/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090527.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, May 27, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 103 Headlines BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Supreme Court To Hear Ex-Worker's Suit BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Aussie Judge Rejects Bid in Wembley Case CITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax v. Bears Ticket-Holders DUBEK LTD: Faces Litigation in Israel Over Menthol Cigarettes FISERV TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Edward Stein Ponzi Scheme GEORGIA: TRS Settles Retired Teachers' Back Pay Litigation IPEX INC: Nevada Supreme Court Mulls Appeal of $90M Settlement KITEC PLUMBING: More Settlement Reached, Five Defendants Left SEALED AIR: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval STAR GAS: Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending STRAUS GROUP: Tel Aviv Court Declines Approving Suit Settlement SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval U.S. GOVERNMENT: D.C. Federal Judge Hears Claims in MRGO Case VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Settlement Pending Final Approval WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate N.J. Lawsuits Pending WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Androgel Antitrust Suits in Ga. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing WRITERS GUILD: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Foreign Levies YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked in March YAHOO! INC: Del. Consolidated Stockholder Suit Nixed Last March YAHOO! INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Bid to Amend Derivative Suit Still Pending ********* BANK OF AMERICA: Calif. Supreme Court To Hear Ex-Worker's Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court agreed to hear a purported class- action lawsuit filed against Bank of America that may settle the issue of whether or not former employees can sue companies for whom they once worked under the Unfair Competition Law, Thom Senzee of The San Fernando Valley Business Journal reports. Specifically, in "Pineda v. Bank of America," the court will decide whether lower courts decided properly in denying penalties for the plaintiff, an employee who gave his employer two weeks advance notice of his resignation, but who did not receive his final pay until several days after his resignation date. The case was filed as a class-action lawsuit, because the plaintiff contended the practice of withholding pay was widespread at the bank, according to The San Fernando Valley Business Journal report. The fear of an onslaught of similar class-action lawsuits against any employer in the state using the precedent, should the court decide in favor of the plaintiff, has local corporate defense attorneys voicing concern. "The scope of fallout will be far-reaching," Mona Hanna, department chair of the Business and Commercial Litigation Department at Encino-based Michelman & Robinson, LLP tells The San Fernando Valley Business Journal Online. According to her, "If you take a statute of limitation from one year, as is the time limit with most of the labor code, and quadruple it, you would effectively be quadrupling the funds companies would be paying out for (wage infraction) claims arising out of suits filed under the (Unfair Competition Law) laws." The San Fernando Valley Business Journal reported that the crux of the matter is the Unfair Competition Law allows for a four- year statute of limitations, while the state labor code under Section 203 only allows one year in most cases. Both a trial court and an appeals court found that, in the case of "Pineda v. Bank of America," the more conservative time constraints of the labor code applied. "The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff's claim for willful failure to timely pay wages under Labor Code section 203 was barred by the applicable one-year statute of limitations," Felix Shafir, an associate attorney at Encino-based Horvitz and Levy told The San Fernando Valley Business Journal Online. The court in that case also found that wage infraction penalties are not restitution and cannot be recovered under the Under Competition Law, reports The San Fernando Valley Business Journal. BROOKFIELD MULTIPLEX: Aussie Judge Rejects Bid in Wembley Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Ray Finkelstein of the Federal Court in Melbourne ruled against a bid by Brookfield Multiplex to derail a AU$220 million Wembley Stadium shareholder class-action lawsuit, Maurice Dunlevy of The Australian reports. The developer and fund manager attempted to end one of Australia's largest class-action lawsuits by alleging Singaporean and Canadian litigation funders had operated an illegal management investment scheme, according to The Australian report. However, in his judgment, Justice Finkelstein said the basis of the allegation had been "Multiplex's desire to stop the class action in its tracks." He ruled that arrangements between class-action lawyers Maurice Blackburn and the overseas funders did not create a managed investment scheme, The Australian reports. The Australian reported that Brookfield Multiplex lawyers Mallesons Stephen Jaques launched the challenge in November 2008. They claimed that the funding arrangements with Singapore's International Litigation Funding Partners and Canadian group Ontario, Inc. were tantamount to a managed investment scheme, which was required to be -- but had not been -- registered under the Corporations Act because the funders were not registered as Australian businesses. They also sought injunctions restraining both from providing any more funding, and preventing Maurice Blackburn from taking any further steps in the action. Justice Finkelstein said his finding should not come as a surprise. He said an management investment scheme was essentially a scheme in which people invested money in a common venture with the expectation of profit from the effort of others, but this had not happened in this case. "Second, the obligations that would come into existence if this were a managed investment scheme, assuming they could be put into effect, would afford group members little protection of the kind envisaged," reports The Australian. Maurice Blackburn regarded the Brookfield Multiplex claim as an attempt to derail the class-action case. The ruling gives Maurice Blackburn a green light to continue the action they started in December 2006, The Australian reports. Those proceedings, brought on behalf of P. Dawson Nominees, allege that between August 2004 and May 2005, Multiplex did not properly disclose to shareholders or the ASX cost increases and delays connected with the construction of London's Wembley National Stadium. The Australian reported that subsequent revelations about the Wembley project resulted in a series of Multiplex profit downgrades that triggered dramatic falls in its share price. An amended statement of claim alleges Multiplex overstated its full-year 2004 profit by at least pound stg. 17 million (AU$34 million) by failing to properly account for the loss on the Wembley project. It is also alleged that Multiplex failed to disclose information about its West India Quay project in London and a large Qantas hanger project in Queensland, according to The Australian report. CITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Lawsuit Over Tax v. Bears Ticket-Holders --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Chicago, Illinois is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by five of 2,900 people told by the city that they may owe taxes on licenses that allow them to buy Bears season tickets, Hal Dardick of The Chicago Tribune reports. The five plaintiffs, who own permanent seat licenses, or PSLs, want to block the city's attempt to collect an amusement tax from them for allegedly securing the licenses through a transfer and not originally from the charter member of the National Football League. The licenses initially sold for $900 to $10,000 per seat, but now can go for more than $30,000 a seat, according to The Chicago Tribune report. The Chicago Tribune reported that the litigation also seeks to recover, on behalf of original PSL owners, more than $10 million in taxes the plaintiffs' lawyers estimate the Bears paid to the city when the licenses were first sold, under the assumption the license owners and not the Bears ultimately footed that tab. According to Keith Hunt, one of three attorneys who filed the suit, "They are already taxing the people on the tickets, so this is a form of double taxation," reports The Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Bears told PSL holders via e-mail recently that the city sent letters to 2,900 license owners "alleging that amusement tax is due on permanent seat license transfers. ...Your frustrations and concerns are understandable," The Chicago Tribune reported. The suit alleges the city cannot collect an amusement tax on the licenses because they merely allow the purchase of season tickets, The Chicago Tribune reports. DUBEK LTD: Faces Litigation in Israel Over Menthol Cigarettes ------------------------------------------------------------- Dubek Ltd., a tobacco manufacturer from Israel, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of people who developed lung cancer from smoking menthol cigarettes, according to a report by The Jerusalem Post. The litigation was initiated by Israel's leading anti-tobacco attorney, Amos Hausner, who is representing the family of a Rehovot mother of four who died of a tumor at age 47 after many years of smoking Dubek's Montana brand of cigarettes, reports The Jerusalem Post. Mr. Hausner is also acting on behalf of an estimated 3,000 other menthol-cigarette smokers who developed cancer during the past seven years. The statute of limitations on a manufacturer's responsibility for damage caused by its products runs out after seven years, The Jerusalem Post reports. The Jerusalem lawyer is asking the Central District Court to recognize the case as a class-action suit against Dubek for NIS 3 billion, according to The Jerusalem Post report. The Jerusalem Post reported that the deceased woman, who began smoking cigarettes at 17 and whose own daughter copied her behavior by starting to light up at 13, died four years ago. She started with non-menthol cigarettes and then switched to Montana - smoking up to two packs a day without realizing that menthol caused them to be more addictive and made it very difficult to quit. According to the lawsuit, Israeli law forbids adding any foreign ingredient to cigarettes. The fact that menthol is added without the product's label informing customers that it makes them more addictive is an additional violation, the lawsuit contends. The suit further argued that Dubek was guilty of "misleading consumers" by not warning that menthol additives make their products more addictive. Consumer protection laws require a manufacturer not to mislead the public, not only by action but also by omission, The Jerusalem Post reported. FISERV TRUST: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Edward Stein Ponzi Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- Fiserv Trust Co. and TD Ameritrade Online Holding Corp. are facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a woman who says she lost $860,000 in a Ponzi scheme, Adam Klasfeld of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York by Shelley L. Anderson, under the caption, "Shelley L. Anderson, et al. v. Fiserv, Inc., Fiserv Trust Company, TD Ameritrade Online Holing Corporation, and TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, Index No. 09601567." It claims that the defendants acted as custodians for accounts that "existed on paper only." Shelley L. Anderson, who is represented in the case by attorney Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. And the law firm of Bernard Gross PC, says she held about $860,000 in Fiserv pension and IRA accounts and "had no idea" that the assets "had been stolen and depleted," until she heard about the arrest of Edward Stein, according to The Courthouse News Service report. On March 31, 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Mr. Stein of running a "classic Ponzi scheme," moving more than $55 million through his affiliated companies, including DISP LLC, Edward T Stein Associates, G & C Partnership Joint Venture, Gemini Fund, Prima Capital Management, and Vibrant Capital Corp. The next day, according to the complaint, a district court judge granted the SEC's request to freeze Mr. Stein's assets, The Courthouse News Service reported. Ms. Anderson claims that Fiserv never told her "that it was turning actual custody of her assets over to Mr. Stein and the affiliates." She says the company sent her fictitious statements making her believe "that it held custody and that her assets were safe and secure." They even charged her for purportedly holding the funds that they actually transferred to Mr. Stein, she says. According to the complaint, "Since the Custodians did not hold customer assets or value such assets, they were paid for doing virtually no work of any kind," reports The Courthouse News Service. The Courthouse News Service reported that anticipating legal trouble, Fiserv had clients agree to "broad indemnity claims ... to relieve itself of any possible liability for misconduct by Stein and/or the Affiliates," according to the complaint. Ms. Anderson's attorneys say such provisions are unconscionable. The suit demands damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, conversion and violation of general business law on behalf of herself and all customers who had pensions and IRAs in Fiserv accounts, according to The Courthouse News Service report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d43 For more details, contact: Kenneth A. Elan, Esq. Law Offices of Kenneth A. Elan 217 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-619-0261 Fax: 212-385-2707 - and - Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. John Wanamaker Building, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com/ GEORGIA: TRS Settles Retired Teachers' Back Pay Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System of Georgia was recently settled, thus allowing thousands of retired educators to receive 6 years of back pay, Cade Fowler of WALB News reports. The class-action lawsuit, filed five years ago, will result in a lump sum payment awarded to 15,000 retired Georgia school teachers or their beneficiaries. An agreement was reached between TRS Georgia and the lead plaintiffs in the case, Larrie Grant Plymel, and Connie Monroe, in Fulton Superior Court, according to the WALB News report. In general, the suit contested that Teacher Retirement System Georgia, which has more than $40 billion dollars in retirement funds, miscalculated retirement benefits, WALB News reported. The payout will come in a lump sum and will be awarded to school employees that retired between Aug. 1, 1983 and Feb. 3, 2003. Those back payments will cover a span of 6 years, between April of 1998 and April 2004, before the lawsuit was filed, reports WALB News. IPEX INC: Nevada Supreme Court Mulls Appeal of $90M Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The Nevada Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will hear arguments to an appeal over the $90 million settlement reached by IPEX, Inc. in a plumbing defect class-action lawsuit, Jeff Pope of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The Las Vegas Sun previously reported that the Clark County District Court in Nevada approved the $90 million settlement of a class-action lawsuit involving faulty Kitec plumbing fixtures manufactured by Canada-based IPEX, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2009). According to Judge Timothy William, who approved the agreement on Feb. 2, 2008, the partial settlement seems fair and reasonable despite objections from some of the home builders remaining in the suit who claim IPEX should bear more of the costs because it designed and manufactured the fittings. The agreement removes IPEX from the class action suit and protects the company and its subsidiaries from future lawsuits, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. Hubble Smith of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that in general the lawsuit alleges that Kitec fittings are defective because they "dezincify" when exposed to water, resulting in leaks and breaks in the pipes, reports the Las Vegas Review- Journal. KITEC PLUMBING: More Settlement Reached, Five Defendants Left ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys in a class-action lawsuit over faulty Kitec plumbing fixtures manufactured by Canada-based IPEX, Inc. said they have reached tentative settlements with all but three plumbers and two builders, Jeff Pope of The Las Vegas Sun reports. Of the more than 40 home builders, plumbing