/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090216.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 16, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 32 Headlines DHL EXPRESS: Still Faces Jet Fuel Surcharges Suit in New York GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Junks Motion in Antitrust Lawsuit HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Deal HOME SOLUTIONS: "Melms" Suit Settlement Still Pending Approval HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Transfers Funds for Payment of Claimants INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit by Securities Purchasers in Md. JDS UNIPHASE: Agreement in Consolidated ERISA Action Reached JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Central States' Action JONES SODA: Wash. Court Dismisses Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit MASCO CORP: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Price-Fixing Case MAXIM INTEGRATED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Lawsuits by Alcaldo and Howes in Texas PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Consolidated Litigation Over Unpaid Wages PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gold Kist Faces "Benbow" Suit in South Carolina PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Officers Face Lawsuits by Plan Participants PLEXUS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: "Baumkel" Suit Still in Preliminary Stages New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* DHL EXPRESS: Still Faces Jet Fuel Surcharges Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- DHL Express (USA), Inc., DHL Worldwide Express, Inc. and DHL Holdings (USA), Inc. continue to face a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging that DHL charges jet fuel surcharges on packages it carries by ground, Michael Beebe of The Buffalo News reports. Filed in October 2008 by James P. Ball, whose family owns Buick, Pontiac, GMC and Cadillac dealerships on Southwestern Boulevard in Orchard Park, the class-action lawsuit claims that DHL overbilled thousands of its customers by tens of millions of dollars since at least 2003. The suit was brought on behalf of the Jim Ball dealerships and all others who might have been overcharged, according to The Buffalo News report. Specifically, the suit claims that DHL charged customers a jet fuel surcharge of at least 29 percent for express deliveries even when the company shipped parcels by truck, reports The Buffalo News. The breach of contract case is brought as a nationwide class action to recover damages from DHL, a package delivery company that has been improperly charging the plaintiff and the members of the class jet fuel surcharges for package deliveries that DHL transports solely by ground transportation. It seeks to hold DHL to the terms of its own bargain with plaintiff and the members of the class (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 17, 2008). The action is properly maintainable as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all individuals and entities who have, at any time from 2003 to the date of any class certification order, paid DHL a jet fuel surcharge for package deliveries within the United States that DHL transported solely by ground transportation. The plaintiffs demand judgment against DHL as follows: a) For damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus interest; b) For attorneys' fees and costs of suit; and c) For award of such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. The Buffalo News reported that on Feb. 10, 2009, attorney Daniel C. Oliverio, Esq., who filed the suit with fellow Hodgson Russ attorney Joseph V. Sedita, Esq. on behalf of Mr. Ball, filed a motion asking Judge John T. Curtin to find DHL liable for damages in the suit. The suit is "Jim Ball Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., et al. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., et al., Case Number: 1:2008cv00761," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Hon. John T. Curtin, presiding. Representing plaintiffs are: Joseph V. Sedita, Esq. Daniel C. Oliverio, Esq. 140 Pearl Street, Suite 100 Buffalo, New York 14202 Telephone: (716) 856-4000 GLASS MANUFACTURERS: Pa. Court Junks Motion in Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied several glass manufacturers' motion to dismiss a class- action antitrust suit filed against them alleging that they agreed to raise and fix prices "through a combination of collusive energy surcharges and price increases," glassBYTEs reports. The glass manufacturers included in the suit are: -- AGC America Inc., -- AGC Flat Glass North America Inc., -- Guardian Industries Corp., -- Pilkington North America Inc., -- Pilkington Holding Inc., and -- PPG Industries. According to court documents, the manufacturers involved argued that the complaint should be dismissed "because the various allegations therein are insufficient under the pleading standard … to infer the existence of an agreement or conspiracy to restrain trade," reports glassBYTEs. Specifically, the defendants argue in their dismissal motion that: -- they did not make any sort of agreement, that the allegations of parallel energy surcharges are "insufficient"; -- the allegations of parallel price increases by some defendants are insufficient; that the allegations of participation in trade associations are insufficient; -- the allegations of defendants' profitability are insufficient; -- the allegations of miscellaneous suspicious statements are insufficient; and -- the allegations regarding "European misconduct" are insufficient. In addition, PPG specifically argues that it should be removed from the case, as it was not named in the 2007 EU report. However, glassBYTEs reported that the presiding judge pointed out that the complaint alleges that "there was a history of inability to raise and maintain prices" prior to the period covered by the complaint, July 1, 2002, through December 2006. He also notes that the complaint alleges that there was a history of varying surcharges by region up until June 2002, but afterwards this variation ceased. The judge writes, "Rather, the CAC [Consolidated Amended Complaint] alleges an agreement that existed for over thirty months beginning in June 2002, by raising prices by identical percentages and charging energy surcharges in virtual lockstep while providing customers with identical charts and justifications for the same, until February of 2005, when the European Commission launched raids upon the European construction flat glass market. Thereafter, the Defendants did not engage in lockstep parallel conduct. Thus, contrary to Defendants' position, this is not a case where Plaintiffs rely solely on the decision of the European Commission to assert a domestic conspiracy or a solely parallel conduct case. Therefore, dismissal of the CAC is not warranted based on Defendants' EC allegation arguments and arguments of parallel conduct," according to the glassBYTEs report. The judge also notes that while membership in trade associations does not necessarily suggest conspiracy, that "the meeting dates provide the Defendants with notice of specific time frames and manner of the alleged agreement." Finally, as to PPG's request to be removed from the case, the judge writes, "It is of no moment that PPG did not participate in the European conspiracy. The CAC is not simply asserting a theory of 'since it happened there, it happened here.' To the contrary, the CAC sets forth sufficient allegations, when read in toto, to set forth a claim," glassBYTEs reported. Named plaintiffs in the case include: -- Colonial Glass Solutions, -- Burhans Glass, -- John Draper (of Draper's Auto