/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090819.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 19, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 163 Headlines ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers AT&T SERVICES: Faces California Litigation Over "On-Call Work" CHICAGO: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in Cell Phone Ban Case CP SHIPS: Eleventh Circuit Issues Ruling in Securities Lawsuit DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Settles Canadian Sexual Abuse Litigation DOLLAR GENERAL: W.Va. Judge Denies Transfer Request in "Audia" IBASIS INC: Wants Plaintiff to Reimburse Change of Venue Costs INTERMUNE INC: Aug. 24 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Actimmune Suits INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Pollution Lawsuit in South Carolina INVENTIV HEALTH: "Weisz" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in June KING ARTHUR'S: Judge Rules in Favor of Strippers in Pay Lawsuit MAMA MEXICO: Workers Sue Owner for Refusing to Pay Overtime MONROE COLLEGE: Graduate Sues in N.Y. to Recover $70,000 Tuition OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Pending ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. in Early Stages OVERHILL FARMS: Faces Terminated Employees' Wage and Hour Suit PEKIN INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Seeks Default Judgment PRINCETON REVIEW: "Security Incident" Suit Deal Approved in Aug. REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Texas SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Settles Suit by Homeless People for $488,000 STANDARD CHARTERED: Amended Complaint Filed in "Pujals" Lawsuit TALEO CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit WAL-MART STORES: Settlement Proposed in "King" Wage Litigation WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit by South American Stanford Investors WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Stanford Financial WILLIS GROUP: Faces Texas Suit by Venezuelan Stanford Investors WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing in New York WILLIS GROUP: Mulls Potential Suit by Mexican Stanford Investors New Securities Fraud Cases CONSECO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Stock Suit Filing HURON CONSULTING: Gardy & Notis Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit STURM RUGER: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing TEXTRON INC: Brualdi Law Firm Announces Securities Suit Filing TEXTRON INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ********* ARVINMERITOR INC: Still Faces Lawsuits by Auto Filter Purchasers ---------------------------------------------------------------- ArvinMeritor, Inc., continues to face claims raised in several purported class-actions filed on behalf of purchasers of filters, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. On March 31, 2008, S&E Quick Lube, a filter distributor, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that 12 filter manufacturers, including a prior subsidiary of the company, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids and allocate U.S. customers for aftermarket automotive filters. This suit is a purported class-action on behalf of direct purchasers of filters from the defendants. Several parallel purported class actions, including on behalf of indirect purchasers of filters, have been filed by other plaintiffs in a variety of jurisdictions in the United States and Canada. On April 16, 2009, the Attorney General of the State of Florida filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois based on these same allegations. ArvinMeritor, Inc. -- http://www.arvinmeritor.com/-- is a global supplier of a range of integrated systems, modules and components serving commercial truck, light vehicle, trailer and specialty original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and certain aftermarkets. ArvinMeritor serves a range of OEM customers worldwide, including truck OEMs, light vehicle OEMs, trailer producers and specialty vehicle manufacturers, and certain aftermarkets. The company operated 82 manufacturing facilities in 22 countries worldwide as of Sept. 30, 2008, including facilities operated by joint ventures, in which it has interests. Sales from continuing operations outside North America accounted for approximately 59% of total sales from continuing operations in fiscal 2008. AT&T SERVICES: Faces California Litigation Over "On-Call Work" -------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T Services, Inc., faces a purported class-action lawsuit that accuses the company of requiring its information technology staff to remain on call at all times of the day for troubleshooting, but not paying them for the work performed while on call, Tresa Baldas at The National Law Journal reports. The suit, Green v. AT&T Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-01760 (S.D. Calif.), was filed on Aug. 12, 2009, by Antony Green. The plaintiffs allege that the company is not properly paying troubleshooting staff who must remain on call "24 hours a day, seven days a week," writes Ms. Baldas. They also allege that the company's on-call policy requires the information technology staff to respond to pages seeking help -- sent by an AT&T computer -- within 15 minutes and to provide an "immediate resolution of the issue," the Law Journal reported. Mr. Green is represented by Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com CHICAGO: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ruling in Cell Phone Ban Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in a case by Chicago cell phone users, who are fighting to fend off a city ordinance that bars them from driving and chatting on their phone without a hands-free device, Lynne Marek of The National Law Journal reports. In a decision issued on Aug. 13, 2009, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the federal court that the class-action case that is mounting a constitutional challenge to the 2005 city law "has no legs." That law also precludes texting and surfing the Internet while driving, the court noted. "The district court was right: this case has no legs whatever," a unanimous decision written by Judge Diane Wood said, reports Ms. Marek. In 2008, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs had no real constitutional argument, despite claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, to justify their 2007 lawsuit and that a proposed attempt to modify the suit would be frivolous. The plaintiffs, all of whom had been ticketed for violating the law, appealed the decision late last year, Ms. Marek reported. The plaintiffs' attorney, Blake Horwitz, Esq., of Chicago-based Horwitz, Richardson & Baker, said his clients won't appeal the decision, according to the Law Journal. A copy of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?421f Representing the plaintiffs is: Blake Horwitz, Esq. Horwitz, Richardson & Baker 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 676-2100 Fax: (312) 372-7076 Web site: http://www.hrbattorneys.com/ CP SHIPS: Eleventh Circuit Issues Ruling in Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal appeals court ruled that a district court had jurisdiction over claims brought by foreign plaintiffs in a securities class-action suit against CP Ships, Ltd., when it approved a settlement in the case, denying a bid by one foreign plaintiff to get out of the settlement, Law360 reports. Judge R. Lanier Anderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued the ruling on Aug. 13, 2009, on behalf of a three-judge panel, according to Law360. A free copy of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling is available at http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816334.pdf DIOCESE OF ANTIGONISH: Settles Canadian Sexual Abuse Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- One year ago Ronald Martin filed a proposed class action in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Antigonish seeking compensation for himself and all persons who were sexually abused by priests of the Diocese. On August 7, 2009, the parties to the lawsuit announced a proposed settlement of the class action totaling more than $13 million for all persons who were sexually assaulted by any priest of the Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Antigonish since January 1, 1950, including the estates of those persons if they have since passed away. The class action is referred to as "Martin v. Lahey, et al., Hfx No. 297827." Persons impacted and choosing to participate in the settlement are considered "Class Members". The proposed settlement can be broken down as follows: -- up