/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090812.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 12, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 158 Headlines AURORA LAS ENCINAS: Faces Lawsuit for Compromising Patient Care BANK OF AMERICA: Pays $55M to Settle Suit Over Retirement Funds BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Seeking Penalties for Unpaid Wages BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Suit by Gift Card Holders in Calif. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit CONSECO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas GOOGLE INC: Media Exchange Weighs-In on Google Book Case METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending METLIFE INC: Judgment Motion in Consolidated State Suit Pending METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suit in Canada Dismissed Last March METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in "Thomas" Suit METLIFE INC: Trial in Demutualization Suit to Start on Sept. 8 NETBANK INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Ga. Securities Fraud Case NORTHERN TRUST: N.Y. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in ARS Lawsuit REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas RHODE ISLAND: Advocate Appeals Dismissal of Foster Care Lawsuit RIGEL PHARMA: Bids in Consolidated Securities Suit Due in Sept. TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation for $70.5M UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Revives Suit Over Telephone Excise Tax VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging it Underpays Employees New Securities Fraud Cases CONSECO INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing CONSECO INC: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* AURORA LAS ENCINAS: Faces Lawsuit for Compromising Patient Care --------------------------------------------------------------- Aurora Las Encinas Hospital, a psychiatric hospital in Pasadena, California, is facing a purported class-action lawsuit from former nurses, who are claiming that it violated labor laws and compromised patient care. The employees claim the private psychiatric facility was severely understaffed, which comprised patient care. The former employees told Eyewitness News that they worked past their shifts with no overtime pay to finish their work obligations. The plaintiffs also claim the hospital told workers not to spend time studying for mandatory exams, to avoid paying them overtime. They also say the answers were provided for the exams. In addition, the former workers allege unsanitary conditions for employees. The plaintiffs say their goal is to improve the quality of care at Las Encinas. A full-text copy of the Complaint filed in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. BC419340) is available at: http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2009-08/48529736.pdf BANK OF AMERICA: Pays $55M to Settle Suit Over Retirement Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Bank of America Corp. agreed to pay $55 million to settle claims of former employees of Countrywide Financial Corp., who contended that the home lender breached its obligation to manage their retirement funds prudently, E. Scott Reckard of The Los Angeles Times reports. Attorneys for the plaintiffs said in a federal court filing on Aug. 7, 2009, that the proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit "represents an excellent recovery" for the former employees. Before legal fees, it would provide about $1,000 for each of the 55,000 employees Countrywide had at its peak. The mortgage lender was running out of cash when it agreed last year to be acquired by Bank of America, which is facing claims accusing Countrywide and its former officers and directors of embracing a hugely risky lending strategy while contending publicly that the company was well run, according to the LA Times. The deal also settles the employees' retirement-related claims against more than two dozen former Countrywide board members and executives, including Chief Executive Angelo R. Mozilo and President Stanford L. Kurland, the newspaper reported. U.S. District Judge John F. Walter of Los Angeles, who must approve the settlement for it to become final, scheduled a fairness hearing for Aug. 24, 2009, writes Mr. Reckard. The lawsuit is entitled Vincent Alvidres v. Countrywide Financial Corp., Case No. 07-05810. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Deal in Suit Over Rest & Meal Periods Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a former employee's purported class action lawsuit against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., is pending final approval from the Orange County, California, Superior Court. On Feb. 16, 2006, a former employee filed a lawsuit in Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 06CC00030, on behalf of herself and allegedly other employees, for alleged failure to provide rest periods and meal periods and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The company has answered the complaint, denying the allegations and raising various additional defenses. The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis. In May 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to final approval from the court. The court has given preliminary approval of the settlement, according to 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. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep-dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in- house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Faces Suit Seeking Penalties for Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action complaint filed on Feb. 4, 2009, by an employee, on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees. The class action complaint filed in Fresno County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 09 CE CG 00374DRF, was served on the company in the second quarter of 2009. The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay wages for on-call time, for violation of California Business and Professional Code section 17200, and for penalties for unpaid wages. The complaint also seeks a constructive trust on money found unlawfully acquired, an injunction against failure to pay wages, restitution, interest, attorney's fees and costs. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep- dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: Settlement of Calif. Minimum Wage Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- The proposed settlement of a class action complaint against BJ's Restaurants, Inc., Case Number BC310146, is pending approval. On Feb. 5, 2004, a former employee of the company, on behalf of herself, and allegedly other employees, filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County, California Superior Court, and on March 16, 2004, filed an amended complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay; (2) failure to allow meal breaks; (3) failure to allow rest breaks; (4) waiting time penalties; (5) civil penalties; (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit; (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and, (8) disgorgement of illicit profits. On June 28, 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to the dismissal of her second, third, fourth and fifth causes of action. During September 2004, the plaintiff stipulated to binding arbitration of the action. On March 2, 2008, and on March 19, 2008, one of Plaintiff's attorneys filed a notice with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, alleging failure to keep adequate pay records and to pay Plaintiff minimum wage. To the company's knowledge, the Agency has not responded to either of these notices. The parties met for mediation on a non-binding basis. In November 2008, the parties agreed to settle this matter subject to approval from the arbitrator and/or the court, according to 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. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep- dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Suit by Gift Card Holders in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action complaint filed by Robert Cho, an individual, on behalf of himself and allegedly other recipients or holders in California of the company's gift cards. On July 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County, California, Superior Court, Case Number BC417923, alleging causes of action for unlawful and deceptive trade practices and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, for failing to redeem or replace a gift card and deducting a dormancy fee, for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and for declaratory relief. The complaint seeks restitution, an injunction against the alleged unfair practices, and attorneys' fees. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep- dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. BJ'S RESTAURANTS: To Defend Wage & Overtime Pay Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- BJ's Restaurants, Inc., intends to defend a class action complaint filed by an employee on behalf of himself and allegedly other employees. On April 6, 2009, an employee filed the class action complaint in Orange County, California, Superior Court, Case Number 30- 2009, 00259460. The complaint alleges causes of action for failure to pay plaintiff and other alleged class members regular wages and overtime pay, failure to maintain the designated wage scale and secret payment of lower wages, the greater of actual damages or penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and restitution of wages and injunction for violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The complaint also seeks interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The company has not yet responded to the complaint, according to its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. BJ's Restaurants, Inc. -- http://www.bjsbrewhouse.com/-- owned and operated 55 restaurants located in California, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Texas and Nevada, as of Jan. 2, 2007. A licensee also operates one restaurant in Lahaina, Maui. Each of the Company's restaurants is operated either as a BJ's Restaurant & Brewery that includes a brewery within the restaurant, a BJ's Restaurant & Brewhouse that receives the beer BJ's sells from one of its breweries or an approved third-party craft brewer of its recipe beers (contract brewer), or a BJ's Pizza & Grill, which is a smaller format, full-service restaurant. The Company's menu features the BJ's signature deep- dish pizza, its own handcrafted beers, as well as a selection of appetizers, entrees, pastas, sandwiches, specialty salads and desserts, including the Pizookie cookie. The Company's 12 BJ's Restaurant & Brewery restaurants feature in-house brewing facilities, where BJ's handcrafted beers are produced and sold. CONSECO INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in New York Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) has filed a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of company common stock during the period from August 4, 2005, to March 17, 2008 against Conseco, Inc., and others. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2009). 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/ FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- An investor in Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE:FTK) has filed a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in Texas on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Flotek Industries between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2009). The complaint charges Flotek and certain of its executives with violations of the Exchange Act. Flotek supplies drilling and production related products and services to the energy and mining industries in the United States and internationally. The Company operates in three segments: Chemicals and Logistics, Drilling Products, and Artificial Lift. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts, among others: -- the Company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut prices to the level of its competitors; -- the Company's operating profit margins were being negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to rent equipment instead of purchasing it; -- sales in the Company's chemicals division were declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On October 31, 2007, Flotek announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2007, the period ended September 30, 2007. That same day, the Company held a conference call with investors and analysts, during which it was revealed, among other things, that all three of the Company's segments were negatively affected by lower gas prices in the Rocky Mountains. In response to this announcement, the price of Flotek common stock fell $14.35 per share, or 28%, to close at $36.45 per share, on November 29, 2007, on heavy trading volume. Defendants, however, continued to conceal the full extent of the problems at the Company. Then, on January 23, 2008, Flotek announced that the Company was revising its previously announced guidance for the year ending December 31, 2007. In response to this announcement, the price of Flotek common stock fell $7.60 per share, or 30%, to close at $17.86 per share, on January 24, 2008, on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Flotek 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/flotek/ GOOGLE INC: Media Exchange Weighs-In on Google Book Case -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denny Chin, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has granted the Media Exchange Company Inc.'s application to file a memorandum commenting on the settlement (objection) or an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief to The Google Book Case. The Order was handed down July 23, 2009. "We are delighted that Judge Chin has understood our concern about owner's rights being ignored in the proposed settlement of the Google Book Case and will allow our voice to be heard before he rules," said James M. Yates, Chairman of the Board. "We hope that the Media Exchange Company's brief will cause the parties to the case to voluntarily revise their settlement." Mr. Yates added that he has formed a Facebook group called "Search My Books" in order to solicit individual book owner's comments about the settlement issue. The Google Book Case is a class action lawsuit filed by book authors and publishers against Google Inc. arguing that its Library Project involved "massive copyright infringement" by creating digital copies of copyrighted works for commercial use. The Media Exchange Company Inc. is the operator of an interactive beta web site based on a patent-pending technology that makes it easier for owners of books, videos, and music to enjoy their full rights of possession (The Digital Content Exchange, found at thedce.com). This owner-centric approach to digital media contrasts with subscription-based models and digital books with "strings attached." "If a properly-revised settlement is approved by the court, one of the many benefits to book owners will be the ability to perform a Google search of the complete contents of one's own library," says Yates. The application to the court was drafted by R. Emmett McAuliffe of Riezman Berger P.C. A copy of the application and court order can be found at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4162 For more details, contact: R. Emmett McAuliffe 7th Floor Bonhomme Place 7700 Bonhomme Avenue St. Louis, Missouri 63105 Phone: 314-727-0101 Telecopier: 314-727-6458 E-mail: rem@riezmanberger.com Web site: http://www.riezmanbergerlaw.com METLIFE INC: American Dental Assoc. Appeal Order in Suit v. MLIC ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the putative class action lawsuit entitled The American Dental Association, et al. v. MetLife, Inc., et al., are appealing an order dated March 20, 2009, that dismissed their lawsuit. The American Dental Association and three individual providers had sued the company, Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and other non- affiliated insurance companies in a putative class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs purported to represent a nationwide class of in- network providers who alleged that their claims were being wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use and programming of software. The complaint alleged federal racketeering and various state law theories of liability. On Feb. 10, 2009, the district court granted the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint, dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for breach of contract claims. Plaintiffs were provided with an opportunity to re-plead the dismissed claims by Feb. 26, 2009. Since plaintiffs never amended these claims, they were dismissed with prejudice on March 2, 2009. By order dated March 20, 2009, the district court declined to retain jurisdiction over the remaining breach of contract claims and dismissed the lawsuit. On April 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from this order, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend "Market Rate" Tenants Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc., continues to defend a putative class action lawsuit styled Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al. The lawsuit was filed by a putative class of "market rate" tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. This group of tenants claim that the Company, and since the sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted. The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages for rent overcharges. In August 2007, the trial court granted the company's motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. In March 2009, New York's intermediate appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and held that apartments could not be deregulated during the time that a building owner is receiving J-51 tax abatements and reinstated the lawsuit. Tishman Speyer and the company have been granted permission to appeal this decision to the New York Court of Appeals, where the company will continue to defend against the claims in this lawsuit, according to its Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Continues to Defend Sales Practices Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc., continues to defend claims in pending sales practices litigation matters, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Over the past several years, the company has faced numerous claims, including class action lawsuits, alleging improper marketing or sales of individual life insurance policies, annuities, mutual funds or other products. Some of the current cases seek substantial damages, including punitive and treble damages and attorneys' fees. At June 30, 2009, there were approximately 130 sales practices litigation matters pending against the company. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Contract Breach Suits v. Medical Providers Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Putative nationwide class actions against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. remain pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Two putative nationwide class actions, styled Shipley v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. and Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (Ill. Cir. Ct., Madison County, filed Feb. 26 and July 2, 2003), have been filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. in Illinois. One suit claims breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged underpayment of medical claims arising from the use of a purportedly biased provider fee pricing system. The second suit currently alleges breach of contract arising from the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of the insurance policy. Motions for class certification have been filed and briefed in both cases. A third putative nationwide class action relating to the payment of medical providers, Innovative Physical Therapy, Inc. v. MetLife Auto & Home, et ano. (D. N.J., filed Nov. 12, 2007), was filed against Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company in federal court in New Jersey. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order on July 22, 2009, affirming the dismissal. Simon v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (W.D. Okla., filed Sept. 23, 2008), a fourth putative nationwide class action lawsuit relating to payment of medical providers, is pending in federal court in Oklahoma. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Judgment Motion in Consolidated State Suit Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- A summary judgment motion in the consolidated state court class action styled Fiala, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al., is pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. The plaintiffs in the consolidated state court class action (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed March 17, 2000) seek compensatory relief and punitive damages against MLIC, the company, and individual directors. The court has certified a litigation class of present and former policyholders on plaintiffs' claim that defendants violated section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law. Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs have given notice to the class of the pendency of this action. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is pending. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Motion to Remand Brokerage Antitrust Suit Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action entitled In Re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litigation to state court in Florida is pending, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. In this multi-district class action proceeding (MDL No. 1663; Master Docket Nos. 04-5184 and 05-1079), plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the company, MLIC, several non-affiliated insurance companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and antitrust laws and committed other misconduct in the context of providing insurance to employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such employee benefit plans. In August and September 2007 and January 2008, the court issued orders granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice the federal antitrust, the RICO, and the ERISA claims. In February 2008, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims on jurisdictional grounds. Plaintiffs' appeal from the orders dismissing their RICO and federal antitrust claims is pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A putative class action alleging that the company and other non- affiliated defendants violated state laws was transferred to the District of New Jersey but was not consolidated with other related actions. Plaintiffs' motion to remand this action to state court in Florida is pending. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Sales Practices Suit in Canada Dismissed Last March ---------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action suit styled Jacynthe Evoy-Larouche v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., was dismissed in March 2009, according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. This putative class action lawsuit involving sales practices claims was filed against MLIC in the Quebec Superior Court in March 1998. Plaintiff alleged misrepresentations regarding dividends and future payments for life insurance policies and sought unspecified damages. Pursuant to a judgment dated March 11, 2009, this lawsuit was dismissed. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Summary Judgment Motion Pending in "Thomas" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A motion for summary judgment is pending in the class action lawsuit captioned Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al., according to MetLife, Inc.'s Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. A putative class action complaint was filed against MLIC and MetLife Securities, Inc. Plaintiffs assert legal theories of violations of the federal securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the sale of certain proprietary products by the company's agency distribution group. Plaintiffs seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses. In January and May 2008, the court issued orders granting the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims except for claims under the Investment Advisers Act. Defendants' motion to dismiss claims under the Investment Advisers Act was denied. In March 2009, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. METLIFE INC: Trial in Demutualization Suit to Start on Sept. 8 -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in the class action captioned In re MetLife Demutualization Litigation, is set to begin on Sept. 8, 2009. In this class action against Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and the company, plaintiffs served a second consolidated amended complaint in 2004. Plaintiffs assert violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Plan, claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed to disclose certain material facts and contained certain material misstatements. They seek rescission and compensatory damages. By orders dated July 19, 2005, and Aug. 29, 2006, the federal trial court certified a litigation class of present and former policyholders. Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs have given notice to the class of the pendency of this action. On March 30, 2009, the court denied MLIC's and the Holding Company's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On July 17, 2009, the court entered an order setting the trial to begin on Sept. 8, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 4, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com/-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. The company is organized into five operating segments: Institutional, Individual, Auto & Home, International and Reinsurance, as well as Corporate & Other. NETBANK INC: Lead Plaintiff Named in Ga. Securities Fraud Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beverly B. Martin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has named a lead plaintiff in the consolidated class-action suit captioned In Re NetBank, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-02298-BBM, Law360 reports. In a ruling issued on Aug. 7, 2009, the judge named NetBank investor Robert A. Brown the lead plaintiff in the case, which is alleging that former executives and directors of the online financial institution defrauded investors by not disclosing problems with its restructuring and accounting prior to the bank's takeover by federal regulators and subsequent liquidation, according to Law360. In general, the lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NetBank securities during the period between May 1, 2006, and Sept. 17, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007). The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of NetBank stock. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants repeatedly represented, beginning in May 2006, that NetBank was restructuring its operations to rid its strong core banking business from high-risk non-conforming loan origination operations and other business segments which detracted from the performance of its core business. Mr. Brown is represented by: Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. Berger & Montague 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365 Phone: 215-875-3000 E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net - and - Michael J. Gorby, Esq. Gorby Reeves & Peters Two Ravinia Drive, Suite 1500 Atlanta, GA 30346-2104 Phone: 404-239-1150 E-mail: mgorby@gorbypeters.com The defendants are represented by: Benjamin Aaron Lee, Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404-572-2820 E-mail: blee@kslaw.com NORTHERN TRUST: N.Y. Court Grants Dismissal Bid in ARS Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Victor Marrero of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion by Northern Trust Securities, Inc., that sought dismissal of a putative class- action lawsuit entitled Aimis Art Corporation v. Northern Trust Securities, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:08-cv-08057-VM, Law360 reports. The lawsuit was filed on Sept. 17, 2008, by Aimis Art Corp. and was brought on behalf of buyers of such securities from Northern Trust from Sept. 16, 2003, through Feb. 13, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 10, 2008). The suit accuses the financial holding company of failing to alert investors of the risks associated with auction rate securities. Aimis Art is represented by: Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-1980 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. Stueve Siegel Hanson, L.L.P. 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816)-714-7137 Fax: (816)-714-7101 E-mail: dameron@stuevesiegel.com Northern Trust is represented by: David J. Bradford, Esq. Jenner & Block LLP 330 North Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (312) 222-9350 Fax: (312) 840-7375 E-mail: dbradford@jenner.com REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Texas --------------------------------------------------------------- An investor filed a proposed securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: RPRX) common stock. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint, in the Southern District of Texas Houston Division, against Repros Therapeutics and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Repros common stock between July 1, 2009, and August 3, 2009 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 11, 2009). The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex. On August 3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex clinical trials based in a clinically significant increase in liver enzymes among participants. On that day, Repros stock closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 the trading day before. This was a 73% drop from the close of $4.96 on July 1, 2009. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Eva Hromadkova, Esq. Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP Phone: 212-682-1818 or 800-497-8076 E-mail: newcase@murrayfrank.com Web site: http://www.murrayfrank.com RHODE ISLAND: Advocate Appeals Dismissal of Foster Care Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- A Rhode Island child advocate is urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reinstate a lawsuit that seeks an overhaul of the state's foster care system, The Associated Press reports. The lawsuit, which sought class-action status, alleged abuse and neglect of foster children in Rhode Island. The suit named 10 foster children as plaintiffs, and child advocate Jametta Alston and Children's Rights, a national organization, had selected several adults to represent their interests in court. However, Judge Ronald Lagueux of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the suit in April. He said the adults selected as guardians didn't have close enough relationships to the children, writes AP. On Aug. 10, 2009, Ms. Alston and Children's Rights appealed the ruling to the federals appeals court. They argued that the adults were qualified to act on the children's behalf, according to AP. Case Background The suit was filed on June 28, 2007, seeking an injunction to protect children. It names as defendants DCYF and Rhode Island Gov. Donald Carcieri (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2008). The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendants -- the Governor of the State of Rhode Island, the Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services, and the Director of the Department of Children, Youth and Families -- to meet their legal obligations to care for and protect Rhode Island's abused and neglected children in state custody by reforming the State's dysfunctional child welfare system. The suit is brought on behalf of all children who are or will be in the legal custody of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families due to a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect. The plaintiffs raise the questions of: -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with safe, appropriate, and stable foster care placements, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants fail to prevent the abuse or neglect of Plaintiff Children while in Defendants' custody, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants fail to place Plaintiff Children in the least restrictive and most family-like settings suited to their needs, including by unnecessarily institutionalizing them, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with legally required services necessary to keep them safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in custody, as required by law and reasonable professional judgment, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants unsafely return Plaintiff Children to caretakers who abuse or neglect them again, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants unnecessarily move Plaintiff Children from placement to placement, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children and their families with reasonable decision-making as well as timely services necessary to ensure the safe and successful reunification of children with their families when appropriate, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and reasonable decision-making as well as services necessary to ensure that when Plaintiff Children cannot be reunited with their families safely, they are promptly filed for adoption and placed in permanent homes, causing significant harm to their health and well-being; and -- Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with the supports necessary to maintain family relationships where appropriate, including placing siblings together as well as providing parent and sibling visits, causing significant harm to their health and well-being. As of January 2007, approximately 3,000 children were in the legal custody of DCYF for foster care services due to reported or substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect. The suit is styled M., et al. v. Carcieri, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00241-L-LDA, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, the Honorable Ronald R. Lagueux, presiding, with referral to Judge Lincoln D. Almond. The plaintiffs are represented by: Jametta O. Alston, Esq. Office of the Child Advocate 272 West Exchange St., Suite 301 Providence, RI 02903 Phone: 401-222-6650 Fax: 401-222-6652 E-mail: jalston@doa.state.ri.us - and - John William Dineen, Esq. 305 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 Phone: 401-223-2397 Fax: 401-223-2399 E-mail: jwdineen1@yahoo.com RIGEL PHARMA: Bids in Consolidated Securities Suit Due in Sept. --------------------------------------------------------------- Responsive pleadings or motions in a consolidated purported securities class action lawsuit against Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., are due no later than Sept. 8, 2009. On Feb. 6, 2009, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as defendants the company and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters for Rigel's February 2008 stock offering. An additional purported securities class action lawsuit containing similar allegations was subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 20, 2009. By order of the Court dated March 19, 2009, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single action. On April 7, 2009, Inter-Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case, and for appointment of its counsel as lead counsel. On June 9, 2009, the Court issued an order naming the Inter- Local Pension Fund GCC/IBT as lead plaintiff and Coughlin Stoia as lead counsel. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 24, 2009. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company related to the results of the Phase 2a clinical trial of the company's product candidate R788. The plaintiffs seek damages, including rescission or rescissory damages for purchasers in the stock offering, an award of its costs and injunctive and/or equitable relief for purchasers of our common stock during the period between Dec. 13, 2007 and Feb. 9, 2009, including purchasers in the stock offering. Any responsive pleadings or motions are due no later than Sept. 8, 2009, and a hearing on any motions to dismiss would likely not occur until November 2009, according to 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. Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.rigel.com-- is a clinical-stage drug development company that discovers and develops small molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, cancer and viral diseases. The company's research focuses on intracellular signaling pathways and related targets that are critical to disease mechanisms. Rigel has collaborations with pharmaceutical partners to develop and market its product candidates. The company has internal product development programs in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and thrombocytopenia, and cancer, as well as partnered product development programs relating to asthma and cancer. TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated ERISA Litigation for $70.5M ------------------------------------------------------------ Tyco International, Ltd., agreed to pay $70.5 million to settle allegations the company breached its fiduciary duties to Tyco employees when larding retirement plans with company stock even while a massive accounting fraud was taking place, Law360 reports. On Aug. 10, 2009, the plaintiffs representing participants in seven Tyco retirement plans asked Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, where the multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 1335; Master Docket No. 02-MD-1335-B) is pending, according to Law360. Initially, Tyco and certain of its current and former employees, officers and directors, have been named as defendants in eight class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 11, 2009). Two of the actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the six remaining actions were transferred to that Court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. All eight actions have been consolidated in the District Court in New Hampshire, according to the company's Feb. 3, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 26, 2008. The consolidated complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of the company's Retirement Savings and Investment Plans and the participants therein and alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to disclose material information concerning, among other things, the following: -- related-party transactions and executive compensation; -- the company's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting therefore, as well as allegedly undisclosed acquisitions; and -- misstatements of its financial results. The complaint also asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by allowing the Plans to invest in the company's shares when it was not a prudent investment. The complaints seek recovery of alleged plan losses arising from alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. On Aug. 15, 2006, the Court entered an order certifying a class "consisting of all Participants in the Plans for whose individual accounts the Plans purchased and/or held shares of Tyco Stock Fund at any time from Aug. 12, 1998 to July 25, 2002." UNITED STATES: D.C. Court Revives Suit Over Telephone Excise Tax ---------------------------------------------------------------- A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia revived a lawsuit charging the Internal Revenue Service with depriving taxpayers of billions of dollars in refunds on long-distance telephone excise taxes, The Journal of Accountancy reports. On Aug. 7, 2009, the court decided 2-1 in favor of Milwaukee tax consultant Neiland Cohen, who sued the IRS claiming that the agency's procedures for giving taxpayers refunds on the now- defunct tax were inadequate. A lower court had thrown out the lawsuit, according to Bloomberg.com, before the appeals court reinstated it. Mr. Cohen is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit. The appellate court ruled in Neiland Cohen v. U.S., Docket No. 08-5088, that that taxpayers could challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act the IRS' method of refunding long- distance telephone excise taxes, reports the Journal of Accountancy. The court's opinion by Judge Janice Rogers Brown sharply criticized the IRS' position as "mean," demonstrating "chutzpah" and demanding "clairvoyance" of taxpayers. A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?416b VALERO ENERGY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging it Underpays Employees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO), one of the nation's largest gas station operators, has been cheating thousands of its hourly employees out of millions of dollars in overtime wages for years charges a class action lawsuit filed by Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The suit describes how Valero - the 10th largest company on the Fortune 500 list -- underpays employees who work in its nearly 6,000 "Corner Stores," which sell gas and snacks to customers across the U.S. under the brand names Valero, Diamond Shamrock, Shamrock, Ultramar, Beacon, and Stop N Go. With revenues of $119 billion in 2008 and approximately 22,000 employees, Valero -- the largest oil refiner in North America -- has cornered the convenience store market with "sweat of the brow" labor practices. The oil behemoth requires its retail employees to work punishingly long overtime hours "off- the-clock" without pay to keep thousands of Valero corner stores open "round-the-clock" while the company earns massive profits. "To keep its gas pumps flowing, Valero virtually pumps the lifeblood out of its workers who are expected to be on call 24-7, but are only paid for a fraction of the time they spend working," said Steven L. Wittels of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, one of the country's leading class action firms with offices in San Francisco, New York and Washington, DC. "This class action aims to turn off this oil Goliath's unfair pay practices." While the massive refining company depicts itself as "refining" the way it does business and providing a worker- friendly environment, the reality is shockingly different. "When it comes to its employees," adds Mr. Wittels, "the only thing Valero has refined is how best to fleece its employees out of their wages." Brought by three current and former California employees, Dorothy McCarthy, Sarndra McKnight, and Janice Clifton, the class and collection action seeks to represent thousands of similarly underpaid Valero employees through the United States. "Even though the oil company knows full well that its workers are virtually chained to the pumps," said Janette Wipper, an attorney at Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, "management has failed to lessen their workload or pay them mandatory overtime compensation as required by law." According to the Complaint, the monster energy retailer fails to pay its corner store employees for mandatory "off-the- clock" work, "on-call" time, or overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours a week and eight hours a day; fails to provide its workers with mandatory meal periods and rest breaks; and makes unlawful deductions from employees' earned wages. "Valero's wrongful practices violate federal and state wage and hour laws," said plaintiffs' counsel Jeremy Heisler. "We are long past the era when workers were forced to eat their bread by the sweat of their brow. Not only must Valero's unfair labor practices be stopped, but the hourly employees who have been and continue to be exploited by these practices must be promptly and appropriately compensated for all hours worked." "These unfair labor practices should have gone the way of the horse and buggy," said plaintiffs' co-counsel, Michael Ram. "Valero needs to wake up to the 21st Century: when you work, the company's got to pay you -- simple as that." The named Plaintiffs Ms. McCarthy, Ms. McKnight, and Ms. Clinton seek tens of thousands of dollars from Valero for each worker who was underpaid in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act; the California Labor Code; and the California Business and Professions Code. The FLSA claims are brought on behalf of all Valero non-exempt Corner Store workers, including store managers and assistant managers, who worked at any Valero retail store or Valero-operated brand name store in the nation. "Even though Valero's corner stores are open around the clock, seven days a week, every day of the year, the company assigns just one store manager to each corner store," said plaintiff Ms. McCarthy. "This makes every manager's work week significantly longer than 40 hours, but we are not paid for these additional hours, and we are not provided time for meals or rest breaks. The company's swept our complaints under the rug for years. This class action is the only hope we have of being paid for the work we actually do and getting the breaks we're entitled to." Plaintiffs' attorneys, Sanford Wittels & Heisler, estimate the Company's liability at $100 million. The class action suit demands that Valero immediately pay all unpaid wages due the plaintiffs and members of the class plus all damages permitted by California and federal wage and hour laws, as well as stop its unlawful pay practices. For more details, contact: Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP 100 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 391-6900 Fax: (415) 391-6901 Web site: http://www.nydclaw.com/ New Securities Fraud Cases CONSECO INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced 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 between August 4, 2005 to March 17, 2008 for violations of the federal securities laws. 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. 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: Sue Lee, Esq. The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com CONSECO INC: Kendall Law Group Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against Conseco, Inc. for investors who purchased stock that was artificially inflated between August 4, 2005 and March 17, 2008. According to the complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, defendants issued numerous statements regarding the Company's financial performance. These statements were materially false and misleading because defendants failed to disclose that the Company was reporting materially inaccurate revenue figures and that the Company's reported financial results were materially misstated and did not present the true operating performance of the company. Also, the Company's shareholder equity was materially overstated during the Class Period, including the overstatement of shareholders' equity by $20.6 million on December 31, 2006. As a result of these misstatements, defendants lacked reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings growth. 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 FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Dyer & Berens Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Dyer & Berens LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of investors who purchased Flotek Industries, Inc. NYSE: FTK) common stock between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants made a series of materially false or misleading statements about Flotek's business, prospects and operations during the Class Period. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose the following adverse facts: -- that the Company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut prices to the level of its competitors; -- that the Company's operating profit margins were being negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to rent equipment instead of purchasing it; -- that sales in the Company's chemicals division were declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 23, 2008, the Company unexpectedly announced it was revising its guidance downward for the year ending December 31, 2007. In response, the price of Flotek common stock plummeted 30% to close at $17.86 per share on January 24, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. 682 Grant Street Denver, CO 80203 Dyer & Berens LLP Phone: (888) 300-3362 or (303) 861-1764 E-mail: jeff@dyerberens.com Web site: http://www.DyerBerens.com FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Announces Lawsuit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood Announces that on August 7, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from May 8, 2007 through January 23, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009. For more details, contact: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405.235.1560 Fax: 405.239.2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com/ FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Izard Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Izard Nobel LLP, which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK) between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Flotek and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose the following adverse facts: -- the Company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision to not cut prices to the level of its competitors; -- the Company's operating profit margins were being negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to rent equipment instead of purchasing it; -- sales in the Company's chemicals division were declining due to a decrease in fracing activity; and -- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On January 23, 2008, Flotek announced that the Company was revising its previously announced guidance for the year ending December 31, 2007. On this news, Flotek fell $7.60 per share, or 30%, to close at $17.86 per share, on January 24, 2008. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 2009. For more details, contact: Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Izard Nobel LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 215 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone: (800) 797-5499 E-mail: firm@izardnobel.com Web site: http://www.izardnobel.com/flotek/ FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Kendall Law Group Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against Flotek Industries, Inc. (NYSE: FTK) for investors who purchased stock that was artificially inflated between May 8, 2007 and January 23, 2008. According to the complaint, filed in the Southern District of Texas, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company's true financial condition, business and prospects. The company was experiencing weakness in its Rocky Mountain sales region due to its decision not to cut prices to the level of its competitors. Also, the Company's operating profit margins were being negatively impacted as customers increasingly opted to rent equipment instead of purchasing it and the Company's chemicals division was declining due to a decrease in fracing activity. As a result of the foregoing, defendant's positive statements concerning the Company's guidance and prospects were lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On October 31, 2007, Flotek announced its financial results for the third quarter of 2007. That same day, the company held a conference call with investors and analysts, during which it was revealed that all three of the Company's segments were negatively affected by lower gas prices in the Rocky Mountains. In response to this announcement, the price of Flotek common stock fell $14.35 per share, or 28%, to close at $36.45 per share, on November 29, 2007, on heavy trading volume. In light of the fall of their stock prices, Defendants continued to conceal the full extent of the problems at the Company. On January 23, 2008, the Company announced that they were revising the previously announced guidance for the year ending December 31, 2007. In response to this announcement the price of Flotek common stock fell $7.60 per share to close at $17.86 per share, on January 24, 2008, on heavy trading volume. 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 HURON CONSULTING: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. announces that a lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) common stock during the period between Apr 27, 2006, through Jul 31, 2009 for violations of the federal securities laws. 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 ("GAAP"); -- 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. 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: Sue Lee, Esq. The Brualdi Law Firm, P.C. 29 Broadway, Suite 2400 New York, New York 10006 Phone: (877) 495-1187 or (212) 952-0602 E-mail: slee@brualdilawfirm.com Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com PROSHARES ULTRASHORT: Howard G. Smith Announces Lawsuit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed 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. 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 REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emerson Poynter LLP, a national law firm with offices in Little Rock, Arkansas and Houston, Texas, announces that it has filed a class action complaint, against Repros Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: RPRX) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Repros common stock between July 1, 2009 and August 3, 2009. This action was filed in the Southern District of Texas Houston Division (4:09-cv- 02530). The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading press releases regarding the success of clinical trials for its drug Proellex. On August 3, 2009, Repros revealed that it was suspending Proellex clinical trials based in a clinically significant increase in liver enzymes among participants. On that day, Repros stock closed at $1.31, a 48% drop from a close of $2.53 the trading day before. This was a 73% drop from the close of $4.96 on July 1, 2009. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 6, 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, 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 * * *