/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090602.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 2, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 106 Headlines ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Suits v. Pharmaceutical Makers Pending ANDY WARHOL: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Paintings to Proceed APAC CUSTOMER: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Alleging FLSA Violations ARRIS GROUP: Contesting C-COR Ex-Workers' Suit for Overtime Pay ARVINMERITOR INC: Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers Still Pending CHEMTURA CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire CHEMTURA CORP: June 12 Hearing Set for Deal in Securities Suit CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale CLAYTON HOMES: Ark. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Agreement CME GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motions in Suits Over NYMEX Merger CME GROUP: Ruling on Settlement of CBOT Suit Over ERPs Pending CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Defends Calif. Employees' Lawsuit ELI LILLY: Faces La. Litigation Over Side Effects of Byetta Drug ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Reimbursements MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y Judge Explains Choices in Subprime Litigation MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Eleventh Circuit Sends Case Back to Ga. Judge OCCAM NETWORKS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends Wage, Hour Litigation in California PRINCETON REVIEW: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Security Incident QWEST COMMS: Colo. Judge Gives Final OK to $695M in Settlements SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Ill. Suit Over Several Fatal Crashes TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Venue Fight Occurs in Scalping Suits WORLD WRESTLING: Opposes Bid to Alter Dismissal of "Levy" Suit New Securities Fraud Cases MRU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit ********* ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN: Derivative Claims on Holding's Behalf Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated amended complaint with respect to derivative claims brought on behalf of AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. remains pending, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Oct. 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et al.," was filed against, among others, AllianceBernstein L.P., AllianceBernstein Holding L.P., and AllianceBernstein Corporation. The Hindo Complaint alleges that certain defendants failed to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market timing" of certain of the company's U.S. mutual fund securities, violating various securities laws. Following Oct. 2, 2003, additional lawsuits making factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo Complaint were filed in various federal and state courts against AllianceBernstein and certain other defendants. On Sept. 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding; and claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of AllianceBernstein. On April 21, 2006, AllianceBernstein and attorneys for the plaintiffs in the mutual fund shareholder claims, mutual fund derivative claims, and ERISA claims entered into a confidential memorandum of understanding containing their agreement to settle these claims. The agreement will be documented by a stipulation of settlement and will be submitted for court approval at a later date. The settlement amount ($30 million), which the company previously accrued and disclosed, has been disbursed. The derivative claims brought on behalf of Holding, in which plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, remain pending. AllianceBernstein -- http://www.alliancebernstein.com/-- is an investment manager that administers about 80 domestic and international mutual funds. It serves such institutional investors as pension funds, foundations, endowments, government entities, and insurance firms. For retail investors, the company provides private client services, managed accounts, annuities, retirement plans, and college savings plans. AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP: Suits v. Pharmaceutical Makers Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- AmerisourceBergen Corp. continues to be a class member in pending class-action lawsuits filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers. During the last several years, numerous class action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these class-action actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical manufacturers). None of the class-action suits have gone to trial, but some have settled in the past with the company receiving proceeds from the settlement funds. Currently, there are several such class actions pending in which the company is a class member. During the six months ended March 31, 2008, the company recognized a gain of $1.6 million relating to the class-action lawsuits, 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. AmerisourceBergen Corp. -- http://www.amerisourcebergen.com/-- is a pharmaceutical services company, with operations in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Servicing both healthcare providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers in the pharmaceutical supply channel, the company provides drug distribution and related services. It distributes an offering of brand name and generic pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter healthcare products, home healthcare supplies and equipment, and related services to a variety of healthcare providers located in the United States and Canada, including acute care hospitals and health systems, independent and chain retail pharmacies, institutional pharmacies, mail order facilities, physicians, medical clinics, alternate site facilities and other customers. AmerisourceBergen also provides pharmaceuticals and pharmacy services to workers' compensation and specialty drug patients. The company operates in two business segments: Pharmaceutical Distribution and Other. ANDY WARHOL: N.Y. Judge Allows Lawsuit Over Paintings to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a class-action lawsuit charging fraud and other misconduct could proceed against the The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc., and the board that authenticates Mr. Warhol's work, Randy Kennedy of The New York Times reports. The suit was filed on July 13, 2007 on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under the caption, "Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-06423." Aside from, The Andy Warhol Foundation For The Visual Arts, Inc., others named as defendants in the lawsuit are, The Estate of Andy Warhol, Vincent Fremont, Vincent Fremont Enterprises, The Andy Warhol Art Authentication Board, Inc., John Does, Jane Does and Richard Roes. The New York Times reported that the litigation was filed by a filmmaker, Joe Simon-Whelan, who bought a Warhol painting,in 1989 only to see it later declared inauthentic on two occasions by the board, even though, he contends, Mr. Warhol's estate determined earlier that it was real. Mr. Simon-Whelan maintains that beyond his case the foundation and board have conducted a 20-year conspiracy to inflate the prices for Warhol works -- and thus the value of the foundation's holdings -- by denying the authenticity of a certain number as a way to create artificial scarcity. The board and foundation have denied the accusations and sought to have the suit dismissed, reports The New York Times. Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that Mr. Simon-Whelan had asserted his allegations "plausibly" enough for the case to continue to the discovery phase on many of its claims, accoridng to The New York Times report. For more details, contact: Brian C. Kerr, Esq. (bkerr@bwgfirm.com) Browne Woods George, LLP 49 West 37th Street New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 354-4901 Fax: (212) 354-4904 Seth Eric Redniss, Esq. (sr@redniss.com) Redniss & Associates, LLC 185 Franklin Street 5th Flr. New York, NY 10013 Phone: (212) 334-9200 - and - Gary Douglas Sesser, Esq. (sesser@clm.com) Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP 2 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-732-3200 Fax: 212-732-3232 APAC CUSTOMER: Faces Suit in Wisconsin Alleging FLSA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- APAC Customer Services, Inc. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit claiming that workers worked up to 45 minutes a day on "essential company tasks" without pay, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Kevin Murphy of The La Crosse Tribune reports. The suit was filed on May 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Tiffany Sharpe, under the caption, "Sharpe v. APAC Customer Services, Inc., Case No. 3:2009-cv-00329." According to George Hanson, Esq., the plaintiff's attorney, APAC has a company-wide policy that requires workers to log onto their computers, review work notices, and complete other "essential tasks," before their shift and compensation begins. "The typical amount of time they're not compensated on a daily basis is 45 minutes," Mr. Hanson said, The La Crosse Tribune reported. The suit claims the employees are required to continually update themselves with frequently changing billing rates, equipment prices and repair policies in order to answer questions from client customers. However, time spent reviewing the notices and training material generally is not recorded or compensated, The La Crosse Tribune reports. Instead, the employees are expected to update themselves before or after their shifts or while on breaks, according to The La Crosse Tribune report. In addition to seeking damages for uncompensated hours worked in the past three years, the suit also seeks a court order to prohibit APAC from further violations of state and federal wage laws, reports The La Crosse Tribune. For more details, contact: Daniel Bach, Esq. (dbach@lawtoncates.com) Lawton & Cates, S.C. 10 East Doty Street, Ste. 400 P.O. Box 2965 Madison, WI 53701 Phone: (608) 282-6200 ARRIS GROUP: Contesting C-COR Ex-Workers' Suit for Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- ARRIS Group, Inc. continues to contest the class-action suit filed by sixteen former employees of a former subsidiary of C- COR, Inc., according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The company acquired C-COR in late 2008. In February 2008, a Fair Labor Standards Act suit was filed against the former subsidiary of C-COR and C-COR alleging that the plaintiffs were not properly paid for overtime. The suit was filed as a class action and the proposed class could include 1,000 cable installers and field technicians. ARRIS Group, Inc. -- http://www.arrisi.com/-- is a global communications technology company specializing in integrated broadband network solutions that include products, systems and software for content and operations management, and professional services. It develops, manufactures and supplies cable telephony, video and high-speed data equipment. In addition, it is a supplier of infrastructure products used by cable system operators to build-out and maintain Hybrid Fiber-Coaxial (HFC) networks. It provides products and equipments to cable system operators and multiple systems operators (MSOs). Its products allow MSOs and other broadband service providers to deliver a range of integrated voice, video and high-speed data services to their subscribers. ARVINMERITOR INC: Suits by Auto Filter Purchasers Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc. continues to face claims raised in several purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of filters, 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 29, 2009. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain aftermarkets. ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain aftermarkets. The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has interests. Sales from continuing operations outside North America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2008. CHEMTURA CORP: Continues to Defend Lawsuits Over May 2004 Fire -------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corp. continues to defend several purported class- action lawsuits in connection with a fire that struck its Conyers, Georgia warehouse on May 25, 2004. The company and certain of its former officers and employees were named as defendants in five putative state class action suits filed in three counties in Georgia and one putative class -action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pertaining to the fire. These lawsuits seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly suffered as a result of the fire (Class Action Reporter, May 4, 2007). Of the five putative state class-action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in two cases voluntarily dismissed theirs, leaving three lawsuits remaining. These remaining putative state class-action lawsuits, as well as the putative class-action suit pending in federal district court seek recovery for economic and non-economic damages allegedly arising from the fire. Punitive damages are sought in the Davis case in Rockdale County, Georgia and the Martin case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Martin case also seeks a declaratory judgment to reform certain settlements, as well as medical monitoring and injunctive relief. No further developments regarding the matter were reported by the company in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a producer of specialty chemicals and polymer products, and a supplier of home pool and spa chemicals in the U.S. CHEMTURA CORP: June 12 Hearing Set for Deal in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 12, 2009 final approval hearing has been set for the settlement in the consolidated securities fraud lawsuit captioned "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-cv-01293-EBB," according to Chemtura 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 lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of its former officers and directors (Crompton Individual Defendants), and certain former directors of the company's predecessor, Witco Corp., on July 20, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. It was brought by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of all purchasers or acquirers of the company's stock between October 1998 and October 2002. The consolidated amended complaint principally alleges that the company and the Crompton Individual Defendants caused the company to issue false and misleading statements that violated the federal securities laws by reporting inflated financial results resulting from an alleged illegal, undisclosed price- fixing conspiracy. The putative class includes former Witco Corp. shareholders who acquired their securities in the Crompton Corp.-Witco merger pursuant to a registration statement that allegedly contained misstated financial results. The complaint asserts claims against the company and the Crompton Individual Defendants under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiffs also assert claims for control person liability under Section 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Crompton Individual Defendants. The complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against certain former directors of Witco Corp. for actions they allegedly took as Witco Corp. directors in connection with the Crompton-Witco merger. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The company and the Crompton Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 17, 2004, which motion is now fully briefed and pending. The former directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which motion is pending. On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the company and the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss by the company and Crompton Individual Defendants. On April 30, 2008, the parties entered a memorandum of understanding to settle the lawsuit. Under the proposed settlement, the defendants will pay or cause to be paid $21 million and deny any wrongdoing or liability. On Nov. 28, 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on Dec. 12, 2008 and scheduled a June 12, 2009 final approval hearing. The settlement, agreement provided for payment by or on behalf of defendants of $21 million. The suit is "In Re Crompton Corp Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-cv-01293-EBB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Ellen Bree Burns, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. (nancy@snlaw.net) Jeffrey S. Nobel, Esq. (jnobel@snlaw.net) Schatz & Nobel One Corporate Center, 20 Church St., Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-493-6292 Fax: 860-493-6290 Representing the defendants are: Bradford S. Babbitt, Esq. (bbabbitt@rc.com) Robinson & Cole 280 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-3597 Phone: 860-275-8209 Fax: 860-275-8299 Andrew J. Frackman, Esq. (afrackman@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10033 Phone: 212-326-2000 Fax: 212-326-2061 - and - Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. (tdgoldberg@dbh.com) Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7383 Fax: 203-977-7301 CHEMTURA CORP: Pursuing Settlement of Suits Over Urethanes Sale --------------------------------------------------------------- Chemtura Corp. continues to pursue settlement of several purported antitrust class-action lawsuits involving the sale of urethanes and urethane chemicals, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended March 31, 2009. Chemtura Corp. and its subsidiary, Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. -- now merged into Chemtura Corp. -- were named as defendants in certain indirect purchaser antitrust class-action lawsuits filed in state courts involving the sale of urethanes and urethane chemicals. The complaints in these actions principally allege that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for urethanes and urethane chemicals, sold in the U.S. in violation of certain antitrust statutes and consumer protection and unfair or deceptive practices laws of the relevant jurisdictions and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities. There are currently 13 state complaints pending. On Sept. 12, 2008, the company received final court approval of a settlement agreement covering one of these actions. In addition, on Dec. 23, 2008, the company received preliminary court approval of a settlement agreement covering the remaining 12 complaints, all of which are pending in a coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco. Chemtura Corp. -- http://www.chemtura.com/-- is a global producer of specialty chemicals and polymer products and supplier of home pool and spa chemicals. The products are used in a variety of markets, including automotive, transportation, construction, packaging, agriculture, lubricants, plastics for durable and non-durable goods, electronics and the home pool and spa chemical markets. The segments of the company include Polymer Additives, Performance Specialties, Consumer Products, Crop Protection, and Other. CLAYTON HOMES: Ark. Court Gives Final Approval to Suit Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit alleging mobile home manufacturer Clayton Homes, Inc. profited by reselling wheels and axles to recyclers has been settled, Lynn LaRowe of The Texarkana Gazette reports. On May 29, 2009, Circuit Judge Kirk Johnson of Arkansas' 8th Judicial District South, which serves Miller and Lafayette counties, gave final approval to an agreement that ends the court's involvement in the suit against Clayton Homes, according to The Texarkana Gazette report. CME GROUP: Awaits Ruling on Motions in Suits Over NYMEX Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- CME Group, Inc. awaits the Delaware Court of Chancery's decision on all outstanding motions in purported class-action lawsuits filed in connection with the proposed sale of NYMEX Holdings, Inc., to the company. There are two purported class action complaints pending against the former NYMEX Holdings, the former NYMEX Holdings board of directors and CME Group in the Delaware Court of Chancery related to the merger between CME Group and NYMEX Holdings. The first complaint, amended as of Oct. 6, 2008, is a purported consolidated class action on behalf of former NYMEX Holdings' shareholders, which alleges, among other things, that the NYMEX Holdings board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger agreement by exclusively negotiating a transaction with CME Group without regard to the fairness of the transaction to the NYMEX Holdings shareholders, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, capping the minimum price of NYMEX Holdings' stock, failing to properly value NYMEX Holdings, making changes to NYMEX Holdings' change of control severance plan weeks before announcing that it was engaged in discussions with CME Group, requiring the Class A members to execute a waiver and release that allegedly is coercive because it is intended to deprive them of their rights to participate in this lawsuit as well as their rights to past, present and future royalty payments under Section 311(G) of the former bylaws of NYMEX, and failing to fully disclose material information related to the merger, including financial information and information necessary to prevent statements contained in the preliminary proxy from being misleading. The shareholder complaint further alleges that CME Group aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The shareholder plaintiffs initially sought to enjoin the merger; however, they pulled the preliminary injunction hearing from the court's calendar on Aug. 5, 2008 after becoming satisfied that there had been adequate disclosures by NYMEX Holdings and CME Group. The shareholder plaintiffs now seek damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and a declaration that the waiver and release is invalid and unenforceable. On Oct. 24, 2008, CME Group moved to dismiss the shareholder plaintiffs' complaint. The second complaint, amended as of Sept. 18, 2008, is a purported consolidated class action on behalf of NYMEX Class A members which alleges claims substantially similar to those raised in the shareholder complaint. The member plaintiff initially sought to enjoin the merger; however, she pulled the preliminary injunction hearing from the court's calendar on Aug. 5, 2008 after becoming satisfied that there had been adequate disclosures by NYMEX Holdings and CME Group. The member plaintiff now seeks damages for the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and a declaration that the waiver and release is invalid and unenforceable. On Sept. 22, 2008, CME Group filed a motion to dismiss and stay discovery. On Sept. 26, 2008, the member plaintiff, jointly with the shareholder plaintiffs, filed a motion for declaratory judgment and requested an expedited hearing on their motions. On Oct. 2, 2008, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request for expedition and granted CME Group's request to stay discovery in both actions. On March 17, 2009, the court heard all outstanding motions (the company's motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment). The company is currently awaiting the court's decision, 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. CME Group Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products available across all asset classes, including futures and options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative investments, such as weather and real estate. The Company is the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and their subsidiaries. CME GROUP: Ruling on Settlement of CBOT Suit Over ERPs Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- CME Group Inc. awaits the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware's ruling on the settlement of a putative class-action lawsuit filed by CBOT Holdings, Inc. and the Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. (CBOT), along with a class consisting of certain CBOT full members, against the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE). On Aug. 23, 2006, CBOT Holdings and CBOT, along with a class consisting of certain CBOT full members, filed a lawsuit against CBOE, seeking to enforce and protect the exercise right privileges (ERP). The lawsuit alleges that these ERPs allow CBOT's full members who hold them to become full members of CBOE and to participate on an equal basis with other members of CBOE in CBOE's announced plans to demutualize. On June 2, 2008, the parties reached a settlement in principle. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, holders of ERPs could submit a claim to participate in the settlement as a Class A or Class B settlement participant up until Oct. 14, 2008. Participating Class A members will share in an equity pool equal to 18 percent of the total common stock issued by CBOE in its demutualization and will share in a cash pool of up to $300.0 million, subject to a cap of $600,000 per individual. Participating Class B members would be paid $250,000 per ERP. In December 2008, the judge heard objections to the proposed settlement. The company is currently awaiting the court's ruling on the approval of the settlement, according to CME Group's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. In connection with the CBOT Holdings merger, the company provided holders of ERPs the option of tendering their ERP to the company for $250,000 payable following the closing of the merger or to participate in the CBOE lawsuit with a guaranteed payment of up to $250,000 from the company if the lawsuit results in a recovery of less than that amount. The maximum possible aggregate payment under the company's guarantee, assuming that all outstanding ERPs are paid $250,000 by the company, is $293.0 million. CME Group Inc. -- http://www.cmegroup.com/-- formerly Chicago Mercantile Exchange Holdings Inc., offers a range of products available across all asset classes, including futures and options on futures based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, agricultural commodities and alternative investments, such as weather and real estate. The Company is the holding company for Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc., Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc., and their subsidiaries. CROSS COUNTRY: MedStaff Unit Defends Calif. Employees' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.'s MedStaff subsidiary defends a purported class-action lawsuit styled, "Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda v. MedStaff, Inc.," in the Superior Court of California in Riverside County. On Feb. 18, 2005, the company's MedStaff subsidiary became the subject of the purported class-action lawsuit, which only relates to MedStaff corporate employees working in California. The claims alleged under this lawsuit are generally similar in nature to those brought by Darrelyn Renee Henry in a lawsuit against the company, which was dismissed (Darrelyn Renee Henry vs. MedStaff, Inc., et. al.). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of certain sections of the California Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and recovery of unpaid wages and penalties. 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, MedStaff currently has less than 50 corporate employees in California. The Plaintiffs, Maureen Petray and Carina Higareda, purport to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and allege that MedStaff failed, under California law, to provide meal periods and rest breaks and pay for those missed meal periods and rest breaks; failed to compensate the employees for all hours worked; failed to compensate the employees for working overtime; failed to keep appropriate records to keep track of time worked; failed to pay Plaintiffs and their purported class as required by law. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an order enjoining MedStaff from engaging in the practices challenged in the complaint and for full restitution of all monies, for interest, for certain penalties provided for by the California Labor Code and for attorneys' fees and costs. On Feb. 5, 2007, the court granted class certification. On Oct. 16, 2008, MedStaff filed a Motion to Decertify the class, which was denied on Dec. 19, 2008. Boca Raton, Fla.-based Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. -- http:// www.crosscountryhealthcare.com/ -- provides healthcare staffing services. The company offers a suite of staffing and outsourcing services to the healthcare market, which include being a national provider of nurse and allied staffing services and multi-specialty locum tenens services; a provider of clinical trials services to global pharmaceutical and biotechnology customers; and a provider of other human capital management services focused on healthcare. ELI LILLY: Faces La. Litigation Over Side Effects of Byetta Drug ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly & Co., Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. and Amylin-Lilly Partnership are facing a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that they failed to warn that their diabetes drug, Byetta, can cause sometimes-fatal pancreatitis, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on May 28, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the caption, "Jackson v. Eli Lilly and Company et al., Case No. 2:2009-cv- 03672." Ralph Jackson, who is represented by Michael Hinglem, Esq. Of Slidell, La., claims that post-marketing reports to the FDA in 2008 revealed six cases of hemorrhagic of necrotizing pancreatitis, two fatal, and all requiring hospitalization, according to The Courthouse News Service report. Mr. Jackson claims a 2007 FDA review showed 30 reports of acute pancreatitis "and suspected an association between Byetta and acute pancreatitis." He says the FDA asked the defendants to include "stronger warnings for acute pancreatitis," but the defendants' 2007 label mentioned only "acute pancreatitis," without warning of its severity, and no "warning or precautions whatsoever regarding acute hemorrhagic and necrotizing pancreatitis," The Courthouse News Service reported. The plaintiff later claims the FDA asked the defendants again in 2008 for "stronger and more prominent warnings with Byetta," but they still failed to disclose the risk of acute hemorrhagic and necrotizing pancreatitis, reports The Courthouse News Service. According to the complaint, which demand refunds, disgorgement, stronger warning labels and punitive damages, more than 4 million prescriptions for Byetta have been written, The Courthouse News Service reports. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d73 For more details, contact: Waldon Michael Hingle, Esq. (servewmh@hinglelaw.com) Michael Hingle & Associates, Inc. (Slidell) 220 Gause Blvd. Suite 200 P.O. Box 1129 Slidell, LA 70459 Phone: 985-641-6800 ISTAR FINANCIAL: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- iStar Financial, Inc. seeks to dismiss a consolidated amended purported securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Citiline Litigation On April 14, 2008, Citiline Holdings, Inc., filed a suit on behalf of purchasers of common stock in iStar's Dec. 13, 2007 public offering. The complaint names the company and certain of its current executive officers as defendants. It alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the December 2007 public offering. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering. Christenson Litigation On April 24, 2008, Dennis Christenson filed suit on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock on its Dec. 13, 2007 public offering. The complaint names the company and certain of its current executive officers as defendants. It alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the December 2007 public offering. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees and rescission of the public offering. Both suits were purportedly filed on behalf of the same putative class of investors who purchased common stock in the Company's Dec. 13, 2007 public offering. The two complaints were consolidated on April 30, 2008. On June 13, 2008, Plumbers Union Local No. 12 Pension Fund and Citiline Holdings, Inc. filed an unopposed Motion for Appointment as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and their chosen counsel as Lead Counsel, which was granted by the Court on Nov. 17, 2008. Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint on Feb. 2, 2009, purportedly on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased iStar common stock between Dec. 6, 2007 and March 6, 2008 (the "Complaint"). The Complaint named as defendants the company, certain of its current and former executive officers, and certain investment banks who served as underwriters in the company's Offering. The Complaint reasserted claims for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and added claims for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Plaintiffs allege the defendants made certain material misstatements and omissions relating to the company's continuing operations, specifically with regard to the deterioration in the value of the company's loan portfolio and certain debt securities held by the company during the fourth quarter of 2007. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys fees, and rescission of the public offering. No class has been certified and discovery has not begun. The company and its current and former officers filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 27, 2009, 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. iStar Financial, Inc. -- http://www.istarfinancial.com/-- is a finance company focused on the commercial real estate industry. The company provides custom-tailored financing to private and corporate owners of real estate, including senior and mezzanine real estate debt, senior and mezzanine corporate capital, corporate net lease financing and equity. It has two primary lines of business: lending and corporate tenant leasing. Its primary sources of revenues are interest income, which is the interest that borrowers pay on loans, and operating lease income, which is the rent that corporate customers pay to lease corporate tenant lease properties. The lending business primarily consists of senior and mezzanine real estate loans that range in size from $20 million to $150 million, and have maturities ranging from 3 to 10 years. The company's corporate tenant leasing business provides capital to corporations and others who control facilities leased primarily to single credit- worthy customers. KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Reimbursements -------------------------------------------------------------- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan faces a purported class-action lawsuit accusing the plan of not reimburse policyholders for their co-payments after getting third-party settlements, and thus pocketing more money than it is actually owed, Maria Dinzeo of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on May 20, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Nicole Glaus, under the caption, "Glaus v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Case No. 3:2009-cv-02232." Ms. Glaus claims that Kaiser refused to credit her for the co- payment she made when she was treated for injuries from a car accident. She says Kaiser demanded reimbursement from the settlement from her personal injury action against the driver who rear-ended her, according to The Courthouse News Service report. According to Ms. Glaus, Kaiser was required to reimburse her for her co-payment under terms of its own policy handbook, reports The Courthouse News Service. "Kaiser is breaking its own rules by taking money they're not entitled to," the plaintiff's lead attorney Daniel Feinberg, Esq., of Oakland told The Courthouse News Service. The proposed class, which Feinberg estimates in the thousands, asks that Kaiser be ordered to repay them for co-payments, and be enjoined from violating its own policies, The Courthouse News Service reported. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d74 MERRILL LYNCH: N.Y Judge Explains Choices in Subprime Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jed Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 12-page opinion explaining why he chose the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and its lawyers from Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann to lead a securities class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of investors who purchased certificates backed by pools of subprime mortgages from Merrill Lynch, Andrew Longstreth of The Litigation Daily reports. John O'Brien of Legal Newsline reported that on April 23, 2009, Judge Rakoff appointed the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi in a lawsuit against a group of financial institutions. The judge also named the pension fund and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman of New York, as lead plaintiff and lead counsel in a case that includes Merrill Lynch and J.P. Morgan and those who sold mortgage-backed certificates to investors, according to the Legal Newsline report (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2009). According to The Litigation Daily report, in early April, Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Bernstein Litowitz were vying to become lead counsel in the case. However, at a hearing that month Judge Rakoff was shocked upon learning that Coughlin Stoia has a monitoring agreement with its client -- the Iron Workers Local 25 -- in which the firm notifies the pension fund about potential securities litigation opportunities its investment portfolio offers. "If that isn't a gross conflict of interest in violation of the most elementary fiduciary duties, I don't see what is," the judge had said. In his recently issued 12-page opinion, Judge Rakoff explained that the "choice presented a classic dilemma, in the sense of a choice between two less-than-perfect plaintiffs," reports The Litigation Daily. His opinion contends that Coughlin Stoia's monitoring agreement with the Iron Workers fosters the sort of tactics the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was supposed to curtail. It also voices skepticism that the Iron Workers' administrator could adequately oversee the litigation. "The court, from its own observation of the testimony and demeanor of the fund's administrator, readily perceived that he was not particularly sophisticated in evaluating securities class actions and, indeed, had only a rough idea of what this lawsuit was all about," Judge Rakoff wrote. "But who were the 'sophisticated advisers, financial and legal,' who would advise him and the fund 'in determining whether to bring suit'? Why, the very lawyers who would be bringing the suit, Coughlin Stoia," The Litigation Daily reported. MissPERS, Judge Rakoff conceded in his ruling, has a similar monitoring agreement with its law firms. But on the key issue Coughlin Stoia raised against MissPERS in the lead plaintiff fight -- that the Mississippi fund had violated a provision in the PSLRA that restricts a party from serving as lead plaintiff in more than five class actions in any three-year period -- Judge Rakoff did not find compelling evidence to disqualify the Bernstein Litowitz client. In fact, Coughlin Stoia's argument appears to have backfired completely, given Judge Rakoff's comparison of its client's qualifications with those of MissPERS, according to The Litigation Daily. "It would seem that [the PSLRA's restrictive] provision might apply with less force when the plaintiff is a state agency," the judge wrote. "After all, a state regularly brings suit in hundreds of cases--and, as already noted, in this case, where the alternative lead plaintiff, the Iron Workers Fund, seems to have little expertise in handling such cases, the accumulated experience of MissPERS in pursuing multiple securities fraud actions seems a benefit more than a detriment," The Litigation Daily reports. MOHAWK INDUSTRIES: Eleventh Circuit Sends Case Back to Ga. Judge ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit by Mohawk Industries, Inc. workers claiming the company depressed wages by hiring illegal immigrants has been returned to a federal judge to reconsider his denial of class- action status, The Fort Mill Times reports. On May 28, 2009, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Judge Harold Murphy of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia erred in deciding there were no predominate common issues among thousands of employees at various Mohawk plants to constitute a class. A three-judge panel said Judge Murphy needs to consider expert testimony, according to The Fort Mill Times report. Four plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in January 2004. The case, captioned, "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Inc. Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," purports that the plaintiffs are former and current employees of the company and that the actions and conduct of the company, including the employment of persons who are not permitted to work in the U.S., have damaged them and the other members of the purported class by suppressing the wages of the company's hourly employees in Georgia (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2008). The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including: -- treble damages; -- return of any allegedly unlawful profits; and -- attorney's fees and costs of litigation. According to the original complaint, the company sent its employees "to the U.S. border, including areas near Brownsville, Texas, to recruit undocumented aliens that recently entered the U.S. in violation of federal law" and transport them to North Georgia. The suit also alleges that Mohawk employees and other recruiters provided these illegal immigrants with housing and found them jobs with the company. It even charges that although some of the illegal workers were arrested, Mohawk's supervisors helped others evade detection. Additionally, the suit claims that even though the company fired several illegal immigrants after discovering them among its work force during internal audits, it soon rehired them under different names. It claims that the company destroyed documents in an effort to conceal the fact that it employed illegal workers. One of the company's objectives, the suit alleges, was to inflate the size of the pool from which it hires hourly workers, thereby depressing wages. Another was to reduce the number and expense of workers' compensation claims, since "illegal employees are unlikely to file," the suit states. In February 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the District Court in April 2004. Following appellate review, the case was returned to the District Court and discovery began. On Dec. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the company opposed. On March 3, 2008, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion. The plaintiffs then appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit on March 17, 2008. Discovery has been stayed at the District Court while the appeal is pending. The company reported no further development in the matter in its Nov. 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2008. The suit is "Williams, et al. v. Mohawk Industries, Case No. 4:04-cv-00003-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Georgia, Judge Harold L. Murphy, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bobby Lee Cook, Esq. (LisaDodd@alltel.net) Cook & Connelly P.O. Box 370 Summerville, GA 30747-0370 Phone: 706-857-3421 - and - Ronan P. Doherty, Esq. (doherty@bmelaw.com) John Earl Floyd, Esq. (floyd@bmelaw.com) Nicole G. Iannarone, Esq. (iannarone@bmelaw.com) Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq. (thorpe@bmelaw.com) Bondurant Mixson & Elmore 1201 West Peachtree St., N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Ctr. Atlanta, GA 30309-3417 Phone: 404-881-4100 Representing the defendants are: Steven Thomas Cottreau, Esq. (scottreau@sidley.com) Juan P. Morillo, Esq. (jmorillo@sidley.com) Virginia A. Seitz, Esq. (vseitz@sidley.com) Sidley Austin Brown & Wood 1501 K. St., NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-736-8000 - and - R. Carl Cannon, Esq. (ccannon@constangy.com) Rosemary C. Lumpkins, Esq. (rlumpkins@constangy.com) Constangy Brooks & Smith 230 Peachtree St., N.W. 2400 Peachtree Center Tower Atlanta, GA 30303-1557 Phone: 404-525-8622 OCCAM NETWORKS: Still Faces Amended Complaint in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Occam Networks, Inc. continues to face an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action complaints were filed before the district court against the company and certain of its officers. The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect revenue recognition. The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007. On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund -- The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. This consolidated complaint adds as defendants certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006, and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the company. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that required restatement. The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A. Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions. This order dismissed all claims against certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims against the venture capital firms. On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint to conform to the court's July 1 order. Defendants answered this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company in its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-0800 - and - Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants are: Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 - and - Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com) Morrison and Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415-268-6091 ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Defends Wage, Hour Litigation in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. continues to defend a purported class- action lawsuit by Charlia Cornish, alleging class-wide wage and hour issues at its California hospice programs, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009. The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2008, in Superior Court of California, Los, Angeles County. It alleges failure to provide overtime compensation, meal and break periods, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely payment of wages earned upon leaving employment. The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004. The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2009, the company successfully moved the lawsuit to Federal District Court in the Central District of California. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs. On March 6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of VistaCare, Inc. After the completion of the VistaCare acquisition, it serves approximately 12,000 patients and their families each day through approximately 110 Medicare-certified hospice locations in 30 states. PRINCETON REVIEW: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Security Incident -------------------------------------------------------------- The Princeton Review, Inc., in April 2009, entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a putative class-action suit relating to a security incident that occurred in August 2008. In August 2008, the Company learned that certain of its web pages that appeared to contain confidential information were available to the public on the Internet for a short period of time ("Security Incident"). On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit captioned, "Virginia B. Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-CIV-1879-T-33TBM)," was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division relating to the Security Incident alleging negligence, breach of contract and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief including the provision of personal data monitoring and identify theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the security of the Company's computer data systems, together with attorneys' fees and costs. In April 2009, the parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation. Under the memorandum of understanding, subject to the approval by the Court of a definitive settlement agreement, the company will provide a specified identity protection service to the class members that elect to participate and pay the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the Court. The company said that it believes that the full cost of the settlement will be within the limits of its applicable insurance policies, according to its May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2009. The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/-- provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products and services that address the needs of students, parents, educators and educational institutions. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through the three divisions: the Test Preparation Services division, which provides classroom-based, as well as online test preparation courses; the Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary and secondary school students and teachers improve academic performance, including online and print-based assessment, professional development and materials to support school-based intervention programs. In July 2008, the Company completed the acquisition of The Princeton Review of Orange County, Inc. QWEST COMMS: Colo. Judge Gives Final OK to $695M in Settlements --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave final approval to $695 million in settlements to shareholders suing Qwest Communications International, Inc. for securities fraud, Robert Boczkiewicz of Reuters reports. Shareholders, predominantly pension funds, filed numerous class- action lawsuits beginning 2001 when multibillion dollar accounting discrepancies began surfacing, according to the Reuters report. The investors had reached a proposed settlement with Qwest of $400 million in 2005. But payment of that sum was held up by appeals by the company's former chief executive and chief financial officer, reports Reuters. In August 2008, former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio and former CFO Robert Woodruff agreed to add an extra $5 million from insurance proceeds to the settlement, while Qwest pitched in another $40 million, Reuters reported. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission also contributed $250 million to the settlement pot, after Qwest paid the commission $250 million to settle a similar securities fraud lawsuit the SEC had filed earlier, according to Reuters. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Ill. Suit Over Several Fatal Crashes -------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. is facing a purported class-action suit in connection to several fatal crashes in the 1980s and 1990s, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Chancery Department, First District by Barb Jozwick, Billie Beason, and Terry Beason, who are represented in the case by attorney Aaron Radbil, Esq. with Krohn & Moss. According to the suit, the company flew 46 Boeing 737s on more than 60,000 flights though they were long overdue for fuselage- crack inspections, and six of them did have cracks. The plaintiffs claim the defects caused the crashes, The Courthouse News Service reported. The suit claims Southwest repeatedly violated FAA safety rules but got away with it due to its cozy relationship with FAA inspectors, reports The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d72 For more details, contact: Aaron Radbil, Esq. (aradbil@consumerlawcenter.com) Krohn & Moss, Ltd. Phone: 1-800-875-3666 Web site: http://www.krohnandmoss.com/ TICKETMASTER ENTERTAINMENT: Venue Fight Occurs in Scalping Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- A venue battle has broken out in the mounting litigation over Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc.'s alleged practice of redirecting online shoppers for concert tickets to the Web site of a subsidiary, TicketsNow.com, Inc., that sells them at a big markup, Charles Toutant of The New Jersey Law Journal reports. In recent months, 10 putative class-action suits have been filed in federal courts in six states. Three are in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where the plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to transfer the other seven, according to The New Jersey Law Journal report. However, Ticketmaster, which is based in California, moved to dismiss the New Jersey cases as duplicative, or, in the alternate, to transfer them to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, where the earliest suits were filed, reports The New Jersey Law Journal. Four other suit have been filed, in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina, The New Jersey Law Journal reported. John Keefe, Jr., Esq., the plaintiffs' lawyer in the first of the three New Jersey suits, which is captioned, "Vining v. Ticketmaster, Case No. 2:09-cv-2096," said in petition filed with the MDL panel that New Jersey is the proper venue because the suits were prompted by the state's investigation of the Springsteen tickets after customers complained to the New Jersey Attorney General's Office about Bruce Springsteen tickets, according to The New Jersey Law Journal report. His petition also pointed out that an ongoing investigation by the Attorney General's Office into the company's practices, which involves other tickets besides those of the Bruce Springsteen concert, is a big factor in venue choice. Mr. Keefe is joined on the petition by the lawyers in the two other N.J. cases, William Mergner Jr., Esq. of Leary, Bride, Tinker & Moran of Cedar Knolls and Bruce Nagel, Esq. of Nagel Rice in Roseland, The New Jersey Law Journal reports. However, Ticketmaster countered that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said New Jersey District Judge Frieda Wolfson could use her inherent power to dismiss the New Jersey cases as duplicative, reports The New Jersey Law Journal. The company's attorney, Kenneth Friedman, Esq. of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in New York, also moved before Judge Wolfson to transfer the New Jersey cases to California, saying the three cases pending there were filed before the others, reports The New Jersey Law Journal. The New Jersey Law Journal reported that Mr. Friedman cited the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit's First Filed Doctrine, which holds that the court of first filing decides the matter in cases of concurrent jurisdiction with the same parties and issues. In addition, the company said that because its West Hollywood headquarters is within the Central District of California, its personnel would be inconvenienced by a New Jersey venue. It also said, that two non-party, crucial witnesses, the company's former president and former chief financial officer, could not be compelled to testify in New Jersey, The New Jersey Law Journal reports. According to The New Jersey Law Journal, Mr. Keefe dismisses Ticketmaster's emphasis on the First Filed Doctrine, saying it is not a "doctrine the MDL court gives great weight to. They look at the totality of the circumstances." WORLD WRESTLING: Opposes Bid to Alter Dismissal of "Levy" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. opposes a motion to alter or amend and/or for relief from judgment dismissing a purported class-action suit filed by former independent contract wrestlers who claimed the organization cheated them out of health care and other benefits. The wrestlers -- Scott "Raven" Levy, Christopher "Kanyon" Klucsarits and "Above Average" Michael Sanders -- said the level of control exerted over them by the WWE qualified them as full- time employees. The plaintiffs -- who sought class-action status -- claim that they signed contracts that dictated their compensation, physical training regimens, dates and sites of matches, costumes and storylines for their wrestling personae. WWE also reserved the right to use their images and submitted them to drug screenings, the wrestlers said. According to the suit, the WWE avoided withholding federal taxes from their paychecks by not classifying them as full-time employees. The company did not pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, nor did it pay for performers' benefits such as health care and vacation time, the suit said. The suit was filed in July 2008 in state Superior Court and then was moved to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On Feb. 24, 2009, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss, dismissing all of the plaintiffs� claims with prejudice. On March 10, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend and/or for relief from judgment. The company filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion on March 31, 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. The suit is "Levy et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:08-cv-01289-PCD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Peter C. Dorsey, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David S. Golub, Esq. (dgolub@sgtlaw.com) Silver, Golub & Teitell 184 Atlantic St., Po Box 389 Stamford, CT 06904 Phone: 203-325-4491 Fax: 203-325-3769 Representing the defendants are: Richard W. Hosking, Esq. (richard.hosking@klgates.com) K & L Gates, LLP-PA Henry W. Oliver Building 535 Smithfield Street Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312 Phone: 412-355-8612 Fax: 412-355-6501 - and - Douglas W. Bartinik, Esq. (dwbartinik@daypitney.com) Day Pitney LLP-Htfd-CT 242 Trumbull St. Hartford, CT 06103-1212 Phone: 860-275-0278 Fax: 860-275-0343 New Securities Fraud Cases MRU HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of MRU Holdings, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: UNCLQ) formerly (NASDAQ: UNCL) securities during the period between July 9, 2007 and September 18, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that certain of MRU's officers and directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false statements to the marketplace concerning MRU's business and financial results. In particular, it alleges that defendants failed to disclose that: -- the market for Auction Rate Securities, which the Company issued in its first student loan securitization, was illiquid and existed at the whim of broker-dealers; -- the illusion of liquidity created by the broker- dealers allowed MRU 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 -- 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. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before June 19, 2009. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Weekends Tel: 917-797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: 212-202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com/ OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Labaton Sucharow 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 Fund (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 over concentration of investments in illiquid securities in violation of its 15% cap by investing in illiquid tobacco bonds and ordinary municipal bond and 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, causing substantial losses to investors. On October 21, 2008, the Fund's shares traded at approximately $5.96 per share, down from $8.93 per share at the beginning of the year, an approximate decline of 33.3%per share for the year. The Fund was among the worst performing in its peer group. According to the complaint, after the end of the Class Period, the Fund belatedly disclosed liabilities and residual exposure from the inverse floaters, about which investors were not previously told. On December 18, 2008, the 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. Additionally, the 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 that 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: Alan I. Ellman, Esq. (aellman@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow LLP Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700 Web site: http://www.labaton.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 * * *