/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090428.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, April 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 82 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Approves $250M TriCor Antitrust Deal AEROSMITH: Settles Lawsuit Over Canceled 2007 Sold-Out Concert AVANEX CORP: Settlement of Bookham Merger Suit Pending Approval CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Suit in Mo. Still in Early Stages INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Investor's Litigation in Arizona KNIGHTS MARINE: Denies Allegations in Foreign Workers' Lawsuit MOSAIC CO: Defending Potash Indirect Buyers' Consolidated Suit MOSAIC CO: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Direct Potash Buyers NEW YORK: Firm Rejected as Lead Plaintiff in Pension Funds' Suit PEPSI BOTTLING: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Says Franchise Agreement Bars Lawsuit RAM ENERGY: Settlement of Royalty Owners' Suit Approved in April STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Pursuing Dismissal of Merged Securities Suit TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for May 4 Conference U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Extended Vehicle Protection USANA HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Pyramid Scheme-Like Operation WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending WEST PUBLISHING: Appeals Court Upholds $49M BAR/BRI Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases CORUS BANKSHARES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit OPPENHEIMER CORE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Stock Lawsuit ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Approves $250M TriCor Antitrust Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has approved a $250 million settlement in the long-running antitrust class-action lawsuit that accused Abbott Laboratories and its French partner Fournier Industrie et Sante of conspiring to block generics makers from breaking into the lucrative market for the high-cholesterol drug TriCor, Law360 reports. The approval was granted on April 23, 2009 by Judge Sue Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, according to the Law360 report. RTT News previously reported that the litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, involved direct purchaser class action claims and claims brought by certain individual plaintiffs, who reportedly alleged that Abbott created a monopoly and prevented generic competition with its anticholesterol drug TriCor (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2008). AEROSMITH: Settles Lawsuit Over Canceled 2007 Sold-Out Concert -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerosmith has agreed to perform on Maui to settle a class-action lawsuit fans filed against the band after it canceled a sold-out concert on the Valley Isle in 2007, The Associated Press reports. Brandee Faria, Esq. is one of three attorneys representing the jilted concert goers. She tells The Associated Press that everyone who bought a ticket to the original concert will receive a free ticket, and all out-of-pocket expenses will be reimbursed regardless of the amount. The new concert date hasn't been determined but will probably be sometime in the fall, reports The Associated Press. The Associated Press reported that the settlement was reached on April 27, 2009 after two days of talks. The suit was filed by fans who bought tickets and incurred other costs while making plans to attend the concert. They alleged Aerosmith opted to play at more lucrative venues in Chicago and on Oahu, according to The Associated Press report. AVANEX CORP: Settlement of Bookham Merger Suit Pending Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of the amended purported class-action complaint filed by two individuals who purport to be shareholders of Avanex Corp. is pending approval by the Superior Court of California, Alameda County Avanex. On Feb. 3, 2009, the purported class-action complaint was filed against Avanex and its directors, Bookham, Inc., and Ultraviolet Acquisition Sub, Inc. The plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of all shareholders of Avanex. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in connection with the contemplated merger of Avanex and Bookham. The complaint also alleges that Avanex, Bookham, and Ultraviolet Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the merger with Bookham, monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses. On March 3, 2009, these individuals filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in connection with the contemplated merger of Avanex and Bookham, and that a preliminary version of the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus included in the Registration on Form S-4 filed by Bookham with the SEC on Feb. 26, 2009 fails to provide stockholders with material information or contains materially misleading information thereby rendering the stockholders unable to cast an informed vote on the proposed merger. The complaint also alleges that Avanex, Bookham, and Ultraviolet Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the individual defendants' alleged breach of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek to permanently enjoin the merger with Bookham, monetary damages in an unspecified amount attributable to the alleged breach of duties, and legal fees and expenses. On April 8, 2009, Avanex and the other named defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiff's counsel regarding the proposed settlement of the Action. In connection with the proposed settlement, Avanex agreed to make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders. The memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Avanex's stockholders. The stipulation of settlement will provide for a hearing at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement which, if finally approved by the court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have been brought in the Action, including all claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the memorandum of understanding, the parties contemplate that plaintiff's counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of up to $230,000 as part of the settlement, which will be paid by Avanex (or its successor(s)- in-interest), according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 9, 2009. Avanex Corp. -- http://www.avanex.com/-- is a global provider of intelligent, photonic products, including optical components, modules and subsystems. The company designs, manufactures and markets fiber optic-based products, known as photonic processors. Avanex Corp. sells products to telecommunications system integrators and their network carrier customers. Its products enable optical communication networks to regenerate, transmit and manage voice, video and data optical signals efficiently. Avanex Corp. primarily markets its products to telecommunications system integrators. The Company sells and markets its products through a combination of direct sales, distributors and representatives. As of June 30, 2008, its direct sales organization consisted of directly employed account managers in the United States, Europe and Asia, supported by application engineers and product line managers. CHATTEM INC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Garlic Supplement -------------------------------------------------------------- Chattem Inc. continues to face a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging it pushes its "Garlique" garlic supplement with the bogus claim that it lowers cholesterol, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other consumers who purchased, used and ingested the Product. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product were deceptive or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.; (b) whether the defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product were deceptive or false in any respect, thereby violating California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (c) whether the defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; (d) whether the defendant breached express warranties in its sale of the product, thereby causing harm to the plaintiff and class members; (e) whether defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, promotion, advertising, labeling and sale of the Product unjustly enriched defendant at the expense of, and to the detriment of, plaintiff and class members; (f) whether the defendant fraudulently marketed, promoted, advertised, labeled and sold the Product; (g) whether the defendant breached California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., in its sale of the Product, thereby causing harm to Plaintiff and Class members; (h) whether the defendant's conduct as set forth above injured consumers and if so, the extent of the injury. The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and for members of the general public, requests for relief, jointly and severally, pursuant to each cause of action set forth in this Complaint as follows: 1. for an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action. 2. for an award of equitable relief as follows: (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices and deceptive marketing, promotion labeling and advertising described in this Complaint; (b) requiring Defendant to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as a result of the conduct described in this Complaint; (c) requiring defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains flowing from the conduct described in the complaint; and (d) requiring Defendant to provide public notice of the true nature of the Product. 3. for actual and punitive damages under the CLRA in an amount to be proven at trial, including any damages as may be provided for by statute upon the filing of a Second Amended Complaint should the demanded corrections not take place within the thirty-day notice period. 4. for an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to, inter alia, Section 1780(d) of the CLRA and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. 5. for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the Third, Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Causes of Action. 6. for punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the Seventh Cause of Action. 7. for an award of costs and any other relief the Court might deem appropriate. 8. for pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The company was served with this lawsuit on Dec. 18, 2008. The suit is "Goodell v Chattem, Inc., Case No. 2:2008-01206," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. For more information, contact: Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com) Hewell Law Firm 105 West "F" Street, Suite 213 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-235-6854 Fax: 888-298-0177 FCSTONE GROUP: Stockholders' Suit in Mo. Still in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit filed against FCStone Group, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri is still in its early stages, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. The company and certain of its officers have been named as defendants in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on July 15, 2008. The action, which purports to be brought as a class action on behalf of purchasers of FCStone common stock between Nov. 15, 2007 and July 9, 2008, seeks to hold defendants liable under Sections 10b and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for alleged false statements and failure to disclose adverse facts relating to an interest rate hedge and the company's bad debt reserve. FCStone Group, Inc. -- http://www.fcstone.com/-- is an integrated commodity risk management company providing risk management consulting and transaction execution services to commercial commodity intermediaries, end users and producers. It assists primarily middle market customers. In addition, to its risk management consulting services, the Company operates an independent clearing and execution platforms for exchange-traded futures and options contracts. INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Faces Investor's Litigation in Arizona ----------------------------------------------------------- An investor of Insight Enterprises, Inc. filed a putative class- action lawsuit against technology provider and its officers and directors accusing them of misleading shareholders about accounting errors, which led to financial restatements and a dramatic drop in the company's stock price, Law360 reports. The plaintiff, Dimitriy Karpov, filed the suit against the Tempe, Ariz.-based company and a dozen directors and officers on on April 23, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to the Law360 report. KNIGHTS MARINE: Denies Allegations in Foreign Workers' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Knights Marine & Industrial Services, Inc., a subsidiary of Five Star Contractors LLC, has denied allegations in a purported class-action lawsuit that alleges foreign workers on temporary visas in Mississippi were forced to live in storage buildings and were not given the jobs and pay they were promised, Cherie Ward of The Mississippi Press reports. Officials with the Moss Point fabrication company told The Mississippi Press that the federal lawsuit filed by temporary foreign workers is "frivolous and defamatory." Brian Knight, president of the company, said The Mississippi Press that the class-action case, "contains allegations that are unfounded and false." The company "will aggressively defend the false allegations in this frivolous lawsuit and refuse to be bullied by the activist group who is behind the filing of this action," he tells The Mississippi Press. The Associated Press previously reported that ten Brazilians sued the two companies on April 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, accusing the defendants of racketeering, breach of contract, and fraud (Class Action Reporter, April 22, 2009). The workers allege they paid thousands of dollars to come to Mississippi in hopes of high-paying jobs that didn't materialize, reports The Associated Press. The suit seeks class-action status to cover all workers brought to the United States by the companies in 2006 and 2007, The Associated Press reported. MOSAIC CO: Defending Potash Indirect Buyers' Consolidated Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Co. continues to defend a consolidated class-action complaint by indirect purchasers of potash in the United States, according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. On Sept. 15, 2008, separate complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by Gordon Tillman; Feyh Farm Co. and William H. Coaker Jr.; and Kevin Gillespie. The defendants in the Indirect Purchaser Cases are The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. On Nov. 13, 2008, the initial plaintiffs in the Indirect Purchaser Cases and David Baier, an additional named plaintiff, filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The Indirect Purchaser Cases were filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who indirectly purchased potash and/or fertilizer containing potash for their own use during the Class Period in the United States, any of 26 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as "Indirect Purchaser States," any of 20 specified states and the District of Columbia defined in the consolidated complaint as "Consumer Fraud States", and/or 48 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico defined in the consolidated complaint as "Unjust Enrichment States." The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages where allowed by law, arising from defendants' alleged continuing agreement, understanding, contract, combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, the antitrust, or unfair competition laws of 21 states and the District of Columbia and the consumer protection and unfair competition laws of 22 states and the District of Columbia, as well as restitution or disgorgement of profits in the Unjust Enrichment States, damages for alleged common law restraint of trade in New York, and any penalties, punitive or exemplary damages and/or full consideration where permitted by applicable state law. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees where allowed by law and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal feed ingredients. The Company operates its business through four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and nitrogen. MOSAIC CO: Still Faces Consolidated Suit by Direct Potash Buyers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Mosaic Co. continues to face a consolidated class-action complaint by direct purchasers of potash in the United States, according to the company's April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. In September, October, and November 2008, separate complaints were filed by Minn-Chem, Inc., Gage's Fertilizer & Grain, Inc., Kraft Chemical Company, Westside Forestry Services, Inc. d/b/a Signature Lawn Care, and Shannon D. Flinn, against The Mosaic Company, Mosaic Crop Nutrition, LLC and a number of unrelated defendants that allegedly sold and distributed potash throughout the United States. The defendants in the one case also included a number of unnamed alleged co-conspirators. On Nov. 13, 2008, the plaintiffs' in the cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois filed a consolidated class action complaint against the defendants, and on Dec. 2, 2008, the Minn-Chem Case was consolidated with the Gage's Fertilizer Case. The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a purported class of all persons who purchased potash in the United States directly from the defendants during the period July 1, 2003 through the date of the consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint generally alleges, among other matters, that the defendants: conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which potash was sold in the United States; exchanged information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand; allocated market shares, customers and volumes to be sold; coordinated on output, including the limitation of production; and fraudulently concealed their anticompetitive conduct. The plaintiffs in the Direct Purchaser Cases generally seek injunctive relief and to recover unspecified amounts of damages, including treble damages, arising from defendants' alleged combination or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The plaintiffs also seek costs of suit, reasonable attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. The Mosaic Co. -- http://www.mosaicco.com/-- is a producer of phosphate and potash combined, as well as nitrogen and animal feed ingredients. The Company operates its business through four business segments: phosphates, potash, offshore and nitrogen. NEW YORK: Firm Rejected as Lead Plaintiff in Pension Funds' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York passed over an applicant for lead plaintiff in a securities class-action lawsuit involving a pension fund whose counsel he criticized for providing free portfolio monitoring services, Mark Hamblett of The New York Law Journal reports. The judge declined to appoint Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead counsel in two companion cases, "Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension v. Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, 08 CV 10841," and "Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi v. Merrill Lynch, 09 CV 1392," according to The New York Law Journal report. The lawsuits claim the pension funds were sold bundled mortgages without being told some of the loans were bad. Judge Rakoff told Coughlin Stoia's David Rosenfeld, Esq. at an April 1, 2009 hearing that the agreement his firm had to monitor Iron Workers' portfolio for possible securities fraud was "about as obvious a conflict of interest" as he had ever seen, reports The New York Law Journal. Mr. Rosenfeld defended the arrangement as common and assured the court that the iron workers union remained the decision maker on whether to sue for fraud and was always at liberty to select the counsel of its choice. In an order released on April 24, 2009, Judge Rakoff appointed as lead plaintiff the Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi and their lawyers, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, as lead counsel, The New York Law Journal reported. The judge reserved the right to appoint the firms co-lead counsel if circumstances warrant it, including if new cases are added to the litigation. The judge said he would issue an opinion later expanding on his resolution of "several difficult issues" posed by the case, according to The New York Law Journal report. PEPSI BOTTLING: Faces Lawsuit Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of current investors, who purchased the Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (NYSE:PBG) stock prior to the announcement of the proposed takeover by PepsiCo, Inc., against Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. and its board of directors over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty arising out of their attempt to sell Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc to PepsiCo, Inc. Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. was sued by an investor who claims PepsiCo Inc.'s $29.50-a-share buyout offer undervalues the stock. According to court papers the offer is unfair and inadequate because the value of Pepsi Bottling Group's common stock is materially higher than the amount offered, considering its potential profits. PepsiCo Inc. announced on Monday to buy the bottling operations Pepsi Bottling Group and PepsiAmerica in a $6 billion takeover bid. PepsiCo Inc. is offering $29.50 in cash and stock for each share of Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc (NYSE:PBG), valuing the company at about $6.4 billion and in a separate offer for PepsiAmericas, $23.27 per share, that values that bottler at about $2.9 billion. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges that Pepsi Bottling Group and its board of directors violated and breaches their fiduciary duty owed to the shareholders of Pepsi Bottling Gorup, Inc. The stocks of both bottlers soared Monday, hitting levels that were above the implied acquisition price. Pepsi Bottling Group shares were recently up 21% to $30.48 and PepsiAmericas shares recently added 21% to $24.08. PepsiCo owned 33.1% of PBG stock as of February 13, according to PBG's proxy filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Two PepsiCo executives sit on Pepsi Bottling Group 's board -- John C. Compton, head of PepsiCo Americas Foods, and Cynthia M. Trudell, chief personnel officer and a former director of PepsiCo. Pepsi already also owns one-third Pepsi Bottling Group and over two- fifths of Minneapolis-based PepsiAmericas. A decade ago, Pepsi sought to separate itself from its bottlers, figuring it would help the company focus on soft-drink growth while keeping bottling assets off its balance sheet. Pepsi Chairman and Chief Executive Indra Nooyi reportedly said business conditions had changed significantly since then. Owning the two big bottlers would give Pepsi control over how it distributes its beverages, allowing it to revamp production and distribution and squeeze out costs. Combining Pepsi with its two main bottlers would give Pepsi control of about 80% of its North America beverage distribution volume. Late last year Pepsi Bottling began distribution of Crush sodas, made by rival Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. and a stronger brand than Pepsi's fruit-soda offerings. Pepsi said its efforts at consolidation would create annual pre-tax synergies of more than $200 million through cost reductions and efficiencies of scale, and expects to boost annual earnings by 15 cents a share once those synergies are fully realized. QUIZNOS FRANCHISE: Court Says Franchise Agreement Bars Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled on April 21, 2009 that a group of Quiznos franchisees cannot collectively participate in a class-action lawsuit because their signed franchise agreement specifically bars them from doing so, Don Sniegowski of Blue MauMau reports. Eighteen budding franchise owners banded together in a class- action lawsuit, alleging that they participated in a quasi-Ponzi scheme in which they deposited between $20,000 and $25,000 each for a Quiznos sub shop, but then were not given permission to open a location, according to the Blue MauMau report. Blue MauMau reported that the franchise contract declares that franchisees must open a store within a year or else they lose both that right and their money. But franchisees cannot set up shop until Quiznos approves their site, and Quiznos has been slow to do so. In the lawsuit, attorneys claim that their 18 clients are a drop in the bucket of the 3,200 franchises that have been sold but not opened, reports Blue MauMau. The suit, entitled, "Bonanno, et al. v. Quiznos Franchise, LLC, et al., Case No. 06-CV-02358(WYD)(KLM)," seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In the case, the franchisees have alleged valid claims for, among other things, violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, breaches of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, as well as a declaratory judgment that the franchise agreements signed by the franchisees are "unconscionable" (Class Action Reporter, March 10, 2008). The suit alleges that Quiznos unlawfully collected over $75 million in franchise fees from more than 3,000 franchisees across the United States that never opened a store. Refunds of those fees were not rendered despite Quiznos' failure to provide contractually-required site selection services to the franchisees in a timely manner. The suit, originally filed in a New Jersey state court on Feb. 16, 2006, is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for Colorado. RAM ENERGY: Settlement of Royalty Owners' Suit Approved in April ---------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court for Woods County, Oklahoma, in April 2009, approved the settlement of a putative class-action suit filed by royalty owners against RAM Energy Resources, Inc., formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. The lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated companies, in April 2002, by a lessor of certain oil and gas leases from which production was sold to a gathering system owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its wholly- owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership. The suit covers the period from 1977 to a current date. In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned subsidiaries of RAM Energy, Inc. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of all royalty owners under leases owned by any of the defendants during the period Magic Circle or CFLP owned and operated the gathering system. The petition claims that additional royalties are due because Magic Circle and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the wellhead for an amount in excess of the price upon which royalty payments were based and paid no royalties on natural gas liquids extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system. Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at the wellhead by Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties on take or pay settlement proceeds and failure to properly report deductions for post-production costs in accordance with Oklahoma's check stub law. RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the lawsuit denying all material allegations set out in the petition. The lawsuit was certified by the trial court as a class action in January 2007. The certification was upheld by the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals in June 2008. Petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Oklahoma Supreme Court of the class certification decision were timely filed by the defendants in the lawsuit. However, at the parties' request, consideration of the petitions has been deferred pending final approval of the settlement that was recently reached in the matter. On Sept. 18, 2008, certain direct and indirect subsidiaries of RAM Energy Resources, Inc. entered into an agreement that tentatively effects a settlement of claims asserted in the pending class-action lawsuit styled, "Sacket v. Great Plains Pipeline company, et al., District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2002-70." Under the terms of the settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval, the company and its subsidiaries will pay $16.0 million of the aggregate $25.0 to be paid by all defendants in full and complete settlement of all claims asserted in the lawsuit relating to the payment of royalties on production from class wells during the period July 1983 through July 2008. On Oct. 14, 2008, the trial court preliminarily approved the settlement and ordered that a fairness hearing be held on March 5, 2009. The entire settlement amount has been deposited in escrow by the defendants pending final disposition of the settlement following the fairness hearing, expected to occur in the second quarter of 2009. On March 5, 2009, following a fairness hearing, the Court entered judgment approving a negotiated settlement pursuant to which RAM Energy and the other defendants agreed to pay an aggregate $25.0 million in settlement of the Lawsuit. RAM Energy and its subsidiaries agreed to pay $16.0 million of the settlement amount, with the unrelated third party defendants paying the remaining $9.0 million. The judgment became final on April 6, 2009. On April 7, 2009, the company made a claim against the escrow for all of the escrowed shares. Also on April 7, 2009, the former stockholders of RAM Energy notified the escrow agent that they would substitute cash, at a Fair Market Value of $.74 per share, for a total of 316,190 shares of their company common stock held in escrow. On April 8, 2009, the escrow agent initiated the transfer to the company, in satisfaction of the indemnification obligation of the former RAM stockholders, of a total of 2,883,810 shares of company common stock and $233,980 in cash, less the fees and expenses of the escrow agent. The shares of common stock received by the company from the escrow will be held as treasury shares, according to the company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 9, 2009. RAM Energy Resources, Inc. -- http://www.ramenergy.com/-- formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and gas company focused on the acquisition, exploration, development, exploitation, production and management of oil and gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma. On May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. In accordance with the merger agreement, Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp. has changed its name to RAM Energy Resources, Inc. STARBUCKS COFFEE: Fla. Judge Certifies Class in FLSA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William P. Dimitrouleas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted conditional class-action status to the case, "Reed v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No. 0:09-cv-60073-WPD," Melissa Allison of The Seattle Times reports. The lawsuit, which was filed by Starbucks store manager Ronald Reed on Jan. 15, 2009, claims the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not paying overtime. It seeks to represent people who worked as Starbucks store managers from Jan. 15, 2006, to the present, according to The Seattle Times report. The suit is "Reed v. Starbucks Coffee Company, Case No. 0:09- cv-60073-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Representing the plaintiff is: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. (drlevine@sbwlawfirm.com) Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA 7777 Glades Road Suite 400 Boca Raton, FL 33434 Phone: 561-477-7800 Fax: 561-477-7722 (fax) Representing the defendant is: Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq. (susan.eisenberg@akerman.com) Akerman Senterfitt 1 SE 3rd Avenue 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131-1714 Phone: 305-374-5600 Fax: 305-374-5095 SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Sewer Ratepayers' Case Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to dismiss the sewer ratepayers' class-action suit filed against Syncora Guarantee Inc., one of the operating businesses of Syncora Holdings, Ltd. formerly Security Capital Assurance, Ltd., and numerous other defendants, remains pending. On June 17, 2008, Charles Wilson, on behalf of himself and a class consisting of every Jefferson County, Alabama sewer ratepayer since January 1, 1993, filed the suit. The suit alleges that through the wrongful conduct of the members of the Jefferson County Commission, most notably Larry Langford, the County incurred a bonded indebtedness of approximately US$3.2 billion relating to improvements to its sewer system. The complaint alleges that the commissioners, in a conspiracy with several individuals, financial companies, law firms, and bond insurers, completed several swap transactions whereby the bonds, which were primarily fixed interest securities, were swapped to variable rate and auction rate securities. These swaps, the complaint alleges, were done primarily to facilitate the inappropriate payment of exorbitant fees to several bond brokers and financial advisors. With respect to the bond insurers, including Syncora Guarantee, the complaint alleges that the insurers negligently insured the bonds while allowing themselves to become undercapitalized and downgraded by the rating services, which in turn downgraded the bonds. The plaintiffs allege damages on the ground that their sewer rates are much higher than they otherwise would have been without the wrongdoing of all parties. The company has filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending before the court. Plaintiffs have also voluntarily dismissed Jefferson County taxpayers as members of the putative class, leaving only the sewer system ratepayers. Several of the defendants have filed motion seeking recusal of the Judge based on his daughter being a Jefferson County ratepayer, and thus a member of the putative class of plaintiffs. Syncora Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.scafg.com/Holdings/-- formerly Security Capital Assurance Limited, is a holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide financial guarantee insurance, reinsurance, and other credit enhancement products to the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the U.S. and internationally. The company's businesses consists of Syncora Guarantee Inc. (formerly XL Capital Assurance Inc.) and its wholly owned subsidiary, XL Capital Assurance (U.K.) Limited (XLCA-UK) and Syncora Guarantee Re Ltd. (formerly XL Financial Assurance Ltd.). The segments of the company are financial guarantee insurance and financial guarantee reinsurance. The financial guarantee insurance segment offers financial guarantee insurance policies and credit-default swaps contracts. The financial guarantee reinsurance segment reinsures financial guarantee policies and CDS contracts issued by other monoline financial guarantee insurance companies. SYNCORA HOLDINGS: Pursuing Dismissal of Merged Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Syncora Holdings Ltd.'s motion to dismiss on behalf of the company and the individual defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit remains pending in New York, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In December 2007 and January 2008, three class-action lawsuits were commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They are: -- "Brickman Investments, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al.," -- "2 West, Inc. v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al.," and -- "Clarke v. Security Capital Assurance Ltd et al." Two of the lawsuits were filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common shares in the secondary public offering by XL Insurance Ltd., as selling shareholder, on or about June 6, 2007. The third lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities from April 23, 2007, through Dec. 10, 2007, including those who purchased shares in the secondary offering. The complaints name the company, its president and chief executive officer, its former executive vice president and chief financial officer, and XL Insurance, as defendants, and they allege various violations of the U.S. Securities Act and the U.S. Exchange Act by the defendants. Two of the complaints also name the lead underwriters of the secondary offering as defendants. The complaints include claims that the defendants' public statements, including the registration statement and prospectus related to the secondary offering, contained false and misleading statements and omitted to disclose material facts necessary to make the statements contained therein not misleading. On April 24, 2008, an order was entered consolidating these actions under the caption "In re Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation," and appointing the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island as lead plaintiff. On Aug. 6, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The consolidated amended complaint adds Edward Hubbard, Executive Vice President, as well as Richard Heberton, former chief credit officer of XL Capital Assurance, Inc., as defendants and expands the class period to include all persons who acquired the company's securities from March 15, 2007, to March 18, 2008. Syncora Holdings filed a motion to dismiss on behalf of itself and the individual defendants. The suit is "In Re: Security Capital Assurance Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-11086-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Deborah A. Batts, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. (egleston@bernlieb.com) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-779-1414 e-mail: 212-779-3218 Irving Bizar, Esq. (Ibizar@Ballonstoll.com) Ballon, Stoll, Bader and Nadler 729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-575-7900 Fax: 212-764-5060 - and - Richard A Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling 41 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 TALON INT'L: Calif. Shareholder Suit Set for May 4 Conference ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported shareholder class-action suit styled "Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," is set for a status conference on May 4, 2009. Talon International Inc. was formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc. On Oct. 12, 2005, the shareholder class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov. 14, 2003, to Aug. 12, 2005. On Jan. 23, 2006, the court appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with certain of its large customers during the purported class period. The suit purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007, and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007. On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. The plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also sought to intervene for a new plaintiff to pursue class certification. Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition, the same day the Court granted the company's and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment -- April 5, 2007 -- the court entered judgment in favor of all the defendants. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The company's brief was filed on Nov. 28, 2007. The Ninth Circuit held oral arguments on Oct. 23, 2008. On Jan. 16, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished memorandum, instructing the District Court to certify a class, reversing the District Court's grant of summary judgment, and remanding for further proceedings consistent with its decision. The District Court has scheduled a status conference for May 4, 2009, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Judge Manuel L. Real, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Jules Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. (pbinkow@glancylaw.com) Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 - and - Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 e-mail: service@ssbla.com Representing the defendants is: Panteha Abdollahi, Esq. (pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com) Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-668-6200 U.S. FIDELIS: Faces Suit in Mo. Over Extended Vehicle Protection ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Fidelis faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Missouri over extended vehicle protection it offers to 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 U.S. Fidelis includes so many exceptions in its fine print that consumers are usually left out in the cold when their cars break down, according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report. The suit also alleges that U.S. Fidelis 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, reports ConsumerAffairs.com. USANA HEALTH: Faces Lawsuit Over Pyramid Scheme-Like Operation --------------------------------------------------------------- Usana Health Sciences Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Nevada alleging it operates as a pyramid scheme in which independent distributors must focus on signing up more distributors as opposed to selling products, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. Joseph Chirco, in his lawsuit filed in Clark County District Court, seeks to have the suit certified as a class-action case representing all Nevada Usana distributors. He is represented by attorney John Nowakowski, Esq., according to The Las Vegas Sun report. Mr. Chirco claims to have lost money by purchasing a Usana distributorship. He alleges violations of Nevada's deceptive trade practices act and accuses the big direct marketer of nutritional and cosmetic products of consumer fraud of failing to disclose all required facts about its marketing program, of unjustly enriching itself at the expense of distributors and of civil conspiracy, The Las Vegas Sun reported. "Those already in the pyramid are greedily incentivized to recruit more and more distributors to grow the base for the benefit of those higher up on the pyramid," Mr. Chirco's suit charges. "It isn't until one is locked into a distributorship that it becomes clear that merely selling products to consumers without a pyramid position is not a realistically sustainable option. The only way for an associate to economically stay afloat is to recruit lower ranks for the Usana pyramid," according to The Las Vegas Sun report. WD-40 CO: Appeal to Denial of "Drimmer" Class Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal to an order entered by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denying class- action status to a purported class-action lawsuit against WD-40 Co. remains pending, according to the company's April 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Feb. 28, 2009. James Drimmer filed the suit on April 19, 2006, alleging fraud in the company's marketing of automatic toilet bowl cleaners. After several of the plaintiff's factual claims were dismissed by way of motion, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 20, 2006. The amended complaint sought class-action status. It alleged that the company misrepresented that its 2000 Flushes Bleach and 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach automatic toilet bowl cleaners are safe for plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise consumers regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber. On Aug. 24, 2007, the company successfully defeated the plaintiff's attempt to have the case certified as a class- action. The plaintiff then petitioned for permission to appeal the District Court's decision and the company has opposed this move. The plaintiff has been granted permission to appeal the District Court's decision. The suit is "Drimmer v. WD-40 Co., Case No. 3:06-cv-00900-W- AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Judge Thomas J. Whelan, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Robert L. Kenny, Esq. (rkenny@kennylaw.net) The Law Offices of Robert L. Kenny 401 West A Street, Suite 2300 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-234-1616 Fax: 619-234-1650 Representing the company is: Shannon Sweeney, Esq. Baker and McKenzie 101 West Broadway, Suite 1200 San Diego, CA 92101-8213 Phone: 619-236-1441 Fax: 619-236-0429 WEST PUBLISHING: Appeals Court Upholds $49M BAR/BRI Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- An appeals court has upheld a $49 million settlement in an antitrust class-action lawsuit against West Publishing Corp. and Kaplan, Inc. over test preparation courses for law school admissions and the bar exam, though the court has reversed and remanded an order approving attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' counsel. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued it decision on April 23, 2009. Matthew Hirsch of Law.com previously reported that U.S. District Judge Manuel Real approved the $49 million settlement of the BAR/BRI class-action case on July 9, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). The case was filed by former law students in California, Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006). Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full- service bar review courses. Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career services. BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. To assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct, consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007). In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of the litigation. On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2007). Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. Where BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up to the present time. Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to make a claim. Objections are due May 21, 2007. As a part of the settlement, defendants have agreed to establish a $49 million fund. The settlement also provides for other non- monetary relief. Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from the fund. BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net: http://www.barbri-classaction.com The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Eliot G. Disner, Esq. Noah E Jussim, Esq. McGuireWoods, LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8299 Fax: 310-315-8298 e-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq. Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq. Colleen M. Regan, Esq. Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8200 e-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com - and - Joanna Shally, Esq. Shearman and Sterling 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4700 Representing the defendants are: Edward A. Klein, Esq. Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Phone: 310-500-3500 Stuart N. Senator, Esq. Lee Scott Taylor, Esq. Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 e-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com - and - Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq. Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq. Brian A. Sun, Esq. Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-489-3939 e-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com For more details, contact: BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator P.O. Box 24639 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-888-285-7850 e-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com New Securities Fraud Cases CORUS BANKSHARES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Corus Bankshares, Inc. (NASDAQ:CORS) during the period between January 25, 2008 and January 30, 2009, inclusive. Corus provides consumer and corporate banking products and services through its wholly-owned banking subsidiary, Corus Bank, N.A., which focuses on two main business activities - commercial real estate lending and deposit gathering. The Bank is a nationwide lender, specializing in condominium construction, conversion, and inventory loans. The Bank also provides financing for hotel, office, and apartment projects. The complaint accuses the Company of violating of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose during the Class Period the full extent of its exposure to loan losses and that it engaged in a scheme to artificially inflate the value of the collateral for its loans by buying condominiums in developments it had financed to create the appearance of successful sales and to create a sales history for appraisers to rely upon to inflate appraisal values. On January 30, 2009, Corus reported a widened 2008 fiscal fourth quarter net loss of $261 million, or $4.85 per share, compared to a net loss of $128 million in the 2008 fiscal third quarter and net income of $2 million in the 2007 fiscal fourth quarter, and revealed that the Company's nonperforming assets, including nonaccrual loans and repossessed real estate, had increased to $2 billion at the end of 2008, more than double the level of the previous quarter. Corus further disclosed that it had received a "preliminary response" that its November 14, 2008, application to receive a capital infusion through the Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program ("TARP") was likely to be rejected. Corus was only able to provide investors with partial financial results for the fourth quarter because it was awaiting several new appraisals, which would potentially result in material negative adjustments to its 2008 fourth quarter results. Moreover, the same day, the South Florida Business Journal reported that an affiliate of Corus had paid above- market prices to purchase condominium units in a project financed by Corus. On this news, shares of Corus declined $0.52 per share, or 46.85%, to close on February 2, 2009 at $0.59 per share, on unusually heavy volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 11, 2009. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq GS:NSIT) during the period from April 22, 2004 through and including February 6, 2009. The Complaint charges Insight Enterprises and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. On February 9, 2009, Insight Enterprises shocked the market when it revealed that the Company's management and Audit Committee had determined that Insight Enterprises would have to restate previously reported earnings as a result of its historical accounting treatment of aged trade credits. Insight announced that it expected to restate financial statement included in the Company's most recently filed form 10-k for the year ended December 31, 2007, form 10-Q for the first three quarters of fiscal year 2008, and incur a charge to retained earnings of $50 to $70 million. On this news, shares of the Company declined $2.85 per share, more than 48% to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before May 26, 2009. For more details, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 OPPENHEIMER CORE: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPBYX) (OPIGX) (OIGBX) (OPBCX) OPBNX). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Federal securities laws, including violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by virtue of the Fund's failure to disclose in its prospectus and registrations statements ("Offering Documents") that the Fund was not adhering to its overall conservative strategy and investment objectives and was taking risks inconsistent with such strategy and objectives. According to the complaint, as the Fund's deviation from its conservative investment strategy and objectives became known, the value of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund's shares declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 22, 2009. 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 OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Stock Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the Fund from April 24, 2006 through and including October 21, 2008 pursuant to various Registration Statements and Prospectuses issued by the Fund during the Class Period. The complaint alleges that the Fund and certain of its trustees and officers and also Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. In addition, the Fund failed to disclose that its use of derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters" which, under certain conditions, could (and did) effectively force the Fund to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions. In or around October 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true risks of its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007, and throughout 2008. By October 2008, however, those risks had already manifested themselves dealing substantial losses to investors causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their net asset value between January 2008 and October 2008. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class and are represented by the law firm of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 23, 2009. For more information, contact: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. (ggraifman@kgglaw.com) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Phone: 800-660-7843 or 845-356-2570 ********* 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 * * *