Glass), -- Perilstein Glass Corp., -- Diversified Glass Services, -- Gilkey Window Co., -- Maran-Wurzell Glass & Mirror, -- E & G Auto Parts Inc., -- Superior Glass Inc., -- Frank's Glass Inc., -- Greenwood Glass Co., -- Public Supply Co., -- Raymond's Glass Inc., -- Bailes Granite & Marble, -- Thermo Twin Industries Inc., -- Sellmore Industries Inc., -- Interstate Building Materials, -- Wally's Glass Service Inc., -- Head West Inc., -- D & S Glass Services Inc., -- G&C Auto Body Inc., -- Girard Glass Corp., -- Fast Glass Service, -- Century Bathworks Inc., and -- No Job Too Small Inc. glassBYTEs reported that initially several similar lawsuits were filed in late 2007 and early 2008, after the European Union (EU) levied fines on several glass manufacturers for alleged price- fixing practices. In June 2008, approximately 20 of these suits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. A status conference regarding the case is scheduled for March 9, 2009. Chief District judge Donetta Ambrose is presiding over the case, according to glassBYTEs. HOME SOLUTIONS: March 23 Hearing Set for Shareholder Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A March 23, 2009 hearing has been set for the settlement of the consolidated shareholder class action captioned, "Home Solutions of America Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv- 1096," according to Home Solutions of America, Inc.'s Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009. On Sept. 22, 2008, the company entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement with its lenders under its Revolving Credit Facility, Term Loan and Letter of Credit Facility. The Settlement Agreement, which supersedes the Forbearance Agreement entered into Feb. 6, 2008, as amended, between the company and its lenders, effectively settled all outstanding obligations between the company and its lenders. The company reached an agreement to settle the consolidated shareholder class action captioned, "Home Solutions of America Investor Group v. Fradella, Civil Action No. 3:06-cv-1096," filed on June 20, 2006. The 2006 Class Action Settlement and the Derivative Action Settlement are subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which has set a hearing for March 23, 2009 to determine whether the 2006 Class Action Settlement should be approved. Under the terms of the 2006 Class Action Settlement, the company agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle all claims brought by a certified class of all persons who purchased the common stock of Home Solution during the period between April 11, 2006, and March 5, 2007, inclusive. If all required payments are made and the 2006 Class Action Settlement is approved by the District Court, all claims asserted by 2006 Settlement Class will be dismissed with prejudice, and a portion of the $3.5 million settlement amount will be used to pay the attorneys' fees of counsel for the plaintiffs. Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/-- is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding, hurricanes, tornados, fires or other naturally occurring and repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing commercial or residential development. The company operates through two segments: restoration and construction services, and interior services. HOME SOLUTIONS: "Melms" Suit Settlement Still Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a purported class-action suit captioned, "Melms v. Home Solutions of America et al., Civil Action No. 3L07-CV-1961," remains subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The company reached an agreement to settle a purported class action captioned, "Melms v. Home Solutions of America et al., Civil Action No. 3L07-CV-1961," filed on Feb. 15, 2008, and amended on May 29, 2008. The company cannot predict whether the Court will grant approval of the settlement, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Feb. 5, 2009. Under the terms of the Melms Settlement, the company agreed to pay $5.1 million to settle all claims brought by a class of all persons who purchased common stock of Home Solutions from May 10, 2007 through Feb. 15, 2008. Home Solutions of America, Inc. -- http://www.hsoacorp.com/-- is a provider of restoration, construction and interior services to commercial and residential areas that are prone to flooding, hurricanes, tornados, fires or other naturally occurring and repetitive weather related emergencies, and/or experiencing commercial or residential development. The company operates through two segments: restoration and construction services, and interior services. HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: Certification of Pioneer Valley Class Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Pioneer Valley Casket Co.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary. On July 8, 2005, Pioneer Valley Casket Co., an alleged casket store and Internet retailer, also filed a purported class action lawsuit against Batesville, the Company, Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc. and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in California District Court on behalf of the class of "independent casket distributors," alleging violations of state and federal antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws based on essentially the same factual allegations as in the consumer cases. Pioneer Valley claimed that it and other independent casket distributors were injured by the defendants' alleged conspiracy to boycott and suppress competition in the alleged market for caskets, and by an alleged conspiracy among SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co-conspirators to monopolize the alleged market for caskets. The Pioneer Valley complaint was also transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston, Texas), but was not consolidated with the action filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., although the scheduling orders for both cases are identical. On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed an amended complaint adding three new plaintiffs, each of whom purports to be a current or former "independent casket distributor." Like Pioneer Valley's original complaint, the amended complaint alleges violations of federal antitrust laws, but it has dropped the causes of actions for alleged price fixing, conspiracy to monopolize, and violations of state antitrust law and state unfair and deceptive practices laws. On Oct. 25, 2006, the district court denied the December 2005 motions to dismiss the amended Pioneer Valley complaint. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all independent casket distributors in the United States who are presently in business or were in business any time from July 8, 2001, to the present, including the following subclasses of independent casket distributors who: -- paid a surcharge in order to obtain a Batesville casket from an entity other than Batesville; and -- were engaged in business as of Dec. 4, 2006. Excluded from the class are independent casket distributors that: -- are affiliated in any way with any funeral home; -- manufacture caskets; -- are Defendants, including all directors, officers, agents, and employees of such; or -- are parents, subsidiaries and/or affiliates of Defendants. Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006. Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification motion was completed in March 2007. On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended that the motion for class certification be denied. On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date. On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution of class certification. The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages of approximately $99.2 million before trebling. The plaintiffs in each case have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge. If the District Judge accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendations and denies class certification, plaintiffs may petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for leave to appeal. It is anticipated that new deadlines, including a possible trial date, will not be set until sometime after the District Court has ruled on the motions for class certification, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com– formerly Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider of medical technologies and related services for the health care industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information technology solutions. Hill-Rom's product and service offerings are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings. On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin- off of its funeral services business operating under the Batesville Casket name. HILL-ROM HOLDINGS: No Ruling Yet on FCA Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has not yet ruled on the motion for class certification in Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc.'s lawsuit against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., and its former Batesville Casket Company, Inc. subsidiary, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. On May 2, 2005, a non-profit entity called FCA and several individual consumers filed a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit against three national funeral home businesses, Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc., and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. together with the Company, and Batesville, which is now wholly-owned by Hillenbrand, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This lawsuit alleged a conspiracy to suppress competition in an alleged market for the sale of caskets through a group boycott of so-called "independent casket discounters," that is, third- party casket sellers unaffiliated with licensed funeral homes; a campaign of disparagement against these independent casket discounters; and concerted efforts to restrict casket price competition and to coordinate and fix casket pricing, all in violation of federal antitrust law and California's Unfair Competition Law. The lawsuit claimed, among other things, that Batesville's maintenance and enforcement of, and alleged modifications to, its long-standing policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral homes were the product of a conspiracy among Batesville, the other defendants and others to exclude "independent casket discounters" and that this alleged conspiracy, combined with other alleged matters, suppressed competition in the alleged market for caskets and led consumers to pay higher than competitive prices for caskets. The FCA Action alleged that two of Batesville's competitors, York Group, Inc. and Aurora Casket Company, are co-conspirators but did not name them as defendants. The FCA Action also alleged that SCI, Alderwoods, Stewart and other unnamed co- conspirators conspired to monopolize the alleged market for the sale of caskets in the United States. After the FCA Action was filed, several more purported class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers were filed based on essentially the same factual allegations and alleging violations of federal antitrust law and/or related state law claims. Batesville, the Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the FCA Action and a motion to transfer to a more convenient forum. In response, the court in California permitted the plaintiffs to replead the complaint and later granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston, Texas). On Oct. 12, 2005, the FCA plaintiffs filed an amended complaint consolidating all but one of the other purported consumer class actions. The amended FCA complaint contains substantially the same basic allegations as the original FCA complaint. The only other then remaining purported consumer class action, "Fancher v. SCI et al.," was subsequently dismissed voluntarily by the plaintiff after the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On Oct. 26, 2006, however, a new purported class-action suit was filed by the estates of Dale Van Coley and Joye Katherine Coley, Candace D. Robinson, Personal Representative, consumer plaintiffs, against Batesville and the Company in the Western District of Oklahoma alleging violation of the antitrust laws in fourteen states based on allegations that Batesville engaged in conduct designed to foreclose competition and gain a monopoly position in the market. This lawsuit was largely based on similar factual allegations to the FCA Action. Batesville and the Company had this case transferred to the Southern District of Texas in order to coordinate this action with the FCA Action and filed a motion to dismiss this action. On Sept. 17, 2007, the Court granted Batesville's and the Company's motion to dismiss and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. The FCA plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class that includes all United States consumers who purchased Batesville caskets from any of the funeral home co-defendants at any time during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of limitations. On Oct. 18, 2006, the Court denied the defendants' November 2005 motions to dismiss the amended FCA complaint. Class certification hearing was held in early December 2006. Post-hearing briefing on the plaintiffs' class certification motion was completed in March 2007, though briefing on certain supplemental evidence related to class certification also occurred in September 2007 and October 2007. On Nov. 24, 2008, a Magistrate Judge in the Court recommended that the motion for class certification be denied. The plaintiffs have 10 court days to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations with the U.S. District Judge. On Aug. 27, 2007, the Court suspended all pending deadlines in the case, including the previously set February 2008 trial date. On Aug. 25, 2008, the court canceled a previously scheduled Sept. 8, 2008 docket call and stayed the case pending resolution of class certification. The plaintiffs generally seek monetary damages, trebling of any such damages that may be awarded, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs, and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs filed a report indicating that they are seeking damages ranging from approximately $947.0 million to approximately $1.46 billion before trebling. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.hill-rom.com– formerly Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., is the manufacturer and provider of medical technologies and related services for the health care industry, including patient support systems, non-invasive therapeutic products for a variety of acute and chronic medical conditions, medical equipment rentals and health information technology solutions. Hill-Rom's product and service offerings are used by healthcare providers across the healthcare continuum in hospitals, extended care facilities and home care settings. On March 31, 2008, Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc. completed the spin- off of its funeral services business operating under the Batesville Casket name. HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY: Transfers Funds for Payment of Claimants --------------------------------------------------------------- Hutchinson Technology Inc., in the first quarter of 2009, transferred the necessary funds to the settlement administrator for payment to the claimants in a purported class-action suit alleging violations of labor law by the company. Originally, Hutchinson Technology was named as defendant in a complaint brought before the district court in Hennepin County, Minnesota, by two current and three former employees and served on the company on Aug. 28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 13, 2007). The complaint asserts claims based on the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, several statutes and regulations dealing with topics related to wages and breaks, and common law theories. It also alleges that the company fails to pay its production workers for the time they spend changing into and out of protective clothing and that the company does not provide employees the breaks allegedly required by Minnesota law or promised by company policy. The complaint seeks pay for the allegedly unpaid time, an equal amount of liquidated damages, other damages, penalties, attorneys fees and interest. The company has subsequently reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs. By order dated April 24, 2008, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement and set a final approval hearing for Sept. 11, 2008. By order dated Sept. 24, 2008, the District Court approved the settlement agreement. During the first quarter of 2008, the company recorded a litigation charge of $2,494,000, which was reduced in the company's fourth quarter of 2008 to $2,003,000, related to the settlement of this class-action lawsuit. In the first quarter of 2009, the company transferred the necessary funds to the settlement administrator for payment to the claimants, according to its Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Hutchinson Technology Inc. -- http://www.htch.com/-- operates in two segments: the Disk Drive Components Division and the BioMeasurement Division. The Disk Drive Components Division is a supplier of suspension assemblies for disk drives. Suspension assemblies are precise electro-mechanical components that hold a disk drive's recording head at microscopic distances above the drive's disks. The BioMeasurement Division is filling an information gap in the monitoring of trauma patients with the introduction of the InSpectra StO2 Tissue Oxygenation Monitor. Launched in October 2006, the device gives hospital trauma teams the ability to non-invasively and continuously measure tissue oxygen saturation (St02) and monitor it during resuscitation. INTEGRAL SYSTEMS: Faces Lawsuit by Securities Purchasers in Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- Integral Systems, Inc. and the individual defendants face a purported securities class-action complaint filed in Maryland federal court. On Dec. 15, 2008, shortly after the company announced its preliminary financial results for the quarter and fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2008, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in Maryland federal court against the Company and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleges that between April 28, 2008 and Dec. 10, 2008, certain statements made by the company concerning its financial condition were false or misleading because those statements failed to disclose that the company was improperly recognizing revenue; that the company's financial statements accordingly were not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP), were misstated, and were materially false and misleading; and that the company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. The complaint seeks to assert claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and requests certification of a class of persons who purchased the company's common stock between the dates mentioned. No specific damage amount is alleged in the complaint. To date, no proceedings have taken place in the lawsuit other than the filing of the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008. Integral Systems, Inc. -- http://www.integ.com/-- provides solutions for satellite command and control, integration and test, data processing, signals analysis, and flight simulation. The Company designs, develops, and integrates solutions, and provide services related to satellite ground systems and other communications and networking equipment. It operates in three segments: Government Systems, Commercial Systems and Space Communications Systems. Government Systems provides ground systems products and services to the U.S. Federal Government. Commercial Systems provides ground systems products and services to commercial enterprises and international organizations. The segment consists of three wholly owned subsidiaries, SAT Corporation (SAT), Newpoint Technologies, Inc. (Newpoint), and Integral Systems Europe S.A.S. (ISI Europe). JDS UNIPHASE: Agreement in Consolidated ERISA Action Reached ------------------------------------------------------------ The parties in a consolidated action entitled, "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA Litigation, Case No. C-03-4743 WWS (MEJ)," have reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. The consolidated action is pending in the District Court for the Northern District of California against the company, certain of its former and current officers and directors, and certain other current and former JDSU employees on behalf of a purported class of participants in the 401(k) Plans of the Company and Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. and the Plans themselves. On Oct. 31, 2005, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by breaching their fiduciary duties to the Plans and the Plans' participants. The amended complaint alleges a purported class period from Feb. 4, 2000, to the present and seeks an unspecified amount of damages, restitution, a constructive trust, and other equitable remedies. Certain individual Defendants' motion to dismiss portions of the amended complaint was granted with prejudice on June 15, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on June 30, 2006. Defendants answered the complaint on July 6, 2006, and JDSU asserted counterclaims for breach of contract. The Court dismissed those counterclaims on Sept. 11, 2006. On Dec. 15, 2006, defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the named plaintiffs lacked standing. On the same day, plaintiffs moved for class certification. On April 24, 2007, the Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Douglas Pettit, deferred ruling on the motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff Eric Carey, and deferred ruling on plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Both sides have taken discovery. Following the verdict for defendants in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," the court in the ERISA action vacated all existing deadlines, set a schedule for briefing a summary judgment motion based on collateral estoppel issues, and stayed discovery pending resolution of that motion. By Order dated April 17, 2008, the Court modified the briefing schedule for JDSU's summary judgment motion and ordered the parties to engage in mediation. Defendants moved for summary judgment on collateral estoppel issues on May 2, 2008. The parties participated in mediation on Oct. 10, 2008, and reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims. JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of communications test and measurement solutions and optical products for telecommunications service providers, cable operators, and network equipment manufacturers. In addition, the Company's optical coatings are used in visual display and decorative product differentiation applications. It has four segments: Optical Communications, which accounted for approximately 34% of net revenue, during the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008 (fiscal 2008); Communications Test and Measurement, which accounted for approximately 46% of net revenue in fiscal 2008; Advanced Optical Technologies, which accounted for approximately 14% of net revenue in fiscal 2008, and Commercial Lasers, which accounted for approximately 6% of net revenue in fiscal 2008. JDS UNIPHASE: Parties Agree to Dismiss Central States' Action ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the action, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584 CW," filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice in November 2008. On Jan. 29, 2007, a securities action was filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several of the company's former officers and directors. The action, "Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. 