/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090312.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 50 Headlines BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Stock Lawsuit BROOKLINE BANCORP: Mosca Appeals Dismissal of Complaint in Mass. CARTER'S INC: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Pending in Ill. CARTER'S INC: To Defend Securities Suit Over OshKosh Integration CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Judge OK's Lead Plaintiffs in Subprime Suit COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Pa. CONVERGYS CORP: Still Defends Intervoice Securities Suit in Tex. COVENTRY HEALTH: Harrison Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration LCD LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Nix Direct Purchasers' Claims LEAP WIRELESS: Bid to Junk Amended Securities Suit Due April 9 MAPLE LEAF: Canadian Judge OKs Settlements in Listeriosis Suit MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Judge Approves $69M Agreement in MDL-1663 MASCO CONTRACTOR: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Litigation For $8.5M MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation MOONSHIN TATTOO: Faces Lawsuit Over Peel Region Health Scare PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Missouri Litigation Over Sewer Fees TRUEBEGINNINGS LLC: Settles Tex. Customers' Litigation for $1.5M WEYERHAEUSER CO: OSB Suit Dismissed by Court-Approved Settlement WEYERHAEUSER CO: Ruling on Post-trial Bids in Alder Suit Pending New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing SPRINT NEXTEL: Coughlin Stoia Files Kans. Securities Fraud Suit WESTGATE CAPITAL: Anderson Kill Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ********* BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Mass. Court Certifies Class in Stock Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- MINNEAPOLIS, March 10, 2009 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- Zimmerman Reed announced that shareholder claims against Boston Scientific Company will be allowed to proceed as a class action. On March 10, 2009 Judge Douglas Woodlock, United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued a memorandum certifying a shareholder class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Boston Scientific equity securities between November 20, 2003 and July 15, 2004 (the "Class Period"). At the core of the lawsuit are allegations concerning known manufacturing defects with Boston Scientific's flagship stent product, TAXUS drug-eluting stent. In their lawsuit, the investors allege that Boston Scientific violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by knowingly withholding material information and making misleading statements concerning TAXUS, which artificially inflated the Company's stock and ultimately caused investor losses. In addition, the investors allege that the Company's top executives engaged in improper insider trading and wrongfully enriched themselves in excess of $332 million by selling their personal holdings. The case involves allegations that in 2003 and 2004, medical device-manufacturer Boston Scientific misled investors about its TAXUS device. First, Defendants attributed problems-including patient deaths-with its drug-eluting TAXUS stent and Express2 bare metal coronary stent systems to physician error, despite the fact that the Company had previously determined that the problems were attributable to its internal manufacturing processes. Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that, despite knowing the serious risks associated with the manufacturing problems, the Company chose to delay implementing manufacturing changes until after it launched the flawed device onto the U.S. market, to avoid further FDA scrutiny of the Company's application to put TAXUS on the United States market. The problems caught up with the Company when it was forced to recall TAXUS from the U.S. and international markets three times in the summer of 2004. In reaction, the share price dropped 14.3% in the following three trading days. The Court's Memorandum and Order certifying the Class, and the Consolidated Amended Complaint, are available at http://www.zimmreed.com/boston-scientific. For more details, contact: Carolyn Anderson Zimmerman Reed Phone: 612.965.0318 Web site: http://www.zimmreed.com/boston-scientific BROOKLINE BANCORP: Mosca Appeals Dismissal of Complaint in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carrie E. Mosca appeals the decision of the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts granting Brookline Bancorp, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 21, 2007, Ms. Mosca filed a putative class-action complaint against Brookline Bank in the Superior Court for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Ms. Mosca defaulted on a loan obligation on an automobile that she co-owned. She alleged that the form of notice of sale of collateral that the Bank sent to her after she and the co-owner became delinquent on the loan obligation did not contain information required to be provided to a consumer under the Massachusetts Uniform Commercial Code. The action purported to be brought on behalf of a class of individuals to whom the Bank sent the same form of notice in connection with transactions documented as consumer transactions during the four year period prior to the filing of the Action. The action sought statutory damages, an order restraining the Bank from future use of the form of notice sent to Ms. Mosca, an order barring the Bank from recovering any deficiency from other individuals to whom it sent the same form of notice, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs. The Bank answered denying liability and opposing Plaintiff's motion to certify a class. The Court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in an order dated July 18, 2008. On July 31, 2008, Plaintiff served a motion for summary judgment seeking an award of damages in the amount of $2,928 to her individually. The Bank opposed that motion and moved for summary judgment in its favor. On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank. On Feb. 23, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, 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. Brookline Bancorp, Inc. -- https://www.brooklinebank.com/ -- serves as the holding company for Brookline Bank (Brookline). During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, Brookline operated eighteen full-service banking offices in Brookline, Medford and adjacent communities in Middlesex County and Norfolk County in Massachusetts. Brookline's deposits are gathered from the general public primarily in the communities in which its banking offices are located. CARTER'S INC: Bid to Junk Contract Breach Suit Pending in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss the amended complaint in a class-action lawsuit against Carter's, Inc. for contract breach remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A class-action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 29, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the company claiming breach of contract arising from certain advertising and pricing practices with respect to Carter's brand products purchased by consumers at Carter's retail stores nationally. The complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiff has since filed an amended complaint, alleging breach of contract on behalf of a nationwide class and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims on behalf of Illinois consumers. The company has moved to dismiss the entire amended complaint. On Feb. 3, 2009 the same plaintiff's attorney filed a second, nearly identical action against the company in the same court but in the name of a different plaintiff. The parties filed an agreed upon motion to consolidate this second action with the first case and to stay the need for response in the second case until after the court has ruled upon the pending motion to dismiss, 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 Jan. 3, 2009. Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of apparel for babies and young children in the United States. The company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry, Carter's and OshKosh. Carter's offers multiple product categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other accessories. The company sells its products to national department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount retailers, and as of Dec. 29, 2007, through 228 Carter's and 163 OshKosh outlet and brand retail stores. Under its Carter's brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven. Its Carter's brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail stores. Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart, respectively. CARTER'S INC: To Defend Securities Suit Over OshKosh Integration ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carter's, Inc. intends to defend a class action lawsuit filed on Sept. 16, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that between Feb. 21, 2006 and July 21, 2007, the company made misrepresentations regarding the successful integration of OshKosh into the company's business, and that the share price of the company's stock later fell when the market learned that the integration had not been as successful as represented. Plaintiff Plymouth County Retirement System filed an unopposed motion to be appointed lead counsel on Nov. 18, 2008, and that motion was fully submitted as of Dec. 8, 2008. Plaintiff is waiting for a decision from the court. By stipulation of the parties, no motion to dismiss or other response to the complaint will be due until 60 days after an amended complaint is filed subsequent to lead plaintiff appointment. Following appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, the company intends to file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws, 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 Jan. 3, 2009. Carter's, Inc. -- http://www.carters.com/-- is a marketer of apparel for babies and young children in the United States. The company owns two brand names in the children's apparel industry, Carter's and OshKosh. Carter's offers multiple product categories, including baby, sleepwear, playclothes and other accessories. The company sells its products to national department stores, chain and specialty stores, discount retailers. Under its Carter's brand, the company designs, sources and markets an array of products, primarily for sizes newborn to seven. Its Carter's brand is sold in department stores, national chains, specialty stores, off-price sales channels, and through its Carter's retail stores. Carter's sells its Just One Year and Child of Mine brands through the mass channel at Target and Wal-Mart, respectively. CITIGROUP MORTGAGE: Judge OK's Lead Plaintiffs in Subprime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Thomas H. Boyle of the U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York has approved both the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System and the Greater Kansas City Laborers' Pension Fund to serve as lead plaintiffs in a class- action lawsuit against Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., alleging that the Citigroup unit made false claims to sell mortgage pass-through certificates backed by subprime mortgages, Law360 reports. In his report on March 8, 2009, Judge Boyle also approved naming Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to serve as lead counsel in the lawsuit, according to the Law360 report. COMMONWEALTH MEDICAL: Employees File WARN Violations Suit in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Former employees of Commonwealth Medical Center in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania have sued the hospital, saying they are owed money because they didn't receive any notice when the hospital closed in December 2008, Michael Pound of The Beaver County Times. The suit was filed on March 6, 2009, alleging that the hospital violated the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, which requires that an employer give at least 60 days notice to its workers prior to a mass layoff or the closure of a business. According to the complaint, the workers and their union, the Service Employees International Union's Healthcare Pennsylvania, are seeking up to 60 days' pay for the 200 employees included in the class-action suit. The Beaver County Times reported that the workers have been seeking pay owed by the hospital since it closed in December 2008, about a week after declaring bankruptcy. In January 2009, the union, the hospital and Bridge Healthcare Finance, the Chicago firm that is Commonwealth's largest creditor, reached an agreement to pay the workers money they earned after the filing but prior to the closure. Everyone involved expected a similar agreement that would have covered two weeks' worth of pre-bankruptcy wages, but those talks dissolved in February 2009. At a hearing in February, union attorney Claudia Davidson, Esq. said she would consider pursuing a suit based on the WARN Act, reports The Beaver County Times. In the filing, Ms. Davidson said workers were told on Dec. 11, 2008 that payroll was going to be delayed but all employees were expected to report to work as usual; including in the filing is a memo from hospital Chief Executive Officer John O'Donnell threatening to terminate any worker who failed to show up as per the schedule, The Beaver County Times reports. The suit also says the workers were all dismissed on Dec. 12, 2008, according to the The Beaver County Times