/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090604.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 4, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 109 Headlines BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 21 Hearing Set for $8.5M Suit Settlement BIG POPPA'S: Firm, Others Face Nev. Suit Over Extortion Scheme BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: AUD1.3B Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court CALIFORNIA: SEIU Files Lawsuit Over Home Care Workers' Wage Cuts CLEARVIEW FEDERAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over ATM Disclosures COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Nev. Suit For Backdating Stock Options DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Kentucky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Concluded FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Bid to Dismiss Merged Securities Suit Pending GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in N.Y. GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending Approval INTERNATIONAL COAL: Saratoga Advantage Lawsuit Pending in W.Va. PHILADELPHIA: Settles Strip-Search Litigation For $5.9M PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Prilosec OTC Health Risks QC HOLDINGS: Mulls Appeal to Ruling on Removal of Ferrell Case QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed QC HOLDINGS: Unsecured Loans Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery Stage QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Suit v. Calif. Unit in Preliminary Stages SOUTH FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Settlement on Retirement Pay Issue STAR GAS: Ruling on Securities Fraud Suit Appeals Still Pending STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses $86M Judgment SUPERVALU INC: Faces Ill. Suit Over Fees Charged to Cash Checks TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Budeprion XL Side Effects WINDSTREAM CORP: Trial in Suit v. Aliant Retirees Set for 3Q09 New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing SUNTRUST BANKS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* BANK OF AMERICA: Sept. 21 Hearing Set for $8.5M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 21, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "David B. Magill and John R. Roberson v. Shawmut Bank N.A., as Trustee under Collateral Trust Indenture dated as of June 1, 1984 a/k/a Fleet National Bank, a/k/a Bank of America, N.A., Case No. CJ-94-1387." The hearing will be held before the Honorable J. Michael Gassett, District Judge for the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, 500 S. Denver Ave., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103. The class-action lawsuit concerns alleged breaches by the bond trustee of a Collateral Trust Indenture arising out of a default by Reading & Bates Corp. on a lease in 1982. A proposed settlement has been preliminary approved by the court whereby the successor trustee, Bank of America, has agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the case. For more details, contact: Pinkerton & Finn, P.C. 15 East Fifth Street Penthouse Suite Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 587-1800 Fax: (918) 582-2900 Web site: http://www.pinkertonfinn.com BIG POPPA'S: Firm, Others Face Nev. Suit Over Extortion Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit filed on June 2, 2009 alleges a wide-ranging extortion scheme involving Las Vegas' most prominent adult entertainment clubs and taxi and limousine companies. The suit, which was filed in federal court in Las Vegas, alleges that taxi and limousine companies extorted more than $40 million in illegal kickbacks from local strip clubs. According to the complaint, taxi and limousine drivers demanded payments from the clubs of as much as $100 per male passenger. If the clubs refused to pay, the drivers would simply divert passengers to a different club. The lawsuit claims that the kickback scheme hurts Las Vegas at a time when the city is already suffering economically. "Vegas has been one of the top tourist destinations in America for families, but its position is being threatened," says Jay Edelson, lead attorney for the lawsuit. "This is precisely the type of activity that keeps families away." As taxi drivers prefer to pick up men who are more likely to go to strip clubs, the suit claims that families and women were snubbed by drivers and found it hard to hail a cab at night. The suit also claims that millions of dollars in tax revenue have gone unpaid to the local, state, and federal government. The allegations of a wide-ranging extortion scheme have been hotly discussed locally. An recent expose by George Knapp, a nationally recognized Las Vegas investigative reporter, found that cabbies routinely lied to passengers-telling them that certain clubs are undesirable or unsafe ("riddled with bullet holes" was one description) in hopes of diverting them to a "paying" location. After state legislators attempted to put an end to this practice, the cab drivers responded by flexing their muscles. They shut down the strip and threatened to crash ground transportation at the airport. "The vast majority of taxi and limo drivers are honest and hardworking people, but this minority has a stranglehold on the city," says Edelson. "It is finally time to put this practice to an end." The suit is being brought on behalf of Theodore Trapp who lives in Southern California, and as a nationwide class. The suit names several defendants, including, Big Poppa's, LLC, Sky Top Vending, Inc., La Fuente, Inc., C.P. Food and Beverage, Inc., Deja Vu Showgirls of Las Vegas, LLC, Palomino Club, Inc., SHAC, LLC, K-Kel, Inc., D.2801 Westwood, Inc., Little Darlings Of Las Vegas, LLC, O.G. Eliades, A.D. LLC, Las Vegas Entertainment, LLC, Michael A. Saltman, Rick's Las Vegas, Frias Management, LLC, Western Cab Company, Nevada Checker Cab Corporation, Nevada Star Cab Corporation, Nevada Yellow Cab Corporation, Lucky Cab Company of Nevada, Sun Cab, Inc., CLS Nevada, LLC, On Demand Sedan Services, LLC, BLS Limousine Service of Las Vegas, Inc., Desert Cab, Inc., Bell Trans and Tony Chong, an individual taxi driver who, according to the suit, has publicly admitted his involvement in the extortion scheme. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d80 For more details, contact: Jay Edelson, Esq. (jedelson@kamberedelson.com) KamberEdelson, LLC Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com BRISCONNECTIONS MANAGEMENT: AUD1.3B Lawsuit Thrown Out of Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The AUD1.3 billion class-action case headed by Sydney investor Jim Byrnes against BrisConnections Management Company Ltd. and Macquarie Capital Advisors has been thrown out of court after defects were revealed in the case, The Australian reports. On June 2, 2009, Mr. Byrnes' lawyers were in the Federal Court seeking a three-week adjournment to further amend the case and to remove Mr. Byrnes as the applicant because of the "baggage" associated with him, and replace with him another investor, Cynthia Lachat, according to The Australian report. However, the case was thrown out and costs awarded after a number of blunders emerged, one of which being that Mr. Byrnes was not even a member of the group on whose behalf he was acting -- as defined by his own legal team. BrisConnection's barrister, Tony Bannon SC, said the group was defined as being people who were allotted units in the trust pursuant to the product disclosure statement and people who bought units on the market, reports The Australian. "Mr. Byrnes acquired his units off-market and at a price of less than one cent," Mr. Bannon told the court. Mr. Bannon also said the group of investors Mr. Byrnes sought to represent, as defined, would include Macquarie Capital -- who Mr. Byrnes is suing. Ms. Lachat was described as a "French-speaking person of Filipino descent" living in Australia and Mr. Bannon said she "doesn't necessarily speak English or understand it." There was no claim by her of any specific loss, The Australian reported. "The simplest way to deal with these proceedings should be to get rid of them," Mr. Bannon said. "And the costs to date should fall on Mr. Byrnes." Mr. Byrnes' barrister, John Rowe, said Mr. Byrnes did want to continue as a member of the group, but Ms. Lachat was to replace him, because "she is not coming, shall we say, with the baggage that Mr. Byrnes does," according to The Australian. Judge Arthur Emmett struck out the proceedings, noting part of the pleadings appeared "misconceived." Mr. Byrnes was not a member of the group as defined, and there was no evidence before him as to why Mr. Byrnes wanted to remove himself from the case. "Nothing you have done so far is of any use," Justice Emmett said. "You have got to start all over again in terms of particulars, formulate the group and formulate the causes of action," The Australian reports. The Australian Associated Press previously reported that A major stakeholder in the troubled builder and operator of Brisbane's airport link toll road says it has launched a AUD1.3 billion class-action lawsuit against BrisConnections Management Company Ltd. and Macquarie Bank (Class Action Reporter, May 7, 2009). The claim was filed in the Federal Court in Sydney in April 2009 by lawyers for Brisbane Toll Road Link -- owned by U.S.-based New Hampton Distressed Asset Fund and represented by Sydney businessman Jim Byrnes -- which owns 15.2% of BrisConnections, according to the Australian Associated Press report. Mr. Byrnes says the class-action suit was launched on behalf of all past and present unit holders. It alleged misleading statements and errors in the product disclosure statement. "We're saying, stay in the class action and we'll fight for your rights," Mr. Byrnes told the Australian Associated Press. Lawyer Raymond Whitten of Whittens confirmed the court had accepted the statement of claims seeking AUD1.3 billion, the Australian Associated Press reported. CALIFORNIA: SEIU Files Lawsuit Over Home Care Workers' Wage Cuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) filed a purported class-action lawsuit, seeking a preliminary junction to stop the State of California and Fresno County from slashing the wages of home care workers to near-poverty levels and from to reducing the hours of care seniors and people with disabilities receive from going into effect, Kate Thomas of SEIU Blog. The lawsuit was filed on May 26, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the caption, "Martinez et al v. Schwarzenegger et al., Case No. 4:2009-cv- 02306." Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are Mikesha Martinez, Lydia Dominguez, Alex Brown, Donna Brown, Chloe Lipton, Herbert M. Meyer, Leslie Gordon, Charlene Ayers, Willie Beatrice Sheppard, Andy Martinez, Service Employees International Union United Health Care Workers West, Service Employees International Union United Long-Term Care Workers, Service Employees International Union Local 521, and Service Employees International Union California State Council. Specifically listed as defendants in the matter are Arnold Schwarzenegger, John A. Wagner, David Maxwell-Jolly, John Chiang, Fresno County, and Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority. The suit charges that the planned cuts put seniors and people with disabilities at risk and violate the American with Disabilities Act and Federal Medicaid Law, according to posting at SEIU Blog. CLEARVIEW FEDERAL: Faces Pa. Litigation Over ATM Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------ Clearview Federal Credit Union faces a purported class-action lawsuit over alleged lapses in its disclosures at an ATM, which allegedly violates the Fair Debt Collection Act, David Morrison of The Credit Union Times reports. The suit was filed on May 19, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, under the caption, "Helkowski v. Clearview Federal Credit Union, Case No. 2:2009- cv-00609." According to court documents obtained by The Credit Union Times, the plaintiff, Daniella Helkowski, withdrew cash from the credit union's headquarters branch in Moon Township, Pa., on May 7, 2009, and alleged Clearview charged her $2.25 for the transaction. Ms. Helkowski charged that the credit union did not have a notice posted about the fee "on or at" the ATM as required by the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Without such a written notice, Ms. Helkowski argued, the credit union is forbidden to charge a fee for the transaction, and she has filed a class- action lawsuit on behalf of herself and everyone else who was charged a fee for a transaction at the ATM, according to The Credit Union Times report. For more details, contact: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. (bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com) Carlson Lynch P.O. Box 367 231 Melville Lane Sewickley, PA 15143 Phone: (412) 749-1677 - and - Rhonda J. Sudina, Esq. (rsudina@rlmlawfirm.com) Robb Leonard Mulvihill LLP One Mellon Center 500 Grant Street, 23rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-5431 Fax: (412) 281-3711 COMPUTER SCIENCES: Faces Nev. Suit For Backdating Stock Options --------------------------------------------------------------- Computer Sciences Corp. faces a purported class-action lawsuit over the alleged backdating of stock options for executives, employees and directors, Steve Green of The Las Vegas Sun reports. The suit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed on May 29, 2009 by shareholder Shirley Morefield in the Clark County District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. Ms. Morefield alleges in the suit that CSC and current and former board members deceived shareholders by failing to disclose that many of the stock options granted from 1997 to 2004 were backdated -- meaning recipients of the options could earn extra profits by buying stock at prices lower than the market price on the option grant dates, according to The Las Vegas Sun report. The Las Vegas Sun reported that options typically are awarded to executives to give them an incentive to push a company's share price higher. With an option, an executive can immediately profit by buying a security at the option grant date's low price and then selling it at the current higher price -- assuming the value of the stock has risen. The proxy statement for the CSC annual meeting in 2007 was among the deceptive disclosures provided to shareholders, Mr. Morefield charges. It was "false and misleading because those individual defendants failed to disclose that many of the options that the company had issued were backdated, misdated or mispriced and thus carried exercise prices less than fair market value at the date of the grant," according to the suit. The suit seeks certification it is a class action representing all CSC shareholders as of May 29, 2009; a judgment voiding all outstanding options, restricted stock and equity awards issued under CSC's options plans for 1997, 1998, 2001 and 2004; and an order barring CSC from issuing CSC stock under the 2001 and 2004 plans, reports The Las Vegas Sun. The lawsuit was filed by Las Vegas attorneys G. Mark Albright, Esq., D. Chris Albright, Esq., and Martin Muckleroy, Esq., of the firm Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright along with attorneys from Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, The Las Vegas Sun reports. For more details, contact: Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Albright 801 South Rancho Drive Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-3854 Phone: (702) 384-7111 Fax: (702) 384-0605 Web site: http://www.albrightstoddard.com/ - and - Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: (925) 945.0770 Fax: (925) 945.8792 e-mail: info@btkmc.com Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com/ DIOCESE OF COVINGTON: Kentucky Sex Abuse Lawsuit Concluded ---------------------------------------------------------- The class-action lawsuit between victims of sexual abuse and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington in northern Kentucky has concluded, according to a report by The Fort Mill Times. The Kentucky Enquirer reports that Circuit Judge Robert McGinnis filed the final order of dismissal on May 27, 2009 in Boone Circuit Court. The case was settled for $84 million in 2005. The court document says all victims who received awards have been paid in full and have signed releases acknowledging payment and releasing their claims, reports The Fort Mill Times. In his dismissal order, Judge McGinnis wrote that the diocese and Bishop Roger Foys had fulfilled all of their obligations under the settlement agreement and that no further claims would be accepted, The Fort Mill Times reports. The Fort Mill Times reported that attorney Bob Steinberg, Esq., who represented the victims, says 252 victims received awards of up to $1 million. FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Bid to Dismiss Merged Securities Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The First Marblehead Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated amended securities fraud class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts remains pending. In April 2008, six purported class-action complaints were filed against the company, certain of its current and former officers, and certain of its directors. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information in various U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings, press releases and other public statements. The complaints allege various claims under the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. They seek, among other relief, class certification, unspecified damages, fees and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. In August 2008, the court consolidated these cases and appointed lead plaintiffs and a lead counsel. On Nov. 28, 2008, a consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiffs and contained similar allegations as the earlier complaints. On Feb. 9, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss on April 13, 2009. The company plans to respond in May 2009. A class had not been certified in the actions as of May 8, 2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The First Marblehead Corp. -- http://www.firstmarblehead.com/-- provides outsourcing services for private education lending in the U.S. It meets the demand for private education loans by providing national and regional financial institutions and educational institutions, as well as businesses, education loan marketers and other enterprises, with an integrated suite of design, implementation and securitization services for student loan programs. The Company is engaged on loan programs for undergraduate, graduate and professional education, and on the primary and secondary school market. The Company is engaged in program design and marketing coordination, borrower inquiry and application, loan origination and disbursement, loan securitization and loan servicing. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Consolidated Antitrust Suit Pending in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc., continues to face a consolidated antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over guaranteed investment contracts (GIC). Between March and July 2008, the company was named along with several other GIC industry participants as defendant in several class-action suits, alleging federal antitrust violations involving the sale of GICs to municipalities and seeking treble damages. In June 2008, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the federal cases for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the case name, "In re Municipal Derivative Antitrust Litigation." The putative class action initiated in December 2008, which case was removed to the U.S. District Court for Central California, "Fresno County Financing Authority, et al. v. AIG Financial Products Corp., et al.," has now been fully transferred by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the Southern District of New York for consolidation into "In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation." Certain plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class-action complaint, which the company's subsidiary (along with many other defendants) moved to dismiss. On April 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all the claims from that complaint, but provided the plaintiffs 20 days to amend their complaint, 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. Genworth Financial, Inc. -- http://www.genworth.com/-- is a financial security company dedicated to providing insurance, investment and financial solutions that help meet the homeownership, life security, wealth management and retirement security needs of more than 15 million customers, with a presence in more than 25 countries. The Company operates through three segments: Retirement and Protection, International and U.S. Mortgage Insurance. Retirement and Protection segment offers a variety of protection, wealth accumulation, retirement income and institutional products. Through the International segment the Company is a provider of mortgage insurance products in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Japan and multiple European countries. In the U.S., the company offers mortgage insurance products predominantly insuring prime-based, individually underwritten residential mortgage loans, also known as flow mortgage insurance. GOODMAN GLOBAL: Settlement of Merger Suit Still Pending Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a consolidated class-action suit over Chill Acquisition, Inc.'s merger with and into Goodman Global, Inc. is pending court approval, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. On Oct. 26, 2007, a putative class action was filed on behalf of all similarly situated stockholders of the company in the Harris County District Court, Houston, Texas, styled, "Call4U, Ltd. v. Carroll, Case Number 2007-66888." A similar case, styled, "Pipefitters Local No. 636 Defined Benefit Plan vs. Goodman," was later filed and then consolidated with the Call 4U, Ltd. case. The lawsuits named as defendants the company, all of its directors and Hellman & Friedman LLC, and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and abetting such breaches against Hellman & Friedman. The plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the closing of the merger, reimbursement of associated attorneys' and experts' fees and other relief that the court deems proper. On Jan. 4, 2008, Goodman entered into a memorandum of understanding setting out an agreement in principal to settle all claims in the litigation, which settlement is subject to certain conditions precedent, including court approval. As of March 31, 2009, the matter is still pending. Goodman Global, Inc. -- http://www.goodmanglobal.com/-- is a domestic manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air conditioning products for residential and light commercial use. INTERNATIONAL COAL: Saratoga Advantage Lawsuit Pending in W.Va. --------------------------------------------------------------- International Coal Group, Inc. continues to face a purported class-action lawsuit filed by Saratoga Advantage Trust in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, 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 Jan. 7, 2008, Saratoga Advantage Trust filed a class-action lawsuit against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration statements filed in connection with the company's November 2005 reorganization and December 2005 public offering of common stock. In addition, the complaint challenges other of the company's public statements regarding its operating condition and safety record. International Coal Group, Inc. -- http://www.intlcoal.com/-- produces coal in Northern and Central Appalachia with a range of mid to high British thermal unit (Btu), low to medium sulfur steam and metallurgical coal. The Company is headquartered in Scott Depot, W.V. PHILADELPHIA: Settles Strip-Search Litigation For $5.9M ------------------------------------------------------- The City of Philadelphia agreed to pay $5.9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit involving thousands of people strip searched by prison guards after being jailed for misdemeanors, traffic violations, or other minor crimes, The Associated Press reports. The settlement, which was recently filed in federal court, provides for payments of about $600 to $900 per person to as many as 38,000 people strip-searched by city prison guards between 2003 and 2007, according to AP report. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Prilosec OTC Health Risks ---------------------------------------------------------------- Procter & Gamble and AstraZeneca PLC are facing a purported class-action lawsuit that claims that the heartburn drug Prilosec OTC causes increased risk of contracting food-borne diseases, and that they failed to warn consumers of it, The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed by Thomas Mitchell on May 29, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under the caption, "Mitchell v. Procter & Gamble et al., Case No. 2:2009- cv-00426." The plaintiff claims that the defendants "intentionally and uniformly hid from consumers that use of Prilosec OTC increases the risk of food-borne illnesses," according to The Courthouse News Service report. Prilosec OTC is the brand name for omeprazole magnesium delayed- release tablets, which was released by the defendants in 2003. Before the release in 2003, it was a prescription drug, and still is available at prescription strength, according to the complaint, The Courthouse News Service reports. The drug is a "proton pump inhibitor" that reduces "the amount of hydrochloric acid produced by the stomach," the complaint states. This reduces the stomach's ability to kill harmful bacteria, it states, The Courthouse News Service reported. The suit claims that the defendants "issued uniformly misleading advertisement and materials that failed to warn users of Prilosec OTC of their increased risk for food-borne diseases," reports The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d82 For more details, contact: Rex H. Elliott, Esq. (rexe@cooperelliott.com) Cooper & Elliott 2175 Riverside Drive Columbus, OH 43221 Phone: 614-481-6000 Fax: 614-481-6001 QC HOLDINGS: Mulls Appeal to Ruling on Removal of Ferrell Case -------------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. anticipates that it will appeal the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina's decision on removal of Carl G. Ferrell's putative class action lawsuit to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, 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. On Oct. 30, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the Fifth Judicial Circuit Court of Common Pleas in South Carolina in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Carl G. Ferrell, a customer of the South Carolina subsidiary. Mr. Ferrell alleges that the subsidiary violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act by including an arbitration provision and class action waiver in its loan agreements. Mr. Ferrell alleges further that the subsidiary did not appropriately take into account his ability to repay his loan with the subsidiary, and it is his contention that this alleged failure violates the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act, is negligent, breaches the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and serves as the basis for a civil conspiracy. Mr. Ferrell makes the same allegations in their case against several other lenders. On Dec. 11, 2008, the subsidiary removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina based upon the diversity of citizenship between the subsidiary and the proposed class. On Dec. 18, 2008, the subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss the case based upon the parties' arbitration agreement. Mr. Ferrell has challenged both the removal of the case to federal court and the subsidiary's motion to dismiss. In March 2009, the federal court ruled against the company's efforts to remove the case to federal court and remanded the case to state court. It did not rule on the company's motion to dismiss. As of May 2009, the federal court had not issued a formal written ruling, however, on the matter of removal. Once it does, the company anticipates that it will appeal the decision on removal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. The company also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services and money orders. QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans Remains Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative consumer fraud class-action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, against QC Holdings, Inc., remains stayed, 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 Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early, the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were named defendants in a putative class-action suit filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, by James B. Torrence Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline. The plaintiffs were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the company provided certain services in connection with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail locations in North Carolina. The suit also alleges that the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans and its services to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes. The plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorney fees under specified North Carolina statutes. The plaintiffs have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that they do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. This case is in preliminary stages. Similar Litigation There are three similar purported class action complaints filed in North Carolina against three other companies unrelated to QC Holdings. In December 2005, the judge in those three cases: -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported class action lawsuits and to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer loan contracts are valid, and -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications. The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the company, have appealed that ruling. The judge handling the lawsuit against the company is the same judge who issued these three orders in December 2005. In January 2007, the North Carolina Court of Appeals heard the appeal in the three companion cases. In May 2008, the appellate court remanded the three companion cases to the state court to review its ruling in light of a recent North Carolina Supreme court's decision. The trial court will hear additional evidence in the three companion cases before issuing its new ruling. That ruling is not expected before 2009. While the three companion cases are pending until the trial court's decision, it is expected that the company's case will remain stayed. The judge handling the lawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judge who is handing the three companion cases. The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case. There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the final outcome in the other three North Carolina cases concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in the consumer contracts. Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of that issue in the three companion cases. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. The company also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services and money orders. QC HOLDINGS: Unsecured Loans Lawsuit Proceeds to Discovery Stage ---------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action suit filed against QC Holdings, Inc., over unsecured loans is proceeding with the discovery stage. The lawsuit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006, by one of the company's Missouri customers as a purported class action. It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories. The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel arbitration of this matter. The plaintiff secured the right to have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision, however, prior to the court's ruling on the company's motion. The court heard oral arguments on the company's motion in June 2007. On Dec. 31, 2007, the court entered an order striking the class action waiver provision in the company's customer arbitration agreement, ordered the case to arbitration and dismissed the lawsuit filed in Circuit Court. In July 2008, the company filed its appeal of the court's order before the Missouri Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals heard arguments on Nov. 4, 2008. On Dec. 23, 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It ordered the case to arbitration, but struck the class action waiver provision. On Jan. 6, 2009, the company asked the Court of Appeals to rehear the matter or, in the alternative, transfer it to the Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing. In February 2009, the Court of Appeals denied this request. The company petitioned the Missouri Supreme Court for rehearing of this matter. In May 2009, the Missouri Supreme Court denied the Company's request. The case will move to the class discovery stage, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. The company also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services and money orders. QC HOLDINGS: "Winters" Suit v. Calif. Unit in Preliminary Stages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The putative class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters against a QC Holdings, Inc. subsidiary is in its preliminary stages. On Sept. 5, 2008, a subsidiary of the company was sued in the Superior Court of California, San Diego County in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by Jennifer M. Winters, a customer of the California subsidiary. Ms. Winters alleges that the subsidiary violated California's Deferred Deposit Transaction Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Ms. Winters alleges that the company's subsidiary improperly charged California consumers a fee to extend or "roll over" their loan transactions, that the subsidiary did not have authority to deduct funds electronically, and that the subsidiary's use of a class action waiver in its loan agreements is unconscionable. On Oct. 29, 2008, the Company's California subsidiary filed its answer, denying all allegations. It also filed a claim against Ms. Winters for failing to pay her final loan. Because this case is in its preliminary stages, it is unlikely any ruling on the merits of the claims will occur until late 2009 or later, 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. QC Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. The company also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services and money orders. SOUTH FINANCIAL: Judge Okays Settlement on Retirement Pay Issue ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward W. Miller of the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas judge approved a settlement related to the retirement pay of former South Financial Group, Inc. Chairman and CEO Mack Whittle, Scott Miller of Charleston Regional Business reports. In that same ruling, the judge denied two objections from shareholders who wanted to opt out of the class-action suit and potentially pursue their own legal actions against the company and Whittle, according to Charleston Regional Business report. Judge Miller had delayed ruling on the settlement last month to give those dissenters an extra week to file objections, reports Charleston Regional Business. In an order issued on June 1, 2009, Judge Miller said that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of TSFG and its shareholders," Charleston Regional Business reported. Under the proposed settlement, The South Financial Group agreed to pay the plaintiffs' lawyers $500,000 and to amend its bylaws. The amendments would, among other governance changes, give shareholders more input into the selection of future board members and ban company executives from serving as board chairs, Charleston Regional Business reports. In addition, Mr. Whittle agreed to return $250,000 of his retirement pay to the bank and resign from the company's board of directors. Lee Rudy, attorney for the plaintiffs, said during the settlement hearing on May 21, 2009 that the nonmonetary agreements related to governance were more valuable to shareholders than the monetary payments, Charleston Regional Business reports. Previously, the South Carolina court set May 7, 2009, as the deadline for filing objections to the proposed settlement of the putative shareholder class-action lawsuit filed against The South Financial Group, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, May 6, 2009). The company and certain of its current and former directors and executive officers have been named as parties in two shareholder lawsuits, one filed on Nov. 7, 2008, in South Carolina State Court in Greenville County having Vernon A. Mercier as the named plaintiff, and one filed on Nov. 26, 2008, in the Court having John S. McMullen on behalf of Andros Associates, Inc. as named plaintiff. On March 24, 2009, all parties to the Litigation executed an Agreement in Principle providing for the settlement of the Litigation. The Court entered the Order granting, among other things, preliminary approval to the Stipulation and the proposed notices to shareholders and class members, and setting: (1) May 7, 2009 as the deadline for filing objections with the Court, and (2) May 21, 2009 as the date for a hearing to consider, among other things, final approval of the proposed settlement. The Notice will be mailed to all shareholders of record as of April 1, 2009, according to the company's Current Report Form 8- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated April 2, 2009. The South Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.thesouthgroup.com/ -- is a bank holding company. TSFG operates principally through Carolina First Bank, a South Carolina-chartered commercial bank, which conducts banking operations in South Carolina and North Carolina (as Carolina First), in Florida (as Mercantile), and on the Internet (as Bank CaroLine). TSFG's subsidiaries provide a range of financial services, including deposits, loans, treasury management, merchant processing, full-service brokerage and investments, business and personal insurance, trust, investment management, and financial planning. As of Dec. 31, 2008, TSFG conducted business through 82 branch offices in South Carolina, 71 in Florida, and 27 in North Carolina. STAR GAS: Ruling on Securities Fraud Suit Appeals Still Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The decision on the December 2008 oral arguments hearing in connection with the plaintiffs' appeals regarding certain rulings previously entered in a consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit against Star Gas Partners, L.P., remains pending. On Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class-action complaint on behalf of a purported class of unitholders was filed against Star Gas and its various subsidiaries and officers and directors in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. The suit is "Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al., No. 3:04-cv-01766- IBA." Subsequently, 16 additional class-action complaints, alleging the same or substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint. On Sept. 23, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, in July 2006, the Court sided with the defendants and dismissed the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety. On Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and requested to have the court's judgment of dismissal altered and reopened. They also sought leave to file a second consolidated amended complaint. On Oct. 20, 2006, the defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. On March 22, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. However, on April 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for Mandatory Rule 11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of their legal fees pursuant to the PSLRA. This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs. On April 20, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Court in connection with the district court's decisions dismissing the amended complaint and denying the plaintiffs' Post-Judgment Motion. Subsequent to the filing of the notice of appeal, the class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal of the appeal as against: -- Hanseatic Americas, Inc., -- Paul Biddelman, -- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., -- RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., -- UBS Investment Bank, and -- Audrey Sevin. On July 6, 2007, the class plaintiffs filed their brief on appeal. The Star Gas Defendants' opposition brief was due on Aug. 21, 2007, and the class plaintiffs' reply brief was due on Sept. 11, 2007. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA. Oral argument was held in December 2008, and a decision is awaited. In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA, according to the company's May 8, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Judge Janet Bond Arterton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. (andres@stlouislaw.com) Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 - and - David L. Belt, Esq. (dbelt@jacobslaw.com) Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C. 350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606 New Haven, CT 06503-0606 Phone: 203-772-3100 Fax: 203-772-1691 Representing the defendants are: Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq. (tjgallagher@dbh.com) Day, Berry & Howard One Canterbury Green Stamford, CT 06901-2047 Phone: 203-977-7300 Fax: 203-977-7301 - and - Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq. (eandrews@tylercooper.com) Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn 205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936 New Haven, CT 06509-1910 Phone: 203-784-8200 Fax: 203-777-1181 STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Appeals Court Reverses $86M Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- The 4th District Court of Appeal in San Diego threw out an $86 million judgment against Starbucks Corp. that had faulted the company for allowing supervisors to share in tip pools over the past eight years, Greg Moran of The San Diego Union Tribune reports. In a 3-0 ruling, the appeals court reversed the award made last year by Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett. The court said Judge Cowett erred in applying the state law covering employee tips, according to The San Diego Union Tribune report. The San Diego Union Tribune reported that the appellate court drew a distinction between what state law bans, and what Starbucks does. Customers who leave tips in a collective "tip jar" intend that it be shared among the team of workers, the court wrote in a 27-page opinion, including shift supervisors. When Judge Cowett made her ruling in March 2008, the award against Starbucks was believed the largest ever in a tip-pooling case. With interest, the company was on the hook for an estimated $106 million, reports The San Diego Union Tribune. David Lowe, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the appeals court, not Judge Cowett, misinterpreted the law. He told The San Diego Union Tribune that he will ask the California Supreme Court to review the decision and reinstate the money award. Case Background On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009). More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons for other employees. It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the California Unfair Competition Law. In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay wages due. The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs. On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of all persons employed as baristas in the state of California since Oct. 8, 2000. In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately 120,000 potential members of the class. Trial is currently set for February 2008. At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its California baristas more than $100 million in back tips the coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors (Class Action Reporter, March 25, 2008). The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus interest in back tips. She added that Starbucks' practice was a violation of a state law. However, Chief executive Howard Schultz said that the ruling was unfair and said that the media grossly mischaracterized the company s standard practice of shift supervisors to share in tips left for baristas. Mr. Schultz vowed that the company would appeal the ruling and defend itself against two similar lawsuits filed this week in Minnesota and Massachusetts (Class Action Reporter, April 1, 2008). On March 20, 2008, the court ordered the company to pay approximately $87 million in restitution, plus interest. On Dec. 8, 2008, the company filed its initial appellate brief with the California Court of Appeals, according to its Feb. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 28, 2008. Starbucks said there is no money to be refunded or returned from Starbucks. Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee- related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated retail stores. SUPERVALU INC: Faces Ill. Suit Over Fees Charged to Cash Checks --------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc. faces a purported class-action suit in Madison County Circuit Court, alleging that it charges illegal fees to cash checks, Joe Harris of The Courthouse News Service reports. The suit is captioned, "Mary Voyles, et al. v. Supervalu, Inc., d/b/a/ Shope N. Save, Case No. 09-L-542," and was filed on May 28, 2009 in the Circuit Court - Third Judicial Circuit - Madison County, Illinois by Mary Voyles. Ms. Voyles claims that the Supervalu grocery chain -- which includes Shop N Save and Albertsons -- charge more than the greater of 50 cents, or 1 percent of the face value of the check, which are the maximum fees allowed by the Illinois Check Cashing Act, according to The Courthouse News Service report. The class period begins June 1, 2004 and includes all Illinois citizens who cashed a check at any Supervalu store for a fee greater than 50 cents or 1 percent of the face value of the check, The Courthouse News Service reported. Supervalu stores include Shop N Save, Save-A-Lot, Acme, Albertsons, Biggs Bristol Farms, Cub, Farm Fresh, Hornbacher's, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's/Star Market and Shoppers. The plaintiff, who is represented by Thomas G. Maag, Esq., seeks damages and an injunction, reports The Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?3d81 For more details, contact: Thomas G. Maag, Esq. Wendler Law P.C. 900 Hillboro, Suite 10 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: (618) 692-0011 Fax: (618) 692-0022 TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Faces Suit Over Budeprion XL Side Effects -------------------------------------------------------------- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. is facing a purported class-action lawsuit in California claiming that the company's Budeprion XL, a generic form of Wellbutrin, delivers the drug much more rapidly, making "less effective in treating depression" and "much more likely to cause certain