/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 13, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 8 Headlines ADVOCAT INC: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arkansas AMERICAN LAND: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Greene Courte Deal APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Gilbert Oshinsky Files Lawsuit Over Menu Items LE CIRQUE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations LITHIA MOTORS: Appeals Denial of Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit LITHIA MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Sale of Used Vehicles Still Pending LITHIA MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status in "Dunham" LITHIA MOTORS: Unit Faces "VanSyoc" Suit in Fresno, California MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gasoline Suit Settlement Pending Approval MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Misstated Prospectuses MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits on Opes Prime/Lift Capital Collateral MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits Over AIG's Dec. 2007 Public Offering MERRILL LYNCH: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation Ongoing in N.Y. MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Securities Litigation Ongoing MERRILL LYNCH: "McReynolds" Discrimination Suit Pending in Ill. MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of Suits Over Alleged Collusion PIER SIXTY: Faces New York Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations SPRINT NEXTEL: Cases v. Unit Over Easements Pending in Tennessee SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Face Shareholders' Securities Suit TD AMERITRADE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia UTSTARCOM OMC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Stock Lawsuit Still Pending UTSTARCOM INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Rudolph" Lawsuit WELLS REAL: Affiliates to Defend Md. Lawsuit V. Piedmont REIT New Securities Fraud Cases HORIZON LINES: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit PFF BANCORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ********* ADVOCAT INC: Faces Breach of Contract Litigation in Arkansas ------------------------------------------------------------ BRENTWOOD, Tenn., Jan. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Advocat Inc. (Nasdaq:AVCA) announced that it received notice on January 7, 2009 of a purported class action complaint filed January 2, 2009. The complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against Advocat Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their statutory and contractual obligations to the residents of the Facility over the past five years. The lawsuit is in its very early stages and has not yet been certified by the court as a class action. Advocat, Inc. -- http://www.irinfo.com/avc-- provides long-term care services to nursing center patients in eight states, primarily in the Southeast and Southwest. The Company's centers provide a range of health care services to their patients and residents. In addition to the nursing, personal care and social services usually provided in long-term care centers, Advocat offers different rehabilitation services as well as nutritional support services. As of December 31, 2007, the Company's continuing operations consist of 50 nursing centers with 5,773 licensed nursing beds and 66 assisted living units. Advocat's continuing operations included nine owned nursing centers and 41 leased nursing centers. Effective August 11, 2007, the Company purchased the leasehold interests and operations of seven skilled nursing facilities from Senior Management Services of America North Texas, Inc. These facilities include 1,266 licensed nursing beds, with 1,105 beds available for use. AMERICAN LAND: Faces Shareholder Suits Over Greene Courte Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- American Land Lease is facing two purported shareholder lawsuits that seeks to stop Green Courte Partners's $428 million acquisition of the Pinellas County-based public real estate investment trust that owns manufactured home communities in Florida, Arizona and Alabama, Janet Leiser of Tampa Bay Business Journal reports. The complaints allege American Land Lease's board of directors breached its fiduciary duty Dec. 9, 2008 in approving the sale to the Chicago private equity firm for $14.20 a share in cash — a 264 percent premium over the $3.90 closing price of the stock that same day. The federal lawsuit, filed on Dec. 31, 2008 alleges that American Land Lease's top managers were motivated by employment offers from Green Courte in accepting the deal when the stock was trading at an all-time low because of problems on Wall Street. In August 2008, stock in the company traded at $22.89 a share, Tampa Bay Business Journal reported. CEO and Chairman Terry Considine "had a significant incentive to and did in fact drive the sale of ANL to Green Courte Partners," the complaint reads. It seeks class-action status, according to Tampa Bay Business Journal. APPLEBEE'S INT'L: Gilbert Oshinsky Files Lawsuit Over Menu Items ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Oshinsky, LLP has filed a 27-page class-action lawsuit in Kansas City, Missouri against Applebee's International, Inc., its parent company and Weight Watchers, KSNW-TV reports. The suit alleges that the restaurant conspired with the weight loss organization to mislead customers about the calorie and fat content of certain menu items. For example, the Cajun Lime Tilapia was advertised as having six grams of fat, but results from Analytical Labs of Boise Idaho showed twice that with 12 grams of fat. The Garlic Herb Chicken is supposed to also have six grams of fat, but the lab counted 18 fat grams, according to KSNW-TV. KSNW-TV reported that anyone who has eaten at Applebee's in the last couple of years and eaten from the Weight Watchers menu qualifies to be part of this class-action lawsuit. For more details, contact: Gilbert Oshinsky, LLP 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202.772.2441 or 202.772.2200 Fax: 202.772.3333 e-mail: info@gilbertoshinsky.com Web site: http://www.gotofirm.com/ LE CIRQUE: Faces Lawsuit in New York Alleging FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Le Cirque, Inc. and Sirio Maccioni are facing a purported class- action lawsuit in New York on behalf of cater waiters who work private parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Magazine reports. The suit was filed by attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the named plaintiff is Deon Serrant. It is alleging that the management charges party hosts mandatory gratuities, often called "service charges," of as much as 20 percent, then doesn't pass the money on to the servers, depriving them of tips, according to New York Magazine. The suit is "Serrant v. Le Cirque, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:09- cv-00151-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. (maimon@jhllp.com) Joseph and Herzfeld 757 3rd Avenue 25th floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 688-5640x2548 Fax: (212) 688-5639 LITHIA MOTORS: Appeals Denial of Judgment Bid in "Johnson" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lithia Motors, Inc.'s appeal from the denial of its summary judgment motion in the lawsuit filed by Marcia Johnson and Theron Johnson, on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed plaintiff class of all other similarly situated individuals and entities, remains pending. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Johnsons filed the suit in the Superior Court for the State of Washington, Spokane County (Case No. 05205059-9). The Johnsons sued Lithia Motors, Inc., and one of Lithia's wholly-owned subsidiaries, individually and as representatives of a proposed defendant class of other motor vehicle dealers, asking for an award of declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages, based on defendants' allegedly illegal practice of itemizing and collecting the Washington State Business and Occupation Tax (B&O Tax) from customers buying vehicles from defendants. The allegations in the Johnson case involve legal issues similar to those that were litigated in the case of "Nelson vs. Appleway Chevrolet, Inc." By agreement of the parties, the Johnson case was stayed while the Nelson case, which had been filed in 2004, was appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court. In April 2007, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the lower court decisions in favor of the plaintiffs in the Nelson case. The decision was based on the Appleway dealer's practice of adding a B&O tax charge to a vehicle's purchase price after the customer and the dealer reached agreement on the vehicle's price. Because Lithia's subsidiary negotiated with the Johnsons over a proposed B&O tax charge before reaching agreement with the Johnsons on a purchase price for the Johnsons' new vehicle, Lithia and its subsidiary believe the subsidiary's actions are permissible under the law as established by the Supreme Court's decision in the Nelson case. They moved for summary judgment based on the Washington Supreme Court's decision in the Nelson case. Shortly after the filing of that motion, the Johnsons filed an amended complaint. They added an allegation that the defendants' actions also violated Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and requested an award of treble damages up to $10,000 for each alleged violation of the Act. The Johnsons then cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contending that the Supreme Court's decision in the Nelson case established that Lithia and its subsidiary had violated Washington's tax and Consumer Protection Act laws. After hearing oral argument on the motions, the trial court judge, on Oct. 12, 2007, issued an oral ruling in favor of the Johnsons and against the Lithia subsidiary. The court denied Lithia's and its subsidiary's summary judgment motion. The court entered its written order to that effect on Nov. 9, 2007. Lithia and its subsidiary asked the trial court to certify its order as a final judgment. After the trial court denied their request, Lithia and its subsidiary petitioned the Washington Court of Appeals for discretionary review of the summary judgment decision, which was granted in April 2008. Defendants opening briefs have been filed and the appeal is set for oral arguments on Dec. 2, 2008. Pending an ultimate ruling from the court of appeals, discovery in this matter is stayed. The court has not yet been requested to certify a plaintiff or defendant class, 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. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and services. LITHIA MOTORS: Lawsuits Over Sale of Used Vehicles Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several subsidiaries of Lithia Motors, Inc., continue to face a consolidated class action in Alaska over the sale of a used vehicle, 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 May 30, 2006, four of the company's wholly owned subsidiaries located in Alaska were served with a lawsuit, captioned, "Jackie Lee Neese et al. v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., et al., Case No. 3AN-06-04815CI," which is alleging that the dealerships failed to comply with Alaska law relating to various disclosures required during the sale of a used vehicle. The complainant seeks to represent other similarly situated customers. The court has not yet certified the suit as a class action. During the pendency of the Neese case, the State of Alaska brought charges against Lithia's subsidiaries alleging the same factual allegations, and also alleging violations related to the practice of charging document fees. The company settled the State action to resolve the disputes. However, the plaintiffs in the private action moved to intervene in the State of Alaska matter. They also filed a second putative class action, entitled, "Jackie Lee Neese, et al, v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep of Anchorage, Inc., Case No. 3AN-06- 13341CI," related to the document fee claims identified in the State of Alaska's complaint. The second Neese lawsuit was consolidated with the first case. The court denied the plaintiffs' request to intervene in the State of Alaska matter and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Alaska Supreme Court challenging that denial. The trial court dismissed two of the stores involved in the first lawsuit because none of the named plaintiffs had purchased any vehicles from the two stores. The plaintiffs have also appealed that dismissal to the Alaska Supreme Court. Both the private lawsuits, as well as the implementation of the settlement with the State of Alaska, have been stayed pending a ruling in the appeal of the State of Alaska case. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and services. LITHIA MOTORS: Seeks Reconsideration of Class Status in "Dunham" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lithia Motors, Inc. seeks reconsideration of the class certification granted in the matter styled, "Dunham, et al. v. Lithia Support Services, et al., 3AN-06-6338 Civil, Superior Court for the State of Alaska." Alaska Service and Parts Advisors and Managers Overtime Suit On March 22, 2006, seven former employees in Alaska brought suit against the company seeking overtime wages, additional liquidated damages and attorney fees. The complaint was later amended to include a total of 11 named plaintiffs. The court ordered the dispute to arbitration. In February 2008, the arbitrator granted the plaintiffs' request to establish a class of plaintiffs consisting of all present and former service and parts department employees totaling approximately 150 individuals who were paid on a commission basis. The company has filed a motion requesting reconsideration of this class certification, but the arbitrator died before issuing his opinion. No determination has been made whether to seek the appointment of a new arbitrator or request the court to assume jurisdiction. The reconsideration seeks a ruling whether these employees or some of these employees are exempt from the applicable state law that provides for the payment of overtime under certain circumstances, 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. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and services. LITHIA MOTORS: Unit Faces "VanSyoc" Suit in Fresno, California -------------------------------------------------------------- A Lithia Motors, Inc. subsidiary faces a purported class-action lawsuit filed by Steven H. VanSyoc in the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno. On Aug. 14, 2002, Mr. VanSyoc filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California for the County of Fresno (Case No. 08CECG02785) against a Lithia Motors subsidiary alleging fraud, deceit, intentional misrepresentation, concealment and failure to disclose, and negligence. Further, plaintiff asserts violations of California Civil Code Section 1770(a)(2),(5),(6), (7), (9), (13), (14), (16) and (19) (a pattern, plan or scheme with intent to deceive or induce the purchase and increase the cost of vehicles; and California Civil Code Section 17200, et.seq. (Unfair Competition Law)) and seeks an order enjoining the practice, unstated actual damages and an order certifying the case a class-action. The plaintiff alleges that the company failed to disclose the vehicle he purchased was a former daily rental vehicle and misrepresented the terms and conditions of the Extended Service Agreement purchased by Plaintiff, and failed to disclose that the time and mileage limits actually started at a date significantly earlier than the purchase date. The company has not yet filed an answer nor has any discovery been undertaken, 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. Lithia Motors, Inc. -- http://www.lithia.com-- is an operator of automotive franchises and retailer of new and used vehicles and services. MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gasoline Suit Settlement Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Marathon Oil Corp. awaits the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia's approval of the proposed settlement of a purported lawsuit over defective gasoline that the company had sold. The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business disruption, and personal and real property damages. In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent damages resulted from the incident. Class-action certification was granted in August 2007. The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in this case, but both a notice to the class members and approval by the court after a fairness hearing are required before the settlement can be finalized, 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. The suit is "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com) Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove P.O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Phone: 251/471-6191 Fax: 251/479-1031 - and - James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net) Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713/426-1700 Fax: 713/425-5325 Representing the defendants are: Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com) Robinson & Mcelwee 400 Fifth Third Center 700 Virginia Street, East P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 - and - Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq. The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic P.O. Box 11133 Charleston, WV 25339-1133 Phone: 304/346-3462 Fax: 302/346-3469 MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Misstated Prospectuses ------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. faces a class-action lawsuit styled, "Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund v. Conway, et al.," according to its Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. On Oct. 3, 2008, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System filed a class action against Merrill Lynch & Co., certain of its officers and directors, its underwriters, and its outside auditors in New York Supreme Court. The complaint seeks relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Merrill Lynch debt securities issued under a shelf registration statement dated March 31, 2006. The complaint alleges that Merrill Lynch's prospectuses misstated Merrill Lynch's financial condition and failed to disclose its exposures to losses from investments tied to subprime and other mortgages, as well as its significant liability arising from its participation in the market for auction rate securities. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits on Opes Prime/Lift Capital Collateral ---------------------------------------------------------------- Class-action lawsuits claiming that Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. did not have the right to liquidate Opes Prime and Lift Capital collateral are pending in Australia and Hong Kong. Merrill Lynch acted as prime broker for both Opes Prime and Lift Capital, two Australian margin lending and stockbroking firms that defaulted on loans in 2008. When these firms defaulted on margin loans, Merrill Lynch sold hundreds of millions of dollars of securities that had been pledged to it as collateral. A class-action lawsuit and numerous other actions have been filed against Merrill Lynch in Australia and Hong Kong claiming that Merrill Lynch did not have the right to liquidate the collateral, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008 Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: Faces Suits Over AIG's Dec. 2007 Public Offering --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. faces class-action suits filed in line with the American International Group, Inc.'s public offering of 7.70% Series A-5 Junior Subordinated Debentures on Dec. 11, 2007. On Oct. 9, 2008, the class-action lawsuit styled, "Carroll v. American International, Group, Inc., et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against AIG, its officers and directors, and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the AIG's Dec. 11, 2007 public offering. The complaint alleges that the prospectus was false and misleading because, among other things, it allegedly failed to reveal AIG's significant exposure to the subprime market as the largest underwriter of U.S. mortgage bonds and the risk of its failing as a going-concern. The complaint alleges that the defendant, including the underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding AIG's disclosures. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. On Oct. 24, 2008, a nearly identical complaint, captioned, "Bernstein v. American International Group, Inc., et al.," was filed in the same court. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation Ongoing in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Class=action lawsuits filed against the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), its officers and directors, and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., in connection with the sale of securities issued by Fannie Mae remain pending. Beginning in September 2008, multiple class-action lawsuits were filed in New York Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), its officers and directors, and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the sale of securities issued by Fannie Mae. The complaints allege that the prospectuses were false and misleading because, among other things, they allegedly overstated Fannie Mae's capitalization and asserted that management believed that the current securities offerings would be adequate to fund Fannie Mae through the end of the year. The complaints allege that the defendants, including the underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding Fannie Mae's disclosures. The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: Lehman Brothers Securities Litigation Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Class-action lawsuits filed against officers and directors of Lehman Brothers, Inc. and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., in connection with the sale of securities issued by Lehman Brothers remain ongoing. Beginning in September 2008, multiple class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and New York Supreme Court against officers and directors of Lehman Brothers and its underwriters, including Merrill Lynch, in connection with the sale of securities issued by Lehman Brothers. On Sept. 15, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed a voluntary petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code. The complaints allege that the representations made in Lehman Brothers' prospectuses were materially false and misleading because, among other things, they allegedly failed to disclose Lehman's marketing of risky products linked to sub-prime mortgages and its alleged failure to adequately write down commercial and residential mortgage and real estate assets. The complaints allege that the defendants, including the underwriters, failed to conduct adequate due diligence regarding Lehman's disclosures. According to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008, the complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: "McReynolds" Discrimination Suit Pending in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit captioned, "McReynolds. v. Merrill Lynch," remains pending, according to Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.'s Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. On Oct. 24, 2008, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of African-American and female Financial Advisors. The complaint alleges that a retention bonus procedure recently announced by Merrill Lynch and Bank of America disadvantages African Americans and women because it is based on the amount of the Financial Advisers' production and that, allegedly as a result of discrimination, African-American and female Financial Advisors have lower production than white males. The complaint seeks, among other relief, the value of compensation and benefits that plaintiffs have lost and will lose as a result of defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of Suits Over Alleged Collusion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. intends to move to dismiss or file an answer denying the principal allegations in the complaints alleging collusion in connection with their auction rate securities practices, according to the company's Nov. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 26, 2008. On Sept. 4, 2008, plaintiffs filed two purported class actions under the antitrust laws against over a dozen defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The actions are "Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Maryland v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.," and "Russell Mayfield, et al. v. Citigroup, Inc., et al." One seeks to represent a class of issuers of auction rate securities underwritten by the defendants between May 12, 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008. The other seeks to represent a class of persons who acquired auction rate securities directly from defendants and who held those securities as of Feb. 13, 2008. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants colluded in connection with their auction rate securities practices. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. -- http://www.ml.com/-- together with its subsidiaries, provide investment, financing, insurance, and related services to individuals and institutions on a global basis through its broker, dealer, banking, and other financial services subsidiaries. The company's operations are organized into two business segments: Global Markets and Investment Banking (GMI) and Global Wealth Management (GWM). GMI provides service global markets and origination products and services to corporate, institutional, and government clients around the world. GWM creates and distributes investment products and services for individuals, small- and mid-size businesses, and employee benefit plans. PIER SIXTY: Faces New York Litigation Alleging FLSA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Pier Sixty LLC and Abigail Kirsch are facing a purported class- action in New York on behalf of cater waiters who work private parties, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Magazine reports. The suit was filed by attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Spicer et al v. Pier Sixty LLC et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-10240-LBS." The named plaintiffs are: -- Celeste Spicer, -- Autumn Burgess, -- Amy Ledin, -- Joseph Russo, -- Esther Martinez, -- Lysette Roman, and -- Serena Siying Hui. According to Mr. Kirschenbaum servers aren't allowed to accept tips during the course of a private party. "If you're really drunk at a wedding and you pull out a $100 bill and hand it to them, they're instructed to tell you, 'The host of this party has already given a gracious gratuity and I'm going to have to reject it,'" Mr. Kirschenbaum tells New York Magazine. The suit is "Spicer et al v. Pier Sixty LLC et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-10240-LBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Leonard B. Sand, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. (maimon@jhllp.com) Joseph and Herzfeld 757 3rd Avenue 25th floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 688-5640x2548 Fax: (212) 688-5639 SPRINT NEXTEL: Cases v. Unit Over Easements Pending in Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending in Tennessee. A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to obtain easements from property owners during the installation of its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various courts. Several of these cases sought certification of nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was certified. In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The parties proceeded with litigation and/or settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee. The Louisiana claims have been separately settled for an amount not material to the company, and that settlement was given final approval by the Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired. The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an amount not material to the company. The Court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and a final fairness hearing on the settlement was scheduled for Nov. 17, 2008, 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. Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline communications products and services for individual consumers, businesses and government customers. The company conducts its operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline. The company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. The company offers digital wireless services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital enhanced network (iDEN) technology. It also offers wireless services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network. SPRINT NEXTEL: Continues to Face Shareholders' Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp. continues to face a shareholder class-action lawsuit alleging violations of federal securities laws. In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent they described new employment agreements with certain senior executives without disclosing that, according to the allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable. These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to recover any decline in the value of our tracking stocks during the class period. The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class action. All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to defend this matter vigorously, 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. Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants and the company's former independent auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004. The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery. Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline communications products and services for individual consumers, businesses and government customers. The company conducts its operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline. The company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. The company offers digital wireless services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital enhanced network (iDEN) technology. It also offers wireless services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network. TD AMERITRADE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) January 10, 2009 -- Notice is hereby given that a class action has been commenced in the Northern District of Georgia (Case No. 1:08-cv-3731) on behalf of customers of TD Ameritrade who purchased shares in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund ("Fund") during the period between July 27, 2007 and September 16, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges the Fund, TD Ameritrade, Inc., TD Ameritrade Holding Corp., their affiliates, and certain of their officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and other statutory and common law provisions. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements about the Fund's financial condition and operating results. Specifically, the complaint alleges Defendants failed to disclose: -- that the Fund abandoned its stated objectives of preserving capital in an effort to achieve greater yields through the pursuit of risky instruments, such as Lehman Brothers commercial paper; -- that the Fund was not designed to protect the $1.00 net asset value of each share and was thus significantly riskier than money market funds; -- that the Fund's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Fund from taking on excessive risk; -- that the extent of the Fund's relationship with TD Ameritrade was not disclosed; -- that TD Ameritrade knowingly misrepresented the Fund's true characteristics; -- that the Fund's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and, therefore, were materially false and misleading; and -- other material disclosures. According to the complaint, on July 27, 2007, the Fund issued a statement representing the Fund's intention to maintain a $1.00 net asset value, consistent with alleged representations by TD Ameritrade personnel. On September 16, 2008, the net asset value collapsed from $1.00 per share to close at $0.97 allegedly due to the Fund's investments in risky instruments and securities. UTSTARCOM OMC: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Stock Lawsuit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the lawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is pending, 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. Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed against the company and various officers and directors. The actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation." The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004. On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6, 2005. In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. The plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint. The court, however, granted the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007. On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third amended complaint. This was granted by the court, but with leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs also did on May 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008 dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed objections to the form and content of the fourth amended complaint. On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated that the company and the individual defendants would be permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the fourth amended complaint. On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint. The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Glancy & Binkow, LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants are: Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 - and - Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-461-5600 Fax: 650-461-5700 UTSTARCOM INC: Still Faces Remaining Claims in "Rudolph" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- UTSTARCOM, Inc. continues to face the remaining claims in a class-action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The purported shareholder class-action suit was filed on Sept. 4, 2007, against the company and some of its current and former directors and officers. It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning the company's historical equity award grants. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007. On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as lead plaintiff. On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by the company to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead plaintiff did so. On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended complaint. On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, 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. The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07- cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq. (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-398-8700 Fax: 415-398-8704 - and - Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com) Attorney at Law 1050 30th Street Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Representing the defendants is: Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 WELLS REAL: Affiliates to Defend Md. Lawsuit V. Piedmont REIT ------------------------------------------------------------- Leo F. Wells, III, Wells Capital, Inc., and Wells Management Company, Inc. intend to defend lawsuit filed against Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT, filed a putative class-action and derivative complaint, presently styled, "In re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Piedmont REIT; Mr. Wells and Wells Capital, the company's General Partners; Wells Management, its property manager; certain affiliates of Wells Real Estate Funds, Inc.; the directors of Piedmont REIT; and certain individuals who formerly served as officers or directors of Piedmont REIT prior to the closing of the internalization transaction on April 16, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the federal proxy rules and breaches of fiduciary duty arising from the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction and the related proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007, as amended. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and nullification of the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction. On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff's motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction. On April 17, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007. On June 7, 2007, the Court granted a motion to designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the Piedmont REIT proxy statement filed with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2007 and derivative claims on behalf of Piedmont REIT. On July 9, 2007, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery related to an anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. On Aug. 13, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 31, 2008, the Court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The Court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the failure to disclose in the Piedmont REIT proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for the Piedmont REIT internalization transaction omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont REIT. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind the internalization transaction, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for the internalization transaction. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. As of Nov. 7, 2008, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing with the SEC for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, the time for the defendants to respond to the plaintiff's motion for class certification has not yet passed. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, and Wells Management intend to vigorously defend this action. Any financial loss incurred by Wells Capital, Wells Management, or their affiliates could hinder their ability to successfully manage the company's operations and its portfolio of investments. Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a national real estate investment company. More than 200,000 individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs through their financial advisors, and these programs collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets. New Securities Fraud Cases HORIZON LINES: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 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 Delaware on behalf of purchasers of Horizon Lines, Inc. ("Horizon" or the "Company") (NYSE:HRZ) between March 2, 2007 and April 25, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that investors were misled about the Company's profitability, emanating from Horizon's use of improper price-fixing agreements with its competition, in violation of U.S. antitrust laws. On April 17, 2008, investors first learned the Company was the subject of a United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") investigation for violations of antitrust laws. On this news, Horizon shares fell $3.53 per share, almost 20 percent. On April 25, 2008, Horizon shares fell another $3.83 per share, over 20 percent, as the Company reported 1st Quarter 2008 results and revised downward the Company's earnings guidance for the 2008 fiscal year. Recently, on October 1, 2008, the DOJ announced that three Horizon employees pled guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to eliminate competition and raise prices for the movement of goods between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, by agreeing not to compete for customers, to rig bids submitted to buyers, and to fix the prices of rates, surcharges and other fees charged to customers. 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 KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- WASHINGTON, Jan. 10, 2009 - (Business Wire) The law firm of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and a proposed class of persons who purchased the securities of KV Pharmaceutical Company between February 15, 2008 and November 12, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The proposed class would be comprised of purchasers of KV's Class A Common Stock (NYSE: KV-A), Class B Common Stock (NYSE: KV-B) and 7% cumulative convertible Preferred Stock (Symbol: KVPHP or CUSIP: 482740305) during the Class Period. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Complaint filed in the lawsuit charges that KV and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to investors and by failing to disclose to investors information that they were required to disclose. According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose: -- that KV's manufacturing facilities were in disarray, resulting in the manufacture of unsafe drug products; -- that KV's management engaged in misconduct by failing to recall the Company's unsafe drug products; -- that KV's manufacturing facilities failed to comply with federal regulations; -- that manufacturing disruptions and inefficiencies had caused a material backlog of unshipped customer orders, eroding the Company's revenues and earnings; -- that the Company failed to write off at least $24 million in inventories of discontinued products, seized by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri because of defendants' violation of FDA enforcement notices; -- that KV's post-January 2008 sales of generic drugs had been negatively impacted by material price erosion following the expiration of the company's exclusive sales period for the drug metoprolol succinate; and -- that KV's financial statements failed to comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On November 13, 2008, KV unexpectedly announced that it would be unable to file its SEC Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 due to a continuing investigation by the Company's Audit Committee into allegations of management misconduct concerning recalls of the Company's drug products. Following this statement, the price of KV common stock fell from $14.26 per share to $5.90 per share—a drop of nearly 59%—on volume of more than 6.6 million shares, 33 times the stock's average trading volume. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 PFF BANCORP: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 9, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX News Network) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of PFF Bancorp, Inc. ("PFF" or the "Company") (OTCBB:PFFBQ) during the period between October 23, 2006 through November 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the Company's improper lending to borrowers with little ability to repay the amount loaned and failed to inform investors of the impact of changes in the real estate market in San Bernardino and Riverside counties (the "Inland Empire"). As a result of defendants' concealment, PFF's stock traded at artificially inflated levels throughout the Class Period, reaching a high of $35.45 per share in December 2006. On November 21, 2008, after the market closed, the Bank was closed by regulators and taken over by U.S. Bancorp. Following this announcement, PFF's stock declined to $0.01 per share, a total loss for investors. 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 2009. 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 * * *