report. CONVERGYS CORP: Still Defends Intervoice Securities Suit in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Convergys Corp. continues to defend a consolidated class-action lawsuit against Intervoice, Inc., 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 September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice. Several related class-action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Intervoice during the period from Oct. 12, 1999 through June 6, 2000 (the Class Period). The plaintiffs have filed claims, which were consolidated into one proceeding, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 against Intervoice as well as certain named current and former officers and directors of Intervoice on behalf of the alleged class members. In the complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Intervoice and the named current and former officers and directors issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the financial condition of Intervoice, the results of the merger with Brite and the alleged future business projections of Intervoice. They have asserted that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated stock prices. The District Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' complaint because it lacked the degree of specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards applicable to federal securities litigation. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal in part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit remanded a limited number of issues for further proceedings in the District Court. On Sept. 26, 2006, the District Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of people who purchased Intervoice stock during the Class Period. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Fifth Circuit granted Intervoice's petition to appeal the District Court's decision to grant Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class. On Jan. 8, 2008, the Fifth Circuit vacated the District Court's class-certification order and remanded the case to the District Court for further consideration in light of the Fifth Circuit's decision in "Oscar Private Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc." The parties filed additional briefing in the District Court regarding class certification and are awaiting the District Court's ruling. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and Intervoice moved to dismiss portions of that amended complaint. On March 14, 2008, the District Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. Intervoice has largely completed the production of documents in response to the plaintiffs' requests for production. Convergys Corp. -- http://www.convergys.com/-- is a global player in relationship management. The Company provides its clients with solutions to support their customers (Customer Solutions) and employees (human resource (HR) Solutions). It has three segments: Customer Management, which provides outsourced customer care solutions, as well as professional and consulting services to in-house customer care operations; Information Management, which provides convergent rating, charging and billing solutions for the global communications industry, and Human Resources Management, which provides human resource business process outsourcing (HR BPO) solutions and learning solutions. In September 2008, Convergys announced the closing of its acquisition of Intervoice, Inc. In October 2008, the Company announced the acquisition of Ceon Corporation, a developer of product lifecycle management and multi-play fulfillment software for communications service providers. COVENTRY HEALTH: Harrison Plaintiffs Yet to File for Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter "Harrison vs. Coventry Health Care of Georgia, Inc. (CHCGA)" -- a tag-along action that is included in the Multi-District Litigation "In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334" -- which names Coventry Health Care, Inc., as defendant, have yet to file a demand for arbitration. The company was a defendant in the provider track of "In Re: Managed Care Litigation, MDL No. 1334," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, in the suit captioned "Charles B. Shane., et al., vs. Humana, Inc., et al." The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims asserted in the litigation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment. The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class- action complaints by other health care providers such as chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed health care professionals. Each of these actions has been transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along" actions. There are three tag-along actions currently filed against the company. The trial court had entered an order which stayed all proceedings in these tag-along actions. Recently, the trial court requested the parties in the tag-along actions to refile all motions pending at the time of the stay and to file any new motions. On July 14, 2008, the trial court entered an order in the Harrison tag-along action, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims except their breach of contract claim, which the court ordered to arbitration. In addition, the court deferred to the arbitrator for decision the company's affirmative defenses that the plaintiffs waived their right to arbitration and their claim is barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata. The Harrison tag along action is a purported class-action suit on behalf of all physicians in Georgia who had written provider contracts with CHCGA. The plaintiffs allege that CHCGA breached their contracts by not paying statutory interest on claims not adjudicated in compliance with Georgia's prompt pay statute. To date, the Harrison plaintiffs have not filed a demand for arbitration, 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. Coventry Health Care, Inc. -- http://www.cvty.com/-- is a national managed healthcare company based in Bethesda, Maryland, operating health plans, insurance companies, network rental/managed care services companies and workers' compensation services companies. LCD LITIGATION: Judge Refuses to Nix Direct Purchasers' Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California refused to dismiss claims by direct purchasers in a class-action suit filed on behalf of purchasers of liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) against LG Electronics, Inc., Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., Hitachi, Ltd. and other manufacturers, Karen Gullo of Bloomberg reports. The plaintiffs in that case include small and medium-sized systems integration companies that bought the screens to make displays for fast food restaurants and other businesses. They claim they paid higher prices for screens because of price- fixing and seek unspecified damages, according to the Bloomberg report. Bloomberg reported that in a March 3, 2009 ruling, Judge Illston, who is presiding over the case, refused to dismiss claims by direct purchasers, she however dismissed some by indirect purchasers such as consumers, governments and others who purchased products containing the displays. LEAP WIRELESS: Bid to Junk Amended Securities Suit Due April 9 -------------------------------------------------------------- Leap Wireless International, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and directors have until April 9, 2009, to file motions to dismiss the amended complaint in a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit. Lawsuits were filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, between November 2007 and February 2008 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased Leap common stock between May 16, 2004, and Nov. 9, 2007. The company's independent registered public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, has been named in one of these lawsuits. The suits allege that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and allege that the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements about the company's business and financial results arising from its Nov. 9, 2007 announcement of its financial restatement. Some of the lawsuits also allege false and misleading statements revealed by Leap's Aug. 7, 2007 second quarter 2007 earnings release. The class action complaints seek determinations that the suits are proper class actions. They also seek unspecified damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. A consolidated complaint was filed by the plaintiffs. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Aug. 28, 2008. On Jan. 9, 2009, the federal court granted defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On Feb. 23, 2009, defendants were served with an amended complaint, which does not name PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Defendants' motions to dismiss are due on April 9, 2009, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The first identified complaint is "HCL Partners Limited Partnership, et al. v. Leap Wireless International, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-2245," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Kimberly Arouh Hicks, Esq. (kimberly.hicks@lw.com) Latham and Watkins 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101-3375 Phone: 619-236-1234 Fax: 619-696-7419 MAPLE LEAF: Canadian Judge OKs Settlements in Listeriosis Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Ron Barclay of Court of Queen's Bench has approved a $25-million deal in the Canada-wide class-action lawsuit against Maple Leaf Foods, which was filed over last year's listeriosis outbreak, The Canadian Press reports. People who got sick will be entitled to compensation of between $750 and $125,000 each and there will be more for families of those who died, according to the The Canadian Press. Justice Barclay's decision approves the settlement for Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the three territories, reports The Canadian Press. Chris Thompson of The Windsor Star previously reported that settlements have been reached in class-action lawsuits against Maple Leaf Foods in connection with a listeriosis outbreak from tainted meats that resulted in the deaths of 20 Canadians last summer (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2008). The Sutts Strosberg law firm is one of eight across Canada that have been involved in the lawsuit, which has been settled out of court for between CDN25 and CDN27 million. Specifically, Sutts Strosberg is one of five firms in Ontario involved in the litigation. Though it could not say how many people in Windsor and Essex County were part of the lawsuit, Sutts Strosberg did point out that in late October 2008 about two dozen locals had signed on. Under the settlement, which applies in Ontario, Quebec, and Saskatchewan and will be fully funded by the company's liability insurers, the estate of someone who died from physical symptoms of listeriosis is entitled to CDN120,000 for their estate, CDN35,000 for a surviving spouse, CDN30,000 for each surviving child and CDN5,000 for surviving siblings and grandchildren, according to The Windsor Star. Death is one of eight injury levels outlined in the suit. The lowest level is compensation for psychological injuries or trauma as a result of consuming meats covered by the recall. Medical documentation and proof of purchase is required for a payment of CDN2,000 per month up to two months for a total of CDN4,000. There are currently about 5,000 plaintiffs nationally in the case and all will have to apply for compensation in one of the three provinces approved in the suit. Court approval for the settlement is expected by February 2009 and claimants could begin receiving settlement checks by next summer, according to The Windsor Star report. The national class-action suit originally claimed CDN100-million for all consumers who purchased or consumed products on the Maple Leaf Foods recall list, reports The Windsor Star. The Maple Leaf Foods' Toronto meat-processing plant was shut for a month when it was determined that its deli meats had been contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. The Windsor Star reported that listeria monocytogenes is a bacterium that exists in the environment and can contaminate meats, fish and vegetables. It can lead to the development of listeriosis, associated with flu-like symptoms that can include nausea, vomiting, cramps, diarrhea, high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness, constipation, persistent fever and death. Symptoms usually appear within two to 30 days, but it can take up to 90 days to get sick after someone has eaten contaminated food. The elderly, pregnant women, children and those with weak immune systems are most at risk. For more details, visit: http://www.mapleleaffoodsclassaction.com/ MARSH & MCLENNAN: N.J. Judge Approves $69M Agreement in MDL-1663 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Garrett Brown Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has approved a $69 million settlement in a class-action suit accusing leading insurance brokers of conspiring with carriers to manipulate the market. The decision resolved a big chunk of the litigation, entitled, "In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 04-Civ.-5184, MDL No. 1663," in which the plaintiffs claim that the brokers violated antitrust and racketeering laws by taking part in a scheme to rig bids for insurance policies and steer customers to certain carriers in return for payments or kickbacks. The money will be paid by Marsh & McLennan Cos. and several related brokerage and investment consulting entities, including Marsh Inc., Marsh USA Inc. and Mercer Inc. Of the $69.02 million, $62 million is designated for class plaintiffs, with up to $5 million of that amount to be used for claims by state officials on behalf of policyholders who are potential members of the class. The remaining $7 million is allocated to resolve nonclass member "tag-along" actions. Brown found all nine factors in Girsh v. Jepson , 521 F.3d 153 (3d Cir. 1975), weighed in favor of approving the deal, especially those relating to the complexity, expense and duration of the litigation, reaction of the class, stage of the proceeding and risks of litigating. The class, approved by Judge Brown for purpose of the settlement, has two parts. The first consists of individuals or entities who dealt directly with Marsh & McLennan or an affiliate in obtaining insurance brokerage or other services related to buying or renewing insurance or reinsurance between Aug. 26, 1994, and Sept. 1, 2005. The other part -- referred to as the "conspiracy class" by one of the lead plaintiffs counsel, Bryan Clobes, Esq. of Cafferty Faucher of Philadelphia -- is made up of those who dealt with another of the dozens of broker-defendants during the same period. Mr. Clobes estimates the direct class members number around 400,000 and the conspiracy class is in the millions. The litigation began in 2004 in various district courts and was consolidated in New Jersey in 2005. MASCO CONTRACTOR: Settles Calif. Wage, Hour Litigation For $8.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and its California units, Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation Contractors settled for $8.5-million a purported class-action suit by thousands of mostly Latino workers who accused defendants of violating California's wage and hour laws, Joanna Lin of The Los Angeles Times reports. The workers, most of whom did not belong to a union, installed insulation, rain gutters and fireplaces, Todd Jackson, one of several attorneys representing the more than 3,100 employees tells The Los Angeles Times. In general, the suit alleged that defendants failed to pay the workers for a full day's work when warranted. The settlement was approved on March 9, 2009 by Judge Dale Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Workers represented in the lawsuit include current and former California installers who worked for Western Insulation and Schmid Insulation at any time from Oct. 13, 2002, to Sept. 30, 2008, and who worked for Masco between Jan. 1 and Sept. 30, 2008. Affected workers do not have to file any claim forms and will begin receiving settlement checks by mail in mid-April, attorneys said. Workers who have changed their address since their time of employment or who have questions about the settlement can call (888) 546-7439. MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Judge Dismisses Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard Kyle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed a securities class-action lawsuit against Medtronic, Inc. that alleged the medical device giant covered up fatal defects in its defibrillators and was responsible for the company's stock price collapse in 2007, Law360 reports. In October 2008, Medtronic sought for the the dismissal of the consolidated complaint in the matter, "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-04564," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 14, 2008). On Nov. 8, 2007, a class-action complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased securities of Medtronic during the period June 25, 2007, through Oct. 15, 2007. It alleges that "materially false and misleading" representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate Medtronic's stock price. Pursuant to court order, the caption of the case was changed to "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation," and a consolidated putative class-action complaint was filed on April 18, 2008. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint with prejudice, and a hearing date is scheduled for Nov. 5, 2008, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 25, 2008. The suit is "Medtronic, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 07- 04564," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 3rd Ave New York, NY 10022 212-451-9620 - and - Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. (rhagstrom@zelle.com) Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette 500 Washington Ave. S. Ste. 4000 Mpls, MN 55415 Phone: 612-339-2020 Fax: 612-339-9100 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-937-7220 - and - Patrick S. Williams, Esq. (pwilliams@briggs.com) Briggs & Morgan, PA 80 S. 8th St. Ste. 2200 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-977-8400 Fax: 612-977-8650 MOONSHIN TATTOO: Faces Lawsuit Over Peel Region Health Scare ------------------------------------------------------------ TORONTO, ONTARIO -- (Marketwire) -- 03/10/09 -- A $20 million class action lawsuit will be commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Moonshin Tattoo, Charles A. Mason, Evelyne Smith, Peel Region Public Health Department (Peel Public Health) and The Regional Municipality of Peel. The lawsuit is commenced on behalf of all persons who received a tattoo or body piercing at the Moonshin Tattoo studio between March 2005 and February 2009. Ruben and Ana Travassos of Mississauga, Ontario claim that Mr. Travassos received a tattoo at the Moonshin Tattoo on March 31, 2007. Under provincial legislation, public health authorities must inspect "Personal Services Settings", such as tattoo and piercing studios where there is a risk of exposure to blood, at least once a year. The first inspection at Moonshin occurred in early 2005, shortly after the tattoo parlour opened at 95 Dundas Street West, in the City of Mississauga. The next inspection was not until February 11, 2009. During the February 11, 2009 inspection of Moonshin Tattoo, Peel Region Public Health Department and The Regional Municipality of Peel (Peel Public Health) discovered that as many as 3000 individuals who received tattoo or piercing services at this establishment between March 2005 and February 2009 may have been exposed to equipment that was not adequately sterilized. Health Inspectors also found Moonshin was not keeping adequate maintenance records for its sterilization equipment on a monthly basis, as required. The use of non-sterile equipment could lead to the transmission of diseases like hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV. People who believe they may be affected are urged to take certain precautions, such as avoid sharing clippers, razors, toothbrushes and other personal items, and to use a condom during sexual activity, until evidence of transmission of infectious diseases can be ruled out. This latest health scare comes on the heels of a $10 million class action lawsuit launched against Longhorn Custom Body Art and Hugh Francis Towie, a tattoo studio operating in the City of Oshawa. In August 2007, up to 2,000 customers of Longhorn Custom Bodyart Studio in Oshawa were urged by Durham Region health authorities to get tested for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, after launching an investigation into potential exposure to non-sterile equipment. Ruben and Ana Travassos are represented by Todd J. McCarthy, Sean A. Brown and Madeline R. Ferreira of Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy; a firm with offices in Toronto, Ottawa and Whitby, specializing in litigation. This same firm represents the Class Members in the action involving the Longhorn litigation. Todd J. McCarthy is one of Ontario's most renowned trial lawyers. He is certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada as a Specialist in Civil Litigation, has been an instructor in the Bar Admission Course for ten years, and has delivered multiple papers and presentations during his distinguished career. For further information please contact: Todd J. McCarthy (todd.mccarthy@fdemlaw.com) Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy Barristers & Solicitors Phone: (905) 686-6448 Fax: (905) 686-6447 - and - Sean A. Brown (sean.brown@fdemlaw.com) Flaherty Dow Elliott & McCarthy Barristers & Solicitors Phone: (416) 368-0231 Fax: (416) 368-9229 PEABODY ENERGY: Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. No further developments regarding the matter were reported in 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. Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a coal company. It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating and industrial plants in 19 countries. The Company owns majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all the United States coal producing regions and in Australia. In addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine, through a joint venture arrangement. Most of the production in the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia. ST. LOUIS COUNTY: Faces Missouri Litigation Over Sewer Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- A group of 14 home and property owners is suing the St. Louis County and its revenue collector for improperly charging a fee that funds repairs to sewer lines that feed homes, Rachel Lippmann of KWMU reports. The class-action lawsuit, which was filed in in St. Louis County Circuit Court in Missouri, generally alleges that defendants illegally billed or overcharged thousands of residents for lateral sewer insurance. It cites a variety of allegedly improper charges, reports KWMU. According to the suit, revenue collector John Friganza of levying the fees against condominium buildings with more than six residents, and charging all residents of smaller condo complexes the entire fee, rather than pro-rating it. KWMU reported that Mr. Friganza is also accused of charging the fee to residents who use private sewer systems, and to developers who had not yet hooked their properties to public sewer lines. The lawsuit seeks refunds for the alleged overbillings, which are estimated at $10 million, according to the KWMU report. TRUEBEGINNINGS LLC: Settles Tex. Customers' Litigation for $1.5M ---------------------------------------------------------------- TrueBeginnings, LLC, the owner and operator of the True.com online dating website, settled a purported class-action lawsuit in Texas, which is alleging that True.com continues to charge customers after they canceled their memberships, Dan X. McGraw of The Dallas Morning News reports. Under an agreement filed on March 6, 2009, True.com will compensate customers who were incorrectly charged for services since 2003. Customers were incorrectly charged membership fees after canceling their accounts or after accidentally clicking on links, according to the federal lawsuit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the the Northern District of Texas under the caption, "Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings LLC, Case No. 3:2007-cv-01244." The agreement still must be approved by U.S. District Judge David C. Godbey before the refund process can begin, Jonathan Tycko, Esq., an attorney representing plaintiff Thomas Wong tells The Dallas Morning News. The complaint, filed in 2007, alleges that True.com charges its customers monthly service fees in excess of $50 per month, and that True.com charges its customers' credit card or bank accounts for these fees. True.com advertises on its website that memberships can be canceled at any time (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2007). However, the complaint alleges that True.com does not accept cancellations in writing or on its website. Instead, True.com will only accept cancellation requests made over the phone. The complaint alleges that True.com bills its former subscribers service fees, even after those subscribers have attempted to cancel their subscriptions over the phone, and that this is done without the knowledge or authorization of the former subscribers. The complaint also alleges that certain of the terms contained in True.com's click-through "Terms" are unconscionable and unenforceable. For example, in the "Terms" is a provision that purports to grant True.com a perpetual, world-wide license to use, distribute or display all information -- including photographs -- submitted by subscribers while using True.com's service. Under this provision, True.com claims the right to use (and potentially to sell) all photographs submitted by a subscriber, even after the subscriber has cancelled his or her membership, without any notice or payment to the former subscriber. The lawsuit sought an injunction from the court prohibiting the enforcement of this provision. According to the settlement, True.com must revise its auto- subscription system to avoid future members from being accidentally charged. Both parties will identify eligible former customers and refer them to a Web site for refunds. Those charged one month of membership would receive $35 and those charged for more than two months would receive $50, according to court documents obtained by The Dallas Morning News. Some members would also be given a free 45-day membership to the site, reports The Dallas Morning News. Mr. Tycko told The Dallas Morning News that at least 150,000 members are expected to get a cash or membership refund, but the number could grow once the agreement is finalized. The suit is "Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings LLC, Case No. 3:2007- cv-01244," filed in the U.S. District Court for the the Northern District of Texas. Representing plaintiffs are: Jonathan K. Tycko, Esq. Tycko, Zavareei & Spiva LLP 2000 L Street, N.W, Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Fax: (202) 973-0950 Website: http://www.tzlegal.com - and - Jon Shepherd, Esq. (JShepherd@CSM-Lawyers.com) Crews, Shepherd & McCarty LLP 2200 Ross Ave. Suite 4650W Dallas, Texas 75201 Phone: 214.432.7770 Fax: 214.432.7771 WEYERHAEUSER CO: OSB Suit Dismissed by Court-Approved Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit with regard to Oriented Strand Boards, which names Weyerhaeuser Co. as a defendant, has been dismissed pursuant to the court-approved settlement of the case. In 2006, a series of suits that had been filed against the company were consolidated into one case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The cases were brought on behalf of persons and entities who directly or indirectly purchased OSB between June 2002 and February 2006 from the company or from Louisiana-Pacific, Georgia-Pacific, Potlatch, Ainsworth Lumber, Tolko Forest Products, Grant Forest Products, Norbord or J.M. Huber Corp. The consolidated lawsuit alleges that: -- the defendants conspired to fix and raise OSB prices in the U.S. during the class period, and -- the plaintiffs paid artificially inflated prices for OSB during that period. No specific damages were alleged, but the direct and indirect plaintiffs have estimated total damages from all defendants, with trebling, of $4.9 billion. This amount is lower than previously reported because the plaintiffs' experts have modified their opinions and because the class period ending is now February 2006 rather than "to the present." The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued a number of rulings approving class action status for various classes of direct and indirect purchasers for the period from June 2002 through February 2006. J.M. Huber, Georgia-Pacific and Ainsworth have reached settlement with the direct and indirect purchasers. A June 2008 trial has been scheduled and motions for summary judgment have been filed on behalf of the remaining defendants, including the company. In March 2008, the company reached a settlement with the direct purchasers for $18 million and recognizes a charge of $18 million in the first quarter of 2008. The settlement was finalized in June. The court conducted a hearing on Weyerhaeuser's settlement with direct purchaser plaintiffs on Aug. 5, 2008. In April 2008, the company also reached a settlement with the indirect purchasers for approximately $1 million. A formal settlement agreement with the indirect purchasers for $1 million was signed Aug. 4, 2008. Both settlement agreements received preliminary court approval. A hearing on final approval is scheduled for Nov. 24, 2008. Both settlements received final approval from the court in December 2008. These cases were dismissed as part of the settlement, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv- 00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond, presiding. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 - and Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com) Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Representing the defendants are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com) James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com) James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 312-861-2350 - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 WEYERHAEUSER CO: Ruling on Post-trial Bids in Alder Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A decision on the post-trial motions in a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit against Weyerhaeuser Co. over alder logs and lumber remains pending. The suit was filed in 2004 before U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. It claims that as a result of the company's alleged monopolization of what was claimed to be the alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest, the company also had monopolized or controlled an alleged market for finished alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber. In 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purpose of awarding monetary damages. In 2005, the class counsel notified the court that 5% of the class members opted out of the class-action lawsuit. In 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31, 2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008. In the same year, the court denied the company's motion to decertify the class. Also, in 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to file a third amended complaint, which eliminated all allegations of overbidding and overbuying of alder sawlogs as a mechanism to affect the price of alder lumber. In turn, the company filed a motion for summary judgment. In April 2008, a jury found in favor of the class and imposed trebled damages of $84 million. The company will appeal the judgment. Post-trial motions were briefed and argued to the court. A decision by the court on the post-trial motions is pending, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Weyerhaeuser Co. -- http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/-- is an integrated forest products company. The company's business segments are Timberlands, which includes logs, chips and timber; Wood Products, which includes softwood lumber, engineered lumber, structural panels, hardwood lumber, and building materials distribution; Cellulose Fibers, which comprises pulp and liquid packaging board; Real Estate, which comprises real estate development, construction and sales, and Corporate and Other. The Company grows and harvests trees, builds homes, and makes wood and paper products. It has operations in 13 countries and has customers worldwide. The company manages 22 million acres of forests. New Securities Fraud Cases CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Holzer Holzer Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- ATLANTA, Ga. -- (Marketwire - March 10, 2009) -- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or the "Company") (NYSE: CHK) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Chesapeake securities who purchased the securities pursuant or traceable to the July 2008 secondary public offering (the "Offering"). The lawsuit alleges the Company violated the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing false and misleading statements to the public in its Registration Statement and Prospectus. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus contained material misrepresentations concerning Chesapeake's true exposure to decreasing natural gas prices and that the Company had been taking steps to manipulate natural gas prices. 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 HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- OKLAHOMA CITY, OK -- (Marketwire) -- 03/10/09 -- Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 6, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (NYSE: HPY). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from August 5, 2008 through February 23, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- BENSALEM, Pa., Mar 10, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland") between August 5, 2008 and February 23, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Heartland's business and operations, thereby artificially inflating the price of Heartland securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com) Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 SPRINT NEXTEL: Coughlin Stoia Files Kans. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- SAN DIEGO, Mar 10, 2009 -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sprintnextel/)announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of purchasers of Sprint Nextel Corporation ("Sprint") common stock during the period between October 26, 2006 and February 27, 2008 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Sprint and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sprint is a global communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline communications products and services for individual consumers, businesses and government customers. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In December 2004, Sprint Corporation and Nextel Communications ("Nextel") announced that they would merge. The merger was completed on August 12, 2005, with Sprint Corporation buying Nextel for $37.8 billion. The merger, the complaint alleges, turned out to be a disaster, as the Company has had difficulties in combining the resources of the two companies due to culture clashes and technological issues. However, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly assured the market that the Company was poised for a turnaround and was focused on improving its core operations. As late as the summer of 2007, defendants continued to play down and conceal Sprint's problems with its network and with its customer service issues and subscriber base. Beginning in early Fall 2007, Sprint finally began to acknowledge that its initiatives were not working and that the Company was experiencing a serious deterioration in its subscriber base, due both to a slow down in new growth and a massive defection of its current subscribers to its competitors. On February 28, 2008, before the market opened, the Company reported disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2007 financial results, including a net loss for the quarter of $29.5 billion or $10.36 diluted loss per share. On this news, Sprint's stock collapsed $0.86 per share to close at $8.09 per share. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: -- the Company's CDMA business was not as healthy as represented; -- the Company would be unable to complete its migration of its entire customer base to a uniform billing platform by 2007 from the multiple legacy platforms, thus continuing to cause customer service problems and having a negative effect on the Company's voluntary churn rate; -- the Company had not taken the proper steps to address its customer service issues; -- the Company failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties as required by SEC regulations concerning the loosening of its credit standards for its CDMA network and its failure to take the proper steps to address customer service issues, which would have a negative effect on the Company's operations in the future; -- the Company was not adequately reserving for its impaired goodwill associated with Nextel or its allowance for bad debts related to subprime subscribers in violation of GAAP, causing its financial results to be materially misstated; -- the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity concerns and ratings downgrades than it had previously disclosed; -- the Company was failing to integrate the CDMA network and the iDEN network; and -- given the increased volatility in the subprime market, the intense competition in the wireless industry and the problems facing Sprint due to its failure to integrate legacy Sprint and legacy Nextel operations, the Company's projections issued during the Class Period about its earnings for 2007 and 2008 were at a minimum reckless. As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period. However, after the above revelations seeped into the market, the Company's shares fell more than 65% from their Class Period high. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Sprint common stock 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/sprintnextel/ WESTGATE CAPITAL: Anderson Kill Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, March 10 /PRNewswire/ -- The law firm of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. announced that a class action lawsuit was filed on March 2, 2009 on behalf of individuals and entities that invested with the investment firm of Westgate Capital Management LLC between January 1, 2004 and March 2, 2009 (the "class period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as case no 09 98CV 1906 (NRB). The complaint charges Westgate and certain of its officers and directors, including James M. Nicholson, with violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and various other torts for issuing materially false and inaccurate financial statements and other information to the investing public. For instance, Westgate represented that it managed assets ranging from $600 million to $900 million, that it used prime brokers for custody of fund assets and that its financial statements were audited by independent certified public accountants. However, the complaint alleges that Westgate had no more than $100 million under its management, failed to use independent auditors and failed to place fund assets with custodians. On February 25, 2009, the SEC filed a complaint against Westgate and Nicholson charging them with operating a large- scale scheme that defrauded hundreds of investors of millions of dollars by providing them with misleading marketing materials that overstated investment returns and by misrepresenting the value of the assets under management. Additionally, the SEC sought a court order freezing Westgate and Nicholson's assets. Moreover, on February 25, 2009, the FBI announced that Nicholson had been arrested on charges of securities and bank fraud based upon these same allegations. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://www.andersonkill.com/webpdfext/SummonsOfACivilCase-II.pdf For more details, contact: David E. Wood, Esq. (dwood@andersonkill.com) Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C. Phone: 805-288-1300 Web site: http://www.andersonkill.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 * * *