/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/090924.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, September 24, 2009, Vol. 11, No. 189
Headlines
AEROFLEX INC: Reached Settlement in N.Y. Stockholders' Suit
APPLIED SIGNAL: Securities Suit Deal Got Final Approval in Aug.
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Loses Dismissal of Ontario Seroquel Suit
CLEAR CHANNEL: 150 Plaintiffs Show Interest in Flooding Lawsuit
DEL MONTE: Appeals from Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
DEL MONTE: Appeal of Class Status in Pet Food & Snack Suit Nixed
DURA AUTOMOTIVE: Company Comments About Prescription Drug Testing
ENI SPA: Awaits Acknowledgment of NBR Products Suit Abandonment
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION: 2nd Court Reporter Cheating Suit in Chicago
FOOT LOCKER: Suits v. Units Over Wage & Hour Violations Ongoing
FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Defends Shareholder Suit Over SPAH Merger
GLOBE DIRECT: Boston Globe Unit Charged with DPPA Violation
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Consumer Suit Complains About Dunlop D407 Tires
INT'L ASSOC. OF MACHINISTS: Employees Challenge Union Dues
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Notice of Prepulsid Medication Settlement
JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Bid to Consolidate Suits in Arizona Pending
MURPHY OIL: Inked Deal on Suit Over Fire at ROSE Unit in July
PACIFIC CAPITAL: 4th Class Action Filed; Company Denies Liability
ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Motion for Reconsideration Denied in July
UNITED STATES: Fairness Hearing in Martinez SSA Suit on Sept. 24
VIDEO REPORTER: Class Action Suit Alleges Ad Space Cheating
WET SEAL: Re-evaluation of Settlement Fairness Expected in 4Q09
WET SEAL: Nov. 6 Deadline for Calif. Employees' Certification
WET SEAL: Defends Employees' Complaint in San Francisco, Calif.
WET SEAL: Defending Suit by Employees in Orange County, Calif.
* Interactive Data and Goal Form Securities Litigation Alliance
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIREXION SHARES: Federman & Sherwood File Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
MEDICAL CAPITAL: Girard Gibbs Files Complaint in C.D. Calif.
PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Suit in M.D. Tenn.
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Steamfitters Union Files Class Action Suit
UCBH HOLDINGS: Glancy Files Shareholder Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
UCBH HOLDINGS: Coughlin Files Investor Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
*********
AEROFLEX INC: Reached Settlement in N.Y. Stockholders' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aeroflex, Inc. has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs of a
class action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
Nassau County, according to its Sept. 1, 2009, Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2009.
An amended class action complaint was filed against the company
and the Predecessor Entity's board of directors on June 20, 2007
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County.
The complaint alleges that the board breached its fiduciary
duties to the company's stockholders: (i) by issuing a
preliminary proxy statement on June 5, 2007, that was issued in
connection with seeking stockholder approval of the Merger; and
(ii) in approving certain amendments, that were allegedly beyond
the scope of the company's corporate powers, to its SERP and the
employment agreements of defendants Harvey R. Blau, the
company's then Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Leonard
Borow, its then President and Chief Operating Officer and
currently, the Successor Entity's President and Chief Executive
Officer (Class Action Reporter, July 14, 2009).
The company has accrued an insignificant liability for the
settlement.
Aeroflex, Inc. -- http://www.aeroflex.com/-- is engaged in the
design, engineering, manufacturing, production and sales of
microelectronic and test solutions to the broadband
communications, aerospace and defense markets. The company also
designs and manufactures motion control systems that are used
for aerospace and defense applications.
APPLIED SIGNAL: Securities Suit Deal Got Final Approval in Aug.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
on Aug. 3, 2009, gave final approval to a settlement of a
remanded consolidated securities class-action suit against
Applied Signal Technology, Inc.
On March 11 and July 19, 2005, purported securities class-action
complaints were filed against the company. Later, these suits
were consolidated as, "In re Applied Signal Technology Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 4:05-cv-1027 (SBA)."
The amended consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the company's securities
from Aug. 24, 2004, to Feb. 22, 2005. The shareholders sued
Applied Signal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, claiming the company's work reports were
deceptive.
The complaints name the company, its chief executive officer,
and its chief financial officer as defendants, and allege that
false and misleading statements regarding the company were
issued during the class period.
The parties have agreed to a settlement, which will be paid by
the company's insurers.
A purported appeal of a ruling denying a motion to intervene has
been filed, Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter period ended
July 31, 2009.
The suit is In Re: Applied Signal Technology, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-CV-01027 (N.D. Calif.) (Armstrong, J.)
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert S. Green, Esq.
Green Welling, LLP
595 Market Street, Suite 2750
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-477-6700
Fax: 415-477-6710
E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
Representing the defendants is:
David A. Priebe, Esq.
DLA Piper US, LLP
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2248
Phone: 650-833-2000
Fax: 650-833-2001
E-mail: david.priebe@dlapiper.com
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Loses Dismissal of Ontario Seroquel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schneider at Bloomberg News reports that AstraZeneca Plc lost
its bid to dismiss Between Joanne Martin and AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals Plc, Court File No. 06-cv-314632-CP (Ont. Super.
Ct. J.), which claims the drugmaker was negligent in the
development and sale of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel and
didn't tell people of the drug's harmful side effects.
Ontario Superior Court Judge Maurice Cullity threw out
AstraZeneca's request to dismiss the suit before a hearing
to determine whether Canadians can sue as a group.
AstraZeneca claimed people who seek to represent all others who
used the drug can't prove they were harmed by Seroquel. At this
point, the judge said, they don't have to.
CLEAR CHANNEL: 150 Plaintiffs Show Interest in Flooding Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Tunison at The Grand Rapids Press reports that three months
after flooding at the B-93 Birthday Bash left hundreds of
vehicles stranded in standing water, about 150 people have shown
interest so far in joining a class-action lawsuit against Clear
Channel, which owns the sponsoring Grand Rapids radio station
WBCT Radio, 93.7 FM, also known as B-93.
Ionia County Circuit Judge Suzanne Kreeger will hear arguments
Oct. 27 whether to certify the class-action, Grand Rapids, Mich.,
attorney John Tallman, Esq., said.
About 1,400 vehicles were stranded in a grassy parking lot next
to the Grand River at the Ionia County Fairgrounds when the Grand
River flooded its banks June 20, Mr. Tunison relates. Many
sustained significant damage.
Mr. Tallman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Plainfield
Township man in July, estimated about 1,000 vehicles were
damaged. While those with full-coverage insurance likely were
reimbursed for totalled cars, many concert-goers had only basic
coverage.
"This case is just about custom-made for a class-action suit,"
Mr. Tallman told Mr. Tunison.
Mr. Tunison's complete report is available at http://is.gd/3zZnH
DEL MONTE: Appeals from Denied MDL Settlement Objections Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals filed by four class members from their denied objections
to the court approved settlement in the matter entitled "In re
Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1850," which
names Del Monte Foods Co. as one of the defendants, are pending.
Beginning with the pet food recall announced by Menu Foods,
Inc., in March 2007, many major pet food manufacturers,
including Del Monte, announced recalls of their own select
products. The company currently believes there are over 90
purported class action suits relating to these pet food recalls.
The company is currently a defendant in these specific cases,
related to its pet food and pet snack recall:
-- "Carver v. Del Monte," filed on April 4, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California;
-- "Ford v. Del Monte," filed on April 7, 2007, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California;
-- "Hart v. Del Monte," filed on April 10, 2007, before
the state court in Los Angeles, California;
-- "Schwinger v. Del Monte," filed on May 15, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri; and
-- "Tompkins v. Del Monte," filed on July 13, 2007, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
The named plaintiffs in these cases allege that their pets
suffered injury or death as a result of ingesting the company's
and the other defendants' allegedly contaminated pet food and
pet snack products.
By order dated June 28, 2007, the Carver, Ford, Hart, Schwinger,
and Tompkins cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other
purported pet food class action suits under the federal rules
for multi-district litigation (In re Pet Food Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 1850).
The plaintiffs and the defendants in the multi-district
litigation cases, including the five consolidated cases in which
the company is a defendant, have tentatively agreed to a
settlement deal to resolve their dispute.
On May 30, 2008, the Court granted preliminary approval to the
settlement. Pursuant to the Court's order, notice of the
settlement was disseminated to the public by mail and
publication beginning June 16, 2008.
A hearing on a final settlement approval and class certification
has been scheduled for Oct. 14, 2008.
If approved, the class will be certified and the total
settlement will aggregate $24 million. The portion of the
company's contribution to this settlement, if approved, would be
$0.25 million.
On Nov. 19, 2008, the Court entered orders approving the
settlement, certifying the class and dismissing the complaints
against the defendants, including the company. The total
settlement was $24.0 million. The portion of the company's
contribution to this settlement was $250,000, net of insurance
recovery.
Four class members have filed objections to the settlement,
which objections have been denied by the Court. On Dec. 3, 2008
and Dec. 12, 2008, these class members filed Notices of Appeal.
No further updates on the prodeedings were disclosed in the
company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2,
2009.
Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market. The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.
DEL MONTE: Appeal of Class Status in Pet Food & Snack Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal from the denial of their motion for class
certification in a purported class-action lawsuit over Del Monte
Foods Co.'s and other defendants' recalled pet foods and
snacks was denied in June 2009.
The lawsuit, "Picus v. Del Monte," was filed on April 30, 2007,
and generally alleges that the plaintiffs' pets suffered injury
or death as a result of ingesting the company's and other
defendants' contaminated pet food and pet snack products. It
also contains allegations of false and misleading advertising by
the company.
The plaintiffs in the matter are seeking class certification as
well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief against
further distribution of the allegedly defective products.
On Oct. 12, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
Picus case. The state court granted in part and denied in part
the dismissal.
On Dec. 14, 2007, other defendants in the case filed a motion to
deny class certification. The court has not issued a ruling on
that motion.
On March 16, 2009, the Court granted the motion to deny class
certification. On March 25, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an
appeal of the Court's decision.
On June 30, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' appeal,
according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 2, 2009.
Del Monte Foods Co. -- http://www.delmonte.com/-- is a
producer, distributor and marketer of branded food and pet
products for the U.S. retail market. The segments in which the
Company operates include The Consumer Products segment and The
Pet Products segment.
DURA AUTOMOTIVE: Company Comments About Prescription Drug Testing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dura Automotive says it is justified in ordering prescription
drug tests for its employees, according to Tresa Baldas at The
National Law Journal. Dura also denies singling out anyone who
tested positive for a certain drug -- as alleged in EEOC v. DURA
Automotive Systems, Inc., Case No. 09-cv-00059 (M.D. Tenn.) -- or
taking any adverse action against an employee over the drug test
results.
Dura Automotive is represented by:
Robert E. Boston, Esq.
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis
Nashville City Center
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: 615-850-8953
Mr. Boston tells Ms. Baldas that the tests were about keeping
employees safe and preventing workplace accidents and injuries.
"It was an effort to try to make sure that people could work
safely and not be a risk to themselves and others," he said. "If
I'm working right beside you, I don't want you running over me
with a forklift."
Mr. Boston said that under Tennessee law, employers can test for
any drugs if safety is deemed an issue. He said it doesn't matter
if a drug is legal or not, prescription or nonprescription. If a
drug has an adverse affect on an employee's motor skills,
especially when it is being taken in combination with other
drugs, an employer has a right to know.
For example, Mr. Boston said, if an employee regularly takes the
depression drug Zoloft, and then mixes it with a painkiller due
to a chronic back problem, that could create a safety problem in
a plant where heavy machinery and sharp glass is used everyday.
"Dura still believes that the testing was done consistently with
the ADA," Mr. Boston told Ms. Baldas.
ENI SPA: Awaits Acknowledgment of NBR Products Suit Abandonment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eni SpA, Polimeri Europa SPA and Syndial SPA awaits
acknowledgment by a U.S. federal judge of the abandonment of a
class action related to NBR products, according to the company's
Sept. 1, 2009, Form 20-F/A Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2008.
Class actions have been commenced in the U.S. with regard to NBR
products.
On the federal level, the class action was abandoned by the
plaintiffs. However, the federal judge has yet to acknowledge
this abandonment.
With regard to other products under investigation in the U.S.,
settlements were reached with both relevant U.S. Antitrust
authorities and the plaintiffs acting through a class action.
Eni recorded a provision for these matters.
Eni SpA -- http://www.eni.it-- is engaged in the oil and gas,
electricity generation, petrochemicals, oilfield services and
engineering industries. The company operates in four segments:
Exploration & Production segment (E&P), which is engaged in oil
and natural gas exploration and field development and
production, as well as liquefied natural gas (LNG) operations in
39 countries, including Italy, Libya, Egypt, Norway, the United
Kingdom, Angola, Congo, United States, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Algeria, Pakistan and Australia; Gas & Power segment (G&P),
which engages in supply, transport, distribution and marketing
of natural gas, as well as of LNG; Refining & Marketing segment
(R&M), which engages in refining and marketing of petroleum
products mainly in Italy and Europe, and the Engineering &
Construction segment (E&C).
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION: 2nd Court Reporter Cheating Suit in Chicago
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action in Cook
County Court claims that Esquire Deposition Services fraudulently
charges the same per-page rate for computer-generated word
indexes as it charges for transcripts of depositions and court
proceedings to which the indexes are attached.
A copy of the Complaint in Colapinto v. Equire Deposition
Services LLC, Case No. 0CH34964 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty.,
Chancery Div.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/22/Depositions.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael J. Avenatti, Esq.
Jason M. Frank, Esq.
EAGAN O'MALLEY & AVENATTI, LLP
450 Newport Center Drive, 2nd Floor
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: 949-706-7000
Fax: 949-706-7050
- and -
Cary R. Latimer, Esq.
LATIMER LeVAY JURASEK LLC
55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1100
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: 312-422-8000
Fax: 312-422-8001
As reported in the Sept. 17, 2009, edition of the Class Action
Reporter, a similar complaint was filed against Esquire
Deposition Services in Los Angeles Superior Court earlier this
month.
FOOT LOCKER: Suits v. Units Over Wage & Hour Violations Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain subsidiaries of Foot Locker, Inc., are defendants in a
number of lawsuits filed in state and federal courts containing
various class action allegations under state wage and hour laws,
according to Foot Locker's Sept. 9, 2009 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Aug. 1, 2009.
The lawsuits include allegations concerning classification of
employees as exempt or nonexempt, unpaid overtime, meal and rest
breaks, uniforms, and calculation of vacation pay.
Foot Locker, Inc. -- http://www.footlocker-inc.com/-- is a
global retailer of athletic footwear and apparel, operated 3,785
primarily mall-based stores in the U.S., Canada, Europe,
Australia, and New Zealand as of Feb. 2, 2008. The company,
through its subsidiaries, operates in two segments: Athletic
Stores and Direct-to-Customers. The Athletic Stores segment is
an athletic footwear and apparel retailer, whose formats include
Foot Locker, Lady Foot Locker, Kids Foot Locker, Champs Sports
and Footaction. The Direct-to-Customers segment reflects
Footlocker.com, Inc., which sells, through its affiliates,
including Eastbay, Inc., to customers through catalogs and
Internet Web sites. The Foot Locker brand is the Company's
principal brand.
FRONTIER FINANCIAL: Defends Shareholder Suit Over SPAH Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Financial Corporation intends to defend against the
claims and causes of action asserted in a purported shareholder
class action complaint filed in Washington Superior Court in
Snohomish County.
The company recently became aware that a purported class action
complaint had been filed on Aug. 20, 2009, in Washington, against
Frontier, each of Frontier's directors, and SP Acquisition
Holdings, Inc.
The action was brought by Charles C. Hilton, an alleged
shareholder, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated.
The action seeks class certification and alleges, among other
things, that the directors of the Company are in breach of their
fiduciary duties to shareholders in connection with the company's
entry into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with SPAH.
The complaint seeks, among other things, injunction relief to
enjoin the company and its directors from consummating the
transaction contemplated in the Agreement, according to the
company's Form 8-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Sept. 1, 2009.
Frontier Financial Corporation -- http://www.frontierbank.com/--
is a bank holding company. Frontier has one subsidiary: Frontier
Bank, which is engaged in a general banking business and in
businesses related to banking. The Bank is engaged in general
banking business in Washington and Oregon, including the
acceptance of demand, time and savings deposits and the
origination of loans.
GLOBE DIRECT: Boston Globe Unit Charged with DPPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly at Courthouse News Service reports that the Boston
Globe's junk mail division bought drivers' personal information
from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles, an unhappy ad
recipient says in a federal class action. The man claims that
Globe Direct, the direct mail unit of Boston Globe Media,
violated the Drivers Privacy Protection Act.
The law, Matthew Downing says, prohibits junk mailers from
obtaining the names and addresses of millions of non-consenting
motor vehicle registrants and using the information to send them
commercial advertisements.
The Drivers Privacy Protection Act permits such solicitations "if
the State has obtained the express consent of the person to whom
such personal information pertains," which it has not done in his
case, Downing says.
Mr. Downing's complaint does not state who provided Globe Direct
with the information. He wants Globe Direct permanently enjoined
from using class members' personal information to send commercial
advertisements.
A copy of the Complaint in Downing v. Globe Direct LLC, Case No.
09-cv-00693 (D. Del.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/22/DelMassMailer.pdf
Mr. Downing is represented by:
Edward F. Haber, Esq.
Todd S. Heyman, Esq.
Ian J. McLouglin, Esq.
SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 439-3939
- and -
Norman M. Monhait, Esq.
ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
Citizens Bank Center
919 Market Street, Suite 1401
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 656-4433
HARLEY DAVIDSON: Consumer Suit Complains About Dunlop D407 Tires
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Harley Davidson equipped its
2009 bikes with (nonparty) Dunlop D407 tires with reversed tread
patterns that accelerate wear and cupping, a class action claims
in Blount County Court, Tenn.
A copy of the Complaint in Poe v. Harley Davidson Motor Company,
Docket No. L-16775 (Tenn. Cir. Ct., Blount Cty.), is available
at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/22/CCAHarley.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas S. Scott, Jr., Esq.
Christopher T. Cain, Esq.
BALL & SCOTT
Suite 601, Bank of America Center
550 Main Avenue
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: 865-525-7028
INT'L ASSOC. OF MACHINISTS: Employees Challenge Union Dues
----------------------------------------------------------
Two employees filed a class action federal suit this week
challenging the International Association of Machinist and
Aerospace Workers union's nationwide policy requiring employees
to object year after year to paying union dues they cannot be
lawfully forced to pay.
With free legal aid from the National Right to Work Foundation,
Jacobs Technology Incorporated employees Rick Gorham and Robert
Negosta are challenging the IAM union officials' scheme intended
to thwart non-union members' legal rights to refrain from paying
union dues for union electioneering and other non-bargaining
activities. Foundation attorneys filed the complaint in
Maryland's U.S. District Court on behalf of the two employees and
all of Jacobs Technology's other similarly-situated employees.
The case is Gorham, et al. v. International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Case No. 09-cv-02472
(D. Md.). The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Milton L Chappell, Esq.
National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation Inc
8001 Braddock Rd., Ste. 600
Springfield, VA 22160
Telephone: (703) 770-3329
Fax: (301) 408-2135
E-mail: mlc@nrtw.org
In the Foundation-won Communication Workers of America v. Beck
(1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that union officials can
lawfully compel nonmembers to pay union dues as a job condition,
but not the part of dues spent for non-bargaining activities like
political activism, lobbying, and member-only events. However,
these limited rights have been difficult to enforce, as union
officials often concoct illegal schemes such as these "annual
objection" policies to burden or thwart employees from exercising
their rights.
While the IAM union hierarchy's annual objection policy should
not apply to employees who have refrained from IAM union
membership, IAM union officials still illegally require nonmember
employees nationwide to file formal objections every year.
Additionally, IAM union bosses regularly change the dates for the
annual thirty-day window period ostensibly to create additional
confusion.
Foundation attorneys won a similar case challenging the IAM's
annual objection policy under the Railway Labor Act in a U.S.
District Court in Virginia. The court forced the union to abandon
the policy, but the union lawyers are trying to keep the policy
in force in all workplaces not governed by that statute.
Foundation attorneys are now challenging the policy that applies
to employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
"These workers are taking a courageous stand against funding the
Machinist union bosses' radical political agenda and fat-cat
lifestyles," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National
Right to Work Foundation. "No worker should be compelled to hand
over their hard earned dollars so that IAM union bosses can play
politics or take vacations with the union's $2 million private
jet."
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Notice of Prepulsid Medication Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OF A CLASS ACTION RELATED TO THE
PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE PREPULSID(R)
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.
IGNORING THIS NOTICE WILL AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
This Notice advises you of a proposed settlement of the following
lawsuits regarding the prescription medication Prepulsid(R):
Boulanger v. Johnson & Johnson Corporation, Court File No.
00-CV-197409CP (Ont. Super. Ct. J.), and Gardner v. Johnson &
Johnson Corporation, Court File No. 500-06-000137-014 (Quebec
Super. Ct. J.).
For more complete information, you can read the Motion for
Settlement Approval and the Settlement Agreement at:
http://www.PrepulsidSettlement.com/or
http://www.services.justice.gouv.qc.ca/or
http://www.cba.org/recourscollectifsor
you can call the Administrator at 1-866-348-0333.
WHO IS INCLUDED?
The parties will seek the approval of the Ontario and Quebec
Courts for a proposed Settlement.
In the Ontario Action, the proposed Settlement will apply to:
All persons in Canada (including their estates), excluding
residents of Quebec, who ingested the prescription medicine
Prepulsid(R) and to spouses, children, grandchildren, parents,
grandparents, brothers and sisters of the Class who, by reason of
their relationship with members of the Class are entitled to
assert a claim.
In the Quebec Action, the proposed Settlement will apply to:
All persons, including minor persons, who reside or have resided
in Quebec (other than members of the Class as defined in the
Ontario action), and who ingested the drug CISAPRIDE, marketed
under the name PREPULSID, as well as their spouses, children,
grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters and
heirs and assigns.
WHAT ARE THE LAWSUITS ABOUT?
The lawsuits raised allegations of negligence and breach of
warranty and sought damages on behalf of Canadians for certain
types of cardiovascular injuries which were allegedly suffered by
Class members because of their use of the prescription medicine
Prepulsid(R). The defendants deny the allegations made in these
lawsuits, make no admission as to the truth of these allegations
and they deny any wrongdoing.
WHAT IS THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?
The proposed Settlement provides for the creation of an $8.75
million (CDN) Settlement Fund from which eligible claimants may
receive compensation. Eligibility for compensation will require
proof of ingestion of Prepulsid(R), and proof that Prepulsid(R)
caused or was a substantial or materially contributing factor in
causing certain types of cardiovascular injury such as death,
cardiac arrest or primary tachycardic ventricular arrhythmia
(limited to primary sustained ventricular tachycardia,
ventricular fibrillation or Torsades de Pointes). Not all class
members will be eligible for compensation. Eligibility for
compensation will be determined on an individual basis by a
Medical Panel of impartial physicians upon an analysis of
individual Class Members' medical records. The amount of
compensation depends upon the severity of injury suffered, as
well as damages for loss of income and certain expenses. Notice
and administration costs (estimated to be approximately
$750,000), as well as lawyers' fees and expenses (as discussed
later in this Notice) will be paid out of the Settlement Fund,
and any undistributed balance remaining in the Settlement Fund
shall be returned to the defendants. All aspects of this
proposed Settlement are subject to the approval of the Ontario
and Quebec Courts, and, in the Quebec Action, authorization from
the Court for the lawsuit to proceed as a class action is
required.
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Administrator is a Class Actions services administration
company which will review and process claims. The proposed
Administrator is Crawford Class Action Services and contact
information is included at the end of this Notice.
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT REQUIRES COURT APPROVAL
In order for the Settlement to become effective, it must be
approved by the Courts in Ontario and Quebec. Each of the Courts
must be satisfied that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of Class members. The dates for the Settlement
Approval Hearing in Ontario and the consent Authorization and
Settlement Approval Hearing in Quebec have been scheduled with
the respective courts as follows:
In the Ontario Action on October 19, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. at the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, 393 University Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario.
In the Quebec Action on October 20 2009 at 9:30 a.m. in room 2.13
at the Superior Court of Quebec, 1 Notre-Dame East, Montreal,
Quebec.
OBJECTING TO THE SETTLEMENT
If you wish to object to this proposed Settlement, you may submit
a written objection to the Administrator at the following
address: Suite 3-505, 133 Weber Street North, Waterloo, ON N2J
3G9. Further information is also available on the
Administrator's website at http://www.PrepulsidSettlement.com/
All written objections must be received no later than October 12,
2009. The Administrator will file copies of all objections with
the Courts.
OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
You may also attend the hearings on the dates noted above, and
present arguments as regards the proposed Settlement and
distribution of any balance remaining.
SUBMITTING CLAIMS
If the proposed Settlement is approved by the Ontario and Quebec
Courts, a further Notice will be published that will provide
detailed information about submitting a claim, including the
deadlines for doing so. A downloadable version of the Claim Form
is currently available online at the Administrator's website.
