/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 17 Headlines CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Faces Ex-Employees' Overtime Suit in New York DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Deal in Former Server's Suit Paid in 2Q 2009 DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Shareholder's Securities Suit in Fla. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Red Lobster Managers DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Suits Over "Server Banking" Policies Settled E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Complaint Still Pending in N.Y. EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Approval of Merger Suit Deal FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Lawsuit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Several Overtime Compensation Cases in N.C. FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Suit LUND BOAT: Faces Minnesota Litigation Over Vacation Pay Dispute MARCUS CORP: Unit to Contest "Goodman" Complaint Pending in Nev. NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2010 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit NETWORKS & PRODUCERS: Settles Reality-Show Workers' Calif. Suits PALM INC: Calif. Court's Approval to Treo Suit Settlement Final SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Banco Santander Deal SUPERVALU INC: Faces Wis. Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior New Securities Fraud Cases BANK OF AMERICA: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit BANK OF AMERICA: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Susman Godfrey Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing ROYAL BANK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* CALL-A-HEAD CORP: Faces Ex-Employees' Overtime Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Call-A-Head Corp., a portable toilet company based in New York, is being sued by dozens of ex-employees accusing CEO Charles Howard of flouting state labor laws since 2002, Nicole Bode of the New York Daily News reports. The workers claim that they had to clean up to 100 toilets a day around the metropolitan area. The toilets were along routes that took 15 hours to complete, but their pay was capped at 10 hours, according to the purported class-action lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The New York Daily News reported that the lawsuit demands back wages for every hour of overtime that went unpaid since July 17, 2002 -- the statute of limitations deadline. That could amount to more than $1 million, according to plaintiffs' lawyer Justin Zeller, Esq. Mr. Zeller told the New York Daily News that the company could be hit hard because it advertised the jobs as paying a $1,000 flat rate for four days a week, at 10 hours a day. Call-A-Head also forced workers to punch in at the start of their shift, but did not allow them to clock out, he added. For more details, contact: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. Law Office of Justin A. Zeller 251 West 14th Street, 4B New York, NY 10011 Phone (212) 229-2249 Fax: (212) 229-2246 Web site: http://www.zellerlegal.com/ DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Deal in Former Server's Suit Paid in 2Q 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a class action lawsuit filed by a former Olive Garden server was paid during the second quarter of fiscal 2009, according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008. In August 2007, an action was filed in California state court by a former Olive Garden server alleging that Olive Garden's scheduling practices resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time (minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide itemized wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the termination of their employment. The complaint sought to have the suit certified as a class- action suit. Although the company believed that its policies and practices were lawful and that it had strong defenses, following mediation with the plaintiffs during the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, the company reached a preliminary settlement of this matter under which it would pay approximately $0.7 million. Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Faces Shareholder's Securities Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc. intends to defend its position in the purported class-action complaint filed by an institutional shareholder in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On March 13, 2008, a purported class-action complaint alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an institutional shareholder against Darden and certain of the company's current officers, one of whom is also a director, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Darden's common stock between June 19, 2007 and Dec. 18, 2007 (the Class). The complaint alleges that during that period, the defendants issued false and misleading statements in press releases and public filings that misrepresented and failed to disclose certain information, and that as a result, had no reasonable basis for statements about Darden's prospects and guidance for fiscal 2008. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the Class, according to Darden Restaurants, Inc.'s Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008. Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suit by Former Red Lobster Servers -------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc., reaches settlement of a purported class-action suit filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept and pending in a California state court. In August 2008, an action was filed in California state court by a former Red Lobster server related to employment practices at Red Lobster. In general the suit is alleging that Red Lobster's scheduling practices resulted in failure to properly pay reporting time (minimum shift) pay as well as to pay minimum wage, to provide itemized wage statements, and to timely pay employees upon the termination of their employment. The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class-action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008). Although the company believed that its policies and practices were lawful, it reached a preliminary settlement of this matter under which it would pay approximately $0.5 million. The company expects to pay the settlement amount during fiscal 2009 at the completion of the settlement process, according to its Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008. Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Still Faces Suit by Ex-Red Lobster Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc., continues to face a purported class- action suit filed against its Red Lobster restaurant concept and pending in a California state court, according to the company's Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008. In July 2008, an action was filed in California state court by a group of former Red Lobster managers alleging that the salaried general managers of the restaurants were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked because they were not paid for time spent attending various seminars and conferences. In addition, the managers claim that they were not provided with rest and meal breaks pursuant to California law. The complaint seeks to have the suit certified as a class action (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 16, 2008). Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Suits Over "Server Banking" Policies Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants, Inc., reached a preliminary settlement of the complaints relating to its "server banking" policies and practices during the third quarter of fiscal 2008. In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class- action suit in California state court alleging that Red Lobster's "server banking" policies and practices improperly required her and other food servers and bartenders to make up cash shortages and walkouts in violation of California law. The policies referred to in the case are those under which servers settle guest checks directly with customers throughout their shifts, and turn in collected monies at the shift's end. The case was ordered to arbitration. As a procedural matter, the arbitrator ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible under our dispute resolution program. In January 2007, plaintiffs' counsel filed in California state court a second purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of servers and bartenders alleging that Olive Garden's server banking policy and its alleged failure to pay split shift premiums violated California law. Although the company believed that its policies and practices were lawful, it reached a preliminary settlement of the matters during the third quarter of fiscal 2008. As a result, the company accrued approximately $4.0 million in legal settlement costs during fiscal 2008, which it expects to be paid in fiscal 2009. No additional reserves have been taken in connection with this settlement, according to the company's Jan. 2, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 23, 2008. Darden Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. E*TRADE FINANCIAL: "Freudenberg" Complaint Still Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The suit styled, "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Dec. 30, 2008. Initially, on Oct. 2, 2007, a class-action complaint alleging violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and its chief executive officer and chief financial officer (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2008). The suit was entitled "Larry Freudenberg, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, versus E*TRADE Financial Corporation, Mitchell H. Caplan and Robert J. Simmons, Defendants." The plaintiff contends, among other things, that between Dec. 14, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, the defendants: -- issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that the company was experiencing a rise in delinquency rates in its mortgage and home equity portfolios; -- failed to timely record an impairment on its mortgage and home equity portfolios and materially overvalued its securities portfolio, which includes assets backed by mortgages; and -- based on the foregoing, lacked a reasonable basis for the positive statements it made about the company's earnings and prospects. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest and attorneys' fees and costs. Four additional class action complaints alleging similar violations of the federal securities laws and alleging either the same or somewhat longer class periods were filed in the same court between Oct. 12, 2007, and Nov. 21, 2007, by named plaintiffs William Boston, Robert D. Thulman, Wendy M. Davidson, and Joshua Ferenc. Mr. Ferenc subsequently dismissed his complaint on May 2, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2008). The remaining suits were later consolidated. The consolidated class action suit is brought on behalf of people who bought shares in E*Trade between April 20, 2006, and Nov. 9, 2007. By order dated July 17, 2008, the trial court appointed the "Kristen-Straxton Group" and Ira Newman co-lead plaintiffs and Brower Piven and Levi & Kersinski, respectively, as lead and co- lead plaintiffs' counsel (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 5, 2008). Subsequently, the trial court ordered Plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint by Dec. 31, 2008; Defendants to file their respective motion to dismiss by March 15, 2009; and all parties to complete briefing on Defendants' motion to dismiss by July 31, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 23, 2008). The suit is "Freudenberg v. E*Trade Financial Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08538-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Davis Polk & Wardwell Dennis E. Glazer, Esq. (dennis.glazer@dpw.com) 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-450-4900 Fax: 212-450-3900 EMPLOYERS HOLDINGS: Parties Seek Approval of Merger Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties to a purported class-action lawsuit in connection with the proposed merger between AmCOMP Incorporated with a subsidiary of Employers Holdings, Inc. seek court approval of a stipulation of settlement. On March 4, 2008, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Broadbased Equities, an alleged stockholder of AmCOMP, against AmCOMP, its directors and the company in connection with the proposed merger. The parties negotiated and entered into an Amended Memorandum of Understanding under which the defendants agreed to pay up to $675,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to counsel for the plaintiff. The parties have agreed to enter into and seek court approval of a stipulation of settlement consistent with the Amended Memorandum of Understanding and under which Employers would be responsible for the payment of the $675,000, according to the company's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Dec. 31, 2008. FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Lawsuit Over Discriminatory Pay Practices -------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. intends to defend the allegations in the "Scott" case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. On Oct. 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned, "Scott, et al v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.," alleging discriminatory pay practices with respect to the company's female store managers. This case was plead as a putative class-action or collective action under applicable statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female store managers. The plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory and punitive money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees and equitable relief. The case has been transferred to the N.C. Federal Court, 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. 29, 2008. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/-- operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores. The company's merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics. The company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and electronics. FAMILY DOLLAR: Faces Several Overtime Compensation Cases in N.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. continues to face several overtime compensation cases proceeding as collective or class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, 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. 29, 2008. Since 2004, numerous cases have been filed by other plaintiffs making various allegations against the company, among others, that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act or similar state laws by classifying the named plaintiffs and other current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The complaints in each action request that the cases proceed as collective actions under the FLSA or as class actions under state law and request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and court costs. Several of these cases have been dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn. The first two of those remaining cases are "Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.," and "Ward v. Family Dollar, Inc.," both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division. In those cases, the court has returned orders finding that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, that neither nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA is appropriate. Hence, the Grace and Ward cases are proceeding as approximately 80 individual plaintiff cases. In addition to Grace and Ward, a total of 12 other same or similar class or collective cases are now pending, all of which are before the N.C. Federal Court. All of these cases have been either transferred by U.S. District Courts in various states to the N.C. Federal Court or were the subject of an order entered by the U.S. Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation transferring the cases, which were originally filed in the U.S. District Courts in various states, to the N.C. Federal Court for coordination of discovery with the other pending cases. While discovery in all of the cases has been stayed for the conduct of settlement discussions between the parties, the company anticipates that discovery in the Grace and Ward cases will move forward on the merits of the individual's exemption claims and discovery in the remaining cases will be conducted regarding a determination whether the plaintiffs are "similarly situated" such that the cases should proceed as collective actions, or, in the case of the actions brought under state law, as class actions. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/-- operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores. the company's merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics. The company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and electronics. FAMILY DOLLAR: To Seek Supreme Court Review of FLSA Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar Stores, Inc. plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari for review of the ruling in a complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Jan. 30, 2001, Janice Morgan and Barbara Richardson, two individuals who have held the position of Store Manager for subsidiaries of the company, filed a Complaint against Family Dollar in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The Complaint alleged that the company violated the FLSA by classifying the named plaintiffs and other similarly situated current and former Store Managers as "exempt" employees who are not entitled to overtime compensation. The court allowed the case to proceed as a "collective action" and notice of the pendency of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 13,000 current and former Store Managers holding the position on or after July 1, 1999. Approximately 2,550 of those receiving such notice filed consent forms and joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs, including approximately 2,300 former Store Managers and approximately 250 then current employees. After rulings by the Court on motions to dismiss certain plaintiffs filed by the company, 1,424 plaintiffs remained in the case at the commencement of trial. A jury trial was held in June 2005, in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, and ended with the judge declaring a mistrial after the jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision in the matter. The case was subsequently retried before another Tuscaloosa jury, which found that the company should have classified the Store Manager plaintiffs as hourly employees entitled to overtime pay, rather than as salaried exempt managers, and awarded damages. Subsequently, the Court ruled that the company did not act in good faith in classifying the plaintiffs as exempt, and after making adjustments to the damages award based upon the filing of personal bankruptcy by certain plaintiffs, the Court entered a final modified judgment for approximately $35.6 million. The District Court advised that it would consider the plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses at the conclusion of the appellate process. The company appealed this final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On Dec. 16, 2008, the Court of Appeals issued a ruling affirming the judgment of the District Court. The company plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari for review of this ruling, 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. 29, 2008. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. -- http://www.familydollar.com/-- operates a chain of more than 6,500 general merchandise retail discount stores in 44 states, providing consumers with a selection of merchandise in neighborhood stores. the company's merchandise assortment includes consumables, home products, apparel and accessories, and seasonal and electronics. The company's products include apparel, food, cleaning and paper products, home decor, beauty and health aids, toys, pet products, automotive products, domestics, seasonal goods and electronics. HIMAX TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Calif. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- TAINAN, Taiwan, Jan 22, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Himax Technologies, Inc. ("Himax" or "Company") today announced that it has entered into a formal stipulation of settlement to settle a shareholder class action lawsuit pending against it and various officers and directors in the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The lawsuit was originally filed in July 2007. It asserts various securities claims on behalf of persons who purchased the securities of Himax pursuant to, or traceable to, Himax's initial public offering in March 2006. If approved, the settlement will result in a dismissal of all claims against the Company and other defendants. In entering into the stipulation, the defendants explicitly denied any liability or wrongdoing of any kind. The amount of the settlement is US$1.2 million, which will be paid by Himax's insurance carrier. The stipulation of settlement must be approved by the District Court, following notice to members of the settlement class. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the settlement. LUND BOAT: Faces Minnesota Litigation Over Vacation Pay Dispute --------------------------------------------------------------- Lund Boat Co., and its parent company, Brunswick Corp. are a facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Minnesota in connection to a dispute over vacation pay, Kevin Cederstrom of the New York Mills Herald reports. The suit was filed in Otter Tail County in the State of Minnesota under the caption, "Roberts, et al. v. Brunswich Corp. and Lund Boat Company, Court File No. 56-CV-07-1307." It was brought brought by a group of former and laid off Lund employees that included: -- Darwin Roberts, -- Dave Dubs, -- Greg Morse, -- John Westhoff, -- Kenneth Mathewson, -- Jeff Small, -- Arthur Buntrock, -- Roger Grindstaff, -- James Baron, -- Jack Herr, -- Vincent Bernu, -- Richard Sydow, -- Steve Eklund, -- Leroy Atkinson, -- Michael Kroupa, -- Diana Makinen, -- Suzzy Harper, -- Gary Harper, and -- Thomas Kimmes. The plaintiffs claim that the company violated the law by failing to provide employees with all of their paid vacation time that they say was earned between the model year beginning June 30, 2004 and ending July 1, 2005, according to the New York Mills Herald. They also claim that when the company converted to a new paid vacation policy on July 1, 2005, the company failed to credit employees for paid vacation time they say they earned during the previous model year. The plaintiffs contend that they lost up to four weeks vacation and seek money damages for their claims, and the claims of class members, reports the New York Mills Herald. The New York Mills Herald reported that the purported class includes all persons employed by Brunswick Corp. and Lund Boat Co. at the New York Mills plant through July 1, 2005, whose vacation time was calculated according to the model calendar year (beginning July 1 and ending June 30), and ordinarily would have earned vacation time on July 1, 2005 under the Genmar vacation policy. MARCUS CORP: Unit to Contest "Goodman" Complaint Pending in Nev. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Platinum Condominium Development, LLC, one of The Marcus Corp.'s subsidiaries, plans to contest the class action complaint filed by Adam Goodman, if and when it is ever served, according to the company's Jan. 6, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 27, 2008. On Dec. 5, 2008, a class action complaint, captioned as "Goodman v. Platinum Condominium Development, LLC," was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada for Clark County against Platinum LLC. To date, Platinum LLC has not been served with a summons or a copy of the complaint. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and alleges violations of federal and Nevada law. The complaint alleges that Platinum LLC made various representations in connection with the sale of condominium units in the Platinum Hotel & Spa development in Las Vegas, Nevada. The Marcus Corp. -- http://www.marcuscorp.com/-- is engaged primarily in two business segments: movie theatres and hotels and resorts. As of May 29, 2008, the company's theatre operations included 56 movie theatres with 678 screens throughout Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska and Iowa, including one movie theatre with six screens in Wisconsin owned by a third party but managed by the company. It also operates a family entertainment center, Funset Boulevard, which is adjacent to one of its theatres in Appleton, Wisconsin. As of May 29, 2008, the company's hotels and resorts operations included eight owned and operated hotels and resorts in Wisconsin, Missouri, Illinois and Oklahoma. It also manages 12 hotels, resorts and other properties for third parties in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Arizona, Missouri, Nevada and California, with threee additional hotels in Florida, Indiana and Rhode Island under development. NATURE'S SUNSHINE: 2010 Trial Set for Utah Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative April 19, 2010 trial is slated for the consolidated securities fraud class action pending against Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. Between April 3, 2006 and June 2, 2006, five separate shareholder class actions were filed against the company and certain of our present and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. These matters were consolidated and on Nov. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint against the company, its Chief Executive Officer and former director, Douglas Faggioli, its former Chief Financial Officer, Craig D. Huff, and a former director and former Chair of its Audit Committee, Franz L. Cristiani. The consolidated complaint asserts three separate claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock: -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging that Mr. Faggioli made a series of alleged material misrepresentations to the investing public; -- a claim against Mr. Faggioli and the company for violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, alleging that Mr. Faggioli made a series of misrepresentations to the company's then independent auditor, KPMG, LLP, for the purpose of obtaining unqualified or "clean" audit opinions and review opinions from KPMG concerning certain of our annual and quarterly financial statements; and -- a claim against Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the individual defendants have "control person" liability for the previously-alleged violations by the company. The Consolidated Complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, together with interest thereon, litigation costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees, and any such other and further relief as may be allowed by law. On Jan. 5, 2007, the company and Messrs. Faggioli, Huff and Cristiani moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. On May 21, 2007, the court issued its decision denying the motion in large part, but shortening the proposed class period on one of the plaintiffs' claims. On June 6, 2007, the company and the other defendants answered the Consolidated Complaint, wherein they denied all allegations of wrongdoing and raised a number of affirmative defenses. On Nov. 1, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, which the company opposed. On Sept. 25, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in part, establishing the class as all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's common stock, and were damaged thereby, from March 16, 2005 to March 20, 2006. On May 9, 2008, at the invitation of the court based upon recent case law developments, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second cause of action (a 10b-5 claim based on non- public representations to KPMG). The plaintiffs opposed this motion. On Sept. 23, 2008, the court granted the company's motion and dismissed the plaintiffs' second cause of action. The case is currently in the early stages of discovery. The trial is not scheduled to commence until April 19, 2010, according to the company's Dec. 30, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "Hyman v. Nature's Sunshine Products et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00267-TS-SA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Judge Ted Stewart, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John R. Climaco, Esq. Climaco Lefkowtiz Peca Wilcox & Garofoli 55 Public Sq., Ste 1950 Cleveland, OH 44113-1972 Phone: (216) 621-8484 - and - Gary A. Dodge, Esq. Hatch James & Dodge 10 W Broadway, Ste. 400 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Phone: (801) 363-6363 e-mail: gdodge@hjdlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq. (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com) Morgan Lewis & Bockius, P.A. 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Phone: (215) 963-5000 - and - Erik A. Christiansen, Esq. (ecf@parsonsbehle.com) Parsons Behle & Latimer 201 S. Main St., Ste. 1800 P.O. Box 45898 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898 Phone: (801) 532-1234 NETWORKS & PRODUCERS: Settles Reality-Show Workers' Calif. Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Several television networks and production companies will pay more than $4 million to settle two class-action lawsuits filed by several hundred reality-show employees who said they had been subjected to unlawful working conditions, Matthew Belloni and James Hibberd of The Hollywood Reporter reports. The dual class-action lawsuits were filed in 2005 by several hundred employees who worked in various capacities, including story editors, editors and segment producers, on such shows as "The Bachelor," "Trading Spouses," "Are You Hot?" and "The Real Gilligan's Island." They alleged that Fox, ABC, CBS and various production entities told them to forge time cards and forgo meal breaks while working 18-hour days. The Writers Guild of America helped organize the employees who filed the suits as part of a larger effort to have story editors of reality series recognized as writers, reports The Hollywood Reporter. A Los Angeles judge recently gave preliminary approval to a $2.57 million settlement with Fox Broadcasting and Rocket Science Laboratories and a $1.54 million settlement with ABC, CBS, Mike Fleiss' Next Entertainment and about six other production companies, according to the The Hollywood Reporter. Settlement negotiations had continued on and off since a March 2007 mediation, with the final details hammered out in December 2008. If the settlement is approved by a judge, about 400 class plaintiffs will split the settlement purse based on how many hours they worked, with about 20 name plaintiffs receiving an additional $8,250 each. The law firms representing the plaintiffs are set to receive up to $1.1 million in fees and costs, according to settlement documents obtained by The Hollywood Reporter. PALM INC: Calif. Court's Approval to Treo Suit Settlement Final --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's ruling on the proposed settlement in the matter "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774- RMW," is considered final. In September and October 2005, five purported consumer class action lawsuits were filed against Palm on behalf of all purchasers of Palm Treo 600 and Treo 650 products. These lawsuits are: 1. "Moya v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03926-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 2. "Berliner v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03854-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 3. "Loew v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-03980-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; 4. "Geisen v. Palm, Case No. 5:05-cv-04120-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; and 5. "Palza v. Palm," filed before the Superior Court of California for Santa Clara County. The complaints allege in substance that Palm made false or misleading statements regarding the reliability of its Treo 600 and 650 products in violation of various California laws, that the products have certain alleged defects, and that Palm breached its warranty of these products. The suits' plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. In September 2005, another purported consumer class action suit, entitled, "Gans v. Palm," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Palm. That suit was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Treo 650 product. The complaint alleges that, in violation of various California laws, Palm made false or misleading statements regarding automatic email delivery to the Treo 650 product. It seeks unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits and injunctive relief. Palm removed the Palza case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Subsequently, all six cases were consolidated before a single judge in that Court and the plaintiffs provided a consolidated, amended complaint. The parties subsequently agreed to a tentative settlement. On Jan. 7, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval of the deal resolving the consolidate action. Palm proceeded with a notice to the settlement class members. A hearing to determine final approval of the settlement was conducted in May 2008, and on July 9, 2008, the Court issued an order approving the settlement on a final basis with respect to the class and dismissing claims of the settlement class with prejudice. The Court reserved ruling on the application of plaintiffs' counsel for attorneys' fees and incentive awards to the representative plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). Intervenors at the hearing filed an appeal of the Court's ruling on Aug. 11, 2008. On Sept. 25, 2008, the appellate court dismissed it as being untimely and the District Court ruling therefore became final. The terms of the Order issued by the Court will result in a resolution not material to Palm's financial position. If approved as requested, the terms of the proposed attorneys' fees and incentive awards will result in a resolution not material to Palm's financial position, according to the company's Jan. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Palm Treo 600 and 650 Litigation, Master Case No. C-05-03774-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Glancy & Binkow LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Robert S. Green, Esq. (RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM) Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 - and - Scott K. Johnson, Esq. (skjohnson@sheller.com) Sheller Ludwig & Badey, P.C. 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-790-7300 Fax: 215-546-0942 Representing the defendants are: Roger E. Collanton, Esq. (rcollanton@mofo.com) Morrison & Foerster LLP 101 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 450 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-295-3345 SOVEREIGN BANCORP: Settles Pa. Lawsuit Over Banco Santander Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sovereign Bancorp, Inc. settled a shareholder class-action suit filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, opposing the bank's sale to Spain's Banco Santander, the Philadelphia Business Journal reports. The settlement allows Sovereign to move forward with a Jan. 28, 2009 shareholder vote of the proposed takeover of the bank by Banco Santander. In exchange, Sovereign agreed not to cut Pennsylvania workers in the 12 months following the Santander deal, according the Philadelphia Business Journal. However, employees in other states will not receive such protection. The settlement also does not include workers fired for cause or the 1,000 job cuts announced several days before Christmas, according to court papers obtained by the Philadelphia Business Journal. Sovereign though will provide severance to all bank employees not protected by the no-layoff provision. In addition, every Sovereign worker employed on the closing date of the Santander deal will receive 100 shares of Santander's American Depository Receipts. Those shares were trading at $6.85 each Thursday. The Philadelphia Business Journal reported that the deal is expected to close within the next month after a shareholder meeting in New York. The Spanish bank owns 24.35 percent of Philadelphia-based Sovereign and would be purchasing the remaining 75.65 percent for $1.9 billion at $3.81 per share. The settlement is still subject to court approval. A hearing is set for April 2, 2009, reports the Philadelphia Business Journal. The class-action lawsuit was filed last year in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court on behalf of Sovereign shareholders. The proposed takeover of Sovereign in October triggered several lawsuits that later were consolidated. The intention of the suit was to have Judge Marc Bernstein prevent next week's Sovereign shareholder vote from taking place. Stockholders accused Sovereign of not providing enough information about the transaction. They also complained Santander was not paying any premium to buy the rest of Sovereign the Spanish bank did not already own, reports the Philadelphia Business Journal. Court papers show that the attorneys working for the plaintiffs in the case are to split $6.9 million in fees, costs and expenses. The lead plaintiff lawyer was Michael Donovan, Esq. of Philadelphia-based Donovan Searles, LLC, according to the Philadelphia Business Journal report. For more details, contact: Michael Donovan, Esq. Donovan Searles, LLC 1845 Walnut Street Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 732-6067 Fax: (215) 732-8060 Web site: http://www.donovansearles.com SUPERVALU INC: Faces Wis. Suit Alleging Anticompetitive Behavior ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc. and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Wisconsin over an alleged deal between the two companies that limits competition and forces neighborhood supermarkets and their customers pay more, Matt McKinney of The Star Tribune reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin on Dec. 31, 2008, under the caption, "D&G INC. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al., Case. No. 3:2008-cv-00761." It alleges that Eden Prairie-based Supervalu and C&S Wholesale of Keene, N.H., divvied up the regions in which they operate so that they wouldn't have to compete against one another. D&G Inc., which operates a small grocery known as Gary's Foods in Mount Vernon, Iowa, filed the suit on behalf of itself and other mom-and-pop operations, according to The Star Tribune report. Dennis Dietrich, owner of the 16,000-square-foot Gary's told The Star Tribune , "Supervalu bet the whole empire on the neighborhood grocer and now they just don't care anymore." According to Mr. Dietrich, his family's store, named for his father, severed a 40-year relationship with Supervalu three years ago after it closed a Des Moines warehouse and began taking on some $1,500 in extra weekly fees to ship groceries from Minneapolis. The suit alleges that Supervalu could close warehouses without fearing competition from C&S thanks to a deal the two companies struck in August 2003. The deal led to the closing of six warehouses -- three for each company -- in the Midwest and New England, reports The Star Tribune. Mr. Dietrich, who is represented by attorney Dan Kotchen, Esq. of Kotchen & Low, told The Star Tribune that he now buys groceries from Edina-based Nash Finch Co., which has a Cedar Rapids warehouse just 17 miles from his store. In general, the suit alleges several counts of anticompetitive behavior that constitute violations of the Sherman Act. It seeks class-action status for a pool of plaintiffs in the "thousands." The court has not yet ruled on that request, The Star Tribune reported. The suit is "D&G INC. v. Supervalu, Inc. et al., Case. No. 3:2008-cv-00761," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Stephen L Crocker, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel Aaron Kotchen, Esq. (dkotchen@kotchen.com) Kotchen & Low 2300 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C., DC 20003 Phone: 202-416-1848 - and - Richard B. Drubel, Esq. (rdrubel@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 26 South Main Street Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: 603-643-9090 Fax: 603-643-9010 New Securities Fraud Cases BANK OF AMERICA: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- January 22, 2009: 06:39 PM ET -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP today announced that it filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from the proxy communications and other public disclosures concerning the acquisition (the "Acquisition") by Bank of America Corporation ("Bank America" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAC) of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"). The action is brought on behalf of a class that consists of all Bank America shareholders who held shares as of the record date of October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank America in the period from January 2, 2009 through January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (together, the "Class"). The Complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Complaint also asserts separate claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The defendants named in the Complaint are Bank America, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis ("Lewis"), and John A. Thain ("Thain"), the former Chief Executive Officer of Merrill Lynch. The Complaint alleges that the September 15, 2008 Proxy Statement issued with respect to the Acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank America contained numerous material misstatements and omissions. In particular, the Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement failed to accurately disclose Merrill Lynch's financial condition or the significant risks and liabilities that Bank America would be assuming by acquiring Merrill Lynch. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement failed to disclose that Bank America had not conducted adequate due diligence on Merrill Lynch and that, as a result, the Bank America directors lacked a reasonable basis for their recommending that the Company's shareholders vote in favor of the Acquisition. The Complaint also alleges that the press release issued by Bank America on January 1, 2009, in connection with the Acquisition's closing, was materially false and misleading because it failed to reveal that Merrill Lynch's financial condition was so bad that Bank America had considered withdrawing from the Acquisition prior to closing. In fact, as was subsequently disclosed, Bank America only completed the Acquisition because the U.S. Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board had undertaken to assist Bank America in absorbing the losses expected from the Acquisition through, among other things, a purchase of additional Bank America securities which would be highly dilutive to existing shareholders. Investors began to learn the true facts through a series of disclosures, including Bank America's January 16, 2009 announcement of a loss for the fourth quarter of $1.79 billion, which included a stunning $15.31 billion fourth quarter net loss at Merrill Lynch. These disclosures caused the price of Bank America stock to tumble, from a closing price of $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009, a 50% decline. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Lawrence D. Levit, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 BANK OF AMERICA: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- January 22, 2009: 03:56 PM ET -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") today announced that it filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arising from the proxy communications and other public disclosures concerning the acquisition (the "Acquisition") by Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America" or the "Company") (NYSE: BAC) of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"). The plaintiffs named in the action are BLB&G clients and institutional investors, Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund ("Fort Worth") and City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust ("Miami"). As set forth in the Complaint, the action is brought on behalf of a class that consists of all Bank of America shareholders who held shares as of the record date of October 10, 2008 and were entitled to vote with respect to the Acquisition at a December 5, 2008 special meeting of Bank of America shareholders and were damaged thereby, and all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Bank of America in the period from January 2, 2009 through January 20, 2009 (the "Class Period") and were damaged thereby (together, the "Class"). The case is captioned, "Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No., 09-CV- 638." The Complaint asserts claims under Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The Complaint also asserts separate claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The defendants named in the Complaint are Bank of America, the Company's Chief Executive Officer Kenneth D. Lewis ("Lewis"), and John A. Thain ("Thain"), the former Chief Executive Officer of Merrill Lynch. As alleged in the Complaint, on September 15, 2008, Bank of America and Merrill Lynch announced that they had entered into an agreement for Bank of America to acquire Merrill Lynch in an all-stock transaction valued at approximately $50 billion. In order to consummate the transaction -- which required the approval of Bank of America shareholders -- Bank of America and Merrill Lynch issued a joint proxy statement dated October 31, 2008 (the "Proxy Statement") to the shareholders of Bank of America soliciting their approval for and recommending a vote in favor of the Acquisition. The Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statement contained numerous material misstatements and omissions. In particular, the Proxy Statement did not accurately disclose Merrill Lynch's financial condition and did not disclose the significant risks and liabilities that Bank of America and its shareholders would be assuming by acquiring Merrill Lynch. Nor did the Proxy Statement reveal that Bank of America and its advisors had not conducted adequate diligence on Merrill Lynch and that, as a result, they lacked a reasonable basis for the recommendations and other statements set forth in the Proxy Statement. As a result of the material misstatements and omissions contained in the Proxy Statement, the Acquisition was overwhelmingly approved, with 82% of votes cast in favor of the transaction. As also alleged in the Complaint, on January 1, 2009, the date the Acquisition closed, Bank of America issued a press release announcing the Acquisition's completion. The press release contained numerous positive statements concerning the Acquisition and the joined companies, announcing the "creat[ion of] a premier financial services franchise with significantly enhanced wealth management, investment banking and international capabilities." As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading when made in that they did not reveal that Merrill Lynch's financial condition was in such a deteriorated state that Bank of America had considered withdrawing from the Acquisition prior to closing and, in fact, only completed the transaction because the federal government had undertaken to assist Bank of America to absorb the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by, among other things, engaging in a dilutive purchase of additional Bank of America shares. Investors began to learn the true nature of the financial condition of Bank of America and the disastrous effect the Acquisition had on its financial position through a series of disclosures, including Bank of America's January 16, 2009 announcement of a loss for the fourth quarter of $1.79 billion, which was led by a stunning $15.31 billion fourth quarter net loss at Merrill Lynch. These revelations and others caused the price of Bank of America stock to tumble, from a closing price of $10.20 per share on January 14, 2009 to close at $5.10 per share on January 20, 2009, a 50% decline. For more information, contact: Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1400 BANK OF AMERICA: Susman Godfrey Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Jan. 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Susman Godfrey L.L.P. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those holders of Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) common stock and series B preferred shares as of October 10, 2008 (the "Class"). The case number is 09-CIV-00606. The complaint claims Bank of America and Merrill Lynch and their respective officers and directors made false and misleading statements in the proxy materials for the December 5, 2008 vote regarding Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch. The complaint alleges that the true nature of Merrill Lynch's financial condition was not revealed even though Merrill Lynch and Bank of America knew or should have known of the large losses at Merrill Lynch. The lawsuit seeks remedies under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all members of the class. For more information, contact: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Phone: 310-789-3102 Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com/ RACKABLE SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- January 22, 2009: 06:46 PM ET -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Rackable Systems, Inc. ("Rack" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RACK) between October 30, 2006 and April 4, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period defendants deliberately or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning the Company'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: -- that the Company was experiencing competitive pressure; -- that competition was increasing; -- that, due to increasing competition, the Company was able to maintain and expand its customer base only by aggressively lowering its contract prices; -- that, as such, the Company was experiencing dramatic erosion of gross margin attainment in the Company's largest accounts as focused competitors aggressively dropped prices; -- that price increases for DDR (double data rate) memory were accelerating faster than the Company represented to investors; -- that, as a result of the above, the Company was unlikely to meet its quarterly gross margin targets; -- that the Company lacked effective internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the foregoing, that statements made by the Company and management during the Class Period concerning the Company's business, operations and prospects were lacking any reasonable basis. On January 17, 2007, shares of Rack declined $12.44 per share, more than 38%, to close at $19.98 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The decline in the stock was as a result of the news that was reported one day earlier. Rack shocked the market when it reported preliminary financial results for the fourth quarter 2006 and that the Company had achieved a gross margin of between only 19.2% and 19.7%. Racks shares continued their downward slide once again on April 4, 2007. Rack further shocked the market when the Company revealed that its GAAP and non-GAAP gross margins for first quarter 2007 would be approximately 30% lower than the Company's previously communicated expectations and that the primary factor impacting gross margins in the first quarter was the intensity of competition in the Company's three largest accounts. On this news, shares of Rack declined $2.64 per share, more than 15%, to close on April 5, 2007, at $14.24 per share, on unusually heavy trade volume. No Class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 ROYAL BANK: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK -- Thu, 22 Jan 2009 20:51:30 GMT (Business Wire) -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP today filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Preferred Series "T" stock ("Preferred T") of Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC ("RBS" or the "Company") [NYSE: RBS-T, RBS- PT, and CUSIP 780097713] from the date of the Company's public offering on September 20, 2007 (the "Offering"), and all purchasers traceable thereto (the "Class Period") against certain officers and directors of RBS and the lead underwriters of the Offering, pursuant to Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. §§ 77k, 77l and 77o (the "Class"). The case name is styled, "Harold H. Powell Trust v. Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, et al." The Complaint alleges that the Company's Preferred T Prospectus contained both material misstatements and omissions, which Plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made in the Prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, RBS was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document. These factors include, but are not limited to, -- the failure to disclose the Company's extensive investments in asset backed securities, including collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), and their exposure to the subprime mortgage market; -- the failure to disclose all of the risks associated with the purchase of ABN Amro's assets; -- the insufficient capital levels; -- the failure to adequately write-down bad assets; and, -- the failure to prevent and remedy such improper and harmful actions that resulted in the Company being bailed out by the British government. The Complaint asserts that Defendants could have – and should have – discovered the material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence investigation. As a result of the dissemination of the false and misleading statements set forth in the complaint, the market price of RBS Preferred T was artificially inflated during the Class Period. In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the statements described in the complaint, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied, to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of RBS Preferred T. Had plaintiff and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phgone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.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 * * *