February 2009 Archives

Larry Lattig, Litigation Trustee for the First Magnus Financial Corporation Litigation Trust, through his lawyers, Lackey Hershman, L.L.P., filed a $1 billion lawsuit today against more than 40 defendants, including the former directors and officers of First Magnus Financial Corporation, and their new mortgage company, StoneWater Mortgage Corporation. Prior to its bankruptcy filing on August 21, 2007, First Magnus was one of the largest originators of "Alt-A" mortgages in the country and had over 5,500 employees nationwide.

The lawsuit alleges that First Magnus and "the rest of America" were "victimized by the avarice and greed of seven men -- Gurpreet Jaggi, Thomas Sullivan, Sr., Thomas Sullivan, Jr., Bill Gaylord, Gary Malis, Dominick Marchetti and Karl Young" and that "these seven men paid themselves hundreds of millions of dollars based on completely fictitious profits." The lawsuit, nearly 200 pages and containing more than 90 counts, details how the directors and officers stripped First Magnus of capital when it was required to reserve for repurchase and indemnity obligations owed to the commercial banks that financed the loans and the Wall Street firms that purchased them.

Lead counsel for the Litigation Trust, Jamie R. Welton, said, "The complaint details how the directors and officers originated bad loans, in the worst markets, paid themselves hundreds of millions in stock redemptions, bonuses, and distributions when they sold the loans to Wall Street, and then said 'sorry Charlie, we're broke' when Wall Street asked for their money back. Now the taxpayers are holding the bag. It's not right. It's why the economy is in the mess it's in. We will make certain that the creditors of First Magnus, including the thousands of employees left unpaid, recover every last penny they are owed from these defendants."

Most of the former First Magnus employees did not receive their final paychecks and had little to no warning from management that they were about to lose their jobs. According to the complaint, more than $22 million remained available on a line of credit from the parent company owned by the directors and officers prior to the bankruptcy filing, "more than enough to pay the approximately $13 million in would-be wage claims in full."

The complaint describes spending by the directors and officers that "would make even the most pampered and precocious movie star blush," including an entire wing of the headquarters building located at 603 N. Wilmot called the "Sullivan Wing" decorated in rich wood and marble, a $170,000 waterfall, a $16,000 fish tank, an air-conditioned garage for the officers, extensive personal use of corporate jets, and an all-expense-paid trip to a Hawaiian resort approximately two weeks prior to the bankruptcy filing. The lawsuit also details significant accounting errors, the theft of Debtor's proprietary materials during the bankruptcy, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

SOURCE Lackey Hershman, L.L.P.

Katzman Garfinkel Rosenbaum won a $20 million verdict against QBE Insurance Company in Miami on February 13, 2009. Two weeks of testimony in Federal court resulted in the largest verdict ever against QBE for hurricane damage. The residents of Buckley Towers condominium association are ecstatic after having their claims denied since 2005. Founding Partner, Alan Garfinkel who heads up the firm's Insurance Disputes and Natural Disaster Law practice group is based in Central Florida. Their law firm represents thousands of hurricane victims and community associations throughout the state.

"Taking a closer look at repairs needed that were caused by the 2004 devastating hurricanes may help condominium associations on Central Florida, who are struggling to meet financial obligations in this economy," stressed Mr. Garfinkel. Florida law allows policy owners up to five years from the date of loss to file or re-open hurricane insurance claims. It is critical that associations, homeowners and businesses impacted by the storms of 2004 get a second opinion on their insurance claim. "You may have walked away from insurance proceeds that are rightfully owed to you, Insurance companies are hoping you forget that you still have rights to assert a claim, or believe that your claim did not exceed the deductible," Garfinkel went on to say.

