/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090511.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, May 11, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 91
Headlines
ALLIANZ SE: Appeal to Certification Ruling in PIMCO Suit Pending
ALLIANZ SE: Appeal to Dismissal of Suit Over Commissions Pending
ALLIANZ SE: Unit Defends Consolidated Suit Over Market Timing
ALLIANZ SE: Unit Faces Suits Over Deferred Annuity Products Sale
BIDZ.COM INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
CANADA: Ontario Nurses' Group Reacts to Dismissal of SARS Case
CHANGING WORLD: Attorney to File Motion Lifting Stay of Mo. Suit
GENIUS PRODUCTS: Investor Files Securities Suit in California
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lead Plaintiff, Firm Appointed in N.Y. Litigation
HYATT REGENCY: Workers File Calif. Lawsuit Seeking Unpaid Wages
KB HOME: Homeowners File Ariz. Lawsuit Over "Rigged" Appraisals
KEYPOINT CREDIT: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
MACY'S INC: Faces Suit in N.J. Espresso Maker's "Original Price"
ROYAL BANK: Cohen Milstein Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Lawsuit
ROYAL BANK: MassPRIM, MS PERS Named Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Suit
SHOALS SUZUKI: Still Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Vehicle Warranties
SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit
SPRINT NEXTEL: W.Va. Considers Joining Suit Over Nextel Merger
UNION PACIFIC: Ark. Supreme Court Decertifies Families' Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Award in "Savaglio" Remains Stayed
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Judgment in "Braun/Hummel" Pending
WAL-MART STORES: "Braun" Settlement Gets Prelim Approval in Jan.
WAL-MART STORES: EEOC's Discrimination Suit Set for 2010 Trial
WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of 63 Suits Pending Court Approval
New Securities Fraud Cases
ARIEL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
BIDZ.COM INC: Barrack Rodos Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
BIDZ.COM INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
SEQUENOM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Litigation
SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SEQUENOM INC: Saxena White Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
*********
ALLIANZ SE: Appeal to Certification Ruling in PIMCO Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal to the class certification ruling in a consolidated
class action civil complaint against Pacific Investment
Management Company LLC (PIMCO) is pending, according to Allianz
SE's March 31, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Two nearly identical class-action civil complaints were filed
against PIMCO, a subsidiary of Allianz Global Investors of
America L.P., in August 2005, in the Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division.
Allianz Global is one of the financial services subsidiaries of
Allianz SE.
The complaints alleged that the plaintiffs each purchased and
sold a 10-year Treasury note futures contract and suffered
damages from an alleged shortage when PIMCO held both physical
and futures positions in 10-year Treasury notes for its client
accounts.
The two actions have been consolidated into one single action
and the two separate complaints have been replaced by a
consolidated complaint, which claims that PIMCO violated the
federal Commodity Exchange Act by engaging in market
manipulation.
In addition to PIMCO as a named defendant, PIMCO Funds has been
added as a defendant to the consolidated action.
In July 2007, the court granted class certification of a class
consisting of those persons who purchased futures contracts to
offset short positions between May 9, 2005 and June 30, 2005.
In December 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit granted the petition of PIMCO and PIMCO Funds for leave
to appeal the class certification ruling.
Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com/-- is an integrated
financial service provider. The Company serves approximately 75
million customers in about 70 countries. Allianz SE operates
and manages its activities primarily through four operating
segments: Property-Casualty, Life/Health, Banking and Asset
Management. The Property-Casualty segment offers variety of
insurance products to both private and corporate customers,
including motor liability and own damage, accident, general
liability, fire and property, legal expense, credit and travel
insurance. The Life/Health segment's product portfolio
comprises a variety of life and health insurance solutions for
private customers, as well as products for corporate provision
needs ranging from life insurance policies to pension management
issues. The Banking segment offers a range of products for
corporate and retail clients with its main focus on the latter.
ALLIANZ SE: Appeal to Dismissal of Suit Over Commissions Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal to the dismissal of a class action filed against
members of the Fireman's Fund Insurance Company group of
companies in the United States, all subsidiaries of Allianz SE,
is pending.
Three members of the Fireman's Fund group of companies in the
United States are among the roughly 135 defendants named in a
class action filed on Aug. 1, 2005, in the U.S. District Court
of New Jersey in connection with allegations relating to
contingent commissions in the insurance industry.
No class has been certified for this class action.
The court dismissed with prejudice the federal court causes of
action and dismissed without prejudice the state law causes of
action. The plaintiffs have appealed the ruling. Unless the
Court of Appeal reverses the lower court's decision, the case
will remain dismissed, according to Allianz SE's March 31, 2009
Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com/-- is an integrated
financial service provider. The Company serves approximately 75
million customers in about 70 countries. Allianz SE operates
and manages its activities primarily through four operating
segments: Property-Casualty, Life/Health, Banking and Asset
Management. The Property-Casualty segment offers variety of
insurance products to both private and corporate customers,
including motor liability and own damage, accident, general
liability, fire and property, legal expense, credit and travel
insurance. The Life/Health segment's product portfolio
comprises a variety of life and health insurance solutions for
private customers, as well as products for corporate provision
needs ranging from life insurance policies to pension management
issues. The Banking segment offers a range of products for
corporate and retail clients with its main focus on the latter.
ALLIANZ SE: Unit Defends Consolidated Suit Over Market Timing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz Global Investors of America L.P. and certain of its
subsidiaries defend a consolidated class-action suit over market
timing issues in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland, according to Allianz SE's March 31, 2009 Form 20-F
Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Allianz Global is one of the financial services subsidiaries of
Allianz SE.
Allianz Global and certain of its subsidiaries have been named
as defendants in multiple civil U.S. lawsuits commenced as
putative class actions and other proceedings related to matters
involving market timing in the mutual fund industry.
These lawsuits have been consolidated into and transferred to a
multi-district litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland.
Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com/-- is an integrated
financial service provider. The Company serves approximately 75
million customers in about 70 countries. Allianz SE operates
and manages its activities primarily through four operating
segments: Property-Casualty, Life/Health, Banking and Asset
Management. The Property-Casualty segment offers variety of
insurance products to both private and corporate customers,
including motor liability and own damage, accident, general
liability, fire and property, legal expense, credit and travel
insurance. The Life/Health segment's product portfolio
comprises a variety of life and health insurance solutions for
private customers, as well as products for corporate provision
needs ranging from life insurance policies to pension management
issues. The Banking segment offers a range of products for
corporate and retail clients with its main focus on the latter.
