/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090430.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 30, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 84 Headlines 3M CO: Minn. Appeals Panel Says Court Erred in Age Bias Lawsuit BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Issues Ruling in Derailment Suit CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Defending Former Employees' Lawsuit in Calif. CHRYSLER MOTORS: Judge Recommends Green Lighting Ohio Litigation CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit CINTAS CORP: Still Faces "Grindle" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit CORUS BANKSHARES: Faces Ill. Suit for Breach of Securities Laws GILAT SATELLITE: Defends Suit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger JABIL CIRCUIT: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending KBR INC: Faces Suits Over Burn Pits at Iraq, Afghanistan Bases KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Mo. Judge Decides To Oversee ERISA Lawsuits LIZ CLAIBORNE: Faces Investor's Litigation in New York Court LOUIS VUITTON: Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Arthur" Canceled METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Proposed FNIS Takeover MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada NEW YORK & CO: "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit Settled in Jan. 2009 MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Calif. Court Nixes "Arthur" Lawsuit NEW YORK & CO: "Schakow" Labor Violations Suit Settled in Jan. U.S. SUGAR: Fla. Judge Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases COX RADIO: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing LIZ CLAIBORNE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. MRU HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing OPPENHEIMER NEW JERSEY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit ********* 3M CO: Minn. Appeals Panel Says Court Erred in Age Bias Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court erred when it granted class-action status to an age discrimination lawsuit against 3M Co., The Associated Press reports. On April 28, 2009, a three-judge appeals panel said that the lower court did not properly apply the standards for certification under Minnesota's rules of civil procedure. It sent the case back to the Ramsey County District Court for further proceedings, according to the AP report. The appeals panel says the trial court should have resolved the factual disputes among statistical experts hired by both sides before it granted class action status to more than 4,900 current and former employees, The Associated Press reports. Previously, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted 3M Co.'s petition for interlocutory review of a decision by the District Court of Ramsey County granting class certification for an age discrimination class-action lawsuit against 3M Co. (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 28, 2008). On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company filed a purported class action suit, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46 or older at any time during an applicable period to be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008). The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and Michael Mucci, 55. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45 -- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new business methodologies adopted by the company." The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately selects younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma." The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed following an individual settlement. The class certification hearing was held in December 2007. On April 11, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action and defined the class as all persons who were 46 or older when employed by 3M in Minnesota in a salaried exempt position below a certain salary grade at any time on or after May 10, 2003, and who did not sign a document on their last day of employment purporting to release claims arising out of their employment with 3M. On June 25, 2008, the Minnesota Court of Appeals granted the company's petition for interlocutory review of the District Court's decision granting class certification in the case. No trial date or calendar of pretrial proceedings has been set at this time. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Oct. 31, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com/-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. BURLINGTON NORTHERN: La. Court Issues Ruling in Derailment Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana has ruled that a lawsuit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad over last year's train derailment that forced evacuations in Lafayette will not move forward as a class-action case, KATC reports. The decision by Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., means any legal claims against the company must be tried as individual lawsuits rather than one large case, according to the KATC report. Previously, KATC reported that the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held a hearing on June 24, 2008, to sort out how to move forward with a possible class-action suit against Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad, stemming from a May 17, 2008 train derailment that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2008). In that hearing, Judge Haik asked the plaintiffs' lawyers to submit applications. According to KATC, the judge also is requiring the attorneys to distribute a survey to those clients with claims. Case Background According to an earlier report by CourtHouse News Service, Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad is facing a class-action complaint before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana over the May 17 morning train derailment that spilled hydrochloric acid near Lafayette, forcing the evacuation of 3,000 people (Class Action Reporter, May 23, 2008). A BNSF train derailed in Lafayette, Lafayette Parish, State of Louisiana, on May 17, 2008, caused emissions of toxic chemicals including but not limited to hydrochloric acid. This resulted to injuries to plaintiffs and numerous other individuals over a large area of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana. The wreck sent a toxic cloud over the city, putting five people in the hospital, press reports said. Most of the roughly 3,000 residents who were evacuated after the 2:00 a.m. derailment were able to return home the following night, but residents within 1,000 feet of the 10,000-gallon spill -- mostly businesses -- are still prohibited from returning. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all residents and domiciliaries of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana who were present, had businesses or owned property in Lafayette on May 17, 2008, and who sustained injuries and damages as a result of the derailment of the BNSF train and the subsequent release of toxic chemicals. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the class under the appropriate provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23, and appointing complainants and their counsel to represent the class; -- a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the proposed class against BNSF in an amount to compensate each class member for all damages to which they are entitled to by law, but after due proceedings that including a trial by jury; -- legal interest on all damages awarded from the date of judicial demand until paid; and -- the cost of this litigation. The suit is "Daniel Danenberg, et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Company, Case No. 6:08-cv-00676," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Becnel, Esq. (dbecnel@becnellaw.com) Matthew B. Moreland, Esq. (mmoreland@becnellaw.com) Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. (schristina@becnellaw.com) Becnel Law Firm LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Phone: 985-536-1186 Fax: 985-536-6445 Representing the defendants is: John E McElligott, Jr., Esq. (jmcelligott@davidsonmeaux.com) Davidson Meaux, et al. P.O. Drawer 2908 Lafayette, LA 70502 Phone: 337-237-1660 Fax: 337-237-3676 CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Defending Former Employees' Lawsuit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc., is defending a labor-related lawsuit in California filed by two former employees. On June 11, 2008, a complaint was filed against the company in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, by two former store employees (Shannon Palm and Kayla Lovato). The complaint is styled as a class action and the causes of action arise out of allegations of failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, requiring employees to purchase store product and violations relating to form of payment of wages. It seeks unspecified damages, penalties and attorneys' fees. The company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to preclude the majority of the claims from proceeding as a class action. The motion was granted with leave to amend the complaint. On Dec. 22, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On March 25, 2009, the company filed a motion in response to the amended complaint and the parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to the company's April 17, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009. Charlotte Russe Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.charlotte- russe.com/ -- is a mall-based specialty retailer of fashionable, value-priced apparel and accessories targeting young women in their teens and twenties. As of September 27, 2008, it operated 487 Charlotte Russe retail stores in 45 states and Puerto Rico. The Charlotte Russe stores are located in mall locations in spaces that average approximately 7,100 square feet. CHRYSLER MOTORS: Judge Recommends Green Lighting Ohio Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action environmental lawsuit filed by Ohio residents who live near a former Chrysler Motors plant in Dayton should proceed despite a pending investigation into the site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a magistrate judge has recommended. The class action environmental lawsuit claims that Chrysler and the plant's owner, Behr Dayton Thermal Products, negligently, recklessly and intentionally contaminated groundwater. As a result, a plume of underground poisonous vapors expose nearby residents to volatile organic compounds (also known as VOCs), including trichloroethane (also known as TCE) and vinyl chloride. TCE can cause headaches, lung irritation, dizziness, incoordination and difficulty concentrating. Long-term exposure to TCE can lead to permanent nerve, kidney and liver damage. The environmental litigation claims that Chrysler has known of the groundwater and soil contamination since at least 1999 but has not stopped it nor warned residents of the danger. In addition to the health hazards associated with VOCs, the suit alleges, the residents' property values have fallen. The environmental lawsuit, "First Property Group Ltd., et al. v. Behr Dayton Thermal Products LLC, et al., 08-cv-329," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Chrysler reported the contamination to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, and the federal EPA began its own probe into the site contamination in November of that year. Lawyers representing Chrysler and Behr Dayton asked the federal court to dismiss or stay the environmental litigation while the EPA investigates. On April 17, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington issued a report to the district court in which she concluded that the environmental lawsuit would not interfere with the EPA's activities. The residents are represented by The Simon Law Firm, a St. Louis-based firm that represents people who have been hurt by environmental and landfill hazards; the Dayton, Ohio environmental litigation firm Brown Law Office; the Law Offices of Van Kirk McCombs II, an environmental law firm based in Jacksonville, Fla.; and the National Legal Scholars Law Firm. For more details, contact: Todd Hageman, Esq. (thageman@simonlawpc.com) The Simon Law Firm Phone: 877-767-3108 Web site: http://www.simonlawpc.com CINTAS CORP: Calif. Court Yet to Certify Class in "Veliz" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or an arbitrator has yet to issue a decision on the class certification issue in the matter, "Paul Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp." The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers exempt employees. It also asserts related Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging additional state law wage and hour claims under the laws of these states: Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. On Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15 states only with respect to the putative class members that may litigate their claims in court. No determination has yet been made by the court or an arbitrator regarding class certification. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008) The company reported no further development in the matter in its April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. The suit is "Veliz et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv-1180 SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Scott A. Kronland, Esq. (skronland@altshulerberzon.com) Altshuler, Berzon et al. 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-421-7151 Fax: 415-362-8064 Representing the company is: Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq. Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 516-479-8365 CINTAS CORP: Still Faces "Grindle" Gender Discrimination Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action gender discrimination suit captioned, "Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corporation," remains pending. The company faced several purported class-action lawsuits alleging either racial or sex discrimination towards employees. Serrano Litigation The company is a defendant in a purported class action suit, entitled "Mirna E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.," which was filed on May 10, 2004, and pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. "Serrano" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in hiring into various service sales representative positions across all divisions of Cintas throughout the U.S. On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intervened in the Serrano lawsuit. The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. Avalos Litigation Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action suit, captioned "Nelly Blanca Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation," which is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. "Avalos" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women, African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the U.S. On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in Avalos. The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. Ramirez Litigation The claims in "Avalos" originally were brought in the previously disclosed lawsuit captioned, "Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Ramirez)," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 20, 2004. On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from "Ramirez" and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, where the case was re-named "Avalos." The non-service sales representative hiring claims in "Ramirez" that have not been dismissed now remain pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but were ordered to arbitration and stayed pending the completion of arbitration. The Ramirez purported class action claims currently in arbitration include allegations that Cintas failed to promote Hispanics into supervisory positions, discriminated against African-Americans and Hispanics in service sales representative route assignments and discriminated against African-Americans in hourly pay in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the U.S. The Ramirez plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. No filings or determinations have been made in "Ramirez" as to class certification. Avalos & Serrano Consolidation On July 10, 2006, "Avalos" and "Serrano" were consolidated for all pretrial purposes, including proceedings on class certification. The consolidated case is known as "Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos)," and remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as to class certification. Grindle Litigation On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio, captioned, "Colleen Grindle, et al. v. Cintas Corporation." It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at Cintas' Perrysburg, Ohio location who allegedly were denied hire, promotion or transfer to service sales representative positions on the basis of their gender. The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies. No filings or determinations have been made in "Grindle" as to class certification. The Grindle case is stayed pending the class certification proceedings in the consolidated Serrano case. (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2008) On March 31, 2009, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division entered an order denying class certification to all plaintiffs in the Serrano/Avalos lawsuits On March 16, 2009, the plaintiffs in Ramirez and Houston agreed to voluntarily dismiss all class claims in the case with prejudice and the arbitrator entered an order dismissing all class claims in the consolidated arbitration. On April 3, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered an order affirming the arbitrator's decision to dismiss the class claims in Ramirez and Houston with prejudice, and thereby relinquished his jurisdiction over the individual plaintiffs' class claims, 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. Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized products and services to businesses of all types throughout the U.S. and Canada. The products and services provided by Cintas include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection; branded promotional products; document shredding and storage; cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing. CORUS BANKSHARES: Faces Ill. Suit for Breach of Securities Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Corus Bankshares, Inc. faces a purported securities class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. During the first quarter of 2009, Corus and Mr. Robert J. Glickman, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, were named as defendants in a purported class action lawsuit filed in Illinois alleging violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock between Jan. 25, 2008 and Jan. 30, 2009, alleges primarily that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the above-mentioned period. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages. The lead plaintiff and class counsel have not been selected. Corus had until April 7, 2009, unless extended, to respond to the claims in the first lawsuit, according to the company's April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Corus Bankshares, Inc. -- http://www.corusbank.com/-- is a bank holding company. Corus through its wholly owned banking subsidiary, Corus Bank, N.A., is primarily focused on commercial real estate lending and deposit gathering. The third, and the smaller, business is servicing the check cashing industry. Corus' other activities include investments in the common stocks of financial industry companies, as well as participations in certain of the Bank's larger commercial real estate loans. The company's lending focuses on condominium projects. The company's lending activities are focused in various metropolitan areas in Florida and California, as well as Atlanta,Las Vegas, New York City and the District of Columbia. With respect to retail banking, the Bank has 11 branches in the Chicago metropolitan area. GILAT SATELLITE: Defends Suit in Jerusalem Over Planned Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. continues to defend a purported class-action proceeding filed in the district court of Jerusalem, according to the company's April 7, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. In October 2008, a lawsuit and a motion for its approval as a class action proceeding was filed in the District Court of Jerusalem by eight individuals and Israeli companies against the company, all of its directors and the company's 20% shareholder, York Capital Management. The plaintiffs claim damages based on the amounts they would have been paid had the merger with a consortium of buyers closed. Gilat and its outside legal counsel said they believe the claims are outlandish and completely without merit, and that the lawsuit is without basis. The Company said that it intends to use all legal means necessary to protect and defend the Company and its directors. The plaintiffs did not make any demands of the Company nor did they provide notice prior to filing their lawsuit. As has been previously announced, Gilat notified the consortium of buyers that had signed a definitive agreement to purchase the Company that it was terminating the Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into on March 31, 2008, citing the buyer's intentional breach of the merger agreement and failure to close the merger. The definitive agreement provides for a termination fee in the amount of $47.3 million, payable to Gilat, in the event of an intentional breach of the agreement by the Purchasers. The buyers have rejected claims that the payment is due. As has been previously announced, Gilat intends to use all legal remedies available to it to enforce all of its rights under the definitive agreement and collect this fee. Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. (TASE:GILT) is a leading provider of products and services for satellite-based communications networks. The Company operates three business units: (i) Gilat Network Systems ("GNS"), which is a provider of network systems and associated professional services to service providers and operators worldwide; (ii) Spacenet Inc., which provides managed services in North America for businesses and governments through its Connexstar service brand and for consumers through its StarBand service brand; (iii) Spacenet Rural Communications, which offers rural telephony and Internet access solutions to remote areas, primarily in Latin America. JABIL CIRCUIT: Defends Appeal to Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jabil Circuit, Inc. defends an appeal on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida's dismissal of the second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit. On Sept. 18, 2006, a putative shareholder class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, captioned, "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No. 8:06-cv-01716" against the company and various of its present and former officers and directors. The suit was brought on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs comprised of persons who purchased shares of the company between Sept. 19, 2001, and June 21, 2006. It asserted claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as under Section 20(a) of that Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants had engaged in a scheme to fraudulently backdate the grant dates of options for various senior officers and directors, causing the company's financial statements to understate management compensation and overstate net earnings, thereby inflating the company's stock price. In addition, the suit alleged that the company's proxy statements falsely stated that the company had adhered to its option grant policy of granting options at the closing price of its shares on the trading date immediately prior to the date of the grant. A second putative class-action suit, containing virtually identical legal claims and allegations of fact, captioned, "Steven M. Noe v. Jabil Circuit, Inc., et al., No., 8:06-cv- 01883," was filed on Oct. 12, 2006. The two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding and on Jan. 18, 2007, the Court appointed The Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California and Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as lead plaintiffs in the action. On March 5, 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class-action complaint. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint is purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Sept. 19, 2001, and Dec. 21, 2006, and names the company and certain of its current and former officers, including: -- Forbes I.J. Alexander, -- Scott D. Brown, -- Wesley B. Edwards, -- Chris A. Lewis, -- Mark T. Mondello, -- Robert L. Paver, and -- Ronald J. Rapp, as well as certain of the company's directors: -- Mel S. Lavitt, -- William D. Morean, -- Frank A. Newman, -- Laurence S. Grafstein, -- Steven A. Raymund, -- Lawrence J. Murphy, -- Kathleen A. Walters, and -- Thomas A. Sansone. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 14(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act and the rules promulgated thereunder. It contained allegations of fact and legal claims similar to the original putative class action and, in addition, alleged that the defendants failed to timely disclose the facts and circumstances that led the company, on June 12, 2006, to announce that it was lowering its prior guidance for net earnings for the third quarter of fiscal year 2006. On April 30, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint asserting claims substantially similar to the Consolidated Class Action Complaint it replaced but adding allegations relating to the restatement of earnings previously announced in connection with the correction of errors in the calculation of compensation expense for certain stock option grants. At the company's request, the Court, on April 9, 2008, dismissed the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint without prejudice, but with leave to amend the complaint by May 12, 2008. On May 12, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint asserts substantially the same causes of action against the same defendants, predicated largely on the same allegations of fact as in the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint except insofar as plaintiffs added KPMG LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, as a defendant and added additional allegations with respect to: -- pre-class period option grants, -- the professional background of certain defendants, -- option grants to non-executive employees, -- the restatement of the Company's financial results for certain periods between 1996 and 2005, and -- trading by the named plaintiffs and certain of the defendants during the class period. The Second Amended Class Action Complaint also includes an additional claim for insider trading against certain defendants pursuant to Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-1 promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. The company filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint. On Jan. 26, 2009, the Court dismissed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed this dismissal on Feb. 20, 2009, according to its April 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2009. The suit is "Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-01716-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday. Representing the plaintiffs is: William E. Hoese (whoese@kohnswift.com) Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. 1101 Market St., Suite 2400 Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389 Phone: 215-238-1700 Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Chapman, Esq. (michael.chapman@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight, LLP 100 N. Tampa St., Ste. 4100, PO Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601-1288 Phone: 813-227-8500 Fax: 813-229-0134 JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., continues to face a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Initially, a lawsuit was filed by Roy T. Lefkoe on July 24, 2006, against the company and Robert N. Wildrick, the company's chief executive officer, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The case takes the civil action number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN. On Aug. 3, 2006, another lawsuit substantially similar to the Lefkoe suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland by Tewas Trust UAD 9/23/86. This suit takes civil action number 1:06-cv-02011-WMN. The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as those in the class action and purported to assert the same claims and seek the same relief. On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action were consolidated under case number 1:06-cv-01892-WMN and the Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed. Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action and has filed a consolidated class action complaint. R. Neal Black, the company's president, and David E. Ullman, the company's executive vice president and chief financial officer, have been added as defendants. On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5, 2005, and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's disclosures during the class period. The suit seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not granted, according to its April 8, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The suit is "Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01892-WMN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Judge William M. Nickerson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450, Juniper and Market Sts. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 1-215-561-3600 Fax: 1-215-561-3000 Representing the defendants is: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 1-212-937-7220 Fax: 1-212-230-8888 KBR INC: Faces Suits Over Burn Pits at Iraq, Afghanistan Bases -------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc., and its parent company, Halliburton Co. are facing seven class-action lawsuits in seven states on behalf of service members and civilians who say they were sickened by the open-air burn pits on U.S. military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kelly Kennedy of AirForceTimes.com reports. The lawsuits, including a wrongful death suit, were filed after a Military Times story that ran last October showed that the burn pit at Joint Base Balad, the biggest U.S. base in Iraq, burned everything from petroleum products to dioxin-releasing plastic water bottles to amputated limbs. More than 150 people contacted Military Times with similar sets of symptoms ranging from respiratory problems to lymphoma and leukemia, according to the AirForceTimes.com report. Kerry Baker, associate national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans, put out a call to all service members and veterans who believed they had been sickened by the burn pits so that he could see if DAV should push for automatic service-connected disability benefits for veterans who had been exposed, just as is done with Vietnam vets who were exposed to Agent Orange. AirForceTimes.com reported Director Baker worked with lawyer Elizabeth Burke, Esq. of Burke O'Neill LLC to connect veterans who wanted to be included in a class-action lawsuit. The lawsuits, filed in Alabama, California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina and Wyoming, name 21 plaintiffs. In a prepared statement, Ms. Burke said, "KBR knew or should have known that operating vast open-air burn pits jeopardized the health and safety of thousands of Americans. KBR showed an utter disregard for the safety of the troops when they chose to use open-air burn pits and failed to use incinerators and other safer methods of waste disposal." According to AirForceTimes.com, the U.S. Department of Defense contracted out waste disposal to KBR. However, service members operate some of the burn pits at smaller bases, and military field manuals offer guidance about how to operate those burn pits, calling them a "short-term" solution in a war zone. In an interview with AirForceTimes.com, Ms. Burke said that environmental health experts who looked at possible chemical exposures were astonished by how the symptoms matched up. According to the lawsuits, "These for-profit corporations callously exposed and continue to expose soldiers and others to toxic smoke, ash and fumes. These exposures are causing a host of serious diseases, increased risk of serious diseases in the future, death and increased risk of death." Several service members have died since returning from Iraq, and their family members believe their illnesses were caused by the burn pits, reports AirForceTimes.com. The lawsuits accuses the defendants of negligence, battery, nuisance, emotional distress, willful and wanton conduct, negligent training and hiring, breach of duty to warn and breach of contract. In two cases, the lawyers accuse KBR of wrongful death. The suits ask for monetary damages for physical injuries, lost wages, emotional distress, pain and suffering. It asks that KBR lose all revenue and profits it gained in the waste-disposal contract, and it also asks for legal expenses, according to the AirForceTimes.com report. KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Mo. Judge Decides To Oversee ERISA Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Carol E. Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has decided she should preside over proposed class-action lawsuits alleging that KV Pharmaceutical Co. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act through its handling of an employee investment plan in addition to a proposed class action alleging KV violated securities laws, due to similarities in the material facts of the cases, Law360 reports. In an order isused on April 23, 2009, Judge Jackson said she would preside over three putative class-action lawsuits alleging ERISA violations, according to the Law360 report. LIZ CLAIBORNE: Faces Investor's Litigation in New York Court ------------------------------------------------------------ An investor of Liz Claiborne, Inc. (Public, NYSE:LIZ) has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Liz Claiborne, Inc. (NYSE: LIZ), between February 28, 2007 and April 30, 2007 against Liz Claiborne, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers over alleged violations of federal securities laws. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Liz Claiborne, Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers violated federal securities laws by knowing or recklessly disregarding between February 28, 2007 and April 30, 2007 that their public statements concerning its business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the lawsuit, on May 1, 2007, Liz Claiborne, Inc. reported an approximately 65 percent drop in earnings, forecasted an unexpected decline in annual profit, and disclosed massive cutbacks in orders from Macy's. Moreover, Liz Claiborne announced that Macy's reduced orders were a reaction to the new Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by Claiborne brands launched at JCPenney. On this news, shares of Liz Claiborne declined $7.72 per share, more than 17%, to close on May 1, 2007 at $37.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Liz Claiborne, Inc. -- http://www.lizclaiborne.com/-- designs and markets a global portfolio of retail-based brands. Liz Claiborne, Inc. is located in New York and had a total revenue in 2007 of $4.441billion and in 2008 of $3.984billion. Shares of Liz Claiborne (LIZ) traded recently at $3.88 per share, down from $22.71 per share in 2008 and $46.15 per share in 2007. LOUIS VUITTON: Hearing on Dismissal Motion in "Arthur" Canceled --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on a motion to dismiss filed by Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. in relation to the case, "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," that had been scheduled for April 27, 2009 has been canceled, The Los Angeles Times reports. Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2009). The suit was originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, but was later transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. When it was initially filed in June 2008, the suit alleged only the company failed to provide information about the artworks required under California's Fine Prints Act. In August 2008 though, attorneys added fraud allegations, reports The Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times previously reported that Louis Vuitton is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the luxury retailer did not provide proper documentation for the works sold at its Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) boutique (Class Action Reporter, July 8, 2008). Named plaintiff Clint Arthur alleges that Louis Vuitton failed to take the law into account when selling limited-edition prints by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami at his show at the museum's Geffen Contemporary. He says two limited-edition prints he bought for $6,000 each were signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami but not also numbered by the artist as promised in an accompanying certificate. MOCA, he says, provided no documentation at all for two $855 Murakami prints. The Los Angeles Times recounts that since 1970, California law has required dealers who sell limited-edition prints of artists' work to disclose an array of information supporting the prints' authenticity. Mr. Arthur says that because Louis Vuitton failed to provide sufficient information, 500 Murakami prints that were on sale for an average of $8,000 lacked the ironclad certification required, making them less valuable for resale. The show -- Vuitton store included -- is now at the Brooklyn Museum in New York. The California law allows triple damages for violations, exposing Louis Vuitton to a potential multimillion-dollar liability. Mr. Arthur, who sued Louis Vuitton on June 23, 2008 said he discovered the law on the Internet after having misgivings about the prints he had purchased last winter during the "Murakami" exhibition at MOCA's Geffen Contemporary building. According to the LA Times report, the law on fine art prints apparently has been enforced rarely, if ever, since it went on the books in 1970, but on paper it carries considerable clout: It specifically authorizes the state attorney general, district attorneys and city attorneys to bring civil charges carrying fines of up to $1,000 for each violation. The suit is "Arthur v. Louis Vuitton North America Inc et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-04731-AHM-FFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Daniel E. Engel, Esq. (dan@danengel.com) Daniel E. Engel Law Offices 18150 Archwood Street Los Angeles, CA 91335-5502 Phone: 818-345-2634 Fax: 866-535-1248 - and - Matthew J. Butterick, Esq. (mb@buttericklaw.com) Butterick Law Corporation 5419 Hollywood Blvd Suite C731 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Phone: 323-544-1435 Fax: 866-801-1147 Representing the defendants are: Rebecca J. Edelson, Esq. (redelson@steptoe.com) Steptoe and Johnson 2121 Avenue of the Stars Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90067-5052 Phone: 310-734-3200 Fax: 310-734-3300 - and - Robert E. Shapiro, Esq. (rob.shapiro@bfkn.com) Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum and Nagelberg LLP 200 West Madison Street Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-984-3100 Fax: 312-984-3150 METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Proposed FNIS Takeover --------------------------------------------------------------- Two investors in Metavante Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MV) filed lawsuits on behalf of current investors in shares of Metavante Technologies, who purchased their shares prior to the proposed takeover of Metavante by Fidelity National Information Services for $2.94 billion in stock, in Milwaukee County Circuit Court against Metavante, its CEO, directors, and others alleging the offered price is too low and the board of directors breached their financial duties in agreeing to the sale under the present conditions. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (NYSE: FIS) and Metavante Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MV) announced on April 10, 2009 that the boards of directors of both companies have approved a definitive agreement under which FIS will acquire Metavante. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Metavante shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 1.35 shares of FIS common stock for each share of Metavante common stock they own. The pro forma enterprise value of the combined company would be approximately $10 billion. Shares of Fidelity closed the following Tuesday at $18.20, up 2%, while shares of Metavante were up 2.8% to close at $19.96. With a fixed exchange rate of 1.35, shareholders of Metavante Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: MV) would get $24.57 per MV share they own. According to the lawsuit, the sale price does not take into account Metavante Technologies true value or the company's growth and revenue prospects. According to the lawsuit in its first full year as a public company Metavante's revenue grew by nearly 50% to more than $1.7 billion and net income grew to over $147 million. The suit complains that the Metavante board did not tell shareholders about the potential deal with Fidelity National until the sale was announced, despite months of negotiations. Metavante Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.metavante.com/-- owns and operates Metavante Corporation. Metavante delivers banking and payments technologies to financial services firms and businesses worldwide. Metavante is located in Milwaukee, Wis., and had $1.707 billion in total revenue in 2008 and $1.598 billion in 2007 with a net income of $147.35million in 2008 and $49.45 million in 2007. The shares of Metavante Technologies closed on Monday, April 27, 2009 with $24.79 per share. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Appeal in Calif. DRAM Antitrust Cases Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal in connection to several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits against Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM) that were transferred to California for consolidated proceedings remains pending. The purported class-action lawsuits generally allege violations of antitrust statutes. At least 68 purported class-action complaints have been filed against the company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law, and unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. Cases have been filed in these states: Arkansas, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and West Virginia, and also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The complaints purport to be on behalf of a class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and products containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002. They allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated proceedings. On Jan. 29, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss a second amended consolidated complaint in the matter. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion seeking certification for interlocutory appeal of the decision. On Feb. 27, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint. On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted the plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) No further developments in the matter were reported in the company's April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Approval to Settlement of SRAM Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement of the purported antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against Micron Technology, Inc., among others, over the sale of Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) products is pending the U.S. courts approval. Subsequent to the issuance of subpoenas to the SRAM industry, a number of purported class action lawsuits have been filed against the company and other SRAM suppliers. Six cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased SRAM directly from various SRAM suppliers during the period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2005. Additionally, at least seventy-four cases have been filed in various U.S. District Courts asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased SRAM and/or products containing SRAM from various SRAM suppliers during the time period from Nov. 1, 1996 through Dec. 31, 2006. In September 2008, a class of direct purchasers was certified, and plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their complaint to cover Pseudo-Static RAM or "PSRAM" products as well. The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and state antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) On March 19, 2009, the company executed settlement agreements with both the direct purchaser class and the purported indirect purchaser class. If approved by the Court, the agreements would resolve the pending U.S. class action SRAM litigation against the company and release Micron from those claims, according to the company's April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Canadian DRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM) continue to face several purported class- action lawsuits in Canada that allege violations of antitrust statutes. Three purported class-action lawsuits over DRAM have also been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The three cases have been filed in these Canadian courts: Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, British Columbia. The suits allege violations of the various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In May and June 2008 respectively, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases. The plaintiffs have filed an appeal of those decisions. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) The company reported no development in the matter in its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Consolidated Securities Suit Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated securities fraud class-action suit against Micron Technology, Inc. is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. On Feb. 24, 2006, a putative class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Four substantially similar complaints subsequently were filed in the same court. The cases purport to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's stock from Feb. 24, 2001, to Feb. 13, 2003. The five lawsuits have been consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on July 24, 2006. The complaint generally alleges violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, claimed misstatements or omissions regarding alleged illegal price-fixing conduct. It seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On Dec. 19, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the class but reducing the class period to purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Feb. 24, 2001, to Sept. 18, 2002. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) No further updates regarding the case were reported by the company in its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. The suit is "City of Roseville et al. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00085-BLW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, Judge Judge B. Lynn Winmill, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bruce S. Bistline, Esq. (bbistline@gordonlawoffices.com) Gordon Law Offices 623 W. Hays Boise, ID 83702-5512 Phone: (208) 345-7100 Fax: 1-208-345-0050 - and - Mary Blasy, Esq. (maryb@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine St., Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Representing the defendants are: Douglas W. Greene, Esq. (dgreene@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2529 Fax: 208-883-2699 - and - Richard H. Greener Esq. (rgreener@greenerlaw.com) Greener Banducci Shoemaker, P.A. 950 W. Bannock St. 900 Boise, ID 83702 Phone: (208) 319-2600 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: SRAM Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada over the sale of SRAM. Three purported class-action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the U.S. cases. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) The company reported no developments in the matter in its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Price-Fixing Lawsuits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face three purported class- action lawsuits filed in Canada that allege price-fixing of Flash products. The suits assert violations of the Canadian Competition Act. These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly and indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers. (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 20, 2009) The company reported no development in the matter in its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2009. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. NEW YORK & CO: "Johnson" Privacy Lawsuit Settled in Jan. 2009 --------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Leslie Johnson v. Lerner New York, Inc." has been settled in January 2009, according to New York & Company, Inc.'s April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. On March 25, 2008, a class-action claim was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, the caption of which has been changed to "Leslie Johnson v. Lerner New York, Inc." The class-action case seeks relief for, among other things, collection of customers' personal information in a manner that is allegedly in violation of California law. The company has denied liability. In January 2009, the company reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs of the class action claims in the State of California, according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion oriented, moderately priced women's apparel. The company designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com. The target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45. MUSEUM OF CONTEMPORARY ART: Calif. Court Nixes "Arthur" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William Highberger of the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that the Museum of Contemporary Art (MOCA) and Louis Vuitton North America violated the Fine Prints Act, a California law that requires dealers in limited-edition art reproductions to certify their authenticity and provide information about how rare they are and how they were created, The Los Angeles Times reports. The ruling by Judge William Highberger said that the plaintiff, Clint Arthur had no standing to sue the museum because he didn't accept MOCA's offer to refund him. Judge Highberger wrote in his ruling issued on April 25, 2009, "To allow a purchaser to both keep his allegedly defective purchase and to get his money back...rewards opportunistic litigation (of which this case is a prime example)," according to the LA Times report. However, the judge said Mr. Arthur could file another suit "if a new and different set of facts exist at some future point in time," such as MOCA not following through on its offer of a refund, or if it fails to provide "a legally adequate certificate." The judge also denied MOCA's claim that it should be exempted from the Fine Prints Act because it is a charitable organization, The Los Angeles Times reported. Mr. Arthur said that he would appeal, because Judge Highberger's ruling won't address what he sees as MOCA's having deprived all its other print-customers of their rights to certificates and accurate descriptions of their purchases -- which he thinks are important to preserving the market value and authenticity of limited-edition prints, reports The Los Angeles Times. Mike Boehm of The Los Angeles Times previously reported that MOCA and Louis Vuitton North America, Inc. are seeking the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit over allegations that the luxury retailer did not provide proper documentation for the works sold at its MOCA boutique (Class Action Reporter April 27, 2009). The suit against MOCA in Los Angeles Superior Court, reported by The LA Times last year, alleges no fraud but concerns failure to provide proper certificates for three limited-edition prints signed by Japanese Pop artist Takashi Murakami that the plaintiff Clint Arthur bought for $2,655 at the regular museum shop. MOCA contends that the suit should be dismissed because in March 2009, it gave Mr. Arthur the legally required certificates it had previously failed to provide, reports The Los Angeles Times. Judge William Highberger is expected to rule by summer whether that case should go forward, according to The Los Angeles Times report. NEW YORK & CO: "Schakow" Labor Violations Suit Settled in Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit captioned, "Jannika Schakow v. Lerner New York, Inc. and New York & Company, Inc.," has been settled in January 2009, according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. On April 29, 2008, the class-action claim was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa. It seeks relief for, among other things, meal and rest periods allegedly not provided or permitted to certain eligible employees in California. The company has denied liability. In January 2009, the company reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs of the class action claims in the State of California, according to its April 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. New York & Co., Inc. is a leading specialty retailer of fashion oriented, moderately priced women's apparel. The company designs and sources its proprietary branded New York & company TM merchandise sold exclusively through its national network of retail stores and E-commerce store at www.nyandcompany.com. The target customers for the company's merchandise are fashion conscious, value sensitive women between the ages of 25 and 45. U.S. SUGAR: Fla. Judge Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed 12 of 13 counts that were part of a class-action lawsuit filed by shareholders of U.S. Sugar Corp., Susan R. Miller of The South Florida Business Journal reports. The suit, filed in January 2008 in West Palm Beach, alleged that some of the company's top executives attempted to deprive shareholders of a chance to sell their stock on two occasions when U.S. Sugar received buyout offers. The 13-count complaint alleged breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) statutes, according to The South Florida Business Journal. The suit alleged that the defendants "purposefully and unlawfully undervalued the price at which they could redeem their shares by failing to disclose or take into account a third-party offer to buy the shares." The South Florida Business Journal reported that the allegations grew out of offers that U.S. Sugar received from the Lawrence Group of Texas, first in June 2005 and again in January 2007. In withholding the information about