DEADLINE FOR ANYONE QUESTIONING WHETHER THEIR CLAIMS WERE PROPERLY ADJUSTED OR THOSE WHO NEVER FILED CLAIMS ARE:

HURRICANE CHARLIE: STATUE OF LIMITATIONS - AUGUST 12, 2009

HURRICANE FRANCES: STATUE OF LIMITATIONS - SEPTEMBER 3, 2009

HURRICANE JEANNE: STATUE OF LIMITATIONS - SEPTEMBER 25, 2009

The statutory deadlines for damages caused by these hurricanes is quickly approaching. Boards, particularly new ones not seated at the time of the hurricanes, would be well advised to have their property inspected as soon as possible. This will ensure they were paid in full by their insurance company or provide ammunition needed to recover amounts still owed. For more information regarding the statutory deadlines for hurricanes Charlie, Frances and Jeanne, please visit our website at www.kgrlawfirm.com or call us toll free at 1 800 393 1529.

Attorney Garfinkel will hold a press conference next week to answer questions regarding this unprecedented verdict and to also provide critical information to families and condominium associations questioning whether their claims were properly adjusted.

SOURCE Katzman Garfinkel Rosenbaum

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP ("Hagens Berman") (www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif) filed a class-action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Colorado against Oppenheimer Funds on behalf of investors. The suit, captioned Ron Jansen v. Oppenheimer Funds, Inc. (Nasdaq: OPCHX), filed in U.S. District Court of Colorado, is on behalf of two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period of Nov. 1, 2006 to Dec. 31, 2008. The suit claims Oppenheimer, which runs the Oppenheimer Champion Income Fund ("The Fund"), misled investors about the Fund's investment style and risky investments resulting in an 82 percent collapse of the Fund's value. The lawsuit identifies the following funds as affected: A Shares (OPCHX), B Shares (OCHBX), C Shares (OCHCX), N Shares (OCHNX) and Y Shares (OCHYX).

The lawsuit alleges defendants marketed and sold the fund as a conservative high-income fund, portraying it as diversified and higher yielding. Plaintiff's claim fund managers failed to disclose the true risk of the fund, which took gambles on mortgage-backed securities and illiquid derivatives that ultimately led to the fund's collapse.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 25, 2009. If you wish to consider joining this action as lead plaintiff, discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Reed Kathrein of Hagens Berman at 510/725-3000 or via e-mail oppenheimer@hbsslaw.com.

You can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at www.hbsslawsecurities.com/ocif. Any member of the purported 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. Although your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision whether or not to seek appointment as a lead plaintiff, lead plaintiffs make important decisions that could affect the overall recovery for class members, including decisions concerning settlement. The securities laws require the Court to consider the class member(s) with the largest financial interest as presumptively the most adequate lead plaintiff(s).

Beginning in July 2008, shares declined as did other high-yield funds as the credit crunch exposed the volatility and collapse of mortgage-related investments. The Champion Fund continued to fall further as Lehman Brothers Holdings and other institutions collapsed.

Overall, the Fund experienced an 82 percent drop. Compared to other high-yield funds that averaged a drop of 32 percent in 2008, The Champion Fund experienced an almost $2 billion drop in assets in 15 months.

The complaint sites several misleading representations of the fund from defendants including, 'In selecting securities for the Fund, the overall strategy is to build a broadly diversified portfolio to help moderate the special risks of investing in high-yield debt instruments.' Plaintiffs claim the fund collapsed because fund managers targeted highly risky derivatives in an effort to 'pump returns.'

Hagens Berman seeks to represent two classes of shareholders, one under state law claiming breach of contract and secondly all fund purchasers during the outlined period. The lawsuit represents investors who purchased or held shares between Nov. 1, 2006 and Dec. 31, 2008.

The suit contends Oppenheimer violated state laws when it changed the fund's fundamental policies, a move requiring the vote of a majority of the fund's outstanding voting securities. The fund's policy says it cannot invest 25 percent or more of its total assets in one industry. The suit claims in late 2006, the fund concentrated more than 25 percent of its total assets in high-risk mortgage backed securities and failed to obtain approval from a majority of shareholders.

