/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090122.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 22, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 15 Headlines AMERICAN FAMILY: Ill. Judge Seals Response in Medical Bills Suit AOL: Federal Appeals Court Allows Californians Can Sue In-State BIG RETAILERS: To Give Out Cosmetics as Part of Suit Settlement CENTURYTEL INC: MOA of "Tyler" Suit Settlement Inked on Jan. 16 FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose HARDINGE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in Va. Bankruptcy Court LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Lawsuit Pending in Minn. MERRILL LYNCH: Deal with Retirement Plan Stockholders Pending MERRILL LYNCH: Ohio State Teachers Agree to Proposed Settlement MIGDAL INSURANCE: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Israel RED HAT: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification in Securities Suit TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit v. Parent Co. Pending TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Hall" Securities Lawsuit in Pre-trial Stage TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Jasin" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stage TYCO ELECTRONICS: Remains Liable for Remaining Securities Suits UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Calif. Court OKs Consumer Lawsuit Settlement WD-40 CO: Plaintiff's Appeal to Denied "Drimmer" Class Pending New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Gardy & Notis Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing SATYAM COMPUTER: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit SATYAM COMPUTER: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMERICAN FAMILY: Ill. Judge Seals Response in Medical Bills Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit court has sealed a response by plaintiffs lawyers in a purported class- action against American Family Insurance, claiming that the company improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car crashes, Steve Korris of The Madison County Record reports. In a Jan. 2, 2009 response to a Dec. 26, 2008 American Family Insurance brief that argued, "This is not a class action," lawyers Brad Lakin, Esq. and Paul Weiss, Esq. have explained why the suit has been led for five years by a dead man. However, the answer as to why it must be prolonged as a class-action suit is secret, according to the The Madison County Record report. The lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel Hernandez in 2000, who claims that the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 16, 2008). In 2002, Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states. As circuit judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005. In 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the case on this basis. Since Mr. Hernandez's death, the attorneys have been trying to substitute him with a another class representative. First it was his wife, and then later on by a band of out of state chiropractors. The Madison County Record reported that American Family lawyer Anthony Martin, Esq. of St. Louis, opposing a motion to substitute for the late Manuel Hernandez, wrote, "It ceased being a class action long ago." He argued that class counsel have converted themselves into "the de facto plaintiff." Though Mr. Hernandez died in 2004, Judge Stack didn't hear about it from Messrs Lakin and Weiss. American Family reported his death to Judge Stack in 2006. In his December brief, Mr. Martin wrote, "Either class counsel knew of Mr. Hernandez's death for over two years and failed to act, or failed to attempt to contact the sole class representative for over two years," reports The Madison County Record. Mr. Martin argued that because the class received no notice, the class died with Mr. Hernandez. He explains, "Notice is required because absent class members have several constitutional due process rights which have not been protected in this lawsuit." He also wrote, "American Family's concern for absent class members' constitutional due process rights is also a concern for its own." Mr. Martin pointed out that the chiropractors and clinics, which would substitute for Mr. Hernandez knew nothing about the litigation until Mr. Lakin solicited them, reports The Madison County Record. "Those chiropractors responded to the solicitation letters trolling for substitute class representatives a little more than one year ago," according to Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin argues that the three potential substitutes don't belong to the class. In addition, he also questioned the adequacy of class counsel who sued each other two years ago, according to The Madison County Record. AOL: Federal Appeals Court Allows Californians Can Sue In-State --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court said California residents can sue AOL (formerly America Online), a unit of media conglomerate Time Warner Inc. in their home state for privacy violations based on a 2006 Internet posting, the Post Chronicle reports. An AOL membership agreement stipulated that lawsuits against the company had to be filed in Virginia, where class-action suits are prohibited, according to a report by the Sacramento Bee. Judge Sandra Armstrong upheld that agreement when customers sued the company after it posted 20 million Web site searches by 658,000 of its members. A class-action suit claimed that the information revealed "personal struggles with various highly personal issues, including sexuality, mental illness, recovery from alcoholism, and victimization from incest, physical abuse, domestic violence, adultery and rape." On Jan. 16, 2009, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned Judge Armstrong's ruling for Californians, because the clause in the agreement "violates the (California) Consumer Legal Remedies Act," reports the Post Chronicle. The court said that even though AOL took the information off the Web site 10 days after it was posted, the incident that AOL called "a screw up," allowed anyone with access to the information "to openly criticize and pass judgment on AOL members based on their searches," according to the Post Chronicle report. BIG RETAILERS: To Give Out Cosmetics as Part of Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting Jan. 20, 2009, several big retailers will giveaway $175 million worth of free high-end cosmetics including such brands as Estee Lauder and L'Oreal to consumers as part of the settlement of the antitrust class-action lawsuit, "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.," WPTV reports. According to WPTV, department stores such as Macy's and Nordstrom will distribute free cosmetics as long as supplies last to shoppers who bought certain cosmetics between May 29, 1994 and July 16, 2003 to settle claims that the stores violated antitrust laws and tried to fix prices. The offer is part of an agreement to settle several lawsuits that were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California back in 2003. Initially, department stores and specialty retailers were named as defendants in nine separate, but virtually identical class- action suits filed in various Superior Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998. The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008). In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other retailers as additional defendants. The plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores. The plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the original complaints. Several defendant would later enter into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in order to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation. In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994 through July 16, 2003. The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a summary notice of class certification and the terms of the settlement were disseminated to class members. On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety. On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006. The plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006. The remaining objector filed her reply brief on June 14, 2006. The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments on the appeal on March 14, 2007 and issued its decision on Aug. 23, 2007, affirming the District Court’s ruling. The deadline for the appellant to file a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision ended on Nov. 21, 2007. Accordingly, the settlement became final according to its terms on Nov. 22, 2007. Pursuant to the settlement, the defendants will provide class members with certain free products with an estimated retail value of $175 million and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, awarded by the Court, of $24 million. WPTV reported that the products will be available starting Jan. 20, 2009. Shoppers are only permitted to receive one product made by cosmetic companies that include Chanel, Estee Lauder and L'Oreal USA, among others. Stores participating in the settlement include: Bergdorf Goodman, Bergner's, Bloomingdale's, Boston Store, Carson Pirie Scott, Dillard's, Gottschalks, Herberger's, Macy's, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Parisian, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Younkers, according to WPTV. WPTV reports that a complete list of products set for distribution is available at http://www.cosmeticssettlement.com. CENTURYTEL INC: MOA of "Tyler" Suit Settlement Inked on Jan. 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyTel, Inc., Embarq Corp., and Cajun Acquisition Co. on Jan. 16, 2009, entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding the settlement of a putative class-action suit styled, "Tyner v. Embarq Corp, et al., Case No. 08CV10121." On Dec. 1, 2008, a complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of Embarq stockholders in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. The complaint names Embarq, its directors and CenturyTel as defendants. It alleges, among other things, that Embarq's directors breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the Merger Agreement, including by failing to obtain the highest price available for Embarq's stockholders and by failing to disclose material information in the proxy materials in connection with the merger, and that Embarq and CenturyTel aided and abetted the directors' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, class action status, court orders declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, and the payment of attorneys' fees and expenses. On Jan. 16, 2009, the putative class representative and defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with regard to the settlement of the Action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Embarq and CenturyTel agreed, among other things, to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed merger, which are set forth below. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that, pending certain confirmatory discovery, the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Embarq's stockholders. In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the Court will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the Court, it will resolve and release all claims in the Action that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Embarq and/or its successor(s) in interest of not more than $1 million. Embarq (and/or its successor(s) in interest) shall pay or cause to be paid such award(s) of attorneys' fees and expenses. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009. CenturyTel, Inc., -- http://www.centurytel.com-- together with its subsidiaries, is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services, including local and long distance voice, Internet access and broadband services. It conducts its operations in 25 states located within the continental U.S. FCSTONE GROUP: Faces Stockholders' Suit Over Failure to Disclose ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri is in its early stages, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. The company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008. The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15, 2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged false statements and failure to disclose adverse facts relating to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad debt reserve. FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an integrated commodity risk management company providing risk management consulting and transaction execution services to commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers. It assists primarily middle market customers. In addition, to its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded futures and options contracts. HARDINGE INC: N.Y. Court Mulls Motion in Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York is deciding whether a California law firm and a Hardinge, Inc. investor the firm represents will be the lead attorney and lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed in October against the the machine tool maker, G. Jeffrey Aaron of The Elmira Star- Gazette reports. A motion filed by the Glancy Binkow & Goldberg law firm of Los Angeles identifies the investor as Paul J. Campbell. According to court papers, Mr. Campbell lost $136,525 when he sold 11,200 shares of Hardinge stock in April 2008 at a price of $14.01 per share, The Elmira Star-Gazette reported. Mr. Campbell purchased the shares between April and November 2007 at prices that ranged from $33.43 per share in June to $20.30 in November 2008. The value of his investment totaled $293,521, according to The Elmira Star-Gazette report. The motion requesting Mr. Campbell be named lead plaintiff states the appropriate papers were presented to the court within 60 days after the original complaint against Hardinge was filed; that Mr. Campbell has the largest financial interests of the parties included in the lawsuit; and that he can "fairly and adequately" protect the interests of those other parties, reports The Elmira Star-Gazette. The Elmira Star-Gazette reports that as lead plaintiff, Mr. Campbell would be responsible for making the decisions related to any settlement proposed in the case. As lead attorney, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg would be in charge of the day-by-day court activity and eligible for additional fees. The suit charges Hardinge and certain of Hardinge's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, operations and prospects caused Hardinge's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 31, 2008). Hardinge is a machine tool manufacturer, which designs and manufactures computer-numerically controlled cutting lathes, machining centers, grinding machines, collets, chucks, indexing fixtures and other industrial products. The Company's brands include Hardinge, Kellenberger, Bridgeport, and Hauser, Tripet, and Tshudin. The suit alleges that throughout the between Feb. 22, 2007 and Feb. 21, 2008, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Hardinge's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that Hardinge's orders and sales were slowing; (2) slowing sales were causing Hardinge's inventory of outdated machinery to grow; (3) that the Company failed to timely record an impairment in the value of its inventory; (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were materially inflated; and (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. Hardinge, Inc. -- http://www.hardinge.com-- is a global designer, manufacturer and distributor of machine tools, specializing in precision computer numerically controlled material-cutting machines. It supplies high-precision computer controlled material-cutting turning machines, grinding machines, and vertical machining centers, and accessories related to those machines. Industries directly and indirectly served by the Company include aerospace, automotive, construction equipment, defense, energy, farm equipment, medical equipment, recreational equipment, telecommunications and transportation. The Company has manufacturing facilities located in Chemung County, New York; St. Gallen, Switzerland; Biel, Switzerland; Nan Tou City, Taiwan, and Shanghai, People's Republic of China. It manufactures the majority of the products it sells. LANDAMERICA 1031: Faces Fraud Lawsuit in Va. Bankruptcy Court ------------------------------------------------------------- LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services, a unit of LandAmerica Financial Group Inc., facing a purported class-action suit claiming breach of contract, fraud and theft of property, Emily C. Dooley of the Richmond Times Dispatch reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of LandAmerica 1031 Exchange Services customers. The Richmond Times Dispatch reported that named as defendants in the suit are LandAmerica Financial Group Inc., its exchange company, and several executives, including former chairman and chief executive Theodore L. Chandler Jr., who stepped down Friday; Chief Financial Officer G. William Evans; and controller Christine R. Vlahcevic. The lawsuit was filed by two California residents who represent a family trust. In October 2008, they transferred $230,000 to the exchange company after the sale of property in California. With LandAmerica's bankruptcy filing in late November 2008, their money was locked up before they had identified another property in which to reinvest, reports the Richmond Times Dispatch. The plaintiffs are claiming that they were intentionally misled on the financial health of LandAmerica and its exchange company, according to the Richmond Times Dispatch. LAWSON SOFTWARE: "Cruz" Labor-Related Lawsuit Pending in Minn. -------------------------------------------------------------- A labor-related class-action lawsuit against Lawson Software, Inc. is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. The punitive class action lawsuit was filed against the company on May 20, 2008, on behalf of current and former business, systems, and technical consultants. The suit, "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," alleges that that the company failed to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law, and alleges violations of state record-keeping requirements. It also alleges certain violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act and unjust enrichment. The relief sought includes back wages, corresponding 401(k) plan credits, liquidated damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2008). The company has filed a motion to dismiss the ERISA and unjust enrichment claims, but there is no assurance that the court will grant that pending motion. The company has successfully moved the action from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. In addition to the motion to dismiss still pending, the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the FLSA claims is also still pending. The suit "Cruz, et. al., v. Lawson Software, Inc. et. al., Case No. 1:08-cv-04704-SHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Sidney H. Stein, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Llezlie Lloren Green, Esq. (lgreen@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C., DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Representing the defendants are: Loretta Mae Gastwirth, Esq. (lgastwirth@meltzerlippe.com) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, LLP 190 Willis Avenue Mineola, NY 11501 Phone: 516-747-0300 Fax: 516-747-0653 - and - Sara Gullickson McGrane, Esq. (smcgrane@felhaber.com) Felhaber, Larson, Fenlon & Vogt, P.A. 220 S. Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-373-8511 Fax: 612-338-0535 MERRILL LYNCH: Deal with Retirement Plan Stockholders Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement in connection with a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.'s employees who invested in or held company stock in certain retirement plans during the period Sept. 30, 2006 through Dec. 31, 2008, remains pending. Under the terms of this proposed settlement, which is also subject to court approval and other customary conditions, Merrill Lynch will pay $75 million in cash, and the claims will be dismissed. This case has also been filed under the caption, "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 07cv9633 (JSR)(DFE)." The claims focused primarily on Merrill Lynch's subprime-related losses and related disclosures during the class periods. The proposed settlement does not cover the shareholder derivative actions and the claims brought principally by bondholders in actions filed under the same caption, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009. 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: Ohio State Teachers Agree to Proposed Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., on Jan. 16, 2009, was notified that the Ohio State Teachers' Retirement System agreed to a proposed settlement of a class action brought on behalf of persons who purchased Merrill Lynch stock and certain Merrill Lynch preferred shares between Oct. 17, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2008. STRS is the lead plaintiff in a class action captioned, "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative and ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 07cv9633 (JSR)(DFE)." Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which is subject to court approval and other customary conditions, Merrill Lynch will pay $475 million in cash, and the claims will be dismissed. The claims focused primarily on Merrill Lynch's subprime-related losses and related disclosures during the class periods. The proposed settlements do not involve any admission of wrongdoing or liability, and there has been no adjudication of the merits of the underlying claims. There can be no assurance in either action that the parties will ultimately enter into final settlement agreements or that the court will approve the settlement agreements that the parties execute. The proposed settlement does not cover the shareholder derivative action and the claims brought principally by bondholders in actions filed under the same caption, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Jan. 16, 2009. 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. MIGDAL INSURANCE: Faces Policyholders' Litigation in Israel ----------------------------------------------------------- Jan. 20, 2009 (Globes - McClatchy-Tribune Information Services via COMTEX) -- The Tel Aviv District Court has ruled against Migdal Insurance and Financial Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MGDL), Menorah Mivtachim Holdings Ltd. (TASE: MORA), and Shiloah Insurance Company Ltd. in a class-action lawsuit. Judge Magen Altuvia ruled that the companies violated proper disclosure by not explaining to policyholders serving in the IDF that their ability to utilize supplementary medical insurance policies was limited and subject to IDF regulations. Judge Altuvia dismissed the charge that the insurance companies mislead and abused the policyholders. She said that the non-disclosure was not considered as misleading policyholders, and the companies therefore owe no compensation to the policyholders. Judge Altuvia nevertheless accepted the claimants' request for remedy, and ordered the insurance companies to clearly declare in their policies that the supplementary medical insurance policies were subject to military regulations while the policyholders were in the service, that these regulations change from time to time, and to ensure that the policyholders understood this. RED HAT: Awaits Ruling on Class Certification in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff's motion to certify the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Red Hat, Inc., as a class action awaits disposition by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In the summer of 2004, 14 class action complaints were filed against the company and several of its present and former officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's securities during various periods from June 19, 2001, through July 13, 2004. All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. All of the claims arise in connection with the company announcement on July 13, 2004, that it would restate certain of its financial statements. One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and former officers and the company variously violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial statements that the company subsequently restated. One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the company's chief executive officer and former chief financial officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief. As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR." A lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have been designated, and on May 6, 2005, an amended consolidated class- action complaint was filed. On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also on that date, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer. The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss. A scheduling order has been entered in the matter and discovery was scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007. In November 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On May 11, 2007, the Court entered an order denying class certification and denying all other pending motions, including certain plaintiffs' motions for appointment as class representative, as moot. Thereafter, on July 13, 2007, Charles Gilbert filed a renewed motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered an order allowing Mr. Gilbert's motion, appointing him lead plaintiff and adding him as a party plaintiff and appointing lead counsel. On Jan. 14, 2008, Mr. Gilbert's counsel filed a motion to certify the action as a class action (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008). The motion to certify the action as a class action has since been briefed by the parties and now awaits disposition by the Court, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Judge W. Earl Britt, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: William Webb, Esq. (woodywebb@wwedmisten.com) The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602 Phone: 919-831-8700 Representing the company is: Pressly M. Millen, Esq. (pmillen@wcsr.com) Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq. P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 TYCO ELECTRONICS: Consolidated ERISA Suit v. Parent Co. Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated class-action lawsuit against Tyco International Limited and certain of its current and former employees, officers, and directors under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is in the pre-trial stage, according to Tyco Electronics Limited's Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008. Tyco International Limited and certain of its current and former employees, officers, and directors have been named as defendants in eight class actions brought under ERISA. All eight actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of the Tyco International Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the participants therein and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material information concerning, among other things, the following: related-party transactions and executive compensation; Tyco International's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; and misstatements of Tyco International's financial results. The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in Tyco International's shares when it was not a prudent investment. The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On Aug. 15, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class "consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25, 2002." Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Hall" Securities Lawsuit in Pre-trial Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- An action entitled, "Hall v. Kozlowski, et al.," is in the pre- trial stage, according to Tyco Electronics Limited's Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008. The action relates to plaintiff's employment, 401(k) and pension plans, and ownership of Tyco International stock The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the "Hall" action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. TYCO ELECTRONICS: "Jasin" Securities Suit in Pre-trial Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ The action entitled, "Jasin v. Tyco International Ltd., et al.," is in the pre-trial stage, according to Tyco Electronics Limited's Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008. This action was filed on Sept. 2, 2004, in the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. This pro se plaintiff named as additional defendants Tyco International (U.S.) Inc. and certain of Tyco International's former executives. Plaintiff's complaint asserts causes of action under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 11 of the Securities Act. Claims against the former executives also are asserted under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act, as well as Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiff also asserts common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair trade practice, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violation of Section 1-402 of the Pennsylvania Securities Act of 1972. Tyco International removed the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. TYCO ELECTRONICS: Remains Liable for Remaining Securities Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyco Electronics Limited is responsible for 31% of potential liabilities that may arise upon the resolution of the remaining pending litigation relating to the company's separation from Tyco International Limited, according to its Jan. 16, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 26, 2008. Prior to the announcement by Tyco International of the planned separation of Tyco Electronics and Covidien Ltd. in January 2006, Tyco International and certain of its former directors and officers were named as defendants in over 40 purported securities class action lawsuits. As a part of the Separation and Distribution Agreement, any existing or potential liabilities related to the securities class actions were allocated among Tyco International, Covidien, and the company. The company is responsible for 31% of potential liabilities that may arise upon the resolution of the remaining pending litigation. Most of the securities class-action lawsuits were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. A consolidated securities class-action complaint was filed in these proceedings, and on June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class "consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest." Tyco International settled 32 of the purported securities class- action lawsuits arising from the actions alleged to have been taken by its prior management, for which the company is responsible for 31%. All legal contingencies that could have affected the final order entered in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire approving the settlement expired on Feb. 21, 2008. As of the opt-out deadline for the settlement, Tyco International received opt-out notices from individuals and entities totaling approximately 4% of the shares owned by class members. A number of these individuals and entities have filed actions separately against Tyco International and/or Tyco International, Covidien, and the company. Generally, the claims asserted by these plaintiffs include violations of the disclosure provisions of federal securities laws. Tyco International has advised the company that it intends to vigorously defend any litigation resulting from opt- out claims. One of the opt-out lawsuits was filed by certain BlackRock funds against Tyco International, Covidien and the company. One of the company's directors, Robert M. Hernandez, is a trustee/director of certain of the BlackRock funds named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. However, Mr. Hernandez was not informed and had no knowledge of the lawsuit because he had been recused from all discussions and decisions relating to the lawsuit. Mr. Hernandez will continue to recuse himself from any and all matters relating to the lawsuit in both his capacity as a director of Tyco Electronics and as a trustee/director of certain BlackRock funds. Tyco Electronics Limited -- http://www.tycoelectronics.com/-- is a global provider of engineered electronic components, network solutions, wireless systems and undersea telecommunication systems. The company designs, manufactures, and markets products for customers in industries from automotive, appliance, and aerospace and defense to telecommunications, computers, and consumer electronics. Its products are produced in approximately 100 manufacturing sites in over 25 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tyco International Limited. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS: Calif. Court OKs Consumer Lawsuit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court in California gave final approval of a settlement of a consumer fraud class-action lawsuit that calls for Universal Studios, Inc. to stop selling park admission gift cards with expiration dates, The Daily News Wire Service reports. The suit was filed by Colin Adams on December 2006, alleging included unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices by Universal Studios. Under the settlement, Universal Studios has agreed to honor existing cards with expiration dates and to post notices for six months at the park. In addition, the company will pay $110,000 in attorneys' fees to Mr. Adams' lawyers and will also donate $36,000 to charity, according to The Daily News Wire Service reports. According to the lawsuit, Universal Studios sold gift cards that were good for a day's admission at grocery stores throughout California. In 2005, Mr. Adams obtained one of the admissions cards that had an expiration date, which he maintained was in violation of the state Civil Code. In July 2006, Mr. Adams wrote a letter to Universal Studios demanding that it stop selling gift cards with an expiration date, according to his lawsuit. The Daily News Wire Service reported that Universal Studios responded by sending him two tickets, but maintained that what he bought was a "ticket card" rather than a gift card and had no value until it was activated. The lawsuit said that the company continued selling the cards with expiration dates statewide. The court granted class-action status to the case last February 2008 and preliminary approval to the settlement in October 2008, reports The Daily News Wire Service. WD-40 CO: Plaintiff's Appeal to Denied "Drimmer" Class Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal filed by the plaintiff in a purported class-action lawsuit against WD-40 Co. from an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denying class-action status to their case remains pending. James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners. After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 20, 2006. The amended complaint sought class-action status. It alleged that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber. On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class action. The plaintiff then petitioned for permission to appeal the District Court's decision and the company has opposed this move. The plaintiff was granted permission to appeal the District Court's ruling. If the plaintiff is successful in an appeal and class-action certification is granted in this legal action, it is reasonably possible that the outcome could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W- AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net) The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny 401 West A Street, Suite 2300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-234-1616 Fax: 619-234-1650 Representing the company is: Shannon Sweeney, Esq. Baker and McKenzie 101 West Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101-8213 Phone: 619-236-1441 Fax: 619-236-0429 New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Gardy & Notis Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J., Jan. 20, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed an amended complaint in the securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Structured Repackaged Asset-Backed Trust Securities, Callable Class A Certificates, Series 2007-1, STRATS(SM) Trust for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. Securities, Series 2007-1 ("STRATS") (NYSE:GJW) from the date of issuance on June 29, 2007, through and including April 22, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The case has been assigned No. 08 Civ. 11241. The defendants in the case are Robert J. Genader, Sean T. Leonard and Ambac Financial Group, Inc. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a series of false and misleading statements concerning the financial results and operations of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. For more information, contact: Charles Germershausen, Esq. (cgermershausen@gardylaw.com) Gardy & Notis, LLP Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/ RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on January 16, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Rackable Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ: RACK). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from October 30, 2006 through April 4, 2007. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com SATYAM COMPUTER: Coughlin Stoia Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") 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 Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") (NYSE:SAY) American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during the period between January 22, 2004 and January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Satyam and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Satyam provides information technology services and business process outsourcing services in North America, Europe, the Asia Pacific, the Middle-East, Australia, Africa, and South America. It offers consulting, systems design, software development, system integration, and application maintenance services. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements that misrepresented and failed to disclose that: -- Satyam was materially overstating its financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices; -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company"s balance sheet as of September 30, 2008 inflated non-existing cash and bank balances by 50.40 billion rupees (US$1.04 billion), understated a liability by 12.3 billion rupees, and overstated debtors" position by 4.9 billion rupees. On January 7, 2009, Satyam shocked the market when it published the resignation letter of Defendant Raju, which stated that he "inflated profits over a period of last several years [sic]" and that the Company"s balance sheet as of September 30, 2008 inflated non-existing cash and bank balances by 50.40 billion rupees (US$1.04 billion), understated a liability by 12.3 billion rupees, and overstated debtors" position by 4.9 billion rupees. Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company"s ADRs plunged 75% to US$2.38 per share in pre-market trading on January 7, 2009, but never opened for trading in the U.S. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Satyam ADRs during the Class Period (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/satyam/ SATYAM COMPUTER: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan 20, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP ("Pomerantz") has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, which names as a defendant Satyam's outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers Pvt. Ltd., Price Waterhouse (collectively, "PwC") and Pricewaterhouse Coopers International Limited. Also named as defendants are Satyam Computer Services Ltd. ("Satyam"); its former Chairman, B. Ramalinga Raju; his brother, B. Rama Raju, the Company's former Managing Director and CEO; and the former Chief Financial Officer, Srinivas Vadlamani. The class action, (Case No. 09-CV-489) was filed on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of Satyam from January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In addition to allegations of fraud against Satyam and the officer defendants, the complaint alleges that PwC was aware of, or recklessly disregarded, a multi-year massive fraud by Satyam management to overstate the Company's earnings, including concocting $1 billion of cash that didn't exist, and overstating revenues and profits. The case further alleges that PwC ignored red flags that should have alerted it to the fraud, and moreover, failed to perform its audits in accordance with the requisite accounting principles. PwC is currently under investigation by India's Institute of Chartered Accountants for its role in auditing Satyam's books. Disclosure of Satyam's stunning fraud materially impacted the price of the Company's ADRs. Indeed, trading in the Company's ADRs was briefly halted after the fraud was revealed, and the ADRs are now currently trading between $1 and $2, a precipitous drop from the Company's 52-week high of $29.84. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 SATYAM COMPUTER: Saxena White Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- BOCA RATON, FL, Jan 20, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- Notice is hereby given that Saxena White P.A. has filed suit on behalf of shareholders of Satyam Computer Service Ltd. ("Satyam" or the "Company") in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased Satyam Computer Services Ltd. American Depository Shares (ADS's) and/or common stock between January 6, 2004 through January 6, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Satyam is a global consulting and information services company. Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading financial information about the Company and perpetrated a financial fraud that is being called the "Enron of India." On January 7, 2009, the Company's former Chairman, B. Ramalinga Raju, issued a letter to the Company's board of directors acknowledging a multi-year fraud in which Satyam's financial accounts and disclosures were systematically falsified, its profits overstated and its liability understated. Raju admitted to having inflated the amount of cash on the Company's balance sheet by nearly $1 billion. The top executives have been arrested by Indian authorities, and new auditors have been hired to review the company's books. A large accounting restatement is expected after the review is complete. For more details, contact: Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.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 * * *