contractors, distributors, and related parties sued after installing Kitec brand plumbing systems in the valley, only Sharp Plumbing, Classic Plumbing, Majestic Plumbing, H&H Developments Ltd., and LBM Development Co. Inc., have yet to reach settlement agreements, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. Recently, The Las Vegas Sun reported that District Court Judge Timothy Williams granted the preliminary approval of 10 settlements and set a fairness hearing for Aug. 3, 2009, at which time the agreements could be officially accepted. Judge Williams set a mandatory settlement conference this week for the remaining five defendants to try and reach an agreement and avoid a trial, which has been rescheduled to begin June 2, 2009, reports The Las Vegas Sun. Attorney Bill Coulthard, Esq. of the law firm of Kemp, Jones and Coulthard, represents the thousands of homeowners whose houses contain the Kitec system, which has leaked in some homes due to dezincification, The Las Vegas Sun reports. The Las Vegas Sun reported that dezincification is a process in which water removes zinc from brass plumbing fittings and turns it into silt that collects in the pipes. Over time, the accumulated zinc causes blockages that can potentially rupture water lines. Mr. Coulthard told The Las Vegas Sun that the remaining two builders and Majestic Plumbing did work on only a small number of homes in the valley. SEALED AIR: N.J. Securities Suit Settlement Pending Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ The settlement agreement in a purported securities fraud class- action lawsuit against Sealed Air Corp. is pending the approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The suit, "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-04372-DMC-MF," was filed on Sept. 15, 2003. It seeks class-action status on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the company from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002. The lawsuit named the company and five of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The company and one of these individuals remain as defendants after a partial grant of the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. The plaintiffs' principal allegations against the defendants are that during the class period, they materially misled the investing public, artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock by publicly issuing false and misleading statements and violated U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles by failing to properly account and accrue for the Company's contingent liability for asbestos claims arising from past operations of W.R. Grace. They seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On March 14, 2005, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case for failure to state a claim. On Dec. 19, 2005, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. The court determined that the Complaint failed adequately to allege scienter as to the four individual defendants other than T.J. Dermot Dunphy, and therefore dismissed the lawsuit with respect to these four individual defendants, but adequately alleged scienter as to Mr. Dunphy and the company. Mr. Dunphy is a current director of the company and was formerly chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the company. On Dec. 28, 2005, the defendants requested that the court reconsider the portion of the Dec. 19, 2005 order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss with regard to the company's arguments other than scienter, or, in the alternative, that the court certify the matter for interlocutory appeal. On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint. On April 7, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the defendants' reconsideration motion, and on July 10, 2006, the court denied the motion on the ground that issues of fact prevent the court from granting a motion to dismiss based on the company's arguments other than scienter. On Oct. 3, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of the company during the period from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002. On Nov. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended motion for class certification, seeking to withdraw as a class representative and to substitute a new class representative, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System. On March 26, 2007, the court entered an order permitting Miles Senn to withdraw as lead plaintiff and permitting MPERS to be substituted as lead plaintiff. Consequently, the case is now properly referred to as "MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al." On March 29, 2007, MPERS, as lead plaintiff, filed a motion to certify a class of all persons or entities that purchased Sealed Air Corporation securities during the period from March 27, 2000, through July 30, 2002, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed their memorandum of law in opposition to MPERS's motion for class certification. On July 25, 2007, the company and Mr. Dunphy also filed a motion for reconsideration or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Supreme Court's recent decisions in "Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.," and "Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly" require dismissal of MPERS's claims. In an opinion and order dated March 12, 2008, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In another Opinion and Order, dated March 14, 2008, the court denied the defendants' motion of reconsideration of their motion to dismiss the complaint premised on the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Tellabs and Twombly. On March 27, 2008, the company and Mr. Dunphy filed a petition for leave to appeal the district court's class certification ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On May 14, 2008, the Third Circuit denied the petition. On April 27, 2009 the company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiff to settle the "MPERS v. Sealed Air Corporation, et al." case, subject to documentation and Court approval. The agreement provides for payment of $20.0 million, which will be fully funded by the company's primary and excess insurance carriers. As a result of the settlement in principle, in the first quarter of 2009, the company recorded a liability in the amount of $20.0 million, which is included in other current liabilities on the condensed consolidated balance sheet. The company also recorded a corresponding current asset in the first quarter of 2009 for $20.0 million since the claim is fully covered by its insurance carriers, 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. The suit is "Senn v. Hickey, et al., Case No. 03-CV-4372," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. (pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP One North Lasalle Street, Suite 2225 Chicago, IL 60602-3908 Phone: 312-377-1181 - and - Olimpio Lee Squitieri, Esq. (lee@sfclasslaw.com) Squitieri & Fearon, LLP 26 South Maple Avenue, Suite 202 Marlton, NJ 08053 Phone: 856-797-4611 Fax: 856-797-4612, Representing the defendants is: Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. (greilly@lowenstein.com) Lowenstein Sandler, PC 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Phone: 973-597-2500 STAR GAS: Ruling on Appeals in Securities Fraud Lawsuit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The decision on the December 2008 oral arguments hearing in connection with the plaintiffs' appeals regarding certain rulings previously entered in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Star Gas Partners, L.P., remains pending. On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class-action complaint on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas and its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. The suit is "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766- IBA." Subsequently, 16 additional class-action complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions were consolidated into one amended complaint. On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of dismissal altered and reopened. They also sought leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs. On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against: -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc., -- Paul Biddelman, -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., -- UBS Investment Bank, and -- Audrey Sevin. On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. Oral argument was held in December 2008, and a decision is awaited, 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. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com) Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 - and - David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com) Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503-0606 Phone: 203-772-3100 Fax: 203-772-1691 Representing the defendants are: Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com) Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300 Fax: 203-977-7301 - and - Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com) Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936 New Haven, CT 06509-1910 Phone: 203-784-8200 Fax: 203-777-1181 STRAUS GROUP: Tel Aviv Court Declines Approving Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Tel Aviv District Court declined to give the go-ahead for a settlement reached in a class-action lawsuit against food giant Straus Group, on the grounds that the lawsuit was "frivolous," Nurit Roth of Ha'aretz reports. In the NIS 51 million suit filed three years ago, Strauss-Elite was accused of misleading consumers in 2004 by reducing the package size of halvah-flavored and cream-and-nut-flavored wafers from 500 grams to 400 grams without notifying consumers, according to the Ha'aretz report. According to Judge Anat Baron, approving the settlement would send a signal that frivolous suits were a good way to make money at the expense of the defendant, or even the public. She adds, "It became clear that the basis of the claim and the application apparently have no substantial basis," Ha'aretz reported The court explained that the plaintiff was seen taking advantage of the defendant's desire to avoid the expenses and bad press in such a litigation, even if the defendant knew the claim had no chance, reports Ha'aretz. Judge Baron warned about the costs of this kind of lawsuit. Some companies found themselves in the position of "'serial defendants' against class action motions. These unfortunates include these cellular service providers, the banks, and manufacturers, the court explained. "And no less serious is the fact that they demean and degrade the defendant," Judge Baron wrote in her ruling. Under the settlement, the company was to have compensated the public by offering the product at a 25% discount for one year, Ha'aretz reported. SUNRISE SENIOR: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- An agreement to settle a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending against Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remains subject to court approval, 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. Initially, two putative securities class-action complaints, styled, "United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund, et al. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV00102," and "First New York Securities, L.L.C. v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07CV000294," were filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 16, 2007, and Feb. 8, 2007, respectively. Both complaints alleged securities law violations by Sunrise and certain of its current or former officers and directors based on allegedly improper accounting practices and stock option backdating, violations of generally accepted accounting principles, false and misleading corporate disclosures, and insider trading of Sunrise stock. Both sought to certify a class for the period Aug. 4, 2005 through June 15, 2006, and both requested damages and equitable relief, including an accounting and disgorgement. Pursuant to procedures provided by statute, two other parties -- the Miami General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust and the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System -- appeared and jointly moved for the consolidation of the two securities cases and for appointment as lead plaintiffs, which requests the Court ultimately approved. The cases were consolidated on July 31, 2007, under the caption, "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW." Thereafter, a stipulation was submitted pursuant to which the new putative class plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint on June 6, 2008. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and names as defendants the company, Paul J. Klaassen, Teresa M. Klaassen, Thomas B. Newell, Tiffany L. Tomasso, Larry E. Hulse, Carl G. Adams, Barron Anschutz, and Kenneth J. Abod. The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was filed on Aug. 11, 2008. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition brief to the motion to dismiss on Oct. 10, 2008. The parties subsequently submitted stipulations to the court noting that they had met with a mediator and were pursuing settlement discussions, and, as a result, requested and obtained from the court extensions of the date for the defendants to file their reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss. On Feb. 27, 2009, Sunrise and its current or former directors or officers who were named individually as defendants entered into an agreement, subject to court approval, to settle the putative class action. The settlement calls for the certification by the court of a class consisting of persons (with exceptions) who purchased Sunrise common stock between Feb. 26, 2004 and July 28, 2006, and payment of $13.5 million in cash into an interest- bearing escrow account by March 6, 2009. Upon final approval of the settlement by the court, the funds, less any costs of administration and any attorneys' fees and expenses that the court might award to plaintiffs' counsel, would be disbursed to participating class members according to a distribution plan to be submitted to and approved by the court. The suit is "In re Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-00102-RBW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Reggie B. Walton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Esq. (jonc@cuneolaw.com) Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP 507 C Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 202-789-3960 Fax: 202-789-1813 - and - Elizabeth Shattuck Finberg, Esq. (efinberg@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Representing the defendants are: Nathaniel Thomas Connally, III (ntconnally@hhlaw.com) Hogan & Hartson, LLP 8300 Greensboro Drive, Ste. 1100 McLean, VA 22102-3609 Phone: 703-610-6100 Fax: 703-610-6200 - and - Laurie Beth Smilan, Esq. (laurie.smilan@lw.com) Latham & Watkins, LLP 11955 Freedom Drive, Suite 500 Reston, VA 20190 Phone: 703-456-5220 U.S. GOVERNMENT: D.C. Federal Judge Hears Claims in MRGO Case ------------------------------------------------------------- A government attorney recently argued that a lawsuit that blames the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' construction of a shipping channel for flooding St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans private property during Hurricane Katrina was filed too late and should be dismissed, Susan Finch of The Times-Picayune reports. The class-action case, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C. a month and a half after the Aug. 29, 2005 storm, contends that continuing environmental damage done by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) left the plaintiffs, among them the owners of Rocky & Carlo's Restaurant, vulnerable to flooding that amounted to the government's taking their property without just compensation, according to The Times-Picayune report. Justice Department special counsel Fred Disheroon told Court of Claims Judge Susan Braden, who came to New Orleans for the hearing, that the case was filed long after the MRGO construction ceased to affect the environment. Mr. Disheroon said most of the wetlands loss created by the shipping channel construction ended in 1980, The Times-Picayune reported. Plaintiffs' attorney Chuck Cooper, Esq. of Washington, D.C., said the case was filed well within a six-year time limit that federal law sets for bringing such cases. He said his clients can show that there had not been flooding on their property until 2002, reports The Times-Picayune. Mr. Cooper argued that the effects of the Corps' operation and maintenance of the channel, built in the 1960s as a shortcut for deep draft ships between the Gulf and the Industrial Canal, "are by no means at an end and will get worse, and that's the primary reason why it's being closed." Mr. Cooper added that government programs to remediate the wetlands loss and erosion caused by the MRGO have postponed the time when the plaintiffs had to file suit, The Times-Picayune reports. "As long as the government is saying it's correcting the problem, until they stop trying to correct it, the time period is still running, so arguably the six years hasn't even started to run yet, Mr. Cooper told The Times-Picayune in an interview after the hearing. Judge Braden issued no immediate ruling, according to The Times- Picayune report. For more details, contact: Chuck Cooper, Esq. Cooper & Kirk, PLLC 1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-220-9600 Fax: 202-220-9601 e-mail: info@cooperkirk.com Web site: http://www.cooperkirk.com/ VERISIGN INC: Appeal on Dismissal Bid in "Herbert" Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- VeriSign, Inc.'s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit an order issued by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denying the company's motion to dismiss a purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned "Karen Herbert et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07 3537FMC," is still pending. Also named defendants in the complaint are: -- Endemol USA, -- Verisign, Inc., -- M-Qube, Inc., and -- Don Jagoda Associates, Inc. The named plaintiffs -- Karen Herbert, Judy Schenker, Jodi Eberhart and Cheryl Bentley -- claim that the Internet promotion, known as the "Lucky Case Game," which costs 99 cents per text message, is a game of chance that offers a winner a shot at "Deal or no Deal" Program, which offers a $1 million grand prize (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 22, 2007). At a predetermined time during each broadcast, six gold briefcases (different from the in-studio contestants' cases) are displayed on-air and an announcer invites home viewers to participate in the Promotion by submitting the number one through six that they believe corresponds to the winning gold briefcase. The game ends when one briefcase is opened on-air to reveal that night's "Lucy Case." The game allegedly involves the three elements of illegal gambling: consideration, chance and prize. Viewers of the program enter the promotion via text message for which they incur a premium text message fee, or via the Internet. The potential winners among eligible entrants are chosen at random, and have the opportunity to win cash and other prizes. The alleged illegal gambling game is broadcast during the show, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs further claim the show, broadcast nationwide from California, violates California and Massachusetts laws against gambling. The defendants operate the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, as follows: (a) Endemol produces the "Deal or No Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (b) Don Jagoda designe the "Lucky Case Game," including its rules and conditions; (c) NBC broadcasts the "Deal or NO Deal" Program which offers the "Lucky Case Game"; (d) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" during the broadcasr of "Deal or No Deal"; (e) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda promote the "Lucky Case Game" in advertisements for "Deal or No Deal" and the "Lucky Case Game"; (f) Endemol, NBC, and Don Jagoda solicit thext message entries to the "Lucky Case Game"; (g) NBC levies charges for premium text messages sent by entrants in the promotion; (h) VeriSign and M-Qube act as the billing agent for the promotion; (i) VeriSign and M-Qube aggregate all entrie, and randomly select and contact the potential prize winner amongst the entries correctly identifying the "Lucky Case"; (j) VeriSign and M-Qube award and distribute prizes to winning entrants; and (k) Endemol, NBC, VeriSign and M-Qube sponsor the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs brought the nationwide class action suit pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entrance into the "Lucky Case Game," and who did not win a prize. The plaintiffs brought the action in their individual capacities, and for the First and Second Causes of Action, as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who have paid or incurred premium text message charges in connection with entering the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion, and who have not won any prize. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: 1. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constitutes illegal gambling; 2. the extent of each defendants' participation in conducting the promotion; 3. whether defendants' conduct violated California Business and Professions Section 17200; 4. whether defendants' violations directly and proximately caused injury to plaintiffs and the class; 5. the extent to which the injuries suffered by plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages, restitution, disgorgement, or other monetary remedies; 6. whether the "Lucky Case Game" constituted a gaming or related activity covered by Massachusetts General Laws ch. 137, Section 1: 7. whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to recover the amount of premium text messages paid to enter the "Lucky Case Game" in contract; and 8. whether defendants should be enjoined from continuing the "Lucky Case Game." The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order certifying the class; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for restitution; -- a judgment for plaintiffs and the class for damages; -- a judgment for plaintiffs for treble damages; -- a preliminary and permanent injunction against conducting the "Lucy Case Game" Promotion; -- a declaration that the "Lucky Case Game" Promotion constitutes an illegal lottery and illegal gambling; -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to counsel for the class as may be just and proper; and -- such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The company and the other defendants had sought to dismiss the case, but this request was denied by the District Court. The case is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit awaiting resolution of the defendants' petition for interlocutory appeal of the District Court's denial of their dismissal motion (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009). A motion to dismiss ruling in Herbert is on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 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. The suit is "Karen Herbert, et al. v. Endemol USA, et al., Case No. CV 07 3537FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com) 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 William A. Pannell, Esq. (billpannell@mindspring.com) William A. Pannell, P.C. 3460 Kingsboro Road, N.E., Suite TH5 Atlanta, GA 30326 Phone: 404-353-2283 - and - Kevin T. Moore, Esq. (kaw30328@aol.com) Kevin T. Moore, P.C. 6111 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, N.E. Building C, Suite 201 Atlanta, GA 30328 Phone: 770-396-3622 VERISIGN INC: "Bentley" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- A purported consumer fraud class-action suit captioned "Cheryl Bentley et al. v. NBC Universal Inc et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 03647-FMC-VBK," remains stayed, according to VeriSign, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Initially, on June 5, 2007, plaintiff Cheryl Bentley, on behalf of herself and a nationwide class of consumers, filed a complaint against VeriSign, m-Qube Inc., and other defendants. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants collectively operate an illegal lottery under the laws of multiple states by allowing viewers of the NBC television show "The Apprentice" to incur premium text message charges in order to participate in an interactive television promotion called "Get Rich With Trump." The company sought to dismiss the case, which request was denied by the District Court (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009). The suit is "Cheryl Bentley, et al. v. NBC Universal Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03647-FMC-VBK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence- Marie Cooper, presiding. Representing the plaintiff are: Michiyo M. Furukawa, Esq. (mfurukawa@milberg.com) Milberg LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-617-1200 Fax: 213-617-1975 - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com) Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Phone: 310-854-4444 Fax: 310-854-0812 Representing the defendants are: Ronald L. Johnston, Esq. (ronald_johnston@aporter.com) Arnold and Porter 777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-243-4000 - and - Chad S. Hummel, Esq. (chummel@manatt.com) Manatt Phelps & Phillips 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Phone: 310-312-4000 VERISIGN INC: Stock Option Grants Suit Still Pending in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- VeriSign, Inc. still faces a purported class-action lawsuit in California that alleges false representations and disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock option grants. On May 15, 2007, the putative class action suit -- "Mykityshyn v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc." -- was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California, Santa Clara County, naming the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned VeriSign common stock between April 3, 2002, and Aug. 9, 2006. The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998 Option Plan. It also seeks to enjoin the defendants from granting any stock options and from allowing the exercise of any currently outstanding options granted under the 1998 and 2006 Option Plans. It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs and attorneys fees. Defendants' collective pleading challenges to the putative consolidated class action complaint were granted with leave to amend in August 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2009). By stipulation and Court order, plaintiff's obligation to file an amended consolidated class action complaint has been continued pending informal efforts by the parties to resolve the action, 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. VeriSign, Inc. -- http://www.verisign.com/-- is a provider of intelligent infrastructure services that enable and protect billions of interactions everyday across voice and data networks worldwide. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: AWP Settlement Pending Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement agreement in a consolidated lawsuit against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products, awaits final approval. Beginning in July 2002, the company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456." The consolidated amended class-action complaint in this case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and programs. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide others with such drugs. The company filed an answer to the amended consolidated class action complaint on April 9, 2004. The defendants in the consolidated suit have been divided into two groups. The company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a class-action against the drug company defendants. Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One" defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis. Classes were certified against these defendants, a trial has been completed with respect to some of the claims against this group of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and many of the claims have been settled. The Track Two Defendants, including the company, have entered into a settlement agreement resolving all claims of the Track Two Defendants in the Consolidated Class Action. The total amount of the settlement for all of the Track Two Defendants is $125 million. On July 2, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts preliminarily approved the Track Two settlement. The amount to be paid by each Track Two Defendant is confidential. On April 27, 2009, the Court held a hearing to further consider the fairness of the proposed Track Two settlement. The Court adjourned the hearing without ruling on the fairness of the proposed settlement until additional notices are provided to certain of the class members in the action, 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. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products. It operates through three business segments: Generic, Brand and Distribution. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Consolidate N.J. Lawsuits Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing on the motion to have all of the private plaintiff cases consolidated under the Multidistrict Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey is set for May 28, 2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals 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 March 31, April 17, and April 21, 2009, actions alleging similar claims were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. These suits are entitled: -- Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-1507; -- Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-1856; -- Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., Civ. No. 09-1900. These actions purport to assert claims on behalf of various class representatives. The complaints allege that the company improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s agreement to permit the company to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by the company. The complaints allege violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws and seeks equitable relief and civil penalties. On April 8, 2009, the Stephen J. LaFrance plaintiffs filed a motion to have all of the private plaintiff cases consolidated under the Multidistrict Litigation rules of the federal courts. A hearing on that motion is scheduled for May 28, 2009. On April 20, 2009, the company was dismissed from the Stephen J. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey without prejudice. All of these lawsuits are at the pleading stages, and additional actions are anticipated, 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. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products. It operates through three business segments: Generic, Brand and Distribution. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Facing Androgel Antitrust Suits in Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. continues to face purported antitrust class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to its Androgel(R) product. On Feb. 2 and Feb. 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants. The lawsuits are: -- Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215; -- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226; -- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228. The complaints allege that the company improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s agreement to permit the company to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by the company. The complaints allege violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws and seeks equitable relief and civil penalties. On Feb. 27, 2009, the defendants (including the company) filed motions to transfer all of the actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 8, 2009, the Court granted the defendants' motion to transfer and transferred the cases to the Northern District of Georgia. On April 28, 2009, the Northern District of Georgia granted the plaintiffs' request to file an amended complaint. All of these lawsuits are at the pleading stages, and additional actions are anticipated, 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. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products. It operates through three business segments: Generic, Brand and Distribution. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Motions in Cipro Suit Set for 3Q Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions for summary judgment in the consolidated suit "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation," are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of 2009, according to Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s May 1, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Beginning July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson, The Rugby Group and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts in relation to Cipro, an antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections, alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. As of March 8, 2006, 42 cases had been filed against the defendants. Twenty-two of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, MDL Docket No. 00-1383." On May 20, 2003, the court hearing the consolidated action granted a motion by Watson to dismiss the case and entered rulings limiting the theories under which the plaintiffs can seek recovery against Rugby and the other defendants. On March 31, 2005, the court hearing the consolidated action granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of plaintiffs' claims, denied the plaintiffs' motions for class certification, and directed the clerk of the court to close the case. On May 7, 2005, three groups of plaintiffs from the consolidated action (the direct purchaser plaintiffs, the indirect purchaser plaintiff purchasers and plaintiffs Rite Aid Corp. and CVS Meridian Inc.) filed notices of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appealing, among other things, the May 20, 2003 order dismissing Watson and the March 31, 2005 order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The three appeals were consolidated by the appellate court. The defendants have moved to transfer the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the ground that patent issues are involved in the appeal. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion to transfer. The appellate court has not yet ruled on the motion or the pending appeal. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, Florida and Wisconsin. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Aventis, related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro. These actions also generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The courts hearing the cases in New York have dismissed the actions. The plaintiffs have sought leave to appeal the dismissal of the New York action. In Wisconsin, the plaintiffs appealed and on May 9, 2006, the appellate court reversed the order of dismissal. On June 8, 2006, the defendants filed a petition for review in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. On July 13, 2007, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the appellate court, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has stayed the matter pending the outcome of the appeal in the consolidated case. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego, "In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220," the California Court of Appeal granted on July 21, 2004, in part and denied in part the defendants' petition for a writ of mandate seeking to reverse the trial court's order granting the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Pursuant to the California appellate court's ruling, the majority of the plaintiffs will be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On April 13, 2005, the Superior Court granted the parties' joint application to stay the California case pending the outcome of the appeal of the consolidated case. In August 2007, the plaintiffs moved to lift the stay. The court denied the motion to lift the stay, but agreed to consider the matter again at a status conference. A status conference was held on May 16, 2008, at which the court scheduled a further status conference for Dec. 12, 2008. The parties intend to file motions for summary judgment, which are scheduled to be argued to the Superior Court during the third quarter of 2009. The trial is scheduled for Jan. 24, 2010. Aventis has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. On Dec. 22, 2008, denied the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. On March 23, 2009, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by the direct purchaser plaintiffs and plaintiffs CVS and Riteaid remains pending. Other actions are pending in various state courts, including New York, California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The consolidated suit is "In Re: Ciprofloxin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:00-md-01383-DGT-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge David G. Trager, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert S. Schachter, Esq. (rschachter@zsz.com) Joseph S. Tusa, Esq. (jtusa@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Fax: 212-371-5969 Representing the company is: David E. Everson, Esq. (deverson@stinsonmoheck.com) Stinson, Mag & Fizzell, P.C. 1201 Walnut, Suite 2900, Kansas City, MO 64106 Phone: 816-842-8600 Fax: 816-691-3495 WRITERS GUILD: Reaches Settlement in Lawsuit Over Foreign Levies ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writers Guild of America's (WGA) reached a tentative settlement for a 2005 class-action suit over foreign levies that was filed on behalf of writer-director William Richert, Dave McNary of Variety reports. In general, Mr. Richert's suit alleges the WGA has no authority to collect the levies for non-members, hasn't communicated that information to the affected writers and hasn't paid them. At stake in the lawsuit are millions of dollars in foreign funds due to authors as compensation for reuse -- such as taxes on video rentals, cable retransmissions and purchases of blank videocassettes and DVDs. Unlike in the U.S., writers, actors and directors in most other nations cannot surrender the copyright on their works, according to the Variety report. Variety reported that the case had hit a roadblock in March 2009 when Mr. Richert, who has been designated as the class representative for WGA members, had strongly objected to the settlement. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carl West asked both sides to work out a settlement with Judge William Highberger, however, due to some complicated settlement issues the case still retained unsolved, reports Variety. Attorneys though for both sides told Judge West at a recent hearing that meetings with Judge Highberger had resolved a variety of settlement issues. That led Judge West to order both sides to file a preliminary settlement agreement by May 20, 2009, and return to court May 26, 2009 for a hearing, according to the Variety report. YAHOO! INC: Calif. Consolidated Shareholder Suit Junked in March ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated amended class-action and derivative complaint captioned, "In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in Santa Clara County Superior Court was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs on March 23, 2009. Since Feb. 1, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were filed in the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, against Yahoo! Inc., members of the Board and selected former officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg, Congregation Beth Aaron, and the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System (collectively, the "California Lawsuits"). The California Lawsuits were consolidated, and on March 12, 2008, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint was filed, captioned In re Yahoo! Inc. Shareholder Litigation, in Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint alleges that the Board breached fiduciary duties in connection with Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!. The Consolidated Amended Class and Derivative Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The suit by plaintiff Congregation Beth Aaron was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff without prejudice, and re-filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Dec. 3, 2008. On March 28, 2008, the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted defendants' motion to stay the Consolidated Amended Class Action and Derivative Complaint pending resolution of similar proceedings pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On March 23, 2009, following entry of final approval of settlement and final order of judgment in the Delaware Lawsuits, the California Lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by plaintiffs, 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. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet brand. The company's offerings to users fall into five categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities; Media, and Connected Life. The majority of its offerings are available in more than 20 languages. Yahoo! generates revenues by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites. In addition, although many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a range of premium services that it offers. YAHOO! INC: Del. Consolidated Stockholder Suit Nixed Last March --------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated stockholder lawsuit filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! Inc. and members of the company's Board was dismissed on March 6, 2009. Since Feb. 11, 2008, five separate stockholder lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo! Inc. and members of the Board by plaintiffs The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, Ronald Dicke, and The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the City of Detroit, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund, and Vernon A. Mercier (the "Delaware Lawsuits"). Two of the Delaware Lawsuits (by plaintiff Wayne County and by plaintiff Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union) were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The remaining Delaware Lawsuits were consolidated (lead plaintiff is the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit) and lead counsel was appointed. On Nov. 18, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for leave to amend and supplement its complaint. In connection with the amended motion for leave to amend, plaintiff submitted a proposed Second Amended and Supplemental Consolidated Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties in connection with the consideration of proposals by Microsoft to purchase all or part of Yahoo!, adoption of severance plans, the June 12, 2008 agreement between Google Inc. and Yahoo! and purports to state claims relating to alleged false and misleading statements and omissions in Yahoo!'s proxy statement. Plaintiffs allege that the proxy statement contained false and misleading statements and omissions related to the severance plans, including statements and omissions with respect to the purpose of the plans, the reasons for adopting the plans, the benefits provided to employees under the plans, the role played by outside compensation consultants and the information provided by them and the total cost of the plans. The Second Amended Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On Dec. 10, 2008, plaintiffs in the Delaware Lawsuits, Yahoo! and the Individual Defendants entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement") that, if approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, will settle and resolve all claims that were or could have been asserted by the plaintiffs or members of the settlement class, consisting of all persons who held Yahoo! common stock at any time between Jan. 31 and Dec. 7, 2008, or on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. in the Delaware Lawsuits or in any forum. As provided in the Settlement Agreement, in consideration for the settlement, Yahoo! agreed to amend in various ways the severance plans that Yahoo! adopted in February 2008. On Dec. 19, 2008, Chancellor Chandler and the Delaware Court of Chancery approved an order scheduling a hearing to determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement. Pursuant to this order, on Dec. 30, 2008, Yahoo! mailed notice of the proposed settlement and published a summary notice of the proposed settlement. Class members and Yahoo! stockholders had until Feb. 4, 2009 to serve and file any written objections to the proposed settlement. Plaintiffs' counsel submitted a fee petition seeking legal fees and expenses. By stipulation and order, the Court set the hearing on final approval of the proposed settlement and the plaintiffs' counsel's request for legal fees and expenses for March 6, 2009. On March 6, 2009, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued its order granting final approval of the settlement, entering final judgment dismissing the class and derivative action, and granting plaintiffs an award of attorneys' fees and costs, 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. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet brand. The company's offerings to users fall into five categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities; Media, and Connected Life. The majority of its offerings are available in more than 20 languages. Yahoo! generates revenues by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites. In addition, although many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a range of premium services that it offers. YAHOO! INC: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Yahoo! Inc. Initially, on May 11, 2007, the first of two purported securities class-action complaints was filed against Yahoo! And certain of its officers and members of its board of directors. The lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007-cv-03125." The second lawsuit was filed before the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Manfred Hacker, under the caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007- cv-03902." These actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and, on Dec. 21, 2007, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons who purchased Yahoo!'s common stock between April 8, 2004, and July 18, 2006. They allege that the defendants engaged in a scheme to inflate Yahoo!'s share price by making false and misleading statements regarding Yahoo!'s operations, financial results, and future business prospects in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs also allege that the individual defendants engaged in insider trading in violation of the Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act, and as control persons are subject to liability under Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of alleged insider trading proceeds, and other equitable relief. On March 10, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Oct. 7, 2008, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Pursuant to the order, plaintiffs must file their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint by Nov. 17, 2008. Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated Complaint on Dec. 19, 2008. On Feb. 2, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On April 23, 2009, the Court held a hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss. The company is awaiting a decision on the motion, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-03125-CAS-FMO," pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Nate Bear, Esq. (nbear@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0853 - and - Mark I. Labaton, Esq. (mlabaton@kreindler.com) Kreindler and Kreindler LLP 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-622-6469 Representing the defendants is: Jordan Eth, Esq. (jeth@mofo.com) Morrison and Foerster 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415-268-7000 YAHOO! INC: Watkins' Bid to Amend Derivative Suit Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Watkins' motion for leave to file an amended complaint in her stockholder derivative action against Yahoo! Inc. remains pending, 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. On June 14, 2007, a stockholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Jill Watkins against members of the company's Board and selected officers. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and corporate waste, with the addition of a claim for relief for alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Watkins agreed to coordinate her action with the federal class-action litigation. On April 29, 2008, the federal court in Los Angeles granted defendants' motion to transfer the Watkins action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and declined to decide the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint. On Jan. 12, 2009, Watkins filed a new motion for leave to file an amended complaint seeking to: -- substitute a new plaintiff, -- add a derivative claim alleging violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act, -- add a class claim for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, -- add a class claim for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, and -- allege claims relating to Microsoft's unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! Inc. on Feb. 1, 2008. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com/-- is a global Internet brand. The company's offerings to users fall into five categories: Front Doors; Search; Communications and Communities; Media, and Connected Life. The majority of its offerings are available in more than 20 languages. Yahoo! generates revenues by providing marketing services to advertisers across a majority of Yahoo! Properties and Affiliate sites. In addition, although many of its user services are free, Yahoo! does charge for a range of premium services that it offers. ********* 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 * * *