/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090526.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, May 26, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 102 Headlines AMERICA SERVICE: Berkowitz Mulls Appeal to Denied Certification AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Confirm Dismissed Claims in Fraud Suit COLIBRI GROUP: Former Workers File WARN Violations Suit in R.I. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Expects Merged & Amended ERISA Suit in May CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md. DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn. DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Litigation FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Court to Mull Fairness of PPO Suit Settlement GOOGLE INC: California Court Gives Preliminarily OK to $20M Deal IOVATE HEALTH: Faces Lawsuits in Canada, Tenn. Over Hydroxycut KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Settlement Reached in TCE Litigation PPL CORP: Settlement Talks in Shareholders Suit Resumes in June RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed RADIOSHACK CORP: "Stuart" Reimbursements Suit Pending in Calif. TAISHAN GYPSUM: N.C. Homeowners File Suit Over Chinese Drywall TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Mass. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Concert Tickets TIMMINCO LTD: Accepts Service of Ontario Securities Litigation TISHMAN SPEYER: Tenants Association Files $10M Lawsuit in N.Y. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Faces Labor Violations Litigation in N.J. WATERS CORP: To Respond to Amended Dearborn Complaint in June New Securities Fraud Cases BIDZ.COM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation IDEARC INC: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ark. SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMERICA SERVICE: Berkowitz Mulls Appeal to Denied Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., the plaintiff in a putative class-action suit, has indicated that he will appeal the ruling denying class certification in the case, according to American Service Group, Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Aug. 2, 2006, the plaintiff, an individual physician independent contractor in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed a putative class action suit against PHS and the City of Philadelphia in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Trial Division, seeking unspecified damages for the class, but damages in the amount of approximately $10,000 individually. The suit is entitled Andrew Berkowitz, M.D., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Prison Health Services, Inc. and City of Philadelphia. Plaintiff alleges that he provided services to inmates in the Philadelphia Prison System at the request of the defendants and that the defendants breached the alleged contractual duties owed to him by paying an amount alleged to be less than the full amount plaintiff billed for his medical services. On Sept. 22, 2006, the City filed a New Matter Crossclaim against PHS alleging breach of contract, negligence and seeking indemnification. On Sept. 29, 2006, PHS filed its Answer to plaintiff's complaint, which Answer included a crossclaim against the City for contribution and indemnification. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Oct. 1, 2007; and PHS and the City responded to this motion. On Jan. 16, 2009, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The plaintiff has indicated that he will appeal the court's ruling, 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. America Service Group Inc. -- http://www.asgr.com/-- through its subsidiaries Prison Health Services, Inc. (PHS), EMSA Limited Partnership (EMSA), and Correctional Health Services, LLC (CHS), contracts to provide and/or administer managed healthcare services to over 120 correctional facilities throughout the United States. Prior to May 1, 2007, the company through its subsidiary Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC (SPP), was also a distributor of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies. The company's correctional healthcare services segment, through PHS and CHS, contracts with state, county and local governmental agencies to provide healthcare services to inmates of prisons and jails. The pharmaceutical distribution services segment contracts with federal, state and local governments and certain private entities to distribute pharmaceuticals and certain medical supplies to inmates of correctional facilities. AMERICA SERVICE: Seeks to Confirm Dismissed Claims in Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion to confirm the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee's dismissed claims in an amended consolidated securities fraud suit filed against America Service Group Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries. On April 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed the first of four similar securities class action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the company and the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The plaintiffs' allegations in these complaints are substantially identical. The suits are brought on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased the company's common stock between Sept. 24, 2003, and March 16, 2006. Allegedly, prior to the company's announcement of the audit committee's investigation, the company and its CEO and CFO violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements, or concealing information about the company's business, forecasts and financial performance. The complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. By order dated Aug. 3, 2006, the district court consolidated the lawsuits into one action. On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants: -- Secure Pharmacy Plus, LLC; -- Enoch E. Hartman III; and -- Grant J. Bryson. The amended complaint also generally alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's business, which caused the company's securities to trade at inflated prices during the class period. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of damages in the form of restitution; compensatory damages, including interest; and reasonable costs and expenses. The defendants requested the court to dismiss the amended complaint, and the parties completed the briefs on this motion in May 2007. This motion is currently pending before the presiding judge. On March 31, 2009, the Court ruled on the defendants' motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. While the Court's ruling dismissed significant portions of plaintiffs' amended complaint and, as a result, narrowed the scope of plaintiffs' claims, none of the defendants were dismissed from the case and several of plaintiffs' claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 remain. The parties are not in agreement as to the scope of the Court's order and defendants filed a motion to confirm which claims the Court has dismissed, 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 "In Re: American Service Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00323," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Judge William J. Haynes, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 - and - George Edward Barrett, Esq. (gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com) Barrett, Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201 Phone: 615-244-2202 Representing the defendant are: Benjamin Lee, Esq. (blee@kslaw.com) King & Spalding LLC 1180 Peachtree Street NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 Fax: 404-572-5100 - and - Marcia Meredith Eason, Esq. (meason@millermartin.com) Miller & Martin Volunteer Building, 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: 423-756-8304 Fax: 423-785-8480 COLIBRI GROUP: Former Workers File WARN Violations Suit in R.I. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Colibri Group is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by former employees who allege that the now-bankrupt firm violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when it shut down in January, Rob Bates of Jewelers Circular Keystone reports. The suit was filed by some 280 former employees of company on May 21, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, under the caption, "Colibri Workers for Rights and Justice et al v. Andis et al., Case No. 1:2009cv00241." It was also filed against Colibri's owners, Founders Equity and Phoenix Consulting. The litigation charges that, on Jan. 15, 2009, Founders Equity petitioned a Providence court to force The Colibri Group into receivership. On Jan. 14, 2009, Colibri CEO Jim Fleet sent an email to its employees announcing the closing. Many of the employees do not have access to computers of email, the suit says, so when they showed up the next day they saw a sign informing them the company had closed. This was the first notice they received of the closing, according to the suit, Jewelers Circular Keystone reported. The plaintiffs seek back pay, penalties and costs as a result of the lack of notice required by the WARN Act. The federal law requires employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs, reports Jewelers Circular Keystone. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Expects Merged & Amended ERISA Suit in May ---------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated and amended complaint in a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is expected to be filed on or before May 18, 2009, according to Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. In the fall of 2008, multiple class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland and the Southern District of New York against Constellation Energy; Mayo A. Shattuck III, Constellation Energy's Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer; and others in their roles as fiduciaries of the Constellation Energy Employee Savings Plan. The actions, which have been consolidated into one action in Maryland (the Consolidated Action), allege that the defendants, in violation of various sections of ERISA, breached their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage Constellation Energy Savings Plan's assets by designating Constellation Energy common stock as an investment, by failing to properly provide accurate information about the investment, by failing to properly monitor the investment and by failing to properly monitor other fiduciaries. The Consolidated Action seeks to compel the defendants to reimburse the plaintiffs and the Constellation Energy Savings Plan for all losses resulting from the defendants' breaches of fiduciary duty, to impose a constructive trust on any unjust enrichment, to award actual damages with pre- and post-judgment interest, to award appropriate equitable relief including injunction and restitution and to award costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees. Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in Central Maryland. CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Federal Securities Lawsuits Pending in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Constellation Energy Group Inc. continues to face federal securities class-action lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Three federal securities class-action lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the District of Maryland between September 2008 and November 2008. The cases were filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who acquired publicly traded securities, including the Series A Junior Subordinated Debentures (Debentures), of Constellation Energy between Jan. 30, 2008 and Sept. 16, 2008, and who acquired Debentures in an offering completed in June 2008. The securities class-action lawsuits generally allege that Constellation Energy, a number of its present or former officers or directors, and the underwriters violated the securities laws by issuing a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus in connection with Constellation Energy's June 27, 2008 offering of Debentures. The securities class-action suits also allege that Constellation Energy issued false or misleading statements or was aware of material undisclosed information which contradicted public statements including in connection with its announcements of financial results for 2007, the fourth quarter of 2007, the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2008 and the filing of its first quarter 2008 Form 10-Q. The securities class-action lawsuits seek, among other things, certification of the cases as class actions, compensatory damages, reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel fees, and rescission damages. A lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed in the New York or Maryland securities class-action lawsuits pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Constellation Energy and other defendants have accordingly not been required to respond to the complaints or take other action to defend the litigation. The Southern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to transfer the two securities class actions filed there to the District of Maryland, and the actions have since been transferred for coordination with the securities class action filed there, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Constellation Energy -- http://www.constellation.com-- a FORTUNE 125 company with 2007 revenues of $21 billion, says it is the nation's largest competitive supplier of electricity to large commercial and industrial customers and the nation's largest wholesale power seller. Constellation Energy also manages fuels and energy services on behalf of energy intensive industries and utilities. It owns a diversified fleet of 83 generating units located throughout the United States, totaling approximately 9,000 megawatts of generating capacity. The company delivers electricity and natural gas through the Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. (BGE), its regulated utility in Central Maryland. DEAN FOODS: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Remains Pending in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dean Foods Co. and others in the milk industry still face a consolidated lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee that accuses the defendants of working together to limit the price the Southeastern dairy farmers are paid for their raw milk and to deny these farmers access to fluid Grade A milk processing facilities. The company was named, among several defendants, in two purported class-action antitrust complaints filed on July 5, 2007. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, and allege generally that the company and others in the milk industry conspired against the dairy farmers. A third purported class-action antitrust complaint, known as a retailer action, was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The complaint in the retailer action was amended on March 28, 2008. The amended complaint alleges generally that the company, either acting alone or in conjunction with others in the milk industry, lessened competition in the Southeastern U.S. for the sale of processed fluid Grade A milk to retail outlets and other customers, and that the defendants' conduct also artificially inflated retail prices for direct milk purchasers. Four additional purported class-action complaints were filed on Aug. 27, 2007, Oct. 3, 2007, Nov. 15, 2007, and Feb. 13, 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. The allegations in these complaints are similar to those in the dairy farmer actions. On Jan. 7, 2008, the U.S. MDL Panel ordered the consolidation of all of the pending cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 1, 2008, the court ordered the consolidation of the six dairy farmer actions, and ordered the retailer action to be administratively consolidated with the coordinated dairy farmer actions. A motion by the defendants to dismiss the dairy farmer actions was denied on May 20, 2008, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed by the dairy farmer plaintiffs on June 20, 2008. A joint motion to dismiss the retailer action was filed on Oct. 22, 2007, and is pending before the Court. A hearing on the joint motion was held on Jan. 6, 2009. These matters are currently in discovery and the company intends to vigorously defend them, according to its May 1, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Dean Foods Co. -- http://www.deanfoods.com/-- is a food and beverage company. The company has two segments: the Dairy Group and WhiteWave Foods Co. The Dairy Group manufactures and sells its products under a variety of local and regional brand names and under private labels. The company WhiteWave Foods Co. develops, manufactures, markets and sells a variety of nationally branded soy, dairy and dairy-related products, such as Silk soymilk and cultured soy products, Horizon Organic dairy products, International Delight coffee creamers, LAND O'LAKES creamers and fluid dairy products, and Rachel's Organic dairy products. DENDREON CORP: Wash. Court Denies Dismissal Motion in Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington denied a motion that sought the dismissal of most claims in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Dendreon Corp., according to a report by Law360. Previously, it was reported that the company is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action suit filed against the company before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 6, 2009). Initially, four proposed securities class-action suits were filed before the same court. Three of these suits name Dendreon and its chief executive officer as defendants and allege a proposed class period of March 30, 2007, through May 8, 2007. One suit names Dendreon, four of its executive officers, and two members of its board of directors as defendants, and indicated a class period of March 1, 2007, through May 8, 2007. All four proposed class action suits purport to state claims for securities law violations stemming from the company's disclosures related to Provenge and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's actions regarding the company's pending Biologics License Application for Provenge. The complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and expenses. On Oct. 4, 2007, the Court consolidated these actions under the caption "McGuire v. Dendreon Corporation, et al.," and designated a lead plaintiff. On Dec. 21, 2007, the company and the individual defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs opposed this dismissal request. The Court held a hearing on the dismissal motion on March 27, 2008. By order dated April 18, 2008, the Court favored the defendants and dismissed the complaint, holding that the plaintiffs failed to plead a claim against the company or the individual defendants, and allowing them 30 days to file an amended complaint. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 2, 2008, adding the company's senior vice president as defendant. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 2, 2008, and lead plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2008. The defendants' reply brief was filed Aug. 20, 2008. Oral argument is scheduled for Nov. 25, 2008, according to the company's Nov. 10, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. The suit is "McGuire et al. v. Dendreon Corporation et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00869-MJP," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Drew Derrick Hansen, Esq. (dhansen@susmangodfrey.com) Susman Godfrey 1201 Third Ave. Ste. 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-516-3880 Representing the defendants is: Douglas W. Greene (dgreene@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave. Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 FIRST HEALTH: Ill. Court to Mull Fairness of PPO Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A fairness hearing is set for today to determine whether a charitable contribution of more than $1.2 million is a fair end to a 2004 chiropractor class-action suit against insurer First Health Group Corp. over claims adjustments, Amelia Flood of The St. Clair Record reports. Previously, it was reported that the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial District, Madison County, Illinois, will hold a fairness hearing on May 26, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed settlement in the purported class-action lawsuit captioned, "Richard C. Coy, D.C. d/b/a Coy Chiropractic Health Center, P.C., and Lawrence Shipley, D.C., v. CCN Managed Care, Inc. and First Health Group Corp., Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, Case No. 04-L-1055," (Class Action Reporter, April 6, 2009). This lawsuit was filed Sept. 24, 2004. In the suit, plaintiffs claim that CCN Managed Care, Inc. (f/k/a Community Care Network, Inc.), and First Health Group Corp., (collectively First Health), operated Preferred Provider Organization (PPO) networks through which healthcare payors improperly discounted the bills of Illinois healthcare providers who treated workers' compensation claimants and Illinois automobile accident policy claimants. Granite City chiropractor Lawrence Shipley and Glen Carbon chiropractor Richard Coy settled the class-action suit against First Health in Madison County in January, reports The St. Clair Record. In the settlement, First Health did not admit to any wrongdoing. It was to give $1.25 million to a charity. The company would pay $650,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to Wood River attorney Brad Lakin's law firm and a $10,000 incentive award to the class representatives, according to The St. Clair Record report. For more details, contact: LakinChapman, LLC 300 Evans Ave, PO Box 229, Wood River, IL Phone: 618-254-1127 e-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com - and - PPO Settlement Administrator PO Box 1971 Fairbault MN 55021-6167 Phone: 1-866-680-6562 Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com GOOGLE INC: California Court Gives Preliminarily OK to $20M Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Susman Godfrey, along with co-counsel Wolf Popper LLP, obtained preliminary approval of a proposed $20 million class action settlement agreement in a case brought by AdWords advertisers against Google, Inc. "The settlement is a great outcome for the class," stated Steve Susman. The class action alleges claims against Google for breach of contract, unfair competition, and false advertising, based on Google's practice of charging AdWords advertisers more than their per day daily budget and its related disclosures. The case is pending in the Federal District Court of the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. Final approval of the settlement will be considered on September 14, 2009. IOVATE HEALTH: Faces Lawsuits in Canada, Tenn. Over Hydroxycut -------------------------------------------------------------- Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. and Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A., Inc. are facing two class-action lawsuits in the wake of the recall of Hydroxycut, a popular weight-loss supplement that has been linked to liver damage and other life-threatening side effects, Jon Hood of ConsumerAffairs.com reports. The suits, filed in Canada and Tennessee, accuse defendants, which