/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/081218.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, December 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 251 Headlines ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal on Consolidated EEOC & Romero Suit Pending ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal to Agents Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Ex-Agents' Suit for Constructive Discharge AT&T BROADBAND: Faces Fla. Litigation Over "Redlining" Practice CELLCOM ISRAEL: Tel-Aviv-Jaffa Court Dismisses Subscribers' Suit COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit COMPUTER SCIENCES: Talks to Settle Suits Over Software Ongoing CREDIT-BASED ASSET: Faces Suit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities DUPONT CO: Fourth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in "Rhodes" Case GRILL CONCEPTS: Expects Payout of Calif. Suit Settlement in 2009 GT SOLAR: N.H. Court Consolidates Multiple Securities Lawsuits INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit LAX HILTON: Workers File Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeal "Williams" Litigation Still Pending NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ohio NATIONAL CITY: Faces Suits Over ERISA Violation Claims in Ohio NATIONAL CITY: Settlement of Wage & Hour Claims v. Unit Pending NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces Merchants' Remaining Antitrust Cases RECKSON OPERATING: Partners to Present Settlement to N.Y. Court WSB FINANCIAL: March 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.85M Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases ATRICURE INC: Strauss & Troy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing GSI GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Securities Fraud Suit Filing INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal on Consolidated EEOC & Romero Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Life Insurance Co.'s parent, Allstate Insurance Co., continues to face an appeal by the plaintiffs from the summary judgment ruling in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, according to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. In 2001, two lawsuits were filed relating to AIC's agency program reorganization announced in 1999: -- the "EEOC I" suit, which was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging retaliation under federal civil rights laws; and -- the "Romero I" suit, which was a class action filed by former employee agents alleging retaliation and age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), breach of contract and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations. In 2004, in the consolidated EEOC I and Romero I litigation, the trial court issued a memorandum and order that, among other things, certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed a release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release is voidable at the option of the release signer. The court also ordered that an agent who voids the release must return to AIC "any and all benefits received by the [agent] in exchange for signing the release." The court also stated that, "on the undisputed facts of record, there is no basis for claims of age discrimination." The EEOC and plaintiffs have asked the court to clarify and/or reconsider its memorandum and order and in January 2007, the judge denied their request. In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motions for summary judgment. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007, stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court along with the merits of the appeal. Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a life insurance company. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment products for individual and institutional customers. Allstate Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries. The Company and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the Allstate Life Group. The Allstate Life Group's principal individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred, immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and variable life insurance. It also distributes variable annuities through its bank distribution partners. Allstate Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock property-liability insurance company. Allstate Insurance Co. is owned by The Allstate Corp. ALLSTATE LIFE: Appeal to Agents Pension Plan Suit Ruling Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the summary judgment ruling in the a putative nationwide class-action lawsuit challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan of Allstate Life Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co. remains pending. A putative nationwide class-action lawsuit has also been filed by former employee agents alleging various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including a worker classification issue. These plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes. This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed and remanded to the trial court in 2005. In June 2007, the court granted AIC's motion to dismiss the case. Following plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in December 2007, stating that the notice of appeal was not taken from a final order within the meaning of the federal law and thus not appealable at this time. In March 2008, the Third Circuit decided that the appeal should not summarily be dismissed and that the question of whether the matter is appealable at this time will be addressed by the Court along with the merits of the appeal, according to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a life insurance company. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment products for individual and institutional customers. Allstate Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries. The Company and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the Allstate Life Group. The Allstate Life Group's principal individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred, immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and variable life insurance. It also distributes variable annuities through its bank distribution partners. Allstate Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock property-liability insurance company. Allstate Insurance Co. is owned by The Allstate Corp. ALLSTATE LIFE: Faces Ex-Agents' Suit for Constructive Discharge --------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Life Insurance Co., a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co. continues to face a certified class- action lawsuit filed by former employee agents who terminated their employment prior to the agency program reorganization. The plaintiffs allege that they were constructively discharged so that AIC could avoid paying the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and other benefits offered under the reorganization. They claim that the constructive discharge resulted from the implementation of agency standards, including mandatory office hours and a requirement to have licensed staff available during business hours. The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007. Fifteen individuals opted out. AIC's motions for judgment on the pleadings were partially granted. In May 2008, the court granted summary judgment in AIC's favor on all class claims. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and in the alternative to decertify the class. AIC opposed this motion and filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to the remaining non- class claim. In August 2008, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and to decertify the class, according to the company's Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Allstate Life Insurance Co. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is a life insurance company. The Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance, retirement and investment products for individual and institutional customers. Allstate Life conducts substantially all of its operations directly or through wholly owned United States subsidiaries. The Company and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the Allstate Life Group. The Allstate Life Group's principal individual products are fixed annuities, including deferred, immediate and indexed, and interest-sensitive, traditional and variable life insurance. It also distributes variable annuities through its bank distribution partners. Allstate Life is a wholly owned subsidiary of Allstate Insurance Co., a stock property-liability insurance company. Allstate Insurance Co. is owned by The Allstate Corp. AT&T BROADBAND: Faces Fla. Litigation Over "Redlining" Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T Broadband faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida that alleges the company intentionally denied high-speed Internet access to minority and poor neighborhoods and overcharged other customers for services, The Associated Press reports. The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by two Broward County residents, Gwen Hudson and Cynthia Martin. It claims AT&T Broadband bypassed poor neighborhoods while offering high-speed access to more affluent areas, a practice known as "redlining." In a statement, AT&T Broadband rejected any claim of redlining and said it would oppose the lawsuit. The company also said it was confident the lawsuit wouldn't affect the expected October close of its merger with Comcast Corp., according to The Associated Press. Christopher Larmoyeux, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Associated press that the lawsuit aims to stop the sale until AT&T Broadband provides service to poor and minority neighborhoods as federal law requires. It also seeks monetary damages. According to Mr. Larmoyeux, in Broward County, where AT&T Broadband holds several franchises, one percent of eligible black households have access to high-speed broadband Internet service as opposed to virtually 100 percent of eligible white households, The Associated Press reported. One plaintiff had high-speed cable Internet access but moved to another area and couldn't get service. The other plaintiff has had repeated problems with her service. The suit is also claiming that AT&T Broadband falsified customer satisfaction claims and billed for services that were not provided, reports The Associated Press. For more details, contact: Christopher Larmoyeux, Esq. West Palm Beach, Florida Phone: (561) 832-9400 and (800) 378-0931 Fax: (561) 832-9445 Web site: http://www.lb-law.com/ CELLCOM ISRAEL: Tel-Aviv-Jaffa Court Dismisses Subscribers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NETANYA, Israel, December 16, 2008 -- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (the "Company") announced today that a purported class action filed against the Company (and another Israeli cellular operator) in the District Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa on December 2002, in connection with the defendants' incoming call tariff to subscribers of other operators when calling subscribers of the defendants during the period before the regulation of interconnect fees, was dismissed with prejudice. Had the lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount claimed was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 1.6 billion. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery Ongoing in Consolidated ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is proceeding in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act statute related to claims of alleged backdating of stock options, according to Computer Sciences Corp.'s Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2008. Initially, on Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action suit involving allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York. The suit is entitled "Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-3927." On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit -- entitled "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-5100" - was filed in the same court. The complaints named as defendants CSC, the CSC Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee, and various directors and officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute. The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class-action complaint. On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer the case to California. Upon arrival in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the two cases were consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Otero in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case and the plaintiffs opposed this motion. The motion is currently under submission. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2008). The defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have since answered the complaint. The suit is "Federico Quan et al v. Computer Sciences Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-SJO-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge S. James Otero, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Paul Blankenstein, Esq. (pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-955-8500 COMPUTER SCIENCES: Talks to Settle Suits Over Software Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Discussions to settle two purported class-action lawsuits in the Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, claiming that the defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software products licensed by Computer Sciences Corp. and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims are ongoing. On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in the matter, "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al." The lawsuit was filed as a putative nationwide class- action suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, shortly before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into law. The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use software products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for bodily injury claims. They also allege wrongful concealment of the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent errors and flaws in the software. The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and costs. On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to sever certain defendants, including the company, from the Hensley litigation. As a result, the company continues as a defendant in the Hensley litigation and is also now a defendant in a separate putative class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al.," along with certain insurance companies previously named as defendants in the Hensley litigation. In July 2008, the court issued a scheduling order in the Hensley litigation setting a class certification hearing date of Dec. 2, 2008. No class certification date has been set in the Basham lawsuit at this time (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2008). During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, the company, along with certain other defendants in the Hensley and Basham litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with legal counsel representing the putative class members through mediation proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator. These discussions are continuing into the third quarter of fiscal 2009. There can be no assurance that the company will reach an agreement with plaintiffs' legal counsel on settlement terms acceptable to the company, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2008. Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in the information technology and professional services industry. CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global Commercial and government markets. Its service offerings include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional services. CSC also provides business process outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer relationship management, credit services, claims processing and logistics. IT and professional services include systems integration, consulting and other professional services. Systems integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and integrating complete information systems. Consulting and professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management and business process reengineering. CREDIT-BASED ASSET: Faces Suit Over Mortgage-Backed Securities -------------------------------------------------------------- Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization LLC (C-Bass) and a group of underwriters are facing a purported class-action suit over alleged false statements regarding the issuance of $476.4 million in mortgage-backed securities, Dow Jones reports. The lawsuit -- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Dec. 12, 2008 -- alleges a registration statement filed by C-Bass for a 2007 securities offering was materially false and misleading, including statements about underwriting standards for mortgage loans backing the securities and the credit quality of the loans. It is seeking class-action status. "In fact, the underwriting, quality control, and due diligence practices and policies utilized in connection with the approval and funding of the mortgage loans were so weak that borrowers were being extended loans based on stated income in the mortgage loan applications with purported income amounts that could not possibly be reconciled with the jobs claimed on the loan application," according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund by law firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, reports Dow Jones. C-Bass is a joint venture, owned in part by units of mortgage insurers MGIC Investment Corp. (MTG) and Radian Group Inc. (RDN). Aside from C-Bass, other defendants in the case are units of Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER), JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and ABN Amro Holding NV (ABNYY), according to Dow Jones. DUPONT CO: Fourth Circuit Denies Appeal Request in "Rhodes" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a request for appeal in connection to the purported class-action suit, "Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Case No. 6:2006-cv-00530," which charges DuPont Co. of harming residents with contaminated drinking water by releasing pollution into the Parkersburg Water District in Wood County, Gretchen Mae Stone of The State Journal reports. The purported class-action lawsuit was originally filed in Wood County Circuit Court on May 2006 against E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. by William R. Rhodes, Russell H. Miller and Valori A. Mace. It arises from the company's alleged release of perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8, from its Washington Works plant in Wood County, West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, June 17, 2008). The plaintiffs allege that C8 from the company's plant has contaminated the drinking water of the communities near the plant, including the city of Parkersburg. C8 is a synthetic chemical that does not occur naturally in the environment. Companies use C8 to make fluoropolymers, substances with special properties that have thousands of important manufacturing and industrial applications. Judge Joseph H. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia recently denied class-action status to the case. In his opinion, Judge Goodwin said a public health risk does not show the common individual injuries needed for a class-action lawsuit, The State Journal reported. According to Judge Goodwin's opinion, the effect of C-8 exposure on human health remains uncertain, but studies have indicated that C-8 may cause liver disease, elevated cholesterol levels and several types of cancer. The plaintiffs later appealed that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which filed its decision on Dec. 12, 2008, denying the request for appeal, according to The State Journal. The suit is "Rhodes et al v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Case No. 6:2006-cv-00530," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Joseph R. Goodwin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Robert A. Bilott, Esq. (bilott@taftlaw.com) Taft Stettinius & Hollister Suite 1800 425 Walnut Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-3957 Phone: 513/381-2838 Fax: 513/381-0205 Representing the defendant is: Nathan B. Atkinson, Esq. (natkinson@spilmanlaw.com) Spilman Thomas & Battle Suite 500 110 Oakwood Drive Winston-Salem, NC 27103 Phone: 336/725-4710 Fax: 336/725-4476 GRILL CONCEPTS: Expects Payout of Calif. Suit Settlement in 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Grill Concepts, Inc., expects the settlement of the class-action lawsuit relating to employee meal and rest breaks, filed in June 2004, to be paid out during the first half of fiscal 2009, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 28, 2008. One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed a class action complaint in June 2004, before the Superior Court of California of Orange County against the company. The company requested to move the suit from Orange County to Los Angeles County, and this motion was granted. The lawsuit was then refiled before the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles in December 2004. The plaintiff alleged violations of California labor laws with respect to providing meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class members. In April 2007, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that payments for missed meal or rest breaks are considered wages or premium pay, not penalties. As a result, claims for missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code will be governed by a three or four-year statute of limitations for the payments required under the Labor Code, rather than a one- year statute. The case has been placed in a stay status pending mediation in the summer of 2008. A second class-action complaint of the same nature was filed on April 4, 2008, in the Supreme Court for the County of Los Angeles. The company has requested that the case be combined with the first class-action lawsuit. On July 16, 2008, through non-binding mediation, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the first ongoing class action lawsuit relating to employee meal and rest breaks. The settlement, whose terms must still be finalized and is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court, contains a not-to-exceed amount, based on claims made by eligible class members. The tentative settlement also requires a minimum payment of 50% of the total settlement amount after attorney's fees, administrative costs and plaintive incentive awards. Based on the proposed terms of the settlement and the historically low rate of claims made in these types of cases, the company says that the most likely estimate of total costs to Grill Concepts will be $1.2 million, of which $0.1 million was accrued in previous years. The balance, or $0.8 million, was recorded in the second quarter 2008 condensed consolidated financial statements. A memorandum of understanding has been executed and the company is waiting for the settlement to become binding, through judge approval. During the third quarter of 2009, additional legal and economist costs were incurred totaling $0.3 million. Grill Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.dailygrill.com/-- develops, owns, operates, manages and licenses full-service upscale casual dining restaurants under the name Daily Grill and fine dining restaurants under the name The Grill on the Alley. GT SOLAR: N.H. Court Consolidates Multiple Securities Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire has consolidated into one class-action case several suits charging GT Solar International, Inc. with securities fraud, Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph reports. According to court records, a total of 12 plaintiffs, including several individual investors and the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement Fund, had sued GT Solar, claiming that company officials failed to disclose the company was about to lose its largest customer before the company went public earlier this year. The customer, a Chinese firm, has since resumed buying from GT Solar, which makes parts and furnaces for solar panels, reports the Nashua Telegraph. In a hearing last week, Judge Joseph LaPlante of U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled that the eight different cases should be heard as one. The court lumped them all into a single case, entitled, "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., Case No. 08-cv-312," and closed the rest. That single case now has 12 different plaintiffs, represented by 16 lawyers from 12 different firms and remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, according to the Nashua Telegraph. The suit is "Braun et al v. GT Solar International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-00312-JL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Judge Joseph N. Laplante, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher Cole, Esq. (ccole@sheehan.com) Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green 1000 Elm St. P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03105-3701 Phone: 603-668-0300 - and - Michelle H. Blauner, Esq. (mblauner@shulaw.com) Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St, 13th Flr. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-439-3939 Representing the defendants are: W. Daniel Deane, Esq. (ddeane@nixonpeabody.com) Nixon Peabody LLP 900 Elm St, 14th Flr Manchester, NH 03101-2031 Phone: 603-628-4047 - and - William H. Paine, Esq. (william.paine@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP 60 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-526-6000 INTERLINK ELECTRONICS: In Talks to Settle Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Interlink Electronics, Inc. is negotiating definitive settlement agreement with the parties in a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 15, 2005, under the caption "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," was brought against the company and two of its current and former officers. It alleges that between April 24, 2003, and Nov. 1, 2005, the company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information regarding the company's results of operations and financial condition. The complaint also alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. It seeks unspecified damages and legal expenses. On Nov. 3, 2006, the court appointed new lead plaintiffs, who later filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint includes claims under the Securities Act and the Exchange Act. In September 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part a motion by the defendants to dismiss the operative complaint. On April 24, 2008, the parties participated in a mediation with Retired Justice Howard B. Wiener in Los Angeles. The parties were unable to reach a resolution of their dispute and will continue to litigate. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in May 2008, which the Company subsequently moved to dismiss in part. On Oct. 6, 2008, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss, and on Oct. 22, 2008, the Company filed an answer. The suit is "Roger Brooks, et al. v. Interlink Electronics, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-08133-PA-SH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Percy Anderson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 - and - Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. Roy L. Jacobs and Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-867-1156 Representing the defendants is: Daniel S. Floyd, Esq. (dfloyd@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Phone: 213-229-7000 LAX HILTON: Workers File Wage, Hour Violations Lawsuit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Workers at the LAX Hilton filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the hotel -- owned by Fortuna Enterprises LP -- alleging a pattern of violations of California wage and hour laws since at least 2004, Deborah Crowe of the Los Angeles Business Journal reports. The lawsuit, filed in L.A. Country Superior Court, charges management with denying employees the meal and rest breaks required under the state Labor Code. Workers alleged they were required to note breaks on their time sheets, whether or not they actually took them, or face a reprimand. The workers are represented by attorney Randy Renick, Esq., a partner at Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP, according to the Los Angeles Business Journal. For more details, contact: Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson & Renick LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 626.585.9600 Fax: 626.577.7079 e-mail: questions@hskrr.com Web site: http://www.renicklaw.com/ MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Appeal "Williams" Litigation Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal by the plaintiffs in the matter "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," from a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that denied their motion for class certification remains pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Four plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in January 2004. The case purports that the plaintiffs are former and current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly employees in Georgia. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including: -- treble damages; -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation. According to the original complaint, the company sent its employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North Georgia. The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them jobs with the company. It even charges that although some of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped others evade detection. Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under different names. It claims that the company destroyed documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal workers. One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states. In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004. Following appellate review, the case was returned to the District Court and discovery began. On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the company opposed. On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on March 17, 2008. Discovery has been stayed at the District Court while the appeal is pending. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bobby Lee Cook, Esq. (LisaDodd@alltel.net) Cook & Connelly P.O. Box 370 Summerville, GA 30747-0370 Phone: 706-857-3421 - and - Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com) John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com) Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com) Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com) Bondurant Mixson & Elmore 1201 West Peachtree St., N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Ctr. Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Phone: 404-881-4100 Representing the defendants are: Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com) Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com) Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com) Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-736-8000 - and - R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com) Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com) Constangy Brooks & Smith 230 Peachtree St., N.W. 2400 Peachtree Center Tower Atlanta, GA 30303-1557 Phone: 404-525-8622 NATIONAL CITY: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action suit filed against National City Corp. and certain current and former officers and directors of the Corporation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The complaint, filed on Jan. 24, 2008, alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief on behalf of purchasers of the Corporation's stock during the period from April 30, 2007 to Jan. 2, 2008. No further details regarding the lawsuit were disclosed in the Corporation's Current Report in Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008. National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a financial holding company. The company operates through a banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National, Mortgage Banking and Asset Management. Operations are primarily conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located within National City's nine-state footprint. In addition, National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices throughout the United States. NATIONAL CITY: Faces Suits Over ERISA Violation Claims in Ohio -------------------------------------------------------------- National City Corp. faces two putative class-action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio over alleged Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations. On Jan. 10 and Jan. 17, 2008, two putative class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Corporation, the Administrative Committee for the National City Savings and Investment Plan and certain current and former officers and directors of the Corporation. The complaints allege violations of the ERISA relating to the Corporation's stock being offered as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan. The complaints seek unspecified money damages and equitable relief, according to the Corporation's Current Report in Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008. National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a financial holding company. The company operates through a banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National, Mortgage Banking and Asset Management. Operations are primarily conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located within National City's nine-state footprint. In addition, National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices throughout the United States. NATIONAL CITY: Settlement of Wage & Hour Claims v. Unit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement to resolve all wage and hour claims of the opt-in class of loan originators against National City Mortgage Co., a unit of National City Corp., remains subject to court approval. On Dec. 19, 2005, a class-action suit was filed against National City Mortgage in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that National City Mortgage loan originators were improperly designated as exempt employees and seeks monetary damages. On June 21, 2007, the court conditionally certified an opt-in class of loan originators. On Nov. 6, 2007, a settlement in principle was reached to resolve all wage and hour claims of the loan originators employed during the class period that opt-in to the settlement class. At Dec. 31, 2007, the Corporation has a $25 million reserve accrued for this matter, according to its Current Report in Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008. National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a financial holding company. The company operates through a banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National, Mortgage Banking and Asset Management. Operations are primarily conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located within National City's nine-state footprint. In addition, National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices throughout the United States. NATIONAL CITY: Still Faces Merchants' Remaining Antitrust Cases --------------------------------------------------------------- The remaining antitrust class-action lawsuits filed by merchants operating commercial businesses throughout the U.S. and trade associations are still in the preliminary stages, according to National City Corporation's Current Report in Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Nov. 12, 2008. Beginning on June 22, 2005, a series of antitrust class-action lawsuits were filed against Visa(R), MasterCard(R), and several major financial institutions, including eight cases naming the Corporation and its subsidiary, National City Bank of Kentucky, since merged into National City Bank. The plaintiffs claim that the interchange fees charged by card- issuing banks are unreasonable and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On July 1, 2007, the Corporation and National City Bank entered into a Judgment Sharing Agreement (JSA) with respect to this litigation. This litigation is subject to the Visa USA bylaws and the Loss Sharing Agreement (LSA). Under the Visa USA bylaws, the Corporation is obligated to indemnify Visa, Inc. for certain losses. The LSA reaffirmed the Corporation's obligation to indemnify Visa for potential future settlement of certain litigation. The Corporation's indemnification obligation is limited to its 8% proportionate equity interest in Visa USA. On Sept. 7, 2007, the Magistrate Judge recommended to the District Court that all claims that predate Jan. 1, 2004 should be dismissed. National City Corp. -- https://www.nationalcity.com -- is a financial holding company. The company operates through a banking network primarily in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It has organized its operations into five businesses: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking-Regional, Commercial Banking-National, Mortgage Banking and Asset Management. Operations are primarily conducted through more than 1,400 branch banking offices located within National City's nine-state footprint. In addition, National City operates over 410 retail mortgage offices throughout the United States. RECKSON OPERATING: Partners to Present Settlement to N.Y. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- SL Green Realty Corp. and Reckson Associates Realty Corp.'s settlement of class-action lawsuits related to a merger will be presented to the New York court for approval, according to Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.'s Nov. 12, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Dec. 6, 2006, SL Green announced that it and RARC had reached an agreement in principal with the plaintiffs to settle the class action lawsuits relating to SL Green's acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of RARC (Merger). The settlement, which has been executed by all parties, provides: (1) for certain contingent profit sharing participations for former RARC stockholders relating to specified assets, none of which are owned by ROP, (2) for potential payments to former RARC stockholders of amounts relating to Reckson's interest in contingent profit sharing participations in connection with the sale of certain Long Island industrial properties in a prior transaction, none of which are owned by ROP, and (3) for the dismissal by the plaintiffs of all actions with prejudice and customary releases of all defendants and related parties. Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P., is engaged in the ownership, management, operation and development of commercial real estate properties, principally office properties and also owns land for future development located in New York City, Westchester and Connecticut. The company commenced operations on June 2, 1995. Reckson Associates Realty Corp. served as the sole general partner until Nov. 15, 2007, at which time RARC withdrew, and Wyoming Acquisition GP LLC, succeeded it, as the sole general partner of ROP. WAGP is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SL Green Realty Corp. The sole limited partner of ROP is SL Green Operating Partnership, L.P. WSB FINANCIAL: March 27, 2009 Hearing Set for $4.85M Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington will hold a fairness hearing on March 27, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. For the proposed $4.85 million settlement in the matter, "In Re: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ," which was filed against WSB Financial Group, Inc. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Richard A. Jones at the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA 98101. In October 2007, a purported securities fraud class-action suit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its directors and current and former officers alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and other relief in connection with the Company's initial public offering (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 2, 2008). Since then four additional, similar actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington. As is typical in these cases, all the actions have been consolidated into a single action, "In RE: WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation, Master File No. CO7-1747 RAJ." As previously reported, WSB Financial Group, the parent company of Westsound Bank, said that it has entered into a settlement agreement with the lead plaintiff in a pending securities class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008). The class action settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The settlement agreement provides for the certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to its initial public offering completed on December 21, 2006. The total amount of the settlement is $4.85 million. The Company's directors' and officers' liability insurance policy will contribute approximately $4.45 million towards the settlement amount and has previously contributed approximately $350,000 towards the Company's legal fees. The settlement agreement contains no admission of fault or wrongdoing by the Company or the other defendants. "This settlement is a significant accomplishment and allows our management team to focus on our future," said Terry A. Peterson, President and CEO. "It further demonstrates our focus on identifying and executing strategies to eliminate risk. While we still believe we have strong defenses, we felt it was important to get it behind us and eliminate the burden and expense of protracted litigation. We continue to maintain adequate levels of capital and liquidity, which are important measures of the Bank's safety and soundness for both shareholders and depositors." For more details, contact: David R. Stickney, Esq. Timothy A. DeLange, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (888) 924-1888 Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com - and - In re WSB Financial Group Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. P.O. Box 91179 Seattle, WA 98111-9279 Phone: 1 (800) 961-2567 Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/fullcase/1434 New Securities Fraud Cases ATRICURE INC: Strauss & Troy Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- CINCINNATI, Dec. 16, 2008 -- Strauss & Troy announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on Friday, December 12, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of AtriCure, Inc. ("AtriCure") between May 10, 2007 and October 31, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges that AtriCure and certain of its officers with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose that AtriCure misrepresented its profitability by, among other things, illegally promoting its products contrary to FDA regulations and filing false claims for Medicare reimbursement. The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements and SEC filings concerning the Company's operations, finances and performance and that the price of AtriCure common stock to investors was artificially inflated during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com) Strauss & Troy 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 800-669-9341 513-621-2120 GSI GROUP: Finkelstein Thompson Securities Fraud Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON, Dec 16, 2008 -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against GSI Group, Inc. ("GSI" or the "Company") in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and Finkelstein Thompson is investigating similar claims at this time. The filed complaint alleges that on December 4, 2008, GSI's share price plummeted 29.17% on unusually heavy trading volume, closing at $0.68 per share. This drop occurred after GSI announced that it would have to restate financial statements for the first and second fiscal quarters of 2008 because approximately $16.2 million in stated revenues should have been deferred until the delivery of additional equipment in accordance with EITF 00-21 Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the Company issued false and misleading statements concerning this improperly recognized revenue and the resulting effect on GSI's financial results. Further, the complaint alleges that as a result of these false and misleading statements, the price of GSI stock was artificially inflated between between April 30, 2008 and December 3, 2008, inclusive. INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Glancy Binkow Files Md. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Dec. 16, 2008 -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Integral Systems, Inc. ("Integral Systems" or the "Company"), between April 28, 2008 and December 10, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Integral Systems and certain of its 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 Integral Systems' stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Integral Systems builds satellite ground systems and equipment for command and control, integration and test, data processing, and simulation. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements 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: -- that the Company improperly recognized revenue; -- that as a result, the Company misstated its financial results during the Class Period; -- that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 11, 2008, Integral Systems shocked investors when it revealed that the unaudited financial statements of the Company for the interim periods ended December 31, 2007, March 30, 2008 and June 30, 2008 should no longer be relied upon due to an error in the accounting treatment for certain transactions with respect to the timing of the recognition of revenue between periods. The Company further disclosed that, as a result, the Company would restate its previously filed financial statements for those interim quarterly periods in fiscal year 2008. The Company estimated that the net impact of the adjustments for the first three quarters of 2008 would result in a decrease of approximately $10 million in revenues, a decrease of approximately $3 million in gross profit, a decrease of approximately $4 million in operating income, and a decrease of approximately $0.13 in earnings per share. On this news, shares of Integral Systems declined $6.38 per share, or 28.61%, to close on December 11, 2008 at $15.92 per share, on unusually heavy volume. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.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, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D. Canilao, 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 * * *