/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 3, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 43 Headlines ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Ewert" Plaintiffs Re-file Lawsuit v. Unit JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over EVRA Contraceptive Patch LIFELOCK INC: Ariz. Judge Appointed to Handle Consolidated Suits META FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Guardian Angel Credit Union's Lawsuit MICROSOFT CORP: Reinstatement of Class Status in "Kelley" Sought SPORT CHALET: Processing Purchasers' Suit Settlement Documents TELETECH HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y. TULLY'S COFFEE: Probing Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods WELLS FARGO: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Golden West Acquisition WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeal to "Cuesta" Ruling Pending in Oklahoma YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 27 Scheduling Conference Set for Hardiman Suit YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 28 Mediation Set for LJS Managers' Arbitration YUM! BRANDS: July 27 Hearing Set for "Medlock" Certification Bid YUM! BRANDS: Settlement of KFC AUMs' Suit Gets Final OK in Nov. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Face Suits by Calif. RGMs New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing NUTRACEA INC: The Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ROCHESTER FUND: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ROCHESTER FUND: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing ROCHESTER FUND: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ********* ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated amended complaint with respect to derivative claims brought on behalf of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. remains pending. On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.," was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein L.P., AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., and AllianceBernstein Corporation. The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund securities, violating various securities laws. Following Oct. 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants. On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding; and claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein. On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle these claims. The agreement will be documented by a stipulation of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a later date. The settlement amount ($30 million), which the company previously accrued and disclosed, has been disbursed. The derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, in which plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, remain pending, according to the company's Feb. 20, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. AllianceBernstein -- http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an investment manager that administers about 80 domestic and international mutual funds. It serves such institutional investors as pension funds, foundations, endowments, government entities, and insurance firms. For retail investors, the company provides private client services, managed accounts, annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans. EMERGENCY MEDICAL: AMR Faces 3 Suits Over Wage & Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three different lawsuits purporting to be class actions are pending against Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), and certain subsidiaries in California, alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Lori Bartoni commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Alameda, which has since been removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. On July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On Jan. 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. At the present time, courts have not certified classes in any of these cases, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. All three suits allege violations of California state wage and hour compensation laws. The plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR entities failed to pay daily overtime charges pursuant to California law, and failed to provide required meal breaks or pay premium compensation for missed meal breaks. They are seeking to certify the classes and seeking lost wages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other sanctions permitted under California law for violations of wage and hour laws. Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare. EMERGENCY MEDICAL: Suit v. AMR Over Incorrect Billings Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Emergency Medical Services Corp.'s subsidiary, American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR), continues to face a lawsuit purporting to be a class-action suit in Spokane, Washington. On Dec. 13, 2005, the class-action lawsuit was commenced against AMR in Washington State Court, Spokane County. The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at higher rates than contractually permitted. The court has certified a class in this case, but the size and membership of the class has not been determined, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Emergency Medical Services Corp. -- http://www.emsc.net/-- is a provider of emergency medical services in the U.S. The company operates its business and markets its services under the AMR and EmCare brands, which represent American Medical Response, Inc. and EmCare Holdings Inc., respectively. AMR is a provider of ambulance services in the U.S. EmCare is a provider of outsourced emergency department staffing and related management services in the U.S. The company offers a range of emergency medical services through its two business segments: AMR and EmCare. HERITAGE WORLDWIDE: "Ewert" Plaintiffs Re-file Lawsuit v. Unit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a purported class action lawsuit against Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., an acquisition of Heritage Worldwide, Inc., have re-filed their cases. In February 2008, PIP was served with a Complaint filed in federal court in Houston, Texas by seven women, alleging product liability related claims. The lawsuit is styled, "Nancy Ewert et al v. PIP." The lead plaintiff is named Nancy Ewert. The case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have re-filed their cases but PIP has not been served yet. III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP.America claims indemnification from PIP/USA, Inc., Poly Implants Protheses, S.A., and Jean- Claude Mas, personally, from all claims. No further details were disclosed in the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. La Seyne-sur-Mer, France-based Heritage Worldwide, Inc., engages in the development, manufacture, and marketing of a line of breast implants primarily in southern France. Its breast implants consist of a silicone shell filled with silicone gel for use in breast augmentation for cosmetic reasons and for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy. Heritage sells its products directly and indirectly through independent distributors and sales representatives to surgeons and clinics in approximately 45 countries worldwide. JANSSEN-ORTHO INC: Faces Lawsuits Over EVRA Contraceptive Patch --------------------------------------------------------------- LONDON, ON, Feb. 27 /CNW/ -- Class Action lawsuits were launched in Ontario, British Columbia and Quebec against Janssen-Ortho Inc. regarding its contraceptive skin patch EVRA(R) (a/k/a "ORTHO EVRA(R)"), beginning in July 2006. Evra was first approved for marketing and sale in Canada as a contraceptive in 2002. The Statement of Claim alleges that Janssen-Ortho Inc. failed to adequately warn patients and physicians of EVRA(R)'s association with an increased risk of developing blood clots, pulmonary emboli, strokes, heart attacks and/or deep vein thrombosis, as compared to oral contraceptive products. Janssen-Ortho Inc., without any admission of liability, has agreed to settle certain claims on an individual basis. As a result of Janssen-Ortho Inc.'s cooperation, the class action lawsuit in Ontario will be discontinued. Michael Peerless, apartner at Siskinds, LLP, lawyers for the class, commented that "Janssen-Ortho Inc. should be commended for taking proactive steps at resolving individual claims and not dragging their heels or these claimants through a long, drawn-out litigation process". For more details, contact: Michael Peerless Siskinds, LLP 680 Waterloo Street London, ON, N6A 3V8 Phone: 1-800-461-6166, ext. 7866 LIFELOCK INC: Ariz. Judge Appointed to Handle Consolidated Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHOENIX, Feb. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- U.S. District Judge Mary Murguia, District of Arizona, was recently selected to handle 13 consolidated lawsuits against LifeLock, Inc., a heavily marketed identity theft company that claims to protect consumers through its services, and earlier this week she named Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro (HBSS) and Phoenix-based attorney Rob Carey lead counsel in the case. In Murguia's order she states, "Hagens Berman has the requisite experience and resources necessary to manage a case of this size and complexity," determining HBSS can best serve the interests of the class. "We're pleased the court consolidated these 13 cases allowing us to efficiently move claims forward and help correct these wrongful practices," said lead attorney Rob Carey. "This is a first victory for plaintiffs, and the fact that several top-tier firms recognized LifeLock's conduct is deficient indicates we have a strong case - we look forward to preparing for trial." Cases from around the country make up the 13 suits moving forward, including plaintiffs from Arizona, Maryland, New Jersey, West Virginia, Florida, Illinois, Texas, and California. The suits claim LifeLock, headquartered in Tempe, Arizona, uses aggressive advertising to entice consumers to sign up for its $10-a-month service which it describes as "proactive identity theft protection, offer[ing] a proven solution that prevents your identity from being stolen before it happens." According to the HBSS suit, LifeLock's "proven solution" consists of illegally placing and renewing fraud alerts under consumers' names with credit bureaus. However, under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, corporations such as LifeLock are not allowed to place fraud alerts on a consumers' behalf - in fact, according to the complaint, the law was written so as to specifically bar credit-repair companies from improperly using fraud alerts. Through the lawsuits plaintiffs also claim LifeLock misstates its legal obligations to customers and what its protection service covers if a loss occurs. In advertisements the company touts a $1 million guarantee, yet a closer examination at the fine print reveals that LifeLock will not pay any losses directly to the consumer and does not cover consequential or incidental damages to identity theft, plaintiffs claim. The first and original suit filed by HBSS claims LifeLock violated Arizona's Consumer Fraud Act and the Arizona Insurance Code, and seeks to have all members' fees refunded due to the illegality of the contract and LifeLock's misrepresentations about its service. LifeLock customers can visit www.hbsslaw.com/Lifelock to join this suit and learn more about the case. HBSS will make updates as the case progresses. For more details, contact: Rob Carey, Esq. (Rob@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 2425 East Camelback Road Suite 650 Phoenix, AZ, 85016 Phone: (602) 840-5900 Fax: (602) 840-3012 META FINANCIAL: Unit Faces Guardian Angel Credit Union's Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meta Financial Group, Inc.'s subsidiary, MetaBank, continues to face a class action complaint entitled, "Guardian Angel Credit Union v. MetaBank (Cause No. 08-CV-261-PB)." On July 14, 2008, the complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The suit was filed on behalf of Guardian Angel Credit Union and all other CD purchasers similarly situated, to recover funds in connection with purported MetaBank certificates of deposit. No further details regarding the complaint were disclosed by the company in its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2008. Meta Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.metacash.com/-- is a registered unitary savings and loan holding company. MetaBank (the Bank), the only direct, active full service banking subsidiary of Meta Financial, is a community-oriented financial institution offering a variety of financial services to meet the needs of the communities it serves and a payments company that provides services nationwide. The company provides a range of financial services. The principal business of MetaBank is attracting retail deposits from the general public and investing those funds primarily in one- to four-family residential mortgage loans, commercial and multi-family real estate, agricultural operations and real estate, construction, and consumer and commercial business loans primarily in MetaBank's market areas. MetaBank also purchases mortgage-backed securities and other investments permissible under applicable regulations. Meta Financial also owns Meta Trust Company, a South Dakota trust corporation. MICROSOFT CORP: Reinstatement of Class Status in "Kelley" Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/162957.asp ?from=blog_last3 The plaintiffs in a recently decertified class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for the alleged deceptive promotion of its flagship software, Windows Vista, have asked Judge Marsha Pechman to reinstate the class-action status of the case, under a narrower scope, Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post Intelligencer reports. In recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify a class-action under two more narrowed criteria. Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista Capable PCs. Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is essential to run Vista. The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but it is described in another filing. A copy of the motion is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00. John Letzing of MarketWatch previously reported that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009). In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting class-wide causation is decertification." Judge Pechman specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to the MarketWatch report. Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for Plaintiffs' individual claims." In essence, the ruling forces plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports MarketWatch. Case Background Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in a class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008). The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07- cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2008). In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista, called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com. The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false designation drove up demand for personal computers and, therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they are not. The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report. However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman did dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought. She instead allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up prices. A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft appealed against the court's decision affording class action status to the Vista lawsuit. However, in a brief order dated April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision. In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008, the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify the class. "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves for summary judgment," the company's filing reads. In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain features, including the Aero interface. Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a distinct budget edition." They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical matter." In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs because of the program, reports seattlepi.com. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/ e-mail: office@gordontilden.com SPORT CHALET: Processing Purchasers' Suit Settlement Documents ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sport Chalet, Inc., is in the process of documenting the settlement of a purported class action lawsuit alleging violations of the California Civil Code and Business & Professions Code, as well as invasion of privacy. The suit was filed in the California Superior Court in the County of San Diego on April 10, 2008. It is entitled, "Cole v. Sport Chalet, Inc., Case No. 37-2008-00081675-CU-BT-CTL." The complaint was brought as a purported class action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the company's stores in California using credit cards and were requested to provide their zip codes. The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the company's stores in California were improperly requested to provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The suit seeks, on behalf of the class members, statutory penalties, actual damages, punitive damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief to require the company to discontinue the allegedly improper conduct, and attorneys' fees and costs. On Dec. 16, 2008, the parties agreed on the core terms of a classwide settlement of this case. The company is now in the process of documenting the settlement. Thereafter, the settlement will require court approval, according to 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. Sport Chalet, Inc. -- http://www.sportchalet.com/-- is an operator of 45 full-service, specialty sporting goods stores in California, Nevada and Arizona. As of fiscal year ended April 1, 2007, the Company had 32 locations in Southern California, seven in Northern California, one in Central California, two in Nevada and three in Arizona. These stores average approximately 40,000 square feet in size. In addition, it operates a retail e-commerce store through GSI Commerce, Inc. at http://www.sportchalet.com/ Sport Chalet's prototype store is 42,000 square feet in size and showcases each product category with the feel of a specialty shop all contained under one roof. The stores include traditional sporting goods merchandise, such as footwear, apparel and other general athletic products and core specialty merchandise such as snowboarding, mountaineering and self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. TELETECH HOLDINGS: Consolidated Securities Suit Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- TeleTech Holdings, Inc., continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class-action suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The class action lawsuit -- "Beasley v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et. al." -- was filed on Jan. 25, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against TeleTech, certain of its current directors and officers, and other defendants, alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The complaint alleges, among other things, false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with: -- a March 2007 secondary offering of common stock, and -- various disclosures made and periodic reports filed by the company between Feb. 8, 2007, and Nov. 8, 2007. On Feb. 25, 2008, a second, nearly identical class action complaint, entitled, "Brown v. TeleTech Holdings, Inc., et al.," was filed in the same court. On May 19, 2008, the two cases were consolidated under the caption, "In re: TeleTech Litigation," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. The company reported no development on the matter in its Feb. 23, 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 Teletech Litigation, Case No. 1:08-cv-00913- LTS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Laura Taylor Swain, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Alba, Jr., Esq. (malba@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP(LIs) 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - Lewis Stephen Kahn, Esq. Kahn, Gauthier Law Group, L.L.C. 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: 504-455-1400 Fax: 504-455-1498 Representing the defendants are: Geoffrey Hunter Coll, Esq. (gcoll@dl.com) Dewey & LeBoeuf, LLP 1101 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005-4213 Phone: 202-986-8146 Fax: 202-986-8102 - and - Laurence Martin Berman, Esq. (lberman@mwe.com) McDermott, Will & Emery L.L.P. 2049 Century Park East, 38th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3218 Phone: 310-551-9308 Fax: 310-277-4730 TULLY'S COFFEE: Probing Damages Claims Over Meals, Rest Periods --------------------------------------------------------------- Tully's Coffee Corp. is investigating the claims in a purported class-action lawsuit filed in a California State Court, alleging that the company failed to provide meal and rest periods for its employees. In December 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Tully's in California State Court by a former store employee, alleging failure to provide meal and rest periods. The company anticipates that the plaintiff will seek class action certification on behalf of all hourly employees in Tully's California stores. The plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. Similar lawsuits alleging missed meal and rest periods have been filed in California against many other companies. The company accrued $147,000 as of Dec. 28, 2008, for estimated legal fees in order to defend this litigation, according to its Feb. 11, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Tully's Coffee Corp. -- http://www.tullys.com/-- is a specialty retailer in the fast-casual categories of specialty coffee, snacks and non-alcoholic beverages, within the quick-service restaurant industry. WELLS FARGO: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Golden West Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Co., which recently bought Wachovia Corp. for $12.7 billion is the subject of several shareholder lawsuits stemming from Wachovia's acquisition of Golden West Financial Corp. According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the class-action suits allege misleading disclosures about Golden West's mortgage portfolio, collateralized debt obligations and other problem loans. WILLIAMS CONTROLS: Appeal to "Cuesta" Ruling Pending in Oklahoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- The appeal by the plaintiffs in the matter "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511," from a decision reversing the certification of a nationwide class in the product liability case that names Williams Controls, Inc., as a defendant remains pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The company was named as co-defendant in the matter on Oct. 1, 2004. The suit sought class-action status, and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the class. During the second quarter of fiscal 2007, the Oklahoma district court granted the suit class-action status. The company and Ford appealed the District Court's class certification ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals of the State of Oklahoma, and during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, the Appeals Court, in a 3-to-0 decision, reversed the District Court's ruling and decertified the nationwide class. As permitted under Oklahoma law, the plaintiffs filed for a re- hearing by the Appeals Court and during the third quarter of fiscal 2008, this rehearing request was denied. The plaintiffs have since appealed the Court of Civil Appeals' decertification ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, according to 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 suit is "Braulio Cuesta M.D. v. Ford Motor Co., CJ-04-0511," filed in the District Court for Bryan, Oklahoma. For more details, contact: The Burrage Law Firm First United Center Suite 100, 115 N. Washington Durant, OK 74702-1727 Phone: 580-920-0700 e-mail: dburrage@burragelaw.com Web site: http://www.burragelaw.com/ YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 27 Scheduling Conference Set for Hardiman Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Feb. 27, 2009 scheduling conference has been scheduled for the lawsuit styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On April 11, 2008, Lisa Hardiman filed a Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno against Taco Bell Corp., the Company and other related entities. This lawsuit, styled, "Lisa Hardiman vs. Taco Bell Corp., et al.," is filed on behalf of Hardiman individually and all other aggrieved employees pursuant to PAGA. The complaint seeks penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code. On June 25, 2008, Hardiman filed an amended complaint adding class-action allegations on behalf of hourly employees in California very similar to the Medlock case, including allegations of unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest periods, improper wage statements, non-payment of wages upon termination, unreimbursed business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. On July 25, 2008, Taco Bell removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and subsequently filed a notice of related case. On July 31, 2008, the case was transferred to the same judge as in the "Medlock" case. Taco Bell filed a motion to strike the PAGA claims. A scheduling conference is scheduled for Feb. 27, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Feb. 28 Mediation Set for LJS Managers' Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- A second mediation in a collective arbitration on behalf of a putative class of general and assistant restaurant managers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s LJS concept is scheduled for Feb. 28, 2009. On Nov. 26, 2001, Kevin Johnson, a former LJS restaurant manager, filed a collective action against LJS in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of himself and allegedly similarly-situated LJS general and assistant restaurant managers. Mr. Johnson alleged that LJS violated the FLSA by perpetrating a policy and practice of seeking monetary restitution from LJS employees, including Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") and Assistant Restaurant General Managers ("ARGMs"), when monetary or property losses occurred due to knowing and willful violations of LJS policies that resulted in losses of company funds or property, and that LJS had thus improperly classified its RGMs and ARGMs as exempt from overtime pay under the FLSA. Mr. Johnson sought overtime pay, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees for himself and his proposed class. LJS moved the Tennessee district court to compel arbitration of Mr. Johnson's suit. The district court granted LJS's motion on June 7, 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on July 5, 2005. On Dec. 19, 2003, while the arbitrability of Mr. Johnson's claims was being litigated, former LJS managers Erin Cole and Nick Kaufman, represented by Mr. Johnson's counsel, initiated an arbitration with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA") (the "Cole Arbitration"). The Cole Claimants sought a collective arbitration on behalf of the same putative class as alleged in the Johnson lawsuit and alleged the same underlying claims. On June 15, 2004, the arbitrator in the Cole Arbitration issued a Clause Construction Award, finding that LJS's Dispute Resolution Policy did not prohibit Claimants from proceeding on a collective or class basis. LJS moved unsuccessfully to vacate the Clause Construction Award in federal district court in South Carolina. On Sept. 19, 2005, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award, finding, inter alia, that a class would be certified in the Cole Arbitration on an "opt-out" basis, rather than as an "opt-in" collective action as specified by the FLSA. On Jan. 20, 2006, the district court denied LJS's motion to vacate the Class Determination Award and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision on Jan. 28, 2008. A petition for a writ of certiorari filed in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of the Fourth Circuit's decision was denied on Oct. 7, 2008. The parties participated in mediation on April 24, 2008, without reaching resolution. A second mediation is scheduled for Feb. 28, 2009. LJS expects, based on the rulings issued to date in this matter, that the Cole Arbitration will more likely than not proceed as an "opt-out" class action, rather than as an "opt-in" collective action. LJS denies liability and is defending the claims in the Cole Arbitration, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: July 27 Hearing Set for "Medlock" Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- A July 27, 2009 hearing has been set for the class certification motion in the putative class action styled, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," according to YUM! Brands, Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. On Sept. 10, 2007, a putative class action against Taco Bell Corp., the company and other related entities styled, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Fresno, California. The case was filed on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants within the last four years and alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code �17200. The company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008. On March 24, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint adding a nationwide FLSA claim for unpaid overtime. Taco Bell opposed the motion and on June 10, 2008, the court denied plaintiff's motion to amend. Discovery is underway, with pre-certification discovery cutoff set for Feb. 20, 2009 and an April 20, 2009 deadline for plaintiff to file a motion for class certification. A hearing on the class certification motion has been scheduled for July 27, 2009. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Settlement of KFC AUMs' Suit Gets Final OK in Nov. --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, in November 2008, granted final approval of the settlement of the dispute with current and former assistant unit managers of YUM! Brands, Inc.'s KFC concept. On Sept. 2, 2005, a collective action lawsuit against the company and KFC Corporation, originally styled, "Parler v. Yum Brands, Inc., d/b/a KFC, and KFC Corporation," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The plaintiffs alleged that they and other current and former KFC Assistant Unit Managers ("AUMs") were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They sought overtime wages and liquidated damages. On Jan. 17, 2006, the District Court dismissed the claims against the company with prejudice, leaving KFC Corp. as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs amended the complaint on Sept. 8, 2006, to add related state law claims on behalf of a putative class of KFC AUMs employed in Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. On Oct. 24, 2006, plaintiffs moved to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA action, and KFC Corp. did not oppose the motion. On June 4, 2007, the District Court decertified the collective action and dismissed all opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice. Subsequently, plaintiffs filed 27 new cases around the country, most of which alleged a statewide putative collective/class action. Plaintiffs also filed 324 individual arbitrations with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). KFC filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to transfer all 28 pending cases to a single district court for coordinated pretrial proceedings pursuant to the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. KFC also filed a motion with the Minnesota District Court to enjoin the 324 AAA arbitrations on the ground that Plaintiffs waived the right to arbitrate by their participation in the Minnesota (Parler) litigation. On Jan. 3, 2008, the JPML granted KFC's motion to transfer all of the pending court cases to the Minnesota District Court for discovery and pre-trial proceedings. On Jan. 4, 2008, KFC's motion to enjoin the 324 arbitrations on the ground that plaintiffs have waived their right to arbitrate was granted. On Aug. 30, 2008, KFC and counsel for plaintiffs entered into a settlement in principle to resolve this matter. On Nov. 11, 2008, the parties entered into a formal Settlement Agreement and Release. On Nov. 20, 2008, the court entered an Order Granting Final Judgment, according to the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Continues to Face Suits by Calif. RGMs ------------------------------------------------------------- Taco Bell Corp., a concept owned and operated by YUM! Brands, Inc., continues to face putative class action lawsuits filed on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers ("RGMs") . On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action lawsuit styled, "Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by a Taco Bell RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate- owned restaurants in California from August 2002, to the present. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. As of Sept. 7, 2006, both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County. Discovery is underway. Based on plaintiffs' revised class definition in their class certification motion, Taco Bell removed the case to federal court in San Diego on Aug. 29, 2008. Plaintiffs have sought to remand the case back to state court and the court took the matter under submission without a hearing on Nov. 17, 2008. No further updates were disclosed in the company's Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 27, 2008. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 35,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. Through the five concepts of KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, LJS and A&W (the Concepts), the company develops, operates, franchises and licenses a worldwide system of restaurants, which prepare, package and sell a menu of food items. In all five of its Concepts, the company either operates units or they are operated by independent franchisees or licensees under the terms of franchise or license agreements. In addition, the company owns non-controlling interests in Unconsolidated Affiliates who operate similar to franchisees. New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- BALTIMORE, MD -- 02/27/09 -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced 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 accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's secondary public offering of common stock for $57.25 per share ("Offering") 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 and had failed to properly write down impaired goodwill on the assets it was acquiring. According to the complaint, during late 2008 and early 2009, as these inadequacies and failures by the Company were revealed, the value of Chesapeake Energy's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. 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 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE:CHK) stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering"). The Complaint charges that Chesapeake and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering was materially false because it failed to disclose the following: -- Chesapeake's exposure to natural gas price declines had not been adequately limited by Chesapeake's hedging actions prior to the Offering; -- that Chesapeake had entered into hedging contracts with Lehman Brothers, an underwriter in the offering, though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial condition, it would be unable to fulfill its financial commitment; -- prior to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging activities had been significantly running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price; -- Chesapeake's lease brokers, had been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements; and -- Chesapeake was failing to write down impaired goodwill on the assets it was acquiring. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- HARTFORD, CT -- (Marketwire - February 27, 2009) -- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK) stock pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary offering (the "Offering"). The Complaint charges that Chesapeake and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering was materially false because it failed to disclose the following: -- Chesapeake's exposure to natural gas price declines had not been adequately limited by Chesapeake's hedging actions prior to the Offering; -- that Chesapeake had entered into hedging contracts with Lehman Brothers, an underwriter in the offering, though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial condition, it would be unable to fulfill its financial commitment; -- prior to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging activities had been significantly running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price; -- Chesapeake's lease brokers, had been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements; and -- Chesapeake was failing to write down impaired goodwill on the assets it was acquiring. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com INTREPID POTASH: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or the "Company") (NYSE:IPI) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Intrepid securities who purchased pursuant or traceable to the April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the Company's initial public offering the educational credentials of the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer were affirmatively misrepresented. According to the complaint, on February 11, 2009, after the Company revealed that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his educational credentials and was resigning, the value of Intrepid Potash's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com NUTRACEA INC: The Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY, Feb 27, 2009 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- The Rosen Law Firm announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of NutraCea common stock during the period from August 14, 2007 through and including February 23, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona as case no 2:09-cv-00406-FJM. The complaint charges NutraCea and certain of its officers and directors with violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially inaccurate financial statements to the investing public. On February 23, 2009, NutraCea announced that it would be restating revenue for the quarterly periods from the second quarter of 2007 through the fourth quarter of 2008 and for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. The restatement is due to NutraCea's improper recognition of revenue on two transactions in 2007. Of the approximately $22.2 million of revenue reported for 2007, NutraCea estimates that $4.6 million will be reversed. News of the pending restatement caused NutraCea's stock price to fall significantly, damaging investors. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ ROCHESTER FUND: Glancy Binkow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- LOS ANGELES, Feb 27, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Notice is hereby given that Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. ("Oppenheimer") on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester" or the "Fund") from February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in a more than 30% decline in the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (RMUNX), B Shares (RMUBX) and C Shares (RMUCX). The complaint further 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. This caused the Trusts to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. Consequently, the Fund was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions and accept prices significantly below the values at which the bonds were carried on its books. Although this risk factor was always present wherever inverse floaters were employed, it was not disclosed in any of the Prospectuses, which were filed as part of Registration Statements with respect to the sale of the Funds shares. Plaintiff alleges that this lack of disclosure caused the Fund's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters. 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. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com ROCHESTER FUND: Squitieri & Fearon Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Feb. 27, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The following statement was issued by Squitieri & Fearon, LLP: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that Squitieri & Fearon has instituted a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester" or the "Fund") (Nasdaq:RMUNX) (Nasdaq:RMUCX) (Nasdaq:RMUBX) from February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Rochester and its manager, Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. ("Oppenheimer") and certain of its Trustees misled investors about the risks of investing in Rochester which resulted in an over 30% decline in the Fund's value. The Complaint further 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. This caused the Trusts to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. In order to do so, the Fund was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions and accepted prices far below the values at which the bonds were carried on its books. This risk factor was always present wherever inverse floaters were employed. However, no disclosure was made in any of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares. Because of this lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. For more information, contact: Lee Squitieri (lee@sfclasslaw.com) Squitieri & Fearon, LLP Phone: (212) 421-6492 ROCHESTER FUND: The Rosen Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- February 27, 2009: 08:00 PM ET -- Marketwire -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that a securities class action lawsuit was commenced on behalf of purchasers of A, B and C shares of Rochester Fund Municipals ("Rochester Fund" or the "Fund") (NASDAQ: RMUNX) (NASDAQ: RMUBX) (NASDAQ: RMUCX) from February 26, 2006 through October 21, 2008 ("Class Period"). The complaint alleges that Rochester Fund, its manager Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. and certain officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by misleading investors about the risks of investing in the Fund. The Complaint asserts that the Registration Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose certain risks concerning Inverse Floaters in connection with the Fund, which existed during the Class Period. The Complaint asserts that on October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a Prospectus Supplement that finally disclosed the material and relevant risks concerning the Fund's Inverse Floaters. The Complaint asserts that this adverse disclosure caused the Fund's shares to fall, damaging investors. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ ROYAL BANK: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- February 27, 2009 01:24 PM Eastern Time -- SAN DIEGO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/rbs/)announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc ("RBS" or the "Company") (NYSE:RBS) publicly traded securities during the period between June 26, 2007 and January 19, 2009 (the "Class Period"), including purchasers or acquirers of the preferred American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of RBS. The complaint charges RBS, certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of certain RBS offerings with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. RBS is a holding company of The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and National Westminster Bank plc, which are United Kingdom- based clearing banks. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants falsely reassured investors that RBS was well capitalized when, in fact, the Company was effectively insolvent as a result of impaired assets, bad loans, and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN AMRO ("ABN"). On May 11, 2008, Times Online reported that the SEC was investigating RBS over its exposure to American sub-prime mortgages. On October 7, 2008, news began to emerge that the British government was holding talks with major banks, including RBS, concerning the possibility of government funding, and on November 28, 2008, RBS announced that the government would take majority control of the bank, buying a 57.9% stake in the Company. In December 2008, it was revealed that RBS had lost half a billion dollars in the Madoff scandal. Then, on January 19, 2009, RBS announced that it expected to lose approximately �28 billion in 2008, in large part due to the write-off of goodwill associated with ABN as well as charges associated with bad loans, the biggest loss in British corporate history. Thereafter, as the truth regarding the Company's deteriorating financial results began to emerge, the prices of RBS's publicly traded securities declined significantly. According to the complaint, defendants' statements during the Class Period were materially false and misleading for failing to disclose the following: -- the Company's portfolio of debt securities was impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- the Company had failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its debt securities; -- the Company's capital base was not adequate enough to withstand the significant deterioration in the subprime market and, as a result, RBS would be forced to raise significant amounts of additional capital; -- the Company failed to properly report the goodwill associated with the ABN acquisition; and -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the goodwill associated with the ABN acquisition. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of RBS publicly traded securities during the Class Period, including purchasers of ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statements issued in connection with certain RBS offerings. 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/rbs/ ********* 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 * * *