/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090415.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 15, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 73 Headlines AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Carl Icahn Joins Shareholder Litigation AUSTIN CAPITAL: Faces Several N.Y. Lawsuits Over Madoff Losses AVX Corp: Appeals S.C. Judge's Decision in TCE-Related Lawsuits CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Amended Consolidated ARS Suit Pending in N.Y. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Analyst Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK in Nov. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Dismissed Enron-related Suit Pending CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Junked Revenue Sharing Suit Pending CITIGROUP GLOBAL: CGM Still Faces Suits Over Subprime Mortgages CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Bond Lawsuit DIRECTECH HOLDING: Faces Mass. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages EHARMONY.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Lack of Date-Matching System MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Refuses to Restore Status to "Kelley" Case MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing PFSWEB INC: Suit by Sales Representatives Settled in Dec. 2008 RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit SATYAM COMPUTER: Says Mississippi Pension Fund Cannot Join Suits ST. JOHN HEALTH: May 13 Hearing Set for $13.6M Nurses' Suit Deal THERMO FISHER: Faces Md. Litigation Over Iraqi Chemical Weapons U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Extended Vehicle Protection U.S. UNWIRED: Fifth Circuit Revives Louisiana Shareholder Suit VODAFONE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Reopens Securities Fraud Litigation WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Still Faces Investments Suit WHITNEY INFORMATION: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending * Credit Counseling Judgment Spurs Industry Compliance Program * Groups Urge For U.S. President Involvement in Drywall Disaster New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Brower Piven Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit CITIGROUP INC: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ZYNEX INC: Holzer Holzer Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation ********* AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Carl Icahn Joins Shareholder Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Billionaire investor Carl Icahn joined a lawsuit against Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. seeking to invalidate debt acceleration provisions that would be triggered in the event of a change in control of the company's board, Reuters reports. In filing issued on April 9, 2009, Icahn and affiliates stated that they had joined a class-action lawsuit filed in March by the San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund, according to the Reuters report. The shareholder suit seeks to disable a "poison put," structured to protect bondholders in the event of a takeover by a company with a lower credit rating, Reuters reported. AUSTIN CAPITAL: Faces Several N.Y. Lawsuits Over Madoff Losses -------------------------------------------------------------- Austin Capital Management Ltd. is facing several purported class-actions lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in connection with losses from the firm's investment in a hedge fund that was involved in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, Christine Williamson of Pensions & Investments reports. April Lawsuit The most recent lawsuit was filed on April 8, 2009 on behalf of two Las Vegas Taft-Hartley retirement plans: the $335 million Construction Industry and Laborers Joint Pension Trust/Laborers Union Local 872, and the $138 million Plumbers and Pipefitters Union Local 525, according to the Pensions & Investments report. The complaint alleges that Austin Capital committed fraud, breach of fiduciary duty under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), negligence, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation through its investment in the Austin Safe Harbor Offshore Fund, which invested in the Rye Select Board Market Prime Fund. The Rye fund invested with Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities; the fund and its manager, Rye Investments, now are closed. Rye was a subsidiary of Tremont Group Holdings, reports Pensions & Investments. Also named as defendants in the suit are individual executives of Austin Capital and Victory Capital Management, the money management unit of KeyCorp, which owns Austin Capital, reports Pensions & Investments. According to court documents, the laborers' fund lost $15 million from Austin's Madoff investment and the plumbers' fund lost $9 million. Pensions & Investments reported that the suit seeks damages, restitution of losses and legal costs. March Lawsuit The second most recent suit was filed March 18, 2009 on behalf of Laborers' International Union of North America, Local 17, Newburgh, N.Y., and Daniel Jackson Jr., administrator of the Taft-Hartley fund, according to the Pensions & Investments report. The complaint alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and violation of ERISA, and seeks damages, restitution of losses and legal costs. Defendants include Austin Capital, Tremont Group Holdings, and Tremont's parent company OppenheimerFunds. The suit seeks damages, restitution of losses and legal costs, Pensions & Investments reported. February Lawsuit Another class-action suit against Austin Capital was filed Feb. 12, 2009 by the $295 million Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Employees, District 1199C, Philadelphia, alleging similar charges and seeking restitution of $700,000, reports Pensions & Investments. AVX Corp: Appeals S.C. Judge's Decision in TCE-Related Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- AVX Corp. has filed an appeal of a federal judge's decision to send back to state court a pair of lawsuits that allege the manufacturer polluted groundwater in a Myrtle Beach neighborhood, David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reports. The company wants those cases to be combined with a third lawsuit that will stay in federal court because it involves federal Superfund laws. Superfund is a federal program to clean up hazardous waste sites, according to The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News report. Judge Thomas E. Rogers III of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina ruled in March 2009 that the two lawsuits -- a class-action case filed on behalf of residents and another filed by JDS Development of Myrtle Beach Inc. -- should be tried in an S.C. court because they focus solely on state laws governing financial compensation for negligence, The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News reported. Judge Rogers, in his ruling, said the property owners' claims "would not alter the terms of the [cleanup] work plan" and that they "only seek the payment of money damages based on AVX's alleged liability" under S.C. Law, reports The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News. David Wren of The (Myrtle Beach) Sun News previously reported that the class-action case involves about 200 people and seeks unspecified financial compensation for property that owners say is worthless because of the contamination from a degreaser called trichloroethylene, also known as TCE (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2009). The class-action suit was filed on Nov. 27, 2007 over the alleged migration of certain pollutants from AVX Corp.'s South Carolina factory to neighboring properties was filed in the South Carolina State Court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2009). In essence, the class-action suit claims that property value had been negatively impacted by alleged migration of certain pollutants from the company's property (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009). The JDS Development case essentially makes similar claims as the class-action suit. AVX, in appealing the decision, argued that the cases should be combined because trying them in separate venues could result in inconsistent rulings over similar legal issues. The company also says it would be more efficient for one court to handle the cases together than to have as many as three courts trying them separately. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Amended Consolidated ARS Suit Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- An amended consolidated class action complaint in "In Re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation" is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Aug. 25, 2008, lead plaintiffs in In Re Citigroup Auction Rate Securities Litigation filed an amended consolidated class- action complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 24, 2008, which was fully briefed on Jan. 23, 2009. No further details were reported in the company's latest regulatory filing. New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Analyst Suit Settlement Gets Prelim OK in Nov. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of the class-action suit tagged, "In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation," was preliminarily approved on Nov. 19, 2008, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Since May 2002, Citigroup Global Markets and certain executive officers and current and former employees have been named as defendants in numerous alleged class action complaints, individual actions, and arbitration demands by purchasers of various securities alleging that they violated federal securities law, including Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain state laws for allegedly issuing research reports without a reasonable basis in fact and for allegedly failing to disclose conflicts of interest with companies in connection with published investment research, including Global Crossing, Ltd., AT&T Corp., Level 3 Communications, Inc., Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc., XO Communications, Inc., Williams Communications Group Inc., and Focal Communications, Inc. The alleged class actions relating to research of these companies are pending before a single judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated proceedings. The court has consolidated these actions into separate proceedings corresponding to the named companies. On Dec. 2, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part the Citigroup-related defendants' motions to dismiss the claims against it in the AT&T, Level 3, XO and Williams actions. On Jan. 6, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part Citigroup's motion to dismiss the claims against it in the Metromedia action. On Sept. 30, 2008, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court's order granting class certification in the matter In Re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litigation. On Oct. 1, 2008, the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which Citigroup will pay $35 million to members of the settlement class that purchased or otherwise acquired Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. securities during the class period. The settlement was preliminarily approved on Nov. 19, 2008. The proposed settlement amount is covered by existing litigation reserves. New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Dismissed Enron-related Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal to the dismissal of a consolidated amended Enron- related class-action complaint against Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and certain officers, remains pending, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In July 2002, Citigroup, Citigroup Global Markets and certain officers were named as defendants in an alleged class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, brought on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup common stock between July 24, 1999 and July 23, 2002. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and for common law fraud. Fourteen virtually identical complaints have been filed and consolidated. The complaints allege that Citigroup misstated the extent of its Enron-related exposure, and that Citigroup's stock price fell once the true extent of Citigroup's Enron involvements became known. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 10, 2003, which incorporated the allegations in the 15 separate actions and added new material as well. The amended complaint focuses on certain transactions between Citigroup and Enron and alleged analyst conflicts of interest. The class period for the consolidated amended complaint is July 24, 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002. On June 2, 2003, Citigroup filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Plaintiffs' response was filed on July 30, 2003 and Citigroup's reply was filed on Oct. 3, 2003. On Aug. 10, 2004, Judge Swain granted Citigroup's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in October 2004. No further developments regarding the case were reported in the Citigroup Global's latest Annual Report with the SEC. New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Appeal to Junked Revenue Sharing Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal to the dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its affiliates is pending, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Citigroup and certain of its affiliates have been named in several class action litigations pending in various federal district courts arising out of alleged violations of the federal securities laws, the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and the common law (including breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment). The claims concern practices in connection with the sale of mutual funds, including allegations involving market timing, revenue sharing, incentive payments for the sale of proprietary funds, undisclosed breakpoint discounts for the sale of certain classes of funds, inappropriate share class recommendations and inappropriate fund investments. The litigations involving market timing have been consolidated under the Multidistrict Litigation rules in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, and the litigations involving revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs in these litigations generally seek unspecified compensatory damages, rescissionary damages, injunctive relief, costs and fees. In the principal market timing cases that name Citigroup, a lead plaintiff has been appointed but that plaintiff has not yet filed an amended complaint. In the cases concerning revenue sharing, incentive payment and other issues, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated and amended complaint on Dec. 15, 2004. Citigroup moved to dismiss the claims and the motion was granted. An appeal is pending. Several derivative actions and class actions were also dismissed against Citigroup defendants in this action (and Citigroup expects that additional actions will be dismissed on similar grounds). New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: CGM Still Faces Suits Over Subprime Mortgages --------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. continues to face class-action lawsuits by shareholders of entities that originated subprime mortgages, and for which it underwrote securities offerings, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Citigroup Global Markets has been named as a defendant in: (i) two alleged class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of American Home Mortgage Investment Corp., pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York; and (ii) three alleged class action lawsuits brought by shareholders of Countrywide Financial Corp. and its affiliates, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On Sept. 12, 2008, defendants, including Citigroup and Citigroup Global Markets, moved to dismiss the complaint in "In Re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation." A motion to remand to California state court has been filed in one of the Countrywide-related actions. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions have sought unspecified damages relating to the alleged losses sustained by the class. New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Faces Consolidated Complaint in Bond Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. faces a consolidated class-action complaint in the matter captioned In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation, according to Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On Sept. 30 and Oct. 28, 2008, Citigroup, certain Citigroup entities, certain current and former directors and officers of Citigroup and Citigroup Funding, Inc., and certain underwriters of Citigroup notes, including Citigroup Global Markets, were named as defendants in two putative class actions filed in New York state court but since removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions allege violations of Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, arising out of various offerings of Citigroup notes during 2006, 2007, and 2008. On Dec. 10, 2008, these two actions were consolidated under the caption In re Citigroup Inc. Bond Litigation, and lead plaintiff and counsel were appointed. On Jan. 15, 2009, plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action complaint. New York-based Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., formerly Salomon Smith Barney Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P., is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the State of New York on June 15, 1998 to engage, directly and indirectly, in the speculative trading of a diversified portfolio of commodity interests, including futures contracts, options, swaps and forwards. Citigroup Managed Futures LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, acts as the General Partner of the Partnership. The Partnership's commodity broker is Citigroup Global Markets Inc., an affiliate of the General Partner. The General Partner is wholly owned by Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc. (CGMHI), which is the sole owner of CGM. CGMHI is a wholly owned subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. DIRECTECH HOLDING: Faces Mass. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DirecTECH Holding Co., Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in Massachusetts that accuses the company of failing to pay overtime wages, Livia Gershon of The Worcester Business Journal reports. The suit was filed by four workers in May 2008. Robert W. Harnais, Esq. a partner in the Law Offices of Mahoney, Diamond & Harnais in Quincy, is representing the workers in the suit, according to The Worcester Business Journal report. For more details, contact: Robert W. Harnais, Esq. (robert@harnaislaw.com) Law Offices of Mahoney, Diamond & Harnais 15 Foster Street Quincy MA 02169 Phone: (617) 770-0000 Ext. 108 or (781) 910-9408 (Cell) Fax: (617)770-0026 EHARMONY.COM INC: Faces Suit Over Lack of Date-Matching System -------------------------------------------------------------- eHarmony.com, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in California alleging that the company's claim of having a "scientifically proven system" to match its customers with appropriate partners is false, Rhett Pardon of XBIZ.com reports. The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on April 10, 2009, seeks class-action status and alleges that because eHarmony has no matchmaking system, consumers are oftentimes hooked up with scam artists, according to the XBIZ.com report. XBIZ.com reported that the plaintiffs, Lynda Kelly of Northern California and Miranda Soegi of Los Angeles said they both were duped by the online-matchmaking company because "rather than using a rigorous matching system and other procedures that 'make sure only sincere singles seeking long-term relationships are matched,' eHarmony did not employ any meaningful measures." Ms. Kelly, according to the suit, was hooked up with a scam artist from somewhere in the African continent whose only intent was to steal money. The lawsuit, which seeks $5 million in damages, claims Pasadena, Calif.-based eHarmony's advertising is misleading and the company is in violation of California's Unfair Business Act, reports XBIZ.com. It claims, "eHarmony has marketed itself, and has been able to charge premium prices for its services in the marketplace by claiming that its patented matching technology is based on more than 35 years of empirical and clinical research on what goes into successful relationships [bringing] together singles using a scientifically proven set of compatibility principles," XBIZ.com reported. However, "eHarmony has known about the deficiencies in its matching system as it always has known that it could not ensure its members that their matches were safe and compatible," the suit said. MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Refuses to Restore Status to "Kelley" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington refused to restore class-action status to the lawsuit, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," Gregg Keizer of Computerworld reports. In a ruling issued on April 10, 2009, Judge Pechman denied a motion by the plaintiffs to recertify a smaller group of consumers in the suit, according to the Computerworld report. Case Background Previously, Joseph Tartakoff of seattlepi.com reported that Microsoft Corp. sought for the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in the class-action lawsuit, which revolves around the company's marketing before the debut of its Windows Vista operating system in early 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008). The suit, captioned, "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07- cv-00475-MJP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 8, 2008). In early 2006, Microsoft executives approved a plan allowing PC makers to designate computers as "Vista Capable" even if they would only be able to run the most basic version of Vista, called "Vista Home Basic," according to seattlepi.com. The plaintiffs in the case claim that through the "Vista Capable" program Microsoft violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjustly enriched itself because the false designation drove up demand for personal computers and, therefore, prices, reports seattlepi.com. Initial Class Certification As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit filed against Microsoft over allegations that the company unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they are not. The slogan was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed, according to the CAR report. However, according to seattlepi.com, Judge Pechman dismissed plaintiffs' claim that Microsoft had deceived consumers into buying PCs they would not otherwise have bought. She instead allowed them to argue that Microsoft had illegally driven up prices. A subsequent CAR report on March 13, 2008, stated that Microsoft appealed against the court's decision affording class-action status to the Vista lawsuit. However, in a brief order dated April 21, 2008, the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's request to overturn Judge Pechman's decision. In motions that the company filed with court on Nov. 20, 2008, the company rebuts the claims and asks the judge to decertify the class. "Because it is clear that Plaintiffs cannot prove any element of their 'price inflation' theory, Microsoft moves for summary judgment," the company's filing reads. In the filing, which was obtained by seattlepi.com, Microsoft dismissed the plaintiffs' underlying argument that the most basic version of Vista was not Vista because it lacked certain features, including the Aero interface. Microsoft's attorneys wrote, "The fact that Windows Vista Home Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a distinct budget edition." They re-iterated, "Windows Vista Home Basic falls well within the Windows Vista family as a technical matter." In addition, Microsoft lawyers said that plaintiffs -- who have calculated how much money Microsoft generated from the sales of its operating systems on Vista Capable PCs -- had not shown that that revenue was attributable to increased sales of the PCs because of the program, reports seattlepi.com. Decertification In February 2009, John Letzing of MarketWatch reported that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington decertified the class-action lawsuit filed against Microsoft Corp. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009). In an order filed on Feb. 17, 2009, Judge Marsha Pechman wrote that, "At this juncture, the Court believes the most appropriate remedy for Plaintiffs' failure to present evidence suggesting class-wide causation is decertification." Judge Pechman specifically cited a lack of evidence for a "class-wide price inflation theory" put forward by the plaintiffs, according to the MarketWatch report. Judge Pechman allowed the lawsuit to proceed, because Microsoft has not "demonstrated that no material issue of fact exists for Plaintiffs' individual claims." In essence, the ruling forces plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually, reports MarketWatch. Seeking Reinstatement of Class-Action Status In early March 2009, Joseph Tartakoff of the Seattle Post Intelligencer reported that the plaintiffs in the recently decertified class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. for the alleged deceptive promotion of its flagship software, Windows Vista, have asked Judge Pechman to reinstate the class-action status of the case, under a narrower scope (Class Action Reporter, March 3, 2009). In a recent filing, plaintiffs asked Judge Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to certify a class action under two more narrowed criteria. Initially, the class included anyone who bought Windows Vista Capable PCs. Now plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify the class based on two subgroups: Those who participated in a Vista upgrade program and those who purchased Vista Capable PCs that could not support a specific driver, which plaintiffs say is essential to run Vista. The motion for narrowed class certification is under seal, but it is described in another filing. A copy of the motion is available at http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3a00. Opposing Reinstatement of Class-Action Status In March 2009, Elizabeth Montalbano of IDG News Service reported that Microsoft Corp. opposed an attempt to reinstate class- action status to the case (Class Action Reporter, March 17, 2009). In court papers filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Microsoft asked the court not to reconsider applying class-action status to the suit because people knew exactly which version of Vista they would receive through a coupon program called Express Upgrade Guarantee. The program allowed customers to buy PCs with Windows XP installed on them but then had to upgrade to Vista when the OS was released, according to the IDG News Service report. Microsoft also said that the plaintiffs took too long to ask for a narrowing of the class, even based on "theories known to them for more than a year," according to court papers obtained by IDG News Service. Trial Postponement In early April 2009, Gregg Keizer of Computerworld reported that Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington postponed the upcoming trial of the "Vista Capable" lawsuit, which was set to start April 13, 2009. According to court documents, Judge Pechman said in her ruling, "Plaintiffs' motion presents novel arguments that require thorough analysis. Without taking any position on the motion for narrowed class certification, the court believes a continuance is appropriate," reports Computerworld. Judge Pechman had promised attorneys for both parties that she would rule on the plaintiffs' motion to restore class-action status to the case by March 31, 2009, however, she acknowledged that she could not meet that deadline. Judge Pechman gave no indication when she would issue her ruling, according to the Computerworld report. "The trial date and all remaining pretrial dates are stricken," Judge Pechman said. "The court will contact the parties to schedule a trial date after it rules on plaintiffs' motion," Computerworld reported. The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 Web site: http://www.gordontilden.com/ e-mail: office@gordontilden.com MIVA INC: Discovery in Florida Securities Fraud Lawsuit Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit filed against Miva, Inc. -- formerly Findwhat.com, Inc. -- and certain of its officers and directors before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Beginning on May 6, 2005, five putative securities fraud class- action complaints were filed, alleging that the company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the individual defendants also violated Section 20(a) of the Act as "control persons" of MIVA. The plaintiffs purport to bring these claims on behalf of a class of the company's investors who purchased company stock between Jan. 5, 2004, and May 4, 2005. They allege generally that, during the putative class period, the company made misleading statements and omitted material information regarding the goodwill associated with a recent acquisition and certain material weaknesses in its internal controls. The plaintiffs assert that the company and the individual defendants made these misstatements and omissions in order to keep its stock price high to allow certain individual defendants to sell stock at an artificially inflated price. They seek unspecified damages and other relief. On June 13 and July 7, 2005, the company and the other defendants moved to dismiss each of these complaints for failure to comply with the mandatory pleading requirements of the Reform Act and also served answers to the complaints. On July 27, 2005, the court consolidated all of the outstanding lawsuits as "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation," selected lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the