ALLIANZ SE: Unit Faces Suits Over Deferred Annuity Products Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, a subsidiary of
Allianz SE, continues to defend putative class action lawsuits
filed in connection with the marketing and sale of deferred
annuity products.
Allianz Life has been named as a defendant in various putative
class action lawsuits, mainly in Minnesota and California.
One lawsuit in Minnesota and three in California are currently
pending as certified class actions.
The complaints allege that the defendant engaged in, among other
practices, deceptive trade practices and misleading advertising
in connection with the sale of such products.
The Minnesota lawsuit alleges violation of the Minnesota
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive and Unlawful Trade Practices Act.
The pending lawsuits have not yet progressed to a stage at which
a potential outcome or exposure can be determined, according to
Allianz SE's March 31, 2009 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2008.
Allianz SE -- http://www.allianz.com/-- is an integrated
financial service provider. The Company serves approximately 75
million customers in about 70 countries. Allianz SE operates
and manages its activities primarily through four operating
segments: Property-Casualty, Life/Health, Banking and Asset
Management. The Property-Casualty segment offers variety of
insurance products to both private and corporate customers,
including motor liability and own damage, accident, general
liability, fire and property, legal expense, credit and travel
insurance. The Life/Health segment's product portfolio
comprises a variety of life and health insurance solutions for
private customers, as well as products for corporate provision
needs ranging from life insurance policies to pension management
issues. The Banking segment offers a range of products for
corporate and retail clients with its main focus on the latter.
BIDZ.COM INC: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
An investor in BIDZ.com, Inc. (NASDAQ: BIDZ), on May 7,
2009, has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Bidz.com
(Nasdaq: BIDZ) during the period between August 13, 2007 and
November 26, 2007 against Bidz.com and its chief executive
over alleged Federal Securities Laws violations.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Bidz.com and its chief executive violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing between August 13, 2007 and
November 26, 2007 a series of false and misleading statements
intended to project the picture of a financially sound and well-
operating company, when, in fact, BIDZ.com, Inc. was operating
with material deficiencies and undisclosed substantial problems
that went to the heart of its business model.
Bidz.com, Inc. is an online retailer of jewelry, featuring
a live auction format. Then on November 26, 2007, a Citron
Research article identified numerous "red flags" and revealed
previously undisclosed material problems with Bidz.com Inc. Two
days later Citron issued a second article that provided
additional details, revealing, so the lawsuit, among other
things, that Bidz.com Inc engaged improper business tactics in
order to artificially raise the auction price of its products.
On this news, Bidz.com Inc.'s stock price dropped from a
closing price of $19.94 on Friday, November 23, 2007, to a low
of $10.10 on November 28, a loss of nearly 50%, so the
plaintiff. BIDZ.com, Inc. is located in Culver City, California
and had $187.13 million in total revenue in 2007 and $207.41 in
total revenue in 2008, with an net income of $18.13 million in
2007 and $14.40 in 2008. Shares of Bidz.com Inc. closed on
Thursday at $4.21 per share, down from a 52 week high of $13.95
per share and $19.94 per share in November 2007.
CANADA: Ontario Nurses' Group Reacts to Dismissal of SARS Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) President Linda Haslam-
Stroud, RN, says the ruling on May 7, 2009 that Ontario does not
owe a "private law duty of care" to front-line registered nurses
sends the wrong message as the world grapples with the
possibility of a flu pandemic.
The Ontario Court of Appeal on May 7, 2009 dismissed a
class action suit brought by registered nurses following the
SARS outbreak in the province in 2003. Two nurses died of SARS
they contracted on the job while caring for patients and dozens
of RNs were sickened.
"The message to front-line registered nurses is that
government is not accountable for their safety or their lives,"
says Haslam-Stroud. "The government is not required to pass
laws that provide RNs with safe working conditions, safe
equipment and they don't have to take any responsibility to keep
us safe. It's an outrageous and deplorable situation.
"ONA has worked for years to ensure our members are safe on
the job, she notes, and will continue to do so. However, nurses
now know that there is no legal requirement for their government
to ensure they are protected -- now or in future -- from
illnesses such as SARS.
"ONA will continue to push for safe conditions for its
members," says Haslam-Stroud. "We are on the front lines and we
want to provide quality patient care. ONA will be even more
aggressive in ensuring that our members are properly armed with
information and protective equipment. We know we can't depend
on others to do so for us."
The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA), the union
representing 54,000 registered nurses and allied health
professionals and more than 10,000 nursing students providing
care in hospitals, long-term care facilities, public health, the
community, clinics and industry. ONA is celebrating 35 years of
nursing advocacy - a proud past, a powerful future.
CHANGING WORLD: Attorney to File Motion Lifting Stay of Mo. Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for a Carthage resident suing Changing World
Technology, Inc., the owner of the Renewable Environmental
Solutions plant in Missouri will file a motion in federal
bankruptcy court in New York to lift a stay that has stopped the
suit in its tracks, the Carthage Press reports.
The suit was filed with the Jasper County Circuit Court by Ms.
Sundy on June 5, 2007. Ms. Sundy -- represented by Ron Jones,
Esq. -- seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as
attorney fees (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2009).
Attorney John Tomlinson with the Beasley Allen Law Firm, based
in Montgomery, Ala., said he plans to file a motion on behalf of
Cynthia Sundy to let her lawsuit against Changing World, proceed
even though the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection back in March 2009, according to the Carthage Press
report.
The Carthage Press reported that Changing World, which is based
in New York, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in March
2009 after an attempt to raise $100 million from selling stock
in the company failed in February. At the same time, the
company shut down the plant in Carthage and laid off 49 workers.
The company filed paperwork to go public in August 2008, but the
initial public offering never happened.
John Hacker of The Carthage Press previously reported that the
RES plant takes waste turkey parts and other agricultural waste
and turns it into a fuel oil using what it calls a thermal
conversion process (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 12, 2008).
Ms. Sundy's lawsuit claimed odors from the plant had "injured
area residents and property owners by diminishing their right to
enjoy their property and diminished their property values,"
reports the Carthage Press.
