/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 14, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 9 Headlines CENDANT CORP: March 16 Hearing Set for $4M Homestore.com Deal CHINA LIFE: Plaintiffs in U.S. Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal COVENTRY HEALTH: "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Proceeds with Arbitration CUMULUS MEDIA: Motions to Junk Cloud Merger Suits in Ga. Pending CUMULUS MEDIA: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit Over Merger Deal EQUITRUST LIFE: Hagens Berman Files Consumer Fraud Litigation FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Fund's Lawsuit GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif. MEDICI BANK: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Suit Over Madoff Scandal MORTGAGE DEPOT: Mo. Court Gives Preliminary OK to TCPA Suit Deal PDI INC: Lawsuits Over Use of Baycol Medication Remain Pending PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending RAIT FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: March 16 Hearing Set for $925.5M Settlement VAN LINES: April 7 Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1865 Settlement WACHOVIA CORP: Jan. 22, 2009 Fairness Hearing Set Pa. Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ROYAL BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing VMWARE INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ********* CENDANT CORP: March 16 Hearing Set for $4M Homestore.com Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a fairness hearing on March 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $4,000,000 settlement by Cendant Corp. (now know as Avis Budget, Inc.) and Richard A. Smith in the matter, "In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01- CV-11115 RSWM (Cwx)." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles, CA 90012. The proposed settlement with Cendant and Smith applies to all persons and entities, including Cendant, who purchased Homestore.com, Inc. common stock from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001. Cendant is a member of the Class because in October 2000, Cendant sold two subsidiaries, Move.com and Welcome Wagon International, Inc., to Homestore in exchange for approximately 21.5 million shares of Homestore stock with a market value of approximately $750 million at that time and representing approximately 20% of the outstanding shares of Homestore stock. Case Background Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints purporting to be class-action suits were filed in various jurisdictions alleging that the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated certain provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints contain varying allegations, including that the company made materially false and misleading statements with respect to the company's 2000 and 2001 financial results included in the company's filings with the SEC, analysts' reports, press releases and media reports. The complaints sought an unspecified amount of damages. In March 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System was named lead plaintiff and the complaints were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. In November 2002, the plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint naming the company, certain of its current officers, directors and employees, certain of the Company's former officers, directors and employees, and various other parties, including, among others, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants. The amended complaint made various allegations, including that the company violated federal securities laws, and sought an unspecified amount of damages. In general, the suit was brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of the company during the period from Jan. 1, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001. For more details, contact: Claims Administrator In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. PO Box 1670 Faribault, MN 55021-1670 Phone: 1-866-216-0264 Web site: http://www.homestoresettlement.com - and - Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. (bsimon@cpsmlaw.com) Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy SF Airport Office Ctr., 840 Malcolm Rd., Ste. 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/ CHINA LIFE: Plaintiffs in U.S. Securities Fraud Suit Drop Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEIJING, Jan. 13, 2009 (XFN-ASIA via COMTEX) -- China Life Insurance Co Ltd (SHA 601628; HK 2628; ADR LFC) said plaintiffs in the U.S. class action lawsuit against the company have decided not to pursue further litigation after a U.S. court dismissed the lawsuit in September 2008. The suit, filed in the southern district of New York, alleged that the company did not disclose material information before its IPO in Hong Kong and New York. China's National Audit Office (NAO) found 5.4 bln yuan in irregularities at China Life in January 2004, one month after the IPO. In September 2008, the court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of merit and also ruled it had no jurisdiction over non-US investors who purchased shares of China Life from the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. "On Jan 8, the plaintiffs-appellants filed with the court a motion of voluntary dismissal of appeal, which motion was granted by the court on the same day," the company said in a statement filed with the Shanghai Stock Exchange. The company said that the action makes the summary judgment decision granted in September final. COVENTRY HEALTH: "Tag-Along" Lawsuit Proceeds with Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- The matter "Harrison vs. Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA)" -- a tag-along action that is included in the Multi- District Litigation "In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334" -- which names Coventry Health Care, Inc., as defendant, proceeds with arbitration, according to Conventry's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The company was a defendant in the provider track of "In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, in the suit captioned "Charles B. Shane., et al., vs. Humana, Inc., et al." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims asserted in the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment. The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class- action complaints by other health care providers such as chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed health care professionals. Each of these actions has been transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along" actions. There are three tag-along actions currently filed against the company. The trial court had entered an order which stayed all proceedings in these tag-along actions. Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay and to file any new motions. On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court ordered to arbitration. In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider contracts with CHCGA. The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute. Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation services companies. CUMULUS MEDIA: Motions to Junk Cloud Merger Suits in Ga. Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cumulus Media, Inc.'s motions for the dismissal of two purported class-action lawsuits over its merger agreement with Cloud Acquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, Cloud Merger Corp., remain pending. On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be merged with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud Acquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company was terminated in May 2008. The two purported class-action suits related to the merger are: 1. "Jeff Michelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No. 2007CV137612, filed July 27, 2007), which was filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other directors and the sponsor; and 2. "Paul Cowles v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al." (Case No. 2007-CV-139323, filed August 31, 2007), which was filed before the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other directors and the sponsor. The complaints in the two Georgia lawsuits made similar allegations initially, but on June 25 and July 11, 2008, respectively, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, alleging, among other things, entirely new state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, rescission and accounting. The amended complaints further allege, for the first time, misrepresentations or omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. The amended complaints seek, among other relief, damages on behalf of the putative class. With respect to the two Georgia lawsuits, defendants removed them to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on July 17, 2008 and filed motions to dismiss both cases on July 24, 2008. In August 2008, plaintiffs moved to remand the cases back to state court. As of Cumulus Media's Nov. 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008, all motions remain pending. Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM) radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the U.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC (CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving large-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta that are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement (LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one radio station in the United States in exchange for a management or consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates, directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336 stations in 64 U.S. markets. CUMULUS MEDIA: Mulls Bid to Dismiss Del. Suit Over Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Cumulus Media, Inc., anticipates seeking dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit in Delaware over a merger agreement with Cloud Acquisition Corp. and Cloud Acquisition's subsidiary, Cloud Merger Corp. On July 23, 2007, Cumulus Media entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Cloud Merger will be merged with and into Cumulus Media, with Cumulus continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Cloud Acquisition. The proposed acquisition of the company was terminated in May 2008. The suit is entitled, "Patricia D. Merna, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cumulus Media Inc., et al., Case No. 3151," which was filed on Aug. 8, 2007, in the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, New Castle County, against the company, Lew Dickey, the other directors, the sponsor, Cloud Acquisition and Cloud Merger. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the terminated transaction was the product of an unfair process, that the consideration to be paid to the company's stockholders pursuant to the terminated transaction was inadequate, and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders. The suit further alleges that the parties to the transaction aided and abetted the actions of the company's directors in breaching such fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, an injunction preventing completion of the transaction. In order to resolve the case, the company reached an agreement along with the individual defendants in that lawsuit, without admitting any wrongdoing, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding dated Nov. 13, 2007. The MOU extended the statutory period in which holders of the company's common stock may have exercised their appraisal rights and allowed for further disclosures in the proxy statement filed in connection with the terminated transaction as requested by the counsel for the plaintiff. The parties completed confirmatory discovery and the company anticipates seeking dismissal of the lawsuit. Any such dismissal will be subject to court approval, 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. Cumulus Media Inc. -- http://www.cumulus.com/-- owns and operates frequency modulation (FM) and audio modulation (AM) radio station clusters serving mid-sized markets throughout the U.S. Through its investment in Cumulus Media Partners, LLC (CMP), the company also operates radio station clusters serving large-sized markets throughout the U.S. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Cumulus owned and operated 303 radio stations in 56 mid-sized U.S. media markets and operated the 33 radio stations in eight markets, including San Francisco, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta that are owned by CMP. Under an local marketing agreement (LMA), the Company provides sales and marketing services for one radio station in the United States in exchange for a management or consulting fee. In summary, Cumulus owns and operates, directly or through its investment in CMP, a total of 336 stations in 64 U.S. Markets. EQUITRUST LIFE: Hagens Berman Files Consumer Fraud Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- PHOENIX, Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Two Arizona senior citizens filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against EquitTrust Life Insurance Company, claiming the Iowa-based financial company duped consumers into purchasing financial products through deceptive sales practices, among other charges. According to the lawsuit, EquiTrust designed a scheme that defrauds policyholders, especially the elderly -- a group in need of retirement saving and spending vehicles without onerous surrender charges and lengthy maturation periods -- to create large product spreads in order to pay its agents oversized commissions, to lure prospects with illusory bonuses, and to earn a large profit margin. "The sales and marketing of these deferred annuities are chock-full of misleading promises to policyholders," said Rob Carey, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Phoenix. "Unfortunately, the elderly are the primary purchasers of such annuities, and they are taking the brunt of this underhanded scheme." To help protect this group, 47 states have adopted a consumer protection statute -- the Standard Nonforfeiture Law for Individual Deferred Annuities (SNFLIDA) -- that limits surrender penalties through a prospective test. This test generally protects those over the age of 60 from individual deferred annuity products that have optional maturity dates and surrender charges that exceed 10 percent of the policyholder's premium. The suit claims EquiTrust's surrender charges are often 20 percent, twice the permitted amount. The SNFLIDA test also prohibits issuing such annuities to the elderly that have surrender penalty periods in excess of 10 years. EquiTrust's annuities often have surrender penalty periods of up to 14 years. The lawsuit claims EquiTrust builds into its annuities package a maturity that occurs after the policyholders' 105th birthday. As the fine print is built into plaintiff's contracts with EquiTrust, these dates cannot be changed. This conniving tactic protects the insurance company from risk while significantly damaging the financial security of the policyholder, the suit claims. Annuities receive a beneficial tax treatment under U.S. Tax Code in that the growth on principal within the annuity accumulates on a tax-deferred basis until the funds are withdrawn. This is a big incentive for prospective purchasers and one EquiTrust offsets by its product spread in its indexed annuities, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit claims the "scheme was devised and intentionally crafted to ensure that plaintiffs and class members would purchase indexed annuities and not receive full benefits from the annuities or be subject to exorbitant surrender charges." Plaintiffs claim the class has been forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in premiums and surrender charges for annuity products that, by design, could not perform as advertised. The lawsuit names several counts against EquiTrust including violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), unjust enrichment and common law civil conspiracy. The suit seeks to represent anyone who purchased an indexed annuity product from EquiTrust from 2004 until present. For more information, contact: Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA, 98101 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Web site: http://www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ FAIRFIELD GREENWICH: Faces N.Y. Litigation Over Madoff Scandal -------------------------------------------------------------- Fairfield Greenwich Group is facing another purported class- action lawsuit concerning the alleged $50 billion Ponzi scheme claimed to have been run by Bernard L. Madoff under the guise of a hedge fund, Thom Weidlich of Bloomberg reports. Background Bernard Lawrence Madoff is a businessman and former chairman of the NASDAQ stock market. He started the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its chairman until Dec. 11, 2008, when he was arrested and charged with securities fraud. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, which is in the process of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on Wall Street, often functioning as a "third-market" provider that bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over- the-counter from retail brokers. The firm also encompassed an investment management and advisory division that is now the focus of the fraud investigation. On Dec. 11, 2008, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested Mr. Madoff on a tip-off from his sons, Andrew and Mark, and charged him with one count of securities fraud. On the day prior to his arrest, Mr. Madoff told his senior executives at the firm that the management and advisory segment of the business was "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme." Five days after his arrest, Mr. Madoff's assets and those of the firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the case. Mr. Madoff's alleged fraud may be valued at a loss of up to a $50 billion in cash and securities. Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result. The FBI complaint states that Mr. Madoff told his sons he believed the losses from his scheme could exceed that $50 billion sum. To date, it is the largest investor fraud ever attributed to a single individual. Litigation Thom Weidlich of Bloomberg reported that Fairfield Greenwich Group, Walter Noel's hedge-fund firm that had $7.5 billion with alleged fraudster Bernard Madoff, was sued for at least the third time by investors over claims it failed to protect their assets. The latest complaint was filed on Jan. 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Inter-American Trust v. Fairfield Greenwich Group, Case No. 09-cv-301." It was filed on behalf of investors by lawyer David Boies, Esq. In the complaint -- obtained by Bloomberg -- Mr. Boies wrote, "Most, if not all, of the assets of the plaintiff class had invested with defendants were stolen through the Madoff Ponzi scheme." He added, "These losses could have been avoided if defendants had fulfilled their duties" and "if they had adequately investigated and monitored Madoff." Two trusts and a holding company based in the Cayman Islands and Carlos Gauch of Mexico sued on behalf of investors in the Fairfield Sentry Fund. It's the third suit filed against Fairfield Greenwich since Mr. Madoff was arrested on Dec. 11, 2008 after he allegedly said he'd been running a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, according to Bloomberg. The plaintiffs "invested in Fairfield Sentry, which in turn handed substantially all of its assets -- at least 95 percent -- over to" Mr. Madoff, according to the complaint. Bloomberg reported that the plaintiffs are seeking return of their investments and fees, in addition to damages. They also claim Fairfield Greenwich didn't conduct proper due diligence GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Seeks Dismissal of Pension Fund's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gaylord Entertainment Co. moves for the dismissal of a purported derivative and class action complaint pending in Tennessee federal court, 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. In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee state court alleging that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state court action, and they re-filed it in federal court. On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand on the Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. Gaylord Entertainment Co. -- http://www.gaylordentertainment.com -- is a hospitality and entertainment company that owns and operates Gaylord Hotels (www.gaylordhotels.com), its network of meetings-focused resorts and the Grand Ole Opry (www.opry.com), the weekly showcase. The company's entertainment brands and properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio. The company's operations are organized into three principal business segments: Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other. GLOBAL CROSSING: Ill. Landowners' Rights-of-Way Suit Continues -------------------------------------------------------------- The remanded Qwest Rights-of-Way Lawsuit faced by subsidiaries of Global Crossing Ltd. (GX) is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. In May 2001, a purported class-action suit was commenced against three of Global Crossing's subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges that GX had no right to install a fiber-optic cable in rights-of-way granted by the plaintiffs to certain railroads. Pursuant to an agreement with Qwest Communications Corp., GX has an indefeasible right to use certain fiber-optic cables in a fiber-optic communications system constructed by Qwest within the rights-of-way. The complaint alleges that the railroads had only limited rights-of-way granted to them that did not include permission to install fiber-optic cable for use by Qwest or any other entities. The action has been brought on behalf of a national class of landowners whose property underlies or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way within which the fiber-optic cables have been installed. The suit seeks actual damages in an unstated amount and alleges that the wrongs done by the Company involve fraud, malice, intentional wrongdoing, willful or wanton conduct and reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiff landowners. The plaintiffs also request an award of punitive damages. GX made a demand of Qwest to defend and indemnify it in the lawsuit. In response, Qwest has appointed defense counsel to protect GX's interests. The company's North American network includes capacity purchased from Qwest on an Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) basis. Though the amount of the claim is unstated, an adverse outcome could have an adverse impact on the company's ability to utilize large portions of the company's North American network. This litigation was stayed against the company pending the effective date of its Plan of Reorganization, and the plaintiffs' pre-petition claims against the company were discharged at that time in accordance with the Plan of Reorganization. By agreement between the parties, the Plan of Reorganization preserved plaintiffs' rights to pursue any post-confirmation claims of trespass or ejectment. If the plaintiffs were to prevail, the company could lose its ability to operate large portions of its North American network, although it believes that it would be entitled to indemnification from Qwest for any losses under the terms of the IRU agreement under which the company originally purchased this capacity. As part of a global resolution of all bankruptcy claims asserted against the company by Qwest, Qwest agreed to reaffirm its obligations of defense and indemnity to the company for the assertions made in this claim. In September 2002, Qwest and certain of the other telecommunication carrier defendants filed a proposed settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action claims, except those in Louisiana. The settlement and the court's injunction were opposed by a number of parties who intervened and an appeal was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. In a decision dated Oct. 19, 2004, the Court of Appeals reversed the approval of the settlement and lifted the injunction. The case has been remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Nov. 6 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Global Crossing, Ltd. -- http://www.globalcrossing.com/-- is a communications solutions provider, offering a suite of Internet protocol and legacy telecommunications services worldwide. LEAP WIRELESS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and directors continue to defend purported securities fraud class-action lawsuits before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to the company's Nov. 7 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suits were filed between November 2007 and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007. The company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these lawsuits. The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about the company's business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007 announcement of its financial restatement. Some of the lawsuits also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The class action complaints seek determinations that the suits are proper class actions. They also seek unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Aug. 28, 2008. The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 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 is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 MEDICI BANK: Stull, Stull & Brody Files Suit Over Madoff Scandal ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES - (Business Wire) Stull, Stull & Brody has commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 09 CIV 00289) on behalf of a Class, consisting of all persons and entities who invested in the Herald USA Fund, Herald Luxemburg Fund, Primeo Select Funds and the Thema International Fund between January 12, 2002 through and including January 12, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint asserts that, during the Class Period, unbeknownst to investors, defendant Medici Bank, along with defendants Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank Austria Creditanstalt, Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative Investments, Ernst & Young LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc, caused the Funds to concentrate almost 100% of their investment capital with entities that participated in the massive, fraudulent scheme perpetrated by defendants Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com MORTGAGE DEPOT: Mo. Court Gives Preliminary OK to TCPA Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- SPRINGFIELD, Mo., Jan. 12 /PRNewswire/ -- The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri has preliminarily approved settlement of a class action lawsuit against Mortgage Depot, LLC of Merriam, Kansas for sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. The lawsuit, "Evans & Green, LLP v. Mortgage Depot, LLC et al.," alleged that Mortgage Depot sent thousands of unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The primary subscriber to a facsimile telephone number which received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from Mortgage Depot, LLC between September 1, 2004 and January 1, 2005 may receive up to $500 as part of the settlement. A website has been created to provide more details about the settlement to members of the class, including how to claim their money or be excluded from the case. It is located at www.MDFaxSettlement.com. Class members can also contact the Claims Administrator, c/o Class Action Administration, Inc. toll-free at (866) 802-7915. PDI INC: Lawsuits Over Use of Baycol Medication Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- PDI, Inc., continues defending two purported class-action suits alleging claims arising from the use of Baycol, a prescription cholesterol-lowering medication. Baycol was distributed, promoted and sold by Bayer Corp. in the U.S. until early August 2001, at which time Bayer voluntarily withdrew Baycol from the U.S. market. Bayer had retained certain companies, such as PDI, to provide detailing services on its behalf pursuant to contract sales force agreements. To date, PDI has defended these actions vigorously and have asserted a contractual right of defense and indemnification against Bayer for all costs and expenses the company incur relating to these proceedings. In February 2003, the company entered into a joint defense and indemnification agreement with Bayer, pursuant to which Bayer has agreed to assume substantially all of the company's defense costs in pending and prospective proceedings and to indemnify the company in these lawsuits, subject to certain limited exceptions. Furthermore, Bayer agreed to reimburse the company for all reasonable costs and expenses incurred through such date in defending these proceedings. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Bayer has reimbursed the company for approximately $1.6 million in legal expenses, the majority of which was received in 2003 and was reflected as a credit within selling, general and administrative expense. The company has not incurred any costs or expenses relating to these matters since 2003. The company reported no further development regarding the cases in its Nov. 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. PDI Inc. -- http://www.pdi-inc.com/-- is a provider of contract sales teams to pharmaceutical companies, offering a range of sales support services. In addition to contract sales teams, the company also provides marketing research, physician interaction and medical education programs. The services offer customers a range of promotional and educational options for the commercialization of their products throughout their lifecycles, from development through maturity. The three segments of the company are Sales Services, Marketing Services and PDI Products Group. PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. The company did not provide further details regarding the matter in its Nov. 7 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a coal company. It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating and industrial plants in 19 countries. The Company owns majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all the United States coal producing regions and in Australia. In addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine, through a joint venture arrangement. Most of the production in the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia. RAIT FINANCIAL: Motions to Dismiss Securities Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument on the motions to dismiss the complaint captioned, "In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-03148," have not yet been set, 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. RAIT, certain of its executive officers and trustees and the lead underwriters involved in the company's public offering of common shares in January 2007, were named defendants in one or more of nine putative class action securities lawsuits filed in August and September 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By Order dated Nov. 17, 2007, the court consolidated these cases under the caption, "In re RAIT Financial Trust Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:07-cv-03148," and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Jan. 4, 2008, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class- action complaint, or the complaint, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our securities between June 8, 2006 and Aug. 3, 2007. The complaint names as defendants RAIT, 11 current and former officers and trustees of RAIT, 10 underwriters who participated in certain of the company's securities offerings in 2007, and its independent accounting firm. The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions in registration statements and prospectuses about the company's credit underwriting, its exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial items. The complaint further alleges that certain defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially false and misleading statements and material omissions during the putative class period about the company's credit underwriting, its exposure to certain issuers through investments in debt securities, and its loan loss reserves and other financial items. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On March 10, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on a number of grounds. The Court permitted plaintiffs to file a single brief in opposition to all defense motions to dismiss on May 15, 2008. All defendants filed reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss on June 5, 2008. RAIT and certain of the officer/trustee defendants sought leave to file a supplemental brief, which the Court permitted as of June 24, 2008. Plaintiffs were permitted a response to the supplemental brief, which was deemed filed as of July 1, 2008. The parties have requested oral argument on the motions to dismiss, but no argument has been scheduled. RAIT Financial Trust -- http://www.raitft.com-- is a specialty finance company that provides a set of debt financing options to the real estate industry. It originates and invests in real estate-related assets that are underwritten through an integrated investment process. RAIT conducts business through its subsidiaries, which include RAIT Partnership, L.P. And Taberna Realty Finance Trust, as well as through their respective subsidiaries. RAIT is a self-managed and self- advised real estate investment trust (REIT), which originates and invests in asset classes, such as commercial mortgages, mezzanine loans and other loans; trust preferred securities (TruPS), and subordinated debentures; residential mortgage loans; mortgaged-backed securities, including residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), unsecured REIT notes and other real estate- related debt securities, and real estate investments and preferred equity interests in entities that own real estate. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: March 16 Hearing Set for $925.5M Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold a fairness hearing on March 16, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $925,500,000 million settlement by in the matter, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv- 01691-JMR-FLN" The hearing will be held before the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth St., Minneapolis, Minneosta. Case Background On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2008). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006, consolidating the seven actions into a single case. The action is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN." The appointed lead plaintiff is California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants, in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock. The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in possession of material, non-public information concerning the matters set forth in the complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act. It seeks unspecified money damages and equitable relief. On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to settle the lawsuit. The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against the company, all current officers and directors of the company named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has accrued $895 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members in two installments. An installment of $450 million will be deposited into the settlement fund on the earlier of 10 days following preliminary court approval of the settlement or Sept. 15, 2008. The remaining $445 million settlement amount will be deposited into the settlement fund on the earlier of: -- 10 days following final non-appealable court approval of the settlement of the claims, -- 10 days following execution by the plaintiffs and the non-settling defendants of an agreement in principle for the settlement of the claims against the non- settling defendants, or -- Jan. 1, 2009. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company will also supplement the substantial changes it has already implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional changes and enhancements. The proposed settlement, which has been approved by the boards of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to completion of final documentation, and preliminary and final court approval. The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 -and - Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com) Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Phone: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Representing the defendants is: Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-492-6741 Fax: 612-340-8856 - and - Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-408-2421 VAN LINES: April 7 Fairness Hearing Set for MDL-1865 Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on April 7, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. in the bankruptcy proceedings know as "In re: DJK Residential LLC, et. al., Case No. 08-10375" to consider the proposed $5 million settlement reached by North American Van Lines, Inc., and Allied Van Lines, Inc. (Van Lines) in the matter, "In re Household Goods Movers Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1865," which is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The Fairness Hearing will be held in Courtroom No. 601, One Bowling Green, New York, New York 10004. The case involves fuel surcharges allegedly added to the cost of Household Goods Moving Services during the period from March 19, 2003 to March 19, 2007. It claims that the Van Lines were among a group of moving companies that overcharged their customers by adding illegal fuel surcharges to their invoices. The suit also claims that Van Lines conspired with other moving companies to fix and maintain those fuel surcharges. The settlement generally includes everyone in the U.S. That purchased moving services for interstate shipments from any of the following companies between March 19, 2003 and March 19, 2007: Allied Van Lines, Inc.; North American Van Lines Inc.; American Moving and Storage Association, Inc.; SIRVA, Inc.; SIRVA Worldwide, Inc.; Atlas Van Lines, Inc.; Unigroup, Inc.; Atlas World Group, Inc.; United Van Lines LLC; Bekins Van Lines, Inc.; Wheaton Van Lines, Inc.; and Mayflower Transit LLC. For more details, contact: DJK Residential Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 4540 Portland, OR 97208-4540 Phone: 1-800-809-3150 Web site: http://vanlinessettlement.com WACHOVIA CORP: Jan. 22, 2009 Fairness Hearing Set Pa. Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing on the settlements of two putative class- action lawsuits filed against Wachovia Corp. is scheduled for Jan. 22, 2009. On Feb. 17, 2006, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania filed a civil fraud complaint against a former Wachovia Bank, N.A. customer, Payment Processing Center (PPC). PPC was a third party payment processor for telemarketing and catalogue companies (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2008). On April 12, 2007, a civil class-action suit, "Faloney et al. v. Wachovia," was filed against Wachovia in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a putative class of consumers who made purchases through telemarketer customers of PPC. The suit alleges that between April 1, 2005 and February 21, 2006, Wachovia conspired with PPC to facilitate PPC's purported violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Feb. 15, 2008, a second putative class-action suit, "Harrison v. Wachovia," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a putative class of consumers who made purchases through telemarketing customers of three other third party payment processors which banked with Wachovia. On Aug. 14, 2008, Wachovia reached agreements to settle the Faloney and Harrison class-action lawsuits. The settlements have received preliminary approval from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. For more details, contact: United States Court Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 37765 Philadelphia, PA 19101-7765 Phone: 1-866-680-6659 Web site: http://restitutionpayment.com - and - Langer, Grogan & Diver P.C. 1717 Arch Street Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-320-5660 Fax: 215-320-5703 New Securities Fraud Cases ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- SAN DIEGO, Jan 12, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP today announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS" or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 initial public offering of 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S (the "Offering"). The complaint charges RBS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. RBS is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and National Westminster Bank plc, which are United Kingdom- based clearing banks. The complaint alleges that defendants consummated RBS's Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement, selling 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S ("Series S ADSs") at $25 per share, for proceeds of approximately $950 million. The Registration Statement incorporated RBS's financial results for 2004, 2005 and 2006. RBS ultimately announced huge multi-billion pound impairment charges associated with its exposure to debt securities, including mortgage-related securities tied to the U.S. real estate markets, causing the price of RBS's Series S ADSs issued in the Offering to decline. The ADSs now trade at approximately $10 per share. According to the complaint, the true facts that were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- defendants' portfolio of debt securities was impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its debt securities; -- the Company's participation in the consortium which acquired ABN AMRO would have disastrous results on the Company's capital position and overall operations; and -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the subprime market and, as a result, RBS would be forced to raise significant amounts of additional capital. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of RBS Series S ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement for the Offering (the "Class"). For more details, contact: Darren Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rbs/ ROYAL BANK: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (NYSE: RBS) ("RBS" or the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 initial public offering of 38 million Non-cumulative Dollar Preference Shares, Series S (the "Offering"). The Complaint charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a materially false and misleading Registration Statement. Specifically, the following facts were omitted from the Registration Statement: -- defendants' portfolio of debt securities was impaired to a much larger extent than RBS had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent RBS from improperly reporting its debt securities; -- the Company's participation in the consortium which acquired ABN AMRO would have disastrous results on the Company's capital position and overall operations; and -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the subprime market and, as a result, RBS would be forced to raise significant amounts of additional capital. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com VMWARE INC: Dyer & Berens Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENVER, Jan. 12, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) today reminded investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of VMware, Inc. ("VMware" or the "Company") (NYSE:VMW) between April 22, 2008 and July 22, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period") of the upcoming January 23, 2009 deadline to seek a lead plaintiff appointment in the class action filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The class action complaint charges that two of the Company's senior officers, Diane B. Greene (former President and CEO) and Mark S. Peek (CFO), violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by making and/or allowing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the defendants allegedly knew but recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public that: -- the Company was facing increasing competition and lower-priced rival products were lengthening the time it took for VMware to close deals; -- customers were taking longer to sign lucrative multi- year enterprise license agreements, and were instead signing smaller, short-term contracts; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants misrepresented the Company's business and future prospects. The complaint further charges that, during the Class Period, Company insiders took advantage of the undisclosed adverse information by collectively selling 86,541 shares of their personally held VMware common stock for gross proceeds in excess of $5.8 million. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP (888) 300-3362 (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 21-22, 2009 14TH ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute TBD, New York, New York Phone: 888-224-2480 May 18-19, 2009 5TH ANNUAL IN-HOUSE COUNSEL FORUM ON PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST American Conference Institute TBD, Washington, District of Columbia Phone: 888-224-2480 July 9-10, 2009 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2009: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710 July 9-10, 2009 INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION American Law Institute - American Bar Association Langham Hotel Boston, Massachusetts Phone: 800-CLE-NEWS ********* 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 * * *