consolidated cases, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. The company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on Sept. 8, 2005. The dismissal motion was granted by the court in December 2005. The plaintiffs, however, were granted leave to submit a further amended complaint, which they filed on Jan. 17, 2006. The defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On March 15, 2007, the court granted in large part the defendants' dismissal request. However, the court denied their motion to dismiss as to certain claims relating to: -- removal of traffic sources, -- spyware, -- implementation of screening policies and procedures, and -- amounts of traffic purchased from distribution partners. The defendants then filed a motion for amendment to the March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. In July 2007, the court denied the motion for amendment to the March 15, 2007 order to include certification for interlocutory appeal, but granted the motion for reconsideration as to the issue of whether the plaintiffs pleaded a strong inference of scienter in light of intervening precedent. The court requested additional briefing on the scienter issue, and on Feb. 15, 2008, entered an order dismissing one of the individual defendants from the lawsuit and limiting the claims that could be brought against another individual defendant. The plaintiffs moved the court to certify a putative class of investors, and the defendants had filed briefs in opposition to this request. On March 12, 2008, the court entered an order certifying a class of those investors who purchased the company's common stock from Feb. 23, 2005, to May 4, 2005. The court also dismissed two of the proposed class representatives for lack of standing. The plaintiffs have served discovery requests on the defendants, and the discovery phase of the lawsuit is presently underway. The company reported no further development regarding the case in its March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "In re MIVA, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-00201-JES-DNF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge John E. Steele presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Chris A. Barker, Esq. (cbarker@barkerrodemsandcook.com) Barker, Rodems & Cook, P.A. 300 W. Platt St., Suite 150 Tampa, FL 33606 Phone: 813-489-1001 Fax: 813-489-1008 - and - Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq. (cpolaszek@milbergweiss.com) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP 5200 Town Center Circle, Ste. 600, Tower One Boca Raton, FL 33486-1018 Phone: 561-361-5000 Fax: 561-367-8400 Representing the defendant is: Joseph G. Foster, Esq. (jfoster@porterwright.com) Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, P.A. 5801 Pelican Bay Blvd., Suite 300 Naples, FL 34108 Phone: 239-593-2900 Fax: 239-593-2990 PFSWEB INC: Suit by Sales Representatives Settled in Dec. 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class-action lawsuit entitled, "Darral Frank and Joseph F. Keeley, Jr. v. PC Mall, Inc. dba eCOST.com and eCOST.com, Inc.," was settled for $100,000 in December 2008, according to PFSweb, Inc.'s March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. On July 25, 2007, the purported class-action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. The purported class consists of all of current and former sales representatives who worked for the defendants in California from July 24, 2003 through July 24, 2007. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to pay overtime compensation and interest thereon, failed to timely pay compensation to terminated employees and failed to provide meal and rest periods, all in violation of the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code. PFSweb, Inc. -- http://www.pfsweb.com/-- is an international provider of integrated business process outsourcing solutions to companies seeking to maximize their supply chain efficiencies and to extend their traditional business and e-commerce initiatives, as well as a multi-category online discount retailer of new, close-out and recertified brand-name merchandise. The company derives its revenues from three business segments: business process outsourcing, a master distributor and an online discount retailer. PFSweb operates call centers from its United States facilities located in Plano, Texas, and Memphis, Tennessee, and from international facilities located in Markham, Canada, Liege, Belgium and Manila, Philippines. RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed against Radian Group, Inc. and three current and former officers of the company, Andrew Longstreth of the Am Law Litigation Daily reports. Previously, Radian Group, Inc., sought for the dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class- action suit against the company that is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Class- Action Reporter, Sept. 26, 2008). In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class- action complaints were filed against Radian Group and certain individuals. The suits are: * "Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.," and * "Maslar v. Radian Group Inc." The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group's declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C- BASS. On Jan. 30, 2008, the Court ordered that the cases be consolidated into "In re Radian Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:2007-cv-03375," and appointed the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case. On April 16, 2008, a consolidated and amended complaint was filed, adding one additional defendant. On June 6, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case, which request the plaintiffs have opposed through a memorandum of law filed with the court on July 25, 2008, according to the company's Aug. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2008. A copy of the dismissal order is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3b74 The suit is "John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-03375," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert P. Frutkin, Esq. (rpf@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross 450 John Wanamaker Bldg. Juniper & Market Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 - and - David Seamus Kaskela, Esq. (skaskela@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants is: Leslie J. Abrams, Esq. (labrams@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP 1440 New York Avenue Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-371-7977 SATYAM COMPUTER: Says Mississippi Pension Fund Cannot Join Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Satyam Computer Services Ltd. has stated in a court filing that the Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), which claimed it lost $12.7 million, was not qualified to join in a dozen U.S. Securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed by other investors, because it bought Satyam's common shares rather than its American depositary receipts (ADRs), the focus of the litigation, Bloomberg reports. In a March 26, 2009 court filing, the company said, "Mississippi PERS does not belong to any purported class in this action," according to the Bloomberg report. The Class Action Reporter previously reported that between Jan. 9, 2009 and Feb. 11, 2009, that several law firms have filed purported class-action lawsuits against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. One of these lawsuits was filed by law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP. That suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the American Depository Shares of Satyam Computer Services Ltd. during the period Jan. 6, 2004 through Jan. 6, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2009). The complaint alleges that the Company and its top executives violated the Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false and misleading financial statements. ST. JOHN HEALTH: May 13 Hearing Set for $13.6M Nurses' Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan set a May 13, 2009 hearing to consider a proposed $13.6 million settlement in the matter, "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit Medical Center et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," The Associated Press reports. Jay Greene of Crain's Detroit Business previously reported that St. John Health System, a seven-hospital system based in Warren, Mich., agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit for $13.6 million, which alleged hospitals in Detroit conspired to keep wages for nurses artificially low (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2009). The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, according to the Crain's Detroit Business report. "St. John Health believes it acted appropriately and lawfully, and strongly denies the allegations in the lawsuit, including the allegation that nurse wages have been adversely affected," said St. John in a statement issued on March 30, 2009, Crain's Detroit Business reported. The St. John statement added that the settlement is intended "to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the distraction of burdensome and protracted litigation," according to Crain's Detroit Business. Crain's Detroit Business reported that other local hospital systems that are part of the lawsuit and have not settled include Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health System, Oakwood Healthcare System, Trinity Health and William Beaumont Hospitals. Case Background In 2006, the law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll and James & Hoffman have filed a federal class action on behalf of nurses against six Detroit, Mich.-area hospitals for alleged conspiracy to suppress wages (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2006). The hospital systems are: -- Bon Secours/Cottage Health Services, -- Detroit Medical Center, -- Henry Ford Health System, -- McLaren Health Care Corp, -- Oakwood Healthcare, and -- Saint John Health Partners. The defendants are accused of deliberately, secretly and systematically exchanging information about the wages they pay their nurses, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs named in the suit are Pat Cason-Merendo, who works at the Detroit Medical Center's Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan in Detroit, and Jeffrey Suhre of the St. John system's Providence Hospital and Medical Center in Southfield. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. They seek compensation for lost wages and damages. An estimated $340 million is allegedly owed for 16,800 registered nurses working full-time since 2002 at the six hospitals. The suit is "Cason-Merendo et al. v. Detroit Medical Center et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-15601-GER-MKM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral to Judge Mona K. Majzoub. Representing the plaintiffs is: Stephen F. Wasinger, Esq. (sfw@sfwlaw.com) Stephen F. Wasinger (Royal Oak) 26862 Woodward Avenue, Suite 100 Royal Oak, MI 48067-0958 Phone: 248-414-9942 THERMO FISHER: Faces Md. Litigation Over Iraqi Chemical Weapons --------------------------------------------------------------- Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc., VWR International, and Alcolac, Inc. are being sued for selling material to the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein used in his chemical weapon attacks against Iraqi Kurds, VOA News reports. Five Iraqi expatriates filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. state of Maryland, accusing the companies of violating the Geneva Conventions in connection with the attacks. The Republic of Iraq is also named in the suit, according to VOA News report. VOA News reported that Saddam's government used various chemical weapons in the anti-Kurd Anfal campaign in the late 1980's. At a ceremony last month honoring victims in Halabja, one of the most infamous attacks, Iraq's environment minister Narim Osman told VOA Kurdish Service foreign companies should be put on trial for their role in the killings. U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Extended Vehicle Protection ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Fidelis, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Missouri over the company's offer of extended vehicle protection for consumers whose original warranties have expired, Jon Hood of ConsumerAffairs.com reports. Many consumers who pay for the extra coverage assume that it will cover most if not all repairs, as dealer-provided warranties generally do. The problem, according to the suit, is that the company includes so many exceptions in its fine print that consumers are usually left out in the cold when their cars break down, reports ConsumerAffairs.com. The suit also alleges that the company misrepresented the level of coverage consumers would receive, and pressured them to sign up quickly or risk losing special benefits. Many consumers were told that they were eligible to receive special rates, which never materialized. On top of everything else, customers who asked to see the conditions of the contract were ignored, according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report. U.S. UNWIRED: Fifth Circuit Revives Louisiana Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partly reversed a lower court's dismissal of a putative class-action lawsuit alleging that material misrepresentations by U.S. Unwired, Inc. and its directors wrongfully inflated, then contributed to a drop in the company's stock price, saying the plaintiffs successfully pleaded loss causation on some claims, Law360 reports. In a ruling issued on April 9, 2009, the court remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to the Law360 report. VODAFONE GROUP: N.Y. Judge Reopens Securities Fraud Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed to reopen a putative securities class-action lawsuit lodged by a U.K.-based pension fund against Vodafone Group PLC alleging that the company inflated financial results, Law360 reports. Conceding that he did not consider the claims of an additional plaintiff in previously dismissing the case, Judge Castel on April 9, 2009, filed an order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granting the plaintiffs' request to reconsider dropping the case, according to the Law360 report. WHITNEY INFORMATION: Canadian Unit Still Faces Investments Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Information Network, Inc. and wholly owned subsidiary, Whitney Canada, Inc., continue to face a class-action suit on behalf of all persons who have made various real estate investments in Quebec, Canada. On Jan. 11, 2007, Whitney Canada, Inc. and Whitney Information Network, Inc. received notice of an Amended Motion for Authorization to Institute a Class Action in the Province of Quebec, Canada. A class-action suit was requested for all persons who have made various real estate investments, at the alleged inducement, or through, Marc Jemus, Francois Roy, Robert Primeau and/or their companies, and/or B2B Trust, and/or Whitney Canada, Inc., and/or Whitney Information Network, Inc. and/or Jean Lafreniere. According to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the complaint seeks repayment of $39,235 to the Petitioner, unspecified payment to each member of the class of an amount corresponding to their lost investments, payment of $10,000 to each member of the class as general damages, recovery of costs and other litigation expenses, and unspecified equitable relief. Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary educational and training courses for students throughout the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in learning about real estate and financial markets. The company's courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management, asset protection and other financially oriented subjects. WIN also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the general public. WHITNEY INFORMATION: Motion to Dismiss "Friedman" Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Whitney Information Network, Inc. awaits a ruling by the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Florida as to the motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. By an order dated Nov. 17, 2008, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice the initial complaint styled, "Durham v. Whitney Information Network, Inc. et al.," filed by the plaintiffs on Dec. 28, 2006. On Dec. 8, 2008, the company was served a consolidated amended class action complaint filed by Arnold Friedman individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Mr. Friedman seeks damages, injunctive relief, attorney costs and fees and other relief deemed appropriate by the Middle District Court. On Jan. 30, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint, according to the company's March 31, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Whitney Information Network, Inc. provides post-secondary educational and training courses for students throughout the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, interested in learning about real estate and financial markets. The company's courses provide instruction in real estate investing, business strategies, stock market investment techniques, cash management, asset protection and other financially oriented subjects. WIN also develops and sells educational resource materials, which it prepares, to support its course offerings and for sale to the general public. * Credit Counseling Judgment Spurs Industry Compliance Program -------------------------------------------------------------- The American Association of Debt Management Organizations (AADMO), the largest association for the credit counseling industry, will hold a special educational session that offers critical credit counseling agency legal compliance information at its Spring Conference in San Francisco, Calif., on May 12 and 13, 2009. According to Mark Guimond, Executive Director of the AADMO, "The fact that a $256 million class action judgment was just ordered in credit counseling should be of grave concern to every organization that is under audit by the IRS, had a change in its tax-exempt status, operates as a taxable entity or is a non- profit." "The legal landscape has been rough for years and a judgment of this nature and size is sure to create a new plaintiffs' bar that specializes in going after credit counseling agencies", said Mr. Guimond. "Those that understand the facts and the challenges will be better prepared to protect their agencies. Those who are ignorant of the law or wrongfully believe that it doesn't apply to their agencies will face substantial risk," added Guimond. The AADMO Spring Conference will feature the following sessions: -- Two of the Most Important IRS Documents Ever for Credit Counseling Agencies -- Foreclosure Consulting: Dangers, Pitfalls and the Potential Nightmares -- Charitable Solicitations - The Achilles Heel of 501(c) (3) Status? -- The Industry & AADMO: Taking Your Industry's Only Trade Association to the Next Level -- The Uniform Credit Counseling Industry Consumer Contract -- Yes, You are a Money Transmitter! The Law You Need to Know -- CROA Part Deux - Implications and Realities for Credit Counseling -- Credit Counseling Compliance Software -- Legislative Update & Review -- Review of State Laws with Regulators -- And More to Come... The AADMO Spring Conference program and registration information may be found at http://www.AADMO.org. AADMO is the largest trade association for the credit counseling and debt management industry. Nationwide, the majority of licensed and legally operating credit counseling agencies are members of AADMO. AADMO is an industry education and advocacy organization the mission of which is to promote and ensure the continued operation and viability of credit counseling and debt management organizations. AADMO members are consumer credit counseling agencies, debt management organizations, credit counselors, personal finance educators, credit and debt information educators, bankruptcy pre-filing counselors, bankruptcy pre-discharge educators, consumer lawyers and many others. AADMO is the only trade association to have held state law compliance workshops with the New York State Banking Department and the California Department of Corporations upon enactment of their respective laws governing credit counseling. AADMO is also the only trade association for the industry to publish a formal summary of state laws that has been reviewed by state regulators. For more information visit www.AADMO.org or call 281-361-2325. * Groups Urge For U.S. President Involvement in Drywall Disaster ---------------------------------------------------------------- Americas Watchdog, and its Homeowners Consumer Center are calling on President Obama to get personally involved with what is about to become the worst homeowner environmental disaster in US history. According to the group, "we are certain this imported toxic Chinese drywall affects 100,000's of new, or remodeled US homes, we know the drywall is emitting toxic gases, that are strong enough to degrade copper, silver, and other metals, and most importantly homeowners, their children, or family members are getting really sick, and a federal response is long overdue." The group says, "we need real science on the imported toxic Chinese drywall, we need to know why it is making people sick, and we need to know it now. We also need a US president, US Congress, and federal agencies to respond to this dire situation now." According to Americas Watchdog, "for good reason the news media mocked the federal response to Hurricane Katrina. We believe the imported Chinese drywall issue has the potential of being much worse than Katrina, and time is of the essence, because people exposed to the Chinese drywall are getting sick." Americas Watchdog and its Homeowners Consumer Center said that they believe that imported Chinese drywall will be discovered in significant quantities throughout the US. It has already been found in Florida, where the number of new or remodeled homes could reach 150,000+, in Louisiana and Mississippi, the numbers could reach 30,000+, in Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, Maryland, California, Oklahoma, Oregon, Alabama, Georgia, Connecticut, Arizona, and other states the toxic building material has been discovered in significant quantities. There are numerous class action lawsuits and/or lawsuits that have been filed over the toxic drywall issue. According to Americas Watchdog, "here's the problem, we do not think the class actions alone will provide the homeowners nationwide with enough money to turn a toxic house into a clean house that can then be re-sold, or deal with the health issues. We are not even sure what the testing protocols are, because of lack of good science, we don't know if people should move out of their home, if it contains the toxic Chinese drywall, given the possible severe health implications. We need an immediate federal response to this disaster. We believe a Congressional disaster relief bill will be needed to fix these toxic houses. The people who purchased these homes or remodeled these homes are innocent bystanders, no different than victims of a natural disaster. They need help now." "President Obama, if you could take a day this week, we would like to introduce you to several hundred people in a housing sub-division in Fort Myers, Florida. Their 400+ unit subdivision is infested with toxic Chinese drywall; these people are sick, and they fear their homes are now worth zero. Bring the EPA with you, and order them to get working on this national disaster immediately." The group says, "we need science on how to test these houses, we need medical experts to determine what exposure to toxic Chinese drywall will do to a homeowner or their family's health, and we need real solutions on how we can fix these houses--now." "We are also super worried about New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, the Florida panhandle and other areas affected by hurricanes like Katrina. To mention nothing of the US homes remodeled since 2001. Many repair crews with no licenses, or insurance bonds, installed imported Chinese drywall in homes affected by these storms, or remodeling jobs. Congress needs to allocate emergency funds to help the tens of thousands of innocent homeowners, who now have toxic Chinese drywall in their homes." The group thinks there could be 100,000's of new, or remodeled homes with the toxic Chinese drywall in all U.S States. "These people cannot wait for four years for a class action to settle. They need a federal disaster bill right now. We bail out banks that defrauded consumers & their investors on their mortgage loans with hundreds of billions, we bail out auto makers for making cars Americans do not want to buy, with billions, if Congress really wants a US stimulus program, help these hundreds of thousands of US homeowners rebuild their homes, so they are safe, for the families & children, who live in them." "We have faith that the President and Congress will take us up on our offer to meet these victims, we have faith they will instantly see the gravity of the issues facing these innocent homeowners." Most of these homes were built by undocumented workers, who in a 1099 tax fraud scheme and in collusion with the homebuilders, paid no federal taxes. As this federal funding starts to clean up these toxic homes, Americas Watchdog will insist that, only actual US citizens do the toxic clean up work and rebuilding, with full adherence to a Federal Labor laws, and tax rules. "We think we will need organized labor to assist in training the workers, so the job gets done right." For more information contact: Homeowners Consumer Center Phone: 866-714-6466 Web site: http://HomeownersConsumerCenter.Com New Securities Fraud Cases ALLIANZ GLOBAL: Brower Piven Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven commenced a class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common shares of certain mutual funds offered by Allianz Global Investors Fund Management. The law firm commenced a class action lawsuit on certain mutual funds offered by Allianz Global Investors Fund Management, including the common shares of the PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund II (PCK), PIMCO Municipal Income Fund II (PML), PIMCO Municipal Income Fund III (PMX), PIMCO New York Municipal Income Fund III (PYN) and PIMCO California Municipal Income Fund III (PZC) (collectively, the funds) between May 22, 2007 and December 1, 2008 for the PCK and PML funds, inclusive (the PIMCO II class period) and between June 6, 2007 and December 1, 2008 for the PMX, PYN and PZC funds, inclusive (the PIMCO III class period). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of those who purchased PCK and/or PML during the PIMCO II class period and for those who purchased PMX, PYN, and/or PZC during the PIMCO III class period by virtue of the company's failure to disclose during the two class periods that the funds lacked effective controls and hedges to minimize the risk of loss and risk of liquidity from a large exposure to auction rate securities (ARS). The complaint also accuses that the funds lacked effective internal controls to ensure that the funds would remain in compliance with restrictions and limitations related to their investment portfolios and strategies; the extent of the funds' liquidity risk and loss exposure from the illiquid nature of a large portion of the funds' portfolios, including ARS, was omitted or misstated. According to the complaint, as the full extent of the funds' liquidity risk and loss exposure from high risk instruments became known, the value of the funds' shares declined significantly. 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 CITIGROUP INC: Girard Gibbs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup, Inc. 8.50% Non- Cumulative Preferred Stock (NYSE: C-M) issued pursuant and/or traceable to the May 2008 public offering of approximately 81.6 million Series F depositary shares. It charges global banking corporation Citigroup and certain of its affiliates, officers and directors, and the underwriters of the offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. The class action, entitled, "Pellegrini v. Citigroup Inc. et al, 09-cv-3669," is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that Citigroup consummated the offering pursuant to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus. Specifically, Citigroup sold approximately 81.6 million Series F depositary shares at $25 per share for proceeds of approximately $2 billion. After Citigroup completed the offering, the company ultimately announced multi- billion dollar write-downs associated with its exposure to subprime mortgages, related collateralized debt obligations, commercial real estate loans and investments, as well as loans to companies with low credit ratings, causing the price of the Securities to decline dramatically. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 2, 2009. For more details, contact: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com) Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com) Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 711 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (866) 981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/citi.asp ZYNEX INC: Holzer Holzer Files Colo. Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased shares of Zynex, Inc. (OTCBB: ZYXI) (BERLIN: YU5) which was formerly known as Zynex Medical Holdings, Inc., between May 21, 2008 and March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that Zynex and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company made false and misleading statements to the public regarding its financial statements for the first three quarters of 2008. On April 1, 2009, the Company announced its unaudited financial statements could not be relied upon and that Zynex would have to issue restatements. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 8, 2009. 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 ********* 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 * * *