the offers from shareholders, the plaintiffs alleged that the company was able to artificially depress the stock's value and deprived them of selling their shares for a significant profit. "This would have been the only opportunity in decades for the shareholders of U.S. Sugar to sell their shares to a third party. The resulting damages to the employees and other shareholders is alleged to be over $150 million," according to a news release issued by the plaintiff's lawyers after the suit was filed, reports The South Florida Business Journal. In his 47-page ruling, Judge Middlebrooks said, among other things, that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust all of their administrative remedies and that, because they were part of an employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) and were not direct stockholders, they could not claim breach of fiduciary duty. According to The South Florida Business Journal, the only claim to survive was made by Mary Rafter, a former secretary and administrative assistant for U.S. Sugar and a direct minority shareholder. The claim alleged breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of the company. Some of the claims though were dismissed without prejudice and as such the plaintiffs can refile, The South Florida Business Journal reported. New Securities Fraud Cases COX RADIO: Bull & Lifshitz Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Bull & Lifshitz, LLP announces that on April 8, 2009, Donald Dixon, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division civil action No. 09-CV-00938 in connection with a cash tender offer announced on March 23, 2009 by Cox Enterprises, Inc., the Company's majority stockholder, through its unit Cox Media Group, Inc. for all of the outstanding publicly held minority interest in Cox Radio for $3.80 per share in cash, or a total payment of approximately $69.1 million, including fees and expenses. On April 15, 2009, Plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The Complaint alleges that the Tender Offer is unfairly coercive and that SEC filings made pursuant to the Tender Offer omitted material information. The Complaint alleges that defendants' actions with respect to the Tender Offer violated the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(e), 14(d) and 13(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rules promulgated thereunder. In addition, the Complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed class of shareholders. Consequently, the Company's public shareholders are being asked to make a decision on whether to tender their shares or seek appraisal without adequate information (and in a highly condensed time frame). A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 28, 2009. For more details, contact: Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222 Fax: (212) 213-9405 e-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz and Grossman, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) during the period from January 30, 2007 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 it 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 call 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 26, 2009. For more details, contact: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Web site: http://www.bgandg.com/ LIZ CLAIBORNE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Liz Claiborne, Inc. (NYSE: LIZ), between February 28, 2007 and April 30, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Liz Claiborne, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Liz Claiborne is engaged primarily in the design and marketing of a broad range of apparel, accessories and fragrances. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Liz Claiborne's business, operations and prospects were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' public statements were false and misleading or failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, the following: -- that the Company's wholesalers were significantly reducing orders; -- that, specifically, Macy's, Liz Claiborne's largest customer, slashed orders in response to Liz Claiborne's decision to partner with JCPenney and launch the Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by Claiborne brands at JCPenney; -- that this fact had been known to the Company and management as early as November 22, 2006; and -- as a result of the foregoing, that the statements made by the Company and management lacked a reasonable basis. On May 1, 2007, Liz Claiborne shocked the market when the Company reported an approximately 65 percent drop in earnings, forecasted an unexpected decline in annual profit, and disclosed massive cutbacks in orders from Macy's. Moreover, the Company revealed that Macy's reduced orders were a reaction to the new Liz & Co. and CONCEPTS by Claiborne brands launched at JCPenney. On this news, shares of Liz Claiborne declined $7.72 per share, more than 17%, to close on May 1, 2007 at $37.00 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com MRU HOLDINGS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: UNCLQ) during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARSs") was illiquid and existed at the whim of the broker-dealers, and that without the favorable securitization terms generated by this market the Company's business model was untenable. According to the complaint, beginning on July 7, 2008, the truth regarding the Company was revealed, causing the value of MRU's stock 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 19, 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: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the Fund (NASDAQ: ONJAX) (NASDAQ: ONJBX) (NASDAQ: ONJCX) from April 24, 2006 through October 21, 2008. The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Funds, Inc., the Fund and certain of its Trustees and officers violated sections of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit claims that Oppenheimer, which runs the Fund, misled investors about the risks of investing in the Fund, resulting in an over 30% decline in the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (ONJAX), B Shares (ONJBX) and C Shares (ONJCX). The complaint alleges that the Registration Statements through which shares of the Fund were sold failed to disclose that under certain circumstances Trusts which contain Inverse Floaters, such as those employed by the Fund, may be put to the Fund for repayment of principal. This caused the Trusts to be collapsed and required the Fund to repay the principal amount of the tendered securities. In order to do so, the Fund was forced to sell securities from its portfolio regardless of market conditions and accept prices far below the values at which the bonds were carried on its books. This risk factor was always present wherever inverse floaters were employed. However, no disclosure was made in any of the Prospectuses filed as part of Registration Statements with respect to the sale of the Fund's shares. Because of this lack of disclosure, the Fund's shares traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In October 2008, Rochester filed a Prospectus Supplement which disclosed the relevant risks associated with the Fund's investment in Inverse Floaters -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007, and throughout 2008. By October 2008, those risks had already manifested themselves in dealing substantial losses to investors, causing shares to lose approximately 30% of their net asset value between January 2008 and October 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased shares of Oppenheimer New Jersey Municipal Fund from April 24, 2006 through October 21, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 28, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, N.Y. 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 Fax: (212) 279-3655 ********* 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 * * *