07-0584 CW," was based on allegations similar to those made in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation," a securities class action that tried to a jury verdict in favor of defendants on all claims in November 2007. The Central States complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Central States complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a pension fund that purportedly purchased Company securities between Oct. 28, 1999, and July 26, 2001, and elected to opt-out of participation in "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation." On Feb. 14, 2007, the Central States action was deemed related to "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation" and was assigned to Judge Claudia Wilken. Pursuant to the Court's order, the parties participated in mediation on Aug. 7, 2008, and reached an agreement in principle to resolve all claims on confidential terms. On Nov. 20, 2008, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. JDS Uniphase Corp. -- http://www.jdsu.com/-- is a provider of communications test and measurement solutions and optical products for telecommunications service providers, cable operators, and network equipment manufacturers. In addition, the Company's optical coatings are used in visual display and decorative product differentiation applications. It has four segments: Optical Communications, which accounted for approximately 34% of net revenue, during the fiscal year ended June 28, 2008 (fiscal 2008); Communications Test and Measurement, which accounted for approximately 46% of net revenue in fiscal 2008; Advanced Optical Technologies, which accounted for approximately 14% of net revenue in fiscal 2008, and Commercial Lasers, which accounted for approximately 6% of net revenue in fiscal 2008. JONES SODA: Wash. Court Dismisses Wash. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Jones Soda Co., Law360 reports. Initially, on Sept. 4, 2007, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company, its chief executive officer, and its chief financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2009). The case is entitled, "Saltzman v. Jones Soda Company, et al., Case No. 07-CV-1366-RSL," and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from March 9, 2007, to Aug. 2, 2007. Six substantially similar complaints were subsequently filed in the same court, some of which allege claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from Nov. 1, 2006, to Aug. 2, 2007. Some of the subsequently filed complaints also added as defendants certain directors and another officer of the company. The additional complaints generally allege violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the company's financial results and business prospects. They seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On Oct. 26, 2007, all seven lawsuits were consolidated as a single action entitled "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL." The Court appointed Robert Burrell as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities case. On May 5, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated complaint, which purports to allege claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period Jan. 10, 2007, to May 1, 2008, against the company and Peter van Stolk, its former CEO, former Chairman of the Board, and current director. The First Amended Consolidated Complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and omissions about the company's agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business prospects. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 7, 2008. The motion is scheduled to be fully briefed and submitted for consideration in early October 2008. The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven 488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-501-9000 - and - Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net) 627 208th Ave Se Sammamish, WA 98074-7033 Phone: 425-868-7813 Fax: 425-868-7870 Representing the defendants is: Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 MASCO CORP: Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Price-Fixing Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julie E. Carnes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class-action suit against Masco Corp. in connection with insulation installation, the Detroit Free Press reports. With the ruling, the company, one of the largest U.S. insulation contractors, must face a trial against almost 400 smaller rivals accusing it of conspiring to fix prices, reports the Detroit Free Press. The contractors sued Masco in 2004, claiming it conspired with manufacturers to set artificially high insulation costs "to the detriment of competing independent contractors," Judge Carnes said in her order, a copy of which was obtained by the Detroit Free Press. Steven Rosenwasser, Esq., a lawyer for the plaintiffs, estimates the contractors are owed several hundred million dollars. Masco argued that class status was unjustified, according to the order. Judge Carnes said the company argued in court that prices are determined on a regional and individualized negotiation basis. "The court is not persuaded," Judge Carnes said of Masco's arguments, according to the Detroit Free Press. The Detroit Free Press reported that allowing the contractors to sue as a group can give them more leverage to force a settlement with Masco rather than go to trial. MAXIM INTEGRATED: Bid to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss consolidated purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit that was filed against Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. in California federal court is pending. On Feb. 6, 2008, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Maxim and its former chief executive officer and former chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the grants of stock options. It seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2003 to Jan. 17, 2008, unspecified damages, interest and costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and disbursements. Following stipulations of the parties, a First Consolidated Class Complaint was filed on Dec. 16, 2008, the Court entered a schedule for Defendants' responses to the Complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on Jan. 30, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. The suit is "In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:08-cv-00832-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter Arthur Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg 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 - and - Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Promenade II, Suite 2300 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 