/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090302.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 42 Headlines BANK OF AMERICA: Cotchett Pitre Files Suit Over Merrill Merger BLUE CROSS: Mich. Court Io Issue Ruling in Autism-Related Case COMPRESSOR MAKERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Mich. Federal Court COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Reached in Feb. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA Suit Ongoing CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit EBAY INC: Hearing Set for Certification Motion in Calif. Lawsuit ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations KELLY SERVICES: Judgment Motions in Calif. Labor Suit Pending LEVI STRAUSS: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved on Oct. 17, 2008 MF GLOBAL: Bid to Junk Securities Fraud Lawsuit Granted in 4Q08 MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y. PENN NATIONAL: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation SPANSION INC: Faces WARN Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recent Lay-Offs UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $925.5M Settlement Set for March 16 Hearing UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Zilhaver" ERISA Suit Deal Gets Prelim Okay UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits WORLD WRESTLING: Conn. Court Dismisses Ex-Wrestlers' Lawsuit XINHUA FINANCE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated IPO Litigation New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Whatley Drake Announces Stock Suit Filing DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing ROCHESTER FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* BANK OF AMERICA: Cotchett Pitre Files Suit Over Merrill Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- February 26, 2009 03:37 PM Eastern Time -- SAN FRANCISCO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 09-CV- 00544) on behalf of all persons and entities who owned Bank of America Corporation ("Bank of America") stock on October 10, 2008 and were eligible to vote on the proposed merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. ("Merrill Lynch"), and all persons and entities who purchased Bank of America common stock between October 16, 2008 and January 20, 2009. The complaint names as defendants Bank of America, Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis, and former Merrill Lynch CEO John A. Thain. The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false and misleading information and failed to disclose material information regarding Merrill Lynch's business and record financial losses, including in an October 31, 2008 Proxy Statement. Among other things, defendants allegedly concealed Bank of America's failure to properly value certain troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, collaterized debt obligations and related derivative positions. Moreover, Bank of America allegedly failed to meet due diligence obligations to its shareholders to provide full transparency regarding the acquisition and acquisition price of Merrill Lynch. On December 5, 2008, as a result of defendants' alleged misrepresentations, Bank of America shareholders approved the merger with Merrill Lynch, which closed on January 1, 2009. On January 16, 2009, Bank of America disclosed Merrill Lynch's 2008 fourth quarter losses of $15.3 billion. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Any member of the putative class may, no later than March 23, 2009, move the court to serve as lead plaintiff. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiffs' counsel For more details, contact: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy Phone: (650) 697-6000 Web site: http://www.cpmlegal.com BLUE CROSS: Mich. Court Io Issue Ruling in Autism-Related Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan will issue a written opinion on whether parents of autistic children who want Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Michigan to pay for behavioral therapy have viable claims and whether their case should proceed as a class-action lawsuit against the insurer, Jennifer Chambers of The Detroit News reports. The CourtHouse News Service previously reported that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is facing a class-action complaint filed before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging it unfairly denies coverage for treatment of autism (Class Action Reporter, May 30, 2008). Autism is a complex developmental disability, which adversely affects, inter alia, verbal and nonverbal communication and social interactions, a child's educational performance, and the overall ability of a person who suffers from the condition to function in society. Named plaintiff Chris Johns brings this action as a class-action case against defendant pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of an employee benefit plan administered by or provided by Defendant and who have been denied coverage for ABA treatment to an insured person diagnosed with autism. The suit seeks certification of a class of people who have been refused coverage by Blue Cross for their autistic children, as well as damages and an injunction requiring Blue Cross to provide coverage for the care in the future (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2008). On Feb. 26, 2009, Judge Stephen Murphy heard arguments from Blue Cross on why the case should be dismissed and from Johns attorneys on why it should proceed. The suit is "Chris Johns et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case No. 2:08-cv-12272-SFC-MJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Representing the plaintiff are: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@manteselaw.com) Mark C. Rossman, Esq. (mrossman@manteselaw.com) David S. Hansma, Esq. (dhansma@manteselaw.com) Mantese and Rossman, PC 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Phone: 248-457-9200 - and - John J. Conway, Esq. (john@johnjconway.com) John J. Conway, P.C. 645 Griswold St, Ste 3600 Detroit, MI 48226 Phone: 313-961-6525 COMPRESSOR MAKERS: Faces Antitrust Suit in Mich. Federal Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Several refrigerator component manufacturers and sellers, including Tecumseh Products Co., Whirlpool Corp., Tecumseh Products Co., and Panasonic Corp., are facing a purportred class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging the companies engaged in a conspiracy to fix the prices of hermetically sealed compressors, Law360 reports. K-N-D Appliances, a Honolulu appliance company, and its proprietors Kelly and Dennis Higashi of Honolulu filed the complaint on Feb. 25, 2009 under the caption, "Higashi et al v. Tecumseh Products Company et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-10720-RHC- SDP," according to the Law360 report. The suit is "Higashi et al v. Tecumseh Products Company et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-10720-RHC-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Robert H. Cleland, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kerry Rhoads-Reith, Esq. (kreith@smsm.com) Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney 7960 Grand River Avenue Suite 260 Brighton, MI 48114 Phone: 810-225-4227 Fax: (810) 225-4201 COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settlement of Software Suits Reached in Feb. --------------------------------------------------------------- A agreement was reached in February 2009, settling two purported class-action lawsuits in the Miller County Circuit Court, Arkansas, claiming that the defendants conspired to wrongfully use the Colossus software products licensed by Computer Sciences