SOURCE Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

A pending application to the New York Supreme Court seeks to force Google to divulge the identity of an anonymous blogger because of a few comments made on the Internet on one single day. The application brings to the fore the need to ensure that First Amendment free-speech protections continue to extend to anonymous web-based commentary.

A hearing on the motion to reveal the anonymous blogger's identity is scheduled for Wednesday, February 25th. The petitioner, fashion model Liskula Cohen, alleges that references to her as a "skank" and "ho" on the website "Skanks in NYC" constitutes actionable libel under New York law and on that ground seeks to unmask the anonymous blogger.

 

"Despite its seemingly petty underpinnings, this case carries serious implications," says Debra J. Guzov, co-founder of Guzov Ofsink, LLC, which is defending the anonymous blogger. "We strongly believe that if the plaintiff were to succeed in her efforts, it would move toward the erosion of our basic constitutional right to anonymous free speech."

Anonymity and the Internet

The Cohen proceeding could potentially have a chilling effect on anonymous commentary made all over the Internet. "Ideas are exchanged freely on the Internet in large part because participants can speak using assumed names or no name at all," says Ms. Guzov. She adds that anonymity not only encourages democratic discourse and allows dissenters from majority opinion to share their minority views, but it also provides vital protection from the fear of political, economic or even physical retribution for espousing those views.

"The Internet has become the predominant forum in modern society for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, however absurd, profane, insulting or rhetorical," says Anne W. Salisbury, a Guzov Ofsink attorney who specializes in First Amendment cases. "We do not have to condone everything people say on the Internet, but we must respect their right to say it."

Courts all over the country have already ruled that words such as "skank," "pimp," "tramp" and "douchebag" are not defamatory, especially in the context of blogs and other online commentary. "Context matters," Ms. Guzov notes. "Indeed, in this particular case, no reasonable person visiting a web site entitled 'Skanks in NYC' would expect to find assertions of verifiable facts."

SOURCE Guzov Ofsink, LLC

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, by Order dated January 30, 2009, has appointed Wolf Popper LLP, Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP and Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP interim lead counsel on behalf of investors in the Fairfield Sentry Limited fund ("Fairfield Sentry") and the Greenwich Sentry Partners, L.P. fund ("Greenwich Sentry"), and ordered that the three pending class actions filed on behalf of Fairfield Sentry and Greenwich Sentry investors be consolidated into one action under Master File No. 09 CV 0118 (VM). Named as defendants in those actions are the Fairfield Greenwich Group, three of its corporate affiliates, and certain of their officers and partners, including Walter Noel, Jr. Claims have also been asserted against Fairfield Sentry's administrator, Citco Fund Services (Europe) B.V.

The complaints in the pending actions allege claims related to losses incurred as a result of the admitted "Ponzi scheme" orchestrated by Bernard L. Madoff. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants did not perform the necessary due diligence before and after placing $7.3 billion in assets under Madoff's "management."

If you hold shares of Fairfield Sentry or Greenwich Sentry, or if you have information that would assist us in the investigation of these claims against the Fairfield Greenwich Group and its affiliates, you may contact:

    Wolf Popper LLP - James A. Harrod
    845 Third Avenue - New York, NY 10022
    Tel.: 212.759.4600 - Toll Free: 877.370.7703
    Fax: 212.486.2093 - Toll Free Fax: 877.370.7704
    Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com - website: www.wolfpopper.com

    Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP - website: www.bsfllp.com
    Stuart H. Singer
    401 E. Las Olas Blvd. - Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2211
    Tel.: 954.356.0011 - Fax: 954.356.0022
    Email: ssinger@bsfllp.com

    David A. Barrett
    575 Lexington Avenue - New York, NY 10022
    Tel.: 212.446.2310 - Fax: 212.446.2350
    Email: dbarrett@bsfllp.com;

    Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP - Victor E. Stewart
    61 Broadway, Suite 501 - New York, NY 10006
    Tel.: 201.445.3661 / 212.608.1900 - Fax: 212.719.4775
    Email: victornj@ix.netcom.com - website: www.lshllp.com
SOURCE Wolf Popper LLP

Marcus Rayner, Executive Director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, today issued the following statement in reaction to the New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in Bosland v. Warnock Dodge Inc., which resolved the question of whether consumers are required to ask merchants for a refund before filing a lawsuit under the Consumer Fraud Act:

"The Court's ruling in this case is yet another blow to common sense in New Jersey. This decision makes New Jersey employers an even bigger target for frivolous lawsuits, because now even the most minor business disputes that could be easily resolved will be escalated to our courts.

"This particular case involved a car dealer overcharging a customer for registration fees by about $40. Instead of asking the dealer for a refund, the customer went straight to the courtroom. New Jerseyans understand that encouraging consumers to sue as a first resort is a significant abuse of our legal system, especially when damages are minimal and there is a reasonable option for settlement.

"The victims of this decision will be consumers, who can look forward to higher prices as businesses pass on new liability costs. It's time we did more to protect consumers - not trial lawyers looking for new ways to fill their pocketbooks."

The New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance (NJLRA) is a statewide, bipartisan group of businesses, individuals and organizations committed to improving the State's civil justice system by advocating for legal reforms in the legislature and in the courts. NJLRA believes a balanced civil justice system is critical to ensuring fair and open courts, maintaining and attracting jobs and fostering economic growth in New Jersey. NJLRA is the only organization in New Jersey dedicated exclusively to civil justice reform.

SOURCE New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 / -- The father of eight year-old twin boys, who were poisoned as infants when WASA provided their homes with lead-contaminated tap water which their father then used to make their formula, today has filed a class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against the Washington DC Water and Sewer Authority (WASA).

John Parkhurst filed the complaint on behalf of himself and other parents of children in the District affected by the dangerous levels of lead in the community's drinking water during the period of 2001 through 2004. Dr. Parkhurst is represented in the matter by David Sanford, Steven Wittels, Jeremy Heisler, Stefanie Roemer, Katherine Kimpel and Felicia Medina of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP, a leading national class action law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., NYC and San Francisco.

According to the complaint, one independent expert has characterized the long-standing water contamination and WASA's efforts to keep its customers in the dark about the contamination and its consequences as perhaps "the largest environmental crime in U.S. history."

"In June 2001, WASA discovered that that toxic levels of lead were leaching into the District's drinking water," said Stefanie Roemer of Sanford Wittels & Heisler. "Not only did the Authority fail to eliminate this danger, it actually took affirmative steps to hide the lead contamination from its customers and federal authorities. At the same time, WASA encouraged the public to consume this dangerous product. As a result, tens of thousands of children and pregnant mothers faced elevated risks for years longer than they should have. WASA's actions endangered thousands of children living in the District between 2001 and 2004, many of whom, like Jonathan and Joshua Parkhurst, are now profoundly affected by their ingestion of this highly poisonous element."

The filing details a range of defects associated with lead poisoning in children, including decreased growth, speech and balance problems, below-average learning skills, reduced IQ levels, loss of executive function, hyperactivity and brain damage. It cites a recent study by Dana Best, M.D., of Children's National Medical Center and Marc Edwards, Ph.D. and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech that found elevated levels of lead in the District's children are directly correlated to the amount of D.C. drinking water to which they had been exposed.

"For the first time, parents know who is to blame for the poisoning of their children. The recent study shows that when the levels of lead in the District's water spiked, there was a 10-fold increase in elevated blood levels of our District's children," said Kate Kimpel, a former D.C. public school teacher now an attorney at Sanford Wittels & Heisler. "Rather than protect our children, WASA undertook Herculean efforts to shield itself from liability and to otherwise deny responsibility for seven and a half years. Through this lawsuit, parents like Dr. Parkhurst will be able to hold WASA accountable and will be able to get the help their children so desperately need."

Jonathan and Joshua Parkhurst first showed evidence of lead poisoning in 2002, at their two-year-old medical checkup. