/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090519.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 97 Headlines ADVANCED ACCESSORY: Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Mich. AFFINION GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending AMERICAN ELECTRIC: "Bridges" ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio BANK OF AMERICA: 1031 Tax Group Victims File $140M Calif. Suit BEST BUY: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Electronics Recycling Fee CBEYOND INC: Motion to Dismiss Ga. Securities Complaint Pending CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employee Files $50M Litigation in California GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Defend Shareholders' Securities Lawsuits IDEARC INC: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas INDYMAC FEDERAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Securitized Mortgage Loans KELLOGG BROWN: Faces Shareholders' Lawsuit in Texas State Court N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Sets Limits in Employees' Lawsuit Settlement PITTSBURGH MERCY: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' FLSA Suit PPL ENERGY: Talks on Shareholders' Suit to Resume in June 2009 REDDY ICE: Antitrust Violations Suit in Kansas Dismissed in Feb. REDDY ICE: Continues to Face Securities Complaints in Michigan REDDY ICE: Faces Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit in Mich. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Blanchard" Tort and Condemnation Suit TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Mays" Damages Lawsuit Over Ash Spill TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Giltnane" Gross Negligence Lawsuit Pending TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Long" Suit Over Kingston Ash Spill Pending WELLPOINT INC: Scott + Scott Files Healthcare Subscribers' Suit New Securities Fraud Cases IDEARC INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing POPULAR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation POPULAR INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in P.R. POPULAR INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing SUNTRUST BANKS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ADVANCED ACCESSORY: Workers File WARN Violations Suit in Mich. -------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC, and its owner Castle Harlan, Inc. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act in connection to Advanced Accessory's closure, Liz Shepard of Times Herald reports. The lawsuit was filed on April 15, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the caption, "Richards et al v. Advanced Accessory Systems LLC et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-11418." It was filed by Robert Richards, Larry Bond, Karen Bonkoski, Linda Brozowski, Rosa Fox, Ajit Pai and Mary Griffor, who are all former workers of the company. The former employees claim they weren't given enough notice of the massive layoffs that resulted from the closure of plants in Port Huron, Shelby Township and owner Castle Harlan's headquarters in Sterling Heights, reports Times Herald. The suit says the company violated the WARN Act, which requires certain employers give at least 60 days notice of a closure or large-scale layoffs, according to the Times Herald report. The former employees are requesting 60 days of wages and benefits. If the company is found to have violated the act it would be liable for about $2 million in wages alone, according to Cary McGehee, Esq., the lawyer representing the employees, Times Herald reported. AFFINION GROUP: Discovery Ongoing in Wash. Consumer Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit pending in Washington court against Affinion Group, Inc., which, prior to 2007, was known as the Trilegiant Corp. On Jan. 28, 2005, a class action complaint was filed against The Bon, Inc., FACS Group, Inc., and Trilegiant in the Superior Court of Washington, Spokane County. The claim asserts violations of various consumer protection statutes. The company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was denied by the court. Plaintiffs have asked the court to hear oral argument on May 8, 2009, regarding their motion for class certification. The parties also continue to conduct discovery in this matter, according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AFFINION GROUP: Ruling on Appeal in Consumer Fraud Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County has yet to rule on a plaintiff's motion appealing its decision to compel arbitration in a purported consumer fraud class-action suit, according to Affinion Group, Inc.'s April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Nov. 12, 2002, a class-action complaint was filed against Sears, Roebuck & Co., Sears National Bank, Cendant Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC (now know as Affinion Membership Services Holdings Subsidiary LLC), and Allstate Insurance Co. in the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County, alleging, among other things, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Illinois consumer fraud and deceptive practices act. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, but was remanded to the Circuit Court of Alabama for Greene County. The company has filed a motion to compel arbitration, which was granted by the court on Jan. 31, 2008. In granting the company's motion, the court further ordered that any arbitration with respect to this matter take place on an individual (and not class) basis. On Feb. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order. The court has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion. Affinion Group Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.affiniongroup.com-- is a global provider of integrated marketing and loyalty solutions to companies around the world. Affinion partners with other companies to develop customized marketing programs that provide products and services to their end customers. AMERICAN ELECTRIC: "Bridges" ERISA Lawsuit Still Pending in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against American Electric Power Co., Inc. alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In the fourth quarter of 2002 and the first quarter of 2003, three putative class-action complaints were filed against AEP, certain executives and AEP's ERISA Plan Administrator alleging violations of ERISA in the selection of AEP stock as an investment alternative and in the allocation of assets to AEP stock. The suits, which were later consolidated, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Aside from American Electric Power, other