/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090506.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 6, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 88 Headlines ATLAS MINING: Reaches Settlement in Idaho Securities Fraud Suit ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Reviews Dismissed N.Y. Lawsuit BATESVILLE CASKET: Texas Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Pfeffer's Claims Affirmed in Jan. BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Remain Pending BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Suit Still Pending in Texas BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada CENTEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Pulte Homes Sale CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Ruling in "Northstar Financial" Lawsuit CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Bid in N.Y. Suit ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif., Pa. Lawsuits Over SecuROM DRM FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Recording Fees IOVATE HEALTH: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Suit Over "Hydroxycut" MEDICI BANK: Fund Investors File Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme NEW YORK: Settlement Reached in "Wright" Racial Bias Litigation RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Faces N.J. Litigation Over D.R. Timeshares SOUTH FINANCIAL: Objections to Proposed Settlement Due on May 7 SPRINT NEXTEL: N.J. Judge Withholds Approving $14M Settlement YANKEE HOLDING: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Pending Approval * Industry Seeing Surge in Securities Suit Filing, Report Says New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Pa. Suit Filing OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Dyer & Berens Announces Lawsuit Filing SEQUENOM INC: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit SEQUENOM INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* ATLAS MINING: Reaches Settlement in Idaho Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlas Mining Company (Pink Sheets:ALMI) announced that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on May 1, 2009 as to the key terms of the settlement agreement with the Class Plaintiffs in "In Re: Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation," pending in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, Civil Action No. 07-428-N-EJL. Atlas has agreed to pay Plaintiffs $1,250,000 and to fund Plaintiffs' expenses associated with providing notice to class members, not to exceed $75,000. Atlas' cash payments to Plaintiffs are to be made from the proceeds of existing insurance policies. Plaintiffs have agreed to a complete release of all claims against Atlas, Nano Clay Technologies, Inc., and Atlas' former officers and directors. The agreement is subject to the completion of a definitive written settlement agreement, subsequent confirmatory discovery and court approval of the settlement after notice to the class. The Company, with the approval of its Board of Directors, determined that the settlement is in its best interests and that of its shareholders because it halts the substantial expense, uncertainty, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation. Andre M. Zeitoun, CEO of Atlas Mining stated, "With this settlement, together with the Jacobson settlement announced last week, the Company has reached a major milestone in resolving the remaining legacy issues. Management can now focus its energy and resources primarily on furthering the development and commercialization of its Dragon Mine Halloysite property and on completing the final steps necessary to become fully compliant and current with its S.E.C. filings. The Company intends to provide details of its upcoming shareholders' meeting in conjunction with an announcement regarding its completed financial statements." ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Supreme Court Reviews Dismissed N.Y. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seeking to evaluate the control states have over federal class- action lawsuits, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a decision in a putative class-action suit against Allstate Insurance Co. that was filed in federal court but dismissed under a New York law barring such suits, Law360 reports. The Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates PA after the case was initially dismissed by a New York federal court, according to the Law360 report. BATESVILLE CASKET: Texas Court Dismisses Antitrust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston), on April 29, 2009, ordered the dismissal of a previously disclosed antitrust lawsuit filed by Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., and three other current or former independent casket retailers against Batesville Casket Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc. (NYSE: HI) The Pioneer Valley plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their complaint against all defendants with prejudice. Plaintiffs and defendants will each be responsible for their own legal costs and expenses. In March, the District Court had denied the Pioneer Valley plaintiffs' motion to certify their lawsuit as a class action. Another related lawsuit in which the District Court also denied class certification is currently awaiting ruling on the plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class-action status. "We are very pleased with the complete dismissal of this lawsuit," said Kenneth A. Camp, Hillenbrand's president and chief executive officer. "For more than 100 years, our company has believed that our policy of selling caskets only to licensed funeral directors operating licensed funeral homes helps ensure that families receive quality products and services any time they choose a Batesville casket." Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.hillenbrandinc.com-- is the holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the North American death care industry through the sale of funeral services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets, containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other personalization and memorialization products. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Dismissal of Pfeffer's Claims Affirmed in Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal of all claims of plaintiff Beverly Pfeffer in a putative class-action complaint was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery on Jan. 23, 2009, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009. On Aug. 3, 2006, Beverly Pfeffer filed a putative class action complaint under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against Sumner M. Redstone, George S. Abrams, David R. Andelman, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., William S. Cohen, Philippe P. Dauman, Alan C. Greenberg, Jan Leschly, Shari Redstone, Frederic V. Salerno, William Schwartz, Patty Stonesifer and Robert D. Walter in the Court of Chancery of New Castle County, Delaware. On Jan. 12, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint and asserted additional claims under Delaware corporate fiduciary laws against National Amusements, Inc., John F. Antioco, Richard J. Bressler, Jackie M. Clegg, Michael D. Fricklas, Linda Griego, John L. Muething and CBS Corp. (f.k.a. Viacom Inc.). The amended class-action complaint purports to be filed on behalf of all former Viacom stockholders who tendered their Viacom stock in exchange for common shares of Blockbuster stock as part of the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer commenced on Sept. 8, 2004 and completed on Oct. 5, 2004, and all Blockbuster shareholders at the time a special dividend was declared by the Blockbuster Board of Directors in connection with the Blockbuster split-off exchange offer in June 2004. Plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of Delaware corporate fiduciary laws and, as a result, plaintiff sought declaratory relief, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, court costs and expenses, expert witness fees and attorneys' fees. On Feb. 1, 2008, the Court of Chancery granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed all of plaintiff's claims with prejudice. On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiff Pfeffer filed her notice of appeal of the Court of Chancery's dismissal. On April 14, 2008, plaintiff Pfeffer withdrew her notice of appeal of the Court of Chancery's dismissal as it applied to defendants John F. Antioco, Jackie M. Clegg, Linda Griego, and John L. Muething. On Jan. 23, 2009, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the Court of Chancery's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff Pfeffer's claims against the remaining defendants, 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 Jan. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: "End of Late Fees" Program Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., continues to face two purported class-action suits over its "end of late fees" program. Galeno Litigation On Feb. 25, 2005, Michael L. Galeno filed a putative class action suit before the Supreme Court of New York County, New York, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates New York's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York. Creighton Litigation On March 4, 2005, Beth Creighton filed a putative class action suit in the Circuit Court of Multnomah County, Oregon, alleging that Blockbuster's "no late fees" program violates Oregon's consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive and misleading business practices. The suit alleges fraud and unjust enrichment and seeks equitable and injunctive relief. Blockbuster removed the case to the U.S. District Court for District of Oregon. The company did not report further developments in the cases in its April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Extended Viewing Fee Lawsuit Pending Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- One additional extended viewing fee putative class-action suit in the U.S. is inactive and subject to dismissal under the Scott settlement, according to Blockbuster, Inc.'s April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009. The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas) (Scott). Blockbuster was a defendant in 12 lawsuits filed by customers in nine states and the District of Columbia between November 1999 and April 2001. These putative class-action lawsuits alleged common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices and/or unlawful business practices regarding the company's extended viewing fee policies for customers who chose to keep rental product beyond the initial rental term. Some of the cases also alleged that these policies imposed unlawful penalties and resulted in unjust enrichment. In January 2002, the 136th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas entered a final judgment approving a national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). Under the approved settlement, the company paid $9.25 million in plaintiffs' attorneys' fees during the first quarter of 2005 and made certificates available to class members for rentals and discounts through November 2005. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Facebook Members Privacy Suit Pending in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc. continues to face a putative class-action complaint filed under the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Computer Crime Law in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Aug. 12, 2008, Sean Lane, Mohannaed Sheikha, Sean Martin, Ali Sammour, Mohammaed Zidan, Sara Karrow, Colby Henson, Denton Hunker, Firas Sheikha, Hassen Sheikha, Linda Stewart, Tina Tran, Matthew Smith, Erica Parnell, John Conway, Austin Muhs, Phillip Huerta, Alicia Hunker, and Mega Lynn Hancock (a minor, through her parent Rebecca Holey) filed the class action complaint. The plaintiffs assert claims against Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., Fandango, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, Inc., Gamefly, Inc., and John Does 1-40, corporations. They are purporting to act on behalf of every Facebook member who visited one or more of Facebook's affiliates' websites and engaged in activities that triggered the Facebook affiliates' websites to communicate with Facebook regarding the activity from Nov. 6, 2007 to Dec. 5, 2007. The plaintiffs claim Blockbuster violated the VPPA, ECPA, and CFAA by allegedly violating the plaintiffs' privacy through their activities on the Blockbuster and Facebook websites. They seek class certification, injunctive and equitable relief, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The plaintiffs have stipulated that Blockbuster is not required to respond to the pending complaint at this time, 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 Jan. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Invasion of Privacy Suit Still Pending in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action complaint against Blockbuster, Inc., over allegations it invaded customers' privacy by sending information about their movie rentals to the Facebook Web site remains pending, 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 Jan. 4, 2009. This is a class action, originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 USC Section 2710. The plaintiffs also bring this action pursuant to Rules 23 (b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of each and every individual in the United States of America who has ever been a member of Facebook and Blockbuster on-line during the same period beginning from Nov. 6, 2007, through the date of judgment herein whose name, and address, or a title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials that were rented, sold or delivered to each individual were distributed to third parties by defendant without the informed written consent of such individuals or a clear and conspicuous manner to prohibit the disclosure of such individuals name and address. CourtHouse News Service reported that the plaintiffs claim Blockbuster's cooperation with Facebook's "Beacon" system violates the Videotape Privacy Protection Act, which Congress passed after a newspaper obtained a list of 146 movies Robert Bork or his family had rented, and publicized it during Bork's failed nomination to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs say that Facebook launched Beacon in November 2007, in cooperation with 44 other Web sites, that automatically fed information to Facebook. This was not just for social purposes, but was "a core element in the Facebook Ads system for connecting businesses with users," the plaintiffs say. According to the complaint, Blockbuster sent information about movie rentals to Facebook, which added it to members' Facebook profile, something like this: "Preston added Lord of the Rings to his queue on Blockbuster.com," the complaint states. This was an opt-out system, in which users had to check a box to prevent the information from being distributed, the plaintiffs say. According to CourtHouse, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, faced with furious criticism about privacy invasion, was forced to issue an apology, in December, which is quoted, apparently in full, in this filing. "To this day, however, Facebook still receives personal identifiable information from participating Web site with the Beacon javascript, whether the Facebook member has chosen to distribute their information or not," Facebook says. The plaintiffs say that if users did not check the opt-out box quickly enough, their information would be sent to Facebook, and that along with "a picture of the individual who purchased the movie and a Blockbuster ad." They say that Blockbuster did not notify online customers that this information was being sent to Facebook until "sometime in December 2007. However, the summary is immediately sent to a user's Facebook profile even before the user has a chance to decline the distribution of his personal identifiable information -- as long as you have not marked the privacy feature telling Blockbuster never to send summaries. To this day, Blockbuster online victims remain unsuspecting victims," the complaint states. Blockbuster, which has 64 million "active users," is the 7th most popular site on the Web, the complaint points out. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants improperly distributed and used "personal identifiable information" obtained from their websites of members of the class, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (b) whether defendants' obtaining and distributing "personal identifiable information" from the defendants' Web sites of members of the class was done knowingly, within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (c) whether defendants' when disclosing the names and addresses of members of the class provided members of the class "a clear and conspicuous manner, to prohibit such disclosure," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (d) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and addresses of members of the class disclosed the "title, description, or subject matter of any video tapes or other audio visual materials," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; (e) whether defendants' disclosure of the names and addresses of members of the class was for the "exclusive use of marketing goods and services directly to the consumer," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710; and (f) whether defendants' obtaining and distribution of "personal identifiable information" from the defendants' Web sites of members of the class was destroyed "as soon as practicable, but not later that one year from the date the information is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected," within the meaning of the VPPA, 18 USC Section 2710. The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order: -- declaring that this action may be maintained as a class action; -- granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the other members of the class against the defendant in the amount of $2,500 for each instance in which the defendant disclosed, or used persona identifiable information concerning the plaintiff and members of the class; -- awarding punitive damages should the court find that the defendants acted in willful or reckless disregard of the VPPA; -- awarding attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred; and -- requiring the defendants to destroy any personal information illegally distributed. On Dec. 30, 2008, the trial court granted Blockbuster's amended motion to transfer venue and transferred the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The suit is "Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge T. John Ward, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeremy R. Wilson, Esq. (jwilson@corealaw.com) The Corea Firm PLLC The Republic Center 325 North St. Paul Street, Suite 4150 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214-953-3900 Fax: 214-953-3901 Representing the defendants is: Michael Lawrence Raiff, Esq. (mraiff@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 2001 Ross Ave. 3700 Trammell Crow Center Dallas, TX 75201-2975 Phone: 214-220-7744 Fax: 1-214-999-7705 BLOCKBUSTER INC: Still Defends "Cohen" Extended Viewing Fee Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc. continues to defend the extended viewing fee putative class-action case styled, "Cohen v. Blockbuster," 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 Jan. 4, 2009. The case, filed on Feb. 18, 1999 in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, was not completely resolved by a court-approved national class settlement (the "Scott settlement"). The Scott settlement refers to the Texas trial court order on April 11, 2001, preliminarily certifying a nationwide class for settlement purposes and preliminarily approving a settlement agreement in the case of Scott v. Blockbuster, No. D 162-535 (Jefferson County, Texas) (Scott). Marc Cohen, Uwe Stueckrad, Marc Perper and Denita Sanders assert common law and statutory claims for fraud and deceptive practices, unjust enrichment and unlawful penalties regarding Blockbuster's extended viewing fee policies. Such claims were brought against Blockbuster, individually and on behalf of all entities doing business as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video. The plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and other plaintiff class members including actual damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. By order dated April 27, 2004, the Cohen trial court certified plaintiff classes for U.S. residents who incurred extended viewing fees and/or purchased unreturned videos between Feb. 18, 1994 and Dec. 31, 2004, and who were not part of the Scott settlement or who do not have a Blockbuster membership with an arbitration clause. In the same order, the trial court certified a defendant class comprised of all entities that have done business in the United States as Blockbuster or Blockbuster Video since Feb. 18, 1994. On Aug. 15, 2005, the trial court denied Blockbuster's motion to reconsider the trial court's certification of plaintiff classes. On Sept. 26, 2007, the Illinois Appellate Court remanded the trial court's decision to certify plaintiff classes back to the trial court for reconsideration of Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes. Plaintiffs did not petition the Illinois Supreme Court for leave to appeal. On March 14, 2008, upon reconsideration the trial court granted Blockbuster's motion to decertify plaintiff classes and decertified both plaintiff and defendant classes. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. BLOCKBUSTER INC: Suits on Contract Law Breach Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Blockbuster, Inc., and Blockbuster Canada, Inc., continue to face two putative class-action lawsuits that are pending in Canadian courts. Hazell Litigation William Robert Hazell filed a complaint before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Aug. 24, 2001, against Viacom Entertainment Canada Inc., Viacom Inc., Blockbuster Canada, and Blockbuster. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, violations of the trade practices act, breach of contract and high handed conduct. The relief sought includes actual damages, disgorgement, and exemplary and punitive damages. Hedley Litigation Douglas R. Hedley filed a complaint before the Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, in Saskatchewan on July 19, 2002. The case asserts claims of unconscionability, unjust enrichment, misrepresentation and deception, and seeks recovery of actual damages of $3 million, disgorgement, declaratory relief, punitive and exemplary damages of $1 million and attorneys' fees. No further updates regarding the lawsuits were reported in the company's April 6, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 4, 2009. Blockbuster, Inc. -- http://www.blockbuster.com/-- is a global provider of in-home rental and retail movie and game entertainment, with over 9,000 stores in the U.S., its territories and 24 other countries. The company operates in the home video and home video game industries, which include in-home movie (such as theatrical movie, television series and direct- to-video product) and game entertainment offered primarily by traditional (in-store) retail outlets, online retailers, and cable and satellite providers. CENTEX CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Pulte Homes Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky ("L&K") filed a class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law against the board of directors of Centex Corporation arising out of their attempt to sell the Company to Pulte Homes ("Pulte"). Under the terms of the proposal, Centex shareholders will receive 0.975 shares of Pulte stock for each share of Centex they own, or $10.50 per share based on the April 7, 2009 closing price of Pulte stock. Further, the transaction appears unfair given that, among other things, the Company's shares traded above $12.40 per share as recently as January 8, 2009 and the Company has a book value in excess of $10.50 per share. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/ctx.html CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeals Ruling in "Northstar Financial" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Schwab & Co. Inc. is appealing a ruling in the purported class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Northstar Financial Advisors Inc. v. Schwab Investments et al., Case No. 3:2008-cv-04119," David Hoffman of Investment News reports. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California on Aug. 28, 2008 by Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc. against Schwab Investments, Charles Schwab & Co. Inc., Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and Schwab Total Bond Market Fund. Northstar Financial alleges that the Schwab Total Bond Fund was allowed to deviate from its investment strategy in violation of the Investment Company Act, according to the Investment News report. According to the fund's documents, it tracks the performance of the Lehman Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. The suit, however, alleges that the fund improperly invested in mortgage- backed securities that were riskier than those in the index. The suit claims that the fund also invested more than 25% of its assets in mortgage-backed securities despite its own policy prohibiting it from investing more than 25% in any single industry, reports Investment News. The fund's deviations from its stated investment objectives caused it to lose 1.09% from Sept. 4, 2007, to Aug. 27, compared with a gain of 5.29% for the index, according to the suit. Investment News reported that Judge Susan Illston of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California in San Francisco found that the allegations were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, and on Feb. 19, 2009, she said that investors have the right to sue an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940 for deviating from the fund's stated investment objectives. The company has since appealed that decision. CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Bid in N.Y. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William C. Conner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a decision on May 1, 2009 denying Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on allegations in a long-running class-action lawsuit against Citigroup and a battery of former officers of Flag Telecom Holdings Ltd., Law360 reports. According to the judge, Citigroup and former Flag Telecom officers have failed to winnow claims that statements related to the bankrupt telecom company's initial public offering misled investors about demand for fiber-optic services, reports Law360. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Faces Calif., Pa. Lawsuits Over SecuROM DRM ------------------------------------------------------------ Electronic Arts, Inc. is facing three class-action suits that were filed on behalf of those who say they've been negatively affected by SecuROM in the video games Mass Effect, Spore, and Spore Creature Creator. Mass Effects The Courthouse News Service previously reported that one such lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption, "Brandon Gardner et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. C08 04629." It was over allegations that EA failed to inform consumers that the video game "Mass Effect" installs a second program, SecuROM, onto their computers without their knowledge or consent (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2008). The consumer class-action lawsuit arises from EA's engaging in deceptive and unlawful conduct in designing, marketing, distributing, and selling a computer game disk that contains undisclosed and unconsented to Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology. It is brought on behalf of a class of all consumers globally who have purchased the Mass Effect computer game. The suit says that EA intentionally did not disclose to any such purchasers that the Mass Effect game disk also possessed a second, hidden program which secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer, and surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and disrupting hardware operations. The suit constitutes violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq., and further constitute a trespass to chattels. Spore The Courthouse News Service previously reported that another such lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the caption, "Melissa Thomas, et al. v. Electronic Arts, Inc., Case No. C 08 04421" (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2008). The suit is alleging that EA defrauds consumers through its "Spore" game, which "completely wipes their hard drive" and replaces it with an undisclosed program that prevents the computer from operating under some circumstances and disrupts hardware operations. The report says that the plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons or entities globally who purchased a Spore computer game as an end-user. The class claims that "Spore," a virtual reality simulation game, contains "a second, undisclosed program" called SecuROM, a "form of Digital Rights Management (DRM) for computer games." Consumers are not warned about the program, which is installed without notice and cannot be uninstalled, the complaint states. The secret SecuROM program is "secretly installed to the command and control center of the computer (Ring 0, or the Kernel), and surreptitiously operated, overseeing function and operation on the computer, preventing the computer from operating under certain circumstances and disrupting hardware operations," the complaint states. Spore Creature Creator A third lawsuit over SecuROM, as reported by Adam Hartley of TechRadar.com, was filed in Pennsylvania. That case makes an issue over DRM software installed in EA's critically-lauded and massively popular game, "Spore" (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 12, 2008). In the suit, Richard Eldridge claims that EA's Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition secretly installed SecuROM on his PC, which he claims is "deceptive and unlawful." TechRadar.com reports that the lawsuit reads, "The inclusion of undisclosed, secretly installed DRM protection measures with a program that was freely distributed constitutes a major violation of computer owners' absolute right to control what does and what does not get loaded onto their computers, and how their computers shall be used... It goes on to state, "[SecuROM] cannot be completely uninstalled. Once installed it becomes a permanent part of the consumer's software portfolio..." FIDELITY NATIONAL: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Recording Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Fidelity National Title Insurance Co., Chicago Title Insurance Co., Lawyers Title Insurance Co., and several other title insurance companies are facing a purported consumer fraud class- action lawsuit that was filed by plaintiffs who are are trying to convince a federal judge in Newark, N.J., to enjoin the defendants from overcharging home buyers on recording fees, Mary Pat Gallagher of New Jersey Law Journal reports. The named plaintiffs in matter, "Chassen v. Fidelity National Financial, 09-Civ.-291," which was filed earlier this year in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, are nine home buyers who claim they were overcharged amounts ranging from $95 to $350 for the recording of deeds and mortgages. For most of them, the settlement agent who did the overcharging was their own lawyer. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of every person similarly overcharged in buying or refinancing a home since Jan. 22, 2003. The class could number more than 1 million, the plaintiffs' counsel, the Philadelphia firm of Williams Cuker & Berezofsky, estimates, according to the New Jersey Law Journal report. The plaintiffs allege the overcharges are illegal and rampant, while the title companies contend the requested injunction would shut down residential real estate closings in New Jersey. The recording fees are collected at closing and itemized on the closing statement, or HUD-1 form, by the settlement agent, usually the buyer's lawyer, though in the southern part of the state, it can be a title agency, title closing service or title insurance company, reports the New Jersey Law Journal. It is alleged that the settlement agents falsely certified on the HUD-1 statements that the fees they collected were the amounts disbursed, that they did so with the intent that buyers would rely on the false statements and that they retained and misappropriated the excess monies on behalf of the title insurers. The complaint also alleges breach of contract, conspiracy and violation of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the New Jersey Law Journal reported. The settlement agents are not defendants, only the title insurers, who allegedly issued closing protection letters, also known as closing service letters, to the buyers, and knew about the overcharging and failed to put a stop to it or return the money, reports the New Jersey Law Journal. IOVATE HEALTH: Juroviesky and Ricci Files Suit Over "Hydroxycut" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law offices of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP have filed a class action lawsuit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Iovate Health Sciences Inc. and MuscleTech Research and Development Inc., the manufacturers and distributors of the Hydroxycut weight loss products. The suit alleges widespread violations of various consumer protection legislation and certain common law causes of action. Juroviesky and Ricci LLP are seeking to pursue remedies against the Defendants for breaches under the Consumer Protection Act and the Food and Drug Act, as well as for Negligence and other claims based on the allegation that consumers were not made aware of the potential health consequences of using Hydroxycut weight loss products. For further details or to sign up as a class member, please see the statement of claim on Juroviesky and Ricci's websites http://www.hydroxycutclassaction.ca, http://www.hydroxycutclassactioncanada.comand/or http://www.jrclassactions.com. For more background information, please see the Health Canada advisory regarding Hydroxycut products. Note that the detailed statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice is the result of an extensive and independent investigation conducted by Juroviesky and Ricci LLP. In respect of Canada, to the knowledge of Juroviesky and Ricci LLP, no other statement of claim has been filed in this matter against the Defendants and no other law firms, as at the time of filing its statement of claim, represent plaintiffs in this litigation. For further information, contact: Henry Juroviesky Juroviesky and Ricci LLP Phone: (416) 481-0718 Ext. 324 Fax: (416) 481-1792 e-mail: info@jrclassactions.com MEDICI BANK: Fund Investors File Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Investors in the Thema International Fund, Herald USA and Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive Fund have filed a class action lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who invested in the Thema International Fund, Herald USA and Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive Fund between March 1, 2001 and December 10, 2008 against defendants Medici Bank, Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank Austria Creditanstalt, Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative Investments, Ernst & Young LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc. Several investors in the Thema International Fund, Herald USA and Herald Luxemburg Fund, and Primeo Select and Executive Fund have filed proposed class-action lawsuits against Medici Bank, Sonja Kohn, Peter Scheithauer, Bank Austria Creditanstalt, Unicredit S.A., Pioneer Alternative Investments, Ernst & Young LLP, and HSBC Holdings plc over their losses in connection with the Bernard Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. federal securities laws (10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934) and also asserts claims under state law (negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty). The plaintiffs allege all that the defendants caused harm to the investors in the stated funds by improperly funneling money to Bernard L. Madoff instead of properly investing money in the securities market -- as the Funds' prospectuses stated that defendants would do. Investors were never told their money was being invested with Madoff. After Bernard Madoff was arrested, numerous investment funds disclosed that they were little more than 'feeder funds' for Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities. Such funds included the Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds. They each sought funds directly from investors, and delivered, or fed the investments they received to Madoff. Medici Bank controlled the Herald, Primeo, and Thema Funds, and caused these funds to be fed to Madoff, so the lawsuit. NEW YORK: Settlement Reached in "Wright" Racial Bias Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in a class-action suit filed against former New York City Department of Parks & Recreation Commissioner Henry Stern over his allegedly discriminatory pay and promotion practices, David Sims of Chief-Leader reports. African-American and Hispanic employees of the Parks Department will receive as much as $50,000 under a settlement from the long-brewing case, according to the Chief-Leader report. The suit is captioned, "Wright, et al. v. Stern, et al., Case No. 1:01-cv-04437-DC-MHD," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2006). For more details, contact: Cynthia Rollings, Esq. Beldock, Levine & Hoffman, L.L.P., 99 Park Avenue New York, NY 10016-1503 Phone: (212) 490-0400 Lewis M. Steel, Esq. Outten & Golden, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 100016 Phone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Robert H. Stroup, Esq. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 965-2248 RESORT CONDOMINIUMS: Faces N.J. Litigation Over D.R. Timeshares --------------------------------------------------------------- Resort Condominiums International, LLC and its subsidiary, Lifestyle Holiday Vacations Club are facing a purported class- action lawsuit in New Jersey alleging that they cheated investors in timeshares in the Dominican Republic, the Courthouse News Service reports. The suit is captioned, "Monique Crete, et al. v. Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Case No. 2:33-av-00001," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on May 1, 2009. In general, plaintiffs claim that the defendants "lured thousands of individuals into purchasing timeshares by lying outright about the quality and, more, the nature of services provided." They demand punitive damages, according to the Courthouse News Service report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3c75 For more details, contact: Yasmeen A. Allen, Esq. Craig Stuart Lanza, Esq, BALESTRIERE LANZA PLLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2900 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 374-5400 Fax: (212) 208-2613 SOUTH FINANCIAL: Objections to Proposed Settlement Due on May 7 --------------------------------------------------------------- The South Carolina State Court set May 7, 2009, as the deadline for filing objections to the proposed settlement of the putative shareholder class-action lawsuits filed against The South Financial Group, Inc. The company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers have been named as parties in two shareholder lawsuits, one filed on Nov. 7, 2008, in South Carolina State Court in Greenville County having Vernon A. Mercier as the named plaintiff, and one filed on Nov. 26, 2008, in the Court having John S. McMullen on behalf of Andros Associates, Inc. as named plaintiff. On March 24, 2009, all parties to the Litigation executed an Agreement in Principle providing for the settlement of the Litigation. The Court entered the Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval to the Stipulation and the proposed notices to shareholders and class members, and setting: (1) May 7, 2009 as the deadline for filing objections with the Court, and (2) May 21, 2009 as the date for a hearing to consider, among other things, final approval of the proposed settlement. The Notice will be mailed to all shareholders of record as of April 1, 2009, according to the company's Current Report Form 8- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 2, 2009. The South Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/ -- is a bank holding company. TSFG operates principally through Carolina First Bank, a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank, which conducts banking operations in South Carolina and North Carolina (as Carolina First), in Florida (as Mercantile), and on the Internet (as Bank CaroLine). TSFG's subsidiaries provide a range of financial services, including deposits, loans, treasury management, merchant processing, full-service brokerage and investments, business and personal insurance, trust, investment management, and financial planning. As of Dec. 31, 2008, TSFG conducted business through 82 branch offices in South Carolina, 71 in Florida, and 27 in North Carolina. SPRINT NEXTEL: N.J. Judge Withholds Approving $14M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey withheld approval of proposed $14,000,000 settlement in the matter "Larson v. Sprint Nextel Corporation, Civ. Action No. 2:07-cv- 05325," Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports. On April 30, 2009, Judge Jose Linares withheld approval of settlement between plaintiffs' attorneys and the company because of weak response to the class notice. In general, the class-action lawsuit is alleging that Sprint Nextel's flat-rate early termination fee (ETF) violates state and federal law (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2009). Under the settlement, Sprint Nextel has agreed to pay $14 million into a common fund to be distributed pursuant to the settlement benefit rules set forth in the settlement agreement. The company has also agreed to provide qualified settlement class members up to $3.5 million in Non-Cash Benefits. It also has agreed to not insert a flat-rate ETF provision into its customer service agreements for personal wireless service in the U.S. for 24 months. Sprint Nextel customer agreements initiated after Nov. 3, 2008 have pro-rated ETFs, and the Settlement does not require Sprint Nextel to modify those contracts. The settlement will release all claims that customers may have against Sprint Nextel relating in any way to its flat-rate ETFs and term contracts, and will bar future claims, unless the individual excludes him/her self from the settlement. For more details, contact: Sprint ETF Settlement Administrator c/o Gilardi & Company LLC P.O. Box 6002 Larkspur, CA 94977- 6002 Phone: 1-800-916-6940 Web site: http://www.sprintetfsettlement.com Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 e-mail: Info@CarellaByrne.com Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/ - and - Freed & Weiss LLC Phone: (312) 220-0000 e-mail: Info@FreedWeiss.com Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com/ YANKEE HOLDING: Settlement of Wage & Hour Suit Pending Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a wage and hour class-action lawsuit against Yankee Holding Corp. is pending court approval. A class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in February 2005, for alleged violations of certain California state wage and hour and employment laws with respect to certain employees in Yankee's California retail stores. In December 2007, a preliminary settlement agreement was reached pursuant to mediation. Pursuant to the agreement, the company would pay a total of $950,000 (inclusive of attorneys' fees and administrative expenses) into a settlement fund. The company expects to make this payment to the settlement fund in the first half of 2009, according to the company's April 3, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 3, 2009. Yankee Holding Corp. is engaged in designing, manufacturing and distribution of scented candles in the United States. During the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007 (fiscal 2007), the Company offered approximately 2,000 stock-keeping units (SKUs) of candle products in approximately 400 fragrances, which included a range of jar candles, Samplers votive candles, Tarts wax potpourri, pillars and other candle products, which are marketed under the Yankee Candle brand. The company also sells a range of other home fragrance products, including Yankee Candle branded electric home fragrancers, potpourri, scented oils, reed diffusers, room sprays, Yankee Candle Car Jars auto air fresheners, and candle-related home decor accessories. During fiscal 2007, the company operated 459 specialty retail stores (including 30 Illuminations stores) in 43 states. * Industry Seeing Surge in Securities Suit Filing, Report Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The commercial insurance industry is exposed to a surge in securities litigation filings in the first quarter of 2009, according to results of a quarterly review of securities litigation by Advisen, the leading provider of market information to the global commercial insurance industry. Advisen tracked 169 securities cases in its Master Significant Case and Action Database (MSCAd), up from 125 cases in Q4 2008 and 134 suits a year earlier in Q1 2008. Projecting this filing activity forward, 2009 would see 676 securities cases, an increase of 38% over 2008. However, Advisen notes that Madoff-related cases were responsible for 30% of all securities cases in the first quarter, so the brisk pace of filings will likely abate through 2009. The full report is available at no cost at http://corner.advisen.com/reports_topical_securities_quarter1_pu rchase_cases.html "The Ponzi schemes � Madoff and Stanford � were the big drivers of securities suits filed in the first quarter," said David K. Bradford, EVP and Co-Founder of Advisen. "Those suits, along with a large number of sub-prime and credit crisis suits filed in the quarter, continue to pound the financial institution sector, much as was the case in 2008. It's shaping up to be another tough year for financial institution D&O and E&O underwriters." Sixty-Seven securities class action suits (SCAS) were filed in Q1 2009, up from 53 cases the quarter before and 56 suits a year earlier. This translates to an annualized Q1 2009 figure of 268 cases filed, which would surpass the relatively litigious year of 2004 with 263 suits and 23% higher than the 218 suits filed in 2008. After SCAS cases, securities fraud accounted for 34 suits filed in the first quarter, up from 19 in Q4 2008, but down from 54 in Q3 2008. On an annualized basis, securities fraud cases filed in Q1 2009 represented 136 cases, flat with 2008 but down from 175 in 2007. Other types of cases filed in Q1 2009 were: breach of fiduciary duties (26), collective actions in non-US courts (20), derivative shareholder actions and other derivative cases (14), and others (8). "Advisen tracks all forms of securities litigation in MSCAd. In the past, securities class actions were the most common type of securities suit, but with the increase in breach of fiduciary liability, shareholder derivative and securities fraud suits, securities class action suits now represent less than 40% of filings," continued Bradford. "We also are seeing a significant up-tick in the number of securities suits filed outside the US, many of which were triggered by the Madoff scandal." MSCAd contains global filings and Advisen reports that the number of suits filed against non-US companies in US courts is on the rise, and so is the number of suits filed against both US and non-US companies in courts outside the US. Of the 169 securities cases filed in Q1 2009, 47 were filed against non-US companies, and 22 were in courts outside the US. A total of 27 suits were filed outside of the US court system, including five against US companies. The average securities settlement/award in the first quarter was similar to recent year averages, but the quarter was unusual in that the largest awards all were securities fraud suits. Securities fraud cases typically are filed by regulatory agencies such as the US Securities and Exchange Commission. "Q1 2009 saw 76 cases settled or awarded at an average amount of $27.9 million, which is up slightly from the 2008 average of $25.5 million," noted John Molka III, CFA, Senior Industry Analyst and author of the report. "Securities fraud cases represented the largest five events totaling $951.8 million including one case awarding $406.5 million to STMicroelectronics from Credit Suisse in an auction-rate securities case." Dave Bradford and Jim Blinn of Advisen will be joined by Kevin LaCroix, author of the Internet weblog The D&O Diary http://www.dandodiary.com,on a webinar on Friday May 4th at Noon, EST, to review the findings of this quarterly report and to discuss the implications on the liability insurance market. Kevin is also an attorney and Partner in OakBridge Insurance Services, Beachwood, Ohio. To register for the free webinar, visit https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/804065345. As an additional service to readers, Advisen editors have identified five events consisting of 16 lawsuits making up most of the settled/awarded amounts for Q1 2009, totaling $951.8 million. Advisen defines each company named as a defendant in any event as a separate lawsuit, accounting for the 16 lawsuits. All were securities fraud cases, and all but one was a result of a regulatory action. Lists of suits and filing details are available at the Advisen store online at http://corner.advisen.com/reports_topical_securities_quarter1_pu rchase_cases.html and available at no extra charge to Advisen subscription members through their advisen.com logins. For more information please call +1.212.897.4800 or e-mail corner@advisen.com. Advisen -- http://www.advisen.com-- integrates business information and market data for the commercial insurance industry and maintains critical risk analytics and time-saving workflow tools for over 530 industry leading firms. Through its work for the broadest customer base among information service providers, Advisen delivers actionable information and risk models at a fraction of the cost to have them built internally. Designed and evolved by risk and insurance experts, and used daily by more than 100,000 professionals, Advisen combines the industry's deepest data sets with proprietary analytics and offers insight into risk and insurance that is not available on any other system. Advisen is headquartered in New York. New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER PENNSYLVANIA: Brower Piven Announces Pa. Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired shares of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX) during the period between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act by virtue of the Fund's failure to comply with its investment objective to secure a high level of current interest income as is consistent with preservation of capital as stated in the Fund's Registration Statement and Prospectus. According to the complaint, because the Fund engaged in excessively risky investment strategies by concentrating its investments in large positions in low rated bonds, bonds not reviewed by an independent rating agency and by portfolio concentration in high risk securities including, Tobacco Bonds, Dirt Bonds, and derivative instruments known as "inverse floaters," the Fund suffered an approximate 33% decline in the net asset value in 2008. 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 29, 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 PENNSYLVANIA: Dyer & Berens Announces Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all persons or entities who, between November 28, 2005 and November 28, 2008, purchased or acquired shares of the Oppenheimer Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPATX) (NASDAQ: OPABX) (NASDAQ: OPACX). The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940, and alleges that the Fund's Registration Statements and Prospectuses misrepresented the Fund as seeking "a high level of current interest income... as is consistent with preservation of capital." According to the complaint, however, "the Fund's investment policies were formulated and its operations were conducted virtually in complete disregard for preservation of capital." As a result, during the Class Period the Fund lost approximately 28% of its Net Asset Value. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 29, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. (jeff@dyerberens.com) 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com SEQUENOM INC: Glancy Binkow Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Sequenom Inc. (Nasdaq: SQNM), between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges Sequenom and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Sequenom provides products, services, diagnostic testing, applications and generic analysis products that translate genomic science into solutions for biomedical research, translational research, molecular medicine and agricultural and livestock applications. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Sequenom'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 material adverse developments concerning Sequenom's SEQureDx prenatal Down Syndrome test ("SEQureDx"), including that: -- clinical tests and data concerning SEQureDx were not being conducted or monitored properly; -- SEQureDx did not offer verifiable, statistically significant improvement over competing tests; -- due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests data and results, it was not feasible that Sequenom would be able to bring SEQureDx to the market in 2009; and -- Company employees were mishandling test data and results for the SEQureDx clinical trials. In addition, during the Class Period, and while in possession of this undisclosed material adverse information, defendants completed a Secondary Offering in June 2008, selling approximately 5.5 million shares of Sequenom stock to the public at a price of $15.50 per share, for net proceeds of more than $85 million. On April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a press release disclosing that the expected launch of SEQureDx had been delayed due to the discovery of employee "mishandling"of research and development clinical trial data and results, which "raise[d] significant concerns regarding the integrity of that data." The Company further disclosed each and all of Sequenom's prior public statements concerning SEQureDx test data and results were superseded by the April 29, 2009, revelations and could no longer be relied upon. As a result of this news, shares of Sequenom declined $11.29 per share, or more than 75%, to close at $3.62 per share on April 30, 2009, 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 30, 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 SEQUENOM INC: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Sequenom and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false statements concerning the clinical data and efficacy of the Company's Down syndrome test under development. As a result, Sequenom stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $27.76 per share on September 24, 2008. This inflated stock price permitted Sequenom to raise $92 million in a secondary stock offering in July 2008, acquire a diagnostic company for fewer shares of Sequenom stock than would have been necessary absent the inflation, and commence a tender offer for another company in an all-stock transaction. On April 29, 2009, the Company announced that the expected launch of its Down syndrome test would be delayed due to the discovery of employee mishandling of research and development test data and results. On April 30, 2009, Sequenom's stock fell over $11 per share to close $3.62 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/mru/ ********* 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 * * *