/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090310.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 48 Headlines ACS STATE: Faces Litigation in Maryland Over Speed Cameras CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Md. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Federal Securities Suits in Maryland CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Property Damages Suit Settlement Approved DAVE & BUSTER: Wins Appellate Court Ruling in Tip Pool Lawsuit DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers ENRON CORP: Claims Dismissed Against Defendants in Texas Lawsuit JARDEN CORP: May 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement KIA MOTORS: Law Firm Files Friend Of The Court Brief in Pa. Case KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Product Defects MONACO COACH: Faces Lawsuit in Oregon Alleging WARN Violations NATIONAL CITY: Shareholders Get Nothing in Proposed Settlement PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Texas Appeals Court Upholds Suit Settlement WATERS CORP: To Defend Dearborn Heights Retirement System's Suit WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 27 Hearing Set for AWP Settlement WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing WELLS FARGO: Judge Considers Arguments in Litigation Over Bonds New Securities Fraud Cases GENERAL ELECTRIC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit Filing ING GROEP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing LEVEL 3 COMMS: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing LEVEL 3 COMMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo. SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing SUNTRUST BANKS: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* ACS STATE: Faces Litigation in Maryland Over Speed Cameras ---------------------------------------------------------- ACS State and Local Solutions Inc. is facing a purported class- action lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court over a per- ticket fee Hank Silverberg of WTOP reports. For every $40 speed camera citation in Montgomery County, the company makes $16.25, according to the WTOP report. The class-action suit was being pursued by William F. Askinazi on behalf of people who received tickets for violations in Montgomery County, Chevy Chase Village and Gaithersburg, reports WTOP. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit in Md. ------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc. faces a consolidated class- action suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings Plan. The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in Maryland (the Consolidated Action), allege that the defendants, in violation of various sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment, by failing to properly provide accurate information about the investment, by failing to properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly monitor other fiduciaries. The Consolidated Action seeks to compel the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in Central Maryland. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Federal Securities Suits in Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc. faces federal securities class- action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Three federal securities class action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation Energy between Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class actions generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class actions also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class actions seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages. A lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed in the New York or Maryland securities class action lawsuits pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Constellation Energy and other defendants have accordingly not been required to respond to the complaints or take other action to defend the litigation. The Southern District of New York has granted the defendant's motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the District of Maryland, to be coordinated with the securities class action filed there, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in Central Maryland. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Property Damages Suit Settlement Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- The Baltimore City Circuit Court, in December 2008, approved the settlement agreement in a class-action suit against a subsidiary of Constellation Energy Group Inc. In November 2007, a class-action complaint was filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court alleging that the subsidiary's ash placement operations at the third party site damaged surrounding properties. The complaint seeks injunctive and remedial relief relating to the alleged contamination, unspecified compensatory damages for any personal injuries and property damages associated with the alleged contamination, and unspecified punitive damages. In September 2008, the company entered into a non-binding agreement with representatives for the class action plaintiffs and, as a result, recorded a liability for the anticipated settlement. On Oct. 31, 2008, the company entered into a definitive settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court in December 2008, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10- K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in Central Maryland. DAVE & BUSTER: Wins Appellate Court Ruling in Tip Pool Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 12:43 p.m. PT, Thurs., March. 5, 2009 -- MarketWire -- DALLAS, TX -- March 5, 2009 -- In a case closely watched by the restaurant and hospitality industry, Dallas-based Dave & Buster's, Inc. has won a California appellate court ruling affirming the restaurant's policy requiring waitstaff to contribute a portion of their tips to a pool to be shared with bartenders. The ruling this week, in the Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, has turned back efforts to place strict limits on participation in the traditional practice of mandatory tip pools. Celeste Yeager, a labor and employment partner in the Dallas office of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, represented Dave & Buster's as lead counsel in both the trial and appellate courts. The class action, "Aaron Budrow v. Dave & Busters of California, Inc.," involved an estimated 4,000 current and former Dave & Buster's employees in California and challenged the restaurant chain's policy of requiring servers to contribute 1 percent of their gross sales to "tip pools," which then are shared with bartenders. Mr. Budrow, a former cocktail server, and the others claimed the policy violated the state's business and professions code, but lost the case in the trial court. The appellate decision upholds the lower court ruling. Specifically, the court found no requirement in California law that money from tip pools should be shared among those employees who provide "direct" table service only, as Mr. Budrow and the others claimed. "The court called this whole notion of direct versus indirect service an 'artificial controversy' and it's absolutely correct in that regard," says Ms. Yeager. "The court specifically noted that the California Labor Code does not make a distinction between the duties performed by employees, nor does it contain a requirement that tip pools are limited to those employees providing direct table service." The California Restaurant Association and the California Hotel & Lodging Association filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Dave & Buster's. "Although the use of tip pools is a longstanding practice in the hospitality industry, and has benefited countless workers, it is a practice that has received an unfair amount of scrutiny," adds Ms. Yeager. "It is a relief to all involved to finally have a ruling that spells out what constitutes a legal tip pool in California and that it is the employer's prerogative to determine which non-management employees should participate." Celebrating over 26 years of operations, Dave & Buster's was founded in 1982 and is one of the country's premier entertainment/dining concepts with 52 locations throughout the United States and in Canada. More information on the Company is available at www.daveandbusters.com. Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, an AmLaw 200 firm celebrating 100 years in 2009 and one of the Southwest's largest full-service law firms, has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston and Mexico City. Gardere provides legal services to private and public companies and individuals in areas of energy, hospitality, litigation, corporate, tax, environmental, labor and employment, intellectual property and financial services. For more details, contact: Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP Phone: 214.999.3000 Fax: 214.999.4667 Web site: http://www.gardere.com DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces Lawsuit Over Failure to Reimburse Drivers --------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 3:04 p.m. PT, Fri., March. 6, 2009 -- MarketWire -- MINNEAPOLIS, MN -- On March 4, 2009, two former employees of Domino's Pizza, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that Domino's violated state and federal law by failing to reimburse employees for expenses they incurred while delivering pizzas. Under Minnesota law, employers have to reimburse employees for their travel expenses. According to the lawsuit, Domino's failed to adequately reimburse its drivers, instead paying a 'per delivery' amount which was not sufficient to cover drivers' actual costs. The lawsuit also involves minimum wage claims. Under both Minnesota law and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, all employees are entitled to be paid the minimum wage "free and clear" of obligations to their employer. The lawsuit alleges that by requiring pizza delivery drivers to pay for their own automobile expenses, Domino's also failed to pay their drivers the minimum wage. Plaintiff's attorney E. Michelle Drake explained, "The lawsuit alleges that Domino's required employees to subsidize their business by paying for their own automobile and gas expenses. Minnesota law forbids employers from requiring employees to pay these kinds of expenses. What makes this situation even more egregious is that many Domino's drivers were only supposed to be paid the minimum wage in the first place. In reality, Domino's drivers were paid even less than the minimum wage because they had to pay travel expenses out of their own pockets." Drake continued, "One of the reasons the law exists is to prevent companies like Domino's from using employees' money to subsidize their cost of doing business. We hope to recover the money that rightfully belongs to the employees." Plaintiffs are represented by E. Michelle Drake and Paul J. Lukas from the law firm of Nichols Kaster, PLLP. Nichols Kaster has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. For more details, contact: Nichols Kaster, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612.256.3200 or 877.448.0492 Fax: 612.338.4878 e-mail: intake@nka.com Web site: http://www.nka.com/ ENRON CORP: Claims Dismissed Against Defendants in Texas Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has thrown out all claims against Credit Suisse Group AG, Barclays Plc and Merrill Lynch, now part of Bank of America Corp., in a long-running $40 billion securities class-action suit launched by shareholders in the wake of Enron Corp.'s colossal collapse, Law360 reports. On March 5, 2009, Judge Harmon granted the summary judgment motions by the three financial institutions seeking to dismiss all claims against them, according to the Law360 report. In general, the plaintiffs in the case, led by the University of California, contend the banks played a role in accounting misdeeds that led to Enron's bankruptcy, Reuters reports. Investors, seeking deep-pocketed defendants once Enron imploded, filed the original case in April 2002 and sought $40 billion in damages from an array of financial firms, contending they had violated securities laws through complex transactions with Enron, Reuters reported. JARDEN CORP: May 18 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A May 18, 2009 final hearing has been set for the settlement of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to the company's plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. In January and February 2006, purported class action suits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. The suits were subsequently consolidated. The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc., on June 29, 2005. On June 9, 2006, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs, who filed an amended consolidated complaint against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company. The suit alleges, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the defendants' dismissal motion. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of their request. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its earlier denial of their dismissal request. On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking class certification. On March 6, 2008, the Court issued an opinion certifying a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005 through Jan. 11, 2006. On Nov. 20, 2008, the parties reached an agreement to settle these securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Pursuant to the settlement, which is subject to court approval, the company's insurance carriers will pay $8 million into a settlement fund and the Defendants will obtain full releases from all claims in connection with the litigation. The plaintiffs' counsel will seek a portion of the settlement fund to cover attorneys' fees and expenses. On Jan. 28, 2009, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final settlement hearing for May 18, 2009. Any further litigation in the securities class action has been stayed pending final court approval of the settlement, 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. The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-3221 Fax: 212-508-3695 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: 212-685-0969 Fax: 212-685-2306 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Stephen William Greiner, Esq. Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-728-8000 Fax: 212-728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com KIA MOTORS: Law Firm Files Friend Of The Court Brief in Pa. Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The West Windsor-based firm of Pelletierri, Rabstein and Altman has filed a friend of the court brief in support of more than 10,000 Kia car owners whose class-action lawsuit over faulty brake systems is being heard by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Lisa Coryell of The Times of Trenton reports. The move was solicited by two of the nation's leading consumer rights organizations, the National Consumer Law Center, Inc., and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, according to The Times of Trenton report. "It's an honor to be chosen by these groups," Michael Coren, Esq., an attorney for the firm tells The Times of Trenton. "The issues in this case are extremely important. Consumers have a right to hold companies responsible for defective products and they have a right to band together to have a meaningful day in court. Previously Law.com reported that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider four issues of first impression in a suit over Kia Motors America Inc. sedans with defective braking systems. The issues of first impression, as stated by Kia Motors and adopted by the Supreme Court in two separate allocatur orders issued July 11, 1008 are: -- whether the fact-specific claim that the class representative's brake express warranty was breached can be certified and tried on a classwide basis; -- whether Kia's due process rights were violated when trial court Judge Mark I. Bernstein entered judgment for the class without requiring individual proof of the breach of the class members' express limited warranty contracts; -- whether the trial court's award of a $1 million risk multiplier to attorney fees violated U.S. Supreme Court precedent and if Pennsylvania courts must follow U.S. Supreme Court precedent about federal fee shifting statutes; -- whether an attorney fee can be awarded under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) -- which requires that fee awards be entered as part of the judgment -- when final judgment was entered at the trial court level before the fee award is entered. Case Background In 2004, the Philadelphia law firm Donovan Searles revealed that the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in the case of "Samuel- Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2199, Jan. Term 2001," ordered that Notice of Pendency of Class Action be provided to all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased or leased a model year 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000 Kia Sephia between Jan. 17, 1997, and Jan. 17, 2001 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2004). In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed the Sephia 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 model automobiles have defects in their braking system. The plaintiffs claim that this is a breach of warranty and a violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act. The plaintiffs had sought to recover money damages from defendant, which may include the costs of repairs and compensation for the reduction in vehicle value. In May 2005, a jury awarded $5,641,200 or $600 a piece, to 9,402 class members (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2005). The verdict was rendered following a two-week trial in which the jurors found that there was a common defective design of the brake system of the 1995-2001 Kia Sephia. The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas then confirmed the jury's verdict on behalf of a class of 9,402 Pennsylvania consumers (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007). The case then proceeded to the appellate court. Superior Court's Ruling In Oct. 2007, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the verdict in a non-precedential decision (Class Action Reporter, Oct 31, 2007). According to the report, the court made these opinions in response to Kia Motors' arguments: (1) Kia argued that some of the class members might not be individually entitled to an award and that it was in error to assess $600 for each class member. The court said class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's total cost for brake repairs during the warranty was $596.16, and it was reasonable to multiply $600 for the 9,402 class members to reach the verdict of $5,641,200. "Regardless of whether an individual class member had his or her brakes repaired under warranty by Kia, all class members were entitled to have good brakes on their cars that did not require repeated trips to the dealership for replacement in order to avoid brake failure," the opinion said. (2) Kia argued that the class was improperly certified because it was not certain that each class member relied upon the warranty or that Kia refused to conduct repairs, the opinion said. The Superior Court said