/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090817.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 17, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 161 Headlines AB&C GROUP: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Workers' Litigation AMERICAN HOME: Seeks Approval of $24 Mil. D&O Insurer Settlement AMERICAN INT'L: Former CEO, Executives to Settle N.Y. Litigation APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Certification Motion in "Somers" APPLE INC: Faces La. Suit for Failure to Provide iPhone with MMS BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Missouri CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Consumer Credit Card Interest Rates CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Broker Files N.Y. Suit Over "Signing Bonus" HEELYS INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement for Texas IPO Lawsuit MAPLES INDUSTRIES: Officers, Employees Face RICO Suit in Alabama MCIC INC: Class Certification Bid in Md. Suit v. Insurers Denied MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Claims" for Enfamil MERCK & CO: Drug Wholesalers File Antitrust Suit Over Singulair NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over "Intelligent Key" ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue to Halt Google Acquisition PZENA INVESTMENT: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Pa. Air, Groundwater Contamination Suit SACRAMENTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Illegal" Towing Practice SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in S.D. Litigation TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius Headlights VARIAN INC: Kendall Law Group Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement VIRGIN MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Sprint Agreement WACHOVIA CORP: N.C. Settlement Over Sale to Wells Fargo Opposed WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Cling to $39M Claim in Chapter 11 New Securities Fraud Cases STURM RUGER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. STURM RUGER: Izard Nobel Announces Conn. Securities Suit Filing TEXTRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas ********* AB&C GROUP: W.Va. Court Certifies Class in Workers' Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John Preston Bailey of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled that a lawsuit filed on behalf of AB&C Group, Inc., workers who were abruptly laid off in March 2008 may proceed as a class-action proceeding. AB&C is charged with failing to provide 60 days' notice of the company's shutdown, Matthew Umstead of The Herald-Mail reports. The decision, filed on Aug. 10, 2009, means workers at three former AB&C Group work sites in Jefferson and Berkeley counties in West Virginia and Orange County, Va., automatically will be included in the legal action and stand to benefit from the litigation, attorney David Hammer, Esq., said in a press release. Judge Bailey also ruled that workers' claims for wages owed to them for time spent logging into AB&C Group's computer programs may proceed as a class-action, Mr. Umstead reported. The purported class-action lawsuit, Nolan, et al. v. Reliant Equity Investors, LLC, et al., Case No. 08-00062 (N.D. W.Va.), was filed on March 20, 2008, by Joseph Nolan, Eric Woomer, Carla Coble, Stephanie Laing and Poppy Chrisman, and names Reliant Equity Investors LLC, Tatum LLC, Bluesky Brand Inc., Richard Hebert, Cathy Jo Van Pelt, Kimberly Myers, Michael Lutz and Larry Muzzy as defendants. The plaintiffs are represented by: David M. Hammer, Esq. Hammer, Ferretti & Schiavoni 408 W. King St. Martinsburg, WV 25401 Phone: 304-264-8505 Fax: 304-264-8506 E-mail: dhammer@hfslawyers.com - and - Garry G. Geffert, Esq. 114 S. Maple Ave. P.O. Box 2281 Martinsburg, WV 25402 Phone: 304-262-4436 Fax: 304-262-4436 E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net The defendants are represented by: Craig T. Boggs, Esq. Perkins Coie LLP 131 S. Dearborn St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 324-8400 E-mail: cboggs@perkinscoie.com - and - Craig W. Snethen, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP One PPG Place, 28th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 232-0404 Fax: (412) 232-3441 E-mail: snethenc@jacksonlewis.com AMERICAN HOME: Seeks Approval of $24 Mil. D&O Insurer Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Home Mortgage Holdings Inc. asked a bankruptcy judge to allow the company's directors and officers insurance policy to cover a $24 million settlement in a securities class-action suit against the leaders of the bankrupt mortgage financing company, Law360 reports. The plaintiffs in the securities action joined AHM in the motion, which was filed on Aug. 11, 2009, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, according to Law360. AMERICAN INT'L: Former CEO, Executives to Settle N.Y. Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, American International Group, Inc.'s former chief executive, and a group of former AIG executives have agreed to pay $115 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit over alleged false statements regarding the insurer's financial results, Chad Bray at Dow Jones Newswires reports. A person familiar with the matter told Mr. Bray that the settlement by Mr. Greenberg and other executives is in a consolidated shareholder action brought by a group of Ohio pension funds in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The agreement is contingent in part on approval of the case as a class-action lawsuit. Judge Deborah A. Batts in Manhattan held a contested two-day hearing on Aug. 13 and 14, 2009, on whether to grant class-action status, reports Mr. Bray. The settling defendants are: Mr. Greenberg, Howard Smith, AIG's former chief financial officer; Christian Milton, AIG's former vice president of reinsurance; Michael J. Castelli, AIG's former controller; and two AIG sister companies controlled by Greenberg, C.V. Starr, and Starr International Co., Mr. Bray's source said. APPLE INC: Calif. Court Denies Certification Motion in "Somers" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a class certification motion filed in Stacie Somers, et al. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 07-6507, which alleges Apple, Inc., illegally tied the iPod and iTunes Store, Stephen Withers at iTWire reports. According to Rae Theodore at FindLaw, Judge James Ware found Apple's expert witness to be more credible than the plaintiff's, and said that the plaintiff had "failed to provide a reliable method to show common damages across the class." The suit, filed on Dec. 31, 2007, accuses the company of making digitally recorded music sold through its online stores inoperable with operating systems other than iPods, and of making iPods unable to play music downloaded through competitors' Web sites (Class Action Reporter, Jan 7, 2009). Named plaintiff Stacie Somers brought the action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons or entities in the U.S., that, during the class period, purchased an Apple iPod, or who purchased audio or video content from Apple's Music Store, from Dec. 31, 2203 through the conclusion of the trial of this matter. Ms. Somers wants the court to rule on whether: (a) the definition of the relevant markets; (b) Apple's market power within these markets; (c) Apple monopolized and continues to monopolize the relevant markets; (d) Apple attempted to monopolize and continues to attempt to monopolize the relevant markets; (e) the contractual conditions Apple imposes upon its customers are unconscionable; (f) whether Apple's conduct caused damage to the plaintiff which prices paid by the classes are higher than the and members of the classes, including the degree to prices that would be paid in a market free from tying, monopolization, and other illegal conduct; and (g) the appropriateness of injunctive relief to restrain ongoing and future violations of the law. The plaintiff asks that the court declare, adjudge and decree that: -- the action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the claims for damages and other monetary relief, and declaring plaintiff as representatives of the class and her counsel as counsel for the classes; -- the conduct alleged constitutes unlawful tying, monopolization, and attempted monopolization in violation of Cartwright Act, California common law, and sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act; -- the conduct alleged is in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and appropriate injunctive relief be granted pursuant to this law; -- the plaintiff and the classes are entitled to damages, penalties and other monetary relief provided by applicable law, including treble damages; -- the plaintiff and the classes recover their costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest; -- the company is permanently restrained and enjoined from continuing the alleged unfair and anti-competitive activities; -- all funds acquired from Apple's unfair business practices, including disgorgement of revenues and profits require full restitution; -- the plaintiff and the class are awarded expenses and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent provided by law; and -- the plaintiff and the classes are granted such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable, and proper by the court. On Feb. 21, 2008, the company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 1, 2008). Representing the plaintiffs are: Alreen Haegguist, Esq. Haegguist Law Group 501 West Broadway, Suite A-276 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-955-8218 Fax: 619-342-7878 - and - Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. (helenz@zeldeslaw.com) Law Office of Helen Zeldes 249 S. Highway 101, #370 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Phone: 858-523-1713 Fax: 858-523-1783 - and - Steven A. Skalet, Esq. (sskalet@findjustice.com) Craig L. Briskin, Esq. (cbrinskin@findjustice.com) Mehri & Skalet, PLLC 1250 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-822-5100 Fax: 202-822-4997 APPLE INC: Faces La. Suit for Failure to Provide iPhone with MMS ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple, Inc., and AT&T Mobility, LLC, face a purported class- action lawsuit, alleging that they touted the iPhone as supporting multimedia messaging service, but have not as yet provided the service, Mike Magee at TG Daily reports. The suit, Carbine, et al. v. Apple, Inc, et al., Case No. 09-05470 (E.D. La.) was filed on Aug. 7, 2009. The class-action suit will consist of at least 10,000 individuals. It is brought both under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act and other Louisiana civil codes, according to TG Daily. In general, the plaintiffs allege that Apple "advertised heavily that the new version of iPhone, the 3G, as well as the even newer version the 3G-S would allow MMS. Apple's print and video advertisements in and on television, the internet, the radio, newspapers and direct mailers all touted the availability of MMS." AT&T advertised the same functionality, the suit says. However, according to the court filing, since the launch, MMS functionality is not yet available, reports Mr. Magee. Representing the plaintiffs are: Scott R. Bickford, Esq. Martzell & Bickford 338 Lafayette St. New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 581-9065 E-mail: usdcedla@mbfirm.com - and - Ronnie Glynn Penton, Esq. Law Offices of Ronnie G. Penton 209 Hoppen Place Bogaalusa, LA 70427 Phone: 985-732-5651 E-mail: fedcourtmail@rgplaw.com BI-STATE DEVELOPMENT: Faces FLSA Violations Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District, and S.M. Huber Enterprises, Inc. face a purported class-action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. The suit, Burks v. Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri- Illinois Metropolitan District, et al., Case No. 09-01302 (E.D. Mo.), was filed on Aug. 13, 2009. Meia Burks, a former Metro employee, alleges that call center workers were forced to work off the clock. The federal suit, which seeks class action status for 25 or 30 people, says they had to log on to computers before their shifts and log off, review reports, continue calls and receive training after their shifts, according to the newspaper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cd Ms. Burks is represented by Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. Weinhaus and Potashnick 11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Phone: 314-997-9150 Fax: 314-997-9170 E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com CAPITAL ONE: Sued Over Consumer Credit Card Interest Rates ---------------------------------------------------------- E. Adam Webb, Esq., in Atlanta, Ga., has filed a class action lawsuit against Capital One Bank alleging that the financial institution has operated in bad faith by unilaterally increasing the interest rates on consumer credit card accounts. Capital One is charged with raising rates even for consumers who have always maintained their good standing by satisfying all account requirements (e.g., making all required payments and not exceeding credit limits), notwithstanding that the cardholders' credit scores and general creditworthiness have not declined. The suit claims that Capital One, which is headquartered in McLean, Virginia, has engaged in improper and unfair practices in order to increase the revenue it generates via the interest rates imposed on consumer credit card accounts. Lemond v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., Case No. 09-CV- 01582 (N.D. Ga.), alleges that Capital One raised the interest rates associated with credit card accounts by over nine percent even though accounts were in good standing and had been at all relevant times. Although Capital One did not purport to impose these new higher rates on balances accrued prior to its notice to consumers, the effect is the same because of the Bank's practice of crediting all payments to the portion of the account balance with the lowest interest rate. In addition, the suit alleges that Capital One's offer that customers could reject this interest rate increase by closing their credit card accounts is inadequate because, as Capital One is well aware, closing a credit line has a negative impact on a consumer's credit score. A lower credit score can cost a consumer thousands of dollars over the term of a home mortgage or other loan. As a result, customers have been forced to accept Capital One's unilateral rate increases. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One is liable for all damages that have resulted from its bad faith and improper conduct, to include the differential in interest payments paid by the class members to Capital One. For more details, contact: E. Adam Webb, Esq. Webb, Klase & Lemond, L.L.C. 1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Phone: (770) 444-9325 Fax: (770) 444-0271 E-mail: contact@webbllc.com Web site: http://www.webbllc.com CITIGROUP GLOBAL: Broker Files N.Y. Suit Over "Signing Bonus" ------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. faces a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a former broker over a so-called signing-bonus loan given to established brokers who join the bank, Chad Bray at Dow Jones Newswires reports. The suit, Banus v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-07128 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.), was filed on Aug. 12, 2009, by Thomas A. Banus, a former broker of Citigroup, Inc.'s securities unit. Mr. Banus alleges that Citigroup offered him a $45,675.36 signing bonus structured as a forgivable loan over seven years when he joined the bank in October 2004, writes Mr. Bray. According to the complaint, which is seeking class-action status, one of Citigroup's considerations when they hired Mr. Banus was that his established "book of business" would follow him to Citigroup. In 2006, Mr. Banus quit the firm, and Citigroup wants him to repay the $39,150.31 unforgiven portion of the note, with interest, the suit said. The suit states, "Because the defendant may terminate the employment and accelerate the note at will with no loss to itself, with or without prior notice, this is an illusory contract, with lack of mutuality and lacking any consideration for the executory portion of what is essentially a unilateral contract." It adds, "The employee, on the other hand, must pay an accelerated note with accumulated interest if he or she decides to terminate employment with the defendant," according to the Dow Jones report. Mr. Banus is represented by: Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq. 633 South 4th Street, Suite 4 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Phone: (702) 383-6085 Fax: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: wagelaw@aol.com HEELYS INC: Reaches $7.5M Settlement for Texas IPO Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Heelys, Inc., reached a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit over its initial public offering, Sheryl Jean of The Dallas Morning News reports. Pending court approval, the proposed $7.5 million settlement includes all persons who owned Heelys common stock as of July 16, 2009, and who continue to hold their Heelys common stock as of the date of the final settlement approval hearing, excluding the Individual Defendants, the officers and directors of Heelys, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Individual Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The proposed settlement stems from lawsuits filed in 2007 and 2008 alleging that Heelys and certain officers and directors made or allowed "false and misleading statements" about the company's risk factors, business model and business prospects in its IPO registration in 2006, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. A settlement hearing in In re Heeleys Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master Docket No. 07-CV-1682 (N.D. Tex.), is scheduled for Nov. 17, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in U.S. District Court in Dallas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. George C. Aguilar Ashley R. Palmer ROBBINS UMEDA LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Brett M. Weaver, Esq. JOHNSON BOTTINI, LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1400 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 233-5535 - and - Balon B. Bradley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BALON B. BRADLEY 5473 Blair Road, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 991-1582 Facsimile: (972) 755-0424 The Defendants are represented by: Karen L. Hirschman, Esq. Michelle S. Spak, Esq. Elizabeth C. Brandon, Esq. Allen W. Yee, Esq. Daniel J. Kelly, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 220-7700 Facsimile: (214) 220-7716 - and - Kenneth P. Held, Esq. VINSON & ELKINS L.L.P. First City Tower 1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 758-4353 Facsimile: (713) 615-5219 MAPLES INDUSTRIES: Officers, Employees Face RICO Suit in Alabama ---------------------------------------------------------------- Certain officers and employees of Maples Industries, Inc., face a purported class-action lawsuit, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Ken Bonner at The Daily Sentinel reports. Broussard, et al. v. Maples, et al., Case No. 09-01563 (N.D. Ala.) was filed Aug. 4, 2009, on behalf of Audrey Broussard- Wadkins and Darlene Harbin and "all those similarly situated." The complaint alleges that company CEO Wade Maples, John Maples, Mark Maples, Howard Moore, and Gina Mateo, conspired to depress wages by hiring large numbers of illegal immigrants. It specifically alleges the defendants, all employees of Maples Industries, "conspired to depress the Class' wages by knowingly employing large numbers of illegal immigrants," in what the suit refers to as an "illegal immigrant hiring scheme," writes Mr. Bonner. According to the suit, Maples saved millions of dollars in labor costs by employing illegal immigrants. It further states the practice increased the company's profits and resulted in increased compensation for each person named as a defendant. The complaint says that the action is being "brought on behalf of all hourly-paid workers, legally authorized to be employed in the United States, who have been employed by Maples Industries, Inc. . . . since 2005," Mr. Bonner reported. The plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the defendants from committing further racketeering activity, judgment equal to three times the damages caused by the alleged activity; attorney's fees; costs of the plaintiffs action; and other relief deemed just and proper by the court, reports the Sentinel. The plaintiffs are represented by: Lance Harrison Swanner, Esq. The Cochran Firm PC 163 W Main Street P.O. Box 927 Dothan, AL 36302 Phone: 334-793-1555 Fax: 334-793-8280 E-mail: shughes@cochranfirm.com MCIC INC: Class Certification Bid in Md. Suit v. Insurers Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Baltimore City Circuit Court ruled that a massive lawsuit against a group of insurance companies for allegedly misrepresenting the extent of their coverage of MCIC, Inc., an asbestos insulation contractor, can't proceed as a class-action case, Brendan Kearney at The Daily Record reports. The decision means that each of the more than 11,000 prospective plaintiffs will have to be named and their damages must be evaluated individually if they wish to proceed. The case, filed in May 2005, alleges that insurers for MCIC, including U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., Continental Insurance Co., Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., and Royal Indemnity Co., fraudulently understated its insurance coverage in negotiations leading to a $12.3 million settlement in 1994, according to the Record. According to Judge W. Michel Pierson, while certain factors favored certification as a class, legal uncertainties and insufficient factual evidence at this point precluded that approach, writes Mr. Kearney. The plaintiffs are represented by: Arnold M. Weiner, Esq. Law Offices of Arnold M. Weiner 2002 Clipper Park Road, Unit #108 Baltimore, MD 21211 Phone: 410.769.8080 E-mail: aweiner@wwlawoffice.com Web site: http://www.wwlawoffice.com/ - and - John Amato, IV, Esq. Goodman, Meagher & Enoch, LLP 111 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 752-3666 Fax: (410) 752-3105 E-mail: jamato@gmelaw.com Web site: http://www.gmelaw.com/ MEAD JOHNSON: Faces Calif. Suit Over "False Claims" for Enfamil --------------------------------------------------------------- Mead Johnson Nutrition Co., and Mead Johnson & Co. face a purported class-action suit, accusing them of falsely advertising that Enfamil is the only baby formula with two drugs that promote brain and eye development in babies. Michelle Weeks v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., Case No. 09-05835 (C.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009. Michelle Weeks says that defendants claim Enfamil is the only baby formula that contains two types of fat -- docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA) -- which promote brain and eye development in infants. Ms. Weeks claims that at least five other baby formulas contain the same fatty acids, including Abbot Nutrition, Similac Advance, and generic brands for Target, Wal-Mart and Kohler. According to the suit, the defendants' false claims tricked Ms. Weeks into buying more expensive baby formula than she otherwise would have bought. The lawsuit seeks class-action status, and damages. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cc Ms. Weeks is represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. The Consumer Law Group 9466 Black Mountain Road Suite 225 San Diego, CA 92126 Phone: 619-308-5034 Fax: 888-341-5048 E-mail: alan@clgca.com - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC 1540 Broadway 37th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-447-7070 Fax: 212-447-7077 E-mail: ekallas@wdklaw.com - and - Howard Rubinstein, Esq. Law Offices of Howard Rubinstein 914 Waters Avenue Suite 20 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 832-715-2788 E-mail: howard@pdq.net MERCK & CO: Drug Wholesalers File Antitrust Suit Over Singulair --------------------------------------------------------------- Several drug wholesalers filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc., alleging the drugmaker engaged in anti-competitive tactics to block generic versions of its asthma and allergy drug Singulair, Law360 reports. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc., et al. v. Merck & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 09-04050 (D. N.J.), was filed on Aug. 11, 2009. The plaintiffs are represented by: Peter S. Pearlman, Esq. Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP Park 80 Plaza West One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Phone: (201) 845-9600 E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com NISSAN MOTOR: Faces Personal Injury Suit Over "Intelligent Key" --------------------------------------------------------------- Nissan Motor Company, Ltd., and Nissan North America, Inc., face a purported class-action lawsuit that claims people are being injured by Nissan vehicles that do not meet federal standards, Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service reports. Taragan, et al. v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-03660 (N.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 10, 2009. Helen Taragan, Frances Jeanette Taylor, and Clarence Taylor take issue with Nissan's "Intelligent Key," which they say can be turned off in any gear and removed even if the car is not in park. Nissan's Intelligent Key has an electronic chip; it starts the ignition with the press of a button on the dashboard and also can be used to start the car remotely. But unlike its competitors, Nissan vehicles are not equipped with a solenoid that locks that transponder in place, according to the complaint. As a result, Nissan vehicles can be turned off in any gear and the key can be removed whether or not the car is in park, writes Ms. Dinzeo. Mrs. Taylor, one of the plaintiffs in the case, says her 2009 Nissan Murano injured her when it rolled backward on its own. She had parked the car in a parking lot, turned off the engine, and removed the key, and had opened the back door to retrieve a package when the car moved, catching her foot in the open door and "dragging her along, severely crushing her foot." Her husband says he witnessed the incident and saw the car stopped on top of his wife's foot though the key was still in her hand. Mrs. Taylor says she can no longer work because of her injury, Ms. Dinzeo reported. "The Taylors are excellent examples of what happens when vehicles are non FMSV compliant," according to their attorney Scott Nealey, Esq. The suit seeks punitive damages and a permanent injunction requiring Nissan to repair the defect. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?41cb The plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. Scott Purington Nealey, Esq. Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-956-1000 Fax: 415-956-1008 E-mail: snealey@lchb.com ecabraser@lchb.com ON2 TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders Sue to Halt Google Acquisition ------------------------------------------------------------- On2 Technologies, Inc., shareholders sued the video compression technology company, its board of directors, and Google Inc. over their alleged failure to conduct an open and fair auction process during Google's recent acquisition of On2 for $106.5 million, Law360 reports. Jack Miller and Pual Uy filed the class-action complaint on Aug. 10, 2009, in the Delaware Court of Chancery on behalf of On2 shareholders, according to Law360. The complaint seeks class-action status, as well as a permanent injunction blocking the deal. It also called on the defendants to account for all damages caused (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14, 2009). "Defendants rushed to announce the proposed transaction at $0.60 per share on August 5th ahead of the positive earnings results announced the next day, thereby placing a cap on the company's stock price," the suit reads. According to the complaint, the deal contained various provisions -- including a "no shop" clause and a $2 million termination fee if On2's board accepts a superior deal - to ensure that no competing offers emerge. PZENA INVESTMENT: Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of N.Y. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Pzena Investment Management, Inc. (NYSE: PZN) announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the Judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that dismissed the putative class action lawsuits alleging securities law violations that were filed against the Company, its CEO, and its underwriters in 2007. On Nov. 21, 2007, and Jan. 16, 2008, substantively identical putative class-action suits were commenced against the company and Richard S. Pzena, its chief executive officer, seeking remedies under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2008). The court consolidated the lawsuits and appointed co-lead plaintiffs who filed a consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint names as defendants the company, Mr. Pzena, and two of the underwriters of the company's initial public offering -- Goldman Sachs & Co., Inc. and UBS Securities LLC. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Class A common stock issued pursuant or traceable to the company's IPO. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the registration statement and prospectus relating to the IPO of the company's Class A common stock contained material misstatements and omissions and wrongfully failed to disclose net redemptions in the John Hancock Classic Value Fund for which the company acts as sub-investment advisor. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount including rescission or rescissory damages. A copy of the Second Circuit's ruling in Lowinger v. Pzena Inv. Mgmt., Inc., No. 08-4932-cv (2d Cir. 2009), affirming dismissal of the underlying lawsuit is available at no charge at http://tinyurl.com/oqxu9a Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Esq. Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY 10119 Phone: 212-279-5050 Fax: 212-279-3655 E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com - and - Catherine A. Torell, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 150 East 52nd Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-838-7797 Fax: 212-838-7745 E-mail: ctorell@cmht.com Representing the defendants are: Brian Howard Polovoy, Esq. Shearman & Sterling LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4000 Fax: 212-848-7179 E-mail: bpolovoy@shearman.com - and - Eric Foster Leon, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-446-4731 Fax: 212-446-4900 E-mail: eleon@kirkland.com ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Pa. Air, Groundwater Contamination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class-action claims over alleged toxic contamination of air and groundwater by one of its installations located about one mile north of McCullom Lake Village in Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al., Case No. 06-01743 (E.D. Pa.). The lawsuit was filed by Glenn and Donna Gates on April 25, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 30, 2008), and seeks certification of a class comprised of the owners and residents of about 500 homes in McCullom Lake Village, seeking medical monitoring and compensation for alleged property value diminution, among other things. Representing the plaintiffs is: Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. Layser & Freiwald PC 1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-875-8000 E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com Representing the defendants are: Jennifer A. Battle, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 Phone: 215-751-2647 E-mail: jbattle@schnader.com - and - Albert G. Bixler, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC Two Liberty Place 22nd Floor 50 South 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-851-8412 E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com SACRAMENTO: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over "Illegal" Towing Practice --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney Fred Hiestand, Esq., general counsel of the Civil Justice Association of California, filed a purported class- action lawsuit against the city of Sacramento, California, the city's police chief, city police officers and a tow truck company for towing his car after he left it in a no-parking zone, Cheryl Miller at The Recorder reports. Mr. Hiestand is seeking damages from the tow truck company under Business and Professions Code Section 17200 otherwise know as California's Unfair Competition Law. A year ago, Mr. Hiestand parked illegally on 18th and Capital. He saw the no parking sign, but was willing to pay the fine. He did not realize, however, he could be towed, according to FOX40 News. According to the suit, authorities illegally towed Mr. Hiestand's car because state law requires that the city to post signs warning would-be illegal parkers that their vehicles will be towed. And there were no such signs where Mr. Hiestand parked, according to Ms. Miler. Mr. Hiestand is represented by Mark E. Merin, Esq. Law Office of Mark E. Merin 2001 P. St., Ste. 100 Sacramento, CA 95811 Phone: 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 E-mail: mark@markmerin.com SIOUXLAND UROLOGY: Amended Complaint Filed in S.D. Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was recently filed in Kinney, et al v. Siouxland Urology Associates P.C., et al., Case No. 09-04051 (D. S.D.), The Associated Press reports. Siouxland Urology faces a purported class-action lawsuit for allegedly exposing patients to blood-borne infectious diseases (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2009). The suit was filed on April 17, 2009, by Theresa Kinney, Katherine Moir, Gloria Todd, James Peters and William P. Collins. The federal complaint was filed in Sioux Falls against Siouxland Urology Center in Dakota Dunes and its owners: Drs. John A. Wolpert, David D. Howard, Patrick M. Walsh, Kenneth E. McCalla, Timothy G. Kneib, and Craig A. Block. The center sent letters on April 13, 2009, to more than 5,000 patients telling them that single-use products such as saline solution bags and tubing were used on more than one patient before being discarded, which created a minimal risk of exposure to HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. For more details, contact: William G. Beck, Esq. (Bill.Beck@woodsfuller.com) Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, PC PO Box 5027 Sioux Falls, SD 57117-5027 Phone: (605) 336-3890 Fax: (605) 339-3357 Web site: http://www.woodsfuller.com/ - and - Scott L. Bixenman, Esq. (murphlaw@premieronline.net) Murphy, Collins & Bixenman, P.L.C. 38 1st Avenue N.W. PO Box 526 Le Mars, IA 51031 Phone: (712) 546-8844 Fax: (712) 546-8847 TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defects in Prius Headlights ---------------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., faces a purported class-action lawsuit over the upgraded optional lights, known as high- intensity discharge headlamps on its Prius vehicles that have a tendency to fail, Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service reports. The suit -- filed in Los Angeles Superior Court -- claims that the headlights shut off without warning, and Toyota knows it but fails to warn customers. The plaintiff claims the factory-installed high-intensity discharge headlights in 2006-2008 models have the dangerous defect, and that "hundreds of consumers" have reported it to the National Traffic Safety Administration, but Toyota still refuses to acknowledge it, reports Mr. Kahn. The complaint specifically claims that Toyota "has long been aware that the Prius vehicles equipped with its premium HID Headlight System are susceptible to intermittent headlight failure, but rather than alerting Prius owners and lessees of this safety hazard and offering to repair the vehicles, Toyota is concealing the problem from its customers." It also claims that "even when Prius owners and lessees do finally discover the problem on their own, Toyota dealers replace part or all of the Prius's HID headlight system with equally defective parts, resulting in further headlight failures and additional repair expenses." The suit seeks restitution, an injunction and costs, according to Courthouse News Service. Representing the plaintiff is: Geoffrey A. Munroe, Esq. Girard Gibbs LLP 601 California Street Suite 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-981-4800 Fax: 415-981-4846 E-mail: gam@girardgibbs.com Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com VARIAN INC: Kendall Law Group Files Suit Over Agilent Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Kendall Law Group, led by a former federal judge and former U.S. Attorney, announced that a lawsuit has been filed against Varian, Inc. (NASDAQ: VARI) challenging the proposed acquisition of Varian by Agilent Technologies (NYSE: A). According to the complaint, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Varian has announced that it has entered into a definitive merger agreement with Agilent. Under this agreement, Varian shareholders will receive $52.00 in cash for each Varian share they own, for a total transaction value of approximately $1.5 billion. Given that Varian shares traded close to $70.00 per share in 2008, this transaction appears to be unfair. Also, the Varian Board agreed to a no-solicitation provision and a $46 million termination fee that will ensure that no superior offer will be forthcoming. VIRGIN MOBILE: Levi & Korsinsky Files Suit Over Sprint Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in New Jersey state court challenging the proposed acquisition of Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. (NYSE: VM). The Complaint arises out of the announcement by Virgin Mobile stating that it had entered into a definitive merger agreement with Sprint Nextel Corp. (NYSE: S). Under the proposed agreement, each Virgin Mobile shareholder will receive Sprint shares having a 10-day average closing price equivalent to $5.50 per Virgin Mobile share for a total equity value of approximately $483 million. The complaint alleges that the price is unfair and the Company did not take adequate steps to maximize shareholder value. In particular, Sprint already owns approximately 13.1% of Virgin Mobile, which uses Sprint's cellular network to offer its services, and Sprint has entered into voting agreements that, together with the Virgin Mobile shares it owns, comprise approximately 40% of the outstanding voting power of Virgin Mobile. In addition, the Company agreed to refrain from soliciting competing offers that may be superior than the Sprint offer and also agreed to pay Sprint a termination fee of $14.2 million in the event the agreement is terminated under certain circumstances that will all but ensure that no superior offer will ever be forthcoming. The companies expect to consummate the transaction in the fourth quarter of 2009 or in early 2010, subject to customary closing conditions, including all necessary regulatory and stockholder approvals. For more details, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad Street - 15th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Web site: http://www.zlk.com/vm1.html WACHOVIA CORP: N.C. Settlement Over Sale to Wells Fargo Opposed --------------------------------------------------------------- Former Wachovia Corp. shareholders, including prominent Charlotte businessman Cameron Harris, oppose a proposed settlement related to the bank's sale to Wells Fargo & Co., Christina Rexrode and Rick Rothacker at The Charlotte Observer reports. The shareholders object to how the settlement would pay them nothing, while giving nearly $2 million to a New York law firm that was purportedly representing their interests. They are also concerned the settlement could bar other suits related to Wachovia. Joe Millsaps, Esq., a Charlotte attorney representing three North Carolina shareholders, called the proposal "an unconstitutional taking of shareholder rights without due process," reports the Observer. In an affidavit, Mr. Harris, who sold his insurance business to Charlotte-based Wachovia in 2002, said that the banks and the New York attorneys are the only ones "to benefit monetarily from this proposed settlement." After a hearing this week in N.C. Business Court in Charlotte, a judge will determine whether the proposed settlement should be tweaked, upheld or thrown out completely, according to the Observer reporters. Last December, Wachovia Corp. settled a class-action lawsuit brought by an investor who sought to block the company's sale to Wells Fargo & Co. (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2008). The suit, captioned Irving Ehrenhaus v. John D. Baker, et al., was filed on Oct. 8, 2008, in the Superior Court for the County of Mecklenburg in the State of North Carolina. It names as defendants Wachovia, Wells Fargo, and the directors of Wachovia. The lawsuit is contending that the $15 billion price was too low and the shareholder vote would be unfair. It alleges that the Wachovia directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger with Wells Fargo at an allegedly inadequate price, and that the Wells Fargo directors aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint alleges that Wachovia would force the sale without true approval from shareholders, saying the Charlotte, N.C.- ased bank essentially disenfranchised the voters ... and locked up the vote in favor of the merger by giving Wells preferred stock representing 39.9 percent of Wachovia voting shares as part of the merger agreement. The action seeks to enjoin the Wells Fargo merger, or to recover compensatory or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. Under the settlement, Wachovia Corp. and Wells Fargo have agreed not to appeal a ruling made early this month that prevented the banks from redeeming the preferred shares for at least 18 months following the shareholder vote on the merger. The defendants also agreed to make additional disclosures related to the proposed merger. In April 2009, Mr. Ehrenhaus' lawyers submitted their proposal for terms of a settlement, according to The Charlotte Observer. In that proposal, which Judge Albert Diaz will consider on Aug. 20, 2009, shareholders of the former Wachovia would not receive any monetary compensation. But Wells Fargo would pay $1.975 million to Mr. Ehrenhaus' lawyers, led by a New York firm Wolf Popper, LLP, "for their efforts in achieving the benefits of the settlement." The proposed settlement also says that other former Wachovia shareholders would be barred from filing any future lawsuits related to the deal. Mr. Ehrenhaus and the Wolf Popper lawyers said in a filing that they decided to settle because of the expense, time and "uncertain outcome" of a trial, reports Ms. Rexrode and Mr. Rothacker. On April 24, 2009, Judge Diaz granted preliminary approval to the settlement and told Wells Fargo to begin notifying Wachovia shareholders about it. According to court filings, Wells Fargo paid a third-party firm $989,000 to mail more than 1 million notices, the Observer reported. For more details, contact: Joe T. Millsaps, Esq. 404 Charlotte National Bldg. 428 East Fourth St. Charlotte, NC 28202 Phone: (704) 358-8524 Fax: (704) 358-8405 E-mail: attyjtm@bellsouth.net Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/joemillsapslaw WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Plaintiffs Cling to $39M Claim in Chapter 11 --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class-action suit against Washington Mutual, Inc., have asked the bankruptcy court not to dismiss their $39 million claim against WaMu, despite the company's argument that it's no longer liable because it was dropped from the suit, Law360 reports. The creditor plaintiffs, New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan, filed their response to WaMu's objection to their claim on Aug. 12, 2009 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, according to Law360. New Securities Fraud Cases STURM RUGER: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Conn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 District of Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007. The complaint charges Sturm Ruger and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Sturm Ruger's primary business is the design, manufacture and sale of firearms. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made positive statements about the Company's revenues and earnings. 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 reductions in inventory balances by Sturm Ruger in the first and second quarters of 2007 had reduced the Company's parts and components inventories below efficient levels, preventing Sturm Ruger's manufacturing units from meeting production and shipment schedules and resulting in the Company's inability to sustain current or historical sales levels; -- that Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase orders was materially inflated because of the Company's inability to meet current production and shipping schedules due to inventory shortages; -- that orders received from the Company's independent distributors were artificially boosted by the Company's mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase order submissions and were not reflective of actual demand for the Company's products; -- that Sturm Ruger's independent distributors were carrying large quantities of the Company's unsold products, increasing the risk that these distributors would reduce or curtail their future purchases; and -- that based on the above, defendants had no reasonable basis for their positive statements and opinions concerning Sturm Ruger's current financial performance and condition. The truth came out on October 24, 2007, when the Company announced that its firearm sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell 26%, resulting in a loss of $0.03 per share, and that sales had declined due to inventory issues at its distributors. Following this news, the price of Sturm Ruger's common stock fell by $6.45 per share, closing at $10.65 per share -- a one- day decline of more than 37% on volume of 4.1 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Sturm Ruger's 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/rgr/ STURM RUGER: Izard Nobel Announces Conn. 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 District of Connecticut on behalf of those who purchased the common stock of Sturm Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges that Sturm Ruger and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false statements about the Company's revenues and earnings. Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following: -- that the reductions in inventory balances by Sturm Ruger in the first and second quarters of 2007 had reduced the Company's parts and components inventories below efficient levels, preventing Sturm Ruger's manufacturing units from meeting production and shipment schedules and resulting in the Company's inability to sustain current or historical sales levels; -- that Sturm Ruger's "backlog" of unfilled purchase orders was materially inflated because of the Company's inability to meet current production and shipping schedules due to inventory shortages; -- that orders received from the Company's independent distributors were artificially boosted by the Company's mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase order submissions and were not reflective of actual demand for the Company's products; -- that Sturm Ruger's independent distributors were carrying large quantities of the Company's unsold products, increasing the risk that these distributors would reduce or curtail their future purchases; and -- that based on the above, defendants had no reasonable basis for their positive statements concerning Sturm Ruger's current financial performance and condition. On October 24, 2007, the Company announced that its firearm sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell 26%, resulting in a loss of $0.03 per share, and that sales had declined due to inventory issues at its distributors. On this news, Sturm Ruger's common stock fell $6.45 per share to close at $10.65 per share. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 12, 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/repros/ TEXTRON INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) securities between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009. The complaint charges Textron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Textron is a manufacturer of aircraft and industrial products, including such brands as Cessna Aircraft, Bell Helicopter, and E-Z-GO golf carts, among others. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning Textron's stability and profitability by repeatedly publicizing record "backlogs" of unfilled customer orders for aircraft generated primarily by Cessna and by making positive statements about the Company's finance segment. 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 Textron was accepting orders for business jets from a growing number of customers that were mere startup and/or financially distressed fleet operators who neither intended nor possessed the financial resources to pay for or take delivery of aircraft during 2008-09 and beyond, which materially inflated Textron's "backlog" of unfilled orders for the Company's Cessna segment, which in turn materially overstated the Company's current financial condition and future prospects; -- that hundreds of orders reported as "backlog" at Cessna for future business-jet production were subject to deferral and cancellation causing the Company to overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet production and to initiate costly production cutbacks and worker reduction programs, which eroded Textron's revenues and earnings; -- that the Company's Finance segment had incurred material losses in the fair market value of its finance receivables and other financial assets, and these unrealized market losses were omitted from or misrepresented in the Company's periodic reports of earnings and income; and -- that Textron's credit ratings were deteriorating in light of its Finance segment's losses and the additional debt the Company would incur in connection with its Finance segment's distressed asset base. On January 29, 2009, the last day of the Class Period, Textron announced that an estimated $30 million of the $65 million in "restructuring" costs would be incurred by the Company's Cessna segment due to production cutbacks and worker layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009. After this announcement, Textron common stock traded to a new low of $8.83 per share before closing at $9.05 per share on volume of more than 26 million shares, a one day decline of $4.19, or 31%. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Textron securities 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/textron/ ********* 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 * * *