/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090824.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, August 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 166
Headlines
AMERICAN INT'L: Denies Claims in N.Y. Suit Over Madoff Scandal
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Calif. App. Ct. Upsets Class Settlement
BRAVO PRO: Employees File Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay Wages
CINTAS CORP: Reaches $22.75M Settlement in "Veliz" Litigation
CITY OF BRUNSWICK: Md. Judge Mulls Motions in Water Dispute Suit
COMCAST CORP: W.Va. Attorney General Files Suit Over Cable Boxes
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Judge Remands TILA Lawsuit to Lower Court
DENVER: Sued for Wrongful Arrests at 2008 Democratic Convention
FIRST HEALTH: Aug. 25 Final Hearing Set for PPO Suit Settlement
GREAT LAKES: 5th Cir. Ruling on Appeal of Katrina Claims Pending
HERTZ CORP: Airport Concession Recovery Fee Suit Pending in Nev.
HERTZ CORP: Federal Antitrust Claim in "Shames" Remains Pending
HERTZ CORP: Tourism Assessment Fee Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Rental Unit Continues to Defend LDW Lawsuit
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Suit v. Rental Unit Ongoing in Kansas
IDEARC INC: Consolidated Securities Suit v. Officers Pending
IDEARC INC: Securities Suit v. Two Officers Pending in Arkansas
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Lines of Credit
LIBERTY MEDIA: To Defend Suits Over DIRECTV Merger Agreement
LIFE SCIENCES: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Lion Holdings Merger
LOUISIANA: Sued for "Turning a Blind Eye" to Stanford Scheme
MODERN TECHNOLOGY: Students File Suit Over "Bogus" Accreditation
SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Age Discrimination Suit Pending in Kansas
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Suit Over Early Retirement Benefits Pending
THOMAS WEISEL: Pursues Dismissal of Netlist Securities Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: To Defend Bid on Junked Openwave Securities Suit
THOMAS WEISEL: "Vonage" Claims v. Underwriters Dismissed in 2009
TRADOS INC: Del. Court Favors Plaintiffs in Shareholder Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Calif. Immigrants' Suit to Proceed
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
MIND C.T.I.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
TEXTRON INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
*********
AMERICAN INT'L: Denies Claims in N.Y. Suit Over Madoff Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc. says it believes a purported
class-action lawsuit by two policyholders seeking recoveries of
moneys they claim to have lost to convicted Ponzi-scheme
operator Bernard Madoff is without merit, Chad Bray at Dow Jones
Newswires reports.
In a statement issued on Aug. 20, 2009, the insurer said it will
cover, under some product lines, losses that are a result of a
fraud, but only if the policyholder suffered an actual net loss
and has done so for claims related to the Madoff scandal.
"In fact, our Private Client Group has paid hundreds of eligible
policyholders who suffered Madoff-related losses pursuant to
this coverage," an AIG spokeswoman said. "However, in this
case, we declined the plaintiffs' claim because they received
more money from Madoff through withdrawals from their account
than they had deposited," reports Mr. Bray.
Two California residents who claim that their homeowner
insurance policies entitled them to coverage on losses from
Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme filed the purported class-action
suit against AIG (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2009).
The lawsuit, Horowitz, et al. v. AIG, et al., Case No. 09-07312
(S.D.N.Y.), was filed on Aug. 19, 2009, by Robert and Harlene
Horowitz, who said they lost $8.5 million in the Madoff scandal.
It seeks class-action status on behalf of potentially thousands
of policyholders.
The Horowitzes alleged that AIG refused to honor AIG Fraud
SafeGuard coverage in policies they obtained from subsidiaries
of the insurer, even though the coverage insures against losses
resulting "directly from fraud, embezzlement, or forgery,"
according to Reuters.
According to the lawsuit, the Horowitz Family Trust had a more
than $8.5 million balance on its Nov. 30, 2008, account
statement from Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of Madoff
investors who also had policies with the Fraud SafeGuard
coverage.
The Horowitzes are represented by:
Brad Nelson Friedman, Esq.
Joshua Evan Keller, Esq.
Milberg LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: 212-594-5300
Fax: 212-868-1229
E-mail: bfriedman@milberg.com
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Calif. App. Ct. Upsets Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP's Class Action Defense blog
reports that the California Appellate Court reversed a lower
court decision approving a Class Action Settlement in Clark v.
American Residential Services LLC, ___ Cal.App.4th ___, 96
Cal.Rptr.3d 441, 444, slip op. http://is.gd/2qoYB(Cal.App.
2009). The appellate court held that approval of the class
action settlement required reversal because, Michael J. Hassen,
Esq., at Jeffers Mangels explains, (1) the record did not the
support trial courts valuation of the class claims, (2) an
incentive award of 44 times the average recovery of class
members was excessive, and (3) the trial court could not award
costs in excess of the amount set forth in class notice without
further notice to class.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action in California state
court against their employer, American Residential Services
alleging labor law violations; the class action complaint
alleged that defendant failed to pay minimum wage or overtime,
and failed to provide meal and rest periods. Id. at 444.
Defense attorneys removed the class action to federal court
under the Class Action Fairness Act, but the district court
granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the class action to state
court. Id. at 445. Eventually, the parties negotiated a
settlement of the class action whereby the two named plaintiffs
would receive $25,000 each, and the 2360 class members would
receive an average of $560 each. Id. at 444. Additionally,
plaintiffs' attorneys would receive $640,000 in fees and costs
as part of the class action settlement, Id. at 445. Following
notice, 20 members of the putative class objected to the
settlement on the grounds that they "worked at least two hours
of unpaid overtime every workday, that they would be compensated
for only about 1% of the total value of their claims, and that
no evidence was presented to the court to justify the
settlement." Id. at 444. According to the objectors, class
members would receive only $6 for each week that they had worked
for defendant. Id. at 445. Plaintiffs' counsel responded that
the overtime claim had "absolutely no" value, Id. at 453. The
trial court approved the class action settlement, but the Court
of Appeal reversed.
The Court of Appeal noted that its review of class action
settlements was "limited in scope." Clark, at 451. The
objectors argued that the trial court apparently relied on
plaintiffs' counsel's belief that the overtime claim had
"'absolutely no' value" despite objectors' counsel's belief that
this evaluation was based on a "staggering mistake of law." Id.
at 444. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the trial
court "did not receive and consider sufficient information on a
core legal issue, affecting the strength of the case for
plaintiffs on the merits, to make the requisite independent
assessment of the reasonableness of the terms of the
settlement." Id. at 451 (citation omitted). Additionally, the
Court held that "the enhancement or incentive awards were
excessive" and that the trial court erred in awarding costs in
excess of the maximum amount set forth in the notice to the
class, id. The appellate court rejected the argument that the
objectors had to prove the settlement was unfair, holding at
page 453 that "it is the trial court's duty, whether or not
there are objectors, to employ those factors to evaluate
independently the fairness of a proposed settlement." And in
this case, "the record before the trial court.did not contain
the information required for 'an understanding of the amount
that is in controversy and the realistic range of outcomes of
the litigation.'" Id. (citation omitted). The Court of Appeal
held that "the trial court is obligated, at a minimum, to
determine whether a legitimate controversy exists on a legal
point, if that legal point significantly affects the valuation
of the case for settlement purposes." Id. at 455.
The appellate court further concluded that the trial court
abused its discretion in awarding the named plaintiffs $25,000
each as an incentive award. Clark, at 455. The trial court
gave no explanation for why it found the enhancement to be "fair
and reasonable," and the evidence provided by plaintiffs'
counsel consisted of "only conclusory declarations," Id. at 456.
The appellate court concluded, at page 457, "An enhancement that
gives the named plaintiffs at least 44 times the average payout
to a class member simply cannot be justified on the record in
this case." The Court of Appeal rejected plaintiffs' claim that
incentive awards are "presumed to be fair." Id. at 457.
Moreover, the award of costs could not stand because the notice
to class members disclosed reimbursement of costs up to $40,000,
but the trial court awarded more than $44,000. Id. at 458. In
light of the express language of the notice, "the trial court
was not at liberty to award an amount exceeding $40,000 in costs
without further notice to the class." Id.
BRAVO PRO: Employees File Suit in Nev. Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Pro Maintenance, Inc., a cleaning service that specializes
in high-end restaurants in and around the Las Vegas strip, faces
a purported class-action suit that accuses it of stiffing its
employees, KTNV Las Vegas reports.
The suit was filed by Matthew Callister, Esq. It alleges the
company broke federal and Nevada labor laws by failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, and sometimes, not paying
at all. Mr. Callister claims the company took advantage of
workers from Mexico, according to KTNV.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew Callister, Esq.
Callister & Reynolds
823 Las Vegas Boulevard South
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Phone: 702-385-3343
Fax: 702-385-7743
Web site: http://www.callister-reynolds.com/
CINTAS CORP: Reaches $22.75M Settlement in "Veliz" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of delivery drivers at the nation's largest
uniform provider, Cintas Corp., were notified a $22.75 million
settlement agreement had been reached in the class action
overtime lawsuit entitled Veliz, et al. v. Cintas Corp. et al.,
Case No. 03-1180 (N.D. Calif.). It was a long road for the
uniform delivery drivers, whose suit, filed in 2003, alleged
Cintas misclassified thousands of their route drivers as exempt
employees in order to avoid paying overtime required by state
and federal laws.
"After six long years of delay tactics and needless
posturing by Cintas, drivers will finally receive just
compensation for overtime work performed that was wrongly
withheld," said Bruce Raynor, President of Workers United, the
laundry workers union that has been working with Cintas
production workers seeking to form a union. "In the end justice
was delayed but not denied, as Cintas ultimately agreed to the
recommended settlement agreement negotiated through the
arbitration process."
The Cintas drivers who pick up soiled uniforms, oily rags
and other items and drop off a fresh supply were classified by
the company as salaried workers instead of hourly workers, who
would be entitled to overtime pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) requires workers to be compensated for all hours worked,
unless they are specifically exempted. Executives and
professionals are exempted and can be required to work more than
40 hours a week without being paid overtime. The drivers argued
that their jobs driving trucks, delivering uniforms and
servicing existing contracts do not make them exempt from being
paid for hours worked over 40 hours.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Altshuler Berzon LLP, are
notifying plaintiffs that the general terms of settlement had
been reached. However, a framework for allocation of funds is
still being worked on and it will still be months before the
final settlement agreement is approved by the court. The
lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
Altshuler, Berzon et al.
177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: 415-421-7151
Fax: 415-362-8064
E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com
Representing the company is:
Cheryl A. Hipp, Esq.
Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: 516-479-8365
CITY OF BRUNSWICK: Md. Judge Mulls Motions in Water Dispute Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Theresa M. Adams of the Frederick County Circuit
Court in Maryland took under advisement two motions in the case
between Rosemont residents and the City of Brunswick over who is
responsible for providing water to Rosemont, Patti S. Borda at
Frederick News Post reports.
One motion is from Brunswick, which seeks to dismiss the case,
while the other is from Rosemont plaintiffs, who are seeking
class certification for the case.
Eight residents of Rosemont, led by Tom Watson, have sued
Brunswick to prevent the city from carrying out its adopted
resolution to discontinue water service to the community to its
north and outside the city limits. An injunction has prevented
the city from ending water service until the court case is
settled, reports Ms. Borda.
Until Judge Adams rules, nothing will change; Brunswick will
continue to provide water to Rosemont.
Rosemont's eight plaintiffs want the case to become a class-
action suit affecting all water customers in Rosemont, about 80
properties, Ms. Borda writes.
Brunswick opposes that motion, because the 80 properties, which
have acquired water service at different times over a 75-year
period, have different agreements for service in place. Those
differences fail to meet the class-action standard, Danny B.
O'Connor, Esq., Brunswick 's attorney told Frederick News Post.
COMCAST CORP: W.Va. Attorney General Files Suit Over Cable Boxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Virginia Attorney General Darrell McGraw sued Comcast
Corp., claiming the cable company violates state antitrust and
consumer laws by making viewers rent its boxes to receive its
premium programs, Steve Korris at the West Virginia Record
reports.
Mr. McGraw sued Comcast in Marshall County Circuit Court in
July, seeking statutory penalties and other relief.
Comcast removed the suit to U.S. District Court in Wheeling on
Aug. 3, 2009, asserting federal jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act, Mr. Korris reported. Ten days later, Chief
Deputy Attorney General Fran Hughes moved to remand the case to
Marshall County, denying that the State intends to pursue a
class-action.
Ms. Hughes defined the action as enforcement of laws Mr. McGraw
is authorized to enforce. State antitrust and consumer laws
don't permit individual recovery, she wrote. Removal would
violate West Virginia's sovereign immunity, she wrote.
"Securing an honest marketplace, as Attorney General McGraw
seeks to do here, is a well established quasi-sovereign
interest," Ms. Hughes wrote.
The Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., sitting in the U.S.
District Court, must decide where the suit belongs, according to
Mr. Korris.
Though Ms. Hughes denied that the litigation seeks class-action
status, Comcast lawyers described it as virtually identical to a
class-action case that Harry Bell of Charleston, W.Va., filed
this year, the West Virginia Record reports. Mr. Bell's suit
bounced from federal court in Charleston to a multi-district
judge presiding over cable box litigation in Pennsylvania.
Mr. McGraw and Ms. Hughes, fearing transfer of their suit to the
Honorable Anita B. Brody, who oversees In re Comcast Corp. Set-
Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2034;
Master Docket No. 09-md-2034 (E.D. Pa.), filed an emergency
motion for a hearing with their motion to remand. As of Aug.
20, 2009, Judge Stamp had not set a hearing, according to the
report.
COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Judge Remands TILA Lawsuit to Lower Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
rejected a bid by Countrywide Financial Corp. to have a lawsuit
over its plans to make billions of dollars in loan modifications
heard in federal court, Chad Bray at Dow Jones Newswires
reports.
In a ruling issued on Aug. 18, 2009, the Honorable Richard J.
Howell in Manhattan sent the case, which is seeking class-action
status, back to New York State Supreme Court, where it was
initially filed in December.
Countrywide, a unit of Bank of America Corp., had argued that
the federal court was the proper venue, in part because the
lawsuit and raised "substantial, disputed federal questions"
under the Truth-in-Lending Act, reports Mr. Bray.
According to Judge Howell, "Although defendants deny it, by
arguing that TILA requires a different interpretation of the
contract, defendants are raising a federal defense." He adds,
"A federal defense has never been sufficient for federal
question jurisdiction."
The suit, captioned Greenwich Financial Services Distressed
Mortgage Fund 3 v. Countrywide Financial Corp., was originally
filed in the New York State Supreme Court (Manhattan). It was
filed on behalf of Greenwich Financial Services Distressed
Mortgage Fund 3 LLC and QED LLC (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 3,
2008).
The two investors in mortgage-backed securities sued Countrywide
over plans to make up to $8.4 billion in loan modifications as
part of a settlement with 15 state attorneys general. They have
argued most of the loans at issue aren't owned by Countrywide,
but were instead sold to trusts that securitized them and
Countrywide continued to service the loans. The lawsuit is
seeking a declaratory judgment that Countrywide, under the
pooling and servicing agreements, is required to purchase any
loan where it agrees to reduce payments.
The investor-plaintiffs are represented by:
Grais & Ellsworth LLP
70 East 55th Street
New York, New York 10022
Phone: 212 755 0100
Fax: 212 755 0052
e-mail: firm@graisellsworth.com
Web site: http://www.graisellsworth.com/
DENVER: Sued for Wrongful Arrests at 2008 Democratic Convention
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eight people filed a purported class-action lawsuit against the
city and county of Denver, alleging they were wrongfully
arrested during a protest at last year's Democratic convention,
The Associated Press reports.
The suit was filed Aug. 19, 2009, in Denver District Court by
the American Civil Liberties Union, and a full-text copy of the
Complaint is available for free at:
http://www.aclu-co.org/docket/200822/Complaint.Acks.v.Denver.08-19-09.pdf
Mark Silverstein, the ACLU's Colorado legal director, says
police arrested some people who were watching the demonstration
from sidewalks, where they had a legal right to be. He says
police did not issue an order to disperse.
The complaint seeks class-action status for nearly 100 others
who were arrested and held at a temporary jail during the
convention, claiming they were denied access to lawyers,
according to the AP.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
John A. Culver, Esq.
Seth J. Benezra, Esq.
Benezra & Culver, L.L.C.
274 Union Blvd., #220
Lakewood, CO 80228-1835
Telephone (303) 716-0254
Fax (303) 716-0327
E-mail: jaculver@bc-law.com
- and -
Lonn M. Heymann, Esq.
Rosenthal & Heymann, L.L.C.
1020 W. 7th Avenue
Denver, CO 80204
Telephone (303) 825-2223
E-mail: lonn@rosehey.com
- and -
Mark Silverstein, Esq.
Taylor S. Pendergrass, Esq.
ACLU Foundation of Colorado
400 Corona Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone (303) 777-5482
E-mail: msilver2@att.net
FIRST HEALTH: Aug. 25 Final Hearing Set for PPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A third and final fairness hearing is scheduled for Aug. 25,
2009, at 9:00 a.m., in Madison County Circuit Court over a
disputed class-action settlement against an insurer that
allegedly operated a "silent" Preferred Provider Organization
that deprived health care providers of monies, Amelia Flood at
St. Clair Record reports.
The settlement pits former law firm members Robert Schmieder,
II, Esq., of LakinChapman in Wood River and Richard Burke, Esq.,
of St. Louis against one another.
Mr. Schmieder is acting as class counsel in Shipley, Coy v.
First Health in Madison County. Mr. Burke represents Kathleen
Roche, a Swansea chiropractor, who has objected to the proposed
settlement, according to Ms. Flood.
Ms. Roche, who has a nearly identical suit pending in St. Clair
County, contends the settlement does not financially compensate
class members and that First Health engaged in settlement talks
about the St. Clair case while concluding negotiations in
Madison County that would scuttle it.
The Madison County case was brought by chiropractors Lawrence
Shipley and Richard Coy over what they claimed were improper PPO
adjustments. The pair, acting as class representatives, sued
the company for unjust enrichment among other charges. The case
is Madison case number 04-L-1055, according to St. Clair Record.
Under the proposed settlement, each class representative would
receive $10,000, the LakinChapman law firm would receive over
$600,000 in legal fees and $1.2 million would be given to non-
profit groups to further medical education.
The first Madison County fairness hearing in the case took over
three hours in May, with Circuit Judge Daniel Stack continuing
the matter after admonishing the attorneys present for not
scheduling enough time. A second hearing in July was postponed
when Judge Stack's asbestos docket took precedence, writes Ms.
Flood.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
LakinChapman, LLC
300 Evans Ave.
P.O. Box 229
Wood River, IL 62095
Phone: 618-208-4240 or 866-839-2021 or 618-254-1127
E-mail: ppo.classaction@lakinchapman.com
Web site: http://www.lakinchapman.com/
and the Settlement Administrator is:
PPO Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 1971
Faribault, MN 55021-6167
Phone: 1-866-680-6562
Web site: http://www.pposettlements.com/
GREAT LAKES: 5th Cir. Ruling on Appeal of Katrina Claims Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal of the dismissal of class action complaints against
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company over Hurricane Katrina-related
property damage is still pending, according to Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation's Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
On April 24, 2006, a class action lawsuit, Reed v. United
States, et al., No. 06-2152 (E.D. La.), was filed on behalf of
Louisiana citizens who allegedly suffered property damage from
the floodwaters that flooded New Orleans and surrounding areas
when Hurricane Katrina hit the area on Aug. 29, 2005. The Reed
Complaint names as defendants the U.S. government, Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Company and numerous other dredging companies that
completed dredging projects on behalf of the Army Corps of
Engineers in the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet between 1993 and
2005. The Reed Complaint alleges that the dredging of MRGO
caused the destruction of Louisiana wetlands, which had provided
a natural barrier against some storms and hurricanes. The Reed
Complaint alleges that this loss of natural barriers contributed
to the failure of levees as Katrina floodwaters damaged
plaintiffs' property. The Reed Complaint asserts claims of
negligence, warranty, concealment and violations of the Water
Pollution Control Act.
Other plaintiffs have filed similar class action complaints,
Anderson v. U.S. et al., No. 06-5162 (E.D. La.) (filed Aug. 28,
2006); Russell v. U.S. et al., No. 06-5155 (E.D. La.).
One mass tort case, Ackerson et al. v. Bean Dredging, LLC, No.
06-4066 (E.D. La. filed Aug. 1, 2006), has also been filed.
All of these cases raise the same claims as the Reed Complaint.
The amount of claimed damages in these claims is not stated, but
is presumed to be material.
On March 9, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice
the Katrina Claims against Great Lakes and those plaintiffs have
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Briefing on the appeal is now complete, and the Fifth Circuit
held oral argument on Sept. 4, 2008. The Fifth Circuit has now
taken the appeal under advisement and the parties are awaiting a
ruling.
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation -- http://www.gldd.com/--
is a provider of dredging services in the United States. The
company is engaged in the business of marine construction,
primarily dredging, and commercial and industrial demolition
services. Great Lakes operates in two segments: dredging and
demolition.
HERTZ CORP: Airport Concession Recovery Fee Suit Pending in Nev.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A suit is pending against The Hertz Corp. that was brought on
behalf of all persons who rented cars from the company or
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. at airports in Nevada and who were
charged airport concession recovery fees.
On Oct. 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan Ph.D., and Lydia
Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a suit -- Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD., and
Lydia Lee, et al. v. The Hertz Corp. and Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Co., Case No. 06-cv-00545 (D. Nev.) (Hicks, J.) -- against Hertz
and Enterprise Rent-A-Car in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada.
The suit purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of
all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at airports
in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport
concession recovery fees.
The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees
violate certain provisions of Nevada law, including Nevada's
Deceptive Trade Practices Act. It seeks an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be
improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from
quoting or charging any of the fees prohibited by Nevada law.
It also asks for attorneys' fees and costs.
In November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and
agreed that claims against Enterprise would be dismissed without
prejudice.
In January 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which
motion was denied by the court.
The company thereafter filed a motion for certification seeking
to have the interpretation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section
482.31575 certified to the Nevada Supreme Court or, in the
alternative, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In February 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit denied Hertz's motion for certification. Discovery
commenced in Spring 2008.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
G. David Robertson, Esq. (gdavid@nvlawyers.com)
Robertson & Benevento
50 W. Liberty St., Suite 600
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-329-5600
Fax: 775-348-8300
Representing the defendants are:
Dan C. Bowen of Lionel, Esq. (dbowen@lionelsawyer.com)
Sawyer & Collins
50 W. Liberty St., Suite 1100
Reno, NV 89501
Phone: 775-788-8666
- and -
Matthew K. Narensky, Esq.
(matthew.narensky@hellerehrman.com)
Heller Ehrman, LLP
333 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415 772-6000
HERTZ CORP: Federal Antitrust Claim in "Shames" Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The federal antitrust claim in a purported class-action lawsuit
that was brought against The Hertz Corp. and other major car
rental firms over alleged fixing of prices on rental cars at
California airports remains pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California on Nov. 14, 2007 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 4, 2008). Specifically named as defendants in the matter
are:
-- The Hertz Corp.,
-- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.,
-- Avis Budget Group, Inc.,
-- VanGuard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
-- Rent-A-Car Co.,
-- Fox Rent A Car, Inc.,
-- Coast Leasing Corp.,
-- The California and Tourism Commission, and
-- Caroline Beteta
Named plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow allege that the
rental car defendants entered into a horizontal price-fixing
agreement among competitors, a per se violation of the antitrust
laws, by which they have agreed to raise, stabilize and fix the
prices which they charge consumers for the rental of automobiles
at those California airports.
The conspirators also allegedly misrepresent a 2.5% tax owed to
co-defendant California Travel and Tourism Commission as owed by
customers, though it is owed by the businesses, the suit says.
The plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action pursuant to
Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of civil
Procedure, on behalf of all individual or entities who purchased
rental car services from rental car defendants from a California
situs airport after Jan. 1, 2007. They want the court to rule
on:
(a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the
prices of, or allocate the market for, car rental
services operating in conjunction with California
airports;
(b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the prices
of car rental services operating in conjunction with
California airports to be higher than they would have
been in the absence of defendants' conduct;
(c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or
conspiracy;
(d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the
business or property of plaintiffs and the members of
the class;
(e) the appropriate measure of damages suffered by the
class;
(f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the
Sherman Act;
(g) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
Unfair competition Law;
(h) whether defendants' conduct violates California's
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; and
(i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief.
The plaintiffs ask for:
-- an injunction halting all violations, and other
equitable relief, including restitution and disgorgement
of unjust enrichment;
-- damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the class,
trebled according to law; and
-- attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and interest as
permitted by law.
In January 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In April 2008, the court granted -- with leave to amend -- the
separate motions to dismiss of the rental car defendants, the
California Travel and Tourism Commission and Caroline Beteta.
In May 2008, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which
added a claim for alleged violations of the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act. The rental car defendants and the
California Travel and Tourism Commission subsequently filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint and in July
2008, the court dismissed all claims related to the California
Travel and Tourism Commission.
Also in July 2008, the court dismissed all claims, except for
the federal antitrust claim, related to the rental car
defendants. The federal antitrust claim remains pending in
court.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
The suit is styled Michael Shames, et al. v. The Hertz Corp.
Case No. 07-CV-2174 H BLM (S.D. Calif.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert C. Fellmeth, Esq. (cpil@sandiego.edu)
Center for Public Interest Law
University of San Diego School of Law
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110
Phone: 619-260-4806
Fax: 619-260-4753
- and -
Donald G. Rez, Esq. (rez@shlaw.com)
Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel
550 West "C" Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, CA 62101
Fax: 619-231-4372
Phone: 619-233-4100
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com)
Kirk Hulett, Esq.
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP
550 West "C" Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-338-1133
Fax: 619-338-1139
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-984-8947
Fax: 415-984-8701
- and -
Sara L. Bensley, Esq. (sbensley@skadden.com)
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
1440 New York Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-371-7000
Fax: 202-393-5760
- and -
John H. Stephens, Esq. (jstephens@wertzmcdade.com)
Wertz McDade Wallace Moot & Brower
945 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-1888
Fax: 619-696-9476
HERTZ CORP: Tourism Assessment Fee Suit Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation,
Case No. 07-cv-08118 (C.D. Calif.), are asking the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to revive their lawsuit, according
to The Hertz Corp.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009.
The suit is in connection to California's Passenger Car Rental
Industry Tourism Assessment Program.
Comiskey Litigation
On Dec. 13, 2007, a purported class action complaint was
commenced before the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The suit is entitled, "Thomas J.
Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc.,
Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car,
Inc., Avalon Global Group, Hertz Corporation, Enterprise Rent-A-
Car, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car,
Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Dale E. Bonner."
The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of
all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the
inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program in California on Jan. 1, 2007. The complaint
alleges that California's Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program, as included in the California Tourism
Marketing Act, violates the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause
and First Amendment, both directly and in violation of 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California
Constitution, and Article XIX, Section 2 of the California
Constitution. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory
relief, that all unspent assessments collected and to be
collected be held in trust, damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and costs.
Cohen Litigation
On Dec. 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California a complaint
virtually identical to the Comiskey complaint.
Consolidation
In February 2008, the court consolidated Comiskey and Cohen, and
captioned the consolidated action entitled In re Tourism
Assessment Fee Litigation, Case No. 07-cv-08118 (C.D. Calif.)
(Cooper, J.), and ordered the plaintiffs to serve a single
consolidated class-action complaint.
Transfer Sought
In April 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and the company also filed a motion to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California for potential consolidation with Michael
Shames et al. v. The Hertz Corp. Case No. 07-CV-2174 (S.D.
Calif.).
In March 2009, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal asking
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit seeking to
overturn the District Court's entry of final judgment and the
District Court's order denying plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion for
Leave to File a Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to FRCP
59(e) and/or for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Joseph D. Cohen, Esq. (jcohen@weisslurie.com)
Weiss and Lurie
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
New York, NY 10176
Phone: 212-682-3025
- and -
Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
Stull Stull and Brody
10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-209-2468
E-mail: service@ssbla.com
Representing the defendants are:
Michael F. Tubach, Esq. (mtubach@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers
275 Battery St, Ste 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3305
Phone: 415-984-8700
- and -
Douglas B. Adler, Esq. (dadler@skadden.com)
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
300 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3144
Phone: 213-687-5000
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Rental Unit Continues to Defend LDW Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Equipment Rental Corp., the heavy equipment rental unit of
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., still faces a class action suit
styled Davis Landscape, Ltd. v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp.,
Case No. 06-cv-03830 (D. N.J.) (Cavanaugh, J.).
Davis Landscape filed the lawsuit on Aug. 15, 2006, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The suit
purports to be a nationwide class action on behalf of all
persons and business entities who rented equipment from HERC and
who paid a Loss Damage Waiver charge. The complaint alleges
that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law
under pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Uniform Commercial
Code. Davis seeks an unspecified amount of statutory damages
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount
of compensatory damages with the return of all LDW charges paid,
declaratory relief and an injunction prohibiting HERC from
engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint also asks for
attorneys' fees and costs.
In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding an additional plaintiff, Texas-resident Miguel V. Pro,
as well as new claims relating to HERC's charging of an
"Environmental Recovery Fee." Causes of action for breach of
contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing were also added.
In January 2007, the company filed an answer to the amended
complaint. Discovery subsequently commenced among the parties.
After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008. In June 2008, HERC filed its
opposition to class certification, as well as a motion for
summary judgment. In April 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals
denied HERC's petition for leave to appeal the class
certification order, 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.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Scott A. George, Esq.
[Seeger Weiss LLP
550 Broad Street, Suite 920
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 215-553-7982
E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- updated Aug. 26, 2009]
Representing the defendant is:
Alan E. Kraus, Esq. (alan.kraus@lw.com)
Latham & Watkins, LLP
One Newark Center, 16th Floor
Newark, NJ 07101-3174
Phone: 973-639-7293
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: TCPA Suit v. Rental Unit Ongoing in Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit against Hertz Equipment Rental
Corp. -- the heavy equipment rental division of Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. -- remains ongoing in the District Court of
Johnson County, Kansas.
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually
and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, was commenced before the
District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The suit alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Fun Services purports to be a class action suit on behalf of all
persons in Kansas and throughout the U.S. who on or after four
years prior to the filing of the action were sent facsimile
messages of material advertising the availability of property,
goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending the faxes.
The plaintiff asserts violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law
conversion. Fun Services is seeking damages and costs of suit.
In June 2007, the company removed the action to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas.
In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court of
Wyandotte County, Kansas.
In April 2008, the court granted the company's motion to
transfer venue, so the case will now be transferred to the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. -- https://www.hertz.com/ -- is an
equipment rental business that operates in three segments: car
rental, equipment rental, and corporate and other. In its car
rental business segment, Hertz and its independent licensees and
associates accept reservations for car rentals at approximately
7,600 locations in approximately 145 countries. The company has
a network of company-operated rental locations both in the U.S.
and in all major European markets. In its equipment rental
business segment, Hertz Holdings rents equipment through
approximately 360 branches in the U.S., Canada, France and
Spain, as well as through its international licensees.
IDEARC INC: Consolidated Securities Suit v. Officers Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
A consolidated putative class action securities lawsuit is
pending against certain of Idearc Inc.'s current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas.
On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three
separate putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, against certain of the company's current and
former officers (but not against the company or its
subsidiaries).
The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan
Goldberg as three separately named plaintiffs on behalf of
purchasers of the company's common stock between Aug. 10, 2007,
and March 31, 2009, inclusive.
The complaints are virtually identical and generally allege that
the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading statements regarding the company's financial
performance and condition. Specifically, the complaints allege
violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, and Section 20 of the
Exchange Act.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.
No plaintiff class has been certified.
All three cases have been consolidated into one court in the
Northern District of Texas.
Each of the plaintiffs have filed motions to be named lead
plaintiff and each of the plaintiffs attorneys have filed
motions to be named lead plaintiffs' counsel.
The company's response will not be due until after the motions
are resolved.
The company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
defend the lawsuits on the defendants' behalf, according to its
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Idearc Inc. -- http://www.idearc.com/-- is a yellow pages
directories publisher in the United States. The products of the
company include print yellow pages, print white pages,
Superpages.com, the online local search resource, and Superpages
Mobile, the information directory for wireless subscribers.
IDEARC INC: Securities Suit v. Two Officers Pending in Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action securities lawsuit against two of Idearc
Inc.'s current officers is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas, against two of the company's current officers (but not
on the Company or its subsidiaries).
The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of
the company's bonds between March 27, 2008, and March 30, 2009,
inclusive.
The complaint generally alleges that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading
statements regarding the company's financial performance and
condition. Specifically, the complaint alleges violations by
the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
under the Exchange Act, and Section 20 of the Exchange Act.
The plaintiff is seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
reimbursement for litigation expenses.
A class has not been certified.
The company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and
defend the lawsuits on the defendants' behalf, according to its
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Idearc Inc. -- http://www.idearc.com/-- is a yellow pages
directories publisher in the United States. The products of the
company include print yellow pages, print white pages,
Superpages.com, the online local search resource, and Superpages
Mobile, the information directory for wireless subscribers.
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued for Reducing Home Equity Lines of Credit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JPMorgan Chase Bank NA and Washington Mutual Bank face a
purported class-action suit by an Illinois man, claiming that
the lender used automated and inaccurate valuation methods to
reduce the home-equity lines of U.S. Consumers, Bloomberg News
reports.
The suit, Majon v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, et al., Case No.
09-05118 (N.D. Ill.), was filed on Aug. 20, 2009, by Zion,
Ill., resident Pascal Majon.
According to Mr. Majon, methods used by the bank and the now-
shuttered Washington Mutual Bank, whose branch network JPMorgan
acquired last year, violated federal lending laws.
The banks' home-equity credit line reductions "are not only
fraudulent, they are patently unconscionable," Mr. Majon's
complaint states. The cuts stemmed from the lenders' intent to
insulate themselves from losses caused by declining U.S. housing
values last year, Mr. Majon said.
Mr. Majon seeks class-action status on behalf of other home-
equity borrowers and unspecified money damages. The case was
filed by law firm KamberEdelson LLC, according to Bloomberg
News.
Mr. Majon is represented by:
Jay Edelson, Esq.
Steven L. Lezell, Esq.
KamberEdelson LLC
350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 312-589-6370
Fax: 312-589-6378
E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com
slezell@kamberedelson.com
LIBERTY MEDIA: To Defend Suits Over DIRECTV Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Media Corp., The DirectTV Group, Inc., and DIRECTV's
board of directors intend to defend against merger-related
purported class action complaints, 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.
Following the public announcement of the execution of the merger
agreement with DIRECTV, multiple purported class action
complaints were filed against DIRECTV, Liberty and the DIRECTV
board of directors.
Four stockholder class action complaints were brought in
Delaware Chancery Court from May 12, 2009 to May 19, 2009, all
of which were subsequently consolidated on May 22, 2009.
One stockholder class action complaint was brought in California
State Court on May 29, 2009.
The Delaware and California actions are purported class actions
on behalf of the public stockholders of DIRECTV.
The consolidated Delaware complaint and the California complaint
allege, among other things, that the members of the DIRECTV
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in approving
the merger agreement.
Liberty Media Corporation -- http://www.libertymedia.com/-- is
a holding company, which, through its subsidiaries is engaged in
the video and on-line commerce, media, communications and
entertainment industries. The Company operates in North
America, South America, Europe and Asia. Its principal
businesses and assets include QVC, Inc. and Starz, LLC and
interests in The DIRECTV Group, Inc. and Expedia, Inc. It
acquired RedEnvelope and Celebrate Express. Its subsidiaries
include HSN, Inc., Interval Leisure Group, Inc., Ticketmaster
Entertainment, Inc. and Tree.com, Inc., QVC, Inc., Expedia,
Inc., Starz Entertainment, LLC, The DIRECTV Group, Inc., Starz
Media, LLC, Time Warner Inc., Backcountry.com, Inc.,
Bodybuilding.com,LLC, PicksPal, Inc., Game Show Network, LLC,
Leisure Arts, Inc., and WFRV and WJMN Television Station, Inc.
LIFE SCIENCES: Faces N.J. Litigation Over Lion Holdings Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Life Sciences Research, Inc., reports that, on Aug. 10, 2009, a
complaint was filed initiating a purported class action lawsuit,
Oakland v. Life Sciences Research, Inc., et al., with respect to
the proposed merger of the Company with and into Lion Merger
Corp., an entity controlled by Andrew Baker, the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, contemplated by the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated July 8, 2009, by and among
the Company, Lion Holdings, Inc., and a Merger Sub.
The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Chancery Division, Somerset County, and names as defendants the
Company, Mr. Baker and the other members of the Company's Board
of Directors. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the Merger by agreeing to sell the Company for an unfair price
pursuant to an unfair process, that the Merger Agreement
contains preclusive deal protection provisions by virtue of its
termination fee provisions, that the Company and Andrew Baker
aided and abetted the directors' breach of their fiduciary
duties and that the Company has failed to disclose material
facts regarding the Merger. The complaint seeks injunctive and
other unspecified relief.
On July 13, 2009, a first amended complaint was filed in another
purported class action in connection with the Merger. That
action, captioned Berger v. Life Sciences Research, et al., was
also filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery
Division, Somerset County (Civil Action No. SOM-C-12006-09), and
names the same parties as defendants.
The Company is responding appropriately to these lawsuits.
Life Sciences also reports that the purported class action
lawsuit, Ramaiah v. Baker, et al., which was filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Somerset
County, on July 17, was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
on August 5, without prejudice and without costs to any party.
About Life Sciences Research
Headquartered in East Millstone, New Jersey, Life Sciences
Research Inc. (NYSE Arca: LSR) -- http://www.lsrinc.net/-- is a
global contract research organization providing product
development services to the pharmaceutical, agrochemical and
biotechnology industries. LSR operates research facilities in
the United States and the United Kingdom.
As of June 30, 2009, the Company had $183,594,000 in total
assets and $191,293,000 in total liabilities, resulting in
$7,699,000 in stockholders' deficit.
LOUISIANA: Sued for "Turning a Blind Eye" to Stanford Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Louisiana faces a purported class-action lawsuit
filed by 86 clients of the Stanford Group who claim the state
"turned a blind eye to the Stanford Scheme," David Spunt at WAFB
reports.
The 50-page lawsuit was filed on Aug. 20, 2009, in the 19th
Judicial District Court of Louisiana. It specifically names the
State of Louisiana's Office of Financial Institutions, which is
responsible for supervising entities providing financial
services to Louisiana citizens, as a defendant.
The lawsuit claims that despite knowing of potential problems,
the state "did nothing to change its operational procedures to
prevent another catastrophe" or inform investors of the risks,
according to WAFB.
The lawsuit was also filed against Stanford Trust Company and
SEI Investments, a foreign company registered to do business in
the state.
The federal government alleges that Stanford engaged in an $8
billion fraud involving high-yielding certificates of deposit
that were held in the company's bank in Antigua. In February
2009, the government froze Stanford's assets and ordered an
immediate investigation into the company's business practices.
The lawsuit says that many of the investors lost their entire
life savings and that could have been avoided "had the Trust,
SEI and State of Louisiana not breached fiduciary, statutory and
contractual duties owed to Plaintiffs."
The plaintiffs are represented by Baton Rouge attorney Phillip
Preis, Esq., and three other lawyers, reports WAFB.
Mr. Preis claims that if the State of Louisiana had properly
informed investors of the risks, the plaintiffs would not have
invested their money with Stanford.
He says that Louisiana's Office of Financial Institutions
informed Stanford executives in 2007 that they should stop
marketing Stanford certificates of deposit because of the need
to diversify assets and because of risks attached to Stanford's
association with a foreign bank, WAFB reported.
The suit claims the plaintiffs are entitled to recover
"consequential, incidental and special damages, lost profits,
lost opportunities and other economic damages."
WAFB reports that while Mr. Preis did not name a specific dollar
amount of damages in the lawsuit, he estimates damages to be
nearly $750 million.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Phillip W. Preis, Esq.
450 Laurel Street, Suite 2150
Baton Rouge, LA 70821
Phone: 225-387-0707
Fax: 225-344-0510
MODERN TECHNOLOGY: Students File Suit Over "Bogus" Accreditation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Modern Technology School and its corporate parent, M.T. Xray,
Inc., face a purported class-action suit filed by students who
claim that the school lied about the accreditation of its
Ultrasound Technician Program, costing them as much as $19,500
in tuition for degrees of doubtful value, Elizabeth Banicki at
Courthouse News Service reports.
The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 13, 2009, in Orange County
Superior Court by Floare Gheta, Tolanda Veramontes, and Lynda
Kendall. It is docked as Case No. 00292828.
The plaintiffs claim that the school said its program was
accredited by the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and
Colleges of Technology, but had not even applied for
accreditation. They also claim that defendants lied about
opportunities for graduates, reports Ms. Banicki.
Courthouse News Service reported that one named plaintiff says
she paid $19,500 for two years; another one says she paid
$16,000. Both say they completed all the requirements of the
program only to be told at the end that they were not eligible
to sit for the state exam.
The school also promised to help graduates find jobs; but jobs
for uncredentialed graduates of nonaccredited programs are few
and far between, according to the complaint.
The students say they were promised internships close to home,
but some ended up traveling more than 60 miles to get to the
assigned location while others were never placed at all. They
were also forced to repeat courses until internships opened up,
the suit claims.
The students seek an injunction, damages, and disgorgement of
ill-gotten gains, according to Ms. Banicki's report.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?4276
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Weiss & Lurie
10940 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 1-800-437-7918 or 310-208-2800
Fax: 310-209-2348
E-mail: jlurie@weisslurie.com
Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com/
SPECTRA ENERGY: Awaits Certification Order in ERISA Case v. Duke
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectra Energy Corp. awaits a decision from the U.S. District
Court for the District Court of South Carolina on class
certification of the remaining claims in a purported class-
action suit filed against Duke Energy Corp. over alleged
discrimination and violation of pension laws.
A class action was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District Court of South Carolina against Duke Energy and
the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. Various causes of
action are alleged, including violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. These allegations arise out
of the conversion of the Duke Power Company Employees Retirement
Plan into the Duke Power Company Retirement Cash Balance Plan.
The plaintiffs seek to represent present and former participants
in the Duke Energy Retirement Cash Balance Plan. This group is
estimated to include approximately 36,000 persons.
Duke Energy filed its answer to the complaint in March 2006. A
motion to certify a class action was filed by the plaintiffs and
Duke Energy filed its response in opposition to this motion. A
hearing on the class certification motion as well as other
dispositive motions was held in December 2007, and the Court
took the matters under advisement.
A second class-action lawsuit was filed with the federal court
in South Carolina, alleging similar claims and seeking to
represent the same class of defendants. The second case has
been voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice.
In connection with the spin-off from Duke Energy in January
2007, Spectra Energy has agreed to share with Duke Energy any
liabilities or damages associated with this matter that relate
to Spectra Energy employees that may be members of the plaintiff
class.
The Court issued a series of rulings in June 2008, denying the
plaintiffs' class certification motion, dismissing certain of
the causes of action originally filed by plaintiffs and allowing
other causes of action to proceed. As a result of these
rulings, the plaintiffs re-filed a new Amended Class Action
Complaint in June 2008, asserting and re-pleading the claims
which the Court is allowing to proceed.
Duke Energy filed a motion to dismiss in July 2008, requesting
the dismissal of plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary claims.
Plaintiffs filed a new motion to certify a class action in
August 2008, and Duke Energy has filed a response to this
motion. All motions are pending before the Court.
A new scheduling order has been entered and it is expected that
certain discovery activities will ensue with respect to the
surviving causes of action.
The Court issued an Order on March 31, 2009, denying Duke
Energy's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
claims. A hearing on the issue of class certification of
plaintiffs' remaining claims was held on April 29, 2009. The
company awaits the Court's decision, according to its Aug. 7,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
The suit is George, et al. v. Duke Energy Retirement Cash
Balance Plan, et al., Case No. 06-cv-00373 (D. S.C.) (Floyd,
J.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James Robinson Gilreath, Esq. (jim@gilreathlaw.com)
Gilreath Law Firm
P.O. Box 2147
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: 864-242-4727
Fax: 864-232-4395
- and -
Cheryl F. Perkins, Esq. (cperkins@attorneyssc.com)
Whetstone Myers Perkins and Young, LLC
P.O. Box 8086
Columbia, SC 29202
Phone: 803-799-9400
Fax: 803-799-2017
- and -
Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq. (mwallace@wallacegraham.com)
Wallace and Graham
525 North Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28144
Phone: 704-633-5244
Fax: 704-633-9434
Representing the defendants is:
Robert Oliver King, Esq. (robert.king@odnss.com)
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart
P.O. Box 2757
Greenville, SC 29602
Phone: 864-271-1300
Fax: 864-235-8806
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Age Discrimination Suit Pending in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., remains a defendant in the
class-action age discrimination lawsuit filed Dec. 19, 2005, and
captioned Perry Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., Onex Corp. and
Spirit AeroSystems, Inc., Case No. 05-cv-01368 (D. Kan.) (Belot,
J.).
In early March 2006, the plaintiffs served the company and the
other defendants with the suit.
Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring
the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas
or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years prior to the date of the
Boeing Acquisition and who were terminated or not hired by
Spirit.
The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age
discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation.
Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.
On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may
send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing
employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1,
2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination
and were not hired by Spirit.
Notice has been sent and individuals had until April 20, 2007 to
indicate their interest in joining the lawsuit.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status, an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than US$1.5 billion in punitive
damages.
The Asset Purchase Agreement requires Spirit to indemnify Boeing
for damages resulting from the employment decisions that were
made by us with respect to former employees of the commercial
aerostructures manufacturing operations at Boeing which relate
or allegedly relate to the involvement of, or consultation with,
employees of Boeing in such employment decisions.
No further updates on the matter were reported in the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2009.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq. (u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com)
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
(l.williamson@swolawfirm.com)
Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: 316-261-5400
Fax: 316-261-5404
Representing the defendants are:
James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq. (cmatthews@foulston.com)
Foulston Siefkin, LLP
1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371
Fax: 316-267-6345
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Suit Over Early Retirement Benefits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., along with other defendants,
continue to face a class-action lawsuit entitled Harkness, et
al. v. The Boeing Company, et al.," according to the company's
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 2, 2009.
On Feb. 16, 2007, the action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas. The defendants were served in
early April 2007.
The company, The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement Plan for the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Wichita
Engineering Unit (SPEEA WEU) and Wichita Technical Professional
Unit (SPEEA WTPU) employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers (IAM) employees, along with The Boeing Company
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
the company's subsidiary, Spirit AeroSystems, Inc.
The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly situated individuals.
The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas, were participants in
the Boeing pension plan, had at least 10 years of vesting
service in the Boeing plan, were in jobs represented by a union,
were between the ages of 49 and 55 and who went to work for
Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.
Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that they are entitled to the
early retirement benefits, an injunction ordering that the
defendants provide the benefits, damages under breach of
contract claims and attorney fees.
The suit is Harkness, et al. v. Boeing, et al., Case No.
07-cv-01043 (D. Kan.) (Brown, J.).
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas E. Hammond, Esq. (tehammond1@yahoo.com)
Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
Wichita, KS 67201
Phone: 316-262-6800
Fax: 316-262-3770
- and -
Keira M. McNett, Esq. (kmcnett@dcbwash.com)
Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-223-2620
Fax: 202-223-8651
Representing the defendants are:
Gregory L. Ash, Esq. (gash@spencerfane.com)
Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700
9401 Indian Creek Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: 913-345-8100
Fax: 913-345-0736
- and -
James M. Armstrong, Esq. (jarmstrong@foulston.com)
Foulston Siefkin LLP
1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-291-9576
Fax: 316-267-6345
THOMAS WEISEL: Pursues Dismissal of Netlist Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., is pursuing the dismissal of
an amended complaint in a purported class action lawsuit
captioned In re Netlist, Inc., Securities Litigation.
Thomas Weisel has been named as a defendant in an amended
complaint in a purported class action lawsuit filed in November
2007, in connection with the initial public offering of Netlist
in November 2006, where Thomas Weisel acted as a lead manager.
The amended complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, alleges violations of federal
securities laws against Netlist, various officers and directors
as well as Netlist's underwriters, including Thomas Weisel,
based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the disclosure
documents for the offering. The complaint essentially alleges
that the registration statement relating to Netlist's initial
public offering was materially false and misleading.
Thomas Weisel denies liability in connection with this matter
and has filed a motion to dismiss that was granted without
prejudice by the court.
The Plaintiffs then filed the amended complaint and the Thomas
Weisel has filed another motion to dismiss, according to its
Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--
is an investment bank focused principally on growth companies
and growth investors. The company's business is managed as a
single operating segment and it generates revenues by providing
financial services that include investment banking, brokerage,
research and asset management. The Investment Banking offerings
include corporate finance and strategic advisory. The brokerage
operations offer institutional brokerage, which comprises
institutional sales, sales trading, trading and special
situations, and private client services. Under Equity Research,
the company's research analysts perform independent research to
help clients understand the dynamics that drive the sectors and
companies they cover. The company's asset management division
is divided into three principal units: private investment funds,
public equity investment products and distribution management.
THOMAS WEISEL: To Defend Bid on Junked Openwave Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc., intends to defend any appeal
from the dismissal of the class action suit entitled In re
Openwave Systems Inc. Securities Litigation as it applies to the
investment bank, according to its Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended June 30, 2009.
Thomas Weisel has been named as a defendant in a purported class
action lawsuit filed in June 2007 in connection with a secondary
offering of common stock by Openwave Systems in December 2005,
where Thomas Weisel acted as a co-manager.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, alleges violations of Federal securities
laws against Openwave Systems, various officers and directors as
well as Openwave Systems' underwriters, including Thomas Weisel,
based on alleged misstatements and omissions in the disclosure
documents for the offering.
The underwriters' motion to dismiss was granted in October 2007,
however, the plaintiffs may appeal the dismissal.
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--
is an investment bank focused principally on growth companies
and growth investors. The company's business is managed as a
single operating segment and it generates revenues by providing
financial services that include investment banking, brokerage,
research and asset management. The Investment Banking offerings
include corporate finance and strategic advisory. The brokerage
operations offer institutional brokerage, which comprises
institutional sales, sales trading, trading and special
situations, and private client services. Under Equity Research,
the company's research analysts perform independent research to
help clients understand the dynamics that drive the sectors and
companies they cover. The company's asset management division
is divided into three principal units: private investment funds,
public equity investment products and distribution management.
THOMAS WEISEL: "Vonage" Claims v. Underwriters Dismissed in 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------
All claims against the underwriters in In re Vonage Holdings
Corp. Securities Litigation were dismissed in 2009, according to
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc.'s Aug. 7, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended June 30, 2009.
Thomas Weisel is a defendant named in purported class action
lawsuits filed in June 2006, arising out of the May 2006,
initial public offering of Vonage Holdings Corp., where Thomas
Weisel acted as a co-manager.
The complaints, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey and in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of Kings, allege misuse of Vonage's directed
share program and violations of Federal securities laws against
Vonage and certain of its directors and senior officers as well
as Vonage's underwriters, including Thomas Weisel, based on
alleged false and misleading statements in the registration
statement and prospectus.
In January 2007, the plaintiffs' complaints were transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the
defendants filed motions to dismiss.
In 2009, the court issued an order dismissing all claims against
the underwriters, with leave to re-file certain of those claims.
Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. -- http://www.tweisel.com/--
is an investment bank focused principally on growth companies
and growth investors. The company's business is managed as a
single operating segment and it generates revenues by providing
financial services that include investment banking, brokerage,
research and asset management. The Investment Banking offerings
include corporate finance and strategic advisory. The brokerage
operations offer institutional brokerage, which comprises
institutional sales, sales trading, trading and special
situations, and private client services. Under Equity Research,
the company's research analysts perform independent research to
help clients understand the dynamics that drive the sectors and
companies they cover. The company's asset management division
is divided into three principal units: private investment funds,
public equity investment products and distribution management.
TRADOS INC: Del. Court Favors Plaintiffs in Shareholder Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court ruled in favor of plaintiffs in In
re Trados Incorporated Shareholder Litigation -- a class-action
suit brought by common shareholders against six directors who
approved the sale of a company that yielded the common
shareholders zero return, Dennis J. White, Esq., a senior
transactional lawyer with the Boston office of McDermott
Will & Emery and chairman of the Association for Corporate
Growth, writes for The New York Times' DealBook.
According to the complaint, while the common holders suffered,
the holders of the company's preferred stock (four private
equity firms) received most of their prescribed liquidation
preference, and two company executives who served on the board
were paid healthy cash bonuses tied to the sale price.
The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant directors sold the
company when it was unnecessary to do so, thereby improperly
favoring the interests of the preferred stockholders at the
expense of, and without considering the interests of, the common
stockholders.
In its most recent ruling, the court found that the plaintiffs
had pleaded sufficient facts to rebut the business judgment rule
presumption, writes Mr. White.
In general, the plaintiffs claimed that four of the directors
were employees of private equity firms that held major stakes of
preferred stock in the company and that two of the directors
were executives who were entitled to receive incentive bonuses
pegged to the sale price of the company. They claimed these six
directors received material personal benefits as a result of the
sale and were incapable of exercising disinterested and
independent business judgment. As a result, they breached their
duty of loyalty, the plaintiffs argued.
The plaintiffs also contended that, while the company had
performed poorly in the past, more recently it had achieved
profitability, exceeded its financial plan and secured adequate
debt financing. There was simply no reason to sell it when they
did and deprive the common stockholders of the possibility of
reaping the rewards of even better future performance, the
plaintiffs claimed.
The finding of the court's decision shifted the burden of proof
to the director defendants to demonstrate that both the
transaction and the sale process were fair, a significantly
higher standard than the business judgment rule, reports Mr.
White.
The court reiterated prior Delaware judicial decisions that the
preference provisions were merely contractual rights and that it
is generally the duty of the board to prefer the interests of
the common stock to the interests created by special rights like
preferences of the preferred stock, where there is a conflict.
Finally, the court found no contractual provision such as a
drag-along right that would provide the preferred holders some
basis for forcing a sale, Mr. White relates.
The court's decision was rendered in the context of ruling on
the defendants' motion to dismiss the case for failure to state
a claim, and therefore it does not represent a final finding of
liability. The court also noted that not every sale where the
common shareholders receive nothing will automatically
constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty by the directors; it
will depend on the facts and circumstances.
UNITED STATES: Court Allows Calif. Immigrants' Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal appeals court in California ruled that a lawsuit
filed on behalf of immigrants who have been detained for more
than six months without receiving bond hearings can go forward
as a class action. The immigrants are represented by the
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the ACLU,
the Stanford Law School Immigrants' Rights Clinic and the law
firm of Sidley Austin LLP.
"This is a huge victory for immigrants who have been held
in prolonged, indefinite detention without the most basic
element of due process - a hearing to determine if their
detention is justified," said Ahilan Arulanantham, Director of
Immigrants' Rights and National Security for the ACLU of
Southern California, who argued the case before the Ninth
Circuit. "There have been many good decisions invalidating
prolonged immigration detention in individual instances, but the
government has not been following them in other cases. Because
the court has allowed the case to go forward as a class action,
many detainees -- the overwhelming majority of whom lack legal
representation -- will be able to benefit from the court's final
decision."
The lawsuit, Rodriguez, et al. v. Hayes, et al., was
originally filed in a federal district court in Los Angeles in
May 2007 on behalf of Alejandro Rodriguez, an immigrant from
Mexico who was detained more than three years pending completion
of his removal proceedings without ever receiving a bond
hearing. In the lawsuit, Rodriguez asked for a hearing to
determine if his prolonged detention was justified and to
represent other similarly situated immigrants in the Central
District of California. A district court in California ruled
that it did not have jurisdiction to grant a class action. The
ACLU appealed the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit in April 2008.
The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the government's
claims, found that it had clear jurisdiction to allow the
lawsuit to go forward as a class action and that a class action
would provide a remedy for immigration detainees who are
unrepresented. The court explained that without class
certification, "many of the putative class members likely would
not be able to adjudicate their claimed need of a bond hearing,"
and that class treatment was "likely necessary to provide the
remedy sought."
On an average day, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
detains roughly 33,400 non-citizens in federal detention
facilities and local jails across the country, resulting in more
than a threefold increase in the detention population since just
a decade ago. In the Central District of California alone,
hundreds of detainees each year are subjected to prolonged
immigration detention while they fight their immigration cases.
"Many individuals in immigration detention pose no danger
or flight risk that requires them to be locked up," said Judy
Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights
Project. "Yet they are deprived of their liberty, often for
prolonged periods of time, without even a bond hearing to
determine if such detention is justified. This violates due
process, results in many individuals forfeiting meritorious
claims, causes families financial and emotional hardship and is
a huge drain on taxpayers' money."
"We're hopeful that the Obama administration will now agree
that people incarcerated for years should receive the basic due
process protection of a hearing," Ms. Rabinovitz added.
Over the past few years, the ACLU has filed multiple
lawsuits on behalf of individual immigrants who have been held
for prolonged periods of time while fighting their immigration
cases, winning the release of more than a dozen individuals who
were being unlawfully detained.
Lawyers on the case include Ms. Rabinovitz and Cecillia D. Wang,
Esq., of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, Mr. Arulanantham
and Peter Eliasberg, Esq., of the ACLU of Southern California,
Jayashri Srikantiah, Esq., of the Stanford Law School
Immigrants' Rights Clinic, and Steven A. Ellis, Esq., William
Tran, Esq., and Brian K. Washington, Esq., of Sidley Austin LLP.
More information on the case can be found online at:
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/detention/40794res20070516.html
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Lawsuit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, representing investors of
Align Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALGN), has filed a class action
lawsuit in United States District Court on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the common
stock of Align between January 30, 2007 and October 24, 2007,
inclusive. The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The Complaint charges the Company and its chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws. Align
Technology, Inc. designs, manufactures and markets the
Invisalign system for treating the misalignment of teeth.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
or indicate that the Company had shifted the focus of its sales
force to clearing backlog, causing a significant decrease in the
number of new case starts.
Consequently, defendants' misleading statements and
omission of materially adverse information rendered their Class
Period statements concerning the Company's business, operations
and financial prospects materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On October 24, 2007, Align held a conference call with
analysts to discuss the Company's third quarter 2007 financial
results announced that same day. During the conference call,
the Company shocked the market when it acknowledged, among other
things, that in an effort to clear prior backlog "we did not
focus enough effort on filling the pipeline for new case
starts," and the Company had to refocus its field and channel
marketing teams to generate new case growth.
As a result of this news, shares of Align declined more
than 33%, or $9.63 per share, to close the next day, October 25,
2007, at $19.07 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847
E-mail: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com
MIND C.T.I.: Brian M. Felgoise Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. announces that a
securities class action has been commenced on behalf of
shareholders who acquired MIND C.T.I., Ltd.(NASDAQ: MNDO)
securities between June 8, 2006 through February 27, 2008,
inclusive.
The case is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more information, contact:
Brian M. Felgoise, Esq.
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C.
261 Old York Road, Suite 423
Jenkintown, PA 19046
Phone: 215-886-1900
E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@verizon.net
TEXTRON INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Fraud Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Textron, Inc. (NYSE: TXT) during
the period between July 17, 2007 and January 29, 2009,
inclusive.
The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the Company's
failure to disclose during the Class Period that 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 financial
condition and future prospects, including 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.
According to the complaint, after the Company disclosed, on
January 29, 2009, that an estimated $30 million of $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, the value of Textron's
stock declined significantly.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.
A request for lead plaintiff status must satisfy certain
criteria and be made on or before Oct. 13, 2009.
For more details, contact:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.
Brower Piven
The World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
Phone: 410/332-0030
E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com
Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com/
*********
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 * * *