the class was properly certified because trial evidence demonstrated that the 1995-2001 Kia Sephias had a defective brake system design, that expert testimony would be needed to prove each claim and that it would strain the court system to litigate each claim individually. (3) Kia also argued that Judge Mark I. Bernstein erred in his jury instructions, but the Superior Court noted that Kia either "won on the issue or failed to object to the charge." (4) The Superior Court also ruled that Judge Bernstein must issue a supplemental 1925(a) opinion to support why he awarded $4.125 million in counsel fees and $267,513 in expenses in January 2006. The Superior Court said both parties would have 30 days after Judge Bernstein issues his 1925(a) opinion to file supplemental briefs in the appellate court. (5) The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff cross-appeal of Judge Bernstein's order denying class certification under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Judge Bernstein ruled that Samuel-Bassett met the requirement for class certification under the commonwealth's rules of civil procedure for her breach of warranty claims but not her consumer protection claim. He found that Samuel-Bassett had met all the requirements of class certification under Pennsylvania's rules of civil procedure for the breach of warranty claims but not consumer protection claims because the commonality requirement was not met and there were not questions of law or fact common to the individual class members. The Superior Court panel -- comprised of Judges John T. Bender, Susan Peikes Gantman and Richard B. Klein -- said in its recent decision that there was no palpable abuse of discretion by Judge Bernstein in his award decision and that it should be upheld. The panel echoed Judge Bernstein's reasoning that the plaintiffs attorneys' award was reasonable considering the rates the defense counsel charged. The panel also echoed Judge Bernstein's dismissal of the chief defense witness used to challenge the plaintiffs attorney fees as dishonest: John Marquess of Legal Cost Control Inc., a Haddonfield, N.J., firm that helps entities reduce and manage legal and accounting fees. Mr. Marquess said that the plaintiffs' fee request should be reduced by 86 percent to $662,667.15 for a case that was litigated for five years, during which it was removed to federal court, remanded to state court and tried, The Legal Intelligencer previously reported. Kia's appellate counsel in Pennsylvania, a team of attorneys from the Lamb McErlane firm in West Chester, argued in their petition for allowance of appeal on the merits of the case that classwide proof of violation of an express warranty is impossible because express warranties can only be "breached under the specific factual circumstances and events unique to a particular vehicle and a specific customer." According to court papers, Kia argued that the proof of the breach of the class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's individual express limited warranty can't be extrapolated as the evidence of proof of the breach of the other class members' warranty contracts. Kia argued that the only classwide evidence was its warranty claims records, and the records showed that it honored its warranties by paying for repairs. Kia also argued that the Superior Court panel made its decision in the case as if the case was within the context of an implied warranty case, not an express warranty case. "There are some pretty important issues here," William H. Lamb, Esq., of Lamb McErlane said in a joint interview with co-counsel James C. Sargent Jr., also of Lamb McErlane. "And Kia's position is very simple. It has always tried to take care of its customers." "If the existing decisions are permitted to stand, they are an open invitation to plaintiffs attorneys to sue on breach of express warranty claims in Pennsylvania, knowing that they only need prove breach as to a single named plaintiff to obtain a multi-million dollar verdict as to everyone who has purchased a product, where every payment by the manufacturer under warranty may be used as proof that a wrong has occurred and not, as in the truth, that the warranty has been honored," Kia's appellate brief said. The plaintiffs' reply brief on the merits of the case reported that Pennsylvania courts have "distinguished themselves by rejecting sweetheart settlements coveted by corporate defendants and accepted by accommodating plaintiffs attorneys" like the $62,925 settlement paid to consumers who purchased Sephias in the 47 states besides Florida, New Jersey and Pennsylvania where the plaintiffs attorneys are litigating parallel class actions against Kia. The plaintiffs' attorney Michael D. Donovan, Esq., of Donovan Searles said his co-counsel and he believe that all of the issues of "first impression" raised by Kia have either been waived or are of no consequence. The suit is "Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America Inc." Trial counsel for plaintiffs and the class of Pennsylvania consumers are: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. (mdonovan@donovansearles.com) Donovan Searles, LLC Phone: +1-215-732-6067 or Toll- +1-800-619-1677 Fax: +1-215-732-8060 Alan M. Feldman, Esq. (afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com) Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock, 1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-567-8300 1-888-275-0296 Fax: 215-567-8333 - and - James A. Francis, Esq. (jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com) Francis & Mailman, P.C. 19th Floor Land Title Building, 100 South Broad St. Philadelphia, PA 19110, Phone: 215-735-8600 Fax: 215-940-8000 KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 19, 2009 trial has been set for the case captioned "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico)." This case involves a purported class-action suit against Kinder Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. The purported class is comprised of current and former owners, during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands, the United States of America, and those private royalty interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit. The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012." The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class Action. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was denied. Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review. In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review. The petition was denied in December 2007. The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008. The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan did not breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the claimed duty to market carbon dioxide. The jury also found that Kinder Morgan breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and found compensatory damages of $0.3 million and punitive damages of $1.2 million. On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the judgment and granting a new trial in the case. Kinder Morgan filed a petition with the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking that court to authorize an immediate appeal of the new trial orders. No action has yet been taken by the New Mexico Supreme Court on that petition. Subject to potential further review by New Mexico Supreme Court, the district court scheduled a new trial to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009, 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. Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150 terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The company operates through four segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals. LEXMARK INT'L: Continues to Faces Lawsuits Over Product Defects --------------------------------------------------------------- Lexmark International, Inc. remains party to various purported consumer class-action lawsuits alleging, among other things, various product defects and false and deceptive advertising claims. The Company did not disclose specific details regarding the class actions in its Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Lexmark International, Inc. -- http://www.lexmark.co.uk/-- is a developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing and imaging solutions for offices and homes. Lexmark's products include laser printers, inkjet printers, multifunction devices, and associated supplies, services and solutions. The company develops and owns most of the technology for its laser and inkjet products and related solutions. Lexmark also sells dot matrix printers for printing single and multi-part forms by business users. It operates in the office products industry. The company is primarily managed along Business and Consumer market segments. MONACO COACH: Faces Lawsuit in Oregon Alleging WARN Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Monaco Coach Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, KVAL.com reports. The suit is captioned, "Folk v. Monaco Coach Corporation, Case No.6:2009-cv-06060," which was filed by Ronald C. Folk on March 5, 2009. Mr. Folk, a former employee is claiming that the company did not give employees the legally required notice that the company was shutting down, according to the KVAL.com report. KVAL.com reported that Monaco notified 2,000 employees on March 2, 2009 that they had been terminated from their jobs. Most of the employees had been on furlough since late last year. The company filed for bankruptcy on March 5, 2009. Mr. Folk seeks payment for those 60 days. The suit is filed as a class-action case, seeking to extend the complaint to other Monaco Coach employees, reports KVAL.com. NATIONAL CITY: Shareholders Get Nothing in Proposed Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement in a class-action suit against National City Corp. would give the bank's shareholders nothing while paying their attorneys $1.2 million, Dan Gearino of The Columbus Dispatch reports. According to court documents obtained by The Columbus Dispatch, the proposed deal, which was filed in a state court in Delaware, would resolve a lawsuit brought by shareholders across the country that alleged that National City's merger with PNC Financial Services Group was made at a significant discount and was unfair to shareholders. The shareholders, including The Dispatch Printing Co., the owner of The Columbus Dispatch, would be unable to opt out of the settlement, which would bar them from taking other legal action related to the merger. The Columbus Dispatch reported that PNC made a deal to buy National City in October 2008. By that time, National City's share price had collapsed from more than $38 in October 2007, to $2.75 in late October, as the company dealt with its exposure to subprime mortgages. Pittsburgh-based PNC paid $2.23 per share, or $5.58 billion. Shareholders lost more than $16 billion worth of equity in the year between the disclosure about National City's exposure to subprime mortgages and the sale to PNC. Neither the law firm that proposed the settlement, which was filed last month, nor PNC would comment. The law firm is Rigrodsky & Long of Wilmington, Del., reports The Columbus Dispatch. Shareholders who object to the terms of the proposal have the opportunity to file comments before April 20, 2009, according to The Columbus Dispatch. PEDERNALES ELECTRIC: Texas Appeals Court Upholds Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Texas Third District Court of Appeals in Austin has upheld the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed against Pedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) by a group of its members in July 2007, Newstreamz San Marcos reports. Settlement of the lawsuit was reached through a final judgment signed by the trial judge in May 2008, with an appeal of the settlement filed by David Allen Hall soon following. The three- justice panel addressed each of the 10 issues presented in the Hall appeal, affirming the trial court's judgment in the case, according to the Newstreamz San Marcos report. Case Background The Class Action Reporter reported on May 21, 2007, that a Texas customer filed a class action lawsuit against the officers of PEC in the 200th Texas District Court of Travis County alleging "flagrant breaches of fiduciary duty that have gone uninterrupted for decades" amongst PEC's leadership (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2008). The suit further alleged that PEC overpays its managers in breach of fiduciary duty to its members and that the cooperative's officers are too secretive in their financial dealings. Attorney Jan Soifer, Esq., filed the class action suit on behalf of Lee Beck Lawrence, a co-operative member since 1994, and others in similar situation. The suit named 19 PEC officers and directors. The suit sought damages of all "excessive compensation and benefits and all improper expenditures" and "exemplary damages based on malice and/or malfeasance." The CAR report noted that PEC, at that time, had about 213,000 members and had estimated assets in excess of $1 billion in 2006. It reportedly had revenues of about $413 million and paid executive compensation of $829,000 in 2005. The lawsuit also sought removal of the entire board of directors, reduction in executive compensation, return of dividends to members and other governance changes. According to a subsequent CAR report on April 24, 2008, the excessive compensation issue at PEC had led to the forced testimony of top PEC executives -- including Bennie Fuelberg, Will Dahmann and former board president W.W. "Bud" Burnett. All three resigned after revelations about the pay of and perks enjoyed by co-op executives and directors. WATERS CORP: To Defend Dearborn Heights Retirement System's Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Waters Corp. intends to defend a class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System against the company in November 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its projected revenues and earnings, its effective tax rates and the level of business activity in Japan between Jan. 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, when it released earnings for the fourth quarter of 2007. The complaint asserts that the company and Messrs. Berthiaume and Ornell violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose the information. The plaintiff class is allegedly comprised of purchasers of common stock that were injured during the time period stated above. In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund ABC/IBT filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com-- is an analytical instrument manufacturer. Through its Waters Division, Waters designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid chromatography, referred to as liquid chromatography, and mass spectrometry instrument systems and support products, including chromatography columns and other consumable products. The Company operates in two business segments: Waters Division and TA Division (TA). Through its TA division, Waters designs, manufactures sells and services thermal analysis and rheometry and calorimetry instruments. The company is also a developer and supplier of software-based products that interface with the Company's instruments, as well as other instrument manufacturers instruments. In July 2008, the Company completed the purchase of the net assets of VTI Corporation. In December 2008, Waters Corporation completed the purchase of the net assets of Analytical Products Group, Inc. (APG). WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: April 27 Hearing Set for AWP Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A April 27, 2009 final fairness hearing is scheduled for the settlement agreement in a consolidated lawsuit against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products. Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456." The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and programs. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide others with such drugs. The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class action complaint on April 9, 2004. The defendants in the consolidated suit have been divided into two groups. The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a class-action against the drug company defendants. Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One" defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis. Classes were certified against these defendants, a trial has been completed with respect to some of the claims against this group of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and many of the claims have been settled. The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track Two Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action. The total amount of the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is $125 million. On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement. The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is confidential. A final hearing on the fairness of the settlement agreement is scheduled for April 27, 2009, 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. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products. It operates through three business segments: Generic, Brand and Distribution. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for summary judgment in the consolidated suit "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation," are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of 2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Feb. 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Beginning July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson, The Rugby Group and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. As of March 8, 2006, approximately 42 cases had been filed against the defendants. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 00-1383." On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted a motion by Watson to dismiss the case and entered rulings limiting the theories under which the plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court. The defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent issues are involved in the appeal. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion to transfer. The appellate court has not yet ruled on the motion or the pending appeal. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro. These actions also generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the actions. The plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the New York action. In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the appellate court reversed the order of dismissal. On June 8, 2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, "In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220," the California Court of Appeal granted on July 21, 2004, in part and denied in part the defendants' petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to the California appellate court's ruling, the majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint application to stay the California case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case. In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay. The court denied the motion to lift the stay, but agreed to consider the matter again at a status conference. A status conference was held on May 16, 2008, at which the court scheduled a further status conference for Dec. 12, 2008. Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. The parties intend to file motions for summary judgment, which are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of 2009. The trial is scheduled for Jan. 24, 2010. The consolidated suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge David G. Trager, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert S. Schachter, Esq. (rschachter@zsz.com) Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (jtusa@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 Representing the company is: David E. Everson, Esq. (deverson@stinsonmoheck.com) Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C. 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-842-8600 Fax: 816-691-3495 WELLS FARGO: Judge Considers Arguments in Litigation Over Bonds --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel Stack of the Madison County Circuit Court is set to rule on the certification of a class-action case over nursing home construction bonds that was filed against Wells Fargo & Co. and Fifth Third Bancorp, Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports. Attorney Fred Thompson, Esq. of Motley Rice in South Carolina seeks to represent 2,013 bond buyers in claims against Wells Fargo and Fifth Third. He also seeks damages from Indianapolis accounting firm Blue and Company and Kansas City bond counsel firm Gilmore and Bell, according to The St. Clair Record report. Mr. Thompson claims the defendants ran a Ponzi scheme that left buyers in 38 states with worthless bonds. He initially sued 31 defendants, but some ceased to exist and others he didn't pursue, The St. Clair Record reported. New Securities Fraud Cases GENERAL ELECTRIC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:35:24 GMT -- BALTIMORE, MD -- 03/06/09 -- 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 the common stock of General Electric Co. ("GE" or the "Company") (NYSE: GE) during the period between January 23, 2009 and February 27, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that it dividend was not sustainable and, rather, represented that its operating model would assure continued payment of the Company's dividend at it then-current rate. According to the complaint, after the Company revealed on February 27, 2009 that it would cut its dividend by more than two thirds, GE'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 HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sat, 07 Mar 2009 02:15:24 GMT - LOS ANGELES - (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 District of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland" or the "Company") (NYSE:HPY), between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint charges Heartland and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Heartland together with its subsidiaries, provides bank card payment processing services to more than 250,000 merchants and businesses nationwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose: -- that the Company's safety and security measures designed to protect consumers' financial records and data from security breaches were inadequate and ineffective; -- that the Company's payment processing system had been infected with malware as early as May 2008; -- that defendants were made aware of a potential breach of Heartland's payment processing network; -- that, as a result of the above, the Company faced liabilities associated with the breach and increasing costs associated with implementing appropriate security measures; -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company was at risk of losing customers; and -- that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. On January 20, 2009, Heartland revealed that the Company's payment processing network had been breached by malicious software, exposing tens of millions of debit cardholders to fraud. As consumers used their debit cards, so-called "sniffer software" had been capturing, among other things, card numbers, expiration dates and cardholder names. According to an article published that same day in The New York Times, the breach occurred as early as May 2008. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $1.26 per share, or 8.16%, to close on January 20, 2009, at $14.18 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Over the next two days, shares of Heartland further declined $6.00 per share, or an additional 42.31%, to close on January 22, 2009 at $8.18 per share. On February 24, 2009, Heartland again shocked investors when it reported earnings for the 2008 fiscal year and fourth quarter. The Company posted a lower-than-expected quarterly profit and disclosed that it might incur losses from the recent security breach of its system and that the Company could not estimate the amount of losses that might be incurred in connection with the security breach. On this news, shares of Heartland declined $2.31 per share, or 30.12%, to close on February 24, 2009, at $5.34 per share, on unusually heavy volume. During the Class Period, shares of Heartland's common stock declined $21.84 per share, or approximately 80%, from its Class Period high of $27.19 per share on September 19, 2008. 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 ING GROEP: Stull Stull Announces Securities Fraud Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- 12:16 p.m. PT, Fri., March. 6, 2009 -- NEW YORK, NY -- Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who acquired the 6.375% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities ("6.375% Securities") and/or the 8.50% ING Perpetual Hybrid Capital Securities ("8.50% Securities") (NYSE: ING) (NYSE: ISF) (NYSE: IGK) (collectively, the "Securities") of ING Groep N.V. ("ING" or the "Company") pursuant or traceable to a false registration statement and two prospectuses (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 and June 2008 offerings of the Securities, respectively (the "Offerings"). The complaint charges ING, certain of its affiliates, certain of its officers and directors, the underwriters of the Offerings and its auditor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who acquired the 6.375% Securities and/or the 8.50% Securities of ING pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's June 2007 and June 2008 Offerings (the "Class"). The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offerings pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectuses. Specifically, ING