/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090810.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 10, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 156 Headlines ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Accrued $3.8M for Settlement Expenses AETNA INC: N.J. Judge Appoints Lead Attorneys in UCR Litigation APPLE INC: Faces FLSA Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Wages AT&T INC: Kansas City Council Approves $10.7M Deal in Tax Suit ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Premature Withdrawals BDO SEIDMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Malack" CANYON COUNTY: Deal Reached in Idaho Suit Over Jail Conditions COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought for $55M ERISA Suit Deal COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Investors Oppose Expert Witness Affidavit CVS PHARMACY: Aug. 13 Conference Scheduled in AirShield Lawsuit FLORIDA: Court Considers Class Certification of Medicaid Lawsuit HURON CONSULTING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois JARDEN CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK in May '09 MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Set for July 2010 Trial MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Calif. Lawsuit MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Kansas Lawsuit MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Final Approval in July MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Bungled Pension Fund Investments OFFICE DEPOT: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Fraud Suit PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Stained Teeth SAFENET INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Some Defendants in Stock Suit SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C. SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing SPRINT NEXTEL: Easement Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn. USG CORP: Defends Six Chinese-Made Wallboard Suits in Florida USG CORP: Drywall Products Liability MDL Suit v. Unit Pending USG CORP: Unit Defends Homeowners' Suit on Defective Wallboard USG CORP: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Wallboard in State Courts WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Depositors' Suit in Tex. WOODBURY COUNTY: Eighth Circuit to Rule on Strip-Search Case WYETH: To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits Over Pfizer Merger Deal New Securities Fraud Cases ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing CONSECO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. HURON CONSULTING: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit INTERNATIONAL GAME: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL: Accrued $3.8M for Settlement Expenses ------------------------------------------------------------- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc., at June 30, 2009, accrued expenses of $3.8 million associated with the settlement of the ChoiceDek(R) purchasers' class action lawsuit. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle Division, approved a class action settlement on Jan. 9, 2009, related to a purported class action lawsuit seeking to recover on behalf of purchasers of ChoiceDek(R) composite decking for damages allegedly caused by mold and mildew stains on their decks. The settlement includes decking material purchased from Jan. 1, 2004, through Dec. 31, 2007, along with decking material purchased after Dec. 31, 2007, that was manufactured before Oct. 1, 2006, the date a mold inhibitor was introduced in the manufacturing process. As part of the settlement, the defendants have agreed not to use the terms "minimum maintenance," "low maintenance," "easy to maintain," or "virtually maintenance free" in ChoiceDek(R) marketing materials. AERT is required to provide additional cleaning instructions on the ChoiceDek(R) website to assist customers with cleaning their decks. AERT has provided national notice of the settlement to putative class members and has established a call center to answer customer questions regarding ChoiceDek(R). AERT is self-administering a claim resolution process whereby eligible deck owners may file a claim for significant mold spotting by Sept. 10, 2009. If eligible, deck owners who timely file a claim for significant mold spotting may receive relief such as deck cleanings and applications of a mold inhibitor, gift cards for use at Lowe's, replacement materials, and/or refunds under certain criteria. An arbitration provision is included in the settlement agreement, which provides for disputes arising from the claim resolution process. At June 30, 2009, AERT had accrued expenses of $3.8 million associated with the settlement of the class action lawsuit. The estimate included $2.6 million remaining for the claims resolution process and $1.2 million remaining to be paid for plaintiffs' attorney fees over 2009 and 2010. The claim resolution process will have an annual net cost limitation to AERT of $2.0 million until the claim resolution process is completed, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.aertinc.com/-- develops, manufactures and markets composite building materials that are used in place of traditional wood or plastic products for exterior applications in building and remodeling homes and for certain other industrial or commercial building purposes. The Company's products are sold by national companies, such as the Weyerhaeuser Co., Lowe's Cos., Inc., and Therma-Tru Corp. Its composite building materials are marketed as a substitute for wood and plastic filler materials for standard door components, windowsills, brick mould, fascia board, decking and heavy industrial flooring under the trade names LifeCycle, MoistureShield, MoistureShield CornerLoc, Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek Premium, ChoiceDek Premium Colors, MoistureShield outdoor decking and Basics outdoor decking. AERT has manufacturing facilities in Springdale, Lowell, and Tontitown, Arkansas; Junction, Texas and Alexandria, Louisiana. AETNA INC: N.J. Judge Appoints Lead Attorneys in UCR Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Faith S. Hochberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey picked two law firms to take the lead in a class-action lawsuit against Aetna, Inc., Henry Gottlieb of The New Jersey Law Journal reports. The lawsuit is captioned In re Aetna, Inc., Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation (Master Docket No. 07-cv-3541; MDL No. 2020). It accuses Aetna of underpaying reimbursements for out-of- network health care. The plaintiffs, the American Medical Association and individual doctors and patients, allege that Aetna underpaid reimbursements for out-of-network treatment by knowingly relying on a faulty database used by several insurers to compute the usual, customary and reasonable value of health care, and now it owes additional payments (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2009). The litigation consists of five cases consolidated before Judge Hochberg by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, three of which were originally filed in New Jersey and two of which were filed in Connecticut. On July 31, 2009, the judge selected Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross of New York to chair a seven-firm plaintiffs' executive committee and coordinate the litigation, Mr. Gottlieb writes. Judge Hochberg's order says that Carella, Byrne, Bain Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein in Roseland will act as settlement liaison counsel with responsibility to organize and coordinate overtures in the case. According to the judge, the arrangement would bring efficiency and order to the litigation and that she expects it to settle, the Journal reported. Since May, rival teams of plaintiffs attorneys had been negotiating to divide the work without ceding too much power or the right to hefty portions of any fees. On July 10, they reached a compromise to divide the leadership role among seven firms. But Judge Hochberg slew the seven-headed Hydra, saying in herorder that it is "important that there be a single law firm to serve as a point of contact for defendants and the court with authority to speak on behalf of plaintiffs." For more details, contact: Pomerantz Haudek Grossman & Gross LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-661-1100 or 1-888-4-POMLAW Fax: 212-661-8665 Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/ - and - Carella, Byrne, Bain Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Rd. Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 Web site: http://www.carellabyrne.com/ APPLE INC: Faces FLSA Suit in Florida for Failing to Pay Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses the company of failing to pay its employees proper wages for overtime work, Neil Hughes at The Apple Insider reports. The suit was filed on Aug. 4, 2009 in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of California by Kenyon Zahner. It is captioned Zahner v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-61183, and is also alleging that the company demanded its employees put in more than 40 hours per week without proper compensation. The plaintiff claims that his employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, and that the he and other employees are entitled to compensation for their unpaid overtime, reports the Apple Insider. According to the complaint, "During Plaintiff's employment, [Apple] required [Mr. Zahner], a non-exempt employee under the FLSA, and others similarly situated, to work in excess of forty (40) hours per work-week, and willfully refused to compensate Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, for all such work pursuant to the FLSA." Mr. Zahner and his co-plaintiffs were unable to produce the exact amount of overtime they believe they are owed. The suit alleges that the hours worked by the employees are in the "exclusive possession and sole custody and control" of Apple. The court filing states that the employees are entitled to time- and-a-half pay for their overtime work, writes Mr. Hughes. "The Plaintiff, however, will exert diligent efforts to obtain such information by appropriate discovery proceedings, to be taken promptly in this case," the suit reads. The suit asks for compensation according to the FLSA, including liquidated damages, and coverage of attorney costs, and court fees, according to the Apple Insider. Representing Mr. Zahner are: Chad Evan Levy, Esq. Levy & Levy 300 Southeast 13th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: 954-763-5722 Fax: 954-763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com - and - Christopher John Whitelock, Esq. Whitelock & Associates 300 SE 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154 Phone: 954-463-2001 Fax: 954-463-0410 E-mail: cjwhitelock@bellsouth.net AT&T INC: Kansas City Council Approves $10.7M Deal in Tax Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Kansas City Council Finance and Audit Committee passed an ordinance on July 29, 2009, approving a settlement agreement with AT&T/SBC Landline for $10.7 million in unpaid business license taxes, Jeff Salem at The Sun Tribune reports. Bill Geary, Esq., assistant city attorney, told the committee that Kansas City was one of several municipalities in Missouri to file a class-action lawsuit in St. Louis County Circuit Court to recover the unpaid taxes, Mr. Salem reported. The cities claimed in their lawsuits that the telecommunications company failed to include certain items when it figured what to pay its gross receipt taxes on, according to Mr. Geary. "The cities alleged that there were certain items that ought to be considered just as part of these gross receipts," he further said. Those untaxed items included "charges such as those collected from consumers for the Federal Universal Service Fund, State Universal Service Fund, End User Common Line Charge, and intrastate private line service," according to the ordinance's fact sheet, a copy of which was obtained by The Sun Tribune. Kansas City's $10.7 million share is one-fifth of the total settlement the cities will receive. Mr. Geary said Kansas City should receive its share in the latter part of December, writes Mr. Salem. ATLAS MINING: Settlement of Securities Suit Pending in Idaho ------------------------------------------------------------ The proposed settlement of a class action styled In Re Atlas Mining Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-00428, is pending final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The company, certain of its directors and former officers and employees, its prior auditor, Chisolm, Bierwolf & Nilson, LLC, and Nano Clay and Technologies, Inc., its defunct, wholly owned subsidiary, are defendants in a class action filed on Oct. 11, 2007, on behalf of purchasers of the company publicly traded common stock during the period Jan. 19, 2005, through Oct. 8, 2007. The First Amended Complaint -- see http://is.gd/26qUm-- alleges that the company damaged purchasers by making material misstatements in publicly disseminated press releases and Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the extent of the halloysite deposit on company property, the availability and quality of halloysite for sale, and claimed sales of halloysite. The Complaint also alleges that the company improperly manipulated reported earnings with respect to purported halloysite sales and misrepresentations by the individual defendants as to our financial statements. The plaintiffs seek remedies under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The company's former officers and employees have requested, with respect to this action, payment of their attorneys' fees and indemnification. Lead counsel in this case has been selected. On July 2, 2009, the company entered into a Settlement Agreement with the lead plaintiffs. Under the terms of the settlement pact, the Company will pay plaintiffs $1,250,000 (which includes fees to plaintiff's counsel), to be funded by the proceeds of an insurance policy issued by Navigators Insurance Co., in exchange for release of all claims against Company, Nano Clay & Technologies, Inc., and William T. Jacobson, Robert Dumont, Ronald Price and Barbara Suveg. The company will also fund up to $75,000 to fund expenses in connection with notification to class members. The Settlement Agreement is subject to a number of conditions including successful completion of confirmatory due diligence by the lead plaintiffs and final court approval, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008. Atlas Mining Company -- http://www.atlasmining.com-- is a natural resources company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of its resource properties in the states of Idaho and Utah. The company also provides contract mining services and specialized civil construction services for mine operators, exploration companies and the construction and natural resources industries through its trade name Atlas Fausett Contracting (AFC). AFC performs site evaluation, feasibility studies, trouble-shooting and consultation prior to the undertaking of exploration and mine development. The company also operates in timber industry. The company contracts its logging to a qualified logger when it is selling the timber. Its property consists primarily of pine, fir and larch. The company's major mining properties include Shoshone County, Idaho, and Juab County, Utah. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Mo. Lawsuit Over Premature Withdrawals ------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America, N.A, faces a purported class-action lawsuit that claims the bank made millions of dollars from its customers by prematurely withdrawing money from their checking accounts, Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 24, 2009 in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence by Kelly Kendall, Bryon Johnmeyer, Pride Developments, LLC, and is docked under Case No. 0916-CV23069. The plaintiffs claim the bank withdraws money electronically from accounts before paper checks are presented, though BofA advertises that it does not do that, writes Mr. Harris. The complaint claims that Bank of America takes customers' money and puts it into a separate account that it controls during a float period. The bank allegedly earns millions of dollars from the interest it gains from the premature withdrawals, while at the same time it exposes customers to unwarranted service fees and insufficient funds charges, reports Courthouse News Service. Bank of America does not pay customers interest for the float period and does not disclose that it earns the interest, according to the complaint. The suit demands damages, disgorgement and refunds of all service fees and insufficient fund charges customers incurred during the float period, according to Mr. Harris' report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4101 Representing the plaintiffs is: John F. Edgar, Esq. Edgar Law Firm LLC 1032 Pennsylvania Avenue Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-531-0033 Fax: 816-531-3322 Web site: http://www.edgarlawfirm.com BDO SEIDMAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Malack" ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied a motion that sought certification of a class in the securities fraud class-action lawsuit entitled Malack v. BDO Seidman, LLP, Case No. 08-0784, Alison Frankel at Am Law Litigation Daily reports. The suit was filed on Feb. 15, 2008, by John A. Malack, Michael R. Rosati, Virgil Magnon, S. S. Rajaram, M.D., Hayward Pediatrics, Inc. and Henry Munster. It alleges that BDO Seidman, LLP violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5. A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?40fe The plaintiffs are represented by: Todd S. Collins, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Phone: 215-875-3000 Fax: 215-875-5715 E-mail: tcollins@bm.net BDO Seidman is represented by: Timothy E. Foeffner, Esq. DLA Piper LLP One Liberty Plaza, Suite 4900 1650 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-656-3300 E-mail: timothy.hoeffner@dlapiper.com CANYON COUNTY: Deal Reached in Idaho Suit Over Jail Conditions -------------------------------------------------------------- Canyon County commissioners signed an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Idaho to improve conditions at the county jail, Mike Butts at The Idaho Press- Tribune reports. The consent decree is an agreement to settle a purported class- action lawsuit brought by the ACLU that claimed unacceptable jail conditions. Many of the problems stemmed from jail overcrowding. The ACLU filed its federal lawsuit in January, but, due to a technicality, needed to re-file in March. The lawsuit -- a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/26rn2at no charge -- charges that the Canyon County Jail is overcrowded and shower facilities are teeming with toxic mold and rust. It also charges that the detention center suffers from inadequate ventilation and temperature control, inadequate sanitation, and inadequate plumbing (Class Action Reporter, March 31, 2009). Mr. Butts writes that the decree requires the main jail population be kept at 296 inmates. That could mean the county will have to "farm out" inmates to other jails to stay within the agreement's requirements. The consent decree still needs approval from a federal judge and jail inmates who are part of a class-action lawsuit. Once approved, it will be effective for two years, after which time it would come to an end if its requirements have been met. All three county commissioners signed the consent decree. But Commissioner Steve Rule said he was uncomfortable doing so. He said there were no other options other than to continue the lawsuit. And he said the decree would have to be followed to the "nth degree," according to the Press-Tribune. The Press-Tribune reports that the 33-page decree includes jail population maximums and lists inmate capacities for 13 pods and three annexes. It also calls for remediation to remove mold and improvements or changes in: -- Ventilation -- Sanitation -- Plumbing -- Air temperature -- Bedding -- Outdoor recreation -- Staffing -- Posting inmate handbooks -- Special meals for allergies -- Reduction in medical co-pays from $10 to $5 -- Gender discrimination -- Inspections COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Approval Sought for $55M ERISA Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit accusing Countrywide Financial Corp. of violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in its treatment of their 401(k) plan asked a judge to approve a $55 million settlement in the case, Law360 reports. In a motion filed on Aug. 5, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, plaintiffs said that the $55 million cash payment would provide "substantial benefit" to them, according to Law360. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Investors Oppose Expert Witness Affidavit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Investors suing Countrywide Financial Corp. in a putative class- action lawsuit, alleging securities fraud have called on a court to strike an expert witness affidavit filed by the mortgage lender opposing class certification, saying the document is a transparent attempt to shore up weaknesses in the expert's reports and was submitted too late, Law360 reports. The lead pension fund plaintiffs filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Aug. 5, 2009, according to Law360. CVS PHARMACY: Aug. 13 Conference Scheduled in AirShield Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 13 case management conference is set for the purported class-action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy Inc. over the effectiveness of it's "AirShield" cold remedy product, Amelia Flood at the St. Clair Record reports. According to an order signed by Judge Lloyd Cueto of the St. Clair County Circuit Court, during that conference, the parties will address class certification, writes Ms. Flood. The class certification issue was supposed to be resolved in July, but was moved pursuant to the July 15 order, the Record reported. The suit was filed in December 2008 by Iean Finley, who claims that CVS misled the public into believing that AirShield protects against illness and boosts the immune system. It specifically accuses the pharmacy of knowingly selling a product that did not work. Mr. Finley is suing the company under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The class constitutes those who bought AirShielf on or before Sept. 3, 2003. The company though denies the allegations and its attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Mr. Finley fails to plead any factual basis for his own claims other than he bought AirShield from a CVS store (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2009). The suit seeks damages of no more than $75,000 per individual class member, costs and attorneys' fees. Judge Cueto was assigned to the case on Jan. 22, 2009, after Judge Robert LeChien recused himself (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009). Mr. Finley is represented by: Paul M. Weiss, Esq. George K. Lang, Esq. Freed and Weiss LLC 111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312 220 0000 and 312 855 2628 Fax: 312 220 7777 E-mail: paul@freedweiss.com george@freedweiss.com Web site: http://www.freedweiss.com - and - Kevin T. Hoerner, Esq. Becker, Paulson, Hoerner and Thompson, P.C. 5111 West Main Street Belleville, Illinois 62226 Phone: (618) 235-0020 or (618) 271-1600 Fax: (618) 235-8558 Web site: http://bphtlaw.com/ CVS is represented by: Robert Bassett, Esq. Donovan, Rose, Nester & Joley, P.C. 8 East Washington Street Belleville, IL 62220 Phone: 618-235-2020 Telecopier: 618-235-9632 - and - David Smith, Esq. Reed Smith LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-7507 Phone: +1 312 207 6476 Fax: +1 312 207 6400 E-mail: dzsmith@reedsmith.com Web site: http://www.reedsmith.com FLORIDA: Court Considers Class Certification of Medicaid Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is considering whether a lawsuit claiming Florida's Medicaid program is failing children should be made into a class-action case, affecting tens of thousands of people, The Associated Press reports. The suit was filed on Nov. 21, 2005, by pediatricians and pediatric dentists, who are claiming that the federal-state Medicaid program that provides health services to the poor does not do the job required by law, especially when it comes to children. Listed as defendants in the matter are the state Agency for Health Care Administration, which runs Medicaid, the Department of Children and Family Services and the state Health Department, AP reported. The complaint is captioned Florida Pediatric, et al. v. Seretary - AHCA, et al., Case No. 05-cv-23037, and it specifically alleges that the Medicaid program is violating the civil rights of young people and children by providing inadequate health and dental care, reports The AP. After a hearing last week on the class-action issue, Judge Adalberto Jordan must now decide whether the lawsuit should cover every Floridian under age 21 who is eligible for Medicaid. The plaintiffs are represented by: Stuart Harold Singer, Esq. Boies Schiller & Flexner 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-356-0011 Fax: 954-356-0022 E-mail: ssinger@bsfllp.com The defendants are represented by: Marcos Daniel Jimenez, Esq. Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow & Spector 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1100 Miami, FL 33131-4327 Phone: 305-373-1000 Fax: 305-372-1861 E-mail: mjimenez@kennynachwalter.com HURON CONSULTING: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- A total of five stockholder class actions have been filed on behalf of all shareholders of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) who purchased or acquired Huron stock from April 27, 2006, to July 31, 2009. These are not individual lawsuits by shareholders against the company. Instead, they are lawsuits on behalf of all shareholders of Huron. Shareholders filed these lawsuits to recoup the 70% drop in stock suffered on Aug. 3, 2009. It is expected that many more lawsuits will be filed by shareholders against the company. The five complaints, filed in the Northern District of Illinois, allege that defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results and compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Specifically, the Company improperly accounted for payments made as part of acquisitions. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements, the plaintiffs charge that Huron stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $83.25 per share on December 26, 2007. Then on July 31, 2009, Huron announced that it would be restating its financial results from 2006 through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to its failure to properly account for earn-out payments made in connection with four of its acquisitions. On this news, Huron's stock collapsed $30.66 per share to close at $13.69 per share on August 3, 2009, a one- day decline of almost 70%. The shareholders who have filed suit have done so on behalf of all shareholders in order to recover damages caused by the company's restatement. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Hamilton Lindley, Esq. Kendall Law Group 3232 McKinney, Ste. 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: (214) 744-3000 or (877) 744-3728 Fax: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: hlindley@kendalllawgroup.com Web site: http://www.kendalllawgroup.com JARDEN CORP: Securities Suit Settlement Gets Final OK in May '09 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York gave its final order approving the settlement in the securities fraud class action litigation against Jarden Corp. in May 2009. In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. June 29, 2005 is the date the company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006. No class has been certified in the actions. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and certain officers of the company. The suit alleged, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. That motion was been fully briefed, argued on Feb. 2, remains sub judice, and is now moot by virtue of the settlement pact. On May 19, 2009, the District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final order approving the settlement in the securities class action litigation against the company and certain company officers and dismissing the case with prejudice. The entire amount of the settlement has been paid by the company's liability insurers, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. The first identified complaint is Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corporation, et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff firms in this and similar actions are: (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com; (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com; (3) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C., 60 Park Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212.838.3221, E-mail: gray@cjgraylaw.com; (4) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com; (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (Melville), 58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173; (6) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800.705.9529, E-mail: classattorney@aol.com; (7) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000, New York, NY 10118, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com; (8) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (9) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; and (10) Stull, Stull & Brody, (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. MCKESSON CORP: Connecticut State's Suit Set for July 2010 Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class-action lawsuit captioned State of Connecticut v. McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-CV-10900, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts is set for July 19, 2010. On May 28, 2008, an action was filed by the State of Connecticut against the Company, again as the sole defendant, alleging violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Sherman Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts. The action is based on factual allegations substantially identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al. v. First DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 05-CV-11148. The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and trial in the Connecticut Action for July 19, 2010. On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Connecticut Action filed an unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions to Jan. 14, 2010, and trial in the Connecticut Action to October 2010. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion to modify the schedule, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply, information and care management products and services across the healthcare industry. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Calif. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 30, 2009 discovery cut-off has been set in the class- action suit styled San Francisco Health Plan, et al. v. McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 08-CA-10843. On May 20, 2008, the San Francisco Health Plan, on behalf of itself and a purported class of political subdivisions in the State of California, and the San Francisco City Attorney, on behalf of the "People of the State of California" filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company as the sole defendant. The action alleges violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the California Cartwright Act, California False Claims Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties, restitution, interest and attorneys' fees, all in unspecified amounts. On July 3, 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the San Francisco action adding a claim for tortious interference. On Sept. 2, 2008, the District Court entered an order staying the class-action suit. The action is based on factual allegations substantially identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 05-CV-11148. The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and scheduled a class certification hearing in the San Francisco Action for Feb. 10, 2010. No trial date has yet been set or proposed in the San Francisco Action. On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the San Francisco Action filed an unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions to Jan. 14, 2010, the class certification hearing in the San Francisco Action to April 2010. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion to modify the previously described schedule, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply, information and care management products and services across the healthcare industry. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. MCKESSON CORP: Oct. 30 Discovery Cut-Off Set for Kansas Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An Oct. 30, 2009 discovery cut-off has been set in the class action styled Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 08-CV-11349. On Aug. 7, 2008, the action was filed by the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Kansas on behalf of itself and a purported national class of state, local and territorial governmental entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the company and First DataBank, Inc. The plaintiffs allege violations of civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs seek damages and treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts. The action is based on factual allegations substantially identical to those asserted in the civil action styled New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al., v. First DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 05-CV-11148. On Dec. 24, 2008, an amended and consolidated class action complaint was filed in the Kansas action. The amended complaint added the named plaintiffs from the Florida, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Maryland, South Carolina and North Carolina actions. The trial court set a discovery cut-off of Oct. 30, 2009, and scheduled a class certification hearing in the Kansas Action for Feb. 10, 2010. No trial date has yet been set or proposed in the Kansas Action. On July 10, 2009, plaintiffs in the Kansas Action filed an unopposed motion to modify the court's scheduling order by moving the discovery cut-off in all of the consolidated actions to Jan. 14, 2010, the class certification hearing in the Kansas Action to April 2010. The court has not yet ruled on plaintiffs' motion to modify the previously described schedule, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply, information and care management products and services across the healthcare industry. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. MCKESSON CORP: Proposed Settlement Gets Final Approval in July -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in July 2009, granted final approval of the proposed settlement in the New England Carpenters I civil action against McKesson Corp. The civil action pending against the company in the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts is styled New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al., v. First DataBank, Inc., and McKesson Corporation, Civil Action No. 05-CV-11148. On Aug. 7, 2008, the court issued its order denying plaintiffs motion to certify a class made up of uninsured consumers who paid "usual and customary" prices for prescription drugs from Aug. 1, 2001 through the present, although the court did so "without prejudice" to the plaintiffs renewing their motion at a future date based on new facts developed in ongoing discovery. Expert discovery is ongoing, and in connection with those proceedings plaintiffs have produced a report which claims total damages through March 15, 2005, for the third party payor class and the consumer percentage co-pay class of US$5.6 billion, inclusive of prejudgment interest. As a subset of this total, the plaintiffs' report claims damages for the respective certified class periods scheduled for trial of US$3.7 billion for the third party payor class, and US$150 million for the consumer percentage co-pay class, both amounts inclusive of prejudgment interest. The certified third party payor and percentage co-pay consumer class claims are based on alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. On Nov. 21, 2008, the company announced in a filing on Form 8-K that an agreement had been entered into to settle all private party claims relating to First DataBank Inc.'s published drug reimbursement benchmarks, commonly referred to as Average Wholesale Price. The settled private party claims include the action filed against the company in the New England Carpenters I civil action, including the class of uninsured consumers who paid usual and customary prices for prescription drugs. That settlement, which is subject to preliminary and final approval by the U.S. District Court, provides for a release by all class members of the Company as to all matters alleged, or which could have been alleged, in these private party actions. The consideration for the settlement is $350 million, payable into a settlement escrow in installments following preliminary and final approvals of the settlement. As a result, during the third quarter of 2009, the company recorded a $350 million pre- tax charge for its AWP-related private party actions. On Jan. 23, 2009, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement but has not yet set a hearing date regarding final approval of the settlement. The final approval hearing on the company's settlement of private party claims was conducted by the trial court as scheduled on July 23, 2009, and July 24, 2009, the trial court issued an order approving the settlement, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. McKesson Corp. -- http://www.mckesson.com/-- provides supply, information and care management products and services across the healthcare industry. The company is headquartered in San Francisco, Calif. MORGAN STANLEY: Faces Suit Over Bungled Pension Fund Investments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., UBS Financial Services, Inc., The Indiana State Teachers Association, along with several other defendants, face a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses them of screwing up public schoolteachers' pension fund investments so badly that the plan faces a $67 million deficit and 650 disabled teachers will lose their long-term benefits, Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit was filed on July 24, 2009, in Marion County Court, Indianapolis by teachers Dennis Mcallen, Dennis Dittrick, Cheryl Lakes, and Shirley O'Neill. It is docketed as Cause No. 49D05-09-07-PL-034768. The teachers say that 88 percent of the pension funds were put into "hedge funds, derivatives, private equities, and long-term real estate investments," which are "extremely volatile, inherently high-risk, illiquid, and presently are virtually worthless," reports Mr. Kahn. "These investments were drastically ill-suited for investment of insurance trust funds, which are intended to protect Plan participants in times of need due to health issues or disability," according to the complaint. Until recently, the pension money was put into "conservative, and far more appropriate, investment vehicles such as United States Treasury Bonds," the plaintiffs state. However, the plaintiffs claim that that "the Plan engaged in an extremely high volume of investment trades in 2008 for a portfolio of this size, which is reflective of an inappropriately high-risk investment strategy. This high volume of trades generated a correspondingly high amount of commissions for defendants David M. Karandos, Morgan Stanley, and UBS," Courthouse News Service reported. Mr. Karandos is an investment adviser and broker who worked for UBS and then Morgan Stanley, and whom the teachers blame for the "inappropriate investments." The ISTA has relinquished control of the trust fund to the National Education Association, which appointed Edward Sullivan sole trustee of the Plan. The teachers say their trust agreement calls for nine trustees. They want eight other trustees appointed to serve with Mr. Sullivan, according to report. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4102 Representing the teachers is: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Cohen & Malad, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: 317.636.6481 Fax: 317.636.2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com/ OFFICE DEPOT: Pursues Dismissal of Amended Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Initially, two putative class-action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its executive officers, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor program funds. Each of the lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and are captioned as: * Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-14348), filed on Nov. 6, 2007; and * Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia McKay, Case Number, 07-81038), filed on Nov. 5, 2007. On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in the Nichols case moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits. On March 21, 2008, the court entered an order consolidating the cases. The lead plaintiff in the consolidated case, the New Mexico Educational Retirement Board, filed a consolidated amended complaint on July 2, 2008. On Sept. 2, 2008, Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint on the basis that it fails to state a claim. On March 31, 2009, the court dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint, but allowed the lead plaintiff leave to amend. On April 20, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is pending before the court, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 27, 2009. The suit is Nichols v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Case No. 07-cv-14348, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 - and - Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. Alleghney Building 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 1618 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: 412-338-2266 Representing the defendants is: Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com) Hogan & Hartson 1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-459-6500 Fax: 305-459-6550 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Mich. Litigation Over Stained Teeth ----------------------------------------------------------- Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., and Proctor & Gamble Distributing LLC are facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a Detroit-area lawyer who claims his teeth have brown stains after he used Crest Pro-Health mouthwash, The Associated Press reports. Mark C. Rossman's law partners filed the lawsuit on Aug. 6, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 09-cv-13099), and seeks class action status. He says P&G should put a warning on the bottle, writes the AP. Mr. Rossman of Harper Woods says his wife noticed brown on the edges where teeth meet other teeth. Despite flossing and brushing, the 34-year-old says the stains won't go away, according to the AP report. Representing Mr. Rossman is: David F. Hansma, Esq. Mantese and Rossman 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Phone: 248-457-9200 Fax: 248-457-9201 E-mail: dhansma@manteselaw.com SAFENET INC: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Some Defendants in Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul Crotty of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed seven executives named as defendants in a securities fraud class-action lawsuit against software security firm SafeNet, Inc., and a group of directors and officers, Law360 reports. On Aug. 5, 2009, the judge dismissed the six named directors from the suit and one of SafeNet's former officials. But, the judge kept actionable claims of stock options backdating against the company and two former officers, according to Law360. Two securities fraud lawsuits have been lodged against SafeNet in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: -- Golde v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-06194, filed August 15, 2006; and -- Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. SafeNet, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-05797, filed August 1, 2006. SONOCO PRODUCTS: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------- Sonoco Products Co. continues to face a securities fraud lawsuit filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, captioned City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348. The company was served with the complaint, filed by the City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, on July 7, 2008. The suit purports to be a class action on behalf of those who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 7, 2007, and Sept. 18, 2007, except officers and directors of the company. It alleges that the company issued press releases during the class period that were materially false and misleading because the company allegedly had no reasonable basis for the earnings projections contained in the press releases, and that such information caused the market price of the company's common stock to be artificially inflated. The complaint also names certain company officers as individual defendants and seeks an unspecified amount of damages plus interest and attorneys' fees. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 28, 2009. The suit is City of Ann Arbor Employees' Retirement System, City of v. Sonoco Products Company, et al., Case No. 08-cv-02348, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, Judge Terry L. Wooten, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq. (wehopkins@hopkinscampbell.com) Hopkins and Campbell P.O. Box 11963 Columbia, SC 29211 Phone: 803-256-6152 Fax: 803-256-6155 Representing the defendants is: William Clarence Boyd, Esq. (bboyd@hsblawfirm.com) Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd P.O. Box 11889 Columbia, SC 29211-1889 Phone: 803-779-3080 Fax: 803-765-1243 SPRINT NEXTEL: Discovery in Shareholders Securities Suit Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in a shareholder class-action lawsuit against Sprint Nextel Corp., alleging violations of federal securities laws. In September 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas denied a motion to dismiss a shareholder lawsuit alleging that the company's 2001 and 2002 proxy statements were false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws to the extent they described new employment agreements with certain senior executives without disclosing that, according to the allegations, replacement of those executives was inevitable. These allegations, made in an amended complaint in a lawsuit originally filed in 2003, are asserted against the company and certain current and former officers and directors, and seek to recover any decline in the value of the company's tracking stocks during the class period. The parties have stipulated that the case can proceed as a class action. All defendants have denied plaintiffs' allegations and intend to defend this matter vigorously, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2008, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2008. Allegations in the original complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants and the company's former independent auditor, were dismissed by the Court in April 2004. The company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was denied, and the parties are engaged in discovery (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009). The company did not provide any updates on the case in its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline communications products and services for individual consumers, businesses and government customers. The company conducts its operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline. The company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. The company offers digital wireless services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital enhanced network (iDEN) technology. It also offers wireless services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network. SPRINT NEXTEL: Easement Cases v. Unit Remain Pending in Tenn. ------------------------------------------------------------- Cases filed against Sprint Nextel Corp.'s subsidiary, Sprint Communications Company L.P., for alleged failure to obtain easements for fiber optic network installations remain pending in Tennessee. A number of cases that allege Sprint Communications failed to obtain easements from property owners during the installation of its fiber optic network in the 1980's have been filed in various courts. Several of these cases sought certification of nationwide classes, and in one case, a nationwide class was certified. In 2003, a nationwide settlement of these claims was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, but objectors appealed the preliminary approval order to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the settlement and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The parties proceeded with litigation and settlement negotiations on a state by state basis, and settlement negotiations have been coordinated in all cases but those pending in Louisiana and Tennessee. The Louisiana claims have been separately settled for an amount not material to the company, and that settlement was given final approval by the Court, and the time to appeal that approval has expired. The company has reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims in all the other states, excluding Tennessee, for an amount not material to the company. The Court issued its preliminary approval of the settlement on July 17, 2008, and the Court is in the process of considering objections to the settlement (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2009). No developments on the matter were reported in the company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. Sprint Nextel Corp. -- http://www.sprint.com/-- is a global communication company offering a range of wireless and wireline communications products and services for individual consumers, businesses and government customers. The company conducts its operations through two segments: Wireless and Wireline. The company, together with three third party affiliates (PCS Affiliates) offers digital wireless service in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands under the Sprint brand name utilizing wireless code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. The company offers digital wireless services under its Nextel brand name using integrated digital enhanced network (iDEN) technology. It also offers wireless services that focus on the youth market, including its Boost Mobile prepaid wireless service on its iDEN network and Boost Unlimited, a local calling prepaid service on its CDMA network. USG CORP: Defends Six Chinese-Made Wallboard Suits in Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation remains named as a defendant in six different class action lawsuits filed in Florida. USG's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, is not named in the lawsuits. USG did not manufacture, distribute, or sell any Chinese-made wallboard. The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed. However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined to Florida, were limited. Based on the company's records, it believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250- 300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a mixture of different brands of wallboard. L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction, as well as products used in certain industrial processes. The company is organized into three reportable segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and Worldwide Ceilings. USG CORP: Drywall Products Liability MDL Suit v. Unit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- A multi-district litigation entitled In re Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2047, remains pending against USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation. As of the end of the second quarter of 2009, L&W Supply was a defendant in nineteen class actions filed in federal court in Florida, Louisiana and Alabama relating to Chinese-made wallboard. In June 2009, all federal court class actions were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for consolidated pretrial proceedings. This multi-district litigation will also include any individual homeowner lawsuits that are filed in federal court. The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed. However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined to Florida, were limited. Based on the company's records, it believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250- 300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a mixture of different brands of wallboard. L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction, as well as products used in certain industrial processes. The company is organized into three reportable segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and Worldwide Ceilings. USG CORP: Unit Defends Homeowners' Suit on Defective Wallboard -------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, remains a named defendant, along with many other companies, in lawsuits relating to Chinese-made wallboard primarily sold in Florida in 2006. L&W Supply was one of a number of distributors of Chinese-made wallboard. These lawsuits, most of which were brought by homeowners, claim that the Chinese-made wallboard is defective and emits high levels of sulfur causing, among other things, a bad smell and corrosion of copper or other metal surfaces. The homeowners also allege that the Chinese-made wallboard causes health problems such as respiratory problems and allergic reactions. Some of the lawsuits are brought by individual homeowners and some are class actions brought on behalf of a group of homeowners who claim their homes contain defective Chinese-made wallboard. Also named as defendants in these lawsuits are home builders, contractors, other distributors, and the manufacturers of the wallboard. The Chinese-made wallboard at issue sold by L&W Supply was manufactured by Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. The named defendants include Knauf Tianjin, two other Knauf Chinese wallboard facilities, Knauf Gips KG, another Knauf affiliate, and three Chinese wallboard manufacturers unrelated to Knauf. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for the costs of removing and replacing the Chinese-made wallboard and other allegedly damaged property as well as damages for personal injury, including medical monitoring in some cases. The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed. However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined to Florida, were limited. Based on the company's records, it believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250- 300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a mixture of different brands of wallboard. L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems, according to the company's July 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction, as well as products used in certain industrial processes. The company is organized into three reportable segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and Worldwide Ceilings. USG CORP: Unit Defends Lawsuits Over Wallboard in State Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- USG Corporation's subsidiary, L&W Supply Corporation, remains a named defendant in state court lawsuits filed in Florida and Louisiana relating to Chinese-made wallboard. As of the end of the second quarter of 2009, L&W Supply was a defendant in more than 100 individual homeowner lawsuits and five class actions filed in Florida state court and one individual homeowner lawsuit and one class action filed in Louisiana state court. L&W Supply was also named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Lennar Homes in Florida state court relating to Knauf Tianjin wallboard installed in homes built by Lennar in Florida. Although USG did not manufacture, distribute, or sell any Chinese-made wallboard, all of the Chinese-made wallboard lawsuits filed against L&W Supply also name USG as a defendant. The Chinese-made wallboard case is in a preliminary stage, and the company expects that additional similar suits will be filed. However, the company says that L&W Supply's sales of the allegedly defective Knauf Tianjin wallboard, which were confined to Florida, were limited. Based on the company's records, it believes that the amount of Knauf Tianjin wallboard potentially sold by L&W Supply would completely furnish approximately 250- 300 average-size homes, although the actual number of homes could be somewhat larger because some homes may contain a mixture of different brands of wallboard. L&W Supply sold other Chinese-made wallboard, primarily manufactured by Knauf entities, but the company is not aware of any instances in which the non-Tianjin wallboard sold by L&W Supply has been determined to cause odor or corrosion problems, according to the company's July 28, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. USG Corporation -- http://www.usg.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer and distributor of building materials, producing a range of products for use in new residential, new nonresidential, and repair and remodel construction, as well as products used in certain industrial processes. The company is organized into three reportable segments: North American Gypsum, Building Products Distribution and Worldwide Ceilings. WILLIS GROUP: Strasburger & Price Files Depositors' Suit in Tex. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Strasburger & Price, LLP, and Castillo Snyder, PC, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: WSH), a UK-based global insurance broker with more than 400 offices in nearly 120 countries, and other defendants. The suit, filed on behalf of a class of Venezuelan depositor clients of Houston-based Stanford Financial Group, also names Willis of Colorado, Bowen, Miclette & Britt, Inc., of Houston, and two individuals. The class action, filed in federal court in Dallas, Tex., seeks damages totaling approximately $1.6 billion for more than 1,200 depositors with the potential to include as many as 5,000 depositors impacted in the Stanford Financial fraud. This is the second suit filed on behalf of Latin American depositors by Strasburger & Price and Castillo Snyder. On July 2, 2009, the first of the two suits was filed on behalf of Mexican depositors seeking $1 billion in damages against Willis and the defendants. In line with the previous case, the recent filing alleges Texas securities law violations by Willis and the co-defendants in the massive investment fraud scheme perpetrated by Stanford Financial that led to the intervention by the Securities and Exchange Commission in Texas. Strasburger Partners Edward F. Valdespino and David Cibrian will serve as lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case. "This additional class action filed on behalf of depositors in Latin America illustrates the breadth and depth of the financial damage inflicted by Stanford Financial, and the extent to which it went beyond U.S. borders," says Valdespino. "In just these two cases combined, we have identified thousands of defrauded Stanford clients with losses now totaling over $2.6 billion. Our allegations are consistent with those expressed in the first suit filed, as is our commitment to recovering financial assets and holding the defendants liable for their alleged role in marketing for Stanford." The 50-page filing alleges that Willis and the codefendants provided Stanford Financial with certain "safety and soundness" letters at Stanford's request. It further alleges that the clear intention of the letters was that they be used for marketing purposes to retain or obtain actual or prospective clients for Stanford Financial. The suit also alleges the defendants' direct participation in the fraud crossed the line from the role of insurance brokers, to acting as sales agents for Stanford Financial and its deposit products. The suit further alleges that these actions convinced depositors located throughout Latin America to invest with Stanford Financial and in turn caused them to be defrauded by the firm, losing assets totaling several billion dollars. For more details, contact: Strasburger & Price, LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 4400 Dallas, Texas 75202.3794 Phone: 214.651.4300 Fax: 214.651.4330 Web site: http://www.strasburger.com/ - and - Castillo Snyder, PC Bank Of America Plaza 300 Convent, Suite 1020 San Antonio, Texas 78205-3789 Phone: (210) 630-4200 Fax: (210) 630-4210 Web site: http://casnlaw.com/ WOODBURY COUNTY: Eighth Circuit to Rule on Strip-Search Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is set to decide whether to allow the lawsuit against Woodbury County over the county jail's former strip-search policy to proceed as a class-action case, Grant Schulte at The Des Moines Register reports. As early as this year, the court will decide whether to allow the lawsuit to proceed as a blanket claim for those inmates, who served time between February 2005 and October 2007, writes Mr. Schulte. The suit was filed on Feb. 13, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Iowa by Maureen Rattray. It is captioned Rattray v. Woodbury County, Iowa, Case No. 07-cv-04014. The plaintiff specifically challenges the former policy that allowed jailers to strip search offenders booked into jail for serious misdemeanors and felonies. The case revolves around the sheriff's use of strip-searches, dating back as far as the 1970s, for all inmates charged with serious misdemeanors or greater offenses. Jail officials stopped the practice on Oct. 15, 2007, eight months after Ms. Rattray filed her complaint. Two other women have since joined the lawsuit, according to Mr. Schulte's report. Ms. Rattray's complaint stems from her drunken driving arrest in August 2006 wherein she claims jailers kept a door open during a strip search and she was forced to hold a jail jumpsuit in front of her naked body while she walked past men to her cell. In 2008, a federal judge denied Ms. Rattray's motion to make the case a class-action lawsuit and include thousands of people who were booked in the jail since 1985 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2008). The Des Moines Register reported that the district court case remains in limbo until the federal appeals court rules on how the case can proceed. The plaintiffs are represented by: Jean Pendleton Pendleton Law Firm, PC 1501 - 42nd Street, Suite 445 West Des Moines, IA 50266 Phone: 515 222 9111 Fax: 515 243 0299 E-mail: jpendleton@pendletonlawfirm.com - and - Megan Jill Erickson, Esq. Dickinson, Mackaman, Tyler & Hagen, PC 699 Walnut Street, Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309 Phone: 515 246 4583 Fax: 515 246 4550 E-mail: merickson@dickinsonlaw.com Wood County is represented by: Douglas L. Phillips, Esq. Klass Law Firm, L.L.P. Mayfair Center, Upper Level 4280 Sergeant Road, Ste. 290 Sioux City, IA 51106 Phone: 712 252 1866 Fax: 712 252 5822 E-mail: phillips@klasslaw.com WYETH: To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits Over Pfizer Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer, Inc., and Wyeth have agreed to settle shareholder lawsuits that sought to rescind the drug makers' merger agreement, Peter Loftus at Dow Jones Newswires reports. In a regulatory filing, Wyeth said lawsuits seeking class-action status were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in federal and state court in New Jersey against Wyeth and members of its board of directors. The suits sought to invalidate Wyeth's January agreement to be acquired by Pfizer in a cash-and-stock deal then valued at about $68 billion, writes Mr. Loftus. In June, both companies reached an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware case, agreeing to include additional details about the deal in regulatory filings, according to the report. New Securities Fraud Cases ALLSCRIPTS-MISYS: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Allscripts-Misys Healthcare Solutions, Inc. (formerly known as Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.) (NASDAQ: MDRX) during the period between May 8, 2007 and February 13, 2008, inclusive. The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's failure to disclose during the Class Period that adverse and continuing delays in the installation of it newest version of its EHR clinical software, Touchworks, version 11 ("V-11") software systems occurred because Allscripts lacked the necessary resources to install V-11 software at customer sites and had no historical basis to estimate the timing of and impact V-11 sales might have on the Company's 2007 revenues and earnings such that defendants had no reasonable basis for their statements and opinions concerning Allscripts' current and future financial performance and projections. According to the complaint, after the Company revealed, on February 13, 2008, its actual 2007 financial results, reporting 2007 revenue of $281.9 million or $18 million below the Company's $300 million guidance confirmed in August 2007 and $5 million short of their November earnings guidance revision and that V-11 installation delays were likely to negatively impact sales and earnings well into 2008, the value of Allscripts' stock declined significantly. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-0030 E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com CONSECO INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) common stock during the period from August 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008. The complaint charges Conseco and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Conseco, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development, marketing, and administration of supplemental health insurance, annuity, individual life insurance, and other insurance products for senior and middle-income markets in the United States. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's financial performance. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures; -- that the Company's reported financial results were materially misstated and did not present the true operating performance of the Company; -- that the Company's shareholders' equity was materially overstated during the Class Period, including the overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million at December 31, 2006; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings growth. On March 17, 2008, the Company disclosed that it did not maintain effective controls over the accounting and disclosure of insurance policy benefits and the liabilities for insurance products and that it would therefore be restating its financial results for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2006, along with affected Selected Consolidated Financial Data for 2003 and 2004, and quarterly financial information for 2006 and the first three quarters of 2007. In response to this announcement, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.30 per share, or 12.9%, from a close of $10.06 per share on March 14, 2008, the last trading date before the announcement, to close at $8.76 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Conseco common stock during the Class Period. For more details, contact: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/cno/ HURON CONSULTING: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: HURN) has filed a class action lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Huron between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its former executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants' public statements were false or misleading and failed to disclose or indicate, among other things, that: -- shareholders of four businesses Huron acquired between 2005 and 2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees; -- as a result, the Company understated its non-cash compensation expenses; -- the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 31, 2009, Huron announced that the Company's financial statements for the fiscal years 2006-2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a result of the Company's accounting for non-cash compensation expenses related to the sale of certain acquired businesses, and acquisition-related payments received by the sellers, which they subsequently redistributed among themselves and certain other Huron employees. In response to this news, shares of Huron declined more than $30 per share, or approximately 69%, to close at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy volume. No class has yet been certified in the above action. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com INTERNATIONAL GAME: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of International Game Technology (NYSE: IGT) common stock during the period from November 1, 2007 to October 30, 2008, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada against IGT and certain of its officers and directors. IGT is a global gaming company that specializes in, among other things, designing, manufacturing and marketing electronic gaming equipment and network systems. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts. According to the complaint, the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose the following: that defendants diverted substantial funds to the development of IGT's SB and AVP gaming platforms, thereby compromising IGT's growth prospects and undermining defendants' optimistic statements; that IGT was unable to develop and market its SB and AVP gaming platforms within the time frame that defendants had represented to investors because of increasingly challenging market conditions and mounting costs; that the positive representations made by defendants regarding IGT's shift to non-machine based operations were undermined by a slowdown in the gaming industry, the impact of which was minimized by defendants; and, that defendants concealed that as a result of the above, it was unlikely that the Company would achieve or exceed its earnings guidance. By deceiving the public about IGT's business, operations, and management, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action lawsuit on August 5, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS Fund's shares. The Class is seeking to pursue remedies under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as defendants. ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down. The SRS Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The SRS Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (- 200%) daily performance of the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (DJREI), which measures the performance of the real estate sector of the U.S. equity market. Accordingly, the SRS Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the DJREI, which fell approximately 39.2 percent from January 2, 2008 through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who anticipated a decline in the U.S. real estate market. In other words, the SRS Fund should have appreciated by 78.4 percent during this period. However, the SRS Fund actually fell approximately 48.2 percent during this period -- the antithesis of a directional play. The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act by failing to disclose that the SRS Fund is altogether defective as a directional investment play. Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the Registration Statement: -- inverse correlation between the SRS Fund and the DJREI over time would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; -- the extent to which performance of the SRS Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the DJREI -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular tracking error; -- the severe consequences of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's investment objective and performance; -- the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the SRS Fund's performance; -- the role the SRS Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; -- the consequences of the SRS Fund's daily hedge adjustment always going in the same direction as the movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; -- the SRS Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; -- the SRS Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the SRS Fund. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Stefanie J. Sundel, Esq. Labaton Sucharow LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0700 E-mail: ssundel@labaton.com Web site: http://www.labaton.com PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Shalov Stone Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the ProShares UltraShort Real Estate fund (NYSE: SRS), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statement of Additional Information issued in connection with the SRS Fund's shares. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting and failing to disclose material adverse facts. According to the complaint, the defendants failed to disclose exceptional risks associated with the SRS Fund. Investors who purchased shares of SRS Fund may have suffered losses that may be compensable under the law. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.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, 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 * * *