dangerous side effects," The Courthouse News Service reports. Also named as defendants are Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Anchen Pharmaceuticals, according to The Courthouse News Service report. The plaintiffs -- represented by Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. with Milstein, Adelman & Kreger of Santa Monica -- seek restitution, disgorgement, damages, and an injunction, reports The Courthouse News Service. For more details, contact: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. Milstein, Adelman & Kreger, LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, California 90405 Phone: 888.835.8055 or 310.396.9600 Fax: 310.396.9635 e-mail: info@maklawyers.com Web site: http://www.maklawyers.com/ WINDSTREAM CORP: Trial in Suit v. Aliant Retirees Set for 3Q09 -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in a class-action complaint for declaratory judgment filed by Windstream Corporation, Windstream Nebraska, Inc., Windstream Systems of the Midwest, Inc., and Windstream Benefits Committee has been tentatively scheduled for the third quarter of 2009. On Aug. 14, 2008, Windstream Corporation, Windstream Nebraska, Inc., Windstream Systems of the Midwest, Inc., and Windstream Benefits Committee filed a class action complaint for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against the local bargaining unit for the Communication Workers of America and several former Aliant retirees individually and as representatives of persons similarly situated, requesting the court to declare that the company had a unilateral right to make certain amendments to its postretirement, medical and life insurance plans. On Dec. 3, 2008, the Court entered the company's Notice of Agreed Dismissal dismissing its claims against the local bargaining unit for the Communication Workers of America. On Nov. 26, 2008, the individual defendants moved for a preliminary injunction that sought to prevent the company from implementing the amendments to its postretirement, medical and life insurance plans on Dec. 30, 2008. The Court entered an order denying the individual defendants' motion for a preliminary injunction on Dec. 30, 2008. The company intends to assert and defend its position in this matter, 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. Windstream Corporation -- http://www.windstream.com/-- is a provider of telecommunications services in rural communities in the United States. The company owns subsidiaries that provide local telephone, high-speed Internet, long distance, network access, and video services in 16 states. As of Dec. 31, 2008, Windstream served more than three million communications customers in 16 states. Additionally, Windstream provides data services to more than 978,000 high-speed Internet customers. Windstream delivers one-stop shopping to customers with a range of communications products and services that include voice and related features, high-speed Internet, long distance, network access and video. The company's operations consist of its wireline and product distribution segments. New Securities Fraud Cases AKEENA SOLAR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Akeena Solar, Inc. (Nasdaq: AKNS) publicly traded securities during the period December 26, 2007 through March 13, 2008. The Complaint alleges that Akeena and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's sales, financial performance and condition. Defendants failed to disclose the following facts: -- the backlog number the Company had previously reported was unreliable; -- Akeena's gross profit margins were declining; -- the Company's net losses were dramatically increasing; and -- the $17.5 million "increase" in Akeena's credit line announced on December 26, 2007 was merely a cash collateralization agreement which simply increased the Company's restricted cash. When the truth was finally revealed, Akeena's common stock, which had traded as high as $16.80 on January 7, 2008, fell to a close of $6.15 per share on March 13, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 17, 2009. For more details, contact: Neal Eisenbraun, Esq. (cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com) Charles H. Johnson & Associates 2599 Mississippi Street New Brighton, MN 55112 Phone: (651) 633-5685 SUNTRUST BANKS: Berger & Montague Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. filed a class action in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of purchasers of SunTrust Capital IX 7.875% Trust Preferred Securities (NYSE: STI) (NYSE: PZ) of SunTrust Banks, Inc. pursuant and/or traceable to a false and misleading registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 2008 initial public offering of the Securities. The complaint charges SunTrust and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. SunTrust is a financial holding corporation, providing a range of financial products and services to consumer and corporate customers in the United States and internationally. The complaint alleges that defendants consummated the Offering pursuant to the false and misleading Registration Statement, selling 27.6 million units of the Securities at $25 per share, for proceeds of over $690 million. The Registration Statement incorporated SunTrust's financial results for 2007 and Form 8-K dated February 12, 2008. In November 2008, SunTrust received $3.5 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program and an additional $1.4 billion in December 2008. Then on January 22, 2009, when SunTrust released its earnings for the fourth quarter of 2008, SunTrust reported its first quarterly loss in at least two decades, cut its quarterly dividend from $0.54 to $0.10 per common share, and announced a significant increase in its provision for loan losses. When this became public, the price of the Securities declined significantly. According to the complaint, the true facts which were omitted from the Registration Statement were: -- the Company's assets, including loans and mortgage- related securities were impaired to a greater extent than the Company had disclosed; -- defendants failed to properly record losses for impaired assets; -- the Company's internal controls were inadequate to prevent the Company from improperly reporting its impaired assets; and -- the Company's capital base was not as well capitalized as it had represented. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's Offering. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before July 14, 2009. For more details, contact: Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. Casey M. Preston, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 Fax: 215-875-4604 Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com e-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net ********* 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 * * *