/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090528.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 28, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 104 Headlines AMERICASH LOANS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Short-Term $700 Loan AOL LLC: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Lawsuit Over Ads in E-Mails AOL LLC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind. CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit Settlement Okayed in May CORNELL COS: Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger Nixed in April CORNELL COS: VCDC Litigation Settlement Set for July '09 Hearing EASTERN HEALTH: Mediation Set for Breast Cancer Testing Lawsuit GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Pension Fund's Lawsuit HEALTH NET: Reaches $1.95M Deal in Suit Over Patients' Policies HL LEASING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Investment Scam HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Amended Complaint Filed in "Sullivan" Lawsuit KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Wrongful Death Litigation in California LAND O' LAKES: Suits Over Prices of Egg Products Still Pending LEVEL 3: Employee Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. Court MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Dismisses SAC in ERISA Litigation MERCK & CO: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Appeal in Holders' Suit MRU HOLDINGS: June 19 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status SIMON PROPERTY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Gift Card Sales UTSTARCOM INC: June 19 Hearing Set for "Rudolph" Suit Settlement UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif. WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit POPULAR INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* AMERICASH LOANS: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Short-Term $700 Loan ------------------------------------------------------------- AmeriCash Loans, LLC, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Illinois alleging violations of the Payday Loan Reform Act and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, Adam Doster of Progress Illinois reports. The litigation was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois under the caption, "Kevin Johnson, et al. v. AmeriCash Loans, LLC, Case No. 2009-L-005997." It was filed by Chicago native Kevin Johnson in connection to a short-term $700 loan he took out from AmeriCash Loans. Mr. Johnson is represented in the matter by attorneys Tom Geoghegan, Esq., and Mike Persoon, Esq., of Despres, Schwartz, and Geoghegan, and Robert Cohen, Esq. and Scott Frankel, Esq. of Frankel and Cohen, according to the Progress Illinois report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d47 For more details, contact: Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan 77 W Washington St. # 711 Chicago, IL 60602-3271 Phone: (312) 372-2511 - and - Frankel & Cohen 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1720 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: 312-759-9600 Fax: 312-759-9603 e-mail: info@frankelandcohen.com AOL LLC: Faces Calif. Subscribers' Lawsuit Over Ads in E-Mails -------------------------------------------------------------- AOL, LLC is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by two subscribers that alleges the company violated a federal privacy law by inserting ads in email, Wendy Davis of Mediapost.com reports. The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Los Angeles residents Rande Bronster and Robert Nachshin. Captioned, "Rande Bronster et al v. AOL, LLC et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv-03568," the lawsuit is alleging that such ads are unlawful under the federal Electronic Communications Act and California law. AOL has offered free email accounts for almost three years, but Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin pay the company for premium service -- which, they argue, should be ad-free, according to the Mediapost.com report In an April letter to a lawyer for AOL, the plaintiffs wrote, "Subscribers to AOL's paid email service pay a monthly fee, in part, to be free from the annoyance of ads strewn throughout their emails." In that same letter, they asked AOL to refund all fees they had paid since March 2006, shortly after AOL began inserting ads into emails, Mediapost.com reported. Last year, AOL began allowing paying subscribers to opt out of the ad insertions, but Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin allege that the company didn't proactively notify them they could refuse to carry the ads. They also allege that AOL doesn't inform subscribers that it will insert ads into the footers of their messages, reports Mediapost.com. Mediapost.com reported that Messrs. Bronster and Nachshin are represented by the law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner who are seeking to represent all subscribers who have paid the company for an account since February 2006. The attorneys are also asking for monetary damages and an injunction against AOL. For more details, contact: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-217-5000 Fax: 213-217-5010 AOL LLC: Still Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Ads Inserted in E-mails ---------------------------------------------------------------- AOL, LLC continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit over its practice of inserting ads in subscribers' email, Wendy Davis of Mediapost.com reports. The CourtHouse News Service reported that the class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging it inserted ads at the end of more than 100 million e-mails without subscribers' permission, and won't allow them to cancel the unwanted advertising on their private emails. The class claims AOL has done this since March 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2008). Named plaintiff Frank Cecchini sued AOL on behalf of its 2 million customers who pay for e-mail -- about 20% of AOL's total subscribership, he says. Mr. Cecchini says AOL defrauds customers by inserting the email ads without informing them, without their permission, and without letting them cancel. He says AOL thereby unjustly enriches itself and competes unfairly. Mr. Cecchini further says paid subscribers expect and should be able to send e-mails without ads being inserted into them. He says they pay for this service -- unlike users of free services, such as hotmail and Yahoo, which also insert the "footer" ads. "These advertisements are annoying, confusing, intrusive and misleading," the complaint states. Mr. Cecchini says that's why he pays for AOL email service, instead of using a free service. He says AOL began inserting the ads for its business partners around March 1, 2006, without telling its paid customers it was doing so. The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to FRCP Rule 23 on behalf of all persons in the United States who paid for e-mail services from AOL LLC since March 1, 2006. Mr. Cecchini asks the court for: -- compensatory damages in an amount according to proof with interest; -- economic and special damages in an amount according to proof with interest; -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair competition in violation of section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; -- defendants to be found to have engaged in unfair competition in violation of section 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code; -- punitive damages; -- attorney fees, interest and costs of suit; -- an enhancement of attorneys fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1021.5; and -- such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Frank Cecchini et al. v. AOL LLC et al., Case No. CV08-06845 CAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. (chamner@hamnerlaw.com) Amy T. Wootton, Esq. (awootton@hamnerlaw.com) Kimberly A. Westmoreland, Esq. (kwestmoreland@hamnerlaw.com) Hamner Law Offices, LLC 15760 Ventura Blvd., Suite 860 Encino, CA 91436 Phone: 818-386-0444 Fax: 818-386-0050 CARRIAGE SERVICES: Continues to Defend "Leathermon" Suit in Ind. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carriage Services, Inc., continues to defend a purported class- action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which suit is captioned "Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137." On Aug. 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class-action suit against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including Carriage subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. The plaintiffs claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached plaintiffs' contracts, and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. On Oct. 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The litigation is in the discovery stage, 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 "Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-137," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Judge Sarah Evans Barker, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: John C. Eckert, Esq. (john@eckertlawfirm.net) Eckert Law Firm 606 E. Main Street Madison, IN 47250 Phone: 812-265-1606 Fax: 812-265-2951 - and - J. Anthony Goebel, Esq. (tony@goebellawoffice.com) Goebel Law Office 1034 Copperfield Drive Georgetown, IN 47122 Phone: 812-951-2500 Fax: 812-951-2522 Representing the defendants are: Robert Lewis Barlow, II, Esq. (rbarlow@blueriver.net) Barlow Law Office 201 East Main Street Madison, IN 47250 Phone: 812-273-4440 Fax: 812-273-2329 - and - John B. Drummy, Esq. (jdrummy@k-glaw.com) Kightlinger & Gray 151 North Delaware Street, Suite 600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-638-4521 Fax: 317-636-5917 CARRIAGE SERVICES: FSLA Violations Suit Settlement Okayed in May ---------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a purported class-action suit filed against Carriage Services, Inc., which generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, was approved by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on May 5, 2009. On Nov. 28, 2007, five former funeral directors filed suit for themselves and on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of Carriage. The plaintiffs allege violations of state wage and hour laws and FLSA, as well as related tort and contract claims. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Carriage failed to properly compensate employees for time spent on community work, on-call time, pre-need appointments, and training, failed to provide required meal and rest breaks under California state law, and failed to maintain proper records. Carriage filed its answer to the complaint on Jan. 28, 2008, denying all material allegations and asserting appropriate affirmative defenses. On Feb. 29, 2008, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification under the FLSA. The parties have effectuated notice of the lawsuit to all potential class members pursuant to the Court's order. The opt-in period expired on Aug. 5, 2008, by which time 441 people had filed consent forms to join the action. The parties reached a tentative settlement in this matter, pending Court approval. As a result of the settlement, the company recorded a $3.5 million charge, including related legal fees of $0.2 million, in the fourth quarter of 2008 and funded the settlement in the first quarter of 2009. The Court approved the settlement on May 5, 2009, 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 "Spencer Cranney, et al., v. Carriage Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01587," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, Judge Roger L. Hunt, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Justin M. Cordello, Esq. (jcordello@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin Thomas Solomon LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 - and - Kyle T. McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com) Margolis Edelstein 525 William Penn Place Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-281-4256 Fax: 412-642-2380 Representing the defendants is: Michael L. Banks, Esq. (mbanks@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-5387 Fax: 215-963-5001 CORNELL COS: Stockholder Suit on Veritas Merger Nixed in April -------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Kinbergy's purported class-action suit filed against Cornell Companies, Inc., in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 269th Judicial District (No. 2006-67413) was dismissed on April 28, 2009. The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Kinbergy, a purported stockholder of the company, on Oct. 19, 2006, and names as defendants the company and each member of its board of directors as well as Veritas Capital Fund III, L.P. The purported class action suit alleges, among other things, that: -- the defendants have breached fiduciary duties they assertedly owed to the company's stockholders in connection with the company entering into the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of Oct. 6, 2006, with Veritas, Cornell Holding Corp., and CCI Acquisition Corp., and -- the merger consideration is unfair and inadequate. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the merger. The proposed merger was rejected at a special meeting of the company's stockholders held on Jan. 23, 2007. 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, it believes the case is moot. Based on the company's agreement to pay Plaintiffs' legal fees, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice with the Court in April 2009. On April 28, 2009, the Court granted the Motion and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/-- provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and treatment services for adults and juveniles. The company partners with federal, state, county and local government agencies. Cornell offers services in structured and secure environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice, educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based corrections and treatment programs. CORNELL COS: VCDC Litigation Settlement Set for July '09 Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- A July 2009 final approval hearing has been scheduled for the settlement of a purported class-action suit against Cornell Companies, Inc., filed in the Federal District Court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, by individuals stripped searched at the Valencia County Detention Center. Joe Torres and Eufrasio Armijo filed the suit in April 2007. Each alleged that he was stripped searched at VCDC in violation of his federal rights under the Fourth, Fourteenth and Eighth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The claimants also allege violation of their rights under state law and seek to bring the case as a class action on behalf of themselves and all detainees at VCDC during the applicable statues of limitation. The plaintiffs seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. Valencia County is also a named defendant in the case and operated the VCDC for a significantly greater portion of the period covered by the lawsuit. Discovery has commenced in the case. In December 2008, the parties agreed to a proposed stipulation of settlement and the Court has preliminarily approved the settlement. The settlement amount under the terms of the agreement is $3.3 million. Cornell's portion of the stipulated settlement, based on the number of inmates housed at VCDC during the time Cornell operated the facility in comparison to the number of inmates housed at the facility during the time Valencia County operated the facility, is $1.2 million and was funded principally through the company's general liability and professional liability coverage. The Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the first quarter of 2009, and the claims administration process is underway. A hearing for final approval by the Court has been scheduled for July 2009. The company expects the claims administration process to be completed in the fourth quarter of 2009, 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. Cornell Companies, Inc. -- http://www.cornellcompanies.com/-- provides correction, detention, education, rehabilitation and treatment services for adults and juveniles. The company partners with federal, state, county and local government agencies. Cornell offers services in structured and secure environments throughout three operating divisions: adult secure institutions and detention centers, juvenile justice, educational and treatment programs, and adult community-based corrections and treatment programs. EASTERN HEALTH: Mediation Set for Breast Cancer Testing Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The dates for mediation of the class-action lawsuit over faulty hormone receptor testing at Eastern Health have been set, VOCM reports. Lawyer Ches Crosbie says the Honorable George W. Adams, former Ontario Superior Court Judge, will mediate the dispute in St. John's on October 28th to the 30th, according to the VOCM report. VOCM reported that after meetings between all involved, it was decided the original July date was impractical, given the large volume of required preparation. Previously, Mr. Crosbie, a St. John lawyer sought class certification for a suit filed on behalf of nearly hundreds of breast cancer patients who received inaccurate cancer test results (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007). The suit alleges that Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority mishandled the provision of information to the public and that it wrongly diagnosed several women that they have breast cancer. Verna Doucette filed the suit on behalf of a group of women who feel they suffered as a result of testing problems in the pathology department that date as far as 1997. Errors were disclosed only in 2005. Mr. Crosbie said women involved in the suit are: -- those who say they suffered mental stress after learning their tissue samples were being retested; -- those who say their estrogen and progesterone receptor tests were changed from negative to positive and they were unnecessarily treated with chemotherapy; and -- those who were allegedly misdiagnosed with breast cancer (Class Action Reporter, Oct 23, 2006). He estimates that as many as 1,000 women are involved. He did not specify the amount of damages being sought. Eastern Health executives apologized for withholding the information on the inaccuracy of cancer tests. Mr. Crosbie believes Eastern Health's admissions would strengthen his claims. He now has nearly 70 clients. Other lawyers are representing 30 other breast cancer patients. Meanwhile, according to CBC News, the Newfoundland and Labrador government already ordered a judicial inquiry into flawed hormone receptor tests. Defendant Eastern Health told the public it has already fixed the problems in its pathology testing. For more information, contact the plaintiffs' lawyer: Ches Crosbie, Esq. 169 Water Street, 4th Floor St. John's, NL A1C 1B1 Phone: 1-888-579-3262 or 579-4000 Fax: 709-579-9671 e-mail: ccb@chescrosbie.nf.net Web site: http://www.chescrosbie.com/ GAYLORD ENTERTAINMENT: Agrees to Settle Pension Fund's Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Gaylord Entertainment Co., on March 9, 2009, reached an agreement in principle to settle the pending purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee federal court. In August 2008, a union-affiliated pension fund filed a purported derivative and class action complaint in Tennessee state court alleging that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary duties by adopting a shareholder rights plan. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purported to dismiss their state court action, and they re-filed it in federal court. On Oct. 27, 2008, the company (as the nominal defendant) filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit claiming, among other things, that the plaintiff failed to make the required pre-suit demand on the Company and that the allegations fail to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2009). On March 9, 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle to settle the pending purported derivative and class-action complaint. The company and the plaintiffs in the action, together with their counsel, have agreed that the changes to the company's Board of Directors and amendments to the Original Rights Agreement reflected in the Amended Rights Agreement will form the basis for that settlement, according to the company's May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended March 31, 2009. Gaylord Entertainment Co. -- http://www.gaylordentertainment.com -- is a hospitality and entertainment company that owns and operates Gaylord Hotels (www.gaylordhotels.com), its network of meetings-focused resorts and the Grand Ole Opry (www.opry.com), the weekly showcase. The company's entertainment brands and properties include the Radisson Hotel Opryland, Ryman Auditorium, General Jackson Showboat, Gaylord Springs Golf Links, Wildhorse Saloon and WSM-AM Radio. The company's operations are organized into three principal business segments: Hospitality, which includes its hotel operations; Opry and Attractions, which includes its Nashville attractions and assets related to the Grand Ole Opry, and Corporate and Other. HEALTH NET: Reaches $1.95M Deal in Suit Over Patients' Policies --------------------------------------------------------------- On behalf of the California Hospital Association and all California hospitals, Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, Inc. (HLB) has negotiated a class action settlement with Health Net of California and Health Net Life Insurance Company, relating to rescission of patients' policies. Under the settlement, Health Net has agreed to pay at least $1.95 million to settle claims with hospitals that did not receive payments following rescissions. The settlement is the result of extensive negotiations that have been ongoing between HLB and Health Net since July 2008, and covers rescissions by Health Net that occurred between February 2004 and October 2007. (Case No. BC414389). "We are very pleased to have come to an agreement with Health Net that results in hospitals receiving substantial payments for the previously unreimbursed services that they provided to Health Net members who were rescinded," said HLB partner and co-lead counsel, Glenn Solomon. "We believe that Health Net did the right thing here and appreciate its cooperation in reaching a mutually acceptable settlement." Under terms of the Settlement Agreement that was preliminarily approved by the court today, Health Net will establish a Facility Compensation Fund and mechanisms to reimburse hospitals for the services they provided to rescinded members. In addition, Health Net will provide each affected hospital with a list of the patients whose policies were rescinded so that the hospitals and the patients can receive closure regarding the rescissions. "The practice of rescinding patients' policies after the patient has received medically necessary services has caused a great deal of financial stress to both the patients and the hospitals who provide those services. This settlement goes a long way towards compensating the hospitals for those services," said HLB attorney and co-lead counsel, Daron Tooch. For more details, contact: Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, Inc. 1875 Century Park East Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-551-8111 Fax: 310-551-8181 Web site: http://www.health-law.com HL LEASING: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Investment Scam ------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. of the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy filed a purported class-action lawsuit in California on behalf of investors who believe they were swindled in a Fresno-based investment scam, Tim Sheehan of The Fresno Bee reports. The lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2009 in Fresno County Superior Court against the estate of John W. Otto, the man who operated HL Leasing and allegedly masterminded the fraud before killing himself this month, according to The Fresno Bee report. Court documents show the suit is being led by a pair of Fresno plaintiffs, Vicken Massoyan and Maggie Antaramian, but Mr. Jabagchourian told The Frsno Bee that the case eventually may encompass more than 1,200 investors who reportedly lost more than $138 million in a Ponzi scheme that revolved around fraudulent equipment leases. Also named as defendants are HL Leasing and another Otto company, Heritage Pacific Leasing; HL Leasing president Dan Ramirez and executive vice president Norma Lewis; and Heritage Pacific chief financial officer Andy Fernandez, reports The Fresno Bee. The Fresno Bee reported that Mr. Otto, 67, died May 11, 2009 from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a parking lot in Palm Desert, only a few miles from his home. He was the chief executive officer of both HL Leasing and Heritage Pacific Leasing. His death came only days after his attorney sent a letter May 8, 2009 to investors asking for their patience after HL Leasing failed to make its scheduled interest payments on April 25, 2009. The missed payment and the May 8 letter triggered complaints by worried investors to Jabagchourian's firm as well as attorneys in Fresno and Los Angeles and sparked an investigation by the FBI, The Fresno Bee reports. Investors believed their investments were secured by leases for medical, dental, and farm equipment; in exchange, Messrs. Otto, Ramirez, and Lewis allegedly promised investors generous interest rates of as much as 9%. The litigation accuses Mr. Otto and the other defendants of fraudulently concealing their activities and deliberately misleading investors, breaching their fiduciary duty to safeguard the investments and failing to deal in good faith. Heritage Pacific and Mr. Fernandez are accused of aiding and abetting HL Leasing's alleged scam, according to The Fresno Bee report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d48 For more details, contact: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, California 94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 Fax: 650-697-0577; 650-692-3606 or 650-692-1112 Web site: http://www.cpmlegal.com HOLLAND & KNIGHT: Amended Complaint Filed in "Sullivan" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Investors burned in an alleged $100 million Ponzi scheme operated by Florida fund manager Arthur Nadel filed an amended complaint in a purported class-action suit against Holland & Knight LLP, which allegedly prepared private placement memoranda for the funds, according to a Law360 report. Brian Neill of The Bradenton Herald previously reported that Holland & Knight LLP faces a purported class-action lawsuit in Florida in connection with the case of Sarasota hedge fund manager Arthur Nadel, who is accused of defrauding investors out of hundreds of millions of dollars (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2009). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 20, 2009 by Michael J. Sullivan on behalf of the Michael J. Sullivan IRA Account. It alleges that the law firm, one of the state's largest, handled prepared paperwork for investments made to Mr. Nadel's hedge funds, but left out critical information about the funds and their administrators, according to The Bradenton Herald report. Mr. Nadel is being housed in a jail in New York City and is charged with one count of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud for what authorities allege was a Ponzi scheme. Mr. Sullivan's suit maintains that Holland & Knight should have revealed Mr. Nadel was once disbarred as a lawyer for financial improprieties and an employee of his was not a CPA, reports The Bradenton Herald. "When these memorandums were prepared and distributed, had (the investors) known this obviously some different decisions would have been made," according to John Coleman, Esq., an attorney with the Tampa law firm Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, which filed the suit. "They failed to give investors adequate information." The suit maintains that Holland & Knight staff had that information available to them, but chose not to disclose it. It states, "During the entire time of H & K's involvement as counsel for the Nadel Funds and other related entities, Mr. Nadel had been running a Ponzi scheme, and even a cursory review of the financial records of the Nadel Funds would have disclosed the existence of the Ponzi scheme. Holland and Knight failed themselves to uncover this scheme, although reasonable inquiry would have done so." Mr. Sullivan, a resident of Illinois, states in the suit that he was unaware of Mr. Nadel's disbarment or financial improprieties ongoing at the funds. He had more than $1.8 million invested in Mr. Nadel's funds, according to the suit. The Bradenton Herald reported that the suit seeks judgment for damages and attorney and court costs. It also seeks a jury trial. The suit is "Sullivan v. Holland & Knight LLP et al., Case No. 8:09-cv-00531-EAK-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Guy M. Burns, Esq. (Guyb@jpfirm.com) Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 403 E Madison St. - Ste. 400 (33602) P.O. Box 1100 Tampa, FL 33601 Phone: 813/225-2500 Fax: 813/223-7118 KAISER PERMANENTE: Faces Wrongful Death Litigation in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Permanente is facing a class-action wrongful death lawsuit filed by a couple who claim that their infant son died because Kaiser's policies have institutionalized substandard care, Karina Brown of The Courthouse News Service reports. The lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court by Erica Munoz and Gustavo Lopez, who claimed Charles Angel Lopez died and Erica Munoz suffered "profound injury" because, to save money, Kaiser refuses to hire enough doctors and has nurse practitioners and physicians' assistants do the work the should be done by doctors, according to The Courthouse News Service report. Ms. Munoz claims that Kaiser never sent a doctor to help her until the day her son died. She also claims Kaiser scrimped by denying her request for tests that could have saved her son's life - another practice the couple says Kaiser regularly implements, reports The Courthouse News Service. Kaiser allegedly told Ms. Munoz and Mr. Lopez that technological procedures were unnecessary and "destructive to 'nature doing its course,'" The Courthouse News Service reports. The couple -- represented by Steven Zelig, Esq. with Brentwood Legal Services -- claim Kaiser's actions are part of "a long- standing institutional practice by which it brazenly ignores, disregards and flaunts California law." They also claim Kaiser sent them "fraudulent and completely overblown" bills, charging them for services they never received, The Courthouse News Service reported. For more details, contact: Steven Zelig, Esq. 11661 San Vicente Blvd 1015 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Phone: 310-442-6042 LAND O' LAKES: Suits Over Prices of Egg Products Still Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Land O'Lakes, Inc. continues to defend class-action lawsuits filed against producers of eggs and egg products, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended March 31, 2009. Between September 2008 and January 2009, a total of 22 related class-action lawsuits were filed against a number of producers of eggs and egg products in three different jurisdictions alleging violations of antitrust laws. MoArk was named as a defendant in 21 of the cases. Norco Ranch, Inc., was named as a defendant in 13 of the cases. The company was named as a defendant in eight cases. The cases have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and two separate consolidated amended class action complaints have been filed: one on behalf of those persons who purchased eggs or egg products directly from defendants, and the second on behalf of "indirect" purchasers (i.e. persons who purchased eggs, egg products, or products containing eggs from defendants' customers). The consolidated amended complaints allege concerted action by producers of shell eggs to restrict output and thereby increase the price of shell eggs and egg products. The Plaintiffs in these suits seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief on behalf of all purchasers of eggs and egg products, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Land O'Lakes, Inc. -- http://www.landolakesinc.com/-- was formed as a cooperative designed to meet the needs of dairy farmers located in the Midwest. The Company operates its business through five segments, which includes Dairy Foods, Feed, Seed, Agronomy and Layers. Dairy Foods develops, produces, markets and sells a variety of butter, spreads, cheese and other related dairy products. Feed develops, produces, markets and distributes animal feed to both the lifestyle and livestock animal markets. Seed develops markets and sells seed for a range of crops, including alfalfa, corn, soybeans and forage and turf grasses. Agronomy primarily consists of the operations of Winfield Solutions, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary established in September 2007 upon the distribution of wholesale crop protection product assets to the Company from Agriliance LLC. Winfield operates as a wholesale distributor of crop protection products. LEVEL 3: Employee Files ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Colo. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- An employee, who participated in the Level 3 Communication's 401K retirement plan, has filed in the District of Colorado a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of certain former and current employees of Level 3 Communications, Inc., who participated in the company plan, over alleged breaches of certain fiduciaries of the Plan. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 may have occurred in at least two ways, by either continuing to offer Level 3 common stock as a Plan investment when it was imprudent to do so, and/or by maintaining the Plan's investment in Level 3 stock in the Plan when it was imprudent to do so. According to the complaint filed in the District of Colorado, defendants misled Plan Participants regarding its successful integration of companies it acquired from late 2005 through early 2007. The complaint alleges Level 3 Communications, Inc was having extreme difficulties in integration because of, among other things, increased service activation times and difficulties in the Company's service management processes. According to the complaint, as a result of these problems, Level 3 Communications, Inc. had inadequate provisioning capability to convert its signed orders into revenue generating service. MARATHON OIL: Faulty Gas Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a purported lawsuit over defective gasoline that Marathon Oil Corp. sold remains pending while it awaits the approval of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. The lawsuit, "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al.," alleges that the company's Catlettsburg refinery sold defective gasoline to wholesalers and retailers, causing permanent damage to storage tanks, dispensers and related equipment, resulting in lost profits, business disruption, and personal and real property damages. In 2002, Marathon Petroleum Co. conducted extensive cleaning operations at affected facilities but denies that any permanent damages resulted from the incident. Class-action certification was granted in August 2007. The company has entered into a tentative settlement agreement in this case. Notice of the proposed settlement has been sent to the class members. Approval by the court after a fairness hearing is required before the settlement can be finalized. No further developments on the case were reported in 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 "Loudermilk Services, Inc., et al. v. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00966," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, Judge Robert C. Chambers presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory B. Breedlove, Esq. (gbb@cbcbb.com) Cunningham Bounds Crowder Brown & Breedlove P.O. Box 66705 Mobile, AL 36660 Phone: 251/471-6191 Fax: 251/479-1031 - and - James M. Cawley, Jr., Esq. (jay@jaycawley.net) Suite 2110, 440 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713/426-1700 Fax: 713/425-5325 Representing the defendants are: Joseph S. Beeson, Esq. (jsb@ramlaw.com) Robinson & Mcelwee 400 Fifth Third Center 700 Virginia Street, East P.O. Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia 25301 Phone: 304-344-5800 Fax: 304-344-9566 - and - Jeffrey V. Mehalic, Esq. The Law Offices Of Jeffrey V. Mehalic P.O. Box 11133 Charleston, WV 25339-1133 Phone: 304/346-3462 Fax: 302/346-3469 MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Dismisses SAC in ERISA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Stull, Stull & Brody announced on May 26, 2009 that the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota has issued an order dismissing without prejudice the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the 401(k) ERISA class action lawsuit which Stull, Stull & Brody filed in August 2008 (Docket No. 08-cv- 4904) against Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) and other alleged fiduciaries of the Medtronic, Inc. Savings and Investment Plan. The suit alleges that fiduciaries of the Plan breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan and its participants by allowing participants to invest their retirement savings in Medtronic common stock when Medtronic common stock was not a prudent investment for the Plan accounts and by failing to disclose to the Plan participants the true risk and return characteristics of Medtronic stock. The suit concerns two of Medtronic's products, the Sprint Fidelis lead (a complex wire that connects certain defibrillators to a patient's heart muscle) and the Infuse Bone Graft (a bone filling material implanted where bone growth is needed). In dismissing the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice the Court found that the Plaintiff, Mark Brown, a former employee of Medtronic, lacked standing to sue because he benefited from the artificial inflation in Medtronic's stock price when he sold his shares at prices he claims were higher than they should have been. For more details, contact: Edwin J. Mills, Esq. c/o Stull, Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1-800-337-4983 Fax: 212/490-2022 e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com MERCK & CO: U.S. Supreme Court Considers Appeal in Holders' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court will decide whether shareholders can sue Merck & Co., Inc. because of the failure of its former blockbuster painkiller Vioxx, The Associated Press reports. On May 26, 2009, the high court agreed to review the company's challenge to a federal appeals court's reinstatement of a class- action securities lawsuit, according to the AP report. In the suit filed in November 2003, investors had charged the pharmaceutical company with providing misleading information or omitting information about the risks of Vioxx. A U.S. District judge dismissed lawsuit, ruling that all the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under the statute of limitation. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided to allow the lawsuits and Merck appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, The Associated Press reported. Vioxx was pulled from the market Sept. 30, 2004, because it doubled risks of heart attack, stroke and death. That day alone, stockholders lost a collective $28 billion, reports The Associated Press. MRU HOLDINGS: June 19 Deadline Set For Lead Plaintiff Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds current and former shareholders of MRU Holdings, Inc. (OTC: UNCLQ; formerly NASDAQ: UNCL) who suffered losses from investment in MRU securities during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008, inclusive that Friday, June 19, 2009 is the deadline for MRU investors to move for appointment as lead plaintiff in the pending securities class action. Previously, Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased shares of MRU Holdings, Inc. during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 19, 2008, inclusive (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009). The complaint charges MRU and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants' public statements failed to disclose, among other things, that: -- the market for Auction Rate Securities ("ARS"), which the Company issued in its first student loan securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim of the broker-dealers; -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker- dealers allowed the Company to securitize its student loans on favorable terms; -- that once the true nature of the ARS market became known, the terms of future securitizations by the Company would not be favorable to the Company; and (4) -- that without the favorable terms available in the ARS market as a result of manipulation by the broker- dealers, the Company would not have sufficient capital to originate loans, making the Company's business model untenable. On July 7, 2008, the Company revealed the unfavorable terms of its second securitization, causing the price of its securities to drop to $2.27 per share - a one day decline of $0.23 per share, or 9.2%. Then, on August 18, 2008, Moody's Investors Service placed the ARSs issued by MRU on review for downgrade, driving the price of MRU shares even further, to $1.05 per share. After the market closed on September 5, 2008, the Company ceased originating student loans, which caused MRU's stock price to fall even further, closing on September 6, 2008 at $0.71. Finally, on February 9, 2009, MRU announced that it had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. The Company's shares have been delisted from the NASDAQ stock exchange, and currently trade at less than $.01 per share. For more details, contact: Eva Hromadkova Brian Brooks Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076 e-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com SIMON PROPERTY: Continues to Face Lawsuits Over Gift Card Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- Simon Property Group, L.P. continues to face two purported class-action suits involving gift card sales, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. For several years, the company has been defending actions brought by the Attorneys General of Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut in their respective state courts and similar litigation brought by other parties alleging that the sale of co-branded, bank-issued gift cards by Simon Property's affiliate, SPGGC, Inc., at certain of the company's properties, violated state gift certificate and consumer protection laws. The New Hampshire litigation has been dismissed. During the fourth quarter of 2008, the complaint in the Massachusetts litigation was dismissed and the company settled the Connecticut litigation. The only remaining legal proceedings involving gift card sales are two purported class actions brought by private parties in New York. Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group, L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership and the majority-owned subsidiary of Simon Property Group, Inc. The company owns, develops, and manages retail real estate properties in five retail real estate platforms: regional malls, Premium Outlet Centers(R), The Mills(R), community/lifestyle centers, and international properties. UTSTARCOM INC: June 19 Hearing Set for "Rudolph" Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A June 19, 2009 preliminary approval hearing has been set for the tentative settlement of the remaining claims in a class- action lawsuit entitled "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-04578-SI." The purported shareholder class-action lawsuit was filed on Sept. 4, 2007, against UTSTARCOM, Inc. and some of its current and former directors and officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 through undisclosed improper accounting practices concerning the company's historical equity award grants. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common stock between July 24, 2002, and Sept. 4, 2007. On Dec. 14, 2007, the court appointed James R. Bartholomew as lead plaintiff. On Jan. 25, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint and in April, the court granted a motion by the company to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the lead plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint no later than May 16, 2008, which the lead plaintiff did so. On June 6, 2008, the defendants again filed a motion to dismiss, this time pertaining to the second amended complaint. On Aug. 21, 2008, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The parties have reached a tentative settlement in the case, subject to final documentation and court approval. A preliminary approval hearing is currently set for June 19, 2009. The tentative settlement reached by the parties is 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 period ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Peter Rudolph v. UTStarcom, et al., Case No. 3:07- cv-04578-SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq. (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-398-8700 Fax: 415-398-8704 - and - Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. (ekt@ftllaw.com) Attorney at Law 1050 30th Street Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Representing the defendants is: Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 UTSTARCOM INC: Securities Litigation Remains Ongoing in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Beginning in October 2004, several shareholder class-action complaints alleging federal securities violations were filed against the company and various officers and directors. The actions were later consolidated as "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation." The lead plaintiffs in the case filed a first amended consolidated complaint on July 26, 2005, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock after April 16, 2003, and before Sept. 20, 2004. On April 13, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, adding new allegations and extending the end of the class period to Oct. 6, 2005. In addition to the company defendants, the plaintiffs are also suing Softbank. The plaintiffs' complaint seeks recovery of damages in an unspecified amount. On June 2, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On March 21, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the second amended complaint. The court, however, granted the plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint, which the plaintiffs did on May 25, 2007. On July 13, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the third amended complaint. This was granted by the court, but with leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which the plaintiffs also did on May 14, 2008. On June 13, 2008, consistent with the Court's March 14, 2008 dismissal order, the company and the individual defendants filed objections to the form and content of the fourth amended complaint. On July 24, 2008, the court overruled the objections, but stated that the company and the individual defendants would be permitted to file a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike the fourth amended complaint. On Sept. 8, 2008, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to strike certain allegations from the Fourth Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2009, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss and granted defendants' motion to strike, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "In re: UTSTARCOM, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge James Ware, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. (patc@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 - and - Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. Glancy & Binkow, LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 Fax: 310-201-9160 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants are: Boris Feldman, Esq. (boris.feldman@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-565-5100 - and - Scott Christensen Hall, Esq. (halls@sullcrom.com) Sullivan & Cromwell 1870 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-461-5600 Fax: 650-461-5700 WAL-MART STORES: LakinChapman LLC Files Suit Over Return Policy --------------------------------------------------------------- LakinChapman, LLC has filed a class action complaint in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. alleging that it has failed to live up to the terms of its return policy. LakinChapman, LLC has filed a class action complaint (Cause No. 09-L- 525) in the circuit court of Madison County, Illinois against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleging that it has failed to live up to the terms of its return policy. The Complaint alleges that while Wal-Mart promises to refund to its customers what they paid for merchandise, it fails to do so if the merchandise is returned to a Wal-Mart store location with a lower applicable sales tax rate than where the merchandise was originally purchased. LakinChapman, LLC Managing Partner Brad Lakin, in denouncing Wal-Mart's practices, said, "If a consumer buys merchandise at the Collinsville Wal Mart and returns it to the Glen Carbon Wal Mart he or she should get back exactly what they paid for the merchandise. What he or she receives should not depend on the sales tax rate of the store where the merchandise is returned. That's the promise Wal Mart has made to its customers and the one it should keep. We filed this class action to recover what rightfully belongs to consumers and force Wal Mart to stop this practice. Other retailers keep their promise and return exactly what was paid for merchandise no matter where it's returned. Why shouldn't Wal Mart?" For more details, contact: LakinChapman, LLC 300 Evans Avenue P.O. Box 229 Wood River, IL 62095-0229 Phone: (618) 208-4240 or (866) 839-2021 Fax: (618) 254-0193 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER CORE: Girard Gibbs LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Girard Gibbs has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (OPIGX, OIGBX, OPBCX). The complaint alleges that Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, while representing itself as conservative and appropriate as "a long-term investment" and as "part of a retirement plan portfolio" was exceeding its own risk controls by investing in high-risk, highly leveraged bets that directly conflicted with its stated conservative strategy. The Core Bond Fund lost more than 35 percent of its value in 2008 and another 10 percent in the first three months of 2009 alone. The class action, entitled "Ferguson v. OppenheimerFunds Inc. et al," is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. It names as defendants Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, OppenheimerFunds and certain of its officers and directors. OppenheimerFunds is a subsidiary of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company ("MassMutual"). Defendants are charged with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Investment Company Act of 1940 for issuing false and misleading statements as to the Fund's overall strategy and investment objectives in the Fund's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 22, 2009. For more details, contact: Regina A. Sandler, Esq. (ras@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: (866) 981-4800 Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/opigx POPULAR INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Popular, Inc. (NASDAQ: BPOPN) during the period between January 23, 2008 and January 22, 2009, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's deferred tax assets related to its U.S. operations were materially overstated; that the Company was experiencing increasing loan losses in Puerto Rico and the U.S. construction sectors; that the quality of the Company's remaining mortgage- related loans in its U.S. mainland portfolios and other assets were deteriorating and were materially overstated; that the Company was experiencing a higher percentage of non-performing loans; that the Company's new loan originations were declining; and that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company would soon be facing liquidity concerns and would be forced to cut or eliminate paying a dividend to shareholders. According to the complaint, on January 22, 2009, after the Company revealed a net loss of over $700 million from, among other things, high provisions for loan losses, for the fourth quarter of 2008, the value of Popular's stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (hoffman@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com ********* 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 * * *