/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 1, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 128 Headlines ASTRAZENECA PLC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder's Lawsuit Over GD Merger BOB EVANS: Assistant Managers' Suit v. SWH Corp. in Discovery CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $12M CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek $15,000 Share of "Sauby" Deal DATA DOMAIN: Faces Investors' Lawsuit Over Proposed NetApp Deal EXPEDITORS INT'L: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services Pending FIBERNET TELECOM: Shareholders File Suit Over Zayo Merger Deal HILLENBRAND INC: Court Denies FCA Petition in Antitrust Lawsuit JONES SODA: Wash. Shareholder Securities Suit Dismissed in June KBR INC: Execs, Officers Face Investors' Lawsuit in Tex. Court KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Securities Suits by Shareholders LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in California LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Anti-competitive Activities LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Antitrust Violations in Canada LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending LUND BOAT: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Minn. Vacation Pay Suit MECHEL OAO: To Contest "Frederick" Securities Suit in New York MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Approves "Run-Flats" Suit Settlement PETLAND INC: Seeks Dismissal of Arizona Suit Over Sold Puppies PIEDMONT OFFICE: Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Suit PIEDMONT OFFICE: Wells REIT Securities Suit Still in Discovery RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Investor's Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. TIPPECANOE COUNTY: Ind. Court Nixes "Olson" Civil Rights Lawsuit TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius HID Lights UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif. WINDOW BLINDS: Ill. Court Refuses to Dismisses Claims in Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit ********* ASTRAZENECA PLC: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court decision dismissing a proposed class-action lawsuit accusing AstraZeneca PLC of misleading its investors about the safety and effectiveness of Exanta, a blood thinner that failed to win the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Law360 reports. Shannon Henson of Securities Law 360 previously reported that Judge Thomas P. Griesa of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York dismissed a securities class- action lawsuit accusing AstraZeneca Plc of misleading its investors about the safety and effectiveness of Exanta, its blood thinner that failed to win the approval of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2008). The class, which included everyone who bought or otherwise acquired securities of AstraZeneca between April 2, 2003, and Sept. 10, 2004, accused the company and four of its officers and directors of artificially inflating the company's stock through misrepresentations about the drug. The alleged misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to suffer losses when the FDA did not recommend the drug for approval, the suit said. In its motion to dismiss, U.K.-based AstraZeneca argued that U.S. securities laws did not give the court the authority to consider the claims of foreign purchasers who bought its shares in foreign stock markets. The company also argued that the plaintiffs did not and could not plead facts giving rise to a viable securities fraud claims -- particularly the facts demonstrating scienter. The individual defendants also filed an independent motion to dismiss. Exanta was the focus of four clinical trials that studied its effectiveness at preventing strokes; secondary venus thromboembolism; causes of mortality following total knee- replacement surgery; and major cardiac events in patients who had suffered heart attacks. However, the company and the individual defendants did not disclose or misstated the drug's risks of liver disease and heart attack, the plaintiffs said. In October 2004, the FDA denied approval of Exanta amid concern about liver injuries, heart attack and its efficacy when compared to another drug. The drug was pivotal to the company's financial success because U.S. patents on three of the company's drugs, which represented more than half of AstraZeneca's sales, were set to expire, the complaint said. The judge, in his recent ruling said, that his court does not have jurisdiction over foreigners who bought AstraZeneca stock on foreign exchanges and that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter. More than 90% of the members of the putative class were foreigners who purchased stock on foreign exchanges, the judge said. He ruled that the complaint failed to meet a requirement of the test for jurisdiction over foreigners buying on foreign exchanges -- that particular acts or culpable failures to act within the U.S. directly caused losses to foreign investors abroad. "The facts in the complaint and in documents incorporated into the complaint make clear that if fraudulent conduct occurred, it took place both within the United States and abroad," the judge said. The judge also said that the plaintiffs did not have enough evidence to prove that the defendants had a motive to mislead investors. The judge said the plaintiffs also failed to meet a test of conscious misbehavior and recklessness on the part of the defendants. "In the long recital of information about Exanta given to the public, there is nothing whatever to indicate that the statements made did not reflect the honest belief of the authors," the judge wrote. London-based AstraZeneca PLC -- http://www.astrazeneca.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and markets prescription pharmaceuticals for important areas of healthcare, such as cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, neuroscience, oncology, respiratory and inflammation, and infection. AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder's Lawsuit Over GD Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in Connecticut state court on behalf of current investors of Axsys Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXYS) against Axsys Technologies after it announced that General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems has entered into a agreement to acquire the company for $54 per share. Previously, it was reported that Levi & Korsinsky announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in Connecticut state court challenging the proposed acquisition of Axsys Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AXYS) (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2009). The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Axsys stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with General Dynamics Corp. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Axsys shareholders will receive $54 in cash for each share they own for a total transaction value of approximately $643 million. The price appears to be unfair given that in 2008 Axsys generated $245.48 million in total revenue with a net income of $25.87 million and Axsys shares traded over $72 per share as recently as December 2008. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street - 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/axys1.html BOB EVANS: Assistant Managers' Suit v. SWH Corp. in Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action complaint entitled, "Leonard Flores v. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe" is in the discovery phase, according to Bob Evans Farms, Inc.'s June 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009 Like many restaurant companies and retail employers, SWH Corporation, which does business as Mimi's Caf‚, has been faced with allegations of purported class-wide wage and hour violations in California. On Oct. 28, 2008, a class action complaint entitled, "Leonard Flores v. SWH Corporation d/b/a Mimi's Cafe" was filed in Orange County, California Superior Court. Mr. Flores was employed as an assistant manager of Mimi's Cafe until September 2006. Mimi's Cafe classifies its assistant managers as exempt employees. Mr. Flores purports to represent a class of assistant managers who are allegedly similarly situated. The case involves claims that current and former assistant managers working in California from October 2004 to the present were misclassified by Mimi's Caf‚ as exempt employees. As a result, the complaint alleges that these assistant managers were deprived of overtime pay, rest breaks and meal periods as required for non-exempt employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The case is currently in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been set. The company says, in its June 23, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 4, 2009, that it believes Mimi's Caf‚ properly classifies its assistant managers as exempt employees under California law. The company is evaluating the results of similar proceedings in California and is consulting with advisors with specialized expertise. Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full- service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts, Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes. As of April 25, 2008, Bob Evans owned and operated 703 full-service restaurants, including 571 Bob Evans Restaurants in 18 states and 132 Mimi's Cafes in 22 states. Bob Evans Restaurants are primarily located in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast regions of the United States. Mimi's Cafes are primarily in California and other western states. The company also produces and distributes fresh and fully cooked pork products and a variety of complementary home-style convenience food items under the Bob Evans and Owens brand names. These food products are distributed primarily to grocery stores in the East North Central, mid-Atlantic, Southern and South western United States. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Settles N.Y. Stockholders' Lawsuit for $12M ------------------------------------------------------------- Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. said it would pay $12 million to settle a class-action suit that alleged its officers of misrepresenting facts about operations that caused the company's stock to artificially inflate, Vidya Lakshmi of Reuters reports. The company said it denied all allegations made in the suit and decided to settle the suit to eliminate further litigation and related expenses. It said the cost of the settlement would be covered by insurance, according to Reuters. It was previously reported that the Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. continues to defend a consolidated stockholder lawsuit filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2009). September Litigation On Sept. 21, 2007, a stockholder class-action complaint was filed against the company and certain of its current and former senior executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the company's current and former officers made statements to the investing public which misrepresented material facts about the company's business and operations, or omitted to state material facts required in order for the statements not to be misleading, causing the price of the company's stock to be artificially inflated in violation of provisions of the Exchange Act, as amended. The suit alleges that more recent disclosures establish the misleading nature of these earlier disclosures. The complaint seeks money damages plus interest, as well as costs and disbursements of the lawsuit. October Litigation On Oct. 10, 2007, a stockholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its current and former senior executives. This complaint asserts similar allegations as the September suit. It seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, compensatory damages plus interest, and costs and expenses of the lawsuit, including counsel and expert fees. The two cases have been consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on Feb. 28, 2008. The company, however, filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit (Class Action Reporter, July 2, 2008). On July 18, 2008, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the move to dismiss the shareholders' securities fraud lawsuit. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs in the class action have provided enough evidence for a trial to go forward. No further updates regarding the case were reported in the company's April 1, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009. The suit is "Hall, et al. v. The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-08252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610-668-7987 Fax: 610-660-0450 e-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com CITY OF FARGO: Plaintiffs Seek $15,000 Share of "Sauby" Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Two plaintiffs involved in the purported class-action lawsuit, captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW- KKK," are saying they should share $15,000 from the case, The Associated Press reports. Stephanie Sauby of West Fargo, who filed the original lawsuit in January 2007, is asking for $10,000. James Burns of Fargo is seeking $5,000. Their lawyers say Ms. Sauby has been subjected to "mean-spirited, vile and personal attacks" and deserves the higher amount, according to AP. Patrick Springer of INFORUM reported that a proposed $1.5 million settlement was reached in a purported class-action suit, captioned, "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010-RSW- KKK," (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2009). The case, filed by Stephanie Sauby, a West Fargo woman, was certified as a class-action, with 54,000 drivers eligible to become part of the case who collectively paid fines exceeding those set by state law by $4.3 million, according to the INFORUM report. Dickinson Press previously reported that Judge Rodney Webb of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota ruled that a West Fargo woman can continue her lawsuit against the city of Fargo over traffic fines. According to Dickinson Press, plaintiff Stephanie Sauby accused the city of violating her rights by assessing higher traffic fines than state law allows. The city argued that the fines were not unconstitutional, and asked Judge Webb to dismiss Ms. Sauby's lawsuit. The report notes that in his recent ruling, Judge Webb dismissed one of the counts against the city, but found enough evidence to continue the case on two other counts. Specifically, Judge Webb threw out Ms. Sauby's claim of excessive fines but said she "has successfully raised equal protection and due process claims." Judge Webb, however, has not yet decided whether to grant Ms. Sauby's case class-action status, Dickinson Press relates. According to the report, the city's lawyer, Stacy Tjon-Bossart, Esq., did not return a phone message asking for comment. Ms. Sauby's attorney, Timothy Purdon, Esq., likewise has no comment. The suit is "Sauby v. Fargo, City of, Case No. 3:07-cv-00010- RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Judge Rodney S. Webb, presiding, with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein. For more details, contact: Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq. (tpurdon@vogellaw.com) Vogel Law Firm PO Box 2097 200 N 3 St Ste 201 Bismarck, ND 58502-2097 Phone: 701-258-7899 Fax: 701-258-9705 - and - Stacey Elizabeth Tjon Bossart, Esq. (STB@solberglaw.com) Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon PO Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: 701-237-3166 DATA DOMAIN: Faces Investors' Lawsuit Over Proposed NetApp Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Angry investors have filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in the Delaware Chancery Court against the Board of Data Domain, Inc., NetApp, Inc., and their acquisition entities. It was previously was reported that Levi & Korsinsky announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the Court of the Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the proposed acquisition of Data Domain, Inc. (Nasdaq: DDUP) (Class Action Reporter, June 22, 2009). The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Data Domain stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with NetApp, Inc. Under the terms of the proposal, Data Domain's shareholders would receive $30.00 to be paid in a combination of cash and NetApp stock. In addition, NetApp offered positions on its board to certain Data Domain officers and there are rumors that the Data Domain CEO Slootman could be the next CEO of NetApp. This raises questions as to whether the sales process conducted by the Board was fair and open. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street -15th Floor New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 Web site: http://www.zlk.com EXPEDITORS INT'L: Suit Over Freight Forwarding Services Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., and several other global logistics providers continue to face a purported class- action suit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging antitrust violations. The suit was filed on Jan. 3, 2008, under the caption, "Precision Associates, Inc. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd." It alleges that the defendants engaged in various forms of anti-competitive practices and seeks an unspecified amount of treble monetary damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2008). Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are: -- Panalpina, Inc.; -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG; -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc.; -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc.; -- EGL, Inc.; -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP; -- Deutsche Bahn AG; -- Schenker AG; -- Schenker, Inc.; -- Deutsche Post AG; -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc.; -- UTi Worldwide, Inc.; and -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders. Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services in the U.S. from any of the defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co-conspirator, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001, to the present. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding Services sold in the United States; (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy or combination; (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an artificially high and non-competitive level; (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or combination upon interstate commerce; (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs pray: -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim contained may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful contract, conspiracy or combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust laws; -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose of effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the distribution or sale of Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any such products except to the extent necessary in connection with bona fide sale transactions between the parties to such communication; and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre- at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs and members of the class have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Legal costs for the federal anti-trust class-action lawsuit and the European Commission's Request for Information have been a relatively small part of the $14 million of legal fees incurred related to anti-trust investigations, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 23, 2009. The suit is "Precision Associates, Inc., et al. cv. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., Case No. CV 08 0042," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing the plaintiffs is: Christopher Lovell, Esq. (clovell@lshllp.com) Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58 New York, NY 10110 Phone: 212-608-1900 Fax: 212-719-4677 Representing the defendants are: August C. Venturini, Esq. (acv@venturini-law.com) Venturini & Associates 230 Park Avenue, Suite 545 New York, NY 10169 Phone: 212-826-6800 Fax: 212-949-6162 James Joseph Calder, Esq. (james.calder@kattenlaw.com) Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP 575 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-940-6460 Fax: 212-940-3871 - and - Breon S. Peace, Esq. (bpeace@cgsh.com) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Phone: 212-225-2059 Fax: 212-225-3999 FIBERNET TELECOM: Shareholders File Suit Over Zayo Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- An angry investor has filed a proposed securities class action lawsuit in Delaware Chancer Court on behalf of current investors in FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:FTGX), who purchased their FTGX shares before May 28, 2009, over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of FiberNet. According to the complaint the plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. announced that it has entered into a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger with Zayo Group, LLC, a regional provider of bandwidth and telecom services to carrier, enterprise and government customers and Zayo Merger Sub, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Zayo Group. Each share of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. common stock issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the merger will be entitled to receive $11.45 in cash for a total deal value of approximately $87 million. According to the lawsuit the transaction appears to be unfair, among other things, given that FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. shares were trading at $11.68 a share as recently as April 07, 2009. Shares of Fibernet traded at $11.54 per share on September 23, 2008 and $11.43 on April 6, 2009. The plaintiff also alleges that at least one analyst has placed a $12 price target on FiberNet stock and the Company announced that it received a proposal to acquire the Company for $12.50 per share. FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc. -- http://www.ftgx.com/-- provides interconnection services enabling the exchange of voice, video and data traffic between multiple, global networks. The Company owns and operates colocation facilities and diverse transport routes in the gateway markets of New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami. The Company's network infrastructure and facilities are designed to provide broadband interconnectivity for network operators, including domestic and international telecommunications carriers and service providers. In its network-neutral colocation facilities, FiberNet provides racks, cabinets and customized caged spaces for its customers to deploy networking equipment and establish network points of presence. The facilities are located in the carrier hotels of gateway markets. The Company also provides redundant power systems, environmental controls and security for customers' colocation needs at these network aggregation points. HILLENBRAND INC: Court Denies FCA Petition in Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has denied a petition by the Funeral Consumers Alliance (FCA) to appeal a federal district court order in its antitrust lawsuit against Batesville Casket Company, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hillenbrand, Inc., and three of its funeral home customers. The FCA, a self-styled consumer advocacy group, had sought class certification in a lawsuit alleging that Batesville Casket Company and its three named customers had violated antitrust laws. A U.S. District judge in the Southern District of Texas denied certification on March 26, 2009, and the appellate court denied the subsequent petition for appeal on June 19, 2009. The FCA plaintiffs now have the option of dismissing their case or proceeding with individual claims. "It is very gratifying to receive the favorable ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which has denied the appeal request of the plaintiffs in this case," said Kenneth A. Camp, Hillenbrand's president and chief executive officer. "From the beginning, we believed the plaintiffs' allegations were baseless and we aggressively defended the fair and ethical practice of selling our products only through licensed funeral homes, which has been a cornerstone of our business model for more than 100 years." Hillenbrand, Inc. -- http://www.HillenbrandInc.com-- is the holding company for Batesville Casket Company, a leader in the North American death care industry through the sale of funeral services products, including burial caskets, cremation caskets, containers and urns, selection room display fixturing and other personalization and memorialization products. JONES SODA: Wash. Shareholder Securities Suit Dismissed in June --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder litigation involving Jones Soda Co., and Peter van Stolk, its former Chief Executive Officer, former Chairman of the Board, and former director, has been dismissed, according to the company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 23, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend a consolidated securities class action complaint brought against Jones Soda and Mr. van Stolk, dismissing the case with prejudice, and directing the court clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants. The consolidated action, "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," was purportedly commenced on behalf of all individuals who purchased Jones Soda common stock from Jan. 10, 2007 to May 1, 2008, and generally alleged violations of federal securities laws based on, among other things, false and misleading statements and omissions about agreements with retailers, allocation of resources, and business prospects. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 7, 2008. After hearing oral argument on Feb. 3, 2009, the Court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss in its entirety on Feb. 9, 2009. Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on March 25, 2009, and defendants opposed the motion on April 17, 2009. On June 22, 2009, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, dismissing the case with prejudice, and directing the court clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs may appeal the ruling within 30 days. The suit is "In re Jones Soda Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-1366-RSL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Robert S. Lasnik, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 David A.P. Brower, Esq. (brower@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven 488 Madison Ave., 8th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-501-9000 - and - Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. (cacantor@comcast.net) 627 208th Ave Se Sammamish, WA 98074-7033 Phone: 425-868-7813 Fax: 425-868-7870 Representing the defendants is: Barry M. Kaplan (bkaplan@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 701 Fifth Ave., Ste. 5100 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-883-2500 Fax: 206-883-2699 KBR INC: Execs, Officers Face Investors' Lawsuit in Tex. Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Investors in Halliburton Co. (NYSE: HAL) and KBR, Inc. (NYSE: KBR) have filed at least two separate lawsuits on behalf of current investors in Halliburton Co. in Texas state court on May 14, 2009 against certain one-time Halliburton subsidiary KBR, Inc. executives and officers and others alleging that poor oversight and lack of internal controls enabled a pervasive environment of misdeed and corruption, resulting in enforcement actions and substantial government penalties that have severely damaged investors' holdings. The complaint alleges wrongdoing by KBR, including massive waste and overbilling of services provided to American forces in Iraq; bribery in Nigeria to win government contracts; and multiple instances of fraud, corruption, and misconduct in both its domestic and foreign operations. The defendants include KBR Chief Executive Officer William Utt and six board members, former Chevron Corp. CEO Kenneth Derr and Robert Crandall, past chairman of American Airlines, and others. The plaintiff accuses that the "Defendants' failures have caused the Companies to suffer hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and to be exposed to substantial additional judgments in the future." Halliburton and KBR have paid more than $650 million in fines, penalties, and settlements -- including the largest fine ever assessed by the U.S. Commerce Department and the largest settlement ever paid by U.S. companies for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The plaintiff allege that "Under defendants' watch, and supposedly under their control and supervision, the companies were permitted to engage in conduct so notorious that the name 'Halliburton' has become virtually synonymous with 'corruption,'" and that the companies board of directors breached their fiduciary duty through business practices and criminal activities that resulted in massive fines, penalties and settlements paid to the federal government. According to the complaint, the full extent of misdeeds was successfully hidden until KBR was spun off as an independent company in 2006 and "the myriad crimes and wrongdoings could not have happened if Defendants were doing their jobs. As officers and directors of the Companies, the Defendants were required to ensure that the Companies' internal controls were in place, functioning properly, and sufficiently strong to prevent it from committing wrongful or illegal acts." KV PHARMACEUTICAL: Still Faces Securities Suits by Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------------- KV Pharmaceutical Company continues to face putative class- action shareholder lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws, according to its Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated June 23, 2009. The company's Board of Directors has appointed a Special Committee of the Board in response to the initiation of a series of putative class action shareholder lawsuits alleging violations of the federal securities laws by the company and certain individuals, the initiation of lawsuits alleging violations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as well as the receipt by the company of an informal inquiry from the SEC. KV Pharmaceutical Company -- http://www.kvpharma.com-- is a fully integrated specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, acquires and markets branded and generic/non- branded prescription pharmaceutical products. The company has a range of dosage form capabilities, including tablets, capsules, creams, liquids and ointments. KV conducts its branded pharmaceutical operations through Ther-Rx Corporation (Ther-Rx) and its generic/non-branded pharmaceutical operations through ETHEX Corporation (ETHEX). Through Particle Dynamics, Inc. (PDI), the company also develops, manufactures and markets value-added raw material products for the pharmaceutical, nutritional, personal care, food and other markets. The company has developed a variety of drug delivery and formulation technologies, which are primarily focused in four principal areas: SITE RELEASE; tastemasking; oral controlled release, and oral quick dissolving tablets. LG DISPLAY: Continues to Defend Antitrust Lawsuits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend purported class-action antitrust lawsuits in the Northern District of California, according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec.31, 2008. A number of purported class-action lawsuits were filed against the company and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in various U.S. federal district courts, alleging violation of U.S. antitrust laws and other related laws. In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, all of such cases were transferred to the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings. An additional claim by a customer's assignee has also been filed in the Northern District of California. LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors and other applications. It also supplies high-definition television panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical diagnostic equipment. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or larger) TFT-LCD panels. During 2008, it acquired LG Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology (AMOLED) business. LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Anti-competitive Activities ------------------------------------------------------------ LG Display Co., Ltd. intends to defend purported class action lawsuits filed in connection with possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD industry, according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. These purported class action lawsuits have been brought against the company, and certain of its officers and directors, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2007. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in connection with possible anti-competitive activities in the TFT-LCD industry. LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors and other applications. It also supplies high-definition television panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical diagnostic equipment. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or larger) TFT-LCD panels. During 2008, it acquired LG Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology (AMOLED) business. LG DISPLAY: To Defend Suits Over Antitrust Violations in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. intends to defend purported class-action complaints alleging violation of Canadian antitrust laws. The complaints were filed against the company in various Canadian courts. No further details regarding these lawsuits were disclosed in the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. LG Display Co., Ltd. -- http://www.lgdisplay.com- formerly LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., is a manufacturer of thin-film transistor liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCD panels in a range of sizes and specifications primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors and other applications. It also supplies high-definition television panels. The company manufactures TFT-LCDs for handheld application products, such as mobile phones and medium and large-size panels for industrial and other applications, such as entertainment systems, portable navigation devices, e-paper, digital photo displays and medical diagnostic equipment. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2008, the company sold a total of 93.4 million large-size (10-inch or larger) TFT-LCD panels. During 2008, it acquired LG Electronics' active matrix organic light emitting diode (OLED) technology (AMOLED) business. LML PAYMENT: Appeal to Junked DPPA Violations Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit against a subsidiary of LML Payment Systems, Inc., alleging violations of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act remains pending, according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009. DPPA regulates the use of personal information such as driver's license numbers and home addresses contained in motor vehicle records held by motor vehicle departments, by not having a permissible use in obtaining the State of Texas' entire database of names, addresses and other personal information. In the case, which was originally filed on Jan. 12, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, $2,500 for each instance in which the defendants obtained, disclosed or used personal information, and are claiming that because the Texas database includes the information of approximately 20 million persons, that the mere act of improperly obtaining that database constitutes 20 million violations of the statute by each defendant. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that a provider of check verification services (such as LML) should not be allowed to obtain and use Texas' entire driver's license database for the purpose of enabling merchants to check driver's licenses or other forms of identification at the point of sale, and that instead providers of check verification services should only be allowed to obtain the driver's license numbers of individuals at the time that such individual presents his or her driver's license to a merchant (in other words, plaintiffs allege that when a customer gets to the cashier and presents a driver's license to the merchant for the purpose of enabling the merchant to verify such person's identity when such person is using a credit card or check to purchase goods or services, that this is the first time at which it would be appropriate for a provider of check verification services to obtain such driver's license number from the state of Texas). On Sept. 8, 2008, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice and on Oct. 8, 2008 the plaintiffs appealed this decision. LML Payment Systems Inc. -- http://www.lmlpayment.com/-- is a financial payment processor that primarily provides consumer financial payment processing solutions to retailers and other clients in the U.S. LUND BOAT: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in Minn. Vacation Pay Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against Lund Boat Co., and its parent company, Brunswick Corp. are appealing a ruling that wen against them in a class-action lawsuit in connection to a dispute over vacation pay, Lauren Radomski of The Daily Journal reports. Kevin Cederstrom of the New York Mills Herald previously reported that the suit was filed in Otter Tail County in the State of Minnesota under the caption, "Roberts, et al. v. Brunswich Corp. and Lund Boat Company, Court File No. 56-CV-07- 1307," (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 26, 2009). The suit was brought brought by a group of former and laid off Lund employees that included: -- Darwin Roberts, -- Dave Dubs, -- Greg Morse, -- John Westhoff, -- Kenneth Mathewson, -- Jeff Small, -- Arthur Buntrock, -- Roger Grindstaff, -- James Baron, -- Jack Herr, -- Vincent Bernu, -- Richard Sydow, -- Steve Eklund, -- Leroy Atkinson, -- Michael Kroupa, -- Diana Makinen, -- Suzzy Harper, -- Gary Harper, and -- Thomas Kimmes. The plaintiffs claim that the company violated the law by failing to provide employees with all of their paid vacation time that they say was earned between the model year beginning June 30, 2004 and ending July 1, 2005, according to the New York Mills Herald. They also claim that when the company converted to a new paid vacation policy on July 1, 2005, the company failed to credit employees for paid vacation time they say they earned during the previous model year. The plaintiffs contend that they lost up to four weeks vacation and seek money damages for their claims, and the claims of class members, reports the New York Mills Herald. The New York Mills Herald reported that the purported class includes all persons employed by Brunswick Corp. and Lund Boat Co. at the New York Mills plant through July 1, 2005, whose vacation time was calculated according to the model calendar year (beginning July 1 and ending June 30), and ordinarily would have earned vacation time on July 1, 2005 under the Genmar vacation policy. In a June 2009 ruling, Judge Mark Hansen of Otter Tail County District Court said that plaintiffs suffered no loss of benefits in the change to the new vacation policy. That policy was effectively modified in the employee handbook, which served as an employment agreement between workers and the company, Judge Hansen said in his decision. Employees should have known of the changes, Judge Hansen said, and the fact that they continued to work signaled acceptance of those changes. MECHEL OAO: To Contest "Frederick" Securities Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Mechel OAO plans to contest a class-action lawsuit entitled "Frederick v. Mechel OAO, No. 09 Civ.3617." On April 8, 2009, a person who held its American depositary shares (ADSs) during the period October 2007 to July 2008, sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging claims against the company, its chief executive officer, its chief financial officer and the chief executive officer of its subsidiary Mechel Management. The case states claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff's claims arise from the FAS directive in which FAS claimed that the the company's pricing of coking coal within the Russian Federation violated Russian antimonopoly laws and that, in addition, the company did not pay all taxes that the Russian government now considers to be owed. The plaintiff in the class action alleges that the company and its officers should have anticipated or did anticipate these actions by the Russian authorities, and that the failure to disclose these risks constituted U.S. securities fraud. The plaintiff seeks certification of a class of all holders of the company's securities between October 2007 and July 2008 and an unspecified amount of damages. The company has engaged counsel, according to the company's June 23, 2009 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. The case is in its earliest stages; as of June 23, 2009, a lead plaintiff has not yet been selected pursuant to the provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Mechel OAO -- http://www.mechel.com/-- is a Russia-based integrated mining and steel company. The company is organized in four segments: mining, steel, ferroalloy and power. Mechel unites producers of coal, iron ore concentrate, steel, rolled products, ferroalloys, hardware, heat and electric power. Mechel products are marketed domestically and internationally. Mining segment includes coal, coking coal, steam coal, coal concentrate, coking, steam and iron ore concentrate. Products under steel segment include coke, pig iron, steel, rolled products and hardware. Product under ferroalloy segment includes nickel, ferrosilicon and ferrochrome. Power segment output includes electric power generation and heat power generation. The company's mining segment comprises production and sale of coal (coking and steam), iron ore and nickel, which supplies raw materials to its steel business and also sells substantial amounts of raw materials to third parties. MICHELIN NORTH: Md. Court Approves "Run-Flats" Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roger W. Titus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland gave final approval to a proposed settlement by Michelin North America Inc. and American Honda Motor Co. Inc. of a nationwide class-action lawsuit brought by consumers who claimed they were misled about the benefits of their "run-flat" tires and were then further burdened by the slow and expensive repair process, Jenny Munro of Greenville News reports. The judge approved an aggregate award of $83,000, which will be distributed to class members in sums of $5,000, $2,500 or $2,000 as compensation for replaced tires, reports Greenville News, The settlement allows class members to receive a rebate of $110 for the purchase of a Honda-approved PAX spare tire kits or spare tire or a $300 rebate for the purchase of a new Honda Odyssey or Acura RL. In addition, Michelin offered a three- year/36,000-mile extended warranty on the tires, Greenville News reported. Also, the court awarded attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses of $3 million, according to Greenville News. Brendan Kearney of The Daily Record previously reported that in a two-page motion filed on Dec. 29, 2008, attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants announced the agreement although the terms of the deal were not disclosed (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 15, 2009). According to the filing, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Record, the parties have "essentially completed the paperwork," but end-of-the-year corporate closures will put off disclosure of the specifics for the purposes of preliminary approval by Judge Roger W. Titus until Jan. 7, 2009. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Jan. 14, 2009. In their 140-page consolidated amended complaint filed in May 2008, the plaintiffs allege Michelin, which made the tires, and Honda, which outfitted certain cars and minivans with Michelin's PAX Tire and Wheel Assembly System, failed to disclose that the tires last half as long as radial tires. They also alleged the tires are "prohibitively expensive to repair and replace" and that sufficient repair facilities and stock of the tires and other parts of the PAX system do not exist in the U.S. According to the suit, the Honda Odyssey was the first minivan sold in North America to have the PAX system, which was supposed to allow drivers to travel farther -- 125 miles -- on a flat tire, thus obviating the need for a spare. The 2005-2007 models came with the system, which was discontinued within the past year. Certain Acura RL and Nissan Quest models also featured the run-flat tire system, which cost more than $2,000. Quoting Michelin statistics, the suit states more than 200,000 PAX systems have been sold in Europe and the U.S. Since 1998 when it was introduced to the market. The suit states that the paucity of repair facilities, exacerbated by the system's discontinuation, has led to inconvenience and poses a safety risk for those who must drive on bad tires. The Daily Record reported that class-action lawsuits filed by owners and leasers of the vehicles in Arizona, Florida, Illinois and New York were transferred to Judge Titus, who is presiding over the multidistrict litigation, in February 2008. Classes from other states are included in the suit before Judge Titus. Michelin and Honda decided not to retrofit, despite the ability to do so, the plaintiffs alleged. "Instead of taking this responsible action to remedy their unlawful actions and misconduct, Defendants have cynically chosen to disclaim responsibility for their misconduct and, instead, have sought to shift the economic burden of their development, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and/or sale of the inherently defective PAX System to Plaintiffs and Class members," the amended complaint states. For more details, contact: Betsy Ferling-Hitrizmm Esq. (bferling@sfmslaw.com) James E. Miller, Esq. (jmiller@sfmslaw.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP Phone: 866-540-5505 Web site: http://www.sfmslaw.com/pages/cases.php?id=343 PETLAND INC: Seeks Dismissal of Arizona Suit Over Sold Puppies -------------------------------------------------------------- Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corp. are seeking for the dismissal of a purported class-action lawsuit in Arizona that accuses them of operating "puppy mills," Thomas Gnau of Dayton Daily News reports. Greg Grisolano of The Joplin Globe previously reported that Petland, Inc. and Hunte Corp. are facing a purported class- action lawsuit in Arizona that accuses them of operating "puppy mills," (Class Action Reporter, March 20, 2009). The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on March 16, 2009 by several pet owners namely JoDell Martinelli, Stephanie Booth, Melia Perry, Abbigail King, Nicole Kersanty and Ruth Ross. The Humane Society of the United States and the pet owners who purchased their animals from Petland allege that the company conspired to sell sick puppies bred in filthy conditions, according to The Joplin Globe report. The suit seeks class-action status. It challenges the companies' conduct under federal racketeering statutes and consumer-protection laws in 20 states. In addition, the suit accuses Hunte of selling to Petland puppies that were "whelped at puppy mills," reports The Joplin Globe. The suit is "Martinelli et al v. Petland, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:09-cv-00529-DGC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Judge David G. Campbell, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Donald Andrew St. John (andy@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 2425 E Camelback Rd Ste 650 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-840-5900 Fax: 602-840-3012 PIEDMONT OFFICE: Faces 2nd Amended Complaint in Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A second amended complaint in the matter "In Re Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:07- cv-02660-CAP," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The purported class-action suit was filed on Oct. 25, 2007, by a Piedmont Office Realty Trust Inc. stockholder before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and its board of directors. The complaint attempts to assert class-action lawsuit claims on behalf of: -- those persons who were entitled to tender their shares pursuant to the tender offer filed with the SEC by Lex-Win Acquisition LLC on May 25, 2007, and -- all persons who are entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the SEC on Oct. 16, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the proposed classes. On Dec. 26, 2007, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking that the court designate it as lead plaintiff and its counsel as class lead counsel, which the court granted on May 2, 2008. On May 19, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint which contains the same counts as the original complaint. On June 30, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On March 30, 2009, the court granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed two of the four counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding (i) the failure to disclose information regarding the likelihood of a listing in Piedmont's amended response to the Lex-Win tender offer and (ii) misstatements or omissions in Piedmont's proxy statement concerning then-existing market conditions, the alternatives to a listing or extension that were explored by the defendants, the results of conversations with potential buyers as to Piedmont's valuation, and certain details of our share redemption plan. On April 13, 2009, defendants moved for reconsideration of the court's March 30, 2009 order or, alternatively, for certification of the order for immediate appellate review. The defendants also requested that the proceedings be stayed pending consideration of the motion. On April 20, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 14(a) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 14e-2(b) promulgated thereunder. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and void any authorizations secured by the proxy statement, and to compel a tender offer. The time for defendants to answer the second amended complaint has not yet expired, according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s May 14, 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: Piedmont Office Trust Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02660-CAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiff are: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041-0100 Phone: 215-642-8500 Meryl W. Edelstein, Esq. (MEdelstein@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 - and - Christopher J. Keller, Esq. (ckeller@labaton.com) Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 212-907-0700 Representing the defendants is: J. Timothy Mast, Esq. (tim.mast@troutmansanders.com) Troutman Sanders, LLP-ATL Suite 5200, Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308-2216 Phone: 404-885-3312 Fax: 404-962-6796 PIEDMONT OFFICE: Wells REIT Securities Suit Still in Discovery -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery remains ongoing in the matter captioned "In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," which names Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. (Piedmont REIT) -- f/k/a/ Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) -- as a defendant. On March 12, 2007, a stockholder of Piedmont REIT filed a purported class-action suit and derivative complaint entitled, "Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al." before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and the officers and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of the internalization transaction. The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those persons who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things: -- that the consideration to be paid as part of the Internalization is excessive; -- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9 thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the proxy statement contains false and misleading statements or omits to state material facts; -- that the board of directors and the current and previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to the class and to Wells REIT; and -- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich certain directors and officers of Wells REIT. The complaint seeks, among other things: -- certification of the class action; -- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and misleading; -- unspecified monetary damages; -- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during the proxy process; -- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger agreement; -- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary breaches; -- the nomination and election of new independent directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor to assess the advisability of Wells REIT's strategic alternatives; and -- the payment of reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees. In April 2007, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for an order enjoining the internalization transaction. The court then granted the defendants' motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in the Northern District of Georgia on April 24, 2007. In June 2007, the court granted a motion to designate the class lead plaintiff and class co-lead counsel. On June 27, 2007, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which contains the same counts as the original complaint, with amended factual allegations based primarily on events occurring subsequent to the original complaint and the addition of a Piedmont officer as an individual defendant. On March 31, 2008, the court granted in part a motion by the defendants to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed five of the seven counts of the amended complaint in their entirety. The court dismissed the remaining two counts with the exception of allegations regarding the company's failure to disclose in its proxy statement details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont. On April 21, 2008, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which alleges violations of the federal proxy rules based upon allegations that the proxy statement to obtain approval for Internalization omitted details of certain expressions of interest in acquiring Piedmont. The second amended complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, to nullify and rescind Internalization, and to cancel and rescind any stock issued to the defendants as consideration for Internalization. On May 12, 2008, the defendants answered and raised certain defenses to the second amended complaint. On June 23, 2008, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. On Jan. 16, 2009, defendants filed their response to plaintiff's motion for class certification. The plaintiff filed its reply in support of its motion for class certification on Feb. 19, 2009, and the motion is presently pending before the court. The parties are presently engaged in discovery. On April 13, 2009, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend the second amended complaint to add additional defendants. The time for the defendants to respond to the motion for leave to amend has not yet expired, according to Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.'s May 14, 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 Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr., presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. (nick@chimicles.com) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre Haverford, PA 19041-0100 Phone: 215-642-8500 Representing the defendants is: Michael J. Cates, Esq. (mcates@kslaw.com) King & Spalding, LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Investor's Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE: RJF) has filed a proposed securities class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Raymond James Financial between April 22, 2008 and April 14, 2009 against Raymond James Financial and others over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws. Previously, it was reported that Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Raymond James Financial, Inc. (NYSE: RJF) between April 22, 2008, and April 14, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009). The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Raymond James; Thomas A. James, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Raymond James; and Jeffrey P. Julien, the Company's chief financial officer. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, the defendants violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts that were known to the defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. More specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants publicized the Company's purportedly conservative management practices and mortgage portfolios, when, in reality, there were significant credit risks associated with the residential and commercial loan portfolios of one of its largest wholly-owned subsidiaries. For more details, contact: Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., Esq. (tciarlone@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 TIPPECANOE COUNTY: Ind. Court Nixes "Olson" Civil Rights Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana dismissed a purported class-action lawsuit filed against Tippecanoe County Sheriff Tracy Brown alleging by a former inmate who claimed his rights were repeatedly violated by jail staff, Sophia Voravong of Journal and Courier reports. The lawsuit, originally filed in Tippecanoe Superior Court 1, was transferred the to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana on Jan. 20, 2009, under the caption, "Olson v. Brown, Case No. 4:2009-cv-00006." Journal and Courier reported that it was filed by Jeffrey M. Olson, 40, who argued that jail employees opened his legal mail and provided him with wrong prescription medication, among other allegations. Last week, Judge Allen Sharp dismissed Mr. Olson's complaint, calling it moot because Mr. Olson is no longer a jail inmate. At the time, the Lafayette man was awaiting transfer to the Indiana Department of Correction, Journal and Courier reports. "The requirement that Mr. Olson's case be dismissed under these circumstances has been made clear by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals," Judge Sharp wrote in the 11-page ruling, a copy of which was obtained by Journal and Courier. Mr. Olson is serving a 10-year prison sentence for a case out of Tippecanoe County in which he pleaded guilty to fraud on a financial institution and being a habitual offender. He was transferred from the jail to the Department of Correction about two weeks after the lawsuit was filed, according to Journal and Courier. Journal and Courier relates that Mr. Olson's attorney had sought class-action certification for the complaint -- arguing the lawsuit still should stand as a class action. Judge Sharp, however, noted that Mr. Olson was transferred before a judge could grant the request. Mr. Olson's lawsuit outlined several complaints, including allegations that Mr. Olson's legal work for an unrelated civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kentucky was taken and placed in storage. He also alleged improper handling and delayed response of the jail's grievance policy, which allows inmates to file complaints without needing legal action. Jail staff has 15 days to respond to a grievance, Journal and Courier reports. However, Judge Sharp pointed out that Olson waited nearly two months from the date of his last written grievance to file the lawsuit in federal court. The judge also wrote that no evidence was presented showing that Mr. Olson was denied from accessing the court, reports Journal and Courier. Mr. Olson's other allegations were that legal mail was opened not in his presence; that he was denied access to the jail's "out-of-date" law library; that dirty eating utensils and cups are given to inmates; and that commissary prices, such as the cost of pre-paid phone cards, are excessive, according to Journal and Courier. For more details, contact: Gavin M. Rose, Esq. (grose@aclu-in.org) ACLU of Indiana 1031 E Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46202-3952 Phone: 317-635-4059 Ext 106 Fax: 317-635-4105 - and - Douglas J. Masson, Esq. (djm@hlblaw.com) Hoffman Luhman & Masson PC 200 Main Street Suite C PO Box 99 Lafayette, IN 47902-0099 Phone: 765-423-5404 Fax: 765-742-6448 TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius HID Lights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is facing a purported class- action lawsuit over the upgraded optional lights, known as high- intensity discharge headlamps on its Prius vehicles that have a tendency to fail, Jean Halliday of AdAge.com reports. The suit was filed on May 1, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under the caption, "Carlos Collado v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 2:2009-cv- 03087." According to the complaint, "Toyota is concealing the problems from owners" even though the automaker has "long been aware of Prius' HID headlight problem," which the suit calls a "dangerous but undisclosed safety defect," reports AdAge.com. Attorney Eric Gibbs, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP told AdAge.com that his San Francisco firm has been contacted by hundreds of people experiencing faulty HID headlights on the Prius. He pointed out that the defect seems most prevalent in 2006 and 2007 models, although the firm is also looking at 2008 and 2005 models. For more details, contact: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. (ehg@girardgibbs.com) Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street Suite 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 UNITED COMPONENTS: Bids to Junk Purchasers' Suits Remain Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motions to dismiss the U.S. direct and indirect purchasers' amended purported class-action complaints, which name United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories Inc., as defendant, remain pending. According to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, the class actions allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Direct Purchaser Litigation As of March 15, 2009, the company and Champion have been named as two of multiple defendants in 23 complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the District of New Jersey, the Middle District of Tennessee and the Northern District of Illinois, related to aftermarket oil, air, fuel and transmission filters. Eight of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but those plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Carlyle from each of those actions without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as a defendant in 13 virtually identical actions originally filed in the Northern and Southern Districts of Illinois, and the District of New Jersey. All of these complaints are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased aftermarket filters in the U.S. directly from the defendants, or any of their predecessors, parents, subsidiaries or affiliates, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 to the present. Each case seeks damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Nov. 26, 2008, all of the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion filed its answer to the direct purchasers' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Indirect Purchaser Litigation United Components and Champion were also named as two of multiple defendants in 17 similar complaints originally filed in the District of Connecticut, the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs who claim to be indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. Two of these complaints also named The Carlyle Group as a defendant, but the plaintiffs in both of those actions voluntarily dismissed Carlyle without prejudice. Champion, but not United Components, was also named in three similar actions originally filed in the Eastern District of Tennessee, the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of California. These complaints allege conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and/or violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. They are styled as putative class actions on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired indirectly aftermarket filters manufactured and/or distributed by one or more of the defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 1999 and the present; with the exception of three complaints, which each allege a class period from Jan. 1, 2002 to the present, and one complaint which alleges a class period from the "earliest legal permissible date" to the present. The complaints seek damages, including statutory treble damages, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Dec. 1, 2008, all of the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, except Gasoline and Automotive Service Dealers of America ("GASDA"), filed a Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. This complaint names Champion as one of multiple defendants, but it does not name United Components. The complaint is styled as a putative class action and alleges conspiracy violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and violations of state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition law. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs seek damages, including statutory treble damages, penalties and punitive damages where available, an injunction against future violations, disgorgement of profits, costs and attorney's fees. On Feb. 2, 2009, Champion and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Indirect Purchaser Complaint. On that same date, Champion, United Components and the other defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the GASDA complaint. JPML Order On Aug. 18, 2008, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the U.S. direct and indirect purchaser aftermarket filters cases to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings before the Honorable Robert W. Gettleman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. Pursuant to a stipulated agreement between the parties, all defendants produced limited initial discovery on Jan. 30, 2009. The Court has ordered that all further discovery shall be stayed until after it rules on the motions to dismiss. On April 13, 2009, GASDA voluntarily dismissed United Components from its case without prejudice. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Lawsuits Over Filters Sale Pending in Quebec --------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Quebec, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of five defendants in a class action filed in Quebec, Canada. This action alleges conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act and violations of the obligation to act in good faith (contrary to art. 6 of the Civil Code of Quebec) related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the five defendants in the amount of $5.0 million in compensatory damages and $1.0 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is seeking authorization to have the matter continue as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on, according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Suit on Filters Sale in Ontario Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., faces a putative class-action suit related to the sale of aftermarket filters in Ontario, Canada. Champion, but not United Components, was also named as one of 14 defendants in a class action filed on May 21, 2008, in Ontario, Canada. This action alleges civil conspiracy, intentional interference with economic interests, and conspiracy violations under the Canadian Competition Act related to the sale of aftermarket filters. The plaintiff seeks joint and several liability against the 14 defendants in the amount of $150 million in general damages and $15 million in punitive damages. The plaintiff is also seeking authorization to have the matter proceed as a class proceeding, which motion has not yet been ruled on, , according to the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. UNITED COMPONENTS: Unit Defends Suit Over Filters Sale in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- United Components, Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary, Champion Laboratories, Inc., continues to defend a purported class-action in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles. On Jan. 12, 2009, Champion, but not United Components, was named as one of ten defendants in an action filed in the Superior Court of California, for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of a purported class of direct and indirect purchasers of aftermarket filters. On March 5, 2009, one of the defendants filed a notice of removal to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, and then subsequently requested that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer this case to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. No further developments on the case were reported in the company's May 14, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2009. United Components, Inc. -- http://www.ucinc.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures and distributes filtration, fuel, cooling and engine management products to the automotive, trucking, industrial, construction, agricultural, marine and mining vehicle markets. The company offers approximately 41,000 part numbers. It is a supplier to the vehicle replacement parts market, or the aftermarket. Over 85% of its net sales, during the year ended December 2007, were made to vehicle replacement parts market or the aftermarket, which is subdivided into four primary channels: retail, traditional, heavy-duty and original equipment service (OES). Filtration products made up 40.1% of sales, during 2007, 23.7% for fuel products, 20.8% for cooling products and the remaining 15.4% for engine management products. WINDOW BLINDS: Ill. Court Refuses to Dismisses Claims in Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dave Hylla of Madison County Circuit Court has denied a motion the sought for the dismissal of the remaining claims in a purported class-action lawsuit accusing 13 companies that manufacture, distribute or sell window blinds deemed dangerous, Steve Korris of The St. Clair Record reports. The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 18, 2005 in the Madison County Circuit Court. It alleges that defendants conspired to conceal a risk that dangling cords could strangle people. Thus, the suit seeks to represent "hundreds of millions" of window blind buyers (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006). The plaintiffs claim no personal injury, however they seek damages equal to the difference between what they paid for window blinds and what they would have paid if they had known the risk. Lawyer Jeffrey Lowe of Clayton, Mo. continues to pursue the case, which is accusing all 13 firms of conspiracy, on behalf of Ronald Alsup of Edwardsville and Robert Crews of Granite City, according to The St. Clair Record. After much legal wrangling, Mr. Lowe would later seek an injunction banning further manufacture, distribution or sale of blinds with dangling cords, recalls The St. Clair Record. Some defendants eventually settled and 13 companies asked Circuit Judge Dave Hylla to dismiss all counts, The St. Clair Record reported. The St. Clair Record relates that Mr. Lowe narrowed his approach, agreeing to dismiss counts of negligence and breach of implied warranties against all 13 firms. He dropped all fraud counts and the count of negligent omission against 11, persisting against Springs Window Fashion and Beautiful Window Enterprise. He later dropped his count seeking a ban on dangling cords. All 13 defendants moved to dismiss remaining counts, and on June 9, 2009, Judge Hylla denied the motions, reports The St. Clair Record. That left Springs Window Fashion and Beautiful Window Enterprise facing a variety of claims and all 13 facing claims of civil conspiracy and concert of action. Judge Hylla wrote that Mr. Lowe's accounts of meetings among window makers in 1994 were sufficient to allege conspiracy, The St. Clair Record reports. New Securities Fraud Cases OPPENHEIMER AMT-FREE: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, announces that it has filed a class action lawsuit 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. This action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (09-CV-01447). In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that OppenheimerFunds, Inc., OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc., the Fund and certain of its trustees and officers violated 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. Additionally, the complaint alleges that 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 information, contact: John G. Emerson, Esq Scott E. Poynter, Esq Emerson Poynter LLP 500 President Clinton Ave, Suite 305 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: 501.907.2555 or 800.663.9817 Fax: 501.907.2556 e-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.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 * * *