/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090106.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 3 Headlines APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lines on iMac Displays AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces Wash. Charity Care Law Violations Suit AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Mass., Del. Lawsuits CMS ENERGY: Certification Motion in Gas Purchasers' Suit Pending CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Arandell" Still Pending CMS ENERGY: Continues to Face "Learjet" Litigation in Kansas CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration Bid in "Breckenridge" Still Pending CMS ENERGY: Remanded "Leggett" Complaint Proceeds in Tennessee CMS ENERGY: Texas-Ohio Energy's Remanded Suit Pending in Calif. DENDREON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "McGuire" GT SOLAR: Amended Complaint Filed in N.H. Securities Fraud Suit MOLSON COORS: April 2, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement MOLSON COORS: May 18, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement MRT Holdings: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged $50M Ponzi Scheme OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Wahe, Hour Litigation in California PERDUE FARMS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Extra Giblets in Chickens SK FOODS: Faces Calif. Price-Fixing Suit Over Processed-Tomatoes SPRINT NEXTEL: March 5 Hearing Set for $14M "Larson" Settlement ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana New Securities Fraud Cases EMCORE CORP: Brualdi Law Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* APPLE INC: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lines on iMac Displays -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over unwanted vertical lines on iMac screens, Jacqui Cheng of Ars Technica reports. The litigation was filed on Dec. 31, 2008 under the caption, "Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2008-cv-05788." It was brought by Florida resident Aram Hovsepian after his iMac, purchased in October of 2006, began showing vertical lines on the display in March of 2008. In his complaint, Mr. Hovsepian alleges that Apple failed to disclose material facts about the displays in its iMac line, and that there were "common manufacturing defects" that would cause the vertical line phenomenon to happen, reports Ars Technica. "Instead," reads the complaint, "Apple remained silent knowing its iMac display screens would malfunction while consumers purchased iMacs, made warranty claims arising from the vertical lines on display screens, and made out of warranty repairs related to the vertical line problem." Because of this, the lawsuit says Apple is in violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act, as well as the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act. The company has also supposedly breached its implied warranty by not disclosing these flaws, and has received unjust enrichment as a result, Ars Technica reported. Mr. Hovsepian hopes that the judge will award all members of the class individual damages, force the company to implement a formal program to repair and replace defective iMac screens, and reimburse out-of-warranty repairs that iMac owners have already made, according to Ars Technica. The suit is "Hovsepian v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:2008-cv- 05788," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District, Judge Patricia V. Trumbull, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael J. Boni, Esq. Boni & Zack LLC 16 St. Asaphs Roa Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 610-822-2000 David R. Buchanan, Esq. (DBuchanan@SeegerWeiss.com) Seeger Weiss LLP One Williams Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-584-0700 Richard J. Burke, Esq. Richard J. Burke LLC 1010 Market Street Suite 650 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314 621-8647 Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com) Donovan Searles, LLC 1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-732-6067 Fax: 215-732-8060 Eric David Freed, Esq. Freed Weiss & Flaum 111 W Washington Street Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60657 Phone: 312-220-0000 George K. Lang, Esq. Freed and Weiss LLC 111 W. Washington Street Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-220-0000 AUDIT & ADJUSTMENT: Faces Wash. Charity Care Law Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Audit & Adjustment Co., Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in King County Superior Court in Washington for allegedly violating the state's charity care law, Cynthia Wilson of insideARM reports. The suit was filed on Dec. 8, 2008 by Seattle-based Phillips Law Group. It claims that the healthcare collection agency, has systematically engaged in "the unfair, deceptive and misleading practice of telling patients that they owe the full charges shown on hospital billing statements, without informing them that they may be entitled to charity care that reduces the hospital debt or eliminates it entirely depending on a patient's income level." insideARM reported that lead attorneys John Phillips, Esq., and Matthew Geyman, Esq. are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. In addition to statutory damages on behalf of the plaintiffs for allegedly violating the state's charity care law, Consumer Protection Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the attorneys want the agency to stop pursuing collections from charity care-eligible patients. The attorneys are also asking the court to make the agency establish procedures to allow patients to qualify for charity care that it collects on behalf of Washington hospitals, and notify current and former patients the agency has collected from in the past four years that they may be eligible for charity care that may reduce their obligation. Under Washington statute RCW 70.170.060, individuals and families with annual incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level -- $10,400 for a single person and $42,400 for a family of four living in Washington -- are deemed charity care patients for the full amount of hospital charges, provided that they are not eligible for other public or private health coverage sponsorship, insideARM reported. The law also requires various levels of discounts for patients whose annual incomes range from 100 percent to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. According to the lawsuit, the law entitles charity care-eligible patients who have paid all or portions of their hospital bills to a refund. The lawsuit alleges that Audit & Adjustment's profits depend on how much money it gets from each hospital patient and that the agency has a built-in incentive not to allow patients to apply for and obtain charity care once the debt is in collection. It claims that the agency systematically told patients they were not charity care-eligible once their account was in collection, reported insideARM. AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Mass., Del. Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in two purported class-action lawsuits against Axcelis Technologies, Inc. that were filed in Massachusetts and Delaware in connection with proposals made by Sumitomo Heavy Industries, Ltd., in 2008 to acquire the outstanding common stock of the company have voluntarily dismissed their cases. Meltzer Litigation On or about Feb. 11, 2008, Martin Meltzer filed a purported shareholder class-action complaint in the Massachusetts Superior Court (Civil Action No. 08-0692-E), naming as defendants the company, its current directors and a former director. The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by failing to properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer by Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share. The suit asks the Court to direct the company and its board to "give due consideration to any proposed business combination" to maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of interest exist. Simon Litigation In or about Feb. 28, 2008, Shirley Simon filed a purported shareholder class-action complaint in the Delaware Chancery Court (Case No. 3582), naming as defendants the company and its current directors. The complaint alleges that Axcelis and its board breached their fiduciary duties to the company's shareholders by failing to properly consider the Feb. 11, 2008 unsolicited offer by Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd. to purchase all of the outstanding stock of the company for $5.20 per share, and subsequently rejecting that offer. The suit wants the Court to direct the company and its board to cooperate with any person or entity, including Sumitomo that proposes a merger, acquisition or other transaction that would maximize shareholder value, while ensuring that no conflicts of interest exist. The complaint also seeks to have the defendants, other than the company, pay damages suffered to the class as a result of their alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. A motion to dismiss the suit and an accompanying brief were filed by Axcelis on March 26, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to cover the proposal made by Sumitomo on March 10, 2008, and other matters relating to the annual meeting of stockholders held on May 1, 2008. Recent Developments The purported class-action suit filed by Martin Meltzer in February 2008 in Massachusetts Superior Court (Civil Action No. 08-0692-E) has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. The purported class-action suit filed by Shirley Simon in February 2008 in Delaware Chancery Court (Case No. 3582) has been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff. Axcelis Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.axcelis.com/-- designs, manufactures and services ion implantation, dry strip and other processing equipment used in the fabrication of semiconductor chips. In addition to equipment, Axcelis provides aftermarket service and support, including spare parts, equipment upgrades, maintenance services and customer training. The Company also owns 50% of the equity of SEN Corp., a producer of ion implantation equipment in Japan. SEN licenses technology from the Company for certain ion implantation products and has exclusive rights to market the licensed products in Japan. CMS ENERGY: Certification Motion in Gas Purchasers' Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for class certification in a purported class-action suit alleging that CMS Energy Corp. falsely reported natural gas trades in an effort to artificially raise natural gas prices is pending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit, entitled "Heartland Regional Medical Center v. eprime, Xcel Energy et al.," was filed in March 2007, before the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri. The suit was brought on behalf of a purported class of natural gas purchasers alleging that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy and falsely reported natural gas trades in order to artificially raise natural gas prices. It alleges restraint of trade, price manipulation, and violation of Missouri's antitrust laws. The defendants removed this case to Missouri federal court, and it has been conditionally transferred to as a Multidistrict Litigation proceeding in Nevada, captioned, "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566." The plaintiffs also filed a motion to remand this case back to state court, but the court has yet to decide on this request (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008). The plaintiffs withdrew that motion to remand and filed an amended complaint. CMS Energy filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. CMS MST and CMS Field Services filed answers to the amended complaint. On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 17, 2008. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. CMS ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Arandell" Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The motion for seeking vlass certification for the matter "Arandell Corp., et al. v. XCEL Energy Inc., et al.," which names CMS Energy Corp. as a defendant remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The class-action complaint was filed on or about Dec. 15, 2006, in Wisconsin state court on behalf of Wisconsin commercial entities that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000 and Oct. 31, 2002. Defendants, including CMS Energy, CMS Energy Resource Management Company and Cantera Gas Company, LLC, are alleged to have violated Wisconsin's antitrust statute by conspiring to manipulate natural gas prices. The plaintiffs are seeking full consideration damages, plus exemplary damages in an amount equal to three times the actual damages, and attorneys' fees. The action was removed to Wisconsin federal district court and later transferred to the MDL proceeding. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which has been fully briefed. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 17, 2008. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. CMS ENERGY: Continues to Face "Learjet" Litigation in Kansas ------------------------------------------------------------ CMS Energy Corp., CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, and CMS Field Services, Inc.are still facing a a putative class- action suit entitled, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS MST was served with a summons and complaint which named CMS Energy, CMS MST and CMS Field Services as defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in Kansas state court, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al." Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000 through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting the market price of natural gas. The plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from defendants and others for their facilities, are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas. On Dec. 7, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and later transferred to the multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding. On Sept. 7, 2007, the CMS MST and CMS Field Services filed an answer to the complaint. CMS Energy has a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and is awaiting the court's decision. On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 17, 2008. On Oct. 27, 2008, Defendants filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings on statute of limitations grounds. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. CMS ENERGY: Reconsideration Bid in "Breckenridge" Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- CMS Energy Corp. is awaiting the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado's decision on reconsideration of a purported class-action suit, entitled "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," according to the company's Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court in May 2006. The defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services, Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas price reporting activities. The plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 12, 2006. An order transferring the case and similar others as a multidistrict litigation proceeding, captioned "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," was entered on Oct. 17, 2006. The court issued an order dated Dec. 4, 2006, denying the motion to remand the case back to Colorado state court. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case. On Aug. 21, 2007, the court granted the dismissal motion by CMS Energy on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. However, the court granted the plaintiff's request for reconsideration and allowed jurisdictional discovery to proceed. CMS then re-filed its dismissal motion and is awaiting the court's decision. The remaining CMS Energy defendants filed a summary judgment motion, which the court granted in March 2008 on the basis that the named plaintiffs made no natural gas purchases from any named defendant. The plaintiffs requested reconsideration of the summary judgment order and the court ordered further briefing. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 22, 2008). On Sept. 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims are barred by implied antitrust immunity arising from the Commodity Exchange Act. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on Oct. 17, 2008. The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Robert E. Blackburn, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John Preston Baker, Esq. (jbaker@stklaw.com) Philip Wayne Bledsoe, Esq. (pbledsoe@stklaw.com) Shughart, Thomson & Kilroy, P.C. 1050 17th Street #2300 Denver, CO 80265 Phone: 303-572-9300 Fax: 303-572-7883 Representing the defendants are: Michelle B. Goodman, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 555 West 5th Street, #4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Phone: 213-896-6014 Fax: 213-896-6600 - and - Mark H. Hamer, Esq. (mark.hamer@dlapiper.com) DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, LLP 401 B Street, #1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-699-4758 Fax: 619-699-2701 CMS ENERGY: Remanded "Leggett" Complaint Proceeds in Tennessee -------------------------------------------------------------- The remanded class-action complaint, "Samuel D. Leggett, et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation, et al.," proceeds in the Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The class-action complaint brought on behalf of retail and business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee, was filed in the Chancery Court of Fayette County, Tennessee in January 2005. The complaint contains claims for violations of the Tennessee Trade Practices Act based upon allegations of false reporting of price information by defendants to publications that compile and publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas hubs. The complaint seeks statutory full consideration damages and attorneys' fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants' future conduct. The defendants include CMS Energy, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Company, and CMS Field Services, Inc. On Feb. 2, 2007, the state court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 4, 2007. Oral arguments were heard on Nov. 8, 2007. On Oct. 29, 2008, the appellate court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding that the trial court had mis-applied the filed rate doctrine. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. CMS ENERGY: Texas-Ohio Energy's Remanded Suit Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc.'s remanded putative class-action lawsuit remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, according to CMS Energy Corp.'s Nov. 5, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Texas-Ohio Energy filed the putative class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in November 2003, against a number of energy companies engaged in the sale of natural gas in the United States, including CMS Energy. The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of natural gas in California. It alleged violations of the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code relating to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices. The complaint sought both actual and exemplary damages for alleged overcharges, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief regulating defendants' future conduct relating to pricing and price reporting. In April 2004, a Nevada multi-district litigation (MDL) panel ordered the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in the Nevada federal district court that at the time involved seven complaints originally filed in various state courts in California that made similar allegations. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis of the "filed rate doctrine" and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants on April 11, 2005. Texas-Ohio appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. While that appeal was pending, CMS Energy agreed to settle the Texas-Ohio case and three other cases originally filed in California federal courts (Fairhaven, Abelman Art Glass and Utility savings), for a total payment of $700,000. On Sept. 10, 2007, the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement and dismissing the CMS Energy defendants from these cases. On Sept. 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the federal district court. While CMS Energy is no longer a party to the Texas-Ohio case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling may affect the positions of CMS Energy entities in other pending cases, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing dated Nov. 5, 2008. CMS Energy Corp. -- http://www.cmsenergy.com/-- is an energy holding company operating through subsidiaries in the U.S., primarily in Michigan. Its two principal subsidiaries are Consumers and Enterprises. Consumers is a public utility that provides electricity and/or natural gas to almost 6.5 million of Michigan's 10 million residents and serves customers in all 68 counties of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. Enterprises, through various subsidiaries and certain equity investments, are engaged primarily in domestic independent power production. CMS Energy manages its businesses by the nature of services each provides and operates principally in three business segments: electric utility, gas utility and enterprises. DENDREON CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint in "McGuire" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dendreon Corp. is seeking for the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action suit filed against the company before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Initially, four proposed securities class-action suits have been filed before the same court. Three of these suits name Dendreon and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a proposed class period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007. One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007. All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for securities law violations stemming from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's actions regarding the company's pending Biologics License Application for Provenge. The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and designated a lead plaintiff. On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs opposed this dismissal request. The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27, 2008. By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, adding the company's senior vice president as defendant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 2, 2008, and lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2008. The defendants' reply brief was filed Aug. 20, 2008. Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 25, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "McGuire et al. v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com) Susman Godfrey 1201 Third Ave. Ste. 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-516-3880 Representing the defendants is: Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave. Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 GT SOLAR: Amended Complaint Filed in N.H. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint has been filed in a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit pending against GT Solar International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Bob Sanders of the New Hampshire Business Review reports. According to the filing, a copy of which was obtained by the New Hampshire Business Review, GT Solar knew for months that it was selling defective equipment that could explode and that it was in danger of losing its biggest customer, but covered up the information from investors in launching a half-billion dollar initial public offering on July 24, 2008. The day after the IPO was launched, LDK Solar Co., whose business accounted for 63 percent of GT Solar's sales in the previous fiscal year � announced that it was entering into a three-year contract with GT Solar's competitor, JYT Corp. GT Solar's stock took a nosedive following the news, losing 24 percent of its value. The new 40-page amended complaint, quoting from six unnamed former and current employees, said that management was warned that GT Solar used old and shoddy parts, including "crap equipment from India, that resulted in cracks in furnaces used to make solar turning them into "ticking time bombs," reports the New Hampshire Business Review. Several employees (including one of the witnesses) who raised such issues were fired, and a letter from a company attorney was allegedly put on the company bulletin board � above the phrase, "loose lips sink ships." � warning employees not to discuss problems with the furnace. The company also knew that these problems could cause it to loose customers, including LDK, the amended complaint charges. The news of an explosion in Taiwan involving GT equipment spread like "fire in the wind" to GT Solar's customers according to one unnamed witness, the amended complaint states. According to another anonymous source a Power Point presentation on the threat of JYT was circulated within GT Solar marketing department prior to the IPO, the complaint alleges. However, according the suit, the company prospectus touted its relationship with LDK, and did not disclose production problems or that it was in danger of losing LDK as a customer, the New Hampshire Business Review reported. Case Background Andrew Wolfe of the Nashua Telegraph reported in December that 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 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008). 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 MOLSON COORS: April 2, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Quebec Superior Court of Justice will hold a fairness hearing on April 2, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed $6,000,000 settlement of purported class-action suits in both the U.S. and Canada in relation Molson Coors Brewing Co.'s -- formerly Adolph Coors Co. -- 2005 merger with Molson, Inc. The hearing will be held in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice, 1, rue Notre-Dame Est, Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 1B6. Beginning in May 2005, several purported shareholder class- action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in Ontario and Quebec. The suits allege, among other things, that the company and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc., and certain officers and directors misled stockholders in connection with the merger (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008). The Colorado case was transferred to Delaware and consolidated with other cases. The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in October 2007 regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a class in that consolidated case. The company opposed the motion. During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all such claims on a worldwide basis. Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay, except one case, a total of $6 million, which amount would be paid by the company's insurance carrier. The settlement agreement is awaiting approval in the various courts in which the cases are pending. The suits to be settled are: -- "Boys and Girls Club of London Foundation, et al. v. Molson Coors Brewing Company, et al., Case No. 500-06- 000314-050," which is pending with the Province of Quebec District of Montreal Superior Court. -- "In Re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities Litigation Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-00294-GMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. For more details, contact: The Claims Administrator In re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 North Jackson Street Suite 3, Media, PA, 19063 Phone: 1 866-802-7949 Web site: http://www.molsoncoorssettlement.com Monique L. Radlein Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Street London, ON N6A 3V8 Phone: (800) 461-6166 x 2380 Web site: http://www.classaction.ca - and - Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (800) 321-0476 Web site: http://www.labaton.com MOLSON COORS: May 18, 2009 Hearing Set for $6M Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware will hold a fairness hearing on May 18, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $6,000,000 settlement of purported class-action lawsuits in both the U.S. and Canada in relation Molson Coors Brewing Co.'s -- formerly Adolph Coors Co. -- 2005 merger with Molson, Inc. The hearing will be held in the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, before the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet. Beginning in May 2005, several purported shareholder class- action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and Canada, including federal courts in Delaware and Colorado and provincial courts in Ontario and Quebec. The suits allege, among other things, that the company and its affiliated entities, including Molson Inc., and certain officers and directors misled stockholders in connection with the merger (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 28, 2008). The Colorado case was transferred to Delaware and consolidated with other cases. The Quebec Superior Court heard arguments in October 2007 regarding the plaintiffs' motion to authorize a class in that consolidated case. The company opposed the motion. During the first quarter of 2008, the company agreed in principle with the plaintiffs' counsel in all pending securities cases in Delaware, Quebec, and Ontario to settle all such claims on a worldwide basis. Pursuant to the settlement, the company would pay, except one case, a total of $6 million, which amount would be paid by the company's insurance carrier. The settlement agreement is awaiting approval in the various courts in which the cases are pending. The suits to be settled are: -- "Boys and Girls Club of London Foundation, et al. v. Molson Coors Brewing Company, et al., Case No. 500-06- 000314-050," which is pending with the Province of Quebec District of Montreal Superior Court. -- "In Re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities Litigation Civil Action No. 1:05-cv-00294-GMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. For more details, contact: The Claims Administrator In re Molson Coors Brewing Company Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 North Jackson Street Suite 3, Media, PA, 19063 Phone: 1 866-802-7949 Web site: http://www.molsoncoorssettlement.com Monique L. Radlein Siskinds LLP 680 Waterloo Street London, ON N6A 3V8 Phone: (800) 461-6166 x 2380 Web site: http://www.classaction.ca - and - Nicole M. Zeiss, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (800) 321-0476 Web site: http://www.labaton.com MRT Holdings: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged $50M Ponzi Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ MRT Holdings, LLC, continues to face a federal class-action suit in Florida that accuses it of being a Ponzi scheme in which investors were paid off with new investors' money, Jon Burstein of The South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports. The suit was filed on Oct. 9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the caption, "Katz et al. v. MRT Holdings, LLC, MRT LLC, James Clements, Zeina Smidi and Ann B. Bradshaw, Case No. 0:2007-cv-61438." According to the federal class-action suit, more than 500 people who lost as much as $50 million in MRT Holdings, a company that billed itself as a foreign-currency trading firm. Inger Garcia, Esq., the attorney representing MRT Holdings and its manager, James Clements, denies the allegations. In a brief interview, She told The South Florida Sun-Sentinel that people didn't invest in the company but loaned it money. Ms. Garcia added, "Mr. Clements is doing everything in his power to make sure everyone who has loaned any money is made whole." State records show MRT LLC was formed in August 2005 with Clements listed as a manager. The company's address is a private mailbox at a packing and shipping store in a Plantation strip mall at Peters Road and South University Drive, reports The South Florida Sun-Sentinel. The suit alleges that around March 2006 the company started advertising on the Internet and holding sales meetings. Mr. Clements told potential investors that MRT traded in foreign currencies abroad, working through Swiss banks, the lawsuit states. "In fact, MRT's trading activities, if any occurred at all, caused MRT to incur huge losses," wrote the plaintiffs' attorney, Jeffrey Sonn, Esq. "MRT was not profitable. It was, in fact, a classic Ponzi scheme that offered and sold unregistered investment contracts." The suit is "Katz et al. v. MRT Holdings, LLC, MRT LLC, James Clements, Zeina Smidi and Ann B. Bradshaw, Case No. 0:2007-cv- 61438," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeffrey R. Sonn, Esq. (jsonn@sonnerez.com) Sonn & Erez 500 E. Broward Boulevard Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Phone: 954-763-4700 Fax: 954-763-1866 Representing the defendants is: Inger Michelle Garcia, Esq. (inger13@aol.com) Inger M. Garcia-Armstrong Esq 533 NE 3rd Avenue Ground Floor Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-894-9962 Fax: 954-446-1635 OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint has been filed in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Occam Networks, Inc. which remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action complaints were filed before the district court against the company and certain of its officers. The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect revenue recognition. The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007. On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund -- The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. This consolidated complaint adds as defendants certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006, and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the company. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that required restatement. The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A. Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions. This order dismissed all claims against certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims against the venture capital firms. On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint to conform to the court's July 1 order. Defendants answered this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008. A scheduling conference has been set by the Court for Nov. 17, 2008. The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-0800 - and - Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants are: Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 - and - Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com) Morrison and Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415-268-6091 ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Faces Wahe, Hour Litigation in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit filed on Nov. 6, 2008 in Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County by Charlia Cornish, alleging class-wide wage and hour issues at its California hospice programs, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit alleges failure to provide overtime compensation, meal and break periods, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely payment of wages earned upon leaving employment. The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004. The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs. During the year ended December 31, 2007, it provided care from 72 Medicare-certified hospice programs in 29 states. On March 6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of VistaCare, Inc. After the completion of the VistaCare acquisition, it serves approximately 12,000 patients and their families each day through approximately 110 Medicare-certified hospice locations in 30 states. PERDUE FARMS: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Extra Giblets in Chickens --------------------------------------------------------------- Perdue Farms, which is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in New Jersey over allegations it hid extra giblets in whole chickens, Gwenn Garland of Delmarva Now reports. According to Perdue Farms spokeswoman Julie DeYoung, "The majority of our complaints are about missing giblets." However, the lawsuit, filed on Dec. 17, complains about too many giblets, claiming the company disposes of its extra giblets from chicken products by putting them into whole chickens. The complaint alleges, "By improperly inserting these giblet parts into Perdue chicken, Perdue disposes of its extra giblets by essentially having Plaintiff and Class 'pay' the disposal costs Perdue itself would incur if it wanted to properly dispose of them. Further, by this improper method, Perdue incorporates the additional giblet parts in the price per-pound of Perdue whole chickens sold to retail customers," reports Delmarva Now. Delmarva Now reported that crab-catching Marylanders and gravy makers may value the hearts, livers, gizzards and necks included with the chicken, but the lawsuit frames it otherwise: "Perdue is able to sell a small portion of its extra giblets at retail. Beyond that, there is a limited wholesale market for this product. When there is a purchaser, the extra giblets are sold at pennies per pound. However that market is not consistent, and, on information and belief, Perdue often has to pay a fee to dispose of the extra giblets. Perdue's extra giblets therefore often have negative value to Perdue." The law firm Kalikman and Masnik estimates the amount at stake in its class action complaint at more than $5 million, according to Delmarva Now. SK FOODS: Faces Calif. Price-Fixing Suit Over Processed-Tomatoes ---------------------------------------------------------------- SK Foods and its former broker are facing a two purported class- action lawsuits in California after the broker pleaded guilty in December to federal charges of racketeering, money laundering and antitrust violations, Larry Parsons of the Monterey County Herald reports. The broker, Randall Lee Rahal, and his New Jersey firm, Intramark USA, are the named as defendants in one of the suits. Immediately after Mr. Rahal was charged, a Mountain View food maker, Four in One Co., filed the first class-action lawsuit against SK Foods and two other San Joaquin Valley produce companies, reports the Monterey County Herald. A second food company, Diversified Food and Seasonings Inc., of Metairie, La., later filed a federal class-action suit against SK Foods and Mr. Rahal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, the Monterey County Herald reported. Federal authorities have alleged that Mr. Rahal and two or more people employed or associated with SK Foods engaged in "a pattern of racketeering activity" to ensure their sales of tomato paste, chili peppers and other processed vegetables to major U.S. food companies. Documents filed in court earlier this year contained excerpts of wiretapped conversations between Mr. Rahal, SK Foods chief executive Scott Salyer and others in which they apparently discussed efforts to bribe purchasing agents at major food companies, according to the Monterey County Herald. The Monterey County Herald reported that California grows 95 percent of the processing tomatoes sold in the U.S. The new class-action lawsuit contends the tight nature of the California industry makes its easier for "anticompetitive collusion among tomato processors." According to the suit, seven companies effectively control the processed tomato market, with SK Foods having a 16 percent share. Processed tomatoes are turned into tomato paste, sauces, diced tomatoes, crushed tomatoes, puree, stewed tomatoes and other widely used products, the Monterey County Herald reported. The suit contends that purchasers have little option but to buy the products from the close-knit California industry. It alleges that beginning in 2006, the cost of tomato paste began to rise far more sharply than the cost of raw processing tomatoes. According to the suit, "SK Foods and it co-conspirators are members of several processing tomato industry groups that sponsor conferences and other gatherings where tomato processors had the opportunity to implement and manage the conspiracy." The suit says one group, the California Tomato Export Group, which was formed by SK Foods and two other tomato companies, disbanded in May 2008 after FBI agents raided several tomato processors. The suit contends that price-fixing activity went on from February 2006 to the spring of 2008. Thus, it seeks triple damages for food companies affected by the alleged price-fixing, reports the Monterey County Herald. SPRINT NEXTEL: March 5 Hearing Set for $14M "Larson" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing on March 5, 2009 for the proposed $14,000,000 settlement in the matter "Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Civ. Action No. 2:07-cv-05325." The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07101 In general, the class-action lawsuit is alleging that Sprint Nextel's flat-rate early termination fee (ETF) violates state and federal law. Under the settlement, Sprint Nextel has agreed to pay $14 million into a common fund to be distributed pursuant to the settlement benefit rules set forth in the settlement agreement. The company has also agreed to provide qualified settlement class members up to $3.5 million in Non-Cash Benefits. It also has agreed to not insert a flat-rate ETF provision into its customer service agreements for personal wireless service in the U.S. for 24 months. Sprint Nextel customer agreements initiated after Nov. 3, 2008 have pro-rated ETFs, and the Settlement does not require Sprint Nextel to modify those contracts. The settlement will release all claims that customers may have against Sprint Nextel relating in any way to its flat-rate ETFs and term contracts, and will bar future claims, unless the individual excludes him/her self from the settlement. For more details, contact: Sprint ETF Settlement Administrator c/o Gilardi & Company LLC P.O. Box 6002 Larkspur, CA 94977- 6002 Phone: 1-800-916-6940 Web site: http://www.sprintetfsettlement.com Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 e-mail: Info@CarellaByrne.com Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/ - and - Freed & Weiss LLC Phone: (312) 220-0000 e-mail: Info@FreedWeiss.com Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com/ ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Hip and Knee Replacements --------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Holdings, Inc., and two subsidiaries are facing a purported class-action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in connection with hip and knee replacements. The complaint was filed on April 24, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled "Thorpe v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2008cv03888," naming the company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class action suit on behalf of certain residents of New York who had hip or knee implant surgery involving Zimmer products during an unspecified period. The complaint alleges that the company's relationships with orthopaedic surgeons and others violated the New York deceptive practices statute and unjustly enriched the company. The plaintiff requests actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater, on behalf of each class member, a permanent injunction from the company engaging in allegedly improper practices in the future and restitution in an unspecified amount. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Thorpe et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-03888," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andres F. Alonso, Esq. (aalonso@yourlawyer.com) Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP 111 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 516-466-6500 Fax: 516-466-6665 Stuart George Gross, Esq. (sgross@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4527 Fax: 646-848-4527 Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com) Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-697-6997 Fax: 650-697-0577 Representing the defendant is: Theodore Grossman, Esq. (tgrossman@jonesday.com) Jones Day North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-586-7268 Fax: 216-579-0212 ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Indiana ------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Holdings, Inc. faces a purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit in Indiana, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, entitled, "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.," naming the company and two of its executive officers as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class-action suit on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between Jan. 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008. The complaint alleges that the company and two of its executive officers engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning our business and financial results during the relevant time period. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com -- designs, develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopaedic surgical products. The Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related orthopaedic surgical products. Its related orthopaedic surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post- operation rehabilitation. Orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma. Trauma products are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and tissue to support the body's natural healing process. New Securities Fraud Cases EMCORE CORP: Brualdi Law Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 2, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf of purchasers of Emcore Corporation ("Emcore" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:EMKR) securities during the period between June 12, 2007 and March 17, 2008 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements regarding Emcore's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period. Specifically, it alleges that Emcore's public statements regarding its order backlog were false and misleading because they overstated the value of the order backlog in Emcore's terrestrial solar energy division. Those misstatements and omissions, the Complaint alleges, resulted in an artificially inflated price for Emcore's common stock during the Class Period. On March 18, 2008, the price of Emcore's common stock dropped over 23% on news that Emcore's largest customer, Green and Gold Energy ("GGE"), which accounted for $78 million of Emcore's $86 million backlog in terrestrial solar technology, would not be able to afford those transactions. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.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 * * *