/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 106 Headlines ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in Contact Lens Lawsuit AMERICAN TOWER: Securities Litigation in Mass. Ended in Jan. '09 ARGUS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Madoff-Related Suit AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Names Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Suit COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Calif. Franchises Face Lawsuit Over Tips HUNTSMAN CORP: 2011 Trial Set for Consolidated Antitrust Suit HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed HUNTSMAN CORP: Shareholder Suits Over Merger Pending in Delaware HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada IBASIS INC: To Defend Consumer Suit Over Prepaid Calling Cards INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled by Dec. INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Reaffirms Miss. Funds' Appointment to Suit NETFLIX INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in California NETFLIX INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit for Calif. Marketing Violations OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on Feb. 27 OPPENHEIMER CORE: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo. PEABODY ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. STAMPS.COM: Awaits N.Y. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $4M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits WEYERHAEUSER CO: Alder Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ADVANCED MEDICAL: Court Certifies Class in Contact Lens Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Justice Butler of the British Columbia Supreme Court has certified a national class action for Canadians injured by COMPLETE All-In-One Contact Lens Care Solution. The product was recalled from the Canadian market on May 28, 2007 following reports linking it to a serious eye infection known as acanthamoeba keratitis. The case was brought by Trina Chalmers and Michelle Hutton who were both infected with this disease after using the contact lens solution. The class action was certified against the manufacturers of the product, Advanced Medical Optics, Inc. and AMO Canada Company. Ms. Chalmers underwent six months of round the clock treatments with harsh chemicals in effort to eradicate the infection. Ms. Hutton lost vision in her right eye due to the infection. Acanthamoeba keratitis is a parasitical infection. Its symptoms may include eye pain or redness, blurred vision, light sensitivity, sensation of something in the eye or excessive tearing. Acanthamoeba keratitis may lead to vision loss, or even loss of the eye, with some patients requiring a corneal transplant. The B.C. Centre for Disease Control recorded 32 cases of Acanthamoeba keratitis in the province between January 2005 and May 2008, with a spike in cases coinciding with the marketing of the Defendants' product. In Ontario, Toronto Western Hospital also recorded a spike in cases, with 41 cases diagnosed at just one hospital over a similar period. The total number of cases across Canada is unknown. Health Canada has recorded 90 complaints of adverse effects related to the contact lens solution. Ms. Chalmers and Ms. Hutton are represented by the Vancouver class action firm, Klein Lyons. Their lawyer, David Klein, says "Our clients are very pleased with the court's decision. It has been exactly two years now since this product was recalled. Canadians rely upon drug companies to ensure that their products are safe and effective. Acanthamoeba keratitis is a very painful and debilitating disease. It is time for the Defendants to compensate Canadians who have been injured by this product. The decision of Mr. Justice Butler clears the way for Trina and Michelle, and other Canadians like them, to bring this case to trial." For more details, contact: David Klein, Klein Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors, Suite 1100, 1333 West Broadway, Vancouver, B.C., Phone: (604) 874-7171 Fax: (604) 874-7180 Web site: http://www.kleinlyons.com AMERICAN TOWER: Securities Litigation in Mass. Ended in Jan. '09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class-action litigation captioned "In re American Tower Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW) (D. Mass.)," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettshas ended, according to defendant American Tower Corp.'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 was filed by John S. Greenebaum in 2006. Also named as plaintiff in the case is Steamship Trade Association- International Longshoremen's Association Pension Fund. The complaint names the company, James D. Taiclet Jr., and Bradley E. Singer as defendants. It alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws in connection with public statements made relating to the company's stock option practices and related accounting. The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. It seeks monetary relief. In December 2006, the court appointed the Steamship Trade Association-International Longshoreman's Association Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff. On March 26, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint, which includes additional current and former officers and directors of the company as defendants. In December 2007, the company announced that it had reached a settlement in principle regarding the securities class action. The settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the court in February 2008, provided for a payment by the company of $14 million and would lead to a dismissal of all claims against all defendants in the litigation. The company paid $250,000 of the settlement amount to an escrow account controlled by the plaintiffs during the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In April 2008, the company paid the remaining settlement amount of $13.8 million into escrow and received $12.5 million in insurance proceeds. In May 2008, the original plaintiff, Mr. Greenebaum, filed an objection to the settlement. Following a hearing in June 2008, the Court dismissed Mr. Greenebaum's objection and approved the settlement. In July 2008, Mr. Greenebaum filed an untimely request to opt- out of the settlement class certified by the Court, which the Court denied in August 2008. Mr. Greenebaum filed a notice of appeal of the Court's final order approving the settlement agreement and of the Court's decision denying his untimely request to opt out of the settlement class. In December 2008, the company entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Greenebaum providing for payment by the company of $5,000, which the Court approved in January 2009. In January 2009, the lead plaintiff also entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Greenebaum. As a result of these settlements, Mr. Greenebaum withdrew his appeals, effectively ending the litigation. The suit is "In re American Tower Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 06 CV 10933 (MLW)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Mark L. Wolf, presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Jason B. Adkins, Esq. (jadkins@akzlaw.com) Adkins, Kelston and Zavez, P.C. 90 Canal Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617-367-1040 Fax: 617-742-8280 - and - David J. Goldsmith, Esq. Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017-5563 Phone: 212-907-0700 Representing the company is: Michael T. Gass, Esq. (mgass@eapdlaw.com) Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP 111 Huntington Avenue Boston, MA 02199 Phone: 617-239-0100 Fax: 617-227-4420 ARGUS GROUP: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Madoff-Related Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Argus Group Holdings Ltd. agreed in principle to settle a class- action lawsuit pending in a New York court relating to losses stemming from the Bernard Madoff fraud, Jonathan Kent of the Royal Gazette reports. According to Argus chief executive officer Gerald Simons, the settlement, which is subject to documentation and court approval, would eliminate the expense and uncertainty of continuing litigation, reports the Royal Gazette. The Royal Gazette reported that the terms of settlement include no financial settlement to be paid to policyholders. The agreement comprises "a broad package of relief, including loans to policyholders, the assignment of certain Argus International claims to a litigation trust, and cooperation by Argus International in connection with litigation of the assigned claims," according to the company. "In exchange, the Argus Group and Argus International will obtain broad releases relating to the claims in the litigation and other protections and relief," according to the Royal Gazette report. On Jan. 20, 2009, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class-action suit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Variable Universal Life Insurance (VUL) Policies issued by Tremont International Insurance Limited or Argus International Bermuda Limited [AGH BH] (collectively, the "Insurer") from Jan. 1, 2003 through the present (the "Class Period"), against Argus International Life Bermuda Limited, Argus Group Holdings Limited, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., Oppenheimer Acquisition Corporation, Rye Investment Management, Rye Select Broad Market Fund L.P., Rye Select Broad Market Insurance Portfolio, LDC, Tremont [Bermuda] Limited, Tremont Capital Management Inc., Tremont Group Holdings, Inc., Tremont International Insurance Limited, and Tremont Partners Inc., and arising out of the $50 billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Bernard Madoff. The complaint asserts that, during the Class Period, the Insurer, originally an entity owned by Tremont Capital Management Inc., breached its fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class by offering Tremont-related funds as viable investment options for the variable investment account component of the VUL policies. Despite the fact that the income streams from the variable investment accounts are often used by VUL policyholders to pay premiums under the policy, the Insurer offered Tremont-related funds without investigating the suitability of such investments for policyholders and concealed that the Tremont-related funds in fact were heavily invested in Madoff. The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants failed to perform the necessary due diligence that they were being compensated to perform as investment managers and fiduciaries. Defendants allowed billions of dollars of their clients' money to be invested with Madoff and his related entities without performing adequate due diligence despite the abnormally high and stable positive investment results reportedly obtained by Madoff regardless of market conditions; the inconsistencies between Madoff's publicly available financial information and the purported amounts that Madoff managed for clients; and the fact that Madoff's firm was audited by a small, obscure accounting firm with no experience auditing entities of that apparent size and complexity. These red flags should have alerted Defendants that Madoff's returns were suspiciously aggressive despite the performance of the overall market. Defendants either knew or should have known that the Tremont- related fund assets were employed as part of a massive Ponzi scheme and took no steps in a good faith effort to prevent or remedy that situation, proximately causing billions of dollars of losses. By acting with gross negligence, recklessness and/or in breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff and other Class members, Defendants caused and/or permitted Plaintiff and other class members to choose improper and inappropriate investments that have decimated the variable investment account component of their VULs, and, most egregiously, placed these VUL policies at risk of lapsing. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused to the Class by Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties and to protect the VULs, and the associated death benefits, from premature lapsing. The case name is styled, "Chateau Fiduciare S.A. as Trustee of the Map Trust v. Argus International Life Bermuda Ltd., et al." For more details, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phgone: 800-575-0735 e-mail: classmember@whafh.com Web site: http://www.whafh.com AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: Faces N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Australia and New Zealand Banking Group, Ltd., its chairman Charles Goode, and top executives, past and present, face a class-action suit from U.S. investors for misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the fallen stock lender Opes Prime, Michael West of The Sydney Morning Herald reports. Previously, the law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody announces that it filed a class-action lawsuit on December 29, 2008 on behalf of purchasers of the American Depositary Receipts of Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (PINKSHEETS: ANZBY) during the period March 2, 2007 through July 27, 2008. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08-CV-11278 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2009). The complaint alleges that the Company and its top executives violated the federal securities laws. It charges that ANZ failed to adequately disclose the range of risks arising from its loans to Opes Prime Group Limited, an Australian stock brokerage firm that lent money to customers on margin. ANZ had lent hundreds of millions of dollars to this failed brokerage house, but without adequate disclosure of the risks the loans posed to ANZ. The day before the Company announced its losses stemming from exposure to Opes Prime, its stock (ADRs) closed at a high of $17.24. The following day, after ANZ's announcement, ANZ's stock price dropped to $14.57. ANZ's stock is currently trading at $9.90. For more details, contact: Tzivia Brody, Esq. 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 CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Court Names Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the selection of a United Food and Commercial Workers pension fund as the lead plaintiff, and the firm Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP to serve as lead counsel, in a putative securities class-action lawsuit over alleged omissions in financial information for Chesapeake Energy Corp., Law360 reports. Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on May 28, 2009, according to the Law360 report. Previously, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Chesapeake Energy Corporation stock issued pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 secondary public stock offering (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2009). The complaint charges Chesapeake, certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Chesapeake is the third largest independent producer of natural gas in the United States. Chesapeake's strategy is focused on discovering, acquiring and developing conventional and unconventional natural gas reserves onshore in the United States, east of the Rocky Mountains. According to the complaint, on July 15, 2008, Chesapeake completed a secondary public offering of 28.75 million shares of common stock at $57.25 per share, receiving approximately $1.65 billion in gross proceeds, with net proceeds of $1.586 billion. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Offering was materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose numerous facts which were required to be stated therein, including: -- that the Company's exposure to natural gas price declines had not been adequately limited by the hedging actions the Company had undertaken prior to the Offering, including its decision to increase its hedge position from 20% to 80% of its production, as a growing proportion of the hedging agreements on Chesapeake's 2009 production contained so-called "knockout" provisions that eliminated the counter- party's financial obligation once the price of natural gas fell below a certain benchmark; -- though the Company disclosed it had entered into hedging contracts to protect its production from falling prices, the Registration Statement failed to disclose that a significant proportion of these contracts had been made with one of the underwriters in the Offering, Lehman Brothers, though based on Lehman Brothers' rapidly declining financial condition, Lehman Brothers would be unable to fulfill its financial commitment - rendering Chesapeake's "protection" meaningless; -- in the months leading up to the Offering, Chesapeake's aggressive hedging activities (and those of certain of the underwriter defendants) had been significantly running up the price of natural gas and Chesapeake's stock price, which moves in tandem with natural gas prices; -- that Chesapeake's "land men," i.e., lease brokers, had been aggressively bidding up the prices Chesapeake was obligated to pay in leases and royalty agreements in the months leading up to the Offering, causing Chesapeake to pay unreasonably high prices for certain leases and royalty contracts; -- that the Company was failing to write down impaired goodwill on the assets it was acquiring, causing its balance sheet and financial results to be artificially inflated; and -- that the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its goodwill. During late 2008 and early 2009, as these omitted facts were revealed to the market, the price of Chesapeake stock declined to less than $12 per share, approximately 80% below the Offering price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Chesapeake stock issued pursuant to the Registration Statement issued in connection with Chesapeake's July 2008 Offering. For more details, contact: David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/chesapeake/ COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Calif. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC announced on May 28, 2009 that Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the federal district court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) has denied Countrywide Financial Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint against the lender, with the exception of the claims of a single plaintiff whose claims were dismissed due to lack of standing. The plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation have accused Countrywide of steering borrowers into risky and inappropriate subprime mortgages irrespective of their suitability to borrowers in order to maximize profits. Judge Sabraw, who is overseeing the litigation against Countrywide entitled, "In Re Countrywide Financial Corp Mortgage Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, case number 08-md- 01988," sustained all of plaintiffs' claims except those of a plaintiff who filed for bankruptcy and failed to substitute his bankruptcy trustee as a plaintiff. The claims of plaintiffs in the consolidated actions "Levas v. Bank of America Corp.," "Jackson v. Countrywide Financial Corp.," and "White v. Countrywide Financial Corp.," include violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO, violation of California's unfair competition and false advertising statutes, and unjust enrichment. Judge Sabraw rejected Countrywide's argument that the RICO enterprise the plaintiffs had alleged among independent mortgage brokers and Countrywide was not valid because the plaintiffs had not alleged connections between the independent mortgage brokers. In a previous motion to dismiss, the defendants had argued that the so-called "hub-and-spoke" structure of that enterprise was invalid under RICO. Judge Sabraw had previously rejected that argument on a prior motion to dismiss, noting that the Ninth Circuit does not require a specific organizational structure for RICO enterprises, and stated in his May 18 decision that the court found "no reason to depart from its previous conclusion." "We are pleased that we are helping the ultimate victims of the mortgage scheme that has nearly destroyed our economy," said Joe R. Whatley of the firm Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC, co-lead interim class counsel in the multidistrict litigation. He added, "We intend to continue to prosecute this action until those who obtained subprime mortgages from Countrywide are adequately compensated." Countrywide had also requested that the court reconsider its decision on an earlier motion to dismiss wherein it sustained an alternative RICO enterprise the plaintiffs had alleged, the "Countrywide Enterprise," consisting solely of Countrywide and its subsidiaries. Countrywide argued that the court had previously misapplied the law concerning RICO enterprises among parents and subsidiaries, but Judge Sabraw stated that he found Countrywide's arguments on this point "unpersuasive." Judge Sabraw also denied Countrywide's motion to strike an allegation of unfair conduct under California state law, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits the striking of "any redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter." Judge Sabraw noted that it appeared that the motion was actually directed at the legal sufficiency of the allegations under Rule 12(b)(6), but concluded that the allegations were both sufficient under 12(b)(6) and proper under 12(f), and thus denied the motion to strike. For more details, contact: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC Phone: 212-447-7011 Web site: http://www.wdklaw.com HOOTERS OF AMERICA: Calif. Franchises Face Lawsuit Over Tips ------------------------------------------------------------ Several franchises of Hooters of America, Inc. face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that some of the tips left by grateful customers for barmaids and wait staff at Hooters restaurants in the Bay Area were diverted into managers' "slush funds," Josh Richman of The Oakland Tribune reports. The suit was filed on May 28, 2009 in the Alameda County Superior Court by eight former Hooters employees against the owners and senior managers of the Dublin, Fremont, San Francisco and Campbell franchises, according to The Oakland Tribune report. It also claims "Hooters Girls" weren't granted rest and meal breaks during their shifts; had to buy their own trademark hot pants, T-shirt and pantyhose uniforms from the restaurants; had to pay or face discipline for cash shortages or customer walkouts; and weren't paid for work at special events, The Oakland Tribune reported. The plaintiffs in the suit, who are represented by attorney Burton Boltuch, Esq., include: -- Dina Partridge, 29, of Pleasanton, who was a Hooters Girl, bartender and assistant manager at the Dublin eatery; and -- Jessica Rose, 23, of San Ramon, who worked as a Hooters Girl and bartender at the Dublin restaurant last year. The damages sought will depend on how many former employees join the class-action litigation, Mr. Boltuch tells The Oakland Tribune. Any nonsupervisory workers at the four restaurants in the past four years may be eligible, he adds. Atlanta-based Hooters of America Inc., which is not named in the lawsuit, owns 122 restaurants and franchises 328 others in 43 states and more than two dozen countries. The chain is known as much for its scantily-clad female servers as for its signature chicken wings, reports The Oakland Tribune. HUNTSMAN CORP: 2011 Trial Set for Consolidated Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A May 3, 2011 trial has been set for the consolidated antitrust class-action lawsuit filed against Huntsman Corp. and several other defendants over an alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, toluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries. The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases" in multi-district litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases filed on Aug. 23, 2004. The case is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell. These cases purport to be brought on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers of MDI, TDI and polyether polyols. The Kansas court has ruled that plaintiffs may prosecute the Polyether Polyols cases on behalf of a class of all direct purchasers of polyether polyol products in the U.S. Bayer has entered into a settlement with the plaintiffs' class and has been dismissed as a defendant. Merits discovery is underway, and trial has been set for May 3, 2011, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com) Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: 415-563-7200 Fax: 415-346-0679 - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net) Arthur N. Bailey & Associates 111 West Second Street, Suite 4500 Jamestown, NY 14701 Phone: 716-664-2967 Fax: 716-664-2983 Representing the defendants are: Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com) Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-983-8128 Fax: 816-983-8080 - and - James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com) Ray, Quinney & Nebeker 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-323-3337 Fax: 801-532-7543 HUNTSMAN CORP: California Antitrust Lawsuit Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit pending in a California state court against Huntsman Corp. and several other defendants over an alleged conspiracy to fix prices of certain rubber and urethane products remains stayed. The other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases," also known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," are also defendants in this case. The California action has been stayed pending disposition of the "Polyether Polyols Cases." Huntsman Corp. reported no further development regarding the matter in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical products. The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes, Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments. Its products are used in a range of applications, including those in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries. The company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide. HUNTSMAN CORP: Shareholder Suits Over Merger Pending in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corp. continues to face three putative shareholder class-action complaints in Delaware in relation to the company's then-proposed sale to Basell AF and the receipt of a superior proposal from Hexion Specialty Chemicals. From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four putative shareholder class- action complaints were filed against the company and its directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with its proposed sale to Basell and the receipt of Hexion's proposal. Three actions were filed in Delaware: -- Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070, in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 5, 2007); -- Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076, in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 9, 2007); and -- Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094, in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware (filed July 13, 2007). Another action was filed in Texas, captioned, "Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corporation, et al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV." It was filed in the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas on July 6, 2007. As subsequently amended, these lawsuits together allege that the company and its directors breached fiduciary duties to the stockholders by, among other things, engaging in an unfair sales process, approving an unfair price per share for the Merger with Hexion, and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders, and that Basell, Hexion and MatlinPatterson entities aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger. On Sept. 20, 2007, the company entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware and Texas actions to settle these four lawsuits. As part of the proposed settlement, the defendants denied all allegations of wrongdoing, but the company agreed to make certain additional disclosures in the final proxy statement that was mailed to its stockholders on or about Sept. 14, 2007. In connection with the settlement, the parties also reached an agreement with respect to any application that the plaintiffs' counsel would have made for an award of customary attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid following the completion of the Merger. The Memorandum of Understanding is now null and void and of no force and effect because the Merger was not consummated. The Texas action has been voluntarily dismissed, but there have been no further developments in the Delaware actions at this time, 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. Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical products. The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes, Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments. Its products are used in a range of applications, including those in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries. The company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide. HUNTSMAN CORP: Urethane Antitrust Suits Still Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corp. and certain other firms continue to face putative antitrust class-action lawsuits in Canada, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di- isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries. The lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006. According to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009, there has been little activity in these cases since they were filed. Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is a manufacturer of differentiated chemical products and inorganic chemical products. The company operates in four segments: Polyurethanes, Materials and Effects, Performance Products and Pigments. Its products are used in a range of applications, including those in the adhesives, aerospace, automotive, construction products, durable and non-durable consumer products, electronics, medical, packaging, paints and coatings, power generation, refining, synthetic fiber, textile chemicals and dye industries. The company's products include methyl diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), amines, surfactants, epoxy-based polymer formulations, textile chemicals, dyes, maleic anhydride and titanium dioxide. IBASIS INC: To Defend Consumer Suit Over Prepaid Calling Cards -------------------------------------------------------------- iBasis, Inc. intends to defend against the claims asserted in a putative consumer class-action complaint filed on behalf of Mr. Orlando Ramirez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company was named in a putative consumer class-action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The company was served on May 27, 2008. The putative class-action plaintiff, Orlando Ramirez, asserted violations of consumer protection statutes in New Jersey and other states on behalf of an asserted nationwide class of purchasers due to an alleged failure to adequately disclose the actual calling time available on iBasis' prepaid calling cards. The company filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern District of New York where named plaintiff resides and purchased the card. Plaintiffs were granted a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, on July 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint was filed against the company on behalf of Mr. Ramirez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company was served with the summons and complaint on April 16, 2009. The company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the complaint, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009. iBasis, Inc. -- http://www.ibasis.com/-- is a wholesale carrier of international long distance telephone calls and a provider of retail prepaid calling services and enhanced services for mobile operators. The company's operations consist of wholesale trading business (Trading), in which it connects buyers and sellers of international telecommunications services, and retail services business (Retail). INTERSTATE HOTELS: Expects Settlement Payments Fulfilled by Dec. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. expects payments for settlement of a labor-related class action lawsuit and related legal and administrative fees to be made by Dec. 31, 2009. During the third quarter of 2008, the company reached a settlement with plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed against numerous defendants including, Sunstone Hotel Properties, Inc., its subsidiary management company. The lawsuit alleged that the defendants did not compensate hourly employees for break time in accordance with California state labor requirements. The company's portion of the gross settlement agreed upon was $1.7 million, which includes approximately $0.5 million to be paid for the plaintiffs' legal costs and other various administrative costs to oversee payment to the individuals who will participate in the settlement. The remaining $1.2 million of the gross settlement is the maximum amount that the company's subsidiary has agreed to pay out to participating plaintiffs in the aggregate. As part of this settlement, the company has guaranteed that it will make a minimum payment to all participating plaintiffs of at least 50 percent of the proposed settlement, or approximately $0.6 million, according to its May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. -- http://www.ihrco.com-- is a hotel real estate investor and an independent operator. The company operates in two segments: hotel ownership (through whole-ownership and joint ventures) and hotel management. INVENTIV HEALTH: June 5 Hearing Set for "Weisz" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A June 5, 2009 hearing to consider final approval of the settlement in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No. GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- has been set. The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies. The litigation alleged, among other claims, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs. An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris as a defendant to the lawsuit. A subsequent amendment to the complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class representative to the purported class action. After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as the remaining defendants in the action. In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach of privacy claims. The plaintiff's class allegations were stricken as improper with leave to amend. An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008. The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper. These motions were denied. In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted. As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris: -- violation of the CMIA; -- breach of fiduciary duty; -- unjust enrichment; and -- breach of privacy. On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Adheris intends to join in these arguments. This motion currently is set to be heard on Oct. 3, 2008. On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60- day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through mediation. The agreement included taking off calendar all pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days. The parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing for mediation. On Feb. 8, 2009, the remaining parties to the Weisz action entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release. Under the terms of the Weisz Settlement, which has been preliminarily approved by the court but remains subject to final court approval after a fairness hearing, Adheris would agree to refrain from knowing participation in any refill reminder programs, targeted mailings or notifications regarding medical conditions of specific California residents except those residents who have expressly opted in to the communication or as otherwise permitted by California law. Adheris currently does not conduct significant business in California of the type encompassed by Weisz Settlement. It is expected that Adheris' financial contribution to the settlement in excess of its retention amount will be funded by insurance. The company's insurer, AIG, is defending this action under reservation of rights. The hearing to consider final approval of the Weisz Settlement is scheduled for June 5, 2009. The court-ordered period for objection to the settlement expired on April 27, 2009 and to date no objections to the settlement have been received by the company, 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. inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life sciences and healthcare industries. The company supports a range of clinical development, communications and commercialization activities that are critical to its customers' ability to complete the development of drug products and medical devices and commercialize them. inVentiv provides services to over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and payors. The company's service offerings reflect the changing needs of its clients as their products move through the late- stage development and regulatory approval processes and into product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle. MERCK & CO: Faces Vioxx-Related Litigation in Australian Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc., and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, are facing a purported class-action lawsuit in Australia in connection with Vioxx, The Australian reports. The lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, who filed the suit on behalf of more than 1,000 Australians, blames Vioxx for his heart attack in December 2003. Mr. Peterson says Merck knew of the cardiovascular risks of the blockbuster anti-arthritis drug but played it down in the lead-up to Vioxx's voluntary withdrawal in 2004, according to The Australian report. Kate Hagan of The Age previously reported that the suit, which is pending in the Federal Court of Australia, was brought on behalf of every Australian who had cardiovascular conditions after completing at least one prescription of Vioxx between June 30, 1999, and its worldwide recall in 2004. MERRILL LYNCH: Judge Reaffirms Miss. Funds' Appointment to Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York reaffirmed a Mississippi public pension fund as lead plaintiff in a consolidated class-action suit over subprime mortgage-backed investments offered by Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Law360 reports. Citing a retainer agreement between a rival fund and its counsel, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Judge Rakoff issued the expanded ruling on May 26, 2009 after naming the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as the lead plaintiff in the case, according to the Law360 report. NETFLIX INC: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. faces a consolidated purported anti-trust class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In January and February 2009, a number of purported anti-trust class action suits were filed against the company. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Walmart.com USA LLC were also named as defendants in these suits. Most of the suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and other federal district courts around the country. A number of suits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County. The plaintiffs, who are current or former Netflix customers, generally allege that Netflix and Wal-Mart entered into an agreement to divide the markets for sales and online rentals of DVDs in the United States, which resulted in higher Netflix subscription prices. The complaints, which assert violation of federal and/or state antitrust laws, seek injunctive relief, costs (including attorneys' fees) and damages in an unspecified amount. On Jan. 16, 2009, plaintiffs from one of the Northern District of California actions filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to have all cases that have been filed in federal court coordinated or consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the Northern District of California. On April 10, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered all cases pending in federal court transferred to the Northern District of California to be consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial purposes. The company has not responded to the complaints, according to its May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie rental subscription service in the United States to approximately 10 million subscribers. The company offers a variety of plans and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming content choices. NETFLIX INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit for Calif. Marketing Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Netflix, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over alleged violations by certain of the company's marketing statements in California. On April 1, 2009, Jay Nunez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated in California, filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the company in California Superior Court, County of Orange. The complaint asserts claims of unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices and violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act relating to certain of the company's marketing statements. The complaint seeks restitution, injunction and other relief. The company has not responded to the complaint, according to its May 7, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Netflix, Inc. -- http://www.netflix.com/-- provides online movie rental subscription service in the United States to approximately 10 million subscribers. The company offers a variety of plans and provides subscribers access to over 100,000 digital versatile disc (DVD) and Blu-ray titles plus more than 12,000 streaming content choices. OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Securities Suit Settlement Approved on Feb. 27 --------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement in the matter, "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," was approved on Feb. 27, 2009, according to Openwave Systems, Inc.'s May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Previously, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for Feb. 27, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. before the Honorable Denise Cote, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11B, New York, NY 10007 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 17, 2008). Case Background Initially, between Feb. 21 and March 27, 2007, four substantially similar securities class-action complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Openwave and four current and former officers of the company. The complaints purport to be filed on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Openwave stock from Sept. 30, 2002, through Oct. 26, 2006, and allege that during the class period, the defendants engaged in improper stock options backdating and issued materially false and misleading statements in the company's public filings and press releases regarding the manner in which Openwave granted and accounted for the options. Based on these allegations, the complaints assert two causes of action -- one against all defendants for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and a second against the individual defendants for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 25, 2007, the company and the individual defendants filed a joint motion to transfer the actions to the Northern District of California where the related shareholder derivative class actions are pending. On May 18, 2007, the court entered an order consolidating the four securities class action suits into a single action captioned "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," and appointing a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On June 29, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint. The consolidated and amended complaint adds 17 additional defendants, including: * several current and former Openwave officers and directors, * KPMG LLP, * Merrill Lynch, * Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., * Lehman Brothers Inc., * J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc., and * Thomas Weisel Partners LLC The consolidated and amended complaint alleges claims for violation of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as claims for violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 arising out of the company's 2005 public offering. It seeks money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company is required under contracts with the individual defendants to indemnify them under certain circumstances for attorneys' fees and expenses. The Arkansas Teacher Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel for all plaintiffs in the consolidated actions and the class. On Aug. 10, 2007, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action complaint. On Oct. 31, 2007, the court granted the motions to dismiss claims asserted under the Securities Act of 1933 as to all defendants against whom those claims were asserted, and granted the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 claims against certain of the officer and director defendants. However, the motion to dismiss the Exchange claims asserted against Openwave and certain of the other director and officer defendants was denied. As a result of the court's decision, KPMG LLP, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Lehman Brothers Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, and Thomas Weisel Partners have all been dismissed as defendants from the consolidated lawsuit. The remaining defendants are the company, certain former officers of the company, and certain former and current directors of the company. The parties commenced discovery with respect to class certification and the merits. On June 23, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On July 18, 2008, the company filed its opposition to the lead plaintiff's motion, and all of the individual defendants joined in that opposition. On Oct. 24, 2008, while the motion for class certification was pending and discovery was ongoing, the lead plaintiff and defendants reached an agreement to settle the action. On Nov. 5, 2008, the court entered a preliminary order approving the settlement. The settlement will be funded in part by insurance and in part by the company. The settlement is subject to court approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 16, 2009). Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, on Dec. 5, 2008, the company contributed $5.0 million and the insurance carriers contributed $15.0 million to the settlement fund. This $20.0 million estimated liability was recorded in the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2008, with a corresponding $15.0 million recorded in Insurance receivable for legal settlement on the consolidated balance sheet, and $5.0 million recorded in Legal settlement costs on the consolidate statement of operations (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2009). On Feb. 27, 2009, after a hearing concerning the proposed settlement and related matters, the court entered an order approving the settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate to the settlement class members and subsequently entered a final judgment. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the company contributed $5.0 million and the insurance carriers contributed $15.0 million to the settlement fund. This $20.0 million estimated liability was recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008, with a corresponding $15.0 million recorded in Insurance receivable for legal settlement on the consolidated balance sheet, and $5.0 million recorded in Legal settlement costs on the consolidated statement of operations. The suit, "In re: Openwave Systems Securities Litigation (Master File 07-1309 (DLC))," is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Denise L. Cote, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Laura Helen Gundersheim, Esq. (Laurag@blbglaw.com) Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-554-1463 Fax: 212-554-1444 - and - Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. (jabraham@aftlaw.com) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 Representing the defendants are: Marshall Ross King, Esq. (mking@gibsondunn.com) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Phone: 212-351-3905 Fax: 212-351-5243 - and - Andrew W. Stern, Esq. (astern@sidley.com) Sidley Austin LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-839-5300 Fax: 212-839-5599 OPPENHEIMER CORE: Investor Files Securities Fraud Suit in Colo. --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors of the Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund (NASDAQ: OPIGX) (NASDAQ: OIGBX) (NASDAQ: OPBCX) against Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, OppenheimerFunds, and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. The Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund was promoted as appropriate for, and was offered by, several 529 college savings plans, such as the Illinois 529 Bright Start plan, the Oregon College Savings Plan, the Texas Lonestar 529 Plan, Maine's NextGen College Investing Plan, the New Mexico Scholar's Edge and College Sense 529 plans and Nebraska's State Farm College Savings Plan. The Fund was also offered by several retirement plans and annuities. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated 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. Specifically the plaintiff accuses 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 names as defendants Oppenheimer Core Bond Fund, Oppenheimer Funds and certain of its officers and directors. Oppenheimer Funds is a subsidiary of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company. PEABODY ENERGY: Defends Suits Over Operations in Picher, Okla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Class-action lawsuits filed against one of Peabody Energy Corp.'s subsidiaries, Gold Fields Mining, LLC, are still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, 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. Gold Fields and two other companies are defendants in two class action lawsuits allegedly involving past operations near Picher, Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected individuals. Peabody Energy Corp. -- http://www.peabodyenergy.com/-- is a coal company. It sells coal to over 340 electricity generating and industrial plants in 19 countries. The Company owns majority interests in 31 coal operations located throughout all the United States coal producing regions and in Australia. In addition, it owns a minority interest in one Venezuelan mine, through a joint venture arrangement. Most of the production in the western United States is low-sulfur coal from the Powder River Basin. Peabody owns and operates six mines in Queensland, Australia, and five mines in New South Wales, Australia. STAMPS.COM: Awaits N.Y. Approval of Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A new proposed settlement relating to purported class-action lawsuits filed against Stamps.com Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York is still pending approval. In 2001, the company was named, together with certain of its current and former board members and/or officers, as a defendant in several purported class-action lawsuits, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuits allege violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act in connection with the company's initial public offering and a secondary offering of the company's common stock. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory compensation, including interest, costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees). In 2003, the company reached a proposed settlement that would not have required it to make any payments, which was ultimately terminated in 2007 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit determined that the class could not be certified as defined. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and proposed an alternative class definition in related litigation. In 2009, the company approved a new proposed settlement which has been documented and filed with the court for its review and approval. As with the company's previously proposed settlement, this proposed settlement would not require the Company to make any payments, 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. Stamps.com Inc. -- http://www.stamps.com/-- is a provider of Internet-based postage solutions. Its customers use the company's service to mail and ship a variety of mail pieces, including postcards, envelopes, flats, and packages, using a range of United States Postal Service (the USPS) mail classes including First Class Mail, Priority Mail, Express Mail, Media Mail, Parcel Post, and others. The company's customers include home businesses, small businesses, corporations, and individuals. It is an USPS-licensed vendor that offers personal computer (PC) Postage in a software-only business model. U.S. CONCRETE: Accrued $4M for Damages in Drivers' Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Concrete, Inc., at March 31, 2009, accrued $4.1 million for potential damages associated with four separate class-action suits pending against the company in Alameda Superior Court (California). The class-action suits were filed between April 6, 2007 and Sept. 27, 2007 on behalf of various Central Concrete Supply Company, Inc. ready-mixed concrete and transport drivers, alleging primarily that Central failed to provide meal and rest breaks as required under California law. The company has entered into settlements with one of the classes and a number of individual drivers. The company's accrual is based on those prior settlement values, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended March 31, 2009. U.S. Concrete, Inc. -- http://www.us-concrete.com/-- is a producer of ready-mixed concrete, precast concrete products and concrete-related products in select markets in the United States. The company operates its business through its ready- mixed concrete and concrete-related products segment, and its precast products concrete segment. As of March 12, 2009, the Company had 132 fixed and 12 portable ready-mixed concrete plants, seven precast concrete plants, one concrete block plant and seven producing aggregates facilities (including 27 fixed ready-mixed concrete plants and one masonry block plant operated by its 60%-owned Michigan subsidiary). The company operates in two business segments: ready-mixed concrete and concrete-related products, and precast concrete products. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Alder Suit Settlement Pending Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The agreement in principle to settle a purported antitrust class-action lawsuit against Weyerhaeuser Co. over alder logs and lumber is pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The suit was filed in 2004 before the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. It claims that as a result of the company's alleged monopolization of what was claimed to be the alder sawlog market in the Pacific Northwest, the company also had monopolized or controlled an alleged market for finished alder and charged monopoly prices for finished alder lumber. In 2004, the judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as class representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for the purpose of awarding monetary damages. In 2005, the class counsel notified the court that 5% of the class members opted out of the class-action lawsuit. In 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to file a second amended complaint, extended the claims period to Dec. 31, 2006, and scheduled trial on the matter for April 2008. In the same year, the court denied the company's motion to decertify the class. Also, in 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' request to file a third amended complaint, which eliminated all allegations of overbidding and overbuying of alder sawlogs as a mechanism to affect the price of alder lumber. In turn, the company filed a motion for summary judgment. In April 2008, a jury found in favor of the class and imposed trebled damages of $84 million. The company will appeal the judgment. Post-trial motions were briefed and argued to the court. In March 2009, the company reached an agreement in principle through mediation with Class Counsel to settle this matter. The settlement will not be final until approved by the District Court. Proceedings in this matter that are not related to the settlement have been suspended. The company established a reserve of $20 million during the first 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. Weyerhaeuser Co. -- http://www.weyerhaeuser.com/-- is an integrated forest products company. The company's business segments are Timberlands, which includes logs, chips and timber; Wood Products, which includes softwood lumber, engineered lumber, structural panels, hardwood lumber, and building materials distribution; Cellulose Fibers, which comprises pulp and liquid packaging board; Real Estate, which comprises real estate development, construction and sales, and Corporate and Other. The Company grows and harvests trees, builds homes, and makes wood and paper products. It has operations in 13 countries and has customers worldwide. The company manages 22 million acres of forests. New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Holzer Holzer Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf all persons or entities who purchased shares of Akeena Solar, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKNS) between December 26, 2007 and March 13, 2008. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the Company made false and misleading statements to the public with regard to a credit line increase Akeena had received, and the complaint also alleges Akeena misrepresented its sales figures. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 17, 2009. For more details, contact: Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq., (mfistel@holzerlaw.com) Marshall P. Dees, Esq. (mdees@holzerlaw.com) Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC Phone: (888) 508-6832 OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Milberg LLP Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Milberg LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased Class A and/or Class B and/or Class C shares of the Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals (NASDAQ: OPTAX) (NASDAQ: OTFBX) (NASDAQ: OMFCX) during the period from May 13, 2006 to October 21, 2008, inclusive. The complaint charges OppenheimerFunds, Inc., OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its trustees and officers with violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibit materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses of the kind used to sell shares in the Fund. The Fund invests primarily in municipal securities. According to the complaint, during the Class Period the Fund failed to disclose risk factors associated with the Fund's investments, including, but not limited to: -- the Fund's investments in "inverse floater" securities that exposed it to the risk that it would be forced to sell, upon certain occurrences relating to the inverse floater securities, other securities in its portfolio at fire-sale prices. This amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed potential liabilities; and -- the Fund's overconcentration of investments in illiquid securities in violation of its cap of 15% by investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal bonds/notes that could turn illiquid quickly. On October 21, 2008, the Fund filed a prospectus supplement alerting investors of the true liquidity risks of its investments -- the same risks that existed in 2006, 2007 and throughout 2008. By October 2008, however, those risks had already manifested, dealing substantial losses to investors. On October 21, 2008, AMT-Free Fund shares traded at approximately $5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of the year, an approximate 33.3% decline per share for the year. The AMT-Free Fund was among the worst performing in its peer group. According to the complaint, after the end of the Class Period, the AMT-Free Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and residual exposure from the inverse floaters, which investors were not previously told about. On December 18, 2008, the AMT- Free Fund reported in its Quarterly Schedule of Portfolio Holdings for the period ending October 31, 2008, filed on Form N-Q with the SEC ("October 31, 2008 Form N-Q"), that the amount of its exposure to the effects of leverage from its investments in inverse floaters exceeded $240.7 million as of October 31, 2008. In addition, the AMT-Free Fund also reported that its municipal bond holdings with a value of approximately $402.4 million were held by Trusts created by the inverse floaters and served as collateral for approximately $324.1 million in short- term floating rate notes issued and outstanding at that date, and its residual exposure to the inverse floating rate securities was estimated at nearly $218.7 million. The massive liabilities and exposure of more than $500 million were not disclosed in any Registration Statements issued during the Class Period. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 13, 2009. For more details, contact: Andrei Rado, Esq. Ted Swiecichowski, Esq. Milberg LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl. New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (800) 320-5081 e-mail: contactus@milberg.com Web site: http://www.milberg.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 * * *