manufactures Hydroxycut, of failing to warn of the drug's dangers or take proper precautions to protect its users. Hydroxycut was voluntarily recalled on May 1, 2009 after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) identified numerous health risks posed by the drug. FDA received 23 complaints of liver damage resulting from use of the product, ranging from jaundice to the need for a transplant, according to the ConsumerAffairs.com report. The drug poses other serious risks, including heart failure, seizures, and rhabdomyolysis, a muscle condition where muscle fibers break down to the point that they are released into the bloodstream. In some serious cases, this condition can lead to kidney failure. The Canadian suit, filed on May 4, 2009 defines a class of any Canadian who purchased Hydroxycut after May 1, 2003. It alleges that Iovate failed to warn on the label of Hydroxycut's possibly serious side effects. The plaintiffs seeks $20 million plus punitive damages, reports ConsumerAffairs.com reports. ConsumerAffairs.com reported that the Tennessee suit, filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, defines a class of anyone who purchased a Hydroxycut product. The lead plaintiffs, all from Tennessee, spent varying amounts of money on Hydroxycut products before the recall was announced. The suit alleges counts under negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud, failure to warn, unjust enrichment and violations of the Tennessee Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, among others. The plaintiffs in the Tennessee action experienced a number of symptoms as a result of taking the drug, including nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, and extreme fatigue, according to ConsumerAffairs.com. KINDER MORGAN: Oct. 19 Trial Set for Royalty Interests Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 19, 2009 trial date has been set for the case captioned "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., No. 04-26-CL (8th Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico)." This case involves a purported class-action suit against Kinder Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true and proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit during the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. The purported class is comprised of current and former owners, during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands, the United States of America, and those private royalty interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit. The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter, "Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012." The plaintiffs allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class Action. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was denied. Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review. In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review. The petition was denied in December 2007. The case was tried in the trial court in September 2008. The plaintiffs sought $6.8 million in actual damages as well as punitive damages. The jury returned a verdict finding that Kinder Morgan did not breach the settlement agreement and did not breach the claimed duty to market carbon dioxide. The jury also found that Kinder Morgan breached a duty of good faith and fair dealing and found compensatory damages of $0.3 million and punitive damages of $1.2 million. On Oct. 16, 2008, the trial court entered judgment on the verdict. On Jan. 6, 2009, the district court entered orders vacating the judgment and granting a new trial in the case. Kinder Morgan filed a petition with the New Mexico Supreme Court, asking that court to authorize an immediate appeal of the new trial orders. In a 2 to 1 decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court denied Kinder Morgan's petition for immediate review of the new trial orders. The district court has scheduled a new trial to occur beginning on Oct. 19, 2009, 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. Houston-based Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. owns or operates approximately 26,000 miles of pipelines and 150 terminals. The company's pipelines transport more than two million barrels per day of gasoline and other petroleum products, and up to seven billion cubic feet per day of natural gas. The company operates through four segments: Products Pipelines, Natural Gas Pipelines, CO2 and Terminals. LANDSTAR SYSTEM: Bid for Rehearing of OOIDA Ruling Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The petition for rehearing filed by each of the parties to the class-action lawsuit, "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005-HLA-MCR," is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The putative class-action complaint was filed on Nov. 1, 2002, by the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc., and certain BCO Independent Contractors on behalf of independent contractors who provide truck capacity to the company and its subsidiaries under exclusive lease arrangements before the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the company and certain of its subsidiaries. The complaint was amended on April 7, 2005. The Amended Complaint alleged that certain aspects of the company's motor carrier leases and related practices with its BCO Independent Contractors violate certain federal leasing regulations and sought injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and attorney's fees. On Aug. 30, 2005, the District Court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to certify the case as a class-action. On Jan. 16, 2007, the District Court ordered the decertification of the class of BCO Independent Contractors for purposes of determining remedies. Immediately thereafter, trial commenced for purposes of determining what remedies, if any, would be awarded to the remaining named BCO Independent Contractor Plaintiffs against these Landstar subsidiaries: -- Landstar Inway, Inc., -- Landstar Ligon, Inc., and -- Landstar Ranger, Inc. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the class and the denial of the plaintiffs' requests for damages and injunctive relief. On March 29, 2007, the District Court denied the request by Plaintiffs for injunctive relief, entered a judgment in favor of the Defendants and issued written orders setting forth its rulings related to the decertification of the plaintiff class and other important elements of the Litigation relating to liability, injunctive relief and monetary relief. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of certain of the District Court's rulings in favor of the Defendants. The Defendants asked the Appellate Court to affirm such rulings and filed a cross-appeal with the Appellate Court with respect to certain other rulings of the District Court. On Sept. 3, 2008, the Appellate Court issued its ruling, which, among other things, affirmed the District Court's rulings that: -- the Defendants are not prohibited by the applicable federal leasing regulations from charging administrative or other fees to BCO Independent Contractors in connection with voluntary programs offered by the Defendants through which a BCO Independent Contractor may purchase discounted products and services for a charge that is deducted against the compensation payable to the BCO Independent Contractor (a "Charge-back Deduction"), -- the Plaintiffs are not entitled to restitution or disgorgement with respect to violations by Defendants of the applicable federal leasing regulations but instead may recover only actual damages, if any, which they sustained as a result of any such violations, and -- the claims of BCO Independent Contractors may not be handled on a class action basis for purposes of determining the amount of actual damages, if any, they sustained as a result of any violations. Further, the analysis of the Appellate Court confirmed the absence of any violations alleged by the Plaintiffs of the federal leasing regulations with respect to the written terms of all leases currently in use between the Defendants and BCO Independent Contractors. However, the ruling of the Appellate Court reversed the District Court's rulings: -- that an old version of the lease formerly used by Defendants but not in use with any current BCO Independent Contractor complied with applicable disclosure requirements under the federal leasing regulations with respect to adjustments to compensation payable to BCO Independent Contractors on certain loads sourced from the U. S. Dept. of Defense, and -- that the Defendants had provided sufficient documentation to BCO Independent Contractors under the applicable federal leasing regulations relating to how the component elements of Charge-back Deductions were computed. The Appellate Court then remanded the case to the District Court to permit the Plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief with respect to these violations of the federal leasing regulations and to hold an evidentiary hearing to give the Named Plaintiffs an opportunity to produce evidence of any damages they actually sustained as a result of such violations. Each of the parties to the Litigation has filed a petition with the Appellate Court seeking rehearing of the Appellate Court's ruling. No further developments in the matter were provided in the company's May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2009. The suit is "Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc. et al. v. Landstar System Inc., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01005- HLA-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Henry Lee Adams Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Cohen, Esq. Daniel R. Unumb, Esq. Paul D. Cullen, Esq. Mary Craine Lombardo, Esq. Joseph A. Black, Esq. Susan Van Bell, Esq. The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC 1101 30th St., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20007-3770 Phone: 202-944-8600 202-965-6100 Michael R. Freed, Esq. (mrfreed@bmdpl.com) Brennan, Manna & Diamond, PL Humana Centre Building, 76 S. Laura Street, Ste. 2110 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-366-1500 Fax: 904-366-1501 - and - Paul D. Cullen Sr., Esq. The Cullen Law Firm, PLLC 1101 30th Street N.W., Suite 300, P.O. Box 25806 Washington, DC 20007-3708 Phone: 202-944-8600 Fax: 202-944-8611 Representing the defendants are: Daniel R. Barney, Esq. (dbarney@scopelitis.com) Scopelitis, Garvin, Light & Hanson, P.C. 1850 M St., NW, Suite 280 Washington, DC 20036-5804 Phone: 202-783-5485 Timothy W. Wiseman, Esq. Robert L. Browning, Esq. Gregory M. Feary, Esq. Scopelitis, Garven, Light & Hanson, P.C. 10 W. Market St., Suite 1500 Indianapolis, IN 46204-2968 Phone: 317-637-1777 Fax: 317-687-2414 - and - Andrew Tysen Duva, Esq. (aduva@hklaw.com) Lawrence Joseph Hamilton, II, Esq. (lhamilton@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight 50 North Laura St., Suite 3900 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-353-2000 904-353-2000 Ext. 25454 Fax: 904-358-1872 NORTHSTAR AEROSPACE: Settlement Reached in TCE Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached on May 22, 2009 in a class action brought on behalf of Cambridge residents against Northstar Aerospace, Inc. and Northstar Aerospace (Canada) Inc. in respect of alleged contamination of Trichloroethylene ("TCE") in the proximity of Northstar's Bishop Street plant. The settlement which, if approved by the Court, will result in significant compensation being distributed to area residents. "This is an excellent result in a very challenging case" says Matthew Baer, one of the counsel responsible for negotiating the settlement. "Under the terms of the settlement, eligible residents will receive compensation based on the extent to which they were adversely impacted by the contamination". A town hall meeting is being organized for early June to explain details of the settlement to Class Members and to answer any questions. The plaintiff class in this action is represented by a consortium of three area firms: - David Thompson from Scarfone Hawkins LLP - Neena Gupta from Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP - Mike Eizenga and Matthew Baer from Siskinds LLP For further information, contact: David Thompson Phone: (905) 523-1333 - and - Matthew Baer Phone: (519) 660-7782 PPL CORP: Settlement Talks in Shareholders Suit Resumes in June --------------------------------------------------------------- Settlement discussions in a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a group of shareholders of The Montana Power Company in the U.S. District Court of Montana, Butte Division, are scheduled to resume in June 2009, according to PPL Corp.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. In August 2001, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by a group of shareholders of Montana Power against Montana Power, the directors of Montana Power, certain advisors and consultants of Montana Power, and PPL Montana, LLC. Montana Power sold its generating assets to PPL Montana in December 1999. 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. In September 2007, certain plaintiffs proposed a settlement of certain claims not involving PPL and proposed a status conference to discuss their proposal. The judge held a status conference in January 2008, and rejected the proposed settlement. PPL Corp. -- http://www.pplweb.com/-- is an energy and utility holding company, which through its subsidiaries, generates electricity from power plants in the northeastern and western U.S.; markets wholesale or retail energy primarily in the northeastern and western portions of the U.S.; delivers electricity to nearly 5.1 million customers in Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom and Latin America, and provides energy services for businesses in the mid-Atlantic and northeastern U.S. RADIOSHACK CORP: Appeal to "Brookler" Ruling Remains Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff's appeal of the class decertification ruling in the class-action lawsuit entitled, "Brookler v. RadioShack Corp.," remains stayed. The litigation involves allegations that RadioShack violated California's wage order and labor code relating to the provision of meal periods. In February 2006, a California State Court certified a class of approximately 23,000 members in the wage and hour suit. The company moved to decertify this class in July 2007, based upon recent case authority dealing with the standard of liability for meal and rest period actions. RadioShack's motion to decertify was denied by the trial court, and its petition for review to the California Supreme Court was denied on Jan. 3, 2008. On Oct. 10, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court granted RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification in the class action lawsuit. RadioShack's Motion for Decertification of the class initially was denied on Aug. 29, 2007. However, after the California Appellate Court's favorable decision on similar facts in "Brinker Restaurant Corporation v. Superior Court," RadioShack again sought class decertification. The court granted RadioShack's Motion for Class Decertification based on the California Appellate Court's decision in Brinker, and the plaintiffs in Brookler have appealed this ruling. Following the Brinker decision, the Brinker plaintiffs appealed the California Appellate Court's decision in that case to the Supreme Court of California. Due to the continuing unsettled nature of California state law regarding the standard of liability for meal period violations, RadioShack and the Brookler plaintiffs agreed to a stay with respect to the plaintiff's appeal of the class decertification ruling, pending the outcome of the appeal of the California Appellate court's decision in Brinker. The outcome of this action is uncertain, 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. RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non- RadioShack branded kiosk operations. RADIOSHACK CORP: "Stuart" Reimbursements Suit Pending in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit captioned, "Richard Stuart v. RadioShack Corporation, et al.," is pending, 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. On June 7, 2007, the class-action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This action alleges that the company failed to properly reimburse employees in California for mileage expenses associated with the use of their personal vehicles to make transfers of merchandise between Radioshack's stores. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification, and on Feb. 9, 2009, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion. RadioShack Corp. -- http://www.radioshackcorporation.com/-- is primarily engaged in the retail sale of consumer electronics goods and services through its RadioShack store chain and non- RadioShack branded kiosk operations. TAISHAN GYPSUM: N.C. Homeowners File Suit Over Chinese Drywall --------------------------------------------------------------- Taishan Gypsum, a Chinese government-owned manufacturer of drywall, as well as U.S.-based supplier and installation contractor, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed on behalf of three North Carolina homeowners who complained of illness and damage to their homes as a result of the use of a Chinese-made drywall, Kristin Collins of The News & Observer reports. The plaintiffs say that the drywall emitted gases that nauseated them, irritated their eyes and throats, and caused shortness of breath and fatigue. The gas also damaged metal utensils, electronics, wiring and appliances, according to the lawsuit, reports the News & Observer. The plaintiffs are a couple from Pasquotank County and a woman from Perquimans County in the northeast corner of the state, according to the News & Observer report. TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketsnow.com, Inc., John Does (1-10) and ABC Companies (1-5) are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that TM and TicketsNow have engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and unjust enrichment, Dana Parker-McClain of pollstar.com reports. The suit was filed on May 14, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts under the caption, "O'Hurley v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2009-cv-10794." The suit was filed by John O'Hurley of Massachusetts who claims that he attempted to purchase two tickets through Ticketmaster for a Phish concert on Jan. 31. 2009, but was "rerouted" to TicketsNow, pollstar.com reported. Mr. O'Hurley claims he purchased two tickets at TicketsNow for a total of $455.50, but 10 minutes later received an e-mail stating he had ordered nine tickets, face value $90 each, but was charged $2,064.25, reports pollstar.com. "Defendants' practices, among other characterizations, constitute a straightforward 'bait and switch' scheme," according to Mr. O'Hurley's suit. The suit is seeking actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, according to the pollstar.com report. For more details, contact: Lynda Carey Paris, Esq. (lyndaparis@comcast.net) Law Office of Peter A. Lagorio The Prince Building 63 Atlantic Ave. Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-367-4200 Fax: 617-227-3384 TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Faces N.J. Suit Over Concert Tickets ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., Ticketsnow.com, Inc., John Does (1-10) and ABC Companies (1-5) are facing a purported consumer fraud class-action lawsuit in New Jersey in connection to concert tickets, Dana Parker-McClain of pollstar.com reports. The suit was filed on May 11, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under the caption, "Kelley v. Ticketmaster Entertainment Inc. et al., Case No. 3:2009-cv- 02222." Pollstar.com reported that it was filed by Michael Kelly, who claims that he attempted to purchase tickets through Ticketmaster on Jan. 24, 2009 for The Dead, but was "rerouted" to TicketsNow. There, Mr. Kelly was charged nearly $830 for four tickets. The complaint alleges Mr. Kelly was not informed of the tickets' face value ($99) until he received them in the mail. "Within literally minutes of tickets going on sale by Ticketmaster, and often less than one minute later for high- demand events, those tickets are being offered for resale in the secondary market by TicketsNow at greatly inflated prices," according to the suit, reports pollstar.com report. Mr. Kelly's complaint seeks class-action status on behalf of consumers who were directed from the the company site to TicketsNow and purchased tickets above face value after Jan. 15, 2009 (excluding the Bruce Springsteen fans with whom the company previously settled), pollstar.com reported. The suit is seeking actual and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, according to the pollstar.com report. For more details, contact: William H. Mergner, Jr., Esq. (wmergner@lbtmlaw.com) Leary, Bride, Tinker & Moran A Professional Corporation 7 Ridgedale Avenue Cedar Knolls, NJ 07927 Phone: (973) 539-2090 TIMMINCO LTD: Accepts Service of Ontario Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Timminco Limited (TSX:TIM) announced that it has accepted service of a proposed class action commenced in the Ontario Superior Court on May 14, 2009 by Ravinder Kumar Sharma, alleging that Timminco and others made certain misrepresentations in 2008 regarding Timminco's solar-grade silicon production process. The plaintiff will need to seek leave or permission of the court to bring the class action under Secondary Market Disclosure provisions of the Securities Act. Timminco intends to vigorously defend these allegations and the plaintiff's attempt to get court approval to proceed with the action. Case Background Kim Orr Barristers P.C. has filed a $520 million class action on behalf of investors of Timminco Limited, a company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under symbol TIM. In addition to Timminco, certain officers and directors of the company are also named as defendants, including Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors Dr. Heinz C. Schimmelbusch for knowingly misleading investors about Timminco's growth and profit potential (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009). Beginning in early 2008, Timminco and Schimmelbusch made continuous representations in the company's public disclosure regarding its ability to convert metallurgical-grade silicon into solar-grade silicon in a cost-efficient manner for sale to the solar industry. Following criticism by certain analysts and the media, Timminco released a report by Photon Consulting in May 2008 that made positive statements about Timminco and its growth and profit potential. Timminco's stock price rose sharply in early to mid 2008 following these statements. In August 2008, Timminco admitted that its solar-grade silicon production process was flawed. The Photon Report was subsequently withdrawn by Timminco because "some of the material factors or assumptions originally used to develop the forward- looking information in the Photon Report, including in respect of revenues, production line volumes and costs, may no longer be valid." The stock price subsequently collapsed as a result. Photon Consulting LLC is also named as a defendant in the class action. The Statement of Claim in the class action alleges that the defendants knew or ought to have known that the representations regarding the company's ability to produce low-cost, high- quality silicone in commercial quantities were false or misleading. The Plaintiff will also seek leave of the court to bring a class action pursuant to the Civil Liability for Secondary Market Disclosure provisions of the Securities Act (Bill 198). The class action is being brought on behalf of all investors who acquired Timminco's shares between March 17, 2008 up to and including November 11, 2008. For more details, contact: Victoria Paris Kim Orr Barristers P.C. Phone: (416) 596-1414 e-mail: vp@kimorr.ca TISHMAN SPEYER: Tenants Association Files $10M Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association, along with four tenants of the east side Manhattan complex, filed a class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court on May 19, 2009, alleging that Tishman Speyer improperly instituted primary residence challenges against hundreds of rent-stabilized tenants "solely in an attempt to oust Plaintiffs from their homes and to cause the apartments to be vacated and deregulated." The action seeks to enjoin Tishman Speyer from proceeding further with eviction proceedings against the named plaintiffs and asks $10 million in damages and attorneys fees. The lawsuit asserts that the landlord initiated formal legal proceedings against these and other tenants "without probable cause and in a malicious, willful, reckless and wanton manner." Under the Rent Stabilization Law, tenants are not entitled to rent-stabilized apartments if the apartment is not their primary residence. In announcing the filing, Al Doyle, president of the ST/PCV Tenants Association said, "This action is another way in which our organization is advocating for tenants and should not be confused with the Appellate Court decision dealing with Tishman Speyer's right to deregulate apartments and charge market rate while enjoying 'J-51', a tax exemption." Mr. Doyle asserted that Tishman Speyer has been unresponsive to the efforts of local elected officials and the Tenants Association to address the so-called "Golub" proceedings, despite correspondence, emails and phone calls. "We have asked that the landlord compensate tenants for the costs -- often running into thousands of dollars -- that they have had to incur to protect their right to live in their homes," Mr. Doyle stated, adding that the Tenants Association was told by Tishman Speyer that it had instituted primary residence challenges against slightly more than 1,000 tenants and claimed that, when completed, it will have been successful in about 50 percent of the cases. Over the past two years, Tishman Speyer has had the opportunity to review the primary residency status of every one of the approximately 7,000 rent-stabilized tenants as their leases came up for renewal and has said that it will not institute primary residence challenges in the future "absent changed circumstances." Mr. Doyle said that the Tenants Association recently sent a written proposal to Tishman Speyer to establish standards to define what constitutes "changed circumstances" and for initiating and resolving primary residence challenges. The Association also asked Tishman Speyer to agree to a process to compensate the more than 500 tenants who were unsuccessfully challenged for their costs, including time off from work and attorneys fees. Mr. Doyle said that the company's continued failure to address these issues compelled the Tenants Association to institute legal proceedings to vindicate the rights of the improperly challenged rent- stabilized tenants and to protect other tenants from similar improper actions by the landlord. For more details, contact: The Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association P.O. Box 1202 New York, NY 10009-1202 Phone: (866) 290.9036 Web site: http://www.stpcvta.org/ UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: Faces Labor Violations Litigation in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Underground Utilities Corp. and Pipeline Equipment Co. Inc., and its officers are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court, Essex County, Civil Division (Vicinage 5) in New Jersey for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Sections 207 and 216, and the New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56.25 to -56.47, according to a report by Michael Booth of The New Jersey Law Journal. The suit is captioned, "Serrano and Vivar v. Underground Utilities Corp., A-0676-08," and was assigned to Judge Dennis F. Carey, III. The plaintiffs -- Juan Serrano and Edilberto Vivar -- claim the companies paid them substandard wages and withheld overtime pay for work done on various public constructions projects, including work on the New Jersey Turnpike, reports The New Jersey Law Journal. Attorney Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. New York's Barnes, Iaccarino, Virginia, Ambinder & Shepherd is representing the plaintiffs, who are from Central or South America, The New Jersey Law Journal reported. For more details, contact: Barnes, Iaccarino, Virginia, Ambinder & Shepherd PLLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1403 New York, New York 10006-1901 Phone: (212) 943-9080 Web site: http://mommiesandmiracles.net/ WATERS CORP: To Respond to Amended Dearborn Complaint in June ------------------------------------------------------------- Waters Corp. expects to respond in June 2009, to the amended complaint in a class action lawsuit commenced by the City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System against the company. The complaint was filed in November 2008, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges that the company misrepresented its projected revenues and earnings, its effective tax rates and the level of business activity in Japan between Jan. 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, when it released earnings for the fourth quarter of 2007. The complaint asserts that the company and Messrs. Berthiaume and Ornell violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting or failing to fully disclose the information. The plaintiff class is allegedly comprised of purchasers of common stock that were injured during the time period stated above. In January 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund ABC/IBT filed a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff, which was granted. In April 2009, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges that between July 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008, the company misrepresented or omitted material information about its projected annual revenues and earnings, its projected effective annual tax rate, and the level of business activity in Japan. The amended complaint seeks to recover under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who purchased common stock of the Company between July 24, 2007 and Jan. 22, 2008. The company expects to respond to the amended complaint in June 2009 and intends to defend vigorously, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009. Waters Corp. -- http://www.waters.com-- is an analytical instrument manufacturer. Through its Waters Division, Waters designs, manufactures, sells and services high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), ultra performance liquid chromatography, referred to as liquid chromatography, and mass spectrometry instrument systems and support products, including chromatography columns and other consumable products. The Company operates in two business segments: Waters Division and TA Division (TA). Through its TA division, Waters designs, manufactures sells and services thermal analysis and rheometry and calorimetry instruments. The company is also a developer and supplier of software-based products that interface with the Company's instruments, as well as other instrument manufacturers instruments. In July 2008, the Company completed the purchase of the net assets of VTI Corporation. In December 2008, Waters Corporation completed the purchase of the net assets of Analytical Products Group, Inc. (APG). New Securities Fraud Cases BIDZ.COM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Bidz.com, Inc. (NASDAQ:BIDZ) common stock during the period between August 13, 2007 and November 27, 2007. The complaint charges Bidz and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Bidz is an online retailer of jewelry, featuring a live auction format. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Bidz was operating with material weaknesses and undisclosed significant problems that affected the Company's entire business model. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Bidz stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $19.94 per share on November 23, 2007. On November 26, 2007, Citron Research issued a negative report on Bidz, exposing many "red flags" and alleging that Bidz's auctions were controlled by Bidz and that the Company seemed to generate a lot of inventory instead of generating cash. On this news, Bidz's stock collapsed over $4.67 per share to close at $11.89 per share on November 27, 2007, a one-day decline of more than 28%. Then on November 27, 2007, Bidz hosted a conference call to rebut the Citron Research article, but also disclosed that the manager of a major jewelry supplier to Bidz and a larger shareholder had been convicted in the 1980s for fencing stolen jewelry. On this news, Bidz's stock dropped an additional $1.79 per share, a one-day decline of 15%. 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: -- Bidz did not have controls in place to prevent "shill bidding" such that its central business was subject to abuse; and -- Bidz used unreliable or false appraisal prices on its merchandise which misled customers and would ultimately cause its business to fail. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Bidz common stock during the Class Period. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made 60 days after May 7, 2009. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/bidz/ IDEARC INC: Glancy Binkow Files Tex. Securities Fraud Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock of Idearc Inc. (Pink Sheets: IDARQ), between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive. The Complaint charges certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Idearc is a media company that manages and delivers print, online and wireless publishing and advertising services on multiple platforms. The Company's services include yellow pages, white pages, online directory and search services, web site design and hosting services, magazines, direct mail and directory and information services for wireless subscribers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Idearc's operations, prospects and financial performance were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during 2007 the Company relaxed its credit policies in order to increase the amount of revenue which it reported to stockholders, while defendants touted the Company's ever-improving, "stringent" credit and collection policies. By selling to non-creditworthy customers, the Company effectively reported tens of millions of dollars of sales that it otherwise would not have reported, while accumulating tens of millions of dollars of uncollectible receivables. The Company carried these uncollectible receivables on its books as though they were collectible until mid-2008, when the Company admitted to a "relaxation of certain aspects of the Company's credit policy in mid-2008" and began to write off these uncollectible receivables in piecemeal fashion over several quarters. Between mid-2008 and the end of that year, the Company wrote off $47 million of worthless receivables that it attributed to its relaxation of credit policies in mid-2008. This non-collection of tens of millions of dollars of receivables had a materially adverse impact on the Company's liquidity and materially contributed to the Company's need to file for bankruptcy protection. On March 3, 2009, Idearc filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 7, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP Los Angeles, CA Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com IDEARC INC: Walden Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ark. --------------------------------------------------------------- Walden Law Firm, PLLC filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on behalf of purchasers of Idearc, Inc. bonds styled "8% Senior Notes Due 2016" CUSIP/ISIN 451663AC2 between March 27, 2008, and March 30, 2009. The complaint charges Idearc and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Idearc is a media company that manages and delivers print, online and wireless publishing and advertising services on multiple platforms. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's ability to service its debt. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Idearc was suffering from a terminally ill balance sheet, which it subsequently admitted before filing for bankruptcy. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, Idearc's bonds traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $74.250 on April 24, 2008. On March 31, 2009, the Company issued a press release announcing that it had initiated a voluntary Chapter 11 petition under the United States Bankruptcy Code, stating specifically that the Company had "good potential," but was "being held back by a terminally ill balance sheet." Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Idearc bonds styled "8% Senior Notes Due 2016" CUSIP/ISIN 451663AC2 during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Richard E. Walden, Esq. Walden Law Firm, PLLC Phone: 501-907-7000 e-mail: idearclitigation@gmail.com Web site: http://www.waldenlawfirm.com/Cases/Idearc/Idearc.html SUNTRUST BANKS: Coughlin Stoia Files Ga. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (NYSE:STI-PZ) of SunTrust Banks, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 2008 initial public offering of the Securities. The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, providing a range of financial products and services to consumer and corporate customers in the United States and internationally. The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus, selling 27.6 million units of the Securities at $25 per share, for proceeds of over $690 million. The Registration Statement incorporated SunTrust's financial results for 2007 and Form 8-K dated February 12, 2008. In November 2008, SunTrust received $3.5 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and an additional $1.4 billion in December 2008. Then on January 22, 2009, when SunTrust released its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008, SunTrust reported its first quarterly loss in at least two decades, cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per common share, and announced a significant increase in its provision for loan losses. When this became public, the price of the Securities declined significantly. According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- the Company's assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities were impaired to a greater extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its impaired assets; and -- the Company's capital base was not as well capitalized as it had represented. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's Offering. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made 60 days after May 15, 2009. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/suntrustpfd/ ********* 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 * * *