Representing the defendants are: Thad Alan Davis, Esq. (thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-443-3000 - and - David Michael Friedman, Esq. (david.friedman@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP 505 Montgomery Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, Ca 94111-2562 Phone: (415) 391-0600 Fax: (415) 395-8095 PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Lawsuits by Alcaldo and Howes in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corp. faces purported class-action suits filed by Ronald Alcaldo and Chad Howes in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Alcado Lawsuit On Oct. 29, 2008, Ronald Alcaldo filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, styled Ronald Alcaldo, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al, against the company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The complaint alleges that the Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by allegedly failing to disclose that "(a) the company's hedges to protect it from adverse changes in costs were not working and in fact were harming the company's results more than helping; (b) the company's inability to continue to use illegal workers would adversely affect its margins; (c) the company's financial results were continuing to deteriorate rather than improve, such that the company's capital structure was threatened; (d) the company was in a much worse position than its competitors due to its inability to raise prices for consumers sufficient to offset cost increases, whereas it competitors were able to raise prices to offset higher costs affecting the industry; and (e) the company had not made sufficient changes to its business to succeed in the more difficult industry conditions." Mr. Alcaldo further alleges that he purports to represent a class of all persons or entities who acquired the common stock of the company from May 5, 2008 through Sept. 24, 2008. The complaint seeks unspecified injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On Nov. 21, 2008, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support Thereof, asserting that Mr. Alcaldo failed to identify any misleading statements, failed to adequately plead scienter against any Defendants, failed to adequately plead loss causation, failed to adequately plead controlling person liability and, as to the omissions that Mr. Alcaldo alleged the Defendants did not make, the Defendants alleged that the omissions were, in fact, disclosed. Howes Lawsuit On Nov. 13, 2008, Chad Howes filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against the Company and individual defendants Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill and Clifford E. Butler. The allegations in the Howes complaint are identical to those in the Acaldo complaint, as are the class allegations and relief sought. The defendants have not yet been served with the Howes complaint. Motions to Consolidate On Dec. 29, 2008, the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group filed a Motion to Consolidate the Howes case into the Acaldo case, and filed a Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel. Also on that date, the Pilgrim's Investor Group (of which Acaldo is a part) filed a Motion to Consolidate the two cases and a Motion to be Appointed Lead Plaintiff. The Pilgrim's Investor Group has subsequently filed a Notice of Non- opposition to the Pennsylvania Public Fund Group's Motion for Appointment of Lead Plaintiff. Chad Howes did not seek to be appointed Lead Plaintiff. Bankruptcy Court Proceeding On Dec. 1, 2008, the company filed a Notice of Suggestion of Bankruptcy. The company recently filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to extend the bankruptcy stay to include individual employees and officers named as defendants in cases concerning the company. The Alcaldo case and the Howes case were included in that motion, which is scheduled to be heard in the Bankruptcy Court on Feb. 10, 2009. No discovery has commenced in either the Alcaldo case or the Howes case, and neither case has been set for trial, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some of the customers in the food service industry across the United States. Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. In addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80 countries. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal 2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed chicken. In December 2008, the company filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Consolidated Litigation Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corp. faces a consolidated amended collective action for certain wage and hour issues, including unpaid wages and unpaid overtime wages. The Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor conducted an industry-wide investigation to ascertain compliance with various wage and hour issues, including the compensation of employees for the time spent on activities such as donning and doffing clothing and personal protective equipment. Due, in part, to the government investigation and the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez," employees have brought claims against the company. The claims filed against the company as of Feb. 5, 2009, the date of its Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008, include: -- "Juan Garcia, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, a/k/a Wampler Foods, Inc.," filed in Pennsylvania state court on Jan. 27, 2006, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; -- "Esperanza Moya, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Maxi Staff, LLC," filed March 23, 2006, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; -- "Barry Antee, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," filed April 20, 2006, in the Eastern District of Texas; -- "Stephania Aaron, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Aug. 22, 2006, in the Western District of Arkansas; -- "Salvador Aguilar, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Aug. 23, 2006 in the Northern District of Alabama; -- "Benford v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Nov. 2, 2006, in the Northern District of Alabama; -- "Porter v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Dec. 7, 2006, in the Eastern District of Tennessee; -- "Freida Brown, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," filed March 14, 2007, in the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division; -- "Roy Menser, et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Feb. 28, 2007 in the Western District of Paducah, Kentucky; -- "Victor Manuel Hernandez v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed Jan. 30, 2007, in the Northern District of Georgia, Rome Division; -- "Angela Allen et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," filed March 27, 2007, in U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division; -- "Daisy Hammond and Felicia Pope v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the Gainesville Division, Northern District of Georgia, filed on June 6, 2007; -- "Gary Price v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, filed on May 21, 2007; -- "Kristin Roebuck et al v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the U.S. District Court, Athens, Georgia, Middle District, filed on May 23, 2007; and -- "Elaine Chao v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation," in the U.S. District Court, Dallas, Texas, Northern District, filed on Aug. 6, 2007. The plaintiffs generally purport to bring a collective action for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and declaratory and/or injunctive relief and generally allege that they are not paid for the time it takes to either clear security, walk to their respective workstations, don and doff protective clothing, and/or sanitize clothing and equipment. The presiding judge in the consolidated action in El Dorado issued an initial Case Management order on July 9, 2007. Plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint and the parties filed a Joint Rule 26(f) Report. A complete scheduling order has not been issued, and discovery has not yet commenced. On March 13, 2008, the Court issued an opinion and order finding that plaintiffs and potential class members are similarly situated and conditionally certifying the class for a collective action. On May 14, 2008, the Court issued its order modifying and approving the court-authorized notice for current and former employees to opt into the class. Persons who choose to opt into the class are to do so within 90 days after the date on which the first notice was mailed. The opt-in period is now closed. As of Oct. 2, 2008, approximately 12,605 plaintiffs have opted into the class. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some of the customers in the food service industry across the United States. Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. In addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80 countries. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal 2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed chicken. In December 2008, the company filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Gold Kist Faces "Benbow" Suit in South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gold Kist, Inc., now merged into Pilgrim's Pride Corp., faces a consolidated class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division. As of Feb. 5, 2009, the date of its Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008, these suits have been filed against Gold Kist: -- Merrell v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Gainesville Division, filed on Dec. 21, 2006; . -- Harris v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Newnan Division, filed on Dec. 21, 2006; -- Blanke v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division, filed on Dec. 21, 2006; -- Clarke v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Athens Division, filed on Dec. 21, 2006; -- Atchison v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, filed on Oct. 3, 2006; -- Carlisle v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division, filed on Oct. 2, 2006; -- Benbow v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Columbia Division, filed on Oct. 2, 2006; and -- Bonds v. Gold Kist, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Northwestern Division, filed on Oct. 2, 2006. On April 23, 2007, Pilgrim's filed a Motion to Transfer and Consolidate with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") requesting that all of the pending Gold Kist cases be consolidated into one case. Pilgrim's Pride withdrew its Motion subject to the Plaintiffs' counsel's agreement to consolidate the seven separate actions into the pending Benbow case by dismissing those lawsuits and refiling/consolidating them into the Benbow action. Motions to Dismiss have been filed in all of the pending seven cases, and all of these cases have been formally dismissed. Under an agreement between the parties, which was approved by Court-order on June 6, 2007, these cases have been consolidated with the Benbow case. On that date, Plaintiffs were authorized to send notice to individuals regarding the pending lawsuits and were instructed that individuals had three months to file consents to opting in as plaintiffs in the consolidated cases. The opt-in period is now closed. To date, there are approximately 3,006 named plaintiffs and opt- in plaintiffs in the consolidated cases. The company and Plaintiffs have jointly requested the Court to remove 367 opt-in plaintiffs because they do not fall within the class definition. The Court recently ordered that Pilgrim's can depose and serve written discovery on the named plaintiffs and approximately 10% of the opt-in class. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some of the customers in the food service industry across the United States. Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. In addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80 countries. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal 2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed chicken. In December 2008, the company filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Officers Face Lawsuits by Plan Participants ------------------------------------------------------------ Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s current and former directors and officers faces lawsuits over the alleged breach of fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Pilgrim's Pride Stock Investment Plan, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. Patterson Case On Dec. 17, 2008, Kenneth Patterson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie "Ken" Pilgrim, Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other unnamed defendants. The complaint, brought pursuant to section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1132, alleges that the individual defendants breached fiduciary duties to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, as administered through the Retirement Savings Plan, and the To-Ricos, Inc. Employee Savings and Retirement Plan. Mr. Patterson alleges that he purports to represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time between May 5, 2008 through the present and whose accounts held company stock or units in Pilgrim's Pride stock. The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plan suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees, an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust, and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants. On Jan. 23, 2009, Mr. Patterson filed a motion to consolidate the subsequently filed, similar Smalls case into this action. Smalls Case On Jan. 2, 2009, Denise M. Smalls filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, against Lonnie "Bo" Pilgrim, Lonnie Ken Pilgrim, Clifford E. Butler, J. Clinton Rivers, Richard A. Cogdill, Renee N. DeBar, Pilgrim's Pride Compensation Committee and other unnamed defendants. The complaint and the allegations are similar to those filed in the Patterson case. Ms. Smalls alleges that she purports to represent a class of all persons or entities who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time between May 5, 2008 through the present and whose accounts held Company stock or units in Pilgrim's Pride stock. The complaint seeks actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plan suffered, to be allocated among the participants' individual accounts as benefits due in proportion to the accounts' diminution in value, attorneys' fees; an order for equitable restitution and the imposition of constructive trust; and a declaration that each of the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants. Bankruptcy Court Proceeding The company recently filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to extend the bankruptcy stay to include individual employees and officers named as defendants in cases concerning the Company. The Patterson case and the Smalls case were included in that motion, which is scheduled to be heard in the Bankruptcy Court on Feb. 10, 2009. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a chicken company in the United States, Mexico and Puerto Rico. The company's prepared chicken products meet the needs of some of the customers in the food service industry across the United States. Under the Pilgrim's Pride brand name, its fresh chicken retail line is sold in the southeastern, central, southwestern and western regions of the United States, throughout Puerto Rico, and in the northern and central regions of Mexico. In addition, the company exports commodity chicken products to 80 countries. During the fiscal year ended Sept. 27, 2008, (fiscal 2008), Pilgrim's Pride sold 8.4 billion pounds of dressed chicken. In December 2008, the company filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas. PLEXUS CORP: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has not yet held a hearing or ruled on the motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Plexus Corp., according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 3, 2009. Initially, two securities class-action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in June 2007 against the company and certain of its officers and directors. On Nov. 7, 2007, the two actions were consolidated, and a consolidated class-action complaint was filed in February 2008. Aside from the company, the consolidated complaint names these individual-defendants: 1. Dean A. Foate, president, chief executive officer and a director of the company; 2. F. Gordon Bitter, the company's former senior vice president and chief financial officer; and 3. Paul Ehlers, the company's former executive vice president and chief operating officer. The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's statements regarding its defense sector business in early calendar 2006. On April 15, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class-action complaint. The plaintiff is opposing the dismissal. The briefing on the defendants' motion has been completed; however, the Court has not yet held a hearing or ruled on the motion. The suit is "Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 866-264-3995 Fax: 414-482-8001 e-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/ SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: "Baumkel" Suit Still in Preliminary Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- The suit styled, "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al." is still in the preliminary stages of the proceedings, according to the company's Feb. 5, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Sept. 26, 2008, the Company, doing business as Scotts LawnService(R), was named as a defendant in a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan relating to certain pesticide products. In the suit, Mark Baumkel, on behalf of himself and the purported classes, seeks an unspecified amount of damages, plus costs and attorneys' fees, for alleged claims involving breach of contract, unjust enrichment and violation of the Michigan consumer protection act. The suit is "Mark Baumkel, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al., Case 2:08-cv-14137-DPH-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Representing the plaintiff are: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Marc L. Newamn, Esq. Lauren G. Northrop, Esq. The Miller Law Firm PC 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 New Securities Fraud Cases COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Brower Piven Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/12/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE: CNB) during the period between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that one condition for its receipt of $550 million in funding from the government sponsored Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company would first have to raise $300 million from outside sources. According to the complaint, on January 27, 2009, after the Company revealed the previously undisclosed condition, the value of Colonial's stock declined significantly. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Feb. 12, 2009 -- ATLANTA, GA -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (NYSE: CNB) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Colonial common stock who purchased between December 2, 2008 and January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements to the public in its press releases and in its Securities Exchange Commission filings. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the Company misrepresented or failed to fully disclose the terms upon which it had received preliminary approval from the U.S. Treasury Department to received $550 million under the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). According to the complaint, the Company's misrepresentations and/or omissions caused its stock price to trade at artificially inflated prices in violation of federal law. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Shuman Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 12, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Colonial BancGroup, Inc. ("Colonial" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CNB) between December 2, 2008 through January 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Defendant Colonial is a bank holding company whose primary business is commercial and consumer banking. The Complaint alleges that the Defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements contained in a press release and a related filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning the Company's participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"). Specifically, during the trading day on December 2, 2008, Colonial issued a press release announcing that it had received TARP funding approval for an injection of $550 million. The press release also detailed the purported terms of the TARP funding with the United States Treasury Department including that the government would receive preferred stock as well as warrants to purchase Colonial common stock. In response to that announcement Colonial's stock price surged over 50 percent from its $2 per share close on December 1, 2008 to close at $3.08 per share on December 2, 2008. However, Defendants failed to disclose that as a prerequisite to receiving $550 million in TARP funding, Colonial would be required to raise additional outside capital of $300 million. Defendants belatedly disclosed that material fact after the markets closed on January 27, 2009. In response to that announcement, Colonial's stock price plunged from its close of $1.58 on January 27, 2009 to $0.85 the next trading -- a 46% drop -- on extraordinarily heavy trading volume exceeding 26 million shares. For more information, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/ RIGEL PHARMACEUTICALS: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/12/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who acquired Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Rigel" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RIGL) securities during the period between December 13, 2007 and October 27, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including all persons who acquired the common stock of Rigel pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's February 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period, including in connection with a February 6, 2008 $27 per share $135 million offering of the Company's common stock, adverse results in clinical trials of its R788 drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. According to the complaint, on October 27, 2008, after the Company revealed the previously undisclosed adverse results, the value of Rigel's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in these actions. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.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 * * *