/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090318.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, March 18, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 54 Headlines APPLE INC: N.Y Judge Dismisses iPhone Resellers' Antitrust Suit BEMIS CO: Defends Consolidated Federal Suit Over Price Fixing BEMIS CO: To Defend Lawsuits Over Price Fixing in Various States CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Subscribers' Suit Over Commercial Messages DBSI INC: Judge to Appoint Independent Examiner in Idaho Case MONACO COACH: Berger & Montague Files WARN Violations Litigation ODYSSEY RE: Defends Amended Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. PFIZER INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Risks of Lexapro, Celexa Drugs PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Remains Pending PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends Remaining Suits in Investment Case PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Death Benefits ROYAL BANK: Plaintiff Seeks Lead Status in N.Y. Subprime Lawsuit SONUS NETWORKS: June 16 Hearing Set For $9.5M Mass. Lawsuit Deal VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: N.Y. Judge Denies Motions in Stock Fraud Suit ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Amended "Dewald" Complaint in Indiana ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Hip and Knee Replacements Suit Pending in N.Y. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending New Securities Fraud Cases BARCLAYS BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing CENTURY ALUMINUM: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing CORUS BANKSHARES: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing INTREPID POTASH: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Suit OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing PERRIGO CO: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. PERRIGO CO: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. STEEL DYNAMICS: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* APPLE INC: N.Y Judge Dismisses iPhone Resellers' Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leonard D. Wexler of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed a purported class-action suit by a group of iPhone purchasers who intended to resell their phones for profit, Law360 reports. Law360 reported that the putative class-action suit is alleging price discrimination and other antitrust-related claims in connection with Apple's decision to slash the price of the phones just months after first releasing the product to consumers. In a ruling issued on March 16, 2009, Judge Wexler dismissed the plaintiffs' entire complaint and ordered the case closed, according to the Law360 report. BEMIS CO: Defends Consolidated Federal Suit Over Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- Bemis Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Co., continue to defend a consolidated federal class- action suit over alleged price fixing in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The company and Morgan Adhesives have been named as defendants in 13 civil lawsuits related to an investigation that was initiated and subsequently closed by the U.S. Department of Justice without any further action. Six of these lawsuits purport to represent a nationwide class of labelstock purchasers, and each alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. The first of these lawsuits was filed on May 27, 2003. In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs seek actual damages for the period of the alleged conspiracy (Jan. 1, 1996 through July 25, 2003) trebled, plus an award of attorneys' fees and costs. On Nov. 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of the federal class actions for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie. On Nov. 20, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On March 6, 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied Defendant's petition for leave to appeal the district court's decision granting class certification. On June 24, 2008, the Court in the consolidated federal class actions issued a decision dismissing the Company from those actions. On Jan. 27, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the class based on new case law in the Third Circuit. At this time, a discovery cut-off has been set for Dec. 21, 2009. However, no trial date has been set, 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. Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- is a manufacturer of flexible packaging products and pressure sensitive materials, which sells its products to customers throughout the U.S., Canada, South America and Europe, as well as Asia Pacific and Mexico. It operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure Sensitive Materials. BEMIS CO: To Defend Lawsuits Over Price Fixing in Various States ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bemis Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Co., intend to defend the state class-action suits alleging price fixing in the self-adhesive labelstock industry, 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. The Company and Morgan Adhesives have been named in three lawsuits filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. These three lawsuits, which have been consolidated, seek to represent a class of all California indirect purchasers of labelstock and each alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. The Company has also been named in: -- one lawsuit in Vermont, seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers of labelstock, -- one lawsuit in Nebraska seeking to represent a class of all Nebraska indirect purchasers of labelstock, -- one lawsuit in Kansas seeking to represent a class of all Kansas indirect purchasers of labelstock, and -- one lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to represent a class of purchasers of labelstock in various jurisdictions. All these suits allege a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- is a manufacturer of flexible packaging products and pressure sensitive materials, which sells its products to customers throughout the U.S., Canada, South America and Europe, as well as Asia Pacific and Mexico. It operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure Sensitive Materials. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces Subscribers' Suit Over Commercial Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- NETANYA, Israel, March 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) (TASE: CEL) (hereinafter: the "Company"), announced that a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and some of its directors, in the District Court of Central Region, by a plaintiff alleging to be a subscriber of the Company. The plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully sent its subscribers commercial messages. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 800 million. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. DBSI INC: Judge to Appoint Independent Examiner in Idaho Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal bank judge has agreed to appoint an independent examiner to look into a securities case against DBSI, Inc., which involves investors nationwide, Montana's News Station reports. The Idaho Business Review previously reported that DBSI, Inc. is still facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that it took in $500 million in illegal profits since October 2003 as a result of securities fraud, banking fraud and tax fraud, including $160 million personally siphoned to president and chief executive officer (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 19, 2009). The suit specifically names as defendants the company; its president and chief executive officer, Douglas L. Swenson; and several others. Doug Swenson and Simon Shifrin of the Idaho Business Review previously reported that the suit was filed on Oct. 27, 2008 in Idaho's Fourth Judicial District Court by a California trust on behalf of tenant-in-common investors (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 25, 2008). It claims that DBSI: -- treated some securities as real estate transactions to avoid disclosures; -- induced investors to violate the federal tax code; -- reneged on promises not to sell fractional ownership interests to third parties; -- created a "Ponzi" scheme in which the proceeds from the marked-up sale of new properties were used to pay investors on existing properties; and -- intentionally concealed fair market values of properties it sold to investors, among other things. In particular, the lawsuit says that two separate DBSI affiliates, DBSI Securities LLC and For 1031 LLC, treated nearly identical transactions differently - as securities or real estate. According to court papers obtained by the Idaho Business Review treating tenant-in-commons (TIC) solely as real estate requires minimal disclosure and constitutes fraud. The suit seeks $2 billion on behalf of all TIC investors since October 2003 and dissolution or reorganization of the company, reports the Idaho Business Review. MONACO COACH: Berger & Montague Files WARN Violations Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- PHILADELPHIA, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, "Rieke, et al. v. Monaco Coach Corporation, Civil Action No. 09-50444-KJC," on behalf of 2,600 employees who were laid off by Monaco Coach Corporation in December 2008 and thereafter without receiving any notice. Monaco Coach Corporation, the manufacturer of luxury recreational vehicles headquartered in Coburg, Oregon, and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol MNC until trading was suspended on March 3, 2009, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 5, 2009. The lawsuit claims that Monaco violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice. The lead plaintiffs, Randy Rieke, Cary Rieke, Gary Betts, Joyce Betts, Michael Dager, Angel Dager, Diana Hensley, and Jenny Ossthun, were all employed by Monaco at its headquarters in Coburg, Oregon. However, the lead plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of all employees who were part of the layoffs, including those who worked at Monaco's facilities located in Milford, Indiana, Wakarusa, Indiana, and Warsaw, Indiana. "The WARN Act provides for sixty days advance notice of plant closings and mass layoffs to affected employees, and Monaco Coach Corporation has admitted publicly that it did not give such notice," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We will vigorously seek just compensation for our clients and their co-workers and ask simply that the company comply with the federal laws passed by Congress to protect employees from being abruptly terminated without notice, which substantially impacts their ability to find substitute work and support their families." Mr. Carson also noted that some of the lead plaintiffs and other affected workers are doubly impacted because they are husband and wife. For more details, contact: Shanon Carson, Esq. (scarson@bm.net) Berger & Montague, P.C. Phone: (215) 875-4656 Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/ ODYSSEY RE: Defends Amended Consolidated Securities Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. continues to defend an amended consolidated securities class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Feb. 8, 2007, the company was added as a co-defendant in an amended and consolidated complaint in an existing action against its majority shareholder, Fairfax Financial Holdings Limited, and certain of Fairfax's officers and directors, who include certain of the company's current and former directors. The amended and consolidated complaint has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by the lead plaintiffs, who seek to represent a class of all purchasers and acquirers of securities of Fairfax between May 21, 2003 and March 22, 2006, inclusive, and allege, among other things, that the defendants violated U.S. federal securities laws by making material misstatements or failing to disclose certain material information. The amended and consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, certification of the putative class, unspecified compensatory damages, unspecified injunctive relief, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees and other relief. These claims are at a preliminary stage. Pursuant to the scheduling stipulations, the various defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiffs filed their opposition thereto, and the defendants filed their replies to those oppositions; the motions to dismiss were argued before the Court in December 2007. The Court has not yet issued a ruling on these motions, 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. Odyssey Re Holdings Corp. -- http://www.odysseyre.com/-- incorporated on March 21, 2001, is an underwriter of reinsurance, providing a full range of property and casualty products on a worldwide basis. It offers both treaty and facultative reinsurance to property and casualty insurers and reinsurers. OdysseyRe also writes insurance business, primarily focused on liability lines, in the United States and London. The business is organized across four operating divisions: Americas, EuroAsia, London Market and United States insurance. The reinsurance operations primarily consist of businesses, such as casualty, property, marine and aerospace, and surety and credit. The insurance operations comprise medical malpractice, professional liability, non-standard personal and commercial automobile, specialty liability, and property and package. PFIZER INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Risks of Lexapro, Celexa Drugs --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc., Forest Laboratories, Inc., and Warner-Lambert Co. have been hit with a proposed class-action suit accusing them of coordinating a scheme to mask suicide risks associated with antidepressants Lexapro and Celexa in pediatric patients while simultaneously offering doctors kickbacks to prescribe the drugs for younger patients, Law360 reports. The New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employers' Health and Welfare Trust Fund filed the putative class-action suit on March 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption, "New Mexico UFCW Union's and Employer's Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-01033," according to the Law360 report. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Appeals in ERISA Litigation Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Appeals from the dismissed claims against Prudential Financial, Inc. in the matter tagged, "In re Employee Benefit Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation," are still pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to Prudential Financial, Inc.'s Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Purported class-action lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs have been consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In August and September 2007, the court dismissed the anti-trust and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. In January 2008, the court dismissed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims with prejudice. In February 2008, the court dismissed the state law claims without prejudice. The Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Consolidated Brokers' Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A multidistrict litigation is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, accusing Prudential Financial, Inc. of improperly classifying stockbrokers as exempt employees under state and federal wage and hour laws. The suits -- recently consolidated in California for coordinated trial proceedings -- also name as defendants Prudential Securities, Inc. and Prudential Equity Group LLC. Two of the complaints -- "Janowsky v. Wachovia Securities, LLC, and Prudential Securities Incorporated," and "Goldstein v. Prudential Financial, Inc." -- were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Goldstein complaint purports to have been filed on behalf of a nationwide class. The Janowsky complaint alleges a class of New York brokers. Three complaints were filed in the California Superior Court and purport to have been brought on behalf of classes of California brokers. These suits are captioned: 1. "Dewane v. Prudential Equity Group, Prudential Securities Incorporated, and Wachovia Securities LLC;" 2. "DiLustro v. Prudential Securities Incorporated, Prudential Equity Group, Inc. and Wachovia Securities;" and 3. "Carayanis v. Prudential Equity Group LLC and Prudential Securities Inc." The Carayanis complaint was subsequently withdrawn without prejudice in May 2006. In June 2006, a purported New York state class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, captioned "Panesenko v. Wachovia Securities, et al." The Panesenko complaint is alleging that the company failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In September 2006, Prudential Securities was sued in "Badain v. Wachovia Securities, et al.," a purported nationwide class- action suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The complaint alleges that Prudential Securities failed to pay overtime to stockbrokers in violation of state and federal law and that improper deductions were made from the stockbrokers' wages in violation of state law. In December 2006, all cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by the Judicial Panel on multidistrict litigation for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The complaints seek back overtime pay and statutory damages, recovery of improper deductions, interest, and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2008) No further developments in the consolidated matter were disclosed in the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Defends Remaining Suits in Investment Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. remains a defendant in pending actions in the consolidated class-action proceeding, "In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. In October 2004, the company and Prudential Securities were named as defendants in several class actions brought on behalf of purchasers and holders of shares in a number of mutual fund complexes. The actions are consolidated as part of a multi-district proceeding, "In re: Mutual Fund Investment Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The complaints allege that the purchasers and holders were harmed by dilution of the funds' values and excessive fees, caused by market timing and late trading, and seek unspecified damages. In August 2005, the company was dismissed from several of the actions, without prejudice to repleading the state claims, but remains a defendant in other actions in the consolidated proceeding, according to its Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Death Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------- Prudential Financial, Inc. faces a purported nationwide class- action suit, "Garcia v. Prudential Insurance Company of America," filed in November 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint, which is brought on behalf of beneficiaries of Prudential policies whose death benefits were placed in retained asset accounts, alleges that by investing the death benefits in these accounts, Prudential wrongfully delayed payment and improperly retained undisclosed profits. It alleges claims of breach of the contract of insurance, breach of contract with regard to the retained asset accounts, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. The suit seeks an accounting, disgorgement, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, according to the company's Feb. 26, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial, Inc. is a financial services company with operations in United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Through its subsidiaries and affiliates, it offers an array of financial products and services, including life insurance, annuities, mutual funds, pension and retirement- related services and administration, investment management, real estate brokerage and relocation services, and, through a joint venture, retail securities brokerage services. ROYAL BANK: Plaintiff Seeks Lead Status in N.Y. Subprime Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Kosseff, an investor in stock offered by the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, has asked a federal court to appoint him lead plaintiff in a class-action suit related to the bank's subprime mortgage market exposure, Law360 reports. In a motion filed on March 16, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Mr. Kosseff asked the court to appoint him lead plaintiff, arguing that his suit should not be consolidated with similar suits because it contains more specific allegations brought on behalf of a specific group of investors, according to the Law360 report. SONUS NETWORKS: June 16 Hearing Set For $9.5M Mass. Lawsuit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing on June 16, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed $9,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark L. Wolf, at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210, Courtroom 10 (fifth floor). Beginning in July 2002, several purchasers of the company's common stock filed complaints before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and a former officer under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 23, 2009). The purchasers seek to represent a class of persons who purchased the company's common stock between Dec. 11, 2000, and Jan. 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary damages. The class-action complaints were essentially identical and alleged that the company made false and misleading statements about its products and business. These cases were subsequently consolidated, and on March 3, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. In April 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on various grounds. On May 11, 2004, the court held oral argument on the company's dismissal motion, and later denied the request. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 30, 2004. This motion was granted by the court and a class representative was then appointed. The court also appointed the law firm of Moulton & Gans as lead counsel. After the court requested additional briefing on the adequacy of the class representative, the class representative withdrew. The lead counsel then filed a motion to substitute a new plaintiff as the class representative. On May 19, 2005, the court held a hearing on the motion and took the matter under advisement. On Aug. 15, 2005, the court issued an order decertifying the class and requiring the parties to submit a joint report informing the court whether the cases have been settled and whether the defendants would be seeking to recover attorney's fees from the plaintiffs. On Sept. 30, 2005, the plaintiffs filed motions to voluntarily dismiss their complaints with prejudice. On Oct. 5, 2005, the court entered an order dismissing the cases. However, on June 26, 2006, the court issued an order denying the company's motion for recovery of attorneys' fees. On Jan. 6, 2006, a purchaser of the company common stock filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that is essentially identical to the Consolidated Amended Complaint previously filed against the defendants. The court has appointed as lead plaintiff the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, which filed an amended consolidated complaint. In April 19, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this amended consolidated complaint. The court held a hearing on the motion on Sept. 18, 2008, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. The suit is "In Re Sonus Networks Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-11315-MLW," filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert J. Berg, Esq. Michael S. Bigin, Esq. Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 - and - Richard H. Weiss, Esq. Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach One Penn Plaza New York City, NY 10002 Phone: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 Representing the company are: Daniel W. Halston, Esq. (daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com) Michelle D. Miller, Esq. (michelle.miller@wilmerhale.com) Jeffrey B. Rudman, Eqs. (jeffrey.rudman@wilmerhale.com) Peter A. Spaeth, Esq. (peter.spaeth@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Hale 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-526-6654 Fax: 617-526-5000 VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: N.Y. Judge Denies Motions in Stock Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Richard J. Holwell of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied motions for partial summary judgment by two former executives of Vivendi Universal SA in the long-standing securities fraud class-action suit alleging that they and their former employer made false and misleading statements that caused the company's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices, Law360 reports. In an order issued on March 16, 2009 Judge Holwell denied requests by defendants Jean-Marie Messier and Guillaume Hannezo according to the Law360 report. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Faces Amended "Dewald" Complaint in Indiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmer Holdings, Inc. faces an amended complaint in the putative class-action suit styled, "Dewald v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.," in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. On Nov. 20, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, "Dewald v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.," naming the company and certain of its current and former directors and employees as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class-action suit on behalf of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the company's U.S. or Puerto Rico Savings and Investment Programs ("plans") between Oct. 5, 2007 and the date of filing and whose accounts included investments in Zimmer's common stock. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by continuing to offer Zimmer stock as an investment option in the plans when the stock purportedly was no longer a prudent investment and that defendants failed to provide plan participants with complete and accurate information sufficient to advise them of the risks of investing their retirement savings in Zimmer stock. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified monetary payment to the plans, injunctive and equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On Jan. 23, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges the same claims and clarifies that the class period is Oct. 5, 2007 through Sept. 2, 2008. The defendants are not required to respond to the amended complaint until March 23, 2009, 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. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopaedic surgical products. The Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related orthopaedic surgical products. Its related orthopaedic surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post- operation rehabilitation. Orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma. Trauma products are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and tissue to support the body's natural healing process. ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Hip and Knee Replacements Suit Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed against Zimmer Holdings, Inc., and two subsidiaries, in connection with hip and knee replacements, remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was filed on April 24, 2008, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled, "Thorpe v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-03888," naming the company and two of its subsidiaries as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class action suit on behalf of certain residents of New York who had hip or knee implant surgery involving Zimmer products during an unspecified period. The complaint alleges that the company's relationships with orthopaedic surgeons and others violated the New York deceptive practices statute and unjustly enriched the company. The plaintiff requests actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater, on behalf of each class member, a permanent injunction from the company engaging in allegedly improper practices in the future and restitution in an unspecified amount. No further developments in the matter were disclosed 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. The suit is "Thorpe et al. v. Zimmer, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2008-cv-03888," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Colleen McMahon, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andres F. Alonso, Esq. (aalonso@yourlawyer.com) Parker Waichman & Alonso, LLP 111 Great Neck Road Great Neck, NY 11021 Phone: 516-466-6500 Fax: 516-466-6665 Stuart George Gross, Esq. (sgross@shearman.com) Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4527 Fax: 646-848-4527 Steven N. Williams, Esq. (swilliams@cpmlegal.com) Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-697-6997 Fax: 650-697-0577 Representing the defendant is: Theodore Grossman, Esq. (tgrossman@jonesday.com) Jones Day North Point, 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-586-7268 Fax: 216-579-0212 ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The motion to dismiss a purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in Indiana remains pending, according to Zimmer Holdings, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Aug. 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, entitled, "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 719 Pension Fund v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc., et al.," naming the company and two of its executive officers as defendants. The complaint relates to a putative class-action suit on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between Jan. 29, 2008 and July 22, 2008. The complaint alleges that the company and two of its executive officers engaged in violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning its business and financial results during the relevant time period. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief. On Dec. 24, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint that alleges the same claims and relates to the same time period. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Feb. 23, 2009, which is pending with the court. Zimmer Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.zimmer.com-- designs, develops, manufactures and markets reconstructive orthopaedic implants, including joint and dental, spinal implants, trauma products and related orthopaedic surgical products. The Company's products include joint and dental reconstructive orthopaedic implants, spinal implants, trauma products, and related orthopaedic surgical products. Its related orthopaedic surgical products include surgical supplies and instruments designed to aid in orthopaedic surgical procedures and post- operation rehabilitation. Orthopaedic surgeons and neurosurgeons use spinal implants in the treatment of degenerative diseases, deformities and trauma. Trauma products are used primarily to reattach or stabilize damaged bone and tissue to support the body's natural healing process. New Securities Fraud Cases BARCLAYS BANK: Coughlin Stoia Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- March 16, 2009 03:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time -- SAN DIEGO -- (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/barclayspfdseries4/)announced 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 Barclays Bank Plc ("Barclays Bank") Non- cumulative Callable Dollar Preference Shares, Series 4 ("Preferred Stock") (NYSE:BCS-PC) sold in the form of American Depository Shares ("ADSs") pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's December 2007 offering of the Preferred Stock (the "Offering"). The complaint charges Barclays Bank, certain of its officers and directors, Barclays Plc ("Barclays"), the underwriters of the Offering and Barclays' auditor with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Barclays Bank is a major global financial services provider engaged in retail and commercial banking, credit cards, investment banking, wealth management and investment management services. The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to a false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement"), selling 40 million shares at $25 per share for proceeds of $1 billion. Barclays ultimately announced huge multi-billion dollar impairment charges associated with its exposure to mortgage-related securities, causing the price of Barclays Bank's Preferred Stock issued in the Offering to decline. According to the complaint, the true facts that were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- Barclays' portfolio of mortgage-related securities was impaired to a much larger extent than had been disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- Barclays' internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its mortgage- related investments; and -- Barclays was not as well capitalized as represented and would have to continually raise additional capital, which would dilute current holders and those investors purchasing Preferred Stock in the Offering. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf all persons who acquired Barclays Bank Preferred Stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's December 2007 Offering. 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/barclayspfdseries4 CENTURY ALUMINUM: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 2:41 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 16, 2009 -- MarketWire 2009 -- HARTFORD, CT - The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or acquired shares of Century Aluminum Company ("Century Aluminum" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CENX) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's January 28, 2009 Secondary Offering (the "Secondary Offering"). The Complaint charges that Century Aluminum and certain of its officers, directors, and underwriters violated federal securities laws by issuing a materially false registration statement and prospectus ("Registration Statement") in connection with the Secondary Offering. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that the Company had reported cash flows associated with the termination of forward financial sales contracts by issuing $929 million of Series A Convertible Preferred Stock in July 2008 on a net basis, as an operating activity, when the transaction should have been reported on a gross basis as both an operating activity and a financing activity to reflect the cash receipts and disbursements associated with the transaction. On March 2, 2009, Century Aluminum filed an interim 8-K which reported that the financial statements reported in the Form 10-Q for three quarters in 2008 should no longer be relied upon. On this news, the price of Century Aluminum fell over 24% to close at $1.67 per share. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/centuryaluminumcompany/ CORUS BANKSHARES: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- March 16, 2009 (Datamonitor via COMTEX) -- The Brualdi Law Firm has commenced a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Corus Bankshares common stock during the period from January 25, 2008 to January 30, 2009 for violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleged that Corus's press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission filings and other public statements during the period from January 25, 2008 to January 30, 2009 were false and misleading for failing to disclose that Corus was failing to recognize losses on its condominium loans as required by accounting rules. The lawsuit also alleged that Corus was purchasing condominiums in developments Corus had financed in an attempt to inflate the appraised values of condominiums to delay having to recognize losses on financing for such condominiums; inflate developers' sales figures to increase the likelihood of successful future sales; and create the illusion of successful sales histories in order to inflate appraisal values for the condominiums to ensure inflated future prices for the condominiums. 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 INTREPID POTASH: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, Mar 16, 2009 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Coughlin Stoia") (http://www.csgrr.com/cases/intrepid/)announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Intrepid Potash, Inc. ("Intrepid" or the "Company")(NYSE:IPI) in or traceable to the Company's April 21, 2008 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO" or the "Offering"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). The complaint charges Intrepid and certain of its officers with violations of the Securities Act. Intrepid engages in the production and marketing of muriate of potash in the United States. On April 21, 2008, the Company completed its IPO. In connection therewith, Intrepid issued a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement"). The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it enabled the Company to raise net proceeds of $1.033 billion by selling approximately 34.5 million shares of stock to the public at a price of $32.00 per share. According to the complaint, in connection with the Company's IPO, defendants, in the Registration Statement, failed to disclose or indicate the following: -- that the Company's President and Chief Operating Officer ("COO") did not receive a B.A. degree from the University of Colorado or an M.S. degree from Loyola Marymount University, as represented in the Registration Statement; and -- that the Company's President and COO had misrepresented his academic credentials in violation of the Company's Code of Business Conduct. On February 11, 2009, investors were exposed to a report on the Company issued by the Fraud Discovery Institute revealing that the Company's President and COO had affirmatively lied and misrepresented his educational credentials in the Company's Registration Statement. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $1.52 per share to close at $22.00 per share on February 11, 2009. This closing price of Intrepid shares represented a cumulative loss of $10.00, or approximately 31.25%, of the value of the Company's shares at the time of its IPO just months earlier. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Intrepid securities in or traceable to the Company's IPO (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/intrepid/ OPPENHEIMER CHAMPION: The Shuman Law Firm Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BOULDER, Colo., March 16, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The Shuman Law Firm announced that it has filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of a proposed class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or held shares in the following Oppenheimer Champion Income Funds (the "Fund"): A Shares (Nasdaq:OPCHX), B Shares (Nasdaq:OCHBX), C Shares (Nasdaq:OCHCX), N Shares (Nasdaq:OCHNX) and Y Shares (Nasdaq:OCHYX) between August 7, 2006 to December 9, 2008, inclusive (the "Class Period"), including in connection with its August 7, 2006, January 26, 2007 and January 25, 2008 stock offerings. The lawsuit alleges defendants marketed and sold the Fund as a conservative high-income fund, portraying it as diversified and higher yielding. Plaintiff claims the Fund's managers failed to disclose the true risk of the Fund, which took gambles on mortgage-backed securities and illiquid derivatives that ultimately led to the Fund's collapse. Beginning in July 2008, shares declined as the credit crunch exposed the volatility and collapse of the Fund's mortgage-related investments. The Fund experienced an 82 percent drop compared to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32 percent in 2008. Overall, the Fund experienced an almost $2 billion drop in assets in 15 months. For more information, contact: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. (kip@shumanlawfirm.com) Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. (rusty@shumanlawfirm.com) The Shuman Law Firm 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80203 Phone: 866-974-8626 Fax: 303-484-4886 Web site: http://www.shumanlawfirm.com/ OPPENHEIMER FUNDS: Abraham Fruchter Announces Stock Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - March 16, 2009) - Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP has been retained to file a class action lawsuit against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of purchasers of the Rochester National Municipals Fund ("Rochester" or the "Fund") (NASDAQ: ORNAX) (NASDAQ: ORNBX) (NASDAQ: ORNCX) from March 13, 2006 through October 21, 2008 (the "Class Period"). A lawsuit has already been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint filed charges Oppenheimer, the Fund and certain of its Trustees with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit claims that the registration statements and prospectuses used to sell shares in the Fund contained materially false and misleading statements about the risks of investing in the Fund. The lawsuit identified the following funds as affected: A Shares (ORNAX), B Shares (ORNBX) and C Shares (ORNCX). On October 21, 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement which alerted investors of the true liquidity risks of the Fund's investments. The Fund closed at $6.59 per share later that day, representing a 49% decline from the Class Period high of $13.00 per share. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased shares of Rochester National Municipals Fund from March 13, 2006 through October 21, 2008. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 PERRIGO CO: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 8:10 p.m. PT, Fri., March 13, 2009 -- MarketWire 2009 -- BALTIMORE, Md. - 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 Perrigo Company ("Perrigo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRGO) during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 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 the Company's report on November 6, 2008 that the fair value of Auction Rate Securities ("ARSs") it had purchased from an undisclosed source was $14,500,000 was inconsistent with the impact of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. ("Lehman"), the entity from which the Company purchased the ARSs, having filed for bankruptcy almost 3 weeks earlier on September 15, 2008. According to the complaint, on February 3, 2009, after the Company announced it was writing off the entire value of its ARSs, the value of Perrigo'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 PERRIGO CO: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- March 16, 2009: 11:58 AM ET -- Marketwire -- Dyer & Berens LLP (www.DyerBerens.com) announced that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors of Perrigo Company ("Perrigo" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: PRGO) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Perrigo and certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false statements and failed to disclose adverse facts to investors regarding $18 million of Auction Rated Securities held by Perrigo, causing investors to purchase its stock at artificially inflated prices. Investors suffered losses when the material facts were disclosed on February 2, 2009, resulting in Perrigo stock plummeting 18% that day. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Perrigo investors. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com STEEL DYNAMICS: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Updated 12:25 p.m. PT, Mon., March. 16, 2009 -- PHILADELPHIA, March 16, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District of Indiana, 09cv0066, on behalf of common stock purchasers of the Steel Dynamics, Inc. ("SDLD" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:STLD) between January 26, 2009 and March 11, 2009, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The action is pending before the Honorable James T. Moody. The complaint charges STLD and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Defendants failed to disclose that: -- demand for STLD's products showed continuing weakness in Q1 2009; -- STLD's inventories in its Flat Roll Division were at excessive levels and were materially impaired by approximately $70 million; -- given the continuing weakness in demand for STLD's products in Q1 2009, and in the absence of any existing facts to indicate or exhibit a reversal in that adverse trend, as well as the impaired value of inventories in STLD's Flat Roll Division, defendants lacked a reasonable basis in fact for their earnings guidance for Q1 2009; and -- Defendant Bates engaged in unusual insider selling and realized proceeds of in excess of $30 million. When defendants disclosed the truth to the market on March 11, 2009, the price of STLD's common stocked dropped 15% to close at $7.25, on volume of more than 33 million shares, many times the average trading day volume for STLD common stock. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of STLD (Nasdaq:STLD) between January 26, 2009 and March 11, 2009, inclusive. For more information, contact: Susan R. Gross, Esq. (susang@bernardmgross.com) Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.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 * * *