According to Mr. Tomlinson, the plaintiff had filed motions
seeking class status and saying the class could include as many
as 6,375 people in 2,406 homes in Carthage. He told the
Carthage Press that the defendants had also filed a number of
motions, including one seeking a change of venue.
"The judge had not ruled on any of those motions when RES filed
for bankruptcy," Mr. Tomlinson tells the Carthage Press. "When
they filed for bankruptcy, the state court judge automatically
and immediately said this case is going to be stayed until I
hear otherwise, so he hasn’t ruled on any of that."
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.
218 Commerce Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone: (334) 269-2343 or (800) 898-2034
Fax: (334) 954-7555
Web site: http://www.beasleyallen.com
GENIUS PRODUCTS: Investor Files Securities Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
An investor in Genius Products, Inc., on April 27, 2009,
filed a proposed securities class action in Superior Court for
the State of California in Los Angeles on behalf of investors,
who purchased shares of Genius Product, Inc. between December
31, 2008 and April 03, 2009, against Genius Products, Inc, GNPR
Investments LLC and certain members of the board of directors
others over breaches of fiduciary duty.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that
Genius Products had approximately 68 Million publicly traded
shares. Genius Products owned Genius Products LLC together with
the companies owned by Harvey and Robert Weinstein. Genius
Products allegedly issued certain warrants to the companies
owned by Harvey and Robert Weinstein.
As a result of several transactions Genius Products
indicated in a SEC filing that it "may have an obligation to
issue up to 6,491,060,289 shares of common stock".
Then Genius Products was required to conduct a 500 to 1
reverse stock split on April 03, 2009 to ensure it did not
exceed the amount of shares its Certificate of Incorporation
authorized it to issue.
The plaintiff alleges that class members never had the
opportunity to vote on the stock split and investors had the
value of their holdings dramatically reduced by the transactions
by the defendants and at no time the class members permitted to
vote on these massively dilutive transactions.
GOLDMAN SACHS: Lead Plaintiff, Firm Appointed in N.Y. Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Harold Baer of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York appointed the Public Employees Retirement
System of Mississippi as lead plaintiff in a putative class-
action lawsuit alleging that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and rating
agencies misled investors into buying risky mortgage-backed
securities, Law360 reports.
In a ruling handed down on May 6, 2009, Judge Baer also named
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP lead counsel for the
plaintiffs, according to the Law360 report.
HYATT REGENCY: Workers File Calif. Lawsuit Seeking Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hyatt Regency Long Beach and its parent company are facing a
purported class-action lawsuit that was filed in the California
Superior Court in downtown Los Angeles on behalf of certain
hotel employees, Karen Robes Meeks of Contra Costa Times
reports.
The suit -- filed by three Hyatt Regency Long Beach employees --
has seven complaints representing more than 200 employees and
seeks unpaid wages, according to the Contra Costa Times report.
Plaintiffs Celia Alvarez, Bejamin Cuison, Benjamin Leonen
alleged in their lawsuit that the defendants violated several
state labor laws.
The Contra Costa Times reported that their complaint alleges
that the Hyatt did not pay workers for all the hours worked, did
not allow them to take meal and rest breaks, did not compensate
them for missing those breaks, did not pay legally required
minimum wage and overtime, among other violations.
KB HOME: Homeowners File Ariz. Lawsuit Over "Rigged" Appraisals
----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of homeowners filed a class-action lawsuit against
KB Home (NYSE: KBH), Countrywide Financial and LandSafe
Appraisal Services, claiming the three conspired to
systematically, artificially and illegally rig home appraisals
in KB developments in an effort to boost home values and sales
prices.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, claims
KB and the other defendants inflated home prices by as much as
$2.8 billion in Arizona and Nevada alone during a three-year
period.
According to Rob Carey, the attorney representing the
plaintiffs, KB routed purchasers to Countrywide for loan
services, often claiming they would act as a loan broker,
representing the purchasers' interests in finding the best loan
package available.
"In reality, Countrywide and KB were in cahoots, intent on
sticking the homeowner with an inflated home appraisal to
justify the purchase price," Carey said.
According to the 50-page complaint, Countrywide funneled
all its KB customers' home appraisals to one person at LandSafe,
an appraisal subsidiary of Countrywide who, in turn, would
deliver an appraisal value at whatever KB and Countrywide
ordered.
In two KB Home developments cited in the complaint, sampled
appraisals were inflated by $82,169 per property on average.
"Even if we used a more conservative $20,000 per property,
this alleged scheme would add $2.8 billion in ill-gotten profits
in KB's pockets," Carey said. "Those profits come at the
expense of the homeowner, who moves into a house already upside-
down, and the secondary market, buying tainted investments."
The complaint sites instances of appraisals that used
pending sales within the same development as comparable
properties substantiating appraisal values.
"This boils down to nothing more than a Madoff-like Ponzi
scheme," Steve Berman noted, managing partner at HBSS. "KB
relied on the initial use of false appraisals to push early
sales in KB Home developments - these inflated purchase figures
were then used to continue propping up the value and selling
activity of KB homes across entire communities and states."
Berman noted that appraisers would not have access to
pending-sales numbers unless KB Home supplied those values.
According to the suit, homeowners learned they had been
duped when they attempted to sell their homes and hired
independent appraisers.
The suit details a litany of tactics LandSafe appraisers
used to deliver the predetermined value, including blatantly
falsifying sale prices for comparable properties; using
comparable properties that were as much as 10 miles away, and
citing comparable properties that were in other planned
communities.
According to Berman, his firm filed a proposed class-action
suit against Countrywide and KB earlier in the year. That suit
has been recast as an individual action against the defendants.
"Since we filed our first suit, we've learned a great deal
about KB and Countrywide's actions," Berman added. "We believe
it will help us illustrate what we see as a cynical scheme
condoned and encouraged by the organization's leadership,"
The HBSS lawsuit claims violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and violation of
California unfair competition law.
The lawsuit represents anyone in Arizona and Nevada who
purchased a home from KB Home and financed through Countrywide.
For more details, contact:
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
Phone: (206) 623-7292
e-mail: kbhomes@hbsslaw.com
Web site: http://www.hbsslaw.com/kbhomes
KEYPOINT CREDIT: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit filed on May 7, 2009 in state court in
Alameda County charges that KeyPoint Credit Union has committed
"systemic civil rights violations" by repeatedly refusing to
accept telephone relay service calls from deaf customers and
potential customers.
The class action suit, seeking relief on behalf of deaf and
hard-of-hearing individuals who have been denied full and equal
access to KeyPoint's services, products, and information, was
filed by Disability Rights Advocates (DRA), a Berkeley-based
non-profit law center. The suit seeks to end discrimination
against individuals who are deaf by requiring KeyPoint to accept
telephone relay calls, which are commonly used by deaf people to
communicate with businesses and others, just as it would accept
ordinary telephone voice calls.
Plaintiffs Megg R. Davis and Colin Piotrowski charge that
KeyPoint, one of California's largest credit unions with 80,000
members and 10 branches, has as a matter of policy
systematically refused to provide services and information to
customers and potential customers through telephone relay
service calls. This refusal, according to the lawsuit, violates
California and federal antidiscrimination law intended to ensure
that people with disabilities can access business and commercial
opportunities on an equal basis with those without disabilities.
Background
Telephone relay services allow people who are deaf to
communicate with non-disabled individuals. An IP relay service,
for instance, allows individuals with hearing or speech
disabilities to place telephone calls using the internet. The
relay user types what he or she would like to say and transmits
that text over the internet to a communications assistant. The
communications assistant then reads the text and speaks those
words verbatim to the listener on the other end of the call.
The assistant then types the non-disabled person's response back
to the disabled caller. A video relay service is similar,
except the disabled person uses a video device such as a webcam
to communicate with sign language to the communications
assistant, who relays the conversation to each party using
either voice or sign language.
Telecommunications relay services are recognized by the
Americans with Disabilities Act and analogous California law, as
well as by the Federal Communications Commission and the
California Public Utilities Commission, as telephone
transmission services that make it possible for deaf people to
communicate by telephone. This technology has in large part
replaced use of TTY devices by deaf and hard-of-hearing
individuals.
KeyPoint's Policy of Refusing Relay Calls
Plaintiff Megg Davis became a KeyPoint customer in December
2007 and soon learned that she could not obtain financial
services or basic information about her account when she used
telephone relay calls to contact KeyPoint's customer service
representatives. Whenever she called, Ms. Davis was repeatedly
informed that KeyPoint policy precluded its representatives from
providing any services or information by relay calls. Mr.
Piotrowski received the same response when he used the relay
call system to contact KeyPoint about opening an account.
When a relay call is made, the relay assistant discloses to
the caller and to the recipient of the call the name of the
relay service with which they are associated as well the
assistant's unique identification number. The relay services
and communications assistants are bound by strict standards of
confidentiality and ethics as required by laws and regulations
applicable to this area of telecommunications. Businesses of
all kinds routinely communicate with deaf patrons via this
medium.
Megg Davis, who as a deaf customer cannot communicate by
telephone with KeyPoint about her financial issues, commented:
"I was surprised and angry when KeyPoint would not discuss my
account with me by relay call. Hearing customers can use
KeyPoint's 24/7 toll-free telephone service anytime they wish,
but if I need anything KeyPoint just refuses my call." Ms.
Davis has been forced to travel to a physical KeyPoint branch to
conduct business that hearing customers can conduct over the
phone. When she cannot go to a branch, Ms Davis thus cannot
communicate at all with KeyPoint about her account.
Larry Paradis, the executive director and co-director of
litigation for DRA, commented: "KeyPoint's policy of rejecting
communications through telephone relay services is both
misguided and illegal. As a credit union serving high-
technology workers in particular, KeyPoint should have embraced
this communications technology long ago."
"I can't imagine any good reason why KeyPoint would refuse
relay calls," remarked Colin Piotrowski. "Its policy only
drives away customers and potential customers who happen to be
deaf."
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3ca3
MACY'S INC: Faces Suit in N.J. Espresso Maker's "Original Price"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Macy's, Inc. and Bloomingdale's, Inc. are facing a purported
class-action lawsuit in Bergen County Superior Court, claiming
that defendants inflated the "original price" of an espresso
maker, so they could "discount" it during a sale, Chris Fry of
the Courthouse News Service reports.
The complaint claims that Nespresso D290 machine was displayed
as having an "original price" of $625, though the Manufacturer's
Suggested Retail Price was actually $499, according to the
Courthouse News Service report.
It claims that Bloomingdale's never sold the machine for $625,
"despite the representation by defendant that $625 was the
item's regular price."
The Courthouse News Service reported that the purported class is
represented by Harold M. Hoffman, Esq. of Englewood, N.J., a
retired partner of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP. Mr. Hoffman had
retired as a partner of Kronish Lieb Weiner & Hellman prior to
its merger with Cooley in 2006.
For more details, contact:
Harold M. Hoffman, Esq. (hhoffman@cooley.com)
The Grace Building
1114 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-7798
Phone: 212/479-6060
Fax: 212/479-6275
Web site: http://www.cooley.com/
ROYAL BANK: Cohen Milstein Appointed Co-Lead Counsel in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC announced on May 7, 2009
that it was appointed Co-Lead Counsel for Co-Lead Plaintiff, The
Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board
(MassPRIM), in a class-action lawsuit against the Royal Bank of
Scotland.
The lawsuit alleges that the Royal Bank of Scotland falsely
reassured investors the bank was well capitalized when, in fact,
the bank was effectively insolvent as a result of impaired
assets, bad loans and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN
AMRO.
The complaint further alleges that the revelation of this
deception led to a catastrophic collapse in the bank's share
values as, on January 19, 2009, Royal Bank of Scotland announced
that it expected to lose approximately GBP28 billion in 2008, in
large part due to the write-off of goodwill associated with ABN
as well as charges associated with bad loans. These write-offs
resulted in the biggest loss in British corporate history.
MassPRIM and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) were appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs to represent the common
stock purchasers in the lawsuit against the Royal Bank of
Scotland, in a case captioned as "In re Royal Bank of Scotland
Group plc Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-cv-300 (DAB)
(S.D.N.Y.)."
Cohen Milstein represents MassPRIM. PERS is represented by
the law firms of Wolf Popper and Labaton Sucharow. The Court
also appointed a group of investors as Co-Lead plaintiff on
behalf of purchasers of RBS preferred shares who are represented
by Girard Gibbs.
"The plaintiffs intend to vigorously pursue claims on
behalf of all RBS investors, regardless of where they live or
where they purchased Royal Bank of Scotland securities to ensure
access to justice for investors globally," said Cohen Milstein
Managing Partner Steven J. Toll.
In the action, Lead Plaintiffs assert claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933
against the Royal Bank of Scotland, its underwriters, and
certain members of the bank's current and former directors and
officers. Lead Plaintiffs represent a proposed class of all
persons and entities, including European investors, who acquired
the publicly traded securities of Royal Bank of Scotland,
preferred shares, or other securities between June 6, 2007 and
January 9, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cohenmilstein.com)
Julie Goldsmith Reiser, Esq.
(jreiser@cohenmilstein.com)
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
Phone: 888-240-0775 and 202-408-4600
ROYAL BANK: MassPRIM, MS PERS Named Lead Plaintiff in N.Y. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board
(MassPRIM) and the Mississippi Public Employees Retirement
System (PERS) have been named lead plaintiff in a class-action
lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Raquel
Pichardo-Allison of Global Pensions reports.
According to a press release by plaintiffs' counsel, the
litigation in general alleges RBS "falsely reassured investors
that RBS was well capitalized when, in fact, the company was
effectively insolvent as a result of impaired assets, bad loans,
and its disastrous partial acquisition of ABN AMRO," Global
Pensions reported.
The law firm Labaton Sucharow, will represent the Mississippi
pension fund along with Wolf Popper LLP. Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers & Toll PLLC will represent MassPRIM, according to the
Global Pensions report.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
also appointed Freeman Group, made up of a small group of
investors that lost a combined $444,000, as co-lead plaintiff to
represent the preferred share purchasers. They will be
represented by law firm Girard Gibbs, reports Global Pensions.
SHOALS SUZUKI: Still Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Vehicle Warranties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shoals Suzuki and American Suzuki Motor Corp. continue to face a
purported class-action lawsuit in Alabama claiming that the
dealership breached its contract with customers who have
warranties or service contracts when it closed, Tom Smith of the
Times Daily reported.
Listed as defendants in the suit are American Suzuki Motor
Corp., Shoals Suzuki, Varsity Suzuki, Inc. in Huntsville, and
Charles Linam, who owned the dealerships, according to the Times
Daily report.
Previously, Bernie Delinski of the Times Daily reported that the
lawsuit, filed in Lauderdale County Circuit Court, lists John
Burns of Muscle Shoals and Jill S. Hearn of Florence, as
plaintiffs. The two -- represented by Florence attorney Harold
G. Peck, Esq. -- have purchased vehicles from the dealership
that are under warranty (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2009).
The dealership suspended sales Jan. 28, 2009 at its Jackson
Highway and Hatch Boulevard location in Sheffield. At the time,
company officials said the closure was temporary and that the
parts and service department would remain open. The department
closed earlier this month, according to the Times Daily report.
Shoals residents who bought a Suzuki in Sheffield were forced to
go to the Huntsville dealership for service, but now that has
closed, as well.
The Times Daily reported that the suit also lists Varsity Suzuki
Inc., in Huntsville, and Charles Gary Linam, of Varsity Suzuki,
as defendants. In addition, it includes as defendants anyone
who sold Suzuki automobiles, issued warranties, serviced the
warranties, and in any way participated in the sale, manufacture
or distribution of Suzuki automobiles and warranties.
The suit states the defendants issued various warranties,
including a "zero-dollar deductible, 100,000 mile/7 year power
train limited warranty on all new vehicles sold after Aug. 1,
2002." It also states that defendants also issued new-vehicle
limited warranties "covering all components of the vehicles
supplied by Suzuki for 36 months/36,000 miles with no charge for
parts and labor," reports the Times Daily.
In general, the suit claims the warranties are part of the
consideration of the cost of the vehicles, and that failure to
provide warranty service could devalue the worth of the
vehicles.
The suit requests that Suzuki provide a list of vehicles sold by
Varsity and Shoals Suzuki, along with warranty and service
contracts. It also demands that a judgment be rendered against
Suzuki for money received by defendants for prepaid warranty and
service work.
In addition, the suit also calls for Suzuki to be required to
provide the services, and that a common fund be set up to pay
for the terms of warranties and service.
According to the suit, the total membership of the class in the
class-action suit could number at least 8,000, reports the Times
Daily.
For more details, contact:
Harold G. Peck & Associates
118 W. Drive Hicks Boulevard,
Florence, AL 35630
Phone: (256) 766-4490
Fax: (256) 766-4494
SILICON IMAGE: No Appeal Hearing Yet in Dismissed Calif. Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to set a
hearing in connection with an appeal of the dismissal of the
fourth consolidated amended securities fraud complaint in a
purported class action suit against Silicon Image, Inc.,
according to the company's April 24, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended March 31, 2009.
The lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and
Robert Gargus," was filed on Jan. 31, 2005, before the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 19, 2004, to Jan. 24, 2005.
The suit asserts that the company and certain of its officers
and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and
violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the
U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. In July
2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
dropping individual defendant Robert Gargus, but adding another
defendant, Dr. David Lee. The consolidated amended complaint
also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004, to April 22,
2005.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint in September 2005.
On Dec. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated
amended complaint, which extended the end of the class period
from April 22, 2005, to Oct. 13, 2005, and added additional
factual allegations under the same causes of action against the
company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee. The complaint also added a new
plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.
The defendants, on Feb. 9, 2006, filed a motion to dismiss the
second consolidated amended complaint. This request was granted
by the court on June 21, 2006, with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint, which the defendants again sought to be dismissed.
Subsequently, on Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, still
with leave to amend.
The plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint,
which was again dismissed by the court at the defendants'
behest, without further leave to amend. Final judgment was
entered in favor of the defendants on Sept. 25, 2007.
On Oct. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the
court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.
Appellants' opening brief was filed on Feb. 28, 2008 and the
company's responsive pleading was filed April 14, 2008. On May
16, 2008, appellants filed a reply brief. The court has not yet
set a date for a hearing on the appeal.
The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, Judge Judge Maxine M.