WHO REPRESENTS ME?
The following law firms represent the plaintiffs in the Ontario
Action:
Joel P. Rochon, Esq.
ROCHON GENOVA LLP
Barristers * Avocats
121 Richmond Street West, Suite 900
Toronto, ON M5H 2K1 CANADA
Telephone: (416) 363-1867
Fax: (416) 363-0263
E-mail: jrochon@rochongenova.com
- and -
Gary R. Will, Esq.
WILL BARRISTERS
Barristers & Solicitors
Box 96
3005 - 401 Bay Street
Toronto, ON M5H 2Y4 CANADA
Telephone: (416) 360-1194
Fax: (416) 360-8469
E-mail: gwill@willbarristers.com
- and -
Lorenzo Girones, Esq.
GIRONES & ASSOCIATES
Lawyers
16 Cedar Street South
Timmins, ON P4N 2G4 CANADA
Telephone: (705) 268-4242
Fax: (705) 264-1646
E-mail: lgirones@girones.on.ca
The following law firms represent the plaintiffs in the Quebec
Action:
Andre Lesperance, Esq.
LAUZON BELANGER INC.
Avocats - Attorneys
286 Saint-Paul West, Suite 100
Montreal (Quebec) H2Y 2A3 CANADA
Telephone: (514) 844-4646
Fax: (514) 844-7009
E-mail: alesperance@lauzonbelanger.qc.ca
- and -
Marc Beauchemin, Esq.
DE GRANDPRE CHAIT
Lawyers
1000, De La Gauchetiere Street West, Suite 2900
Montreal, Quebec H3B 4W5 CANADA
Telephone: (514) 878-3219
Fax: (514) 878-4333
E-mail: mbeauchemin@degrandpre.com
LEGAL FEES
At or following the Settlement Approval Hearings, Plaintiffs'
counsel will request approval for payment of their fees and
disbursements and applicable taxes. Plaintiffs' counsel for the
Ontario national class have pursued this lawsuit for the past
nine years, through a multitude of motions and appeals including
contested certification. Plaintiffs' counsel for the Ontario
national class will seek initial approval from the courts for
fees of $3 million plus disbursements and applicable taxes and,
if money remains in the Settlement Fund following the end of the
administration of the Settlement, a further application for fees
may be made. Plaintiffs' counsel in Quebec will seek initial
approval from the Courts for fees of $300,000 plus disbursements
and applicable taxes and, if money remains in the Settlement Fund
immediately following the end of the administration of the
Settlement, a further application for fees may be made by Quebec
Counsel.
WHERE CAN I OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION?
For more information, you can contact the Administrator at:
1-866-348-0333. Please do not contact the Courts.
This Summary Notice has been approved by the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Quebec.
JOS. A. BANK: Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., continues to face the consolidated
securities fraud class-action lawsuit captioned Lefkoe v. Jos A.
Bank Clothiers, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-cv-01892 (D. Md.),
filed by Roy T. Lefkoe on July 24, 2006, against the company and
Robert N. Wildrick, the company's chief executive officer.
On Aug. 3, 2006, another lawsuit substantially similar to the
Lefkoe suit was filed. That suit is captioned Tewas Trust UAD
9/23/86 v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., Case No. 06-cv-02011 (D.
Md.).
The Tewas Trust Action was filed against the same defendants as
those in the class action and purported to assert the same
claims and seek the same relief.
On Nov. 20, 2006, the Lefkoe lawsuit and the Tewas Trust Action
were consolidated under case number 1:06-cv-01892 and the
Tewas Trust Action was administratively closed.
Massachusetts Labor Annuity Fund has been appointed the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated class action and has filed a
consolidated class action complaint.
R. Neal Black, the company's president, and David E. Ullman, the
company's executive vice president and chief financial officer,
have been added as defendants.
On behalf of purchasers of the company's stock between Dec. 5,
2005, and June 7, 2006, the class action purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 (a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, based on the company's
disclosures during the class period. The suit seeks unspecified
damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
The company's Motion to Dismiss the Class Action was not
granted.
No updates regarding the matter were disclosed by the company in
its Sept. 2, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2009.
The suit is Lefkoe v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. et al., Case
No. 06-cv-01892 (D. Md.) (Nickerson, J.)
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
Law Office of Bernard M Gross PC
John Wanamaker Bldg., Ste. 450
Juniper and Market Sts.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 1-215-561-3600
Fax: 1-215-561-3000
E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com
Representing the defendants is:
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
399 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 1-212-937-7220
Fax: 1-212-230-8888
E-mail: michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Bid to Consolidate Suits in Arizona Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. to consolidate and transfer
all of the personal injury and consumer fraud matters in
Arizaona, including any and all purported class actions, is
pending.
The company seeks to consolidate and transfer all matters pending
against Matrixx in federal court to the District of Arizona,
utilizing the Federal Multidistrict Litigation program.
The MDL Program permits the consolidation of multiple federal
lawsuits when certain criteria are met.
The company's motion was filed in response to a plaintiff's
request to consolidate and transfer only the consumer fraud
matters to the Western District of Missouri.
The company anticipates that the consolidation of cases via the
MDL Program, if granted, will enable it to reduce its legal costs
and manage its case load more efficiently, according to the
company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dated Sept. 8, 2009.
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. -- http://www.matrixxinc.com/--
develops, produces, markets and sells over-the-counter (OTC)
healthcare products with an emphasis on those that utilize
delivery systems that provide consumers with Better Ways to Get
Better. Through its subsidiary, Zicam, LLC, the Company markets
and sells products under the Zicam brand. The Company's product
offerings consist of four product classes within the cough and
cold category: Cold Remedy; Allergy/Sinus; Cough and Multi-
Symptom relief, and other cough/cold. In addition, the Company
had sold products under the Nasal Comfort and Xcid brand names.
Its Zicam products are marketed in the cough and cold market
category. During the fiscal year ended March 31, 2009 (fiscal
2009), the Company's top 15 customers accounted for more than
80% of its net sales and three customers each accounted for more
than 10% of the Company's net sales. In May 2008, the Company
formed Zicam Canada, Inc. to commercialize sales of Zicam
products in Canada.
MURPHY OIL: Inked Deal on Suit Over Fire at ROSE Unit in July
-------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation arising out of a June 10, 2003, fire in the Residual
Oil Supercritical Extraction unit at Murphy Oil Corp.'s Meraux,
Louisiana refinery was settled in July 2009.
The ROSE unit recovers feedstock from the heavy fuel oil stream
for conversion into gasoline and diesel.
Subsequent to the fire, numerous class-action suits have been
filed seeking damages for area residents. All the lawsuits have
been administratively consolidated into a single legal action in
St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, except for one action filed in
federal court.
On May 5, 2004, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action in St.
Bernard Parish amended their petition to include a direct action
against certain of the company's liability insurers.
The St. Bernard Parish action has since been removed to federal
court, which issued an order on July 25, 2008, denying the
plaintiff's request to certify the case as a class. (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 17, 2008).
In responding to this direct action, one of the company's
insurers, AEGIS, has raised lack of coverage as a defense.
The settlement was memorialized via a filing in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on July 24, 2009.
An arbitral tribunal is scheduled to hear the company's claim for
indemnity from one of its insurers, AEGIS, in September 2009.
The company believes that insurance coverage does apply for this
matter, 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.
Murphy Oil Corp. -- http://www.murphyoilcorp.com/-- is a global
oil and gas exploration, and production company with refining
and marketing operations in North America and the U.K. The
Company's operations are classified into two business
activities: Exploration and Production, and Refining and
Marketing.
PACIFIC CAPITAL: 4th Class Action Filed; Company Denies Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For the fourth time this week, Ray Estrada at the Daily Sound
reports, a law firm across the country has filed suit against the
owner of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in a move to find stock
purchasers who feel the company misled them and to convince them
to join the class action.
A Santa-Barbara-based Pacific Capital Bancorp spokesman said the
bank holding company denies any wrongdoing and suits such as
these can occur when the moves such as a reverse stock split are
being discussed. That issue is one of the subjects of a Sept. 29
shareholder's meeting.
Earlier this year, Pacific Capital announced it planned a reverse
stock split and will take other measures to increase its capital
ratio, which has suffered like many other banks since the
mortgage meltdown started last year.
Maryland-based Brower Piven and Atlanta-based Holzer Holzer &
Fistel announced Friday they filed separate class-action suits on
behalf of purchasers of Pacific Capital common shares between
April 30 and July 30.
On Thursday, the Pennsylvania-based Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith announced a securities class-action lawsuit has been filed
on behalf of anyone who bought the common stock of Pacific
Capital between the same period. However, no class has yet been
certified in this legal action nor in the suit filed by Brower
Piven.
The first suit was filed Tuesday on behalf of a New Jersey man by
the New York-based firm of Stull, Stull & Brody to recover
damages on his own behalf and other people who bought the stock
also from April 30 to July 30. All four suits were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The complaint filed Thursday alleges Pacific Capital violated
federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the bank holding company's financial
performance and prospects, "thereby artificially inflating the
price of the company's securities."
The Brower Piven complaint accuses Pacific Capital of failure to
disclose that, contrary to what the company told investors, it
had not adequately reserved for loan losses. The suit had not
applied a conservative reserve methodology, and needed to record
an additional loan loss provision of $117 million.
After the company revealed the need to record the additional loan
loss provision for $117 million, the value of its stock dropped
significantly, the Brower Piven suit alleged.
In announcements issued through Business Wire and Market Wire
this week, the three law firms are asking anyone who bought the
stock to contact them to be represented in the class action.
Debbie Whiteley, vice president and spokeswoman for Pacific
Capital, said that with transactions such as her company's
proposed reverse stock split, it is not uncommon for it to be
subjected to these types of allegations.
Ms. Whiteley wrote in an e-mail Friday, "We believe that the
underlying case is completely without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend against it."
No one from the Holzer Holzer & Fistel nor Law Offices of Howard
G. Smith had an immediate comment. An attorney at Stull, Stull &
Brody declined to comment. The offices of Brower Piven were
closed by the time word of the firm's suit reached the West
Coast.
A $7.4 billion company, Pacific Capital operates 48 branches
under such the names of First National Bank of Central
California, South Valley National Bank, San Benito Bank and First
Bank of San Luis Obispo.
Even though Pacific Capital chief George Leis said earlier the
half-century-old company will be dominant in the community for
another 50 years, it's been a roller-coaster ride this year. The
company had a $362.6 million second-quarter loss, stock
fluctuation from as high as $27.99 to as low as $1.73 and the
lay-offs of 300 employees.
Company officials said the $362.6 million figure represents an
effort to protect against future losses and meet accounting and
tax requirements.
ROSS STORES: Lawsuits Over Wage and Hour Claims Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc., remains a named defendant in pending class-
action lawsuits regarding wage and hour claims.
Class action litigation involving allegations that hourly
associates have missed meal and/or rest break periods, as well
as allegations of unpaid overtime wages to assistant store
managers at all company stores under federal and state law,
remains pending as of Aug. 1, 2009.
No further details regarding the litigation were disclosed in
the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1,
2009.
Ross Stores, Inc. -- http://www.rossstores.com/-- and its
subsidiaries operate two chains of off-price retail apparel and
home accessories stores in the U.S. Its stores offer branded
apparel, accessories, footwear, and home fashions for men and
women between the ages of 25 and 54, as well as gift items,
linens, and other home related merchandise.
STEWART ENTERPRISES: Motion for Reconsideration Denied in July
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on July 29,
2009, denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of class
certification in Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. v.
Service Corporation International, Alderwoods Group, Inc.,
Stewart Enterprises, Inc., Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and
Batesville Casket Co., Case No. H-05-3394.
This purported class action was originally filed on May 2, 2005,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include
all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral
home defendants at any time.
The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed,
substantially similar cases.
The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted
jointly to reduce competition from independent casket discounters
and fix and maintain prices on caskets in violation of the
federal antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions
Code. The plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court
transferred the Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred
Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a
single judge in the Southern District of Texas.
On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to
dismiss, the company answered the first amended consolidated
class action complaint, denying liability and asserting various
affirmative defenses. Fact discovery has been completed, and
expert discovery is complete with the exception of the deposition
of one expert witness.
In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating
that the damages sought from all defendants would be in the range
of approximately $950 million to approximately $1.5 billion,
before trebling.
On March 26, 2009, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
denied plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal on June 19,
2009, according to the company's Sept. 9, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended July 31, 2009.
Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/
-- is a provider of funeral and cemetery products and services
in the death care industry in the U.S. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of funeral
merchandise and services, along with cemetery property,
merchandise and services, both at the time of need and on a pre-
need basis.
UNITED STATES: Fairness Hearing in Martinez SSA Suit on Sept. 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
AND FAIRNESS HEARING REGARDING
SOCIAL SECURITY'S POLICY ON "FLEEING FELONS"
AND OUTSTANDING ARREST WARRANTS
This notice contains important information if your Social
Security retirement, survivors, or disability insurance benefits,
Special Veterans Benefits (SVB), or Supplemental Security Income
(SSI) payments have been suspended or denied, or if you have not
been permitted to serve as a representative payee to
beneficiaries of those programs on the ground that you were
"fleeing to avoid prosecution or custody or confinement after a
conviction" for a felony.
A court has preliminarily approved a settlement of a class action
lawsuit on this issue. The case, called Martinez v. Astrue, is
pending in federal district court in Oakland, California. The
Court has set a fairness hearing to consider a proposed
settlement of the claims that have been brought on your behalf in
this lawsuit. The hearing is scheduled to be held on September
24, 2009, at 2:00 p.m., before the Honorable Claudia Wilken in
Oakland, Calif. Because the date and time of that hearing may
change, please check with the Court prior to attending the
hearing.
The settlement in this case does not concern people whose
benefits may have been suspended or denied because of a warrant
based on a violation of probation or parole.
This class action settlement could affect your rights. Please
read below for more information, or call the National Senior
Citizens Law Center 510-663-1055 ext. 301.
This notice has three purposes:
1) to tell you about the proposed settlement and the
fairness hearing;
2) to tell you how to obtain more information, including a
copy of the full proposed settlement agreement; and
3) to explain how you may object to the proposed settlement
if you disagree with it.
What is this Lawsuit About?
Plaintiffs claimed that the Social Security Administration (SSA)
should not suspend or deny SSI, SVB, or Social Security benefits
or payments, or refuse to allow people to serve as representative
payees, solely on the basis of an outstanding felony arrest
warrant. The parties have reached a tentative settlement that the
Court has preliminarily approved. The sections below explain some
of the key provisions of the tentative settlement.
Who is in the Settlement Class?
You may be a Settlement Class Member if your SSI, SVB, or Old
Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) benefits have
been suspended or denied, or you are threatened with the
suspension or denial of these benefits, based on an outstanding
felony arrest warrant. If you were not permitted to serve as a
representative payee for this same reason, you may also be in the
Settlement Class.
The Settlement Class does not include people who have already
received a final federal court decision in an individual action
regarding SSA's fugitive felon policy.
What are the Terms of the Proposed Settlement?
THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT. TO UNDERSTAND IT
FULLY, YOU SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The following
description summarizes the key points in the proposed settlement
agreement. You can read the entire proposed settlement agreement
at SSA's website, at:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/martinezsettlement/
and on the website of the National Senior Citizens Law Center at:
http://www.nsclc.org/areas/social-security-ssi/Martinez-Settlement/Court-Documents
April 1, 2009 Change in SSA Policy. Effective April 1, 2009, SSA
changed its policy. SSA will suspend or deny benefits based on
outstanding felony arrest warrants for only the crimes of flight
to avoid prosecution or confinement, escape from custody, and
flight-escape. SSA will also apply the new policy when it
considers a person's request to serve as a representative payee.
SSA may still use warrant information when it decides whether or
not a person is suitable to serve as a representative payee.
Benefits for "Post-2006" Settlement Class Members. For Settlement
Class Members whose benefits were suspended or denied or had an
administrative appeal determination on or after January 1, 2007,
or who had administrative claims challenging the suspension of
their benefits pending on August 11, 2008, SSA will reinstate
benefits and pay benefits that it withheld back to the first
month of the Class Member's suspension. SSA will also repay any
sums that it collected because it found that the Class Member had
been overpaid benefits under the previous policy. SSA will also
reinstate benefits for Class Members who get SSI, but it will
also redetermine the Class Member's non-medical eligibility
criteria under its usual policies. After it reinstates benefits
or payments to Settlement Class Members, SSA may do continuing
disability reviews under its usual policies. SSA will notify
Post-2006 Settlement Class Members at the time it takes these
actions with individual notices mailed to the address on SSA
records.
Benefits for "Pre-2007" Settlement Class Members. For Settlement
Class Members whose benefits were suspended or denied between
January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2006, and who did not have live
administrative claims on August 11, 2008, SSA will stop
collecting overpayments and will remove any remaining overpayment
balance based on the previous policy. SSA will notify Pre-2007
Settlement Class Members of the settlement by a mailing to the
address in SSA's records. For Class Members who were not
receiving benefits as of April 1, 2009, the notice will advise
that they may file a new application for benefits. If they do so
within six months from the date of their notices, SSA will use an
application date of April 1, 2009 as the protective filing date
in reviewing the claim.
Class Members whose benefits were suspended or denied prior to
January 1, 2000 may reapply under the new policy, but will not
receive a mailed notice or a protective filing date.
Release of Claims. Class Members will agree to release all claims
relating to the subject matter of this case that could have been
asserted in the Martinez complaint against SSA.
When Will Relief Be Provided?
The Court must first finally approve the settlement. After final
approval, SSA will begin steps to fulfill the terms of the
settlement. Due to the size and complexity of the settlement, SSA
requires some time to complete the terms. Currently, SSA plans to
provide relief in phases, which are expected to conclude at the
end of 2010. This timeframe is subject to change.
Do not contact SSA about reinstatement of benefits or overpayment
relief provided by this settlement. SSA will notify individuals
affected by the settlement after final court approval.
What if I Object to or Have Questions About The Proposed
Settlement?
IF YOU AGREE with the proposed settlement, you do not need to do
anything at this time. If you wish to attend, you may be present
at the public hearing on the proposed settlement as stated above.
IF YOU DISAGREE with the proposed settlement, you have a right to
object to it. Your objections will be considered by the Court as
it reviews the settlement ONLY IF you follow these procedures.
You must submit objections in writing to the Court at the address
above. Your objections must be received by September 10, 2009.
ALL OBJECTIONS MUST CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
a) Name, address, and telephone number of the person filing
the objection.
b) A statement of the reasons for the objection.
c) A statement that copies of the objections have also been
sent to the attorneys listed at the end of this notice.
Because this is a mandatory class under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2), individual Settlement Class Members cannot
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.
If you have any questions about the lawsuit or the tentative
settlement, please call the National Senior Citizens Law Center
510-663-1055 ext. 301.
Attorneys' Names and Addresses for Plaintiffs and Defendant
For the Plaintiffs:
Gerald A. McIntyre, Esq.
National Senior Citizens Law Center Assistant
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2860
Los Angeles, CA 90010-1938
Telephone: (213) 674-2900
Fax: (213) 639-0934
For the Defendant:
Victoria R. Carradero, Esq.
United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3495
Telephone: (415) 436-7000
Fax: (415) 436-6748
VIDEO REPORTER: Class Action Suit Alleges Ad Space Cheating
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that an advertiser claims Video
Reporter dba National Advertising Center cheated on space it sold
in a "Green Magazine," in a class action in San Diego Superior
Court.
A copy of the Complaint in Arnold v. Video Reporter, Inc., Case
No. 37-2009-00098340-CU-PN-CTL (Calif. Super. Ct., San Diego
Cty.) (Oberholtzer, J.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/21/Media.pdf
The plaintiff is represented by:
Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
Tracy J. Jones, Esq.
NICHOLAS & BUTLER, LLP
225 Broadway, 19th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-325-0492
Fax: 619-325-0496
- and -
James R. Ballard, Esq.
SCHWARTZ SEMERDJIAN HAILE BALLARD & CAULEY, LLP
101 W. Broadway, Suite 810
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-236-8821
Fax: 619-236-8827
WET SEAL: Re-evaluation of Settlement Fairness Expected in 4Q09
---------------------------------------------------------------
Re-evaluation of the fairness of the class action settlement in a
complaint against The Wet Seal, Inc., in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, is
expected to take place before December 2009.
On July 19, 2006, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court, on
behalf of certain of the company's current and former employees
that were employed and paid by the company on an hourly basis
during the four-year period from July 19, 2002 through July 19,
2006.
The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
On Nov. 30, 2006, the company reached an agreement to pay
approximately $0.3 million to settle this matter, subject to
Superior Court approval.
On May 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered an order granting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement.
On Feb. 29, 2008, the court issued its order granting final
approval of the class action settlement, subject to appeal.
On April 28, 2008, a notice of appeal of the judgment was filed.
On May 6, 2009, the Court reversed and remanded the case for the
Superior Court to re-evaluate the fairness of the settlement.
As of Aug. 1, 2009, the company had accrued in accrued
liabilities on its consolidated balance sheet an amount equal to
the settlement amount, according to its Sept. 1, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.
WET SEAL: Nov. 6 Deadline for Calif. Employees' Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 6, 2009, deadline has been set for the plaintiffs to file
a motion for class certification in its complaint against The Wet
Seal, Inc.
On May 22, 2007, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees who were
employed and paid by the company during the four-year period from
May 22, 2003 through May 22, 2007.
The company was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission.
The Court has set a deadline of Nov. 6, 2009, for the plaintiffs
to file a motion for class certification which the company will
oppose, according to its Sept. 1, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2009.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.
WET SEAL: Defends Employees' Complaint in San Francisco, Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., is defending the complaint filed on behalf of
certain of the company current and former employees who were
employed and paid by the company during the four-year period from
Sept. 29, 2004, through Sept. 29, 2008.
On Sept. 29, 2008, the complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of San Francisco.
The complaint alleges various violations under the State of
California Labor Code and the State of California Business and
Professions Code.
The company's responsive plea was filed on Nov. 14, 2008.
The case has been transferred to the complex panel of the San
Francisco Superior Court for case management purposes, according
to its Sept. 1, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.
WET SEAL: Defending Suit by Employees in Orange County, Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc., is defending a complaint filed on behalf of
certain of the company's current and former employees that it
employed and paid since March 18, 2005.
On March 18, 2009, the complaint was filed in the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Orange. The company
was named as a defendant.
The complaint alleged various violations under the State of
California Labor Code, the State of California Business and
Professions Code, and orders issued by the Industrial Welfare
Commission, according to its Sept. 1, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Aug. 1, 2009.
The Wet Seal, Inc. -- http://www.wetsealinc.com/-- is a national
specialty retailer operating stores selling apparel and accessory
items designed for female customers aged 13 to 35.
* Interactive Data and Goal Form Securities Litigation Alliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Data Corporation (NYSE: IDC), a leading provider of
financial market data, analytics and related solutions, today
announced that its Pricing and Reference Data business has formed
an alliance with Goal Group Limited, a leading UK-based global
class actions service specialist, to provide a comprehensive,
outsourced class actions service designed to support investors
and corporations throughout the entire lifecycle of a securities
class action.
Securities class action litigation may be instituted on behalf of
shareholders who have suffered an economic loss arising from a
violation of the securities laws. Most securities class actions
have historically been filed in the US, but with the introduction
of legislation to support strong corporate governance, such
lawsuits are spreading across Europe, Australia and Asia.
Financial institutions are increasingly paying closer attention
to developments related to securities class action litigation.
Yet, for a variety of reasons, global institutional investors do
not always submit claim forms in situations where they may be
eligible for recovery. One reason may be that investors are not
aware that a judgment has been entered or that a lawsuit has been
settled or even filed. According to research conducted by Goal,
between 2000 and 2007 more than US $12 billion in settlement
compensation awarded by the courts was unclaimed in class
actions, bankruptcies and disgorgements. To date, Goal has
helped its clients recover over US $280 million in compensation.
Information from Interactive Data's class actions service, which
has been helping financial institutions track, monitor and
recover funds emanating from securities class action litigation
since 2005, has now been incorporated into Goal's fully-
outsourced solution designed to help clients manage and navigate
the securities class action process and recoup funds where
applicable. This information includes details of securities class
action litigation filed, with critical dates and data, and the
relevant security identifiers -- all in standard ISO 15022
format.
Using its ISO 9001 accredited technology, Goal undertakes
research, analysis and calculations on behalf of clients, and
completes any applicable claim documentation. This is then
emailed to the client, clearly indicating any additional
information required from the client prior to filing with the
court or other governmental agency overseeing the class action.
Goal's solution allows clients to access an online reporting
facility that provides the security identifier, together with the
class period, settlement fund and any applicable proof of claim
deadline. Also available are a current case settlement diary that
provides an overview of impending cases and an activity statement
with information on the status of ongoing and collected claims.
Anthony Neville, European divisional director, Interactive Data,
commented: "Class actions provide potential redress to investors
who have suffered loss as a result of violations of the
securities laws -- and these actions have been increasing with
the market turmoil. Finding a system that is capable of compiling
and disseminating class action information is critical. We have
been collecting and distributing corporate actions data to the
financial industry for more than 20 years and have used this
expertise, along with the relationships cultivated with major
claims administrators and plaintiffs' counsel, to provide a
comprehensive class actions data service."
Stephen Everard, managing director of Goal, added: "Our cutting-
edge, highly-automated technology eliminates manual processes,
which helps to reduce operational risk and create virtual
straight-through processing -- from the capture and scanning of
client data through to the completion of the claim documentation.
Our clients worldwide include corporate pension funds, local
government agencies, global custodians, prime brokerage houses,
asset managers, investment banks and fund managers."
About Interactive Data Corporation
Interactive Data Corporation (NYSE: IDC) is a leading global
provider of financial market data, analytics and related
solutions to financial institutions, active traders and
individual investors. The Company's businesses supply real-time
market data, time-sensitive pricing, evaluations and reference
data for millions of securities traded around the world,
including hard-to-value instruments. Many of the world's best-
known financial service and software companies subscribe to the
Company's services in support of their trading, analysis,
portfolio management and valuation activities. Interactive Data,
headquartered in Bedford, Mass., has approximately 2,400
employees in offices located throughout North America, Europe,
Asia and Australia. Pearson plc (NYSE: PSO; LSE: PSON), an
international media company, whose businesses include the
Financial Times Group, Pearson Education, and the Penguin Group,
is Interactive Data Corporation's majority stockholder.
Interactive Data's Pricing and Reference Data business provides
global securities pricing, evaluations and reference data
designed to support financial institutions' and investment funds'
pricing activities, securities operations, research and portfolio
management. Interactive Data collects, edits, maintains and
delivers data on more than 6 million securities, including daily
evaluations for approximately 2.8 million fixed income and
international equity issues. Interactive Data specializes in
'hard-to-get' information and evaluates many 'hard-to value'
instruments.
Pricing, evaluations and reference data are provided in the US
through Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. and
internationally through Interactive Data (Europe) Ltd. and
Interactive Data (Australia) Pty Ltd.
For more information about Interactive Data Corporation and its
businesses, visit http://www.interactivedata.com/
Interactive DataSM and the Interactive Data logo are service
marks of Interactive Data Corporation.
About Goal Group Limited
The Goal Group of Companies was incorporated on 1 November 1989
and is widely acknowledged in the financial services sector for
its innovative and creative solutions to highly specialized niche
processes.
Goal has a truly global, blue-chip client base including several
of the world's largest global custodians, asset managers, private
banks, pension funds, local government agencies, hedge funds,
high net-worth individuals, investment banks, prime brokers and
fund managers spread widely across Europe, Asia and the United
States.
Goal's class actions service is provided via its wholly-owned
subsidiary Goal Global Recoveries Limited and supports investors
and corporate entities who have suffered financial loss from
owning shares in a company where there has been proven
mismanagement and unlawful behavior.
Goal's withholding tax solutions include GTRS, GQI, GOAL TaxBack
and GDMS. Research by Goal has shown that in excess of USD 10
billion of withholding tax remains unclaimed each year by the
rightful owners and beneficiaries. Goal's solutions facilitate
the reclamation of circa USD 11 billion per annum and assist its
clients to benefit from relief at source wherever practicable and
possible to do so.
For further information about the Goal Group of Companies, visit
http://www.goalgroup.com/
Contacts: Anthony Neville
Interactive Data Corporation
32 Crosby Drive
Bedford, MA 01730
Telephone: (781) 687-8500
Fax: (781) 687-8005
- and -
Stephen Everard
Managing Director
Goal Group Limited
69 Park Lane, 7th Floor
Croydon CR9 1BG UNITED KINGDOM
Telephone: +44 (0) 20 8760 7130
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8681 2854
New Securities Fraud Cases
DIREXION SHARES: Federman & Sherwood File Complaint in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
On September 18, 2009, Federman & Sherwood filed the first class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Direxion Shares ETF Trust
and others on behalf of any and all investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares of Direxion Daily Financial Bear 3X
Shares (NYSE: FAZ) (the "FAZ Fund") during the Class Period of
November 3, 2008 through April 9, 2009. The Complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The FAZ Fund seeks investment results that correspond to three
times the inverse (-300%) daily performance of the Russell 1000
Financial Services Index ("RFSI"), which measures the performance
of the financial services sector of the U.S. equity market. The
complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act by
failing to disclose that the FAZ Fund is altogether defective as
a directional investment play. Defendants failed to disclose the
following risks in the Company's Registration Statement: (1)
inverse correlation between the FAZ Fund and the RFSI over time
would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and
inadvertently, if at all; (2) the extent to which performance of
the FAZ Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the
RFSI -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular
tracking error; (3) the severe consequences of high market
volatility on the FAZ Fund's investment objectives and
performance; (4) the severe consequences of inherent path
dependency in periods of high market volatility on the FAZ Fund's
performance; (5) the role the FAZ Fund plays in increasing market
volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; (6) the
consequences of the FAZ Fund's daily hedge adjustment always
going in the same direction as the movement of the underlying
index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; (7)
the FAZ Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; and (8) the
FAZ Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired
exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the FAZ
Fund.
Plaintiff is represented by Federman & Sherwood, who seeks to
recover damages on behalf of the Class. If you are a member of
the Class as described above, you may move the Court no later
than Tuesday, November 17, 2009, to serve as a lead plaintiff for
the Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain
legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995. If you wish to discuss this action,
participate in this or any other lawsuit, or have any questions
or concerns regarding this notice, or preservation of your
rights, please contact:
William B. Federman, Esq.
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: (405) 235-1560
Fax: (405) 239-2112
Email to: wbf@federmanlaw.com
http://www.federmanlaw.com/
MEDICAL CAPITAL: Girard Gibbs Files Complaint in C.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased notes issued
by Medical Provider Financial Corp. III, Medical Provider
Financial Corp. IV, Medical Provider Funding Corp. V and/or
Medical Provider Funding Corp. VI on or after September 18, 2006.
The class action, captioned McCoy, et al. v. Cullum & Burks
Securities, Inc., et al., Case No. 09-cv-1084 (AG) (C.D. Calif.).
is brought against Cullum & Burks Securities, Inc., Securities
America, Inc., Ameriprise Financial, Inc., and CapWest
Securities, Inc., who offered and sold the Medical Capital Notes
to investors.
The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 12(a)(1), 12(a)(2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint alleges that the
Medical Capital Notes should have been registered with the SEC,
but were not, and that the private placement memoranda for the
Medical Capital Note offerings misrepresented and omitted
material facts related to terms of the offerings, the use of the
investors' funds, the track record of various Medical Capital
entities, the backgrounds and qualifications of the executives
responsible for running the companies, and the overall risks of
an investment in the Medical Capital Notes. According to the
Complaint, the defendants violated federal securities laws by
offering and selling the unregistered Medical Capital Notes
pursuant to materially false and misleading prospectuses.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Medical Capital Notes from
Cullum & Burks, Securities America, Ameriprise Financial and/or
CapWest Securities on or after September 18, 2006 you may, no
later than November 20, 2009, request that the Court appoint you
as lead plaintiff. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. To be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must decide
that your claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that you will adequately represent the class. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Girard Gibbs
LLP, or other attorneys, to serve as your counsel in this action.
If you purchased Medical Capital Notes from any of the defendants
or from any other brokerage firm and wish to discuss your rights,
please contact Girard Gibbs LLP toll-free at (866) 981-4800. A
copy of the complaint is available from the Court, or can be
viewed on Girard Gibbs LLP's website at:
http://www.girardgibbs.com/medicalcapital.asp
Girard Gibbs LLP is one of the nation's leading firms
representing individual and institutional investors in securities
fraud class actions and litigation to correct abusive corporate
governance practices, breaches of fiduciary duty and proxy
violations. To discuss this class action with us, please
contact:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Rebecca A. Netter, Esq.
Girard Gibbs LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (866) 981-4800
E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
jkl@girardgibbs.com
ran@girardgibbs.com
PSYCHIATRIC SOLUTIONS: Coughlin Stoia Files Suit in M.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
on behalf of purchasers of Psychiatric Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ:
PSYS) common stock during the period between February 21, 2008
and February 25, 2009.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren
Robbins, Esq.. of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this
class action online at:
http://www.csgrr.com/cases/psychiatricsolutions/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges Psychiatric Solutions and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Psychiatric Solutions provides inpatient behavioral
healthcare services.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's safeguards and controls over its operations, including
at its Riveredge Hospital facility. Defendants downplayed
incidents at the Company's facilities, indicating that the
deficiencies had all been resolved. Defendants assured investors
that corrective actions had already been taken at the Company's
facilities to improve the quality, safety and risk management.
Additionally, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's financial results and
compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Specifically, the Company failed to properly account for its
contingent liabilities related to the deficiencies surrounding
its operations. As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, Psychiatric Solutions stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of
$39.71 per share on July 8, 2008.
On February 20, 2008, the beginning of the Class Period,
Psychiatric Solutions issued its 2007 financial results,
increasing earnings guidance for 2008. Just over a week later,
the Company filed its Form 10-K for 2007, representing it had
"higher quality care" than its competitors and assuring that
Psychiatric Solutions was in compliance with applicable
government regulations.
On July 17, 2008, the Chicago Tribune issued an investigative
report which disclosed unreported violence among juvenile
patients at the Company's Riveredge facility. As a result of the
Tribune's investigation, the Illinois Department of Children and
Family Services placed a hold on admitting youths in the custody
of the state to Riveredge. As a further result, the Department of
Justice initiated an investigation into the facility and its
operations.
Then, on February 25, 2009, Psychiatric Solutions announced
disappointing fourth quarter and year-end financial results due
to the problems at Riveredge. The Company missed its 2008 income
guidance from continuing operations of $2.02 to $2.03 per diluted
share, instead reporting $1.92 per diluted share. The guidance
miss was based upon the problems at the Company's Riveredge
facility, including the effect of the continuing hold at the
facility by DCFS, additional charges related to the investigation
and an increase in the Company's general and professional
liability reserves. On this news, Psychiatric Solutions' stock
fell $9.79 per share to close at $17.50 per share on February 26,
2009, a one-day decline of 35%.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Psychiatric Solutions common stock during the Class Period. The
plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has expertise
in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud.
Coughlin Stoia, a 190-lawyer firm with offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca Raton, Washington, D.C.,
Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in major litigations pending
in federal and state courts throughout the United States and has
taken a leading role in many important actions on behalf of
defrauded investors, consumers, and companies, as well as victims
of human rights violations. The Coughlin Stoia Web site at
http://www.csgrr.com/has more information about the firm.
CONTACT: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Darren Robbins, Esq. 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
E-mail: djr@csgrr.com
TETRA TECHNOLOGIES: Steamfitters Union Files Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that insiders of Tetra
Technologies, an oil and gas services company based in The
Woodlands, Texas, dumped more than $27 million of stock at prices
they inflated by concealing information, shareholders claim in
Harris County Court, Houston.
A copy of the Complaint in Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v.
Cunningham, et al., Case No. 2009-60322 (Tex. Dist Ct., ___ J.
Dist., Harris Cty.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/21/SCATetra.pdf
The Union is represented in this derivative action by:
Richard E. Norman, Esq.
Timothy J. Crowley, Esq.
CROWLEY NORMAN LLP
Three Riverway, Suite 1775
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: 713-651-1771
Fax: 713-651-1775
- and -
Travis E. Downs, III, Esq.
Kathleen A. Herkenhoff, Esq.
Benny C. Goodman, III, Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
UCBH HOLDINGS: Glancy Files Shareholder Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of UCBH Holdings, Inc.
(Nasdaq:UCBH) between April 24, 2008, and September 8, 2009,
inclusive.
The Complaint charges UCBH and certain of the Company's current
and former executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. UCBH operates as the bank holding company for
United Commercial Bank, which provides personal and commercial
banking services to small- and medium-sized businesses, business
executives, professionals and other individuals, and primarily
engages in generating deposits and originating loans. The
Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements
concerning UCBH's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading. Specifically, the defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that:
(1) loan terms were inappropriately modified, including the
extension of terms, the lowering of interest rates, and
the improper use of interest reserve accounts to delay
negative consequences;
(2) the Company had delayed the recognition of risk rating
downgrades and specific reserves;
(3) the Defendants misrepresented the credit risk of the
Company's loan portfolio;
(4) the Company failed to properly reserve for loan losses
and record impairment losses on non-performing loans
and other real estate owned assets;
(5) Defendants misstated the Company's loan loss provision
and related allowance, including charge-offs and the
resulting change in non-performing loan levels;
(6) the Company's financial results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles;
(7) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(8) as a result of the above, the Company's financial
statements were overstated and materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On September 8, 2009, UCBH shocked investors when the Company
disclosed the conclusions of an Investigation Subcommittee of the
Board Audit Committee regarding the recognition of impairment
losses on nonperforming loans and other real estate owned assets.
According to the Company, the Subcommittee's report identified
problems resulting both from weaknesses in the Bank's internal
controls and from deliberate and improper actions and omissions
of certain Bank Officers, and concluded that those problems were
driven by an apparent desire to downplay deteriorating financial
conditions by delaying or abating risk rating downgrades and
minimizing the Bank's overall loan loss allowance. Moreover, UCBH
disclosed that the report raised serious concerns regarding the
actions of certain current and former officers at various levels
of the Bank's management.
As a result of this news, shares of UCBH declined $0.17 per
share, or 14.29%, to close on September 8, 2009, at $1.02 per
share, on unusually heavy volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and
is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with
significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the Court, no later than November 10, 2009, to serve as lead
plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If
you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning
this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue
of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by
telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or by
e-mail to info@glancylaw.com.
A copy of the Complaint in Tran v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 09-cv-4429 (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/22/SCAUCBH.pdf
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
Michael Goldberg, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: 310-201-9150
Fax: 310-201-9160
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: 215-638-4847
Fax: 215-638-4867
UCBH HOLDINGS: Coughlin Files Investor Fraud Suit in N.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of an institutional investor in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of UCBH Holdings, Inc. publicly traded
securities during the period between April 24, 2008, and
September 8, 2009.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than 60 days from September 11, 2009. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Coughlin Stoia at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@csgrr.com. If you are a member of this
class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this
class action online at http://www.csgrr.com/cases/ucbh/.Any
member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges UCBH and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
UCBH is a bank holding company.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results and failed to record
certain loan impairments required by Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.
On April 23, 2009, the Company announced a significant increase
in its loan loss provisions. On May 18, 2009, UCBH announced
that it would restate its financial results for 2008 and the
first quarter of 2009 due to its failure to properly record loan
losses and impairments. On September 8, 2009, the Company
announced the results of an investigation by the Subcommittee of
the Board Audit Committee, which found that the restatement was
necessitated by "improper actions and omissions of certain Bank
Officers." The report also concluded that the accounting
improprieties were "driven by an apparent desire to downplay
deteriorating financial conditions by delaying or abating risk
rating downgrades and minimizing the Bank's overall loan loss
allowance." Finally, UCBH announced a consent agreement with the
FDIC and DFI relating to an order to cease and desist, which
formally outlined specific steps the Company must undertake to
strengthen its policies and procedures. As result of these
disclosures the price of UCBH common stock fell over 60%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows: (a) UCBH's loan portfolio was
materially impaired; (b) UCBH's Class Period financial statements
failed to account properly for the impairment of the Company's
loan portfolio as required by GAAP; (c) defendants' failure to
account properly for the impairment of UCBH's loan portfolio
materially inflated the Company's publicly reported net income
and earnings during the Class Period; (d) defendants deliberately
and improperly failed to account for the impairment in UCBH's
loan portfolio in order to downplay the Company's deteriorating
financial condition, delay or abate risk rating downgrades, and
minimize the Company's overall loan loss allowance; and (e) the
Company failed to implement internal controls sufficient to
prevent defendants from improperly accounting for the impairment
of the Company's loan portfolio.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
UCBH publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which
has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.
Coughlin Stoia -- http://www.csgrr.com/-- a 190-lawyer firm with
offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Boca
Raton, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Atlanta, is active in
major litigations pending in federal and state courts throughout
the United States and has taken a leading role in many important
actions on behalf of defrauded investors, consumers, and
companies, as well as victims of human rights violations.
A copy of the Complaint in Waterford Township General Employees
Retirement System v. UCBH Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No.
09-cv-______ (N.D. Calif.), is available at:
http://www.csgrr.com/cases/ucbh/complaint.pdf
The lawyers representing Waterford are:
Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
100 Pine Street, 26th Floor
Dan Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-288-4545
- and -
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
David C. Walton, Esq.
Matthew P. Montgomery, Esq.
COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619-231-1058
*********
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. Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda 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 * * *