Corp. and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds for bodily injury claims are ongoing. On Feb. 7, 2005, the company was named, along with other vendors to the insurance industry and dozens of insurance companies in the matter, "Hensley, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al." The lawsuit was filed as a putative nationwide class- action suit in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, shortly before the Class Action Fairness Act was signed into law. The plaintiffs allege the defendants conspired to wrongfully use software products licensed by the company and the other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insured for bodily injury claims. They also allege wrongful concealment of the manner in which these software programs evaluate claims and wrongful concealment of information about alleged inherent errors and flaws in the software. The suit seeks injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each class member, as well as attorney's fees and costs. On June 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to sever certain defendants, including the company, from the Hensley litigation. As a result, the company continues as a defendant in the Hensley litigation and is also now a defendant in a separate putative class-action lawsuit pending in the Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas, styled "Basham, et al. vs. Computer Sciences Corporation, et al.," along with certain insurance companies previously named as defendants in the Hensley litigation. In July 2008, the court issued a scheduling order in the Hensley litigation setting a class certification hearing date of Dec. 2, 2008. No class certification date has been set in the Basham lawsuit at this time (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008). During the second, third and fourth quarters of fiscal 2009, the company, along with certain other defendants in the Hensley and Basham litigation, engaged in settlement discussions with legal counsel representing the putative class members through mediation proceedings facilitated by an independent mediator. In February 2009, the company and the class representatives in the Hensley and Basham litigation agreed to a settlement of the pending litigation and the parties are in the process of filing the settlement agreement with the court for approval. As part of the settlement, the company has agreed to certain injunctive relief, primarily involving the publication of information regarding the use of the company's software by its licensees in adjusting bodily injury claims, and to the payment of legal fees to legal counsel representing the classes in the litigation, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009. Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com/-- is a player in the information technology and professional services industry. CSC offers an array of services to clients in the Global Commercial and government markets. Its service offerings include IT and business process outsourcing, and IT and professional services. CSC also provides business process outsourcing, managing key functions for clients, such as procurement and supply chain, call centers and customer relationship management, credit services, claims processing and logistics. IT and professional services include systems integration, consulting and other professional services. Systems integration encompasses designing, developing, implementing and integrating complete information systems. Consulting and professional services includes advising clients on the acquisition and utilization of IT and on business strategy, security, modeling, simulation, engineering, operations, change management and business process reengineering. COMPUTER SCIENCES: Discovery in Consolidated ERISA Suit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act statute related to claims of alleged backdating of stock options, according to Computer Sciences Corp.'s Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 2, 2009. Initially, on Aug. 15, 2006, a federal ERISA class-action suit involving allegations of backdating at CSC was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of New York. The suit is entitled "Quan, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-3927." On Sept. 21, 2006, a related ERISA class-action lawsuit -- entitled "Gray, et al. v. CSC, et al., Case No. 06-5100" -- was filed in the same court. The complaints named as defendants CSC, the CSC Retirement and Employee Benefits Plans Committee, and various directors and officers, and alleged various violations of the ERISA statute. The two ERISA actions have been consolidated and, on Feb. 28, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended ERISA class-action complaint. On Jan. 8, 2008, the district court granted a motion to transfer the case to California. Upon arrival in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the two cases were consolidated before U.S. District Judge James Otero in Case No. CV 08-2398-SJO. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated case and the plaintiffs opposed this motion. The motion is currently under submission. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2008). The defendants filed their memorandum in opposition to the motion on Aug. 11, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Judge Otero issued orders denying defendants' motion to dismiss, and also denying plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The defendants have since answered the complaint (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008). On Nov. 13, 2008, plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification and the defendants filed a memorandum in opposition on Dec. 8, 2008. On Dec. 29, 2008, Judge Otero granted plaintiffs motion for class certification. On Jan. 13, 2009, defendants filed a petition with the Ninth Circuit pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules, requesting that the court of appeals accept their appeal from the order granting class certification. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on Jan. 23, 2009. The suit is "Federico Quan et al v. Computer Sciences Corporation et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-02398-SJO-JWJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge S. James Otero, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Patrice L. Bishop, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 Fax: 310-209-2087 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Paul Blankenstein, Esq. (pblankenstein@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-955-8500 CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Still Faces Claims in "Graden" ERISA Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Conexant Systems, Inc., continues to face several remaining claims in a purported class-action suit against the company, certain of its current and former officers, and its Employee Benefits Plan Committee. The suit was filed in February 2005, on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a specified class period, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. It specifically alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005. On Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed the case and ordered it closed. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006. The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007. On July 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court's order dismissing the Graden complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. On Nov. 17, 2007, the defendants filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss with the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. The plaintiffs filed an opposition on Feb. 8, 2008. On Dec. 4, 2007, the defendants also filed a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's ruling, which petition was denied on March 3, 2008. On Aug. 27, 2008, the motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The judge left in claims against all of the individual defendants as well as against the Company, according to its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 3, 2008. The suit is "Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Stanley R. Chesler, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. (lisa@trrlaw.com) Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: 856-795-9002 Representing the defendants is: Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com) Lowenstein Sandler, PC 65 Livingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Phone: 973-597-2500 EBAY INC: Hearing Set for Certification Motion in Calif. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- eBay, Inc. noted in its 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that a class certification motion is scheduled for June 2009 in the consolidated litigation, entitled, "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com reports. The plaintiffs will file their motion to certify a class, eBay will likely oppose the motion, in which case the plaintiffs would reply. The court will then have a hearing to decide whether to certify a class of eBay sellers, according to the AuctionBytes.com report. Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered the consolidation of two purported antitrust class actions that were filed against eBay, Inc. in April 2007 (Class Action Reporter May 11, 2007). In consolidating the cases, "The court finds that, "Malone v. eBay Inc., Case No. 07-01882-JF," and "Farmer, et al. v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. C-07-02209," are related actions and such cases are hereby consolidated into "Malone v. eBay Inc.," and are referred to herein as the consolidated action." The consolidated case is now know by the caption, "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," and is pending before Judge Jeremy Fogel. "Malone" Litigation Background According to an earlier report by AuctionBytes.com, "Malone" is an antitrust class action that was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas but has been refilled in California, where eBay is headquartered (Class Action Reporter April 10, 2007). The suit generally accuses eBay of illegally tying and steering customers to use its wholly owned subsidiary, PayPal, Inc., to monopolize payments and unjustly enriches itself. The original complaint alleges "sellers are forced to accept a payment procedure that imposes upon them the obligation to pay needless and supracompetitive fees to defendant." The suit contends, "sellers are forced to accept eBay's payment process as a condition of being able to use the eBay auction process." Lead plaintiff in the suit is Michael Malone of Texas, who sold a pair of Sansui SP-2000 speakers on eBay for $200 in December 2005. Mr. Malone is representing all customer sellers of eBay who are and have been required to honor all payment methods encompassed by PayPal in respect of sales and purchases on eBay.com since 2002. Specifically, the suit alleges: (1) eBay leverages its monopoly in the on-line auction market by requiring that sellers utilize an on-line payment system that imposes needless and supracompetitive fees on them; (2) eBay has economic power in the on-line auction market sufficient to restrain competition in respect of payment methods; (3) eBay's coercion has achieved or has the dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the market for on-line payment systems for use in on-line auctions; and (4) the amount of commerce is substantial. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) the definition of the relevant product and geographic markets; (b) whether defendant has sufficient economic power in the tying market to restrain appreciably competition in the tied product market; (c) whether defendant uses coercion in the market for on- line auctions to monopolize (or attempt to monopolize) the market for on-line payment systems for use in on- line auctions; (d) whether the amount of commerce affected is substantial; (e) antitrust impact; and (f) whether the practices are ongoing. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the other members of the class, prays for judgment as follows: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the class, defined herein, declaring plaintiff to be an adequate representative of that class, declaring plaintiff's counsel to counsel to the class; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally monopolized and maintained a monopoly in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay illegally attempted to monopolize a market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay engaged in unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 2; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Profession Code Section 16720 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay violated California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- adjudging and decreeing that throughout the class period eBay was unjustly enriched; -- awarding judgment against eBay, in an amount to be proved at trial, treble the amount of damages suffered by the members of the class to their business and property interests, plus attorneys' fees, costs, and interest as allowable by law, for eBay's violations of the Sherman Act and applicable California law; -- enjoining eBay from continuing with its anticompetitive behavior (including the tie and the monopoly maintenance of the on-line payment services market) in violation of the Sherman Act; -- granting plaintiff and the other members of the class such other relief that the court may consider necessary or appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by eBay's unlawful conduct; and -- granting such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. "Farmer" Litigation Background "Farmer" is a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2007 by Ann Farmer and Todd Van Pelt. It alleges that eBay possesses monopoly power in the online auction market, estimating it controls over 90 percent of the market in part due to the "network effect," according to a report by Ina Steiner of AuctionBytes.com. The complaint goes on to cite eBay's alleged anti-competitive activities, saying the company acquires its competitors; forces sellers to use PayPal; and blocks competitor Google from online auctions. It alleges that, as a result, actual and potential competition has been restrained and that eBay sellers who accept PayPal "have paid or are likely to pay artificially inflated and supra competitive fees." The consolidated suit is "In Re eBay Seller Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:07-cv-01882-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael McShane, Esq. (mmcshane@audetlaw.com) Audet & Partners LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-568-2555 Fax: 415-568-2556 Representing the defendants is: Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-3305 Phone: (415) 984-8947 ENCORE CAPITAL: Faces Lawsuits Over Claims for FDCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Encore Capital Group, Inc. faces class action lawsuits over claims based on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and comparable state statutes. These claims may result in class action lawsuits, which can be material to the company due to the remedies available under these statutes, including punitive damages. A number of cases styled as class actions have been filed against the company. A class has been certified in several of these cases. Several of these cases present novel issues on which there is no legal precedent. No specific details regarding the cases were disclosed by the company in its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Encore Capital Group, Inc. -- http://www.encorecapitalgroup.com/ -- is a systems-driven purchaser and manager of charged-off consumer receivable portfolios and, through its wholly owned subsidiary Ascension Capital Group, Inc., a provider of bankruptcy services to the finance industry. The company acquires receivable portfolios at deep discounts from their face values using its valuation process that is based upon an analysis of the individual consumer attributes of the underlying accounts. The receivable portfolios it purchases consist primarily of unsecured, charged-off domestic consumer credit card, auto loan deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios. In September 2007, the Company exited its healthcare purchasing and internal collection activities, although it receives collections from certain healthcare portfolios that it purchased. KELLY SERVICES: Judgment Motions in Calif. Labor Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc.'s motions for summary judgment of the certified claims in a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's employees working in the State of California are pending. The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under state law and alleged technical violations of a state law pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs. On April 30, 2007, the trial court certified two sub-classes that correspond to the claims in the case. In the third quarter of 2008, Kelly was granted a hearing date for its motions related to summary judgment on both certified claims, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 28, 2008. Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and territories throughout the world. LEVI STRAUSS: Calif. Suit Settlement Approved on Oct. 17, 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the proposed settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action against Levi Strauss & Co., on Oct. 17, 2008. The suit, "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW," is in connection with the company's April 6, 2001 and June 16, 2003 registered bond offerings. Aside from Levi Strauss, the suit also names as defendants: -- the company's chief executive officer, -- its former chief financial officer, -- its corporate controller, -- its directors, and -- its underwriters. The court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead counsel in the matter. The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the company's prospectuses dated March 8, 2001, or April 28, 2003, or who purchased the company's bonds in the open market from Jan. 10, 2001, to Oct. 9, 2003. The action makes claims under the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the company's U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements. Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the company's financial statements and other public statements during this period materially overstated its net income and other financial results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper. The plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused the trading price of the company's bonds to be artificially inflated. They seek compensatory damages as well as other relief. On July 15, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The matter came before the court on Oct. 15, 2004, and, after oral arguments had concluded, the court took the matter under submission. On Sept. 11, 2007, the court dismissed the Section 10(b) and 20(a) claims in the case and dismissed the tax fraud aspects of the Section 11 and 15 claims. The court also limited the plaintiff class on the Section 11 and 15 claims by eliminating from the class those bondholders who purchased the bonds in private offerings and then exchanged them for registered bonds in the subsequent exchange offer. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to the tax-fraud claims Jan. 14, 2008, and the company stipulated with the plaintiffs that its response will be due on or before March 21, 2008, subject to court approval. On Feb. 22, 2008, the parties agreed to settle the matter. The parties finalized their settlement agreement, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement of this matter on July 21, 2008. The court issued final approval of the settlement agreement on Oct. 17, 2008. The amounts involved in the settlement are not material and the matter was fully concluded by the end of fiscal year 2008, according to the company's Feb. 10, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2008. The suit is "In re Levi Strauss & Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:03-cv-05605-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Ronald M. Whyte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert A. Jigarjian, Esq. Green Welling, LLP 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 e-mail: cand.uscourts@classcounsel.com Robert Gans, Esq. (robert@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: 858-793-0070 - and - Jill Manning, Esq. (jmanning@kmslaw.com) Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP 7665 Redwood Blvd., Suite 200 Novato, CA 94945 Phone: 415-898-8160 Representing the defendants are: Erin E. Schneider, Esq. (eschneider@gibsondunn.com) Austin Van, Esq. (aschwing@gibsondunn.com) Schwing of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP One Montgomery St., 31st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-393-8276 415-393-8210 Fax: 415-374-8458 MF GLOBAL: Bid to Junk Securities Fraud Lawsuit Granted in 4Q08 --------------------------------------------------------------- MF Global Ltd.'s motion to dismiss a purported class-action suit was granted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, during the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The company and certain of its executive officers and directors have been named as defendants in the purported class-action lawsuit. This action, which purports to be brought as a class-action suit on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between March 17, 2008 and June 20, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under Sections 10 and 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's financial results and projections and capital structure. The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which the court has granted, according to its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. MF Global Ltd. -- http://www.mfglobal.com/-- is a broker of exchange-listed futures and options. It provides execution and clearing services for exchange-traded and over-the-counter (OTC), derivative products, as well as for non-derivative foreign exchange products and securities in the cash market. It provides its clients with access to many of the financial markets worldwide. MF Global provides its clients with three primary types of products: exchange-traded derivatives, OTC derivatives and cash products. It provides these services through dedicated broker teams focused on particular markets. MF GLOBAL: Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against MF Global, Ltd., Man Group plc, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and certain underwriters for the Initial Public Offering remains pending in New York. Initially, five purported class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions, which purport to be brought as class-actions on behalf of purchasers of MF Global stock between the date of the IPO and Feb. 28, 2008, seek to hold defendants liable under Section 11, 12, and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 for alleged misrepresentations and omissions related to the company's risk management and monitoring practices and procedures. The five purported shareholder class-actions have been consolidated for all purposes into a single action. No further updates regarding the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. The consolidated suit is "Rubin v. MF Global, Ltd. et al, Case No. 1:08-cv-02233-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Victor Marrero, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard Adam Acocelli, Jr., Esq. (racocelli@weisslurie.com) Weiss & Lurie The Fred French Building 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Phone: 212-682-3025 Fax: 212-682-3010 - and - William J. Ban, Esq. (wban@barrack.com) Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 Fax: 215-963-0838 Representing the defendants are: David B. Anders, Esq. (dbanders@wlrk.com) Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-403-1000 Fax: 212-403-2000 - and - David A. Barrett, Esq. (dbarrett@bsfllp.com) Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP 333 Main St. New York, NY 10504 Phone: 212-446-2310 Fax: 212-446-2350 PENN NATIONAL: Md. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Penn National Gaming Inc., falling under the caption, "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-01752-PJM," Ryan Conley of BloodHorse reports. On Feb. 24, 2009, Judge Peter J. Messitte signed the dismissal order, just one day after oral arguments were heard on a dismissal motion filed by PNGI, according to court records and online docket information, obtained by BloodHorse. Judge Messitte granted the motion of dismissal with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot re-file the lawsuit, reports BloodHorse. Previously Ryan Conley of BloodHorse reported that on July 16, 2008, the company was served with a purported class-action suit brought by Herman Braude, on behalf of himself and others who purchased shares of company stock between April 1, 2008, and July 3, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008). The lawsuit alleges that the company's disclosure practices relative to the proposed transaction with Fortress Investment Group LLC and Centerbridge Partners, L.P., and the eventual termination of that transaction were misleading and deficient in violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint, which seeks class certification and unspecified damages, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. BloodHorse reported that in its motion seeking for dismissal of the case, the company claimed that the legal action is an attempt by the plaintiffs to recover on bad investment decisions. Besides demanding dismissal based on various claimed deficiencies in the complaint, the motion also refutes accusations that the company held undisclosed termination discussions with two private equity firms seeking to buy the company's holdings for $8.9 billion, and charges that executives tipped off certain outsiders of the deal's demise, according to BloodHorse. The company claims the deal, which was announced in June 2007, ultimately collapsed for a variety of reasons related to a deteriorating national economy hampered by a credit crisis, and a general downturn in the gaming industry, reports BloodHorse. "Amid these conditions, the market began to have substantial doubts as to whether the Penn buyout would close," the dismissal motion claimed. "Having made the wrong investment decision, plaintiffs now seek to hold Penn responsible for their investment losses." The suit is "Braude v. Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 8:08-cv-01752-PJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge Peter J. Messitte, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Herman Martin Braude, Esq. (hbraude@braudemargulies.com) Braude and Margulies PC 1200 Potomac St NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 1-202-471-5400 Fax: 1-202-471-5404 Representing the defendants is: Kevin B. Collins, Esq. Covington and Burling LLP (kcollins@cov.com) 1201 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 1-202-662-5598 Fax: 1-202-778-5598 SPANSION INC: Faces WARN Lawsuit in Calif. Over Recent Lay-Offs --------------------------------------------------------------- Spansion, Inc. is facing two purported class-action lawsuits in California that were filed by several laid-off workers alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, Steve Johnson of Mercury News reports. Mercury News reported that early last week, the company laid of as many as 3,000 employees. In an interview, Russ Barck, Spansion's chief of staff, told Mercury News, "None of us feel good about the reduction in force. It was one of those things we felt from a business perspective we had to do." He added that Spansion is confident the layoffs were done lawfully. However, the two class-action suits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of fired Spansion employees dispute that. Both claim that Spansion failed to adhere to federal and state law, known as the WARN Act, requiring large employers to give a two-month notice before laying off more than 50 workers, according to the Mercury News report. Attorney Eric Gibbs, Esq. of San Francisco, which is handling the cases, told Mercury News, "What we're seeking on behalf of the folks who were recently let go by Spansion are damages in the form of back pay and other benefits that they likely were entitled to but didn't receive." In response to the allegations, company spokeswoman Holly Burkhart told Mercury News that Spansion filed a WARN Act notice on Feb. 23, 2009, but that it has an "exemption" to the 60-day notice requirement. The company though would not elaborate. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: $925.5M Settlement Set for March 16 Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota will hold a final settlement approval hearing on March 16, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $925,500,000 million settlement by in the matter, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN" The hearing will be held before the Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, U.S. District Judge, District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth St., Minneapolis, Minnesota. Case Background On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class-action suits alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2008). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006, consolidating the seven actions into a single case. The action is captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN." The appointed lead plaintiff is California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants, in connection with the same alleged course of conduct identified in the shareholder derivative actions, made misrepresentations and omissions during the period between Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public filings that artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock. The complaint also asserts that during the class period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's common stock while in possession of material, non-public information concerning the matters set forth in the complaint. The consolidated amended complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act. It seeks unspecified money damages and equitable relief. On March 18, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 2, 2008, the company announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with CalPERS and the plaintiff class representative Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust, on behalf of themselves and members of the class, to settle the lawsuit. The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against the company, all current officers and directors of the company named in the lawsuit, and certain former officers and directors of the Company named in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has paid $895 million into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members. In addition to the payment to the settlement fund, the company will also supplement the substantial changes it has already implemented in its corporate governance policies with additional changes and enhancements. The proposed settlement, which was approved by the boards of directors of CalPERS and the company, is subject to final court approval. Further, the company has the right to terminate the settlement if class members representing more than a specified amount of alleged securities losses elect to opt out of the settlement. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, on Nov. 24, 2008, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed with the court a stipulation of settlement entered into by all parties to the litigation. On Dec. 18, 2008, the court granted preliminary approval of the stipulation of settlement. Notice has been provided to class members, and a final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for March 16, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 -and - Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com) Zimmerman Reed, PLLP 651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501 Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123 Phone: 612-341-0400 Fax: 612-341-0844 Representing the defendants is: Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-492-6741 Fax: 612-340-8856 - and - Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-408-2421 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Zilhaver" ERISA Suit Deal Gets Prelim Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- The tentative settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv- 02237-JMR-FLN," was granted preliminary approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on Jan. 8, 2009. On June 6, 2006, the purported class action was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's 401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (UnitedHealth Group Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the Plan purchased and held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005, through May 24, 2006. The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan fiduciaries concealed from the Plan participants important information concerning: -- long-standing, improper practices at the company relating to executive stock options, including those awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and -- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a prudent and suitable retirement investment for the Plan. On May 1, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. That amended complaint alleges that the fiduciaries to the company- sponsored 401(k) plan violated ERISA by allowing the plan to continue to hold company stock. The plaintiffs have filed a motion to certify a class consisting of certain participants in the company's 401(k) plan. The defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and their motion for partial summary judgment on June 30, 2008. On July 2, 2008, the company announced it had reached an agreement in principle to resolve this lawsuit. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the company has accrued $17 million to be paid into a settlement fund for the benefit of class members, most of which will be paid by the company's insurance carriers. The proposed settlement will fully resolve all claims against the company and all of the individual defendants in the action. It is subject to completion of final documentation and preliminary and final court approval. On Jan. 8, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com) Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 - and - James B. Hovland, Esq. (jhovland@krauserollins.com) David E. Krause, Esq. (dkrause@krauserollins.com) Krause & Rollins 310 Groveland Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55403 Phone: 612-874-8550 Fax: 612-874-9362 Representing defendants are: Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com) Thomas P. Swigert, Esq. (swigert.tom@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney LLP 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2868 - and - David M. Brodsky, Esq. (david.brodsky@lw.com) Blair Connelly, Esq. (blair.connelly@lw.com) Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq. (alexandra.shapiro@lw.com) Latham & Watkins 885 3rd Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-906-1628 212-906-1658 212-906-1670 Fax: 212-751-4864 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Defends Remaining Claims in Tag-Along Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- UnitedHealth Group Inc. continues to defend against the remaining claims for certain statutory violations in tag-along lawsuits, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Beginning in 1999, a series of class-action lawsuits were filed against UnitedHealthcare, PacifiCare, and virtually all major entities in the health benefits business. These lawsuits were consolidated in a multi-district litigation in the Southern District Court of Florida. The health care provider plaintiffs alleged statutory violations, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) in connection with alleged undisclosed reimbursement policies. Other allegations included breach of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for failure to timely reimburse health care providers for medical services rendered. The consolidated lawsuits seek injunctive, compensatory and equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and interest payments. The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the class action status of certain of the RICO claims, but reversed as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment and prompt payment claims. Most of the co-defendants have settled. On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiffs. On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed those decisions. Included in the multidistrict litigation are tag-along lawsuits, which contain claims against the Company similar to the claims dismissed in the lead case. The tag-along cases were stayed pending resolution of the lead case. That stay has not been lifted, but it is anticipated that the trial court will now lift the stay and address the continuing viability of the tag-along claims. The plaintiffs in a number of the tag-along cases have sought to remand the cases to alternate forums. The company has opposed these efforts and have moved the court to apply its June 2006 summary judgment ruling, and its other applicable pretrial rulings, to those cases. On Feb. 12, 2008, the court denied all pending motions without prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions, including motions for summary judgment. In August 2008, the trial court, applying its rulings in the lead MDL lawsuit, dismissed 7 of the 11 related lawsuits, and all but one claim in an eighth lawsuit. The plaintiffs have appealed these dismissals to the Eleventh Circuit. The trial court ordered the final claim in the eighth lawsuit to arbitration. In December 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed without prejudice one of the three remaining lawsuits. In late 2008, a federal magistrate judge recommended that the trial court deny the plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court the remaining two lawsuits. On Jan. 23, 2009, the trial court adopted this recommendation with respect to one of the lawsuits. The trial court has not yet issued an order with respect to the final lawsuit. UnitedHealth Group Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/-- is a diversified health and well-being company which offers offers a broad spectrum of products and services through six operating businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise, Specialized Care Services and Ingenix. Through its family of businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million individuals nationwide. WORLD WRESTLING: Conn. Court Dismisses Ex-Wrestlers' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of a purported class- action suit filed against World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. by former independent contract wrestlers who claimed the organization cheated them out of health care and other benefits. The wrestlers -- Scott "Raven" Levy, Christopher "Kanyon" Klucsarits and "Above Average" Michael Sanders -- said the level of control exerted over them by the WWE qualified them as full- time employees. The plaintiffs -- who sought class-action status -- claim that they signed contracts that dictated their compensation, physical training regimens, dates and sites of matches, costumes and storylines for their wrestling personae. WWE also reserved the right to use their images and submitted them to drug screenings, the wrestlers said. According to the suit, the WWE avoided withholding federal taxes from their paychecks by not classifying them as full-time employees. The company did not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, nor did it pay for performers' benefits such as health care and vacation time, the suit said. The suit was filed in July 2008 in state Superior Court and then was moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. The suit is "Levy et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-01289-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Peter C. Dorsey, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David S. Golub, Esq. (dgolub@sgtlaw.com) Silver, Golub & Teitell 184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 Phone: 203-325-4491 Fax: 203-325-3769 Representing the defendants are: Richard W. Hosking, Esq. (richard.hosking@klgates.com) K & L Gates, LLP-PA Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312 Phone: 412-355-8612 Fax: 412-355-6501 - and - Douglas W. Bartinik, Esq. (dwbartinik@daypitney.com) Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT 242 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Phone: 860-275-0278 Fax: 860-275-0343 XINHUA FINANCE: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated IPO Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BEIJING, Feb. 26 /PRNewswire-Asia/ -- XFMedia a.k.a. Xinhua Finance Media (Nasdaq: XFML) today announced that the U.S. District Court of New York has dismissed the class action lawsuit against the Company, CEO Fredy Bush, former CFO Shelly Singhal and the Company's IPO underwriters. The lawsuit was initially filed in May 2007, following the Company's IPO in March 2007, and was consolidated with all other claims into a single class action lawsuit in August 2007. "With the dismissal of this lawsuit, we have been completely vindicated," said XFMedia CEO Fredy Bush. "From the start, we have said this lawsuit was wholly without merit. This ruling proves the accusations were completely groundless and misleading, causing undue harm to XFMedia and all of the individual defendants. With this frivolous lawsuit behind us, we will be better able to focus on our No. 1 priority -- delivering maximum value to our shareholders." Xinhua Finance Media -- http://www.xfmedia.cn-- is a leading media group in China with nationwide access to the upwardly mobile demographic. Through its synergistic business groups, Broadcast, Print and Advertising, XFMedia offers a total solution empowering clients at every stage of the media process and connecting them with their target audience. Its unique platform covers a wide range of media assets, including television, radio, newspaper, magazine, outdoor, online and other media assets. Headquartered in Beijing, the company has offices and affiliates in major cities of China including Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen and Hong Kong. New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- February 26, 2009: 11:58 AM ET -- Marketwire -- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK) stock issued pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary public stock offering (the "Offering"). The Complaint alleges that Chesapeake, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Offering with violation of the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements about Chesapeake's business activities and financial condition in their Registration Statement. Chesapeake is the third largest independent producer of natural gas in the United States. Chesapeake engages in the acquisition, exploration, and development of properties for the production of crude oil and natural gas from underground reservoirs. According to the complaint, on July 15, 2008, Chesapeake completed a secondary public offering of 28.75 million shares of common stock at $57.25 per share, receiving approximately $1.65 billion in gross proceeds, with net proceeds of $1.586 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose numerous facts which were required to be stated therein, including: -- that the Company's exposure to natural gas price declines had not been adequately limited by the hedging actions the Company had undertaken prior to the Offering, including its decision to increase its hedge position from 20% to 80% of its production, as a growing proportion of the hedging agreements on Chesapeake's 2009 production contained so-called "knockout" provisions that eliminated the counter- party's financial obligation once the price of natural gas fell below a certain benchmark; -- though the Company disclosed it had entered into hedging contracts to protect its production from falling prices, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that a significant proportion of these contracts had been made with one of the underwriters in the Offering, Lehman Brothers, though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial condition, Lehman Brothers would be unable to fulfill its financial commitment -- rendering Chesapeake's "protection" meaningless; -- in the months leading up to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging activities (and those of certain of the underwriter defendants) had been significantly running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price, which moves in tandem with natural gas prices; -- that Chesapeake's "land men," i.e., lease brokers, had been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements in the months leading up to the Offering, causing Chesapeake to pay unreasonably high prices for certain leases and royalty contracts; -- that the Company was failing to write down impaired goodwill on the assets it was acquiring, causing its balance sheet and financial results to be artificially inflated; and -- that the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its goodwill. During late 2008 and early 2009, as these omitted facts were revealed to the market, the price of Chesapeake stock declined to less than $12 per share, approximately 80% below the Offering price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Chesapeake common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jfruchter@aftlaw.com) Arthur J. Chen, Esq. (achen@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 COLONIAL BANCGROUP: Whatley Drake Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Feb. 26 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC (WDK) announced that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (NYSE: CNB) on behalf of all individuals who acquired CNB stock between Jan. 23, 2008 and Jan. 27, 2009 (the "class period"). Montgomery-based Colonial Bank is a $27 billion financial services company, and a subsidiary of the Colonial BancGroup. Colonial Bank offers a broad line of retail and commercial banking products and services including checking and savings accounts, personal and commercial loans, online banking, credit card, merchant services, and treasury management, as well as wealth management including asset management and financial planning solutions, money management products and insurance through Colonial Brokerage, Inc., and private banking services. The complaint, which was filed yesterday (February 25, 2009), alleges that Colonial and several of its executives issued materially false and misleading statements that violated the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that Colonial and its officers presented a false and misleading picture of its financial health for two basic reasons: First, they misrepresented Colonial's financial health by misstating Colonial's financial health in the face of the downturn in the housing market. Second, they misstated the conditions on which Colonial would be allowed to participate in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the program created by the U.S. Department of the Treasury to shore up the balance sheets of banks across the country by allowing them either to (1) offload troubled real- estate backed loans or (2) receive new capital in exchange for a combination of warrants and preferred and/or common stock in participating institutions. On December 2, 2008, Colonial stated that it had been preliminarily approved to receive more than $500 million in TARP capital. Colonial stated in a company news release that its books would be shored up by the infusion of new capital: "Colonial BancGroup will receive $550 million from the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 aimed at enhancing the economy by restoring liquidity and increasing financing to businesses and consumers." Colonial President and CEO Bobby Lowder hailed the new capital as a welcome sign for the bank: "The $550 million in new capital will enhance our capital cushion and will allow Colonial Bank to meet our customers' financing needs with additional lending activity throughout our five state footprint." The market reacted positively to that announcement, and Colonial's share price jumped 54 percent in the day after its TARP participation was announced. On January 27, 2009 -- more than six weeks after its last statement regarding TARP approval -- Colonial released its 2008 fourth quarter earnings report and an accompanying news release. In this news release, for the first time, Colonial stated that it would not receive the $550 million from the TARP fund until it had first raised $300 million in private capital. Analysts and investors reacted negatively to that unexpected disclosure. Analyst Jefferson Harralson of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, a New York investment bank that is among the most influential analysts of regional bank stocks, summed up Colonial's deception this way: "We had believed that Colonial was awarded TARP funds in December based on typical standard conditions and are surprised that the TARP funds are contingent on a common raise." Colonial stock fell sharply after the truth came to light -- on January 28, CNB share price fell more than 50%, closing at $0.63, compared to $1.58 on January 27. For more information, contact: Adam Plant, Esq. (aplant@wdklaw.com) Tom Butler, Esq. (tbutler@wdklaw.com) 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC New York, NY 10036 Phone: 1-800-695-6750 or 1-205-328-9576 Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com/ DEUTSCHE BANK: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Feb 26, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the 6.375% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust VIII (the "6.375% Securities") and/or the 7.35% Noncumulative Trust Preferred Securities of Deutsche Bank Capital Funding Trust X (the "7.35% Securities") pursuant or traceable to materially false and misleading registration statements and prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration Statements") issued in connection with the October 2006 and November 2007 offerings, respectively, of the securities (the "Offerings"). The complaint charges Deutsche Bank AG, certain of its subsidiaries, its senior insiders and the investment banks that underwrote the Offerings with violations of federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statements issued in connection with the Offerings were false and misleading and filed to disclose, among other things, that: -- the Company failed to properly record provisions for credit losses, residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial real estate loans, and exposure to monoline insurers; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate; -- the Company's internal risk management systems were inadequate to limit the Company's exposure to credit trading, equity derivatives and proprietary equity trading; and -- the Company was not as well capitalized as represented. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 ROCHESTER FUND: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- February 26, 2009 06:35 PM Eastern Time -- NEW YORK -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rochester/)announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of certain shares of Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester Fund" or the "Fund") (NASDAQ:RMUNX) between February 26, 2006 and October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Rochester Fund and certain of its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Rochester Fund is a diversified mutual fund which seeks to provide a high level of income exempt from federal income tax as well as New York State and New York City income taxes. Rochester Fund has more than $9 billion under management and its shares are offered in four separate classes: Class A Shares requiring the payment of an initial sales charge; Class B Shares on which no initial sales charge is paid at the time of purchase, but requiring a contingent deferred sales charge if the shares are sold within 6 years of buying them; Class C Shares on which no initial sales charge is paid, but requiring the payment of an annual asset-based sales charge and the payment of 1.0% sales charge if sold within 12 months of buying them; and Class Y Shares which are offered pursuant to special arrangements. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the Fund for repayment of principal. According to the complaint, on October 21, 2008, Rochester Fund filed a Prospectus Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters. As a result of these disclosures, as of October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at $12.35 per share, down from $18.00 per share at the beginning of the year. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of certain shares of Rochester Fund between February 26, 2006 and October 21, 2008 (the "Class"). For more details, contact: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rochester/ ********* 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 * * *