Chesney, presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Aaron H. Darsky Esq. (adarsky@schubert-reed.com)
Schubert & Reed, LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-788-4220
Fax: 415-788-0161
Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com)
Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
212 Wood Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
Phone: 831-333-0309
Fax: 831-333-0325
- and -
Richard A. Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com)
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 212-223-3900
Representing the defendants is:
Emmett C. Stanton, Esq. (estanton@fenwick.com)
Fenwick & West, LLP
Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
Phone: 650-988-8500
Fax: 650-938-5200
SPRINT NEXTEL: W.Va. Considers Joining Suit Over Nextel Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Members of West Virginia's Investment Management Board are
milling whether to join a securities class-action lawsuit
against Sprint Corp., which contends that company officials
fraudulently misrepresented the company's 2005 merger with
Nextel Communications, Phil Kabler of the Charleston Gazette
reports.
The Washington Business Journal previously reported that Sprint
Nextel Corp. is the target of a potential class-action suit that
alleges it misrepresented its business and financial results
surrounding the Nextel merger in ways that pushed its stock
artificially high (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2009).
On March 10, 2009, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
announced that a class-action suit has been commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on behalf of
purchasers of Sprint Nextel Corp. common stock during the period
between Oct. 26, 2006 and Feb. 27, 2008 (Class Action Reporter,
March 12, 2009).
The complaint charges Sprint and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results. As a result of
defendants' false statements, Sprint stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
In December 2004, Sprint Corporation and Nextel Communications
("Nextel") announced that they would merge. The merger was
completed on Aug. 12, 2005, with Sprint Corp. buying Nextel for
$37.8 billion. The merger, the complaint alleges, turned out to
be a disaster, as the Company has had difficulties in combining
the resources of the two companies due to culture clashes and
technological issues.
However, during the Class Period, defendants repeatedly assured
the market that the Company was poised for a turnaround and was
focused on improving its core operations. As late as the summer
of 2007, defendants continued to play down and conceal Sprint's
problems with its network and with its customer service issues
and subscriber base. Beginning in early Fall 2007, Sprint
finally began to acknowledge that its initiatives were not
working and that the Company was experiencing a serious
deterioration in its subscriber base, due both to a slow down in
new growth and a massive defection of its current subscribers to
its competitors.
On Feb. 28, 2008, before the market opened, the Company reported
disappointing fourth quarter and full year 2007 financial
results, including a net loss for the quarter of $29.5 billion
or $10.36 diluted loss per share. On this news, Sprint's stock
collapsed $0.86 per share to close at $8.09 per share.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
-- the Company's CDMA business was not as healthy as
represented;
-- the Company would be unable to complete its migration
of its entire customer base to a uniform billing
platform by 2007 from the multiple legacy platforms,
thus continuing to cause customer service problems and
having a negative effect on the Company's voluntary
churn rate;
-- the Company had not taken the proper steps to address
its customer service issues;
-- the Company failed to disclose known trends and
uncertainties as required by SEC regulations
concerning the loosening of its credit standards for
its CDMA network and its failure to take the proper
steps to address customer service issues, which would
have a negative effect on the Company's operations in
the future;
-- the Company was not adequately reserving for its
impaired goodwill associated with Nextel or its
allowance for bad debts related to subprime
subscribers in violation of GAAP, causing its
financial results to be materially misstated;
-- the Company had far greater exposure to liquidity
concerns and ratings downgrades than it had previously
disclosed;
-- the Company was failing to integrate the CDMA network
and the iDEN network; and
-- given the increased volatility in the subprime market,
the intense competition in the wireless industry and
the problems facing Sprint due to its failure to
integrate legacy Sprint and legacy Nextel operations,
the Company's projections issued during the Class
Period about its earnings for 2007 and 2008 were at a
minimum reckless.
As a result of defendants' false statements, Sprint's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period. However,
after the above revelations seeped into the market, the
Company's shares fell more than 65% from their Class Period
high.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Sprint common stock during the Class Period.
For more details, contact:
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/sprintnextel/
UNION PACIFIC: Ark. Supreme Court Decertifies Families' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Arkansas Supreme Court decertified a class-action lawsuit
against Union Pacific Corp., saying a lower-court judge abused
his discretion.
In an opinion released on May 7, 2009, justices found that a
judge from the Miller County Circuit Court erred in granting the
case class-action status. The opinion by Justice Elana
Cunningham Wills said the only thing binding those suing the
company together was that they settled claims against Union
Pacific.
The lawsuit said Union Pacific came to families in emergency
rooms or while they still grieved to pressure them into
settlements after train crashes.
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Award in "Savaglio" Remains Stayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to an award made in the class-
action suit, "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," remains stayed
pending the outcome in a similar case, according to the
company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.
The plaintiffs allege that they were not provided meal and rest
breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary
damages and injunctive relief.
A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages
concluded on Dec. 22, 2005. The jury returned a verdict of
approximately $57 million in statutory penalties and $115
million in punitive damages.
Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order
allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by
the plaintiffs.
On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the
plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately $26 million in
costs and attorneys' fees.
The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and
on Jan. 31, 2007, the company filed its Notice of Appeal.
On Nov. 19, 2008, the court of appeals issued an Order staying
further proceedings in the Savaglio appeal pending the decision
of the California Supreme Court in a case involving similar
issues, entitled Brinker v. Superior Court.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world. The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity. Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International. Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com. Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com. Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.
WAL-MART STORES: Appeal to Judgment in "Braun/Hummel" Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s appeal to a $188 million judgment in the
matter, "Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," is still
pending, according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.
The case is containing class-action allegations in which the
plaintiffs are current and former hourly associates who allege
that the company forced or encouraged them to work "off the
clock," failed to provide rest breaks or meal periods, or
otherwise failed to pay them correctly. It generally seeks
unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both.
A trial was commenced in the matter on September 2006, in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs allege that the
company failed to pay class members for all hours worked and
prevented class members from taking their full meal and rest
breaks.
On Oct. 13, 2006, the jury awarded back-pay damages to the
plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for off-
the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor
of the company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.
On Nov. 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the
jury's back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment
interest and attorneys' fees.
The company believes it has substantial factual and legal
defenses to the claims at issue, and on Dec. 7, 2007, the
company filed its Notice of Appeal.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world. The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity. Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International. Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com. Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com. Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.
WAL-MART STORES: "Braun" Settlement Gets Prelim Approval in Jan.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary approval of the settlement in the matter, "Braun v.
Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790," which generally alleges
violations of the state's labor laws, was granted in January
2009.
The class-action suit, "Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," was
brought by four women on behalf of 56,000 Wal-Mart and Sam's
Club hourly employees.
The plaintiffs listed in the suit are:
-- Nancy Braun, who worked at a Wal-Mart store in Apple
Valley, Minnesota;
-- Debbie Simonson and Cindy Severson, who worked in
Brooklyn Park; and
-- Pamela Reinert, who worked at stores in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area.
It specifically alleges that Wal-Mart managers, with severely
understaffed stores and under pressure to cut costs, inserted
unused breaks on timecards and asked employees to start work
before clocking in and stay late after clocking out. It also
alleges that the company tied bonuses for store managers to
store profitability.
The plaintiffs further claim that Wal-Mart allegedly committed
more than 14 million violations of company policies and
Minnesota wage and hour laws, amounting to $27 million in unpaid
wages.
They are seeking back pay to 1998 and as much as $1,000 each for
millions of missed breaks. Punitive damages in the case will be
allowed if the judge finds against Wal-Mart, and thus damages
could total billions of dollars.
A trial commenced on Sept. 24, 2007, in the First Judicial
District Court for Dakota County, Minnesota, on the plaintiffs'
claims that class members worked off the clock and were not
provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with Minnesota law.
Testimony concluded on Dec. 11, 2007.
On June 30, 2008, the trial judge issued an Order awarding the
class approximately $6.5 million in compensatory and liquidated
damages. The judge also set the plaintiffs' claims for punitive
damages and statutory penalties for trial on Oct. 20, 2008, but
invited the parties to seek an immediate appeal of the findings
made thus far.
On July 29, 2008, the company filed a petition with the
Minnesota Court of Appeals requesting immediate appeal. No
ruling has been received.
The company agreed in October 2008, to settle the case by paying
up to approximately $54 million, part of which is to be paid to
the State of Minnesota and part to the class members and their
counsel.
On Jan. 14, 2009, the trial court entered an Order granting
preliminary approval of the settlement and directing that
notices be mailed to class members. The exact amount that will
be paid by the company depends on the number and amount of
claims that are submitted by class members in response to the
notices, according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009.
The case is "Braun v. Wal-Mart Inc., 19-CO-01-9790," which was
filed in the District Court, Dakota County, First Judicial
District, Minnesota (Hastings), Judge Robert King, Jr.,
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Jonathan S. Parritz, Esq. (jon.parritz@maslon.com)
Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP
3300 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
Phone: 612.672.8334
Fax: 612.642.8334
Web site: http://www.maslon.com
WAL-MART STORES: EEOC's Discrimination Suit Set for 2010 Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's gender
discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. has been
set for trial on March 1, 2010.
The company is a defendant in a lawsuit that was filed by the
EEOC on Aug. 24, 2001, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky on behalf of Janice Smith and all
other females who made application or transfer requests at the
London, Kentucky, distribution center from 1998 to the present,
and who were not hired or transferred into the warehouse
positions for which they applied.
The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as
amended. The EEOC can maintain this action as a class without
certification.
The EEOC seeks back pay and front pay for those females not
selected for hire or transfer during the relevant time period,
plus compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief.
The EEOC has asserted that the hiring practices in question
resulted in a shortfall of 245 positions.
The claims for compensatory and punitive damages are capped by
statute at $300,000 per shortfall position. The amounts of back
pay and front pay that are being sought have not been specified,
according to the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2009.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world. The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity. Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International. Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com. Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com. Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.
WAL-MART STORES: Settlement of 63 Suits Pending Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.'s settlement agreements with plaintiffs in
63 wage-and-hour class-action lawsuits are still pending court
approval.
The company is a defendant in numerous cases containing class-
action allegations in which the plaintiffs are current and
former hourly associates who allege that the company forced or
encouraged them to work "off the clock," failed to provide rest
breaks or meal periods, or otherwise failed to pay them
correctly.
The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages,
injunctive relief, or both.
Class or collective-action certification has yet to be addressed
by the court in a majority of these cases.
In the majority of wage-and-hour class actions filed against the
company in which the courts have addressed the issue, class
certification has been denied.
On Dec. 23, 2008, the company and the attorneys for the
plaintiffs in 63 wage-and-hour class actions announced that they
had entered into a series of settlement agreements in connection
with those matters. Each of the settlements is subject to
approval by the court in which the matter is pending. The total
amount to be paid by the company under the settlement agreements
will depend on whether such approvals are granted, as well as on
the number and amount of claims that are submitted by class
members in each matter. If all of the agreements are approved
by the courts, the total to be paid by the company under the
settlement agreements will be at least $352 million, but no more
than $640 million, depending on the number and amount of claims.
The company may also incur additional administrative expenses
and other costs in the process of concluding the settlements,
according to its April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Jan. 31, 2009.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://walmartstores.com/-- operates
retail stores in various formats around the world. The company
earns the trust of its customers every day by providing an
assortment of merchandise and services at every day low prices,
while fostering a culture that rewards and embraces mutual
respect, integrity and diversity. Wal-Mart's operations
comprise three business segments: Wal-Mart Stores, Sam's Club
and International. Its Wal-Mart Stores segment is the largest
segment of the company's business, accounting for 64% of its net
sales, during the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2008 (fiscal 2008),
and operates stores in three different formats in the U.S., as
well as Wal-Mart's online retail operations, walmart.com. Its
Sam's Club segment consists of membership warehouse clubs in the
United States and the segment's online retail operations,
samsclub.com. Sam's Club accounted for 11.8% of the company's
net sales during fiscal 2008.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ARIEL FUND: Wolf Haldenstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who invested in
Ariel Fund Limited during the period December 22, 2003, through
and including December 16, 2008 against the Fund, Gabriel
Capital Corporation, J. Ezra Merkin, Fortis Bank (Cayman) Ltd.,
Fortis Prime Solutions (Cayman) Ltd., Fortis Bank, Fortis Prime
Solutions (USA) LLC, BDO Tortuga, and BDO International.
This case arises from a massive, fraudulent scheme
perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff through his investment firm,
Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), and others,
and which was facilitated by defendants named herein.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
information and financial statements concerning, among other
things, the Fund's reported net asset value, the manner in which
the Fund's assets were invested, the extent of the defendants'
due diligence of Madoff and BMIS, and the true state of
supervision and oversight over the Fund's assets.
Defendants caused and permitted 24 percent of the Fund's
total assets to be handed over to Madoff to be "invested" for
the benefit of plaintiff and the Class. Plaintiff's investments
with the Fund were decimated as a direct result of the fraud
perpetrated by Madoff and BMIS and the complete failure of BDO
Tortuga and BDO International to perform adequate audits and
create its annual audit reports in conformance with generally
accepted auditing standards despite the existence of a myriad of
"red flags" indicating a high risk to Ariel Fund from
concentrating its investment exposure in Madoff.
On December 10, 2008, Madoff informed certain senior BMIS
employees (reported to be his sons) that BMIS' investment
advisory business was an utter fraud. Madoff also stated that
he estimated the losses from this fraud to be approximately $50
billion. On December 11, 2008, SEC and criminal charges were
brought against Bernard Madoff. He was arrested and admitted to
a Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent that "there is
no innocent explanation" for BMIS' losses and that he "paid
investors with money that wasn't there."
One of Madoff's client's was defendant Ariel Fund, which,
unknown to Plaintiff and other class members, and
notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, failed to monitor or
supervise the investments made with Madoff and BMIS, and failed
to perform adequate due diligence. Investors who entrusted
their savings are now ruined. Indeed, scores of charities were
destroyed and have either closed their doors or cancelled their
proposed grants.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 6, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Phone: 800-575-0735
e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
Web site: http://www.whafh.com/
BIDZ.COM INC: Barrack Rodos Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, "Gomez v. Bidz.com, et al., No.
CV09-3216-CBM," on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
Bidz.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: BIDZ) during the period between August
13, 2007 and November 26, 2007.
The complaint charges Bidz.com and its chief executive with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bidz.com is in the business of selling jewelry and other
products online through an auction process.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
intended to project the picture of a financially sound and well-
operating company, when, in fact, the company was operating with
material deficiencies and undisclosed substantial problems that
went to the heart of its business model.
On November 26, 2007, a Citron Research article identified
numerous "red flags" and revealed previously undisclosed
material problems with the Company. Two days later Citron
issued a second article that provided additional details,
revealing, among other things, that the Company engaged improper
business tactics in order to artificially raise the auction
price of its products.
On this news, the Company's stock price dropped from a
closing price of $19.94 on Friday, November 23, 2007, to a low
of $10.10 on November 28, a loss of nearly 50%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of common stock of Bidz.com during the Class Period.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 7, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Julie Palley (jpalley@barrack.com)
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine
Phone: 877-386-3304
BIDZ.COM INC: Howard G. Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Bidz.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: BIDZ) between
August 13, 2007 and November 26, 2007, inclusive. The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of California.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning Bidz.com's business, operations and prospects,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Bidz.com securities.
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 July 6, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com)
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
SEQUENOM INC: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Sequenom, Inc. (NASDAQ: SQNM) on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
Sequenom common stock between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009.
The Complaint charges Sequenom and its Chief Executive
Officer with violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934. The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
facts concerning the Company's single most important product
under development, SEQureDx, a non-invasive prenatal test for
Down Syndrome.
Defendants' statements regarding the Company's prospects
are alleged to have been materially false and misleading because
defendants knew that:
-- the Company's clinical trials were plagued with
material defects;
-- their employees were mishandling the test data and
results for SEQureDx; and
-- the Company would not be in a position to achieve a
commercial launch of SEQureDx by June 2009.
On April 29, 2009, Sequenom shocked investors when the
Company announced in a press release that its employees had
mishandled SEQureDx test data and results. In response to this
news, shares of the Company's stock fell by $11.68 per share to
$3.23 a decline of more than 75%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Sequenom common stock between
June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before July 1, 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
SEQUENOM INC: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District
of California, against Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) and certain of its
top officials.
The class action (09-cv-976) was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of the Company between June 4, 2008
and April 29, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint alleges violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Ace and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Sequenom is a diagnostic testing and genetics analysis
company.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued public statements concerning the Company's
"crown jewel" -- SEQureDx Down syndrome test ("SEQureDx") --
which is intended to detect Down Syndrome in the first trimester
of a pregnancy. Defendants consistently reported that clinical
results concerning the Down syndrome test trials for the product
were extremely favorable, with 100% detection and no false
positives, compared to only 70-90% detection and 5% false
positives in competing tests. Moreover, the Company represented
that the product would be ready for sale by June 2009.
Defendants' public statements were false and/or failed to
disclose material adverse information, i.e., (1) Sequenom
employees "mishandled" test data and results regarding SEQureDx
clinical trials; (2) SEQureDx did not offer verifiable,
statistically significant improvement over competing tests; and
(3) due to undisclosed problems with the clinical tests data and
results, Sequenom would be unable to bring SEQureDx to the
market by June 2009.
On April 29, 2009, after the market closed, the Company
issued a press release revealing the foregoing facts, and
stating that the Company's press releases and SEC filings going
back to June 4, 2008 could no longer be relied upon. On this
news, Sequenom's stock price fell by $11.29, or more than 75%,
on extremely high trading volume of over 88 million shares.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com)
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
Phone: (888) 476.6529
SEQUENOM INC: Saxena White Files Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. filed suit on behalf of shareholders of
Sequenom, Inc. (SQNM) in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California.
The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased
Sequenom stock between June 4, 2008 and April 29, 2009,
inclusive.
Sequenom is a genomics company that provides genetic
analysis products that assist in biomedical research.
The complaint alleges that after months of touting the
Company's accomplishments, on April 29, 2009, Sequenom issued a
press release stating that its employees mishandled R&D test
data for SEQureDx, which was being developed as a non-invasive
prenatal test for Down syndrome.
Sequenom also disclosed that the commercial launch of
SEQureDx would be delayed and that:
-- the Company suspended four employees;
-- the Company formed a special committee of independent
directors to oversee an independent investigation of
the employees' activity related to the test data and
results;
-- the committee engaged independent counsel to assist
the committee in the conduct of the investigation;
-- the Company's previous press releases and public SEC
filings concerning SEQureDx could no longer be relied
upon; and
-- due to these developments, the Company is now
reviewing the test results for all its products, not
just SEQureDx.
As a result of this news, the Company's shares declined
$11.29 per share, or 75 percent, to close on April 30, 2009, at
$3.62 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before June 30, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
Greg Stone, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway
Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Stephanie T. Umacob, Gracele D.
Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *