresenting to them that their health benefits would never change. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief, back payment of benefits and attorneys fees. Alcoa has consented to treatment of plaintiffs claims as a class action. During the fourth quarter, following briefing and argument, the court ordered consolidation of the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction with trial, certified a plaintiff class, bifurcated and stayed the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claims, struck the plaintiffs jury demand, but indicated it would use an advisory jury, and set a trial date of Sept. 17, 2008. In August 2008, the court set a new trial date of March 24, 2009, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Curtis v. Alcoa Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2006-cv- 00448," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Judge Thomas W. Phillips, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert S. Catapano-Friedman, Esq. (katapano@gmail.com) 744 Broadway Albany, NY 12207 Phone: 518-463-7501 Fax: 518-463-7502 Representing the defendant is: John W. Woods, Jr., Esq. (jwoods@hunton.com) Hunton & Williams 951 East Byrd Street Riverfront Plaza East Tower Richmond, VA 23219-4074 Phone: 804-788-8629 Fax: 804-343-4794 AMERICA'S COLLECTIBLES: Settles Tenn. Lawsuit Over Altered Gems --------------------------------------------------------------- America's Collectibles Network, Inc., doing business as Jewelry Television, settled a false advertising lawsuit accusing it of cheating the public by selling gemstones it falsely advertises as green or red andesine-labradorite, JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone reports. The suit, captioned, "Hurd v. America's Collectibles Network, Inc., d/b/a/ Jewelry Television, No. 225508," was filed in Knox County Circuit Court on June 5, 2008. It was brought on behalf of Theresa and Gary Hurd of Kodak, Tennessee, alleges that the shopping network "fraudulently advertised and misrepresented" the gemstone andesine-labradorite as being "highly coveted" and "extremely rare" (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2008). The plaintiffs have alleged that red and green andesine- labradorite gemstones advertised by JTV as highly coveted, extremely rare, and all natural, were in reality color enhanced, the statement reads. According to an earlier report by the JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone, the Hurds' suit says, "Defendants, a very large and sophisticated company with in excess of $400 million in revenues last year, knew or should have known that the gemstones it was selling were shams and nothing more than the mass-produced results of chemical facelifts in gemological beauty parlors. . . Defendant . . . obtained its sham product for pennies per carat and sold it for extraordinary profits. Because the sham gemstones came from plentiful low-value yellow feldspar, defendant was able to sell them for great profits while still undercutting the per-carat price of real Oregon sunstone." In October 2008, plaintiffs' attorneys and Jewelry Television issued a joint statement saying they have reached a settlement in the case, JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone reports. On Oct. 22, 2008, the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee certified a settlement class and granted preliminary approval to a settlement. A spokesperson for Coleman and Edwards, P.C., Knoxville, Tenn., one of the two law firms for the plaintiffs, (the other is Wexler Wallace LLP, Chicago), told JCK-Jewelers Circular Keystone that a Web site (http://www.andesineclassaction.com/) that displays the joint statement has been provided as part of the settlement agreement. In the settlement, Jewelry Television did not admit to any wrongdoing. The company said in the statement that "settling the case rather than facing the continued cost and disruption of fighting a potential class action was in the best interests of the company, and would allow JTV to move forward with its continued commitment to its customers." The statement went on to say that the plaintiff attorneys and their clients determined that the agreement is in the best interest of those who purchased andesine-labradorite from JTV during the period defined in the suit, "because it affords class members the opportunity to submit claims for cash refunds and Jewelry Television store credits." The statement adds, "The settlement also provides for disclosures, consumer education, and training for Jewelry Television employees to make sure that future marketing of andesine-labradorite complies with all relevant rules and regulations." For more details, contact: Gregory Coleman, Esq. (gcoleman@colemanedwardspc.com) Coleman and Edwards, P.C. 4800 Old Kingston Pike Suite 120 Knoxville, TN 37919 Phone: 865-247-0080 - and - Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq. (kaw@wexlerwallace.com) Edward A. Wallace (eaw@wexlerwallace.com) Wexler Wallace LLP 55 West Monroe Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312.346.2222 Fax: 312.346.0022 ARCTIC GLACIER: Investors Files $165 Million Lawsuit in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- LONDON, ON, Oct. 28, 2008 -- The law firm of Siskinds LLP filed a $165 million class action against Arctic Glacier Income Fund, an income fund listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Also named as defendants are Arctic Glacier's trustees, Arctic Glacier Inc. and certain senior officers and directors of Arctic Glacier Inc. The class action arises out of Arctic Glacier's recent announcement of an investigation by the United States Department of Justice into anti-competitive conduct in Arctic Glacier's industry, the packaged ice industry. Subsequent to that announcement, Arctic Glacier announced that it was suspending its distributions to its unit-holders, and the price of its units collapsed. The Arctic Glacier class action is the 11th investor class action filed by Siskinds LLP under Ontario's new investor protection legislation - Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who acquired Arctic Glacier's units between March 22, 2002 and September 15, 2008. Headquartered in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Arctic Glacier Income Fund, through its operating company, Arctic Glacier Inc., is a leading producer, marketer and distributor of high-quality packaged ice in North America under the brand name of Arctic Glacier(R) Premium Ice. Arctic Glacier operates 34 production plants and 47 distribution facilities across Canada and the central, midwest, northeastern and west coast United States, servicing more than 65,000 retail accounts. For more information, contact: Dimitri Lascaris Siskinds LLP 141 Adelaide Street West, Suite 1100 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 3L5 Phone: (800) 461-6166 (Ext. 7844) BCE INC: Shareholders Class Action Completely Without Merit ----------------------------------------------------------- MONTREAL, Quebec, Oct. 27, 2008 -- BCE Inc. stated that the action brought under the Saskatchewan Class Action Act on behalf of common shareholders of BCE is completely without merit and will be vigorously defended in court. The Statement of Claim seeks, among other things, the payment of BCE's second and third quarter common dividends, damages and an injunction to halt the privatization transaction until the dividends are paid. Pursuant to the Definitive Agreement relating to the privatization transaction, as amended, the acquisition of the company is scheduled to close on or before December 11, 2008. Headquartered in Montreal, Quebec, BCE Inc. (TSX/NYSE: BCE) -- http://www.bce.ca/-- is a communications company, providing comprehensive and innovative suite of communication services to residential and business customers in Canada. Under the Bell brand, the company's services include local, long distance and wireless phone services, high-speed and wireless Internet access, IP-broadband services, information and communications technology services (or value-added services) and direct-to-home satellite and VDSL television services. Other BCE holdings include Telesat Canada and an interest in CTVglobemedia. Bell Canada -- http://www.bell.ca/-- is a wholly owned subsidiary of BCE Inc. Bell offers integrated information and communications technology services to businesses and governments, and is the Virtual Chief Information Officer to small and medium businesses. CANON USA: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Alleged Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Canon USA, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging it discriminates against black sales reps, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The litigation arises out of Canon's systemic company-wide discriminatory treatment of its African American sales representatives in violation of federal and applicable state civil rights laws. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), plaintiffs seek to represent all African Americans employed in Canon's sales forces at any time between Oct. 24, 2004 and the present. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether Canon violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42 USC Section 1981 and the 1991 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 USC Section 1981 et seq. (Section 1981) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC Sections 2000e et seq. (Title VII) buy it acts and omissions alleged; (b) whether Canon has subjected its African American sales representatives with less favorable treatment with respect to numerous aspects of employment (including training and mentoring, compensation, account and territory assignments, allocation of resources, and promotions) than the treatment afforded to White sales representatives; (c) whether Canon has subjected its African American sales representatives with less favorable treatment than their White counterparts on the basis of race; (d) whether the employment policies or practices of Canon that have adversely affected its African American sales representatives violate Title VII under either a disparate treatment or disparate impact theory; (e) whether Canon failed to institute proper safeguards to reduce discrimination against African American sales representatives; (f) whether Canon's discriminatory employment practices constitute a "continuing violation"; and (g) whether Canon's discriminatory employment practices are sufficiently egregious to justify the imposition of punitive damages under Title VII. The plaintiffs request that the court: -- declare that the practices described in the complaint exist at Canon and that they are unlawful; -- issue a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants, their officers, agents, employees and successors from engaging in the discriminatory employment practices complained of; -- issue a permanent mandatory injunction requiring that defendants adopt employment practices in conformity with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq. and 42 USC Section 1981; -- award back pay and other job benefits sufficient to make the plaintiffs whole; -- award punitive damages appropriate to the proof at trial; -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including expert fees, pursuant to 42 USC Section 2000e and 42 USC Section 1988; and -- order such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Linda Evans et al v. Canon USA Inc., et al, Civil Case No. 08-4329," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing plaintiffs are: Cyrus Mehri Janelle Carter Anna M. Pohl Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 822-5100 COMPUCREDIT CORP: Faces Calif. Subprime Credit-Card Abuse Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Compucredit Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing it of subprime credit-card abuse, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The action arises under the CTOA, 15 USC Section 1679 et seq. According to the report, Compucredit and Columbus Bank and Trust allegedly push Aspire Visa credit cards to "rebuild your credit," then take $257 in fees from the $300 in credit they offer. The defendants allegedly advertise that consumers can get $300 in credit, then immediately take $29 for an "account opening finance charge," $6.50 per month as an "account maintenance fee" and take an "annual fee" of $150. The aggregate first-year fees come to $257 of the $300 credit limit, or 85.7% of it, the class claims. They say these fees are "buried in other information in the advertisements," in small font, in violation of lending laws. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all natural persons residing in the State of California as of the date of class certification in this case who, within five years prior to the commencement of this action, were issued as Aspire Visa credit card by Columbus Bank and Trust and paid money to CompuCredit, directly or through Columbus, on their Aspire Visa credit card accounts. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether CompuCredit is a credit repair organization within the meaning of 15 USC Section 1679a(3)(A); (b) whether CompuCredit 's representations in its advertisements were untrue or misleading representations of its services in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3); (c) whether CompuCredit charged money in advance for the performance of services which it had agreed to perform for the consumer before such services were fully performed; (d) whether CompuCredit furnished the disclosures required by 15 USC Section 1679c; (e) whether CompuCredit provided written contracts in compliance with 15 USC Section 1679d; (f) whether CompuCredit furnished a cancellation form as required by 15 USC Section 1679e; (g) whether Columbus is subject to 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3) and (4); (h) whether Columbus and/or CompuCredit engaged in, directly or indirectly, the commission of, or an attempt to commit, a deception on class members in connection with the extension of credit to class members pursuant to CompuCredit's marketing plan, in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)4); and (i) whether Columbus used untrue or misleading representations of CompuCredit's services made by CompuCredit in its advertisements, in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3). The plaintiff demand restitution and punitive damages. The suit is "Wanda Greenwood et al v. CompuCredit Corp. et al, Case No. C 08 4878," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Jay Smith Laurie A. Traktman Gilbert & Sackman A Law Corporation 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90010 Phone: (323) 938-3000 Fax: (323) 937-9139 DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over $480 Early Termination Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- DirecTV Inc. is facing a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing it of cheating customers by charging up to $480 for early termination of services, and automatically extending putative multi-year contracts each time customers request change in service or a replacement receiver, the CourtHouse News Service reports. This action has been brought, and maybe properly maintained, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)-(4), 23(b)(3) on behalf of: (1) all former DirecTV customers nationwide who DirecTV charged an early cancellation fee; and (2) all DirecTV customers nationwide whose DirecTV service is subject to an early cancellation fee. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant has a practice of imposing early cancellation fees of up to $480 on subscribers who cancel DirecTV services; (b) whether the early cancellation fees defendant imposes are invalid under Cal. Civ. Code Section 1671(d); (c) whether defendant failed to disclose or adequately disclose material information to subscribers, namely, that a change in service resulted in a new commitment period of either 18 or 24 months that is subject to an early cancellation fee of up to $480; (d) whether defendant's conduct as alleged violated Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (e) whether defendant's conduct as alleged is unlawful, unfair or deceptive in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq.; (f) whether defendant's conduct as alleged constituted conversion; (g) whether defendant's conduct as alleged constituted money had and received; (h) whether as a result of the conduct alleged, defendant has unjustly enriched itself; and (i) whether plaintiff and class members are entitled to damages, restitution, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. The plaintiff demand judgment as follows: -- for an order certifying the proposed classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and appointing named plaintiff and his counsel of record to represent said classes; -- for an order pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750 et seq. requiring defendant to: (1) end its practice of unilaterally enrolling subscribers in commitment periods and imposing early cancellation fees based on those commitment periods; (2) end its collection efforts to obtain unpaid early cancellation fees; and (3) reverse all negative credit reports made to credit reporting agencies for failure to pay defendant's early cancellation fees. -- for an order pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. and the claim for unjust enrichment awarding restitution to class members who have paid early cancellation fees; -- for an order awarding plaintiff and class members compensatory and punitive damages against defendant for conversions and money had and received, in an amount to be determined at trial, together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and -- for an order awarding the plaintiff and the class members the reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys' fees, filing fees. The suit is "Maureen Van Meter et al v. DirecTV Inc., Case No. CV08-07032," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs is: Rosemary M. Rivas 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94104 Phone: (415) 398-8700 Fax: (415) 398-8704 EPICOR SOFTWARE: Sued in Calif. Over Elliott Associates' Offer -------------------------------------------------------------- Epicor Software is facing a class-action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, alleging it breached its fiduciary duty by failing to properly consider Elliott Associates' acquisition offer of $9.50 a share, the CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a stockholders' class action brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Epicor, arising out of the breaches of fiduciary duty by the company's board of directors related to their rejection of and failure to properly consider the offer by Elliot Associates to acquire all of Epicor's outstanding shares of common stock for $9.50 per share. The suit challenges the internal affairs or governance of Epicor and hence is not removable to Federal Court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 or the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA), 15 USC Section 78bb(f). The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all stockholders of Epicor who are threatened with injury arising from defendants' actions. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants have failed to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that Epicor's stockholders receive the maximum value realizable for their shares of Epicor common stock in a transaction effecting the change of corporate control; and (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class would be irreparably damaged if the proposed merger complained of was consummated. The plaintiff demands judgment as follows: -- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a class action and that plaintiff is a proper class representative; -- declaring that defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the class; -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their duty of care by giving due consideration to any proposed business combination that would maximize the company's shareholder value; -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties by eliminating any barriers that could be used to block any proposed business combination that would maximize the company's shareholder value; -- directing the individual defendants to adequately ensure that no conflicts of interest exist betwen the individual defendants and their fiduciary obligation to maximize shareholder value or, if such conflicts exist, to ensure that all conflicts are resolved in the best interests of Epicor's public stockholders; -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- granting such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Joseph Tola et al v. Epicor Software Corporation et al, Case No. 30-2008 00124327," filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. Representing plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 GOOGLE INC: Reaches Landmark Settlement with Authors, Publishers ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 28, 2008 -- The Authors Guild, the Association of American Publishers (AAP), and Google announced a groundbreaking settlement agreement on behalf of a broad class of authors and publishers worldwide that would expand online access to millions of in-copyright books and other written materials in the U.S. from the collections of a number of major U.S. libraries participating in Google Book Search. The agreement, reached after two years of negotiations, would resolve a class-action lawsuit brought by book authors and the Authors Guild, as well as a separate lawsuit filed by five large publishers as representatives of the AAP's membership. The class action is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The agreement promises to benefit readers and researchers, and enhance the ability of authors and publishers to distribute their content in digital form, by significantly expanding online access to works through Google Book Search, an ambitious effort to make millions of books searchable via the Web. The agreement acknowledges the rights and interests of copyright owners, provides an efficient means for them to control how their intellectual property is accessed online and enables them to receive compensation for online access to their works. If approved by the court, the agreement would provide: -- More Access to Out-of-Print Books -- Generating greater exposure for millions of in-copyright works, including hard-to-find out-of-print books, by enabling readers in the U.S. to search these works and preview them online; -- Additional Ways to Purchase Copyrighted Books -- Building off publishers' and authors' current efforts and further expanding the electronic market for copyrighted books in the U.S., by offering users the ability to purchase online access to many in-copyright books; -- Institutional Subscriptions to Millions of Books Online -- Offering a means for U.S. colleges, universities and other organizations to obtain subscriptions for online access to collections from some of the world's most renowned libraries; -- Free Access From U.S. Libraries -- Providing free, full- text, online viewing of millions of out-of-print books at designated computers in U.S. public and university libraries; and -- Compensation to Authors and Publishers and Control Over Access to Their Works -- Distributing payments earned from online access provided by Google and, prospectively, from similar programs that may be established by other providers, through a newly created independent, not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that will also locate rightsholders, collect and maintain accurate rightsholder information, and provide a way for rightsholders to request inclusion in or exclusion from the project. Under the agreement, Google will make payments totaling $125 million. The money will be used to establish the Book Rights Registry, to resolve existing claims by authors and publishers and to cover legal fees. The settlement agreement resolves Authors Guild v. Google, a class-action suit filed on September 20, 2005 by the Authors Guild and certain authors, and a suit filed on October 19, 2005 by five major publisher-members of the Association of American Publishers: -- The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; -- Pearson Education, Inc. and Penguin Group (USA) Inc., both part of Pearson; -- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (NYSE: JWa and JWb); and -- Simon & Schuster, Inc. part of CBS Corporation (NYSE: CBS.A and CBS). These lawsuits challenged Google's plan to digitize, search and show snippets of in-copyright books and to share digital copies with libraries without the explicit permission of the copyright owner. Holders worldwide of U.S. copyrights can register their works with the Book Rights Registry and receive compensation from institutional subscriptions, book sales, ad revenues and other possible revenue models, as well as a cash payment if their works have already been digitized. Libraries at the Universities of California, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Stanford have provided input into the settlement and expect to participate in the project, including by making their collections available. Along with a number of other U.S. libraries that currently work with Google, their significant efforts to preserve, maintain and provide access to books have played a critical role in achieving this agreement and, through their anticipated participation, they are furthering such efforts while making books even more accessible to students, researchers and readers in the U.S. It is expected that additional libraries in the U.S. will participate in this project in the future. Google Book Search users in the United States will be able to enjoy and purchase the products and services offered under the project. Outside the United States, the users' experience with Google Book Search will be unchanged, unless the offering of such products and services is authorized by the rightsholder of a book. "It's hard work writing a book, and even harder work getting paid for it," said Roy Blount Jr., President of the Authors Guild. "As a reader and researcher, I'll be delighted to stop by my local library to browse the stacks of some of the world's great libraries. As an author, well, we appreciate payment when people use our work. This deal makes good sense." "This historic settlement is a win for everyone," said Richard Sarnoff, Chairman of the Association of American Publishers. "From our perspective, the agreement creates an innovative framework for the use of copyrighted material in a rapidly digitizing world, serves readers by enabling broader access to a huge trove of hard-to-find books, and benefits the publishing community by establishing an attractive commercial model that offers both control and choice to the rightsholder." "Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. Today, together with the authors, publishers, and libraries, we have been able to make a great leap in this endeavor," said Sergey Brin, co- founder & president of technology at Google. "While this agreement is a real win-win for all of us, the real victors are all the readers. The tremendous wealth of knowledge that lies within the books of the world will now be at their fingertips." For more information about this agreement, visit: http://books.google.com/booksrightsholders/. About the Authors Guild The Authors Guild -- http://www.authorsguild.org-- representing more than 8,000 authors, is the nation's largest and oldest society of published authors and the leading writers' advocate for fair compensation, effective copyright protection, and free expression. About the Association of American Publishers The AAP is the national trade association of the U.S. book publishing industry. AAP's more than 300 members include most of the major commercial publishers in the United States, as well as smaller and non-profit publishers, university presses and scholarly societies. AAP members publish hardcover and paperback books in every field, educational materials for the elementary, secondary, postsecondary, and professional markets, scholarly journals, computer software, and electronic products and services. The protection of intellectual property rights in all media, the defense of the freedom to read and the freedom to publish at home and abroad, and the promotion of reading and literacy are among the Association's highest priorities. About Google Inc. and Google Book Search Google's innovative search technologies connect millions of people around the world with information every day. Google Book Search was launched in 2004, and today enables the full text searching of more than a million books online. More than 20,000 publishers and 29 libraries around the world currently work with Google to market their books through the service. Google is headquartered in Silicon Valley with offices throughout the Americas, Europe and Asia. GPT GROUP: Faces Shareholder Litigation Over Forecast Earnings -------------------------------------------------------------- The GPT Group is facing a purported shareholder class-action lawsuit in an Australian court over alleged misleading and deceptive statements about its rocky financial health, Eli Greenblat of The Age reports. The lawsuit, filed by the law firm of Slater & Gordon, Ltd., claims that GPT failed to comply with its continuous disclosure obligations by informing the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) as its forecast earnings deteriorated. The Age reports that the case is likely to revolve around statements made by GPT on July 7, 2008, when GPT released a statement to the ASX, in which its forecast earnings for the 2008 calendar year were slashed by 27%. At that briefing, forecast operating income was downgraded to AU$464 million, distributions per stapled security were slashed 30% to 20� and earnings per stapled security were cut from 29.4� to 21.2�. According to Slater & Gordon, "This was in stark contrast to guidance provided by the company only six weeks prior and, in response, the price of GPT stapled securities fell by 24% over the following two days." The Australian law firm added, "It will be alleged that GPT provided forecasts to the market without reasonable basis and failed to disclose the extent to which its earnings were being supported by one-off asset sales." Slater & Gordon are seeking shareholders who acquired stapled securities in GPT between Feb. 28, 2008, and July 6, 2008. HONDA MOTOR: Faces N.J. Suit Over Defective Michelin PAX Tires -------------------------------------------------------------- Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is facing a class-action complaint filed in Bergen County Court, Hackensack alleging it sells its cars with defective Michelin PAX tires and wheels, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The CourtHouse News Service did not report on any other updates to the case. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. -- http://world.honda.com-- is a Japan- based company primarily engaged in the development, production and sale of various motor products. MATTEL INC: Discovery Ongoing in Calif. Product Liability Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a multi-district litigation pending in California captioned, "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," which names Mattel, Inc., as a defendant. Initially, about 22 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. asserting claims arising out of 2007 voluntary product recalls by Mattel and Fisher-Price, as well as the withdrawal of red and green toy blood pressure cuffs from retail stores or their replacement at the request of consumers. On Sept. 5, 2007, Mattel and Fisher-Price filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation asking that all federal actions related to the recalls be coordinated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Dec. 18, 2007, the JPML issued a transfer order, transferring six actions pending outside the Central District of California to the Central District of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with five actions already pending in the same venue. The remaining cases, the so-called "potential tag-along actions," are either already pending in the Central District of California or have been transferred there pursuant to the Jan. 3 and Jan. 17, 2008 conditional transfer orders issued by the JPML. These matters are all currently pending under MDL proceeding captioned, "In re Mattel, Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:07-ML-01897-DSF-AJW, MDL 1897 (C. D. Ca.)." On March 31, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in the MDL proceeding. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons who, from May 2003 through the present, purchased and acquired certain allegedly hazardous toys. The Consolidated Complaint defines hazardous toys as: -- those toys recalled between Aug. 2, 2007, and Oct. 25, 2007, due to the presence of lead in excess of applicable standards in the paint on some parts of some of the toys; -- those toys recalled on Nov. 21, 2006, and Aug. 14, 2007, related to magnets; and -- the red and green toy blood pressure cuffs voluntarily withdrawn from retail stores or replaced at the request of consumers. The Consolidated Complaint refers to other, unidentified toys that allegedly contain lead in excess of applicable standards or unsafe magnets that have not been recalled. Aside from Mattel and Fisher-Price, the Consolidated Complaint names also names as defendants: -- Target Corp., -- Toys 'R" Us, Inc., -- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., -- KB Toys, Inc., and -- Kmart Corp. Mattel has offered to assume the defense of and to indemnify the retailers named in the Consolidated Complaint for the specific claims raised in the Consolidated Complaint, which claims relate to the sale of Mattel and Fisher-Price toys. In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs assert claims for breach of implied and express warranties, negligence, strict liability, violation of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act and related Consumer Product Safety Rules, various California consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs seek: -- declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining defendants from continuing the allegedly unlawful practices raised in the Consolidated Complaint; -- restitution and disgorgement of monies acquired by defendants from the allegedly unlawful practices; -- costs of initial diagnostic blood lead level testing to detect possible injury to plaintiffs and members of the class; -- costs of treatment for those who test positive to the initial diagnostic blood lead level testing; -- reimbursement of the purchase price for the allegedly hazardous toys; and -- costs and attorneys' fees. On June 24, 2008, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. A hearing was held on the motions on Sept. 8, 2008, and the court requested certain supplemental briefing that is ongoing. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing, but is in the very early stages, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Mattel Inc. Toy Lead Paint Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 2:2007ml01897," pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dale S. Fischer presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ivy D. Arai, Esq. (ivy@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 5th Ave Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Ben Barnow, Esq. (b.barnow@barnowlaw.com) Barnow and Associates PC One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-621-2000 Fax: 312-641-5504 - and - Mila F. Bartos, Esq. (mbartos@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran Duvall Foundry, 1050 30th St NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Representing the defendants is: Thomas E. Fennell, Esq. (tefennell@jonesday.com) Jones Day 2727 North Harwood Street Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-220-3939 MATTEL INC: Still Faces Lead Contaminated Toys Suits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Mattel, Inc. is still facing several product liability lawsuits in Canadian courts in connection with lead contaminated toys. Since Sept. 26, 2007, eight proposed class-action complaints have been filed in the provincial superior courts of these Canadian provinces: -- British Columbia (Trainor v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26, 2007); -- Alberta (Cairns v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 26, 2007); -- Saskatchewan (Sharp v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 26, 2007); -- Quebec (El-Mousfi v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 27, 2007, and Fortier v. Mattel Canada, filed Oct. 10, 2007); -- Ontario (Wiggins v. Mattel Canada, filed Sept. 28, 2007); -- New Brunswick (Travis v. Fisher-Price, filed Sept. 28, 2007); and -- Manitoba (Close v. Fisher-Price, filed Oct. 3, 2007). Mattel, Fisher-Price and Mattel Canada are defendants in all of the actions, and Fisher-Price Canada is a defendant in two (El- Mousfi and Wiggins). All but one of the cases seek certification of both a class of residents of that province and a class of all other residents of Canada outside the province where the action was filed. The classes are generally defined similarly in all of the actions to include both purchasers of the toys recalled by Mattel and Fisher-Price in August and September 2007 and children, either directly or through their parents as "next friends," who have had contact with those toys. The actions in Canada generally allege that the defendants were negligent in allowing their products to be manufactured and sold with lead paint on the toys and negligent in the design of the toys with small magnets, which led to the sale of defective products. The cases typically state claims in four categories: 1. production of a defective product; 2. misrepresentations; 3. negligence; and 4. violations of consumer protection statutes. The plaintiffs generally seek general and special damages, damages in the amount of money paid for testing of children based on alleged exposure to lead, restitution of any amount of money paid for replacing recalled toys, disgorgement of benefits resulting from recalled toys, aggravated and punitive damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and an award of litigation costs and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs in all of the actions except one do not specify the amount of damages sought. In the Ontario action (Wiggins), the plaintiff demands general damages of CDN$75 million and special damages of CDN$150 million, in addition to the other remedies. In November 2007, the class-action suit commenced by Mr. Fortier was voluntarily discontinued. In October 2008, counsel in the Quebec class-action lawsuit (El- Mousfi) sought permission from the Court to discontinue that action, and that request remains pending. All of the actions in Canada are at a preliminary stage, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Mattel, Inc. -- http://www.mattel.com/-- designs, manufactures and markets a variety of toy products worldwide through sales to its customers and directly to consumers. MONSANTO CO: Faces Antitrust Lawsuit in Texas Over Glyphosate -------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Co. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas over its alleged monopoly on glyphosate, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008. On Aug. 10, 2007, an antitrust lawsuit was filed against the company, entitled, "Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG." It was brought on behalf of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain Storage, Inc. The plaintiffs seek to certify a national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate directly from the company since August 2003. In the most recent court scheduling order, the court has indicated it will set a hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify a class. The company expect that this hearing will occur in March 2009. The suit is "Texas Grain Storage, Inc. v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 5:07-cv-00673-OLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Judge Orlando L. Garcia, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. (dabrahams@kohnswift.com) Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C. One South Broad Street Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-238-1700 - and - Steven M. Burton, Esq. (sburton@slmpc.com) Sheehy, Lovelace & Mayfield, P.C. 510 North Valley Mills Dr. Suite 500 Waco, TX 76710 Phone: (254) 772-8022 Fax: (254) 772-9297 Representing the defendant are: Sean P. Beaty, Esq. (BeatyS@Howrey.com) Howrey LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 783-0800 Fax: (202) 383-6610 - and - Ricardo G. Cedillo, Esq. (rcedillo@lawdcm.com) Davis, Cedillo & Mendoza McCombs Plaza 755 E. Mulberry Ave. Suite 500 San Antonio, TX 78212 Phone: (210) 822-6666 Fax: (210) 822-1151 (fax) MONSANTO CO: No Trial Dates Set for Biotechnology Traits Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- No trial dates have been scheduled for a consolidated federal lawsuit and a state court class-action lawsuit against Monsanto Co. and its subsidiary Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. over alleged price fixing and overpricing of biotechnology traits. Starting the week of March 7, 2004, a series of purported class- action lawsuits were filed in 14 different state courts against Pioneer and the company. The lawsuits allege that the company conspired with Pioneer to violate various state competition and consumer protection laws by allegedly fixing and artificially inflating the prices and fees for Monsanto's various biotechnology traits and seeds containing those traits and imposing certain use restrictions. All of these cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and consolidated, except for one case that was pending in state court in Tennessee, which has been dismissed. On May 27, 2008, the court entered a scheduling order setting dates for class related discovery and requiring the plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification by April 30, 2009. No date is set for the class certification hearing, according to the company's Oct. 23, 2008 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2008. Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for farmers. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Seeks Dismissal of Suits Over Fuel Surcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- Norfolk Southern Corp. and several other major U.S. Railroads are seeking the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaints filed in several putative class action suits against them that were consolidated in the District of Columbia. In general, the lawsuits allege that the individual railroads conspired in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. As of Feb. 14, 2008, 18 antitrust class action complaints have been filed against Norfolk Southern and the other Class 1 railroads in various federal district courts regarding fuel surcharges (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2008). On Nov. 6, 2007, these actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation. Consolidated amended class action complaints were then filed against Norfolk Southern and three other railroads on April 15, 2008. The complaints allege violations of federal antitrust laws and other laws with regard to the railroads' fuel surcharge programs. Motions to dismiss the consolidated complaints were filed by the railroads on May 30, 2008, and discovery has been stayed pending resolution of these motions. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Norfolk Southern Corp. -- http://www.nscorp.com/-- controls a freight railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway Co. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. is primarily engaged in the rail transportation of raw materials, intermediate products and finished goods primarily in the southeast, east and Midwest and, via interchange with rail carriers, to and from the rest of the U.S. and parts of Canada. OIL REFINERIES: Notified on Legal Claim Filed Against Subsidiary ---------------------------------------------------------------- HAIFA, Israel, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Oil Refineries Ltd. (TASE: ORL.TA), Israel's largest oil refiner, announced that it has received a notification from its subsidiary, Carmel Olefins Ltd. (a private company in which the Company holds 50%, and in respect to which the Company has signed an agreement to purchase the balance of its shares as outlined in the press release dated June 25, 2008) (hereinafter: "CAOL"). Under the notification- -- On October 23, 2008 CAOL was presented with a request for the classification of a class action claim, as defined under the Class Action Law - 2006, filed by Mr. Arye Bernstein, on October 5, 2008, with the Tel-Aviv District Court (hereinafter: the "Requestor" or the "Request", respectfully). The Request was filed with respect to non-monetary damages caused, according to the Requestor, as a result of two smoke emissions events which occurred on September 15, 2003 and October 5, 2008 (hereinafter: "the Events") -- The Requestor asks, in his Request, to represent the citizens of the Haifa Bay area and those who were present in the area (hereinafter: the "Group") and were exposed to the smoke emissions on the said dates. -- The Requestor claims that each of the members of the Group is to be compensated NIS 1,000 with respect to the damages claimed to have been caused. -- The Request does not quote the estimated number of the Group's members and does not quote the total amount that the Requestor claims needs to be compensated to the Group. -- The Request argue to have been filed following the results of the criminal process held against CAOL, under which CAOL was convicted, at its own admission, in a revised indictment relating to the events, by the Israeli Supreme Court. -- CAOL is currently studying the Request with the assistance of its legal advisors. The Company is not able to evaluate the chances and consequences of the claim at this time. Oil Refineries Ltd. (ORL) -- http://www.orl.co.il-- located in the bay area of the city of Haifa, is Israel's largest oil refinery. ORL operates sophisticated and state-of- the-art industrial facilities with refining capacity of 9 million tons of crude oil per year, with a Nelson complexity index of 7.4, providing a variety of quality products used in industrial operation, transportation, private consumption, agriculture and infrastructure. The Company is also active in the area of Aromatics and Polymers through wholly-owned Gadiv Petrochemical Industries Ltd. and 50% owned Carmel Olefins Ltd. ORL is traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange under the ticker ORL. OPES PRIME: Firm Re-Opens AU$100M Lawsuit After Securing Support ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Slater & Gordon, Ltd., has re-opened its AU$100 million class-action lawsuit against Opes Prime Stockbroking, Ltd., and its creditors ANZ Banking Group, Ltd. and Merrill Lynch, after securing support from a U.S. litigation funder. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Slater & Gordon recently secured the agreement of U.S.-based Comprehensive Legal Funding LLC to accept new clients for the class-action lawsuit, subject to the consent of the Federal Court. With the agreement former clients of the failed stockbroker have until Nov. 21, 2008 to join the class-action lawsuit The suit was filed in on May 30, 2008 by Slater & Gordon on behalf of more than 50 former clients of Opes Prime. It generally alleges negligence and breaches of corporations law (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 3, 2008). The lead claimant in the class-action lawsuit is Imobilari Pty. Ltd, the investment company of a Sydney businessman who lost several hundred thousand dollars as a result of the Opes Prime collapse. David Andrews of Slater & Gordon told The Sydney Morning Herald that preliminary rounds have already occurred and they currently await judgment on the strike-out application by the defendants, a routine process in class-action lawsuits. Mr. Andrews adds, "The class action also offers comfort to those whose positions have changed from net creditor to net debtor over the months passed, as we will be arguing in court that they should revert to the position they were in prior to any misrepresentations being made." QANTAS AIRWAYS: Settles Price-Fixing Lawsuit for $20 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ e-Travel Blackboard (Press Release), Australia -- For its role in the international freight cartel, Qantas Airways has settled with the Australian consumer watchdog for $20 million in relation to its price-fixing actions between 2002 and 2006. Qantas has already settled its liabilities in the United States, where it was slugged with a US$61 million fine last year, which it has already paid off. This recent figure is for its actions in Australia, as part of a global operation which saw as many as 30 carriers colluding on their cargo fuel surcharges, and which are now being investigated in different jurisdictions all around the world. "Qantas apologises unreservedly for the conduct of the employees involved. All Qantas employees are expected to comply with the law and we take any failure to comply very seriously," said Geoff Dixon, Qantas CEO in a media statement yesterday. "Since being advised of the allegations in May 2006, Qantas has cooperated fully with investigations by the ACCC and all other relevant antitrust regulators," he adds. Qantas says that it estimates that similar investigations in other jurisdictions will continue to take place over the next two years, in which the airline expects to cooperate. The $20 million fine was much smaller than it could have been, though it is still the second largest fine of its kind in Australian history, due to the fact that the board took action and cooperated with the ACCC investigation. Though the regulatory body is now satisfied with this turnout, Qantas could still expect a civil class action from Melbourne-based Maurice Blackburn, who has already announced that they have attracted hundreds of businesses and 20 multinationals to their case. British Airways also settles British Airways has also settled its obligations for the Australian jurisdiction, seeing an AU$5 million dollar fine from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). BA's liabilities were also lowered because the airline took action and cooperated with the ACCC. The AU$5 million fine will seem negligible for BA who has already seen a GBP121.5 million from its own Office of Fair Trading, which was followed quickly by a USD300 million fine handed down by the US Department of Justice. UAL CORP: California Court Yet to Approve Antitrust Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to approve a settlement agreement reached by UAL Corp. resolving multiple putative class action suits that allege violations of the antitrust laws with respect to passenger pricing practices. Those lawsuits have been consolidated or are pending consolidation for pretrial activities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UAL has entered into a settlement agreement with a number of the plaintiffs in the passenger pricing cases to dismiss the company from the class action lawsuits in return for an agreement to cooperate with the plaintiffs' factual investigation. The settlement agreement is subject to review and approval by the Federal Court. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons, property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad. UAL CORP: Dismissed From Air Cargo Surcharges Litigation in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- UAL Corp. was dismissed from a consolidated class-action lawsuit in New York with regards to certain surcharges included in tariffs for carrying air cargo. The company and other air cargo carriers have been named as defendants in more than 90 class-action lawsuits alleging civil damages as a result of a purported air cargo pricing conspiracy. Those lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial activities in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company was dismissed from the case on Oct. 3, 2008, according to the company's Oct. 24, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. UAL Corp. -- http://www.united.com/-- is a holding company whose principal subsidiary is United Air Lines, Inc., whose operations consist primarily of the transportation of persons, property and mail throughout the U.S. and abroad. New Securities Fraud Cases AIG INTERNATIONAL: Stull & Brody Files Securities Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Stull, Stull & Brody filed a lawsuit on October 27, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking class action status on behalf of purchasers of 7.70% Series A5 Junior Subordinated Debentures of American International Group, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's public offering on December 11, 2007. The Complaint asserts claims pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l and 77o against certain officers and directors of AIG and certain Underwriters of the Offering. The Underwriters include: -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc., -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., -- UBS Securities LLC, -- Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, -- Bank of America Securities LLC, -- Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., -- The Bear Stearns Companies, LLC, -- RBC Capital Markets and -- Wells Fargo Securities. The Complaint asserts that AIG's Prospectus issued in connection with the Offering contained material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiffs and the proposed Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering AIG was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or adequately addressed in the Prospectus. These factors include, but are not limited to, the fact that, contrary to the representations contained in the Prospectus: (i) AIG did not have a relatively small exposure to loss associated with credit swaps sold by certain variable interest entities; (ii) AIG's exposure to loss associated with credit protection assumed by AIG Financial Products Corp. and AIG trading Croup Inc., including their respective subsidiaries ("AIGFP") on portfolios of loans or debt securities was not remote, even in severe recessionary market scenarios; and (iii) AIG's financial statements and financial information, as contained in and incorporated by reference into the Prospectus, were not presented in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). For more information, contact: Howard Longman, Esq. Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Toll-free: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 1-212-490-2022 e-mail: TSVI@aol.com at SSBNY@aol.com FANNIE MAE: Patton Roberts Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- LITTLE ROCK, Ark., Oct. 27, 2008 -- Patton Roberts, PLLC, a national law firm with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas, Texarkana, Texas, and Shreveport, Louisiana announces that it filed, on October 8, 2008, a class action lawsuit against Fannie Mae on behalf of purchasers of Fannie Mae's 8.25% Fixed-to- Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S who purchased the stock between December 11, 2007 and September 5, 2008, inclusive. Fannie Mae is the nation's largest source of financing for home mortgages. The action was filed in the United States District Court for Southern District of New York. In the complaint, 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: Jack "Jay" T. Patterson, II James C. Wyly Patton Roberts, PLLC 111 Center Street, Ste. 1315 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.372.3480 or 866.372.3480 Fax: 501.372.3488 e-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com or jwyly@pattonroberts.com NOAH EDUCATION: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of Noah Education Holdings, Ltd. in or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about October 19, 2007 (the "IPO" or the "Offering") to November 19, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint charges Noah Education and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act. Noah Education engages in the development, marketing, and distribution of interactive education content in the People's Republic of China. According to the complaint, on or about September 24, 2007, Noah Education filed a Form F-1 Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement") with the SEC for the Offering. On or about October 18, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the Offering (the "Prospectus"), which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and more than 9.8 million shares of Noah Education's ADSs were sold to the public at $14.00 per ADS, thereby raising more than $137 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that the Company was experiencing an increase in raw materials costs which had negatively impacted its earnings. On November 19, 2007, Noah Education issued a press release announcing its financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2007. Among other things, the Company reported that its gross profit margins had dramatically declined from 59.4% in the same period the prior year to 50.2% in the quarter. The press release attributed the declining margins to "an increase in the purchasing cost of certain raw material components of DLDs such as flash chips and memory boards, during July and August." In response to this news, the price of Noah Education ADSs dropped from $12.46 per ADS to $6.72 per ADS on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Noah Education ADSs during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 800-449-4900 e-mail: djr@csgrr.com SPECTRANETICS CORP: Holzer & Fistel Announces Colo. Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, GA, Oct. 27, 2008 -- Shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against The Spectranetics Corporation (NASDAQ: SPNC) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Spectranetics common stock, who purchased shares between April 19, 2007 and September 4, 2008 inclusive. The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to disclose adverse information regarding its medical products and its potential violations of the Food and Drug Administration's rules and regulations. For more information, contact: Michael I. Fistel Jr., Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Holzer & Holzer, LLC 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832 e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com or mdees@holzerlaw.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- October 28-29, 2008 WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION American Conference Institute Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf San Francisco, California Phone: 888-224-2480 October 28-29, 2008 SUBPRIME LITIGATION & ENFORCEMENT American Conference Institute Millennium Broadway\u2008Hotel New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 October 29-30, 2008 AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCT LIABILITY American Conference Institute Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, Illinois Phone: 888-224-2480 October 30-31, 2008 SECURITIES FILINGS Practising Law Institute Gleacher Center Chicago, Illinois Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 5-7, 2008 COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS & COVERAGE CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino Las Vegas, Nevada Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 November 6-7, 2008 BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Harvard Club New York, New York Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 November 6-7, 2008 SECURITIES FILINGS Practising Law Institute San Francisco, California Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 7, 2008 NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON CLASS ACTIONS American Bar Association New York Phone: 800-285-2221 November 11, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION: LEGAL STRATEGIES AND BEST PRACTICES IN "HIGH-STAKES" CASES Practising Law Institute New York, New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 12-14, 2008 SECURITIES REGULATION INSTITUTE Practising Law Institute New York Hilton, New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 November 13, 2008 BAD FAITH LITIGATION DEFENSE COUNSEL SUMMIT American Conference Institute Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida Contact: 888-224-2480 November 17-18, 2008 LIFE INSURANCE IN THE SECONDARY MARKET CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Rittenhouse Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: WHERE IS IT GOING? WHEN WILL IT END? American Law Institute - American Bar Association St. Anthony Hotel San Antonio, Texas Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 4-5, 2008 FOOD\u2010BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute TBC, Phoenix, Arizona Phone: 888-224-2480 December 9-11, 2008 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute Millennium Broadway Hotel, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 December 17-18, 2008 TOP 10 INSURANCE ISSUES CONFERENCE BVR Legal/Mealey's Conferences Loews Hotel Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 January 21-22, 2009 14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TBD, New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 May 18-19, 2009 5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST American Conference Institute TBD, Washington, District of Columbia Phone: 888-224-2480 July 9-10, 2009 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 9-10, 2009 INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Langham Hotel Boston, Massachusetts Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ October 29, 2008 LOW-LEVEL EXPOSURE CASES IN LEAD LITIGATION BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 October 30, 2008 MRSA AND HOSPITAL INFECTIONS: THE NEXT WAVE OF CLASS INFECTIONS BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 October 30, 2008 LITIGATION HOLD LETTERS American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS November 5, 2008 UNDERSTANDING THE EXPOSURE RISK FROM ASBESTOS IN SOILS BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 November 7, 2008 WAGE AND HOUR LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS November 19, 2008 BENZENE BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 November 19, 2008 FALSE CLAIMS ACT & PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: AN UPDATE American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS November 20, 2008 FASB UPDATE: CONVERGENCE, VOLATILITY & POTENTIAL LIABILITIES BVR Legal/Mealey's Teleconferences Phone: 888-BUS-VALU; 503-291-7963 December 4-5, 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS December 13, 2008 MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 26TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2008) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 GOVERNMENT TORT LIABILITY: CLAIMS, LITIGATION & RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu Phone: 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Phone: 800-285-2221 e-mail: abacle@abanet.org ********* 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 * * *