sold 41,800,000 6.375% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of over $1 billion in the June 2007 Offering and 80 million 8.50% Securities at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $2.0 billion in the June 2008 Offering. The Registration Statement/Prospectuses incorporated ING's financial results for 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Then, after the Offerings were completed, ING announced (EURO)2 billion in impairment charges associated with its exposure to bad loans, mortgage-related securities and other "pressurized" assets, causing the prices of the Securities issued in the Offerings to decline. According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and -- ING was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the billions of dollars raised in the Offerings, the Company would have to raise an additional (EURO)10 billion by selling equity in the Company to the Dutch government. For more details, contact: Aaron Brody, Esq. Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com Web site: http://www.ssbny.com LEVEL 3 COMMS: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 12:14 p.m. PT, Thurs., March. 5, 2009 - MarketWire - ATLANTA, GA - Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf all persons or entities who purchased shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LVLT) between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company failed to adequately disclose the problems it was having integrating various companies Level 3 had purchased and that these problems were negatively impacting revenue growth. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com LEVEL 3 COMMS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- March 06, 2009 06:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- NEW YORK --(BUSINESS WIRE) -- Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Level 3 Communications, Inc. ("Level 3" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LVLT) during the period between February 8, 2007 and October 23, 2007, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Level 3 and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants' public statements failed to disclose that: -- the Company's efforts to integrate recently acquired companies were failing; -- the Company's service management processes were breaking down, resulting in longer response times to resolve customers' network service issues; -- steps taken by the Company to remedy the problems were unsuccessful, and were in fact further complicating them; -- as a result, the Company did not have adequate provisioning capability to convert its increasing sales into revenue generating service; -- the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and -- as a result of the above, the statements made by the Company and management during the Class Period lacked a reasonable basis. On October 23, 2007, Level 3 shocked the market when it revealed that the Company was unable successfully to integrate the systems and customer-service processes of the numerous companies it had acquired, and that the difficulties the Company faced were causing an increase in service activation times. Also on October 23, 2007, Level 3 revised downward the Company's previously issued guidance for fourth quarter 2007 and full year 2008. On this news, shares of Level 3 declined $1.04 per share, or approximately 24%, to close on October 23, 2007 at $3.28 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more information, contact: Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801 New York, NY 10016-1101 Phone: 212-682-1818 800-497-8076 e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com/ SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:46:40 GMT -- SAN DIEGO -- (Business Wire) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/suntrust/)announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Banks, Inc. ("SunTrust") (NYSE:STI) publicly traded securities during the period between July 22, 2008 and January 21, 2009 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SunTrust is the holding company for SunTrust Bank, which provides various financial services to consumer and corporate customers in the United States. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's financial results and conditions. Specifically, the Company's publicly reported financial results and defendants' statements regarding the Company's business and capital position were materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose that: -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and -- SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it would have to raise an additional $1.4 billion in TARP funds just three weeks later. As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising, SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over $59 per share to less than $14 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SunTrust publicly traded securities during the Class Period (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/suntrust/ SUNTRUST BANKS: The Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, March 6, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Banks, Inc. ("SunTrust") (NYSE:STI) publicly traded securities during the period between July 22, 2008 and January 21, 2009 (the "Class Period") for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements about SunTrust's financial results and conditions. Specifically, the Company's publicly reported financial results and defendants' statements regarding the Company's business and capital position were materially false and/or misleading because they failed to disclose that: -- defendants' assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities, were impaired to a much larger extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and -- SunTrust was not as well capitalized as represented, and, notwithstanding the $3.5 billion the Company received on November 17, 2008 from the Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP"), the Company announced that it would have to raise an additional $1.4 billion in TARP funds just three weeks later. As SunTrust's true condition slowly came to light in a series of write-downs, reserve increases and capital-raising, SunTrust's stock price dropped from a Class Period high of over $59 per share to less than $14 per share. 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 ********* 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 * * *