defendants named are American Electric Power Service Corp.; E. Linn Draper, Jr.; and Thomas V. Shockley, III. In July 2006, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed all claims without prejudice. In August 2007, the appeals court reversed the trial court's decision and held that the plaintiff did have standing to pursue his claim. The appeals court remanded the case to the trial court to consider the issue of whether the plaintiff is an adequate representative for the class of plan participants. In September 2008, the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification and ordered briefing on whether the plaintiff may maintain an ERISA claim on behalf of the Plan in the absence of class certification. In October 2008, counsel for the plaintiff filed a motion to intervene on behalf of an individual seeking to intervene as a new plaintiff. In March 2009, the court granted a motion to intervene on behalf of an individual seeking to intervene as a new plaintiff, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Bridges v. American Electric Po, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00067-ALM-MRA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Algenon L. Marbley, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. Stull, Stull and Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 e-mail: ssbny@aol.com James Edward Arnold, Esq. (jarnold@cpaslaw.com) Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott 471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-469-1400 - and - Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com) Strauss & Troy - 1 The Federal Reserve Bldg. 150 E Fourth St., 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Phone: 513-621-2120 Representing the defendants are: Michael J. Chepiga, Esq. Charlie L. Divine, Esq. Joseph M. McLaughlin, Esq. Issa Mikel, Esq. George S. Wang, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3954 Phone: 212-455-2000 Fax: 212-455-2502 Web site: http://www.stblaw.com/ BANK OF AMERICA: 1031 Tax Group Victims File $140M Calif. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Clients of The 1031 Tax Group LLC, a bankrupt exchange fund firm run by convicted Ponzi schemer Edward H. Okun, have launched a proposed class-action suit to recover $140 million from Bank of America NA, Citibank NA, Foley & Lardner LLP and others for allegedly facilitating the scheme, Law360 reports. Seven plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 14, 2009, on behalf of 330 investors who say they lost millions of dollars, according to the Law360 report. BEST BUY: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Electronics Recycling Fee ---------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co. Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit that alleges it overcharges its customers for a state-mandated electronics recycling fee. The suit, captioned, "David Regan, et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., and Does 1 though 5," was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange-Central Judicial District on May 11, 2009. It generally alleges violations of the Business & Professions Code Sections 172000. The state imposed the recycling fee effective Jan. 1, 2005, and Best Buy can retain 3 percent of what it charges. The named plaintiff, represented by Judith Fouladi with Bohm, Matsen & Kegel of Costa Mesa, claims Best Buy charged him $16 for a laptop though the authorized fee for it was $8. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3cff CBEYOND INC: Motion to Dismiss Ga. Securities Complaint Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Cbeyond, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the amended complaint to the purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is pending. On May 6, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit captioned, "Weisberg v. Cbeyond, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-1666" was filed against the company and its chairman and chief executive officer, James F. Geiger. The action was brought by Steven Weisberg, individually and on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Nov. 1, 2007, and Feb. 21, 2008. It asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and regulations thereunder, based upon allegations that the company underreported its customer churn rate. The plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount for damages on behalf of himself and all other members of the purported class. On Oct. 24, 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which�in accordance with court rulings�changed the purported class representatives to two institutional investors, Genesee County Employees' Retirement System and the Essex Regional Retirement Board. The Amended Complaint also added J. Robert Fugate, the company's chief financial officer and an executive vice president, as an individual defendant. The Amended Complaint does not materially alter the allegations of the original complaint On Dec. 23, 2008, the company moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs have opposed that motion, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Weisberg v. Cbeyond, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-1666," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Clarence Cooper presiding. Representing the plaintiff are: Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 - and - Mark C. Gardy, Esq. Gardy & Notis, LLP Suite 110 440 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 Representing the defendants are: Scott P. Hilsen, Esq. (shilsen@alston.com) Alston & Bird 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 404-881-7000 - and - David A. Becker, Esq. Latham & Watkins 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004-1304 Phone: 202-637-2174 CENTURYTEL INC: Scope of Damages in "Beattie" Still Undetermined ---------------------------------------------------------------- The scope and amounts of damages awarded in a consumer class- action lawsuit entitled, "Beattie, et al. v. CenturyTel Inc.," remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution. The suit was filed by Barbrasue Beattie and James Sovis on Oct. 28, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It alleges that the company unjustly and unreasonably billed customers for inside wire maintenance services. The plaintiff seeks unspecified money damages and injunctive relief under various legal theories on behalf of a purported class of over two million customers in the company's telephone markets. On March 10, 2006, the court certified the suit as a class- action suit and issued a ruling that the billing descriptions the company used for these services during an approximately 18- month period between Oct. 29, 2000 and May 2002 were legally insufficient. The company's appeal of this class certification decision was denied. Centurytel's preliminary analysis indicates that it billed less than $10 million for inside wire maintenance services under the billing descriptions and time periods specified in the District Court ruling. The Court's order does not specify the award of damages, the scope and amounts of which, if any, remain subject to additional fact-finding and resolution of what the company believes are valid defenses to plaintiff's claims, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Beattie, et al. v. Centurytel, Inc., Case No. 1:02- cv-10277-DML," filed in the U.S District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge Judge David M. Lawson, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory J. Boulahanis, Esq. Boulahanis & Assoc. 21905 Garrison Avenue Dearborn, MI 48124 Phone: 313-277-2550 Fax: 313-277-2550 - and - Elwood S. Simon, Esq. (esimon@esimon-law.com) Elwood S. Simon Assoc. 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250 Birmingham, MI 48009 Phone: 248-646-9730 Fax: 248-258-2335 Representing the defendants are: Jennifer L. Frye, Esq. (jfrye@dickinsonwright.com) Dickinson Wright 301 N . Liberty, Suite 500 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Phone: 734-623-7075 Fax: 734-623-1625 - and - David J. Houston, Esq. (dhouston@dickinsonwright.com) Dickinson Wright 215 S. Washington Square, Suite 200 Lansing, MI 48933-1888 Phone: 517-371-1730 COSTCO WHOLESALE: Employee Files $50M Litigation in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Giant retail chain Costco Wholesale Corp. is facing a class action complaint filed in California Superior Court in San Diego County, filed by the company's hourly employees who have been forced to clock out of work and want to go home, but are routinely and regularly prevented from doing so. Mary Pytelewski, a full-time clerk who has worked nearly a decade in Costco's warehouse in San Marcos, Calif., filed the suit on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Costco employees. She and the class are represented in the matter by David W. Sanford and Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP and Ed Chapin and Jill Sullivan, Of Counsel to Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP, along with other affiliate counsel. Mr. Sanford is resident in the firm's Washington, D.C. office; Mr. Wittels is resident in the firm's New York City office; and Mr. Chapin and Ms. Sullivan are residents in San Diego. According to Ms. Pytelewski's legal team, the suit stems from a scheme by Issaquah, Washington-based Costco Wholesale Corporation to deny its California employees compensation and overtime benefits due to them under state law. The heart of the scheme involves locking hourly employees inside each warehouse every night for approximately 15 minutes after they have finished work and are off the clock. During this period, the stores' managers perform closing activities, such as removing jewelry from display cases and emptying cash registers. "Costco makes the false claim that locking these employees inside its warehouses until store managers and supervisors complete their closing routines is necessary for store security," said Mr. Sanford. "That meets the legal definition of 'false imprisonment' because employees are being held against their will. Costco does not count this time as work and it will not compensate hourly employees for the time they spend each night waiting for supervisors and managers to complete their tasks." Costco is the largest wholesale club operator in the U.S. and has some 100 stores in California. Ms. Pytelewski has worked at Costco since 2001, when she began as a part-time seasonal assistant. According to the legal team, she has made numerous complaints to Costco's management about these violations of California's wage and hour laws and other unlawful practices. "The upshot of her individual claim is the company took retaliatory action against her," explained Mr. Wittels. "They wrote her up for so-called discrepancies in her cash drawers, placed her on two unofficial 'probations,' and posted a supervisor as a guard at her cash register. But at no time did Costco address the wage and hour issues she raised or her very legitimate concern about being detained on a nightly basis against her will." The Complaint asserts that the class includes several hundred or more Costco employees, geographically dispersed throughout California, all of whom work or have worked overtime on a daily and weekly basis without the compensation due to them. Costco's employment practices are described as violating the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare Commission Occupational Wage Order, and the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. "Costco is building its business and its competitive advantage at my expense and at the expense of all of its other hourly workers," said Ms. Pytelewski. "I pursued every avenue I could to remedy this situation through the channels the company makes available, but I was rebuffed and ridiculed at every turn. I want pay that I'm owed from Costco for the time I've been required to stay after clocking out, and I want the company to stop locking me in the warehouse every night when my shift is over." The Complaint requests a finding by the Court that Costco's violations of California employment laws have been willful and asks for damages of not less than $50 million for Ms. Pytelewski and the class. It also asks the Court to enjoin Costco to cease and desist from all of its unlawful and unfair employment practices, as well as for compensatory damages for its practice of false imprisonment, compensatory damages for its retaliation against Ms. Pytelewski, attorneys' fees and court costs. The Complaint also demands a jury trial. GENERAL ELECTRIC: To Defend Shareholders' Securities Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- General Electric Co. intends to defend against the allegations in purported class-action lawsuit filed under the federal securities laws in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March and April 2009, individual shareholders filed purported class actions naming as defendants GE, a number of GE officers (including its chief executive officer and chief financial officer) and its directors. The complaints seek unspecified damages. The complaints principally allege that GE falsely stated that it would maintain its quarterly $0.31 per share dividend, while allegedly concealing that the company did not have sufficient cash on hand and cash flow to achieve that goal. One of the complaints also alleges that GE made misrepresentations concerning projected earnings and losses for GE Capital in 2009. The company expects to move to consolidate the cases, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Conn.-based General Electric Co. -- http://www.ge.com/-- is a diversified technology, media and financial services company. With products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power generation, water processing and security technology to medical imaging, business and consumer financing, media content and industrial products, it serves customers in more than 100 countries. IDEARC INC: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of shareholders filed a securities class-action complaint against phone book publisher Idearc, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Law360 reports. The complaint, filed at the end of April, generally alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idearc securities. INDYMAC FEDERAL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Securitized Mortgage Loans ---------------------------------------------------------------- IndyMac Federal Bank is facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that it failed to meet its own underwriting guidelines on certain securitized mortgage loans, Diana Golobay of housingwire.com. The law firms of Kohn, Swift & Graf and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz filed the suit on behalf of all purchasing parties, reports housingwire.com. Previously, the Class Action Reporter reported that the law firms filed the class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York on May 14, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009). It was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased the following IndyMac Pass-Through Certificates: Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A5CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR9; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR11; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR6; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A6; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A7CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR13; IndyMac INDB Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-1; IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Trust, Series 2006-H2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR21; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A8; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR19; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR1; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR23; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A10; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR12; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR25; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-R1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A11; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR27; IndyMac Home Equity Mortgage Loan Asset- Backed Trust, Series 2006-H3; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A12; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR29; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR31; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-FLX1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A13; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-R2; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR14 (and 5 Additional Grantor Trusts For The Class 1-A1a, Class 1-A2a, Class 1-A3a, Class 1-A3b and Class 1- 4a Certificates, to be established by the Depositor, IndyMac MBS, Inc.); Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A14CB; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR33; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A15; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR35; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR37; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2006-A16; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR41; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-AR39; Residential Asset Securitization Trust; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A1; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR1; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX2; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A3; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR5; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A5; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR9; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR2; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR11; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A6; IndyMac IMSC Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-F1; Residential Asset Securitization Trust 2007-A7; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR13; IndyMac INDA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-AR3; IndyMac INDX Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-FLX4; IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A1; and, IndyMac IMJA Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-A2, backed by pools of mortgage loans, pursuant to or traceable to each certificate's respective offering against IndyMac MBS, Inc., certain officers and directors of IndyMac, Underwriters of the Certificates and certain ratings agencies, pursuant to Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2) and 77o. The case name is styled, "Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, v. IndyMac MBS, Inc., et al." The Complaint alleges that following the issuance of the Certificates, information began to emerge revealing that IndyMac routinely disregarded the underwriting guidelines set forth in the IndyMac mortgage loan origination documents. The veracity of this information was subsequently confirmed by the disclosure of substantially higher rates of delinquencies and foreclosures on collateral for such highly-rated debt issues. These disclosures, and the poor performance of the collateral, forced the Underwriter Rating Agencies to review and revise downward the ratings assigned to the Certificates due to the fact that the true nature of the collateral had not been properly assessed at the time of the Offerings and the ratings assigned by the Underwriter Rating Agencies did not accurately reflect expected delinquencies. The Underwriter Rating Agencies downgraded the Certificates, causing a substantial decline in the value of the Certificates. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct engaged in by each of the defendants in issuing materially false and misleading Offering Materials (the Form S-3 registration statement filed on or about February 24, 2006, as amended on March 29, 2006 and April 13, 2006, and the Certificates' respective prospectus supplements), plaintiff and the other members of the Class have sustained substantial damage in connection with the purchase of the securities issued pursuant to or traceable to the Offering Materials. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009. For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. David W. Wales, Esq. Rachel S. Poplock, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com KELLOGG BROWN: Faces Shareholders' Lawsuit in Texas State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Kellogg Brown & Root, the former subsidiary of Halliburton Co., are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the District Court for Harris County, Texas, Ben Hallman of Am Law Litigation Daily reports. The law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer filed the class-action complaint on behalf of the Policemen and Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit, contending that persistent wrongdoing at KBR, abetted by Halliburton, has cost the shareholders more than $650 million, according to the Am Law Litigation Daily. Most of the allegations of wrongdoing described in the complaint are drawn from news sources and from government investigations, most prominently the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) investigation, reports Am Law Litigation Daily. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d00 N.C. BAPTIST: Judge Sets Limits in Employees' Lawsuit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Beaty of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina set the eligibility requirements for the proposed settlement of a lawsuit involving the group health plan for N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. employees, Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem Journal. The settlement could affect more than 8,000 current employees, along with current and former beneficiaries and employees covered by the plan Named as defendants in the lawsuit is N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. and applicable affiliates group health plan, according to the Winston-Salem Journal report. Those eligible for the settlement participated in the plan from March 6, 2002, to May 7, 2009, ruled Judge Beaty, reports the Winston-Salem Journal. Richard Craver of the Winston-Salem Journal previously reported that N.C. Baptist Hospitals, Inc. settled a purported federal class-action lawsuit accusing it of requiring its employees to pay more in fees for a group health plan -- which it co-owns -- than other corporate clients (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009). The preliminary settlement includes an agreement to increase discounts and lower co-payments in the MedCost plan. It has the potential to affect more than 8,000 current Baptist employees, along with current and former beneficiaries and employees connected to its provider network. Employees also could be compensated for damages, particularly overpayments, as far back as March 2002, according to the Winston-Salem Journal. The agreement was filed on Jan. 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs -- a current employee and a former employee -- are not identified in the filings, but both live in Forsyth County. A hearing on the agreement has not been set. A notice of a potential class-action lawsuit has been filed with the court system, reports the Winston-Salem Journal. Also listed in the lawsuit were MedCost LLC and MedCost Benefit Services LLC. MedCost LLC is co-owned by Carolinas HealthCare System of Charlotte. The litigation accuses Baptist of violating the duties, responsibilities, and obligations imposed upon them as a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. The Winston-Salem Journal reported that the lawsuit also accuses Baptist of requiring employees to pay more for services rendered at the hospital through MedCost than alternative health-care plans would have, including higher co-payments and lower discounts. It also said that employees paid higher fees than those required by MedCost from other corporate clients. Plan participants made contributions of between $9 million and $13 million a year since March 2002, the lawsuit said. According to the lawsuit, "NCBH selected its subsidiary, MedCost, as the network provider for the plan knowing that MedCost would include NCBH in its provider network at substantially inflated reimbursement rates." It adds, "The selection was made not on the basis of quality or cost from a fiduciary standpoint, but rather was based on NCBH's own economic interests." PITTSBURGH MERCY: Court Certifies Class in Ex-Workers' FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania granted class-action status to the matter, "Taylor et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009- cv-00377," The Associated Press reports. The class-action lawsuit covers nearly 30,000 eligible former and current employees at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), according to the AP report. Paula Reed Ward of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette previously reported that Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Pennsylvania alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (Class Action Reporter, April 3, 2009). The suit, captioned, "Taylor et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00377," was filed on March 31, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania by two former employees, Yvonne Taylor and Karen Camesi. It named as defendants: Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc., The Mercy Hospital of Pittsburgh, St. Pius X Residence, Inc., Kenneth Eshak, and Kristen Bell. The former workers, who worked at Mercy Hospital before it became UPMC Mercy in January 2008, alleged that the health system failed to pay them for training and for work they did during meal breaks over at least a three-year period, reports The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The plaintiffs -- represented by J. Nelson Thomas, Esq., an attorney for the Rochester, N.Y., law firm Dolin, Thomas & Solomon -- allege that hospital officials knew that extra work was being performed and that employees were not being appropriately paid for it. The lawsuit seeks class-action status and could cover as many as 4,000 people who worked for the hospital system. It also seeks damages, as well as injunctive relief to prevent the hospital system from continuing the alleged illegal practice, The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported. According to the suit, the health system deducts 30 minutes per day from employees' paychecks to cover meal breaks, even though employees often don't take such breaks, or they are required to perform some work during them. Further, the plaintiffs allege that work done before or after employees' shifts often isn't compensated and should be calculated at overtime rates. Another allegation is that the hospital did not pay employees for time spent in various training programs, according to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report. The suit is "Taylor et al v. Pittsburgh Mercy Health System, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-00377," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Nora Barry Fischer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: J. Nelson Thomas, Esq. (nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas & Solomon 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: (585) 272-0540 Fax: (585) 272-0574 PPL ENERGY: Talks on Shareholders' Suit to Resume in June 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement discussions in a purported class-action suit filed against PPL Energy Supply LLC in the U.S. District Court of Montana are scheduled to resume in June 2009. In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a group of Montana Power shareholders against Montana Power, the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants of Montana Power, and PPL Montana. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Montana Power failed to obtain shareholder approval for the sale of Montana Power's generation assets to PPL Montana in 1999, and that the sale "was null and void ab initio." Among the remedies that the plaintiffs are seeking is the establishment of a "resulting and/or constructive trust" on both the generation assets and all profits earned by PPL Montana from the generation assets, plus interest on the amounts subject to the trust. This lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division, and the judge placed this proceeding on hold pending the outcome of certain motions currently before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the resolution of which may impact this proceeding. The judge in this case has not established a schedule to resume the proceeding, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. PPL Energy Supply, LLC is an energy and utility holding company with headquarters in Allentown, Pennsylvania. Through its subsidiaries, PPL is primarily engaged in the generation and marketing of electricity in two key markets - the northeastern and western U.S. - and in the delivery of electricity in PA and the U.K. REDDY ICE: Antitrust Violations Suit in Kansas Dismissed in Feb. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action lawsuit against Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. for antitrust violations was dismissed in February 2009, according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The putative class-action lawsuit was filed in Kansas state court alleging violations of state antitrust laws and related claims. The lawsuit is seeking damages and injunctive relief. Defendants filed motions to dismiss and those motions to dismiss were granted on Feb. 26, 2009. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United States. The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, including supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores. As of March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and approximately 3,100 Ice Factories. REDDY ICE: Continues to Face Securities Complaints in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. continues to face purported securities class-action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Beginning on Aug. 8, 2008, purported class action complaints have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan asserting claims under the federal securities laws against the company and certain of its current or former senior officers. The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that the defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the existence of, and the company's alleged participation in, an alleged antitrust conspiracy in the packaged ice industry. The complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of various alleged classes of purchasers of the company's common stock. Two motions for consolidation of the three actions and for appointment of lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were filed on Oct. 7, 2008. One of the two proposed lead plaintiffs withdrew his motion. No lead plaintiff or lead plaintiff's counsel has yet been named and no scheduling order has been entered, according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United States. The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, including supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores. As of March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and approximately 3,100 Ice Factories. REDDY ICE: Faces Consolidated Amended Antitrust Suit in Mich. ------------------------------------------------------------- Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. faces a consolidated amended complaint in the multidistrict proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following the announcement that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice had instituted an investigation of the packaged ice industry, a number of lawsuits, including putative class action lawsuits, have been instituted in various federal courts in multiple jurisdictions alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws and related claims and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Pursuant to an Order from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the civil actions pending in federal courts have been transferred and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs in most of the actions have agreed to extend the Company's deadline to respond to the subject complaints until 45 days after the filing of a consolidated amended complaint in the multidistrict proceedings. Motions and responses were filed by various plaintiffs relating to appointment of interim class counsel and liaison counsel. A hearing on those motions was held on March 16, 2009; the Court has not yet ruled on those motions. No scheduling order has been entered by the Court and no date has been set for the company to respond to the claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the multidistrict proceedings, according to the company's April 30, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Reddy Ice Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.reddyice.com/-- is a manufacturer and distributor of packaged ice in the United States. The company serves variety of customers in 31 states and the District of Columbia under the Reddy Ice brand name. Its principal product is ice packaged in seven to 50 pound bags, which it sells to a diversified customer base, including supermarkets, mass merchants and convenience stores. As of March 6, 2009, the company owned or operated 58 ice manufacturing facilities, 67 distribution centers and approximately 3,100 Ice Factories. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Blanchard" Tort and Condemnation Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority faces a purported class-action suit styled, "Blanchard v. TVA," according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Nine individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on Jan. 9, 2009, against TVA. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all similarly situated persons allegedly damaged by the Kingston ash spill. The complaint alleges causes of action based in tort � negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and trespass, among other things � and inverse condemnation, � and seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5 million. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Faces "Mays" Damages Lawsuit Over Ash Spill ------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority faces a lawsuit seeking class-action status for individuals allegedly affected by the Kingston ash spill, styled Mays v. TVA. A landowner in Roane County, Tennessee, filed suit on Jan. 7, 2009, against TVA. The plaintiff is seeking class-action status on behalf of all similarly situated landowners. The complaint alleges that the Kingston ash spill constitutes a private nuisance which has interfered with the use and value of the property of the proposed class members. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in excess of $5 million, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Giltnane" Gross Negligence Lawsuit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority faces a putative class-action lawsuit styled, "Giltnane v. TVA," according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Six individual landowners in Roane County, Tennessee, and one local business filed suit on Jan. 9, 2009. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all entities (including individuals and businesses) located within a 25-mile radius of Kingston. The complaint alleges, among other things, gross negligence, strict liability, nuisance per se, and violation of various state and federal environmental statutes. The plaintiffs seek, among other forms of relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and an injunction requiring TVA to perform immediate medical and environmental testing, to abate the nuisance, and to remediate the environmental damage. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. TENNESSEE VALLEY: "Long" Suit Over Kingston Ash Spill Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Tennessee Valley Authority faces a putative class-action lawsuit filed by forty-three individuals in Roane County, Tennessee, on March 17, 2009. The suit styled Long v. TVA was filed against the company, four TVA employees, and certain TVA contractors. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all entities (including all individuals and businesses) within a 10- mile radius of Kingston. As to TVA, the complaint alleges causes of action based in tort � negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, willful misconduct, wanton misconduct, negligence per se, trespass, nuisance, ultra hazardous activity, misrepresentation/fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress � and also alleges National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") claims under the Administrative Procedures Act. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief relating to spill remediation, including an order directing TVA to fund medical monitoring. As to the four TVA employees, the complaint alleges constitutional tort claims in addition to state-law tort claims, according to the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority -- http://www.tva.gov-- is a wholly owned but self-funded United States government corporation, mandated by federal charter to supply power. TVA has 36,914 megawatts of dependable generating capacity. TVA's power facilities include 11 fossil plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, a pumped-storage facility, multiple combustion turbine sites, and 16,000 miles of transmission lines. Through its locally-owned distributors, TVA provides power to serve people across parts of seven states in the Tennessee Valley region. WELLPOINT INC: Scott + Scott Files Healthcare Subscribers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott + Scott commenced class action litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of insurance customers of WellPoint, Inc. (NYSE:WLP), against the Company, UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and Ingenix, Inc. alleging that these companies, along with alleged co-conspirators Aetna, Inc., CIGNA Corporation, Oxford Health Plans, Health Net, Inc., created and used rigged data to deliberately under-reimburse WellPoint subscribers for out-of-network services they received. The lawsuit, filed in California federal court, follows on the action commenced in early 2008 in Connecticut federal court by Scott + Scott on behalf of healthcare subscribers against Aetna, UnitedHealth Group and Ingenix. Specifically, the WellPoint complaint alleges that WellPoint and its co-conspirators, engaged in a scheme to utilize skewed data provided by UnitedHealth Group and its wholly-owned subsidiary Ingenix to systematically reduce reimbursement for out-of-network services consumers received. The lawsuits relate to a recent investigation launched by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that found that Ingenix data is intentionally manipulated to allow the conspiring health plans to shortchange reimbursements to doctors on medical bills. For more information about this action, please visit http://www.scott-scott.com/Top-Headlines/INGENIX-ANTITRUST- CLASS-ACTIONS.html. For more details, contact Scott+Scott, LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com New Securities Fraud Cases IDEARC INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Lawsuit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Idearc, Inc. (Pink Sheets:IDARQ) publicly traded securities during the period between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2007 for violations of the federal security laws. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of Idearc 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 7, 2009. For more details, contact: Sue Lee, Esq. (slee@brualdilawfirm.com) The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com POPULAR INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ:BPOP) between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint charges Popular and certain of its officers with violations of the Exchange Act. Popular, through its subsidiaries, offers a range of retail and commercial banking products and services in Puerto Rico and the United States. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its U.S. operations were materially overstated; -- that the Company was experiencing increasing loan losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction sectors; -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage- related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and other assets were deteriorating and were materially overstated; -- that the Company was experiencing a higher percentage of non-performing loans; -- that the Company's new loan originations were declining; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders. On January 22, 2009, Popular announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2008, the period ended December 31, 2008. For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $702.9 million, citing to a higher provision for loan losses, among other things. In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's common stock fell $2.52 per share, or 50%, to close at $ 2.46 per share, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Popular securities during the Class Period. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009. For more details, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfel, Esq. (ddjr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/popular/ POPULAR INC: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Suit in P.R. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of investors who purchased Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOP) securities between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive. The complaint charges Popular and certain of its officers with violations of the federal securities laws. Popular, through its subsidiaries, offers a range of retail and commercial banking products and services in Puerto Rico and the United States. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts related to the Company's true financial condition and prospects. This resulted in artificially inflated prices of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and a significant drop in the stock price when the Company announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and year end of 2008. Specifically, during the Class Period, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its U.S. operations were materially overstated; -- that the Company was experiencing increasing loan losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Construction sectors; -- that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage- related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and other assets was deteriorating and was materially overstated; -- that the Company was experiencing a higher percentage of non-performing loans; -- that the Company's new loan originations were declining; and -- as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders. On January 22, 2009, Popular announced a net loss of $702.9 million for the fourth quarter, citing a higher provision for loan losses, among other things. As a result of the announcement, shares of the Company's common stock declined $2.52 per share, losing approximately 50% of their value. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Popular investors. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 13, 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 POPULAR INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood announces that on May 14, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico against Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOPN). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from January 23, 2008 through January 22, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact: William B. Federman (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ SUNTRUST BANKS: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against SunTrust Banks, Inc. (NYSE:STI) and certain of its top officials and underwriters. The class action was filed on behalf of those who acquired SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities issued by the Company in its February 2008 public offering. The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, which provides a broad range of financial products and services to consumer and corporate customers in the United States and abroad. On February 27, 2008, SunTrust filed a prospectus supplement to a shelf registration statement/prospectus dated October 18, 2006, pursuant to which SunTrust sold 27.6 million units of the Trust Preferred Securities to the public at $25 per unit, for proceeds of approximately $690 million. The Complaint alleges that the representations made in the Company's registration statement/prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the offering: -- the Company did not adequately disclose the extent to which its assets, including loans and mortgage-related securities, were impaired; -- the defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets, particularly with respect to the Company's Alt-A or "liar loan" portfolios; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting the value of its assets; and -- the Company was not as well capitalized as it had publicly represented. On January 22, 2009, SunTrust belatedly announced a significant increase in its provision for loan losses along with the release of its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008. At that time, the Company reported its first quarterly loss in two decades and cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per share. When this news became public, the price of the Trust Preferred Securities began a precipitous decline. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009. For more details, contact: Teresa Webb, Esq. (tlwebb@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP Phone: (888) 476.6529 ********* 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 * * *