to $12 million will be paid by the Diocese into a "Settlement Fund" to pay compensation to eligible Class Members; -- The Diocese will create an "Expense Fund" $1 million to pay the expenses of the settlement; and -- The Diocese will create a "Costs Fund" to pay certain claimant's costs. Class Members must file a claim within specified time limits in order to qualify for compensation and benefits under the proposed class action settlement. The settlement process will be private and confidential. Class Members may be required to be evaluated by a neutral medical expert. Class Members and the Diocese may settle claims by agreeing to the amount of compensation, without the need for a hearing. If a class member and the Diocese cannot agree on the value of a settlement, the claim will be considered by a judge or retired judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia at a private and confidential hearing. Claims can include compensation for pain and suffering, and wage loss up to certain limits. The Diocese will pay successful claimants necessary counseling costs as well as certain costs associated with pursuing a successful claim. The amount each claimant will receive depends upon the details of the claim, and the number of claims made. In order for the settlement to become effective, it must be approved by the court, which must be satisfied that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the Class Members. The date and location for the approval hearing is as follows: September 10 & 11, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, 1815 Upper Water Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia. For more details, contact: Arnold Pizzo McKiggan 306-5670 Spring Garden Road Halifax, Nova Scotia B3J 1H6 Toll Free in Atlantic Canada: (877) 423-2050 Local: (902) 423-2050 Fax: (902) 423-6707 E-mail: dioceseclassaction@apmlawyers.com Web site: http://www.dioceseclassaction.com DOLLAR GENERAL: W.Va. Judge Denies Transfer Request in "Audia" -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Irene Keeley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied a motion from former Dollar General workers to transfer a proposed class-action lawsuit against the retailer to Judge John Preston Bailey, Steve Korris at The West Virginia Record reports. Audia, et al. v. Dolgencorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-00098 (N.D. W.Va.), was filed on April 3, 2008 by Tammy Audia and Robert Cole against Dolgencorp, Inc., and Dollar General Corp., and generally alleges that the defendants violated certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Aug. 6, 2009, Judge Keeley signed a pair of orders that drew a sharp line between the class-action case in her court and individual suits against Dollar General in Judge Bailey's court, reports Mr. Korris. One order denied the class action transfer. The other transferred three individual cases from Judge Keeley to Judge Bailey, who already presided over seven individual suits. The suits allege that Dollar General improperly classified workers as managers in order to deprive them of rights under wage and hour laws, according to Mr. Korris. The plaintiff lawyers had hoped to roll the class action and all ten individual suits together before Judge Bailey, but Judge Keeley disappointed them, the Record reported. She wrote that the class-action lawsuit differed significantly from the individual cases. The class-action case involves claims under state and federal law, she wrote, while the others involve claims only under federal law. All plaintiffs in the class action worked since 2005, she wrote, while the individuals worked from 1999 to 2004. Individual plaintiffs have stipulated that they regularly supervised two or more employees, received the required minimum as managers and hired clerks, she wrote, while plaintiffs in the class-action case have entered no such stipulations, according to the Record. The plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas G. Dyer, Esq. Dyer Law Offices PO Box 1332 Clarksburg, WV 26302-1332 Phone: 304-622-1635 Fax: 304-622-1870 (fax) E-mail: dyerlawof@aol.com - and - Michelle Price Massingale, Esq. Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons, PA 410 Cameron-Brown Bldg. 301 S. McDowell St. Charlotte, NC 28204-2686 Phone: (704) 377-5050 Fax: (704) 339-0172 E-mail: mmassingale@sellershinshaw.com The defendants are represented by: Joel S. Allen, Esq. Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP 1717 Main St., Suite 3200 Dallas, TX 75201-7347 Phone: (214) 466-4106 Fax: (214) 466-4001 E-mail: joel.allen@morganlewis.com - and - Eric W. Iskra, Esq. Spilman Thomas & Battle PLLC 300 Kanawha Blvd E. Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Phone: 304-340-3875 Fax: 304-340-3801 E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com IBASIS INC: Wants Plaintiff to Reimburse Change of Venue Costs -------------------------------------------------------------- iBasis, Inc., wants to be reimbursed for its legal fees in connection with a change of venue in a putative consumer class- action lawsuit filed on behalf of Orlando Ramirez concerning the company's prepaid calling card practices. The company was named in a putative consumer class-action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The company was served on May 27, 2008. The putative class-action plaintiff, Orlando Ramirez, asserted violations of consumer protection statutes in New Jersey and other states on behalf of an asserted nationwide class of purchasers due to an alleged failure to adequately disclose the actual calling time available on iBasis' prepaid calling cards. The company filed a motion to change venue to the Eastern District of New York where named plaintiff resides and purchased the card. Plaintiffs were granted a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, on July 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, 2008, a substantially similar complaint was filed against the company on behalf of Mr. Ramirez in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The company was served with the summons and complaint on April 16, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the company filed a motion in the Eastern District to require plaintiffs to pay its attorneys fees and costs incurred in connection with plaintiff's prior filing in the District of New Jersey. Oral argument on the motion has been set for Aug. 11, 2009. The company believes that it has substantial defenses to the claims alleged in the complaint, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. iBasis, Inc. -- http://www.ibasis.com/-- is a wholesale carrier of international long distance telephone calls and a provider of retail prepaid calling services and enhanced services for mobile operators. The company's operations consist of wholesale trading business (Trading), in which it connects buyers and sellers of international telecommunications services, and retail services business (Retail). INTERMUNE INC: Aug. 24 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Actimmune Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- An Aug. 24, 2009, hearing has been set for the motions to dismiss the complaints against InterMune, Inc., alleging fraudulent misrepresentation of the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF). On May 8, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Deborah Jane Jarrett, Nancy Isenhower, and Jeffrey H. Frankel v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. C-08-02376. Plaintiffs alleged that they were administered Actimmune, and they purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted various claims against the Company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought equitable relief. On June 11, 2008, a nearly identical complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Linda K. Rybkoski v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen, and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-2916. Plaintiff in this action alleged that she was administered Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged virtually identical facts to those alleged in the Jarrett Action; it also asserted the same claims against the Company and sought the same relief. On July 23, 2008, the Rybkoski Action was ordered related to the Jarrett Action and is now pending before the same judge and is proceeding on the same schedule. On Aug. 8, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Zurich American Insurance Company v. Genentech, Inc., InterMune, Inc., and W. Scott Harkonen, Case No. CV-08-3797. Plaintiff in the Zurich Action, which allegedly provides health and pharmacy benefits to its insureds in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several U.S. territories, alleged that it paid for prescriptions of Actimmune and purported to sue on behalf of a class of third-party payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged similar facts to those alleged in the Jarrett and Rybkoski Actions, and it also asserted civil RICO, unfair competition, various state consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims against the company. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest on all damages, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought a declaration that the conduct alleged was unlawful, as well as injunctive relief. On Sept. 5, 2008, the Zurich Action was ordered related to the Jarrett Action and assigned to the same judge. On Sept. 26, 2008, Plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich actions filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint, a putative nationwide class action on behalf of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune, which is very similar to the first complaint that was filed in the Jarrett Action. It alleged the same basic facts, namely, that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The First Amended Complaint asserted various claims against the company, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The First Amended Complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including the same categories of damages and other relief that were originally sought in the Jarrett Action. On Oct. 20, 2008, the company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions. On Sept. 29, 2008, a similar complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entitled Government Employees Health Association, Inc. v. InterMune, Inc., W. Scott Harkonen and Genentech, Inc., Case No. CV-08-4531. Plaintiff in the GEHA Action is allegedly a national health insurance plan serving federal employees and retirees, as well as their families. Plaintiff alleges that it paid for more than $4 million of Actimmune prescriptions during the class period, and it purports to sue on behalf of a class of consumers and other end-payors of Actimmune. The complaint alleged that the company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune for the treatment of IPF and promoted Actimmune for IPF. The complaint asserted the same causes of action against the company as the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions, including civil RICO, unfair competition, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint sought various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The complaint also sought appropriate equitable relief. The GEHA action was subsequently related to the other actions, so that all four are pending before the same judge. By stipulation, the parties to the GEHA Action agreed that the briefing already submitted on the motions to dismiss in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions would constitute the briefing on a motion to dismiss in the GEHA Action. On Feb. 26, 2009, the Court consolidated the Jarrett, Rybkoski, Zurich, and GEHA Actions for pretrial purposes. The motions to dismiss in all four cases were heard on Feb. 2, 2009. On April 28, 2009, the Court granted the motions to dismiss the complaints in all four cases in their entirety. The Court granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaints and ordered any such amended complaints to be filed within 30 days. On May 28, 2009, plaintiffs in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions filed a single Second Amended Complaint, which added Joan Stevens as a named plaintiff in the Zurich Action, and which alleges that the Company fraudulently misrepresented the medical benefits of Actimmune to treat IPF. The Second Amended Complaint eliminated the civil RICO claim and asserts other claims against the company, including unfair competition, false advertising, violation of various state consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks various damages in an unspecified amount, including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, prejudgment and post-judgment interest on any monetary award, and the reimbursement of the plaintiffs' legal fees and costs. The complaint also seeks equitable relief. Also on May 28, 2009, plaintiff in the GEHA Action filed a First Amended Complaint, which makes substantially similar allegations, brings the same claims, and seeks the same relief against the company as the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions. On June 29, 2009, the company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the Jarrett, Rybkoski, and Zurich Actions and the First Amended Complaint in the GEHA Action. On July 27, 2009, Zurich American Insurance Company dismissed its claims against the company. Also on July 27, the remaining plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss. Defendants' reply briefs are due on Aug. 10, 2009, and the hearing on the motions is scheduled for Aug. 24, 2009. The Court had stayed discovery until at least the time of the hearing on the first motions to dismiss, and no party has sought to conduct discovery following that Feb. 2, 2009 hearing. The company says it may enter into discussions regarding settlement of these matters, and may enter into settlement agreements, if it believes settlement is in the best interests of its shareholders, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. InterMune, Inc. -- http://www.intermune.com/-- is a biotech company focused on developing and commercializing therapies in pulmonology and hepatology. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Faces Pollution Lawsuit in South Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Co. faces a purported class-action lawsuit that was filed by a group of Georgetown residents, who are claiming that pollution from the company's Georgetown plant has damaged their health and their properties, David Slade at The Post and Courier reports. The suit was filed on July 31, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and is captioned, "Anderson, et al. v. International Paper Company, Case No. 09-02030." The complaint -- filed by Bell Legal Group -- generally claims that International Paper violated a number of state and federal laws and environmental regulations. It could potentially include as plaintiffs anyone who lived within five miles of the facility for at least two years, Mr. Slade reported. "At all times pertinent hereto, International Paper knew, or should have known, that the facility was releasing hazardous substances, particulate matter, and noxious odors into the environment at a level that was unlawful and at a level that could cause injury to persons and property," according to the suit. The lawsuit seeks to stop International Paper from any further release of "hazardous substances, particulate matter and noxious odors" from the facility, and monetary damages of an unspecified amount, an investigation of contamination throughout Georgetown, and remediation of any contamination, according to Mr. Slade. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4221 The plaintiff are represented by: James Edward Bell, III, Esq. J Edward Bell III Law Office 232 King Street Georgetown, SC 29440 Phone: 843-546-2408 Fax: 843-546-9604 E-mail: ebell@edbelllaw.com INVENTIV HEALTH: "Weisz" Suit Settlement Got Final OK in June ------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the matter "Weisz v. Albertsons, Inc., Case No. GIC 830069," which names as defendant Adheris, Inc. -- a business segment of inVentiv Health, Inc. -- received final approval on June 5, 2009. The purported class-action lawsuit was filed on May 17, 2004, in the San Diego Superior Court, California, by Utility Consumer Action Network against Albertsons, Inc., and its affiliated drug store chains and 17 pharmaceutical companies. The litigation alleged, among other claims, violation of the California Unfair Competition Law and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act arising from the operation of manufacturer-sponsored, pharmacy-based compliance programs similar to Adheris' refill reminder programs. An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 4, 2004, adding Adheris as a defendant to the lawsuit. A subsequent amendment to the complaint substituted plaintiff Kimberly Weisz as the class representative to the purported class action. After several rounds of pleading challenges to the plaintiff's various renditions of the complaint, all but one pharmaceutical manufacturing company, AstraZeneca LP, were dismissed from the case, leaving only Albertsons Inc., Adheris, and AstraZeneca as the remaining defendants in the action. In pleading challenge to the plaintiff's fifth amended complaint, the remaining defendants were successful in eliminating a number of claims, including fraud-based and breach of privacy claims. The plaintiff's class allegations were stricken as improper with leave to amend. An operative sixth amended complaint was filed on Jan. 6, 2008. The defendants moved to strike certain of the plaintiff's claims and the plaintiff's class allegations as improper. These motions were denied. In conjunction therewith, the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration as to her breach of privacy claim was granted. As a result, there are four live claims alleged against Adheris: -- violation of the CMIA; -- breach of fiduciary duty; -- unjust enrichment; and -- breach of privacy. On July 9, 2008, Albertsons filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Adheris intends to join in these arguments. This motion currently is set to be heard on Oct. 3, 2008. On July 11, 2008, the counsel for the parties entered into a 60- day litigation standstill to pursue settlement through mediation. The agreement included taking off calendar all pending motions, discovery and depositions for 60 days. The parties are in the process of selecting a mediator and preparing for mediation. On Feb. 8, 2009, the remaining parties to the Weisz action entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release. The court-ordered period for objection to the settlement expired on April 27, 2009 and to date no objections to the settlement have been received by the company. Under the terms of the Weisz Settlement, which received final court approval on June 5, 2009, Adheris agreed to refrain from knowing participation in any refill reminder programs, targeted mailings or notifications regarding medical conditions of specific California residents except those residents who have expressly opted in to the communication or as otherwise permitted by California law. Adheris currently does not conduct significant business in California of the type encompassed by Weisz Settlement. It is expected that Adheris' financial contribution to the settlement in excess of its retention amount will be funded by insurance, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009. inVentiv Health, Inc. -- http://www.inventivhealth.com/-- is a provider of value-added services to the pharmaceutical, life sciences and healthcare industries. The company supports a range of clinical development, communications and commercialization activities that are critical to its customers' ability to complete the development of drug products and medical devices and commercialize them. inVentiv provides services to over 325 client organizations, including all top 20 global pharmaceutical companies, specialty biotechnology companies and payors. The company's service offerings reflect the changing needs of its clients as their products move through the late- stage development and regulatory approval processes and into product launch, and then throughout the product lifecycle. KING ARTHUR'S: Judge Rules in Favor of Strippers in Pay Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Suffolk Superior Judge Frances A. McIntyre ruled that about 70 strippers who worked at King Arthur's Lounge are each entitled to recover thousands of dollars in damages in a class-action lawsuit because their employer misclassified them as "independent contractors," depriving them of wages and tips, Jonathan Saltzman at The Boston Globe reports. Judge McIntyre certified the suit brought by Lucienne Chaves, a 32-year-old former stripper at the club, as a class-action case on behalf of her and other dancers who were misclassified as independent contractors, Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq., a Boston lawyer for the strippers told Mr. Saltzman. The suit, which a lawyer for one of the strippers described as the first of its kind in Massachusetts, seeks to recover money they should have received at King Arthur's Lounge in Chelsea since 2004. King Arthur's Lounge, a club that has been the scene of more than one notorious crime, did not pay the strippers any salaries, required each to pony up $35 to perform each night, and kept $10 of every $30 that each made for "private dancing" in secluded booths, according to court documents, according to the Globe reports. The club had argued that selling alcohol is its main business, not putting on strip shows, and that the performers were independent contractors who provided extra entertainment akin to televisions and pool tables at a sports bar. Judge McIntyre dismissed that argument, saying, "A court would need to be blind to human instinct to decide that live nude entertainment was equivalent to the wallpaper of routinely- televised matches, games, tournaments, and sports talk in such a place." She further said, "The dancing is an integral part of King Arthur's business," reports Mr. Saltzman. The strippers are represented by: Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 100 Cambridge Street, 20th Floor Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617-994-5800 Fax: 617-994-5801 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com MAMA MEXICO: Workers Sue Owner for Refusing to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Workers for Mama Mexico restaurant owner Juan Rojas Campos filed a purported class-action lawsuit alleging that he is cheating them out of wages, Thomas Zambito at The New York Daily News reports. In a proposed class-action lawsuit, seven workers accuse Mr. Campos of violating federal wage and labor laws by refusing to pay them overtime, writes Mr. Zambito. "Mr. Campos seems to have forgotten his humble beginnings and the struggles of low-wage restaurant workers trying to make ends meet," according to the workers' attorney, Justin Swartz, Esq. The lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court also accuses Mr. Campos of denying the workers minimum wage and forcing them to share tips with higher ups. The workers include servers, bussers and bartenders who worked at two Mama Mexico locations in the city and one in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Mr. Zambito reported. MONROE COLLEGE: Graduate Sues in N.Y. to Recover $70,000 Tuition ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monroe College is facing a purported class-action lawsuit filed by a New York woman who claims that the business-oriented school has not done enough to land her a job, AttorneyAtLaw.com reports. Trina Thompson is suing her college for the $70,000 she spent on tuition, claiming that she can't find a job. She graduated from Monroe College with an information technology degree in April 2009. Ms. Thompson, 27, filed the class-action lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court on July 24, 2009, according to AttorneyAtLaw.com. OCCAM NETWORKS: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Occam Networks, Inc., continues to face an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class-action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On April 26, 2007, and May 16, 2007, two putative class-action complaints were filed before the district court against the company and certain of its officers. The complaints allege that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act, and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect revenue recognition. The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from May 2, 2006, and April 17, 2007. On July 30, 2007, Judge Christina A. Snyder consolidated the actions into a single case, appointed NECA-IBEW Pension Fund -- The Decatur Plan -- as lead plaintiff, and approved its selection of lead counsel. On Nov. 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. This consolidated complaint adds as defendants certain of the company's current and former directors and officers, its current and former outside auditors, the lead underwriter of its secondary public offering in November 2006, and two venture capital firms who were early investors in the company. The consolidated complaint alleges that defendants violated sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act by making false and misleading statements and omissions relating to the company's financial statements and internal controls with respect to revenue recognition that required restatement. The consolidated complaint seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the company's common stock during the period from April 29, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2007, damages of an unspecified amount. On Jan. 25, 2008, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On July 1, 2008, Judge Christina A. Snyder issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motions. This order dismissed all claims against certain of the company's current and former directors, the 20A claim in its entirety, the section 10(b) claim against the auditors and venture capital firms, and the section 11 claims against the venture capital firms. On July 16, 2008, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint to conform to the court's July 1 order. Defendants answered this amended complaint on Aug. 29, 2008. No further updates regarding the lawsuit were disclosed by the company in its according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit is "Lauri S. Batwin, et al. v. Occam Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02750," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Christina A. Snyder, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lori S. Brody, Esq. (lbrody@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer 1801 Century Park East, Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-785-0800 - and - Matthew Isaac Alpert, Esq. (malpert@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants are: Jerome F. Birn, Jr., Esq. (jbirn@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 - and - Philip T. Besirof, Esq. (pbesirof@mofo.com) Morrison and Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Phone: 415-268-6091 ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Wage & Hour Suit in Calif. in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- A purported class-action lawsuit by Charlia Cornish against Odyssey HealthCare, Inc., alleging class-wide wage and hour issues at its California hospice programs is in its early stages, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. The suit was filed on Nov. 6, 2008, in Superior Court of California, Los, Angeles County. It alleges failure to provide overtime compensation, meal and break periods, accurate itemized wage statements, and timely payment of wages earned upon leaving employment. The purported class includes all persons employed by the Company in California as an admission nurse, a case manager registered nurse, a licensed vocational nurse, a registered nurse, a home health aide, a medical social worker, a triage coordinator, an office manager, a patient care secretary or a spiritual counselor at anytime on or after Nov. 6, 2004. The lawsuit seeks payment of unpaid wages, damages, interest, penalties and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In January 2009, the company successfully moved the lawsuit to Federal District Court in the Central District of California. Odyssey HealthCare, Inc. -- http://www.odsyhealth.com/-- is a provider of hospice care in the U.S. in terms of both patient census and number of Medicare-certified hospice programs. On March 6, 2008, the Company completed its acquisition of VistaCare, Inc. After the completion of the VistaCare acquisition, it serves approximately 12,000 patients and their families each day through approximately 110 Medicare-certified hospice locations in 30 states. OVERHILL FARMS: Faces Terminated Employees' Wage and Hour Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Overhill Farms, Inc. faces a putative class action lawsuit by Bohemia Augustiana, Isela Hernandez and Ana Munoz. On July 7, 2009, the company was served with the lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on July 1, 2009. The three individuals are former company employees who had been terminated on May 31, 2009, because they did not have valid social security numbers, and they had furnished false social security numbers to the company. In their lawsuit, they allege failure to pay minimum wage, failure to furnish wage and hour statements, waiting time penalties, conversion and unfair business practices. They seek unspecified damages, restitution, an equitable accounting, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and they allege that they are bringing the action as a class action on behalf of other similarly situated employees, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 28, 2009. Overhill Farms, Inc. -- http://www.overhillfarms.com/-- is a value-added manufacturer of prepared frozen food products for branded retail, private label, foodservice and airline customers. The company's product line includes entrees, plated meals, bulk-packed meal components, pastas, soups, sauces, poultry, meat and fish specialties, and organic and vegetarian offerings. It provides custom prepared foods to a number of customers, such as Jenny Craig, Inc., H. J. Heinz Company, American Airlines, Inc., Safeway Inc., Pinnacle Foods Group LLC and Panda Restaurant Group, Inc. The company operates as a single business segment, the development and production of frozen food products. Overhill Farms, Inc., markets its products through both an internal sales force and outside food brokers. Its customers are foodservice, retail and airline accounts. PEKIN INSURANCE: Plaintiffs' Attorney Seeks Default Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ An attorney for LakinChapman, LLC, filed a motion that seeks class-action certification by default in a lawsuit against Pekin Insurance, Steve Korris at The St. Clair Record reports. LakinChapman lawyers sued Pekin in 2005, claiming it didn't deliver benefits it promised for joining a preferred provider organization. Their clients Frank Bemis, Dale Fischer and Richard Kaltenbronn, all local chiropractors, seek certification as class representatives. Andrew Kuhlmann, Esq., of LakinChapman asked for default judgment in a motion for sanctions that he filed on Aug. 4, 2009, with Judge Barbara Crowder of Madison County Circuit Court, the Record reports. "Defendants have not provided complete responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests and continue to engage in a pattern of obfuscation and gamesmanship," according to Mr. Kuhlmann. The attorney asked Judge Crowder to order Pekin to pay for class notice. He also asked her to set a hearing on class damages. Though Mr. Kuhlmann alleged inadequate response, he pleaded excess response. According to him, "Defendant has supplemented its document production to include a 'dump truck' production." He further said, "Defendant has purported to produce unlabeled electronic files of every single individual claim file with wholly irrelevant information other than an admission of its ability to identify members of the proposed class," writes Mr. Korris. "Furthermore, defendant has provided an unduly burdensome privilege log with over 46,000 unsubstantiated entries," according to Mr. Kuhlmann. Mr. Kuhlmann also claimed that a man Pekin identified as its most knowledgeable person turned out not to be the most knowledgeable, Mr. Korris reported. For more details, contact: LakinChapman, LLC 300 Evans Ave. PO Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095 Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com PRINCETON REVIEW: "Security Incident" Suit Deal Approved in Aug. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on Aug. 5, 2009, settlement agreement a putative class-action suit against The Princeton Review, Inc. In August 2008, the Company learned that certain of its Web pages that appeared to contain confidential information were available to the public on the Internet for a short period of time. On Sept. 19, 2008, a putative class-action lawsuit captioned, "Virginia B. Townsend v. The Princeton Review, Inc. (Case No. 8:08-CIV-1879-T-33TBM)," was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division relating to the security incident alleging negligence, breach of contract and unfair trade practices. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief including the provision of personal data monitoring and identify theft insurance and unspecified enhancement of the security of the Company's computer data systems, together with attorneys' fees and costs. In April 2009, the parties have entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation. In July 2009, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which was approved preliminarily by the Court on Aug. 5, 2009. Under the settlement agreement, subject to final approval by the Court, the company will provide a specified identity protection service to the class members that elect to participate and pay the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel as approved by the Court. The company believes that the full cost of the settlement will be within the limits of its applicable insurance policies, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. The Princeton Review, Inc. -- http://www.princetonreview.com/-- provides integrated classroom-based, print and online products and services that address the needs of students, parents, educators and educational institutions. During the year ended Dec. 31, 2007, the Company operated through the three divisions: the Test Preparation Services division, which provides classroom-based, as well as online test preparation courses; the Supplemental Education Services (SES) division, which provides tutoring and No Child Left Behind supplemental educational services, and the K-12 Services division, which provides a range of services to K-12 schools and school districts to help primary and secondary school students and teachers improve academic performance, including online and print-based assessment, professional development and materials to support school-based intervention programs. In July 2008, the Company completed the acquisition of The Princeton Review of Orange County, Inc. REPROS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder's Litigation in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Repros Therapeutics (Nasdaq: RPRX) disclosed that on August 7, 2009, R.M. Berry filed a putative class action lawsuit naming the Company, Joseph Podolski, Paul Lammers, and Louis Ploth, Jr., as defendants. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made certain misleading statements related to the Company's Proellex drug. Repros Therapeutics, Inc. -- http://www.reprosrx.com/-- focuses on the development of oral small molecule drugs for major unmet medical needs that treat male and female reproductive disorders. SACRAMENTO COUNTY: Settles Suit by Homeless People for $488,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Sacramento County agreed to pay $488,000 to partially resolve a purported class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless people who have had their property seized and destroyed by city and county authorities, Denny Walsh at The Sacramento Bee reports. The proposed settlement was revealed on Aug. 13, 2009, during a federal court hearing on a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class-action case. The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., of the District Court for the Eastern District of California, granted the motion and said he will issue a written order allowing homeless people to proceed as a class against the county and the city of Sacramento. The City of Sacramento is not settling, writes Mr. Walsh. The class that Judge England agreed to certify consists of "all persons in the city of Sacramento or the county of Sacramento who were, or are, or will be homeless at any time after Aug. 2, 2005, and whose personal belongings have been taken and destroyed, or will be taken and destroyed, by the defendants." In the course of keeping homeless people moving, city and county police, sheriff's deputies and park rangers have been cleaning campsites by disposing of personal property, particularly if owners are not present, according to Mark Merin, Esq., attorney for the homeless, the Sacramento Bee reported. The system violates the 14th Amendment's protection against loss of property without due process and the constitutional right to be heard before it is destroyed, Mr. Merin said. "They are seizing and destroying the very necessities of life: shelter, medicine and clothing," he stated. In his motion for class certification, Mr. Merin cited language from a 1972 U.S. Supreme Court opinion: "A homeless person's personal property is generally all he owns; therefore, while it may look like 'junk' to some people, its value should not be discounted." According to Mr. Merin, in addition to the monetary component of the proposed settlement, the county has proposed giving 48 hours' notice of a sweep of a homeless camp. All property seized would be tagged and kept for three months, he adds, reports Mr. Walsh. The plaintiffs are 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 STANDARD CHARTERED: Amended Complaint Filed in "Pujals" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in a purported class-action suit, Pujals, et al. v. Standard Chartered Bank International (Americas) Limited, et al., Case No. 09-21611, Law360 reports. The amended complaint -- filed on Aug. 13, 2009 -- was brought by a couple, who are seeking the return of potentially millions of dollars in "phantom fees" that were paid for funds invested in a Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities feeder fund, according to Law360. The suit was filed on June 12, 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jose Antonio Pujals and Rosa Julieta A. De Pujals (Class Action Action Reporter, June 18, 2009. According to the suit, the Mexican couple was charged $758 in November by Standard Chartered Bank for investing money into a large Madoff feeder fund, the Sentry Fund, which at one point had $7 billion in it, reports South Florida Business Journal. The fees allegedly were to service the Pujalses' $609,547 account with Sentry. But, after Madoff imploded, the Pujalses discovered this year that their fund was really worth no more than $4.52, according to the South Florida Business Journal report. The suit asks that $5 million in fees allegedly charged by Standard Chartered be returned to members of a class that the Pujalses represent, the South Florida Business Journal reported. "Such payments were neither legal nor equitable, and the parties that received those phantom fees . should be required to return them," according to the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by the South Florida Business Journal. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Alan Rothstein, Esq. Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein 2665 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Phone: 305-374-1920 Fax: (305) 374-1961 E-mail: drothstein@dkrpa.com Representing the defendant is: Hilarie Bass, Esq. Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-579-0745 Fax: 305-579-0717 E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com TALEO CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for Bid to Junk Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing regarding the motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the action tagged "In re Taleo Corporation Securities Litigation" is scheduled for Nov. 13, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. On Nov. 14, 2008, following the announcement that the company was re-evaluating certain of the company's historical and then current accounting practices, a shareholder class action lawsuit entitled Brett Johnson v. Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV-08-5182 SC, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged violations of 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The Johnson lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on Dec. 22, 2008. On Dec. 17, 2008, a second substantially similar shareholder lawsuit entitled Terrence Popyk v. Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV 08-5634 PH, was filed in the Northern District of California; the Popyk lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on Jan. 20, 2009. On Jan. 13, 2009, a third shareholder lawsuit entitled Scott Stemper v Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker, CV 09-0151 JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On Feb. 9, 2009, the court renamed the Stemper action "In re Taleo Corporation Securities Litigation" and appointed the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenter's Pension Fund as lead plaintiff. On June 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming Taleo Corporation, Michael Gregoire, Katy Murray, and Divesh Sisodraker as defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in securities fraud in violation of 10(b) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The fraud allegations include a failure to apply GAAP in the reporting of quarterly and annual financial statements and securities prospectuses from the time of the company's initial public offering to recent filings with the SEC. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals or institutions who purchased or acquired shares of the Company's common stock between Sept. 29, 2005 and Nov. 12, 2008. In response to the Amended Complaint, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on July 31, 2009. Taleo Corporation -- http://www.taleo.com/-- is a provider on- demand talent management software solutions. The company offers recruiting, performance management, internal mobility and other software solutions. Taleo Corporation delivers its solutions on-demand as a hosted service that is accessed through an Internet connection and a standard Web browser. WAL-MART STORES: Settlement Proposed in "King" Wage Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement has been proposed in the class-action lawsuit captioned King v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., MDL No. 1735; Master Docket No. 06-CV-00225 (D. Nev.). The proposed settlement covers all hourly employees of Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. who were participants or beneficiaries of the Wal-Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan and/or the Wal-Mart Puerto Rico Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan, and any and all predecessors during the period from February 1, 1997, to May 26, 2009. The case was brought by plaintiffs on behalf of participants or beneficiaries in the Plans against Wal-Mart and certain Wal-Mart officials to recover losses allegedly sustained by the Plans. The lawsuit claimed that defendants breached their fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). It alleges that defendants breached fiduciary duties with respect to the failure to make certain employer contributions to the Plans The settlement will provide $5.0 million in cash to fully resolve the lawsuit. For more details, contact: Leigh Anna Thomure, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 202-686-4111 or 1-800-424-6690 Fax: 215-875-4604 Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com/ WILLIS GROUP: Defending Suits Over Employee Benefits & Insurance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. continues to defend the purported class-action suits filed against the company and its newly acquired Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs Company. Since August 2004, the company and HRH (along with various other brokers and insurers) have been named as defendants in purported class-action suits in various courts across the United States. All of these actions have been consolidated or are in the process of being consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. There are two amended complaints within the MDL, one that addresses employee benefits ("EB Complaint") and one that addresses all other lines of insurance ("Commercial Complaint"). HRH was a named defendant in the EB Complaint, but has since been voluntarily dismissed. HRH is a named defendant in the Commercial Complaint. The company is a named defendant in both MDL Complaints. The EB Complaint and the Commercial Complaint seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, and equitable relief and make allegations regarding the practices and conduct that have been the subject of the investigation of state attorneys general and insurance commissioners, including allegations that the brokers have breached their duties to their clients by entering into contingent compensation agreements with either no disclosure or limited disclosure to clients and participated in other improper activities. The Complaints also allege the existence of a conspiracy among insurance carriers and brokers and allege violations of federal antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In separate decisions issued in August and September 2007, the antitrust and RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice and the state claims were dismissed without prejudice from both Complaints. In January 2008, the Judge dismissed the ERISA claims with prejudice from the EB Complaint and the state law claims without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal regarding the dismissal of the antitrust and RICO claims and oral arguments on this appeal were heard in April 2009 but there is no indication when a ruling will be issued. Additional actions could be brought in the future by individual policyholders, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit by South American Stanford Investors ------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class action complaint, captioned Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-22085, was filed on July 17, 2009, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed against Willis Group Holdings and Willis of Colorado, Inc., relating to the same alleged course of conduct as the class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. Based on substantially the same allegations as the Troice complaint, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American Stanford investors, the Ranni complaint asserts a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as various claims under Florida statutory and common law, and seeks damages in an amount to be determined at trial and costs, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Stanford Financial ------------------------------------------------------------ The putative class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-01274, was filed on July 2, 2009, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. The putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate, relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group, for which the company acted as brokers of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaint generally alleges that the company actively and materially aided the fraud alleged by the Securities and Exchange Commission by providing Stanford with certain letters regarding coverage that it knew would be used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford client investors. The suit alleges that these letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance policies Willis placed for Stanford, contain untruths and omit material facts and were drafted in this manner to help Stanford promote and sell its alleged fraudulent certificates of deposit. The putative class consists of investors in Mexico and the complaint asserts various claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and costs. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Faces Texas Suit by Venezuelan Stanford Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- A putative class-action complaint, captioned Canabal v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-CV-01474, was filed on Aug. 6, 2009. The complaint was filed against Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., Willis of Colorado, Inc., and a Willis associate in the Northern District of Texas, relating to the same alleged conduct as the class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. Based on similar allegations as in Troice, but on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan investors, the complaint asserts various claims under Texas statutory and common law and seeks actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Gender Discrimination Case Ongoing in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Willis Group Holdings, Ltd., continues to face a purported class-action suit filed by a former female employee, alleging gender discrimination. The suit was brought on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of present and former female employees alleging that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs. The suit proposes a class period of 1998 to the time of trial. The company's motion to dismiss this suit was denied and the Court did not grant the Company permission to immediately file an appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss. The suit was recently amended to include two additional plaintiffs. The parties are still in the discovery phase of the litigation. The suit was amended to include one additional plaintiff and another has filed an arbitration demand that includes a class allegation, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. WILLIS GROUP: Mulls Potential Suit by Mexican Stanford Investors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mexican Stanford investors intend to take "appropriate action" against certain of Willis Group Holdings, Ltd.'s subsidiaries and a company associate, according to Willis' Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for quarter ended June 30, 2009. On or about July 10, 2009, certain of the company's subsidiaries and a Willis associate received a letter from a Texas law firm, which, based on substantially the same allegations as the class action complaint, captioned Troice v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., and on behalf of 53 predominantly Mexican Stanford investors, threatens claims under the Texas Insurance Code (permitting damages of up to three times actual loss) and various unspecified Mexican, Venezuelan and "other Latin American" laws. According to the letter, these clients intend to take "appropriate action" against the recipients 61 days after receipt, unless payment is made beforehand in the amount of approximately $63.4 million (plus an additional $21 million in attorneys' fees). Willis Group Holdings, Ltd. -- http://www.willis.com/-- is the ultimate holding company for the Willis Group (comprising TA I Limited and subsidiaries) from the U.K. to Bermuda. The company provides a range of insurance brokerage and risk management consulting services to worldwide clients. It provides specialized risk management advisory and other services on a global basis to clients in various industries, including the aerospace, marine, construction and energy industries. New Securities Fraud Cases CONSECO INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Announces Securities Suit Filing --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC announces that a class action has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired stock of Conseco, Inc. (NYSE: CNO) during the period from August 4, 2005 through and including March 17, 2008. The Complaint charges that defendant violated federal securities laws. Throughout the Class Period defendant failed to disclose: -- that the revenue figures reported by the Company were materially inaccurate; -- that Conseco reported financial results were materially misstated and did not present the Company's true operating performance; -- that Conseco without the internal controls necessary to properly report its revenues and earnings; -- that Conseco's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- that Conseco shareholders' equity was materially overstated during the Class Period; and -- as a result of the above, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about Conseco, its corporate governance practices, its prospects and earnings growth. On March 17, 2008, Conseco announced that it would be restating its financials for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2006, as well as affected Selected Consolidated Financial Data for 2003 and 2004, and quarterly financial information for 2006 and the first three quarters of 2007. The price of Conseco's Stock dropped 12.9% on this news. 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: Peretz Bronstein, Esq. Eitan Kimelman (eitan@bgandg.com) Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Phone: 212-697-6484 Web site: http://www.bgandg.com/ FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: 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 Southern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Flotek Industries, Inc. (FTK) stock during the period between May 8, 2007 through January 23, 2008 for violations of the federal securities laws. 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 fracking 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. 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. 6, 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 HURON CONSULTING: Gardy & Notis Files Ill. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) common stock during a class period of April 27, 2006 to and including July 31, 2009. The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and charges defendants Huron, Gary E. Holdren (CEO), Gary L. Burge (CFO) and Wayne Lipski (CAO) with issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose: -- that shareholders of four businesses that Huron acquired between 2005-2007 redistributed portions of their acquisition-related payments among themselves and to certain Huron employees; -- that, as a result, Huron understated its non-cash compensation expenses; -- that Huron's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); -- that Huron lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and -- as a result of the above, Huron's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 31, 2009, Huron shocked investors when it revealed that its financial statements for the fiscal years 2006, 2007, 2008, and the fiscal first quarter of 2009, should no longer be relied upon and will have to be restated as a result of its accounting for certain acquisition-related payments. Huron further disclosed that, as a result, aggregate net profit for the period dropped to just $63 million from $120 million. As a result of this news, shares of Huron declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13%, to close on August 3, 2009, at $13.69 per share. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all other individual and institutional investors who purchased Huron securities between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009, excluding defendants and their affiliates. A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain criteria and be made on or before Oct. 5, 2009. For more details, contact: Charles Germershausen, Esq. Gardy & Notis, LLP 440 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 E-mail: cgermershausen@gardylaw.com Web site: http://www.gardylaw.com/ STURM RUGER: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) common stock between April 23, 2007 and October 29, 2007, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: -- the reductions in inventory balances by RGR in the first and second quarters of 2007 had reduced its parts and components inventories below efficient levels, preventing it from meeting production and shipment schedules, and resulting in its inability to sustain current or historical sales levels; -- because of RGR's inability to meet current production and shipping schedules, its "backlog" of unfilled purchase orders was materially inflated; -- orders received from RGR's independent distributors were artificially boosted by RGR's mandated change to firm and noncancellable purchase order submissions, and did not reflect actual demand for its products; -- these independent distributors were carrying large quantities of unsold products, increasing the risk that they would reduce or curtail future purchases; and -- based on the above, defendants did not have a reasonable basis for their positive statements and opinions concerning RGR's current financial performance and condition. On October 24, 2007, RGR announced that its firearm sales for the third quarter of 2007 fell 26%, resulting in a loss of $0.03 per share, and that this decline in sales was attributable to inventory reductions. On this news, the price of RGR common stock fell more than 37%. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com TEXTRON 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 District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT) stock during the period between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009 for violations of the federal securities laws. 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. 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. 12, 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 TEXTRON INC: Shalov Stone Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP announces that a class action lawsuit was filed 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 alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose that: -- Textron was accepting orders for business-jets from an increasing number of customers who were startups and/or financially distressed fleet operators who neither intended nor possessed the resources to pay for or take delivery of aircraft during 2008-09 and beyond. This materially inflated Textron's "backlog" of unfilled orders for its Cessna segment, which in turn materially overstated its current financial condition and future prospects; -- hundreds of orders for future business-jet production reported as "backlog" at Cessna were subject to deferral and cancellation, causing Textron to overstate its projected fiscal 2008-09 business-jet production and to initiate production cutbacks and worker reduction programs, thereby eroding its revenues and earnings; -- Textron's Finance segment incurred material losses in the fair market value of its finance receivables and other financial assets, which were omitted from or misrepresented in Textron's periodic reports of earnings and income; and -- in light of Textron's Finance segment's losses and the additional debt the Company would incur, Textron's credit ratings were deteriorating. On January 29, 2009, Textron announced that its Cessna segment would incur an estimated $30 million in "restructuring" costs due to production cutbacks and worker layoffs planned for the first quarter of 2009. On this news, the price of Textron's common stock fell 31%. For more details, contact: Amanda C. Scuder, Esq. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: ascuder@lawssb.com Web site: http://www.lawssb.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent research, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel S. Senorin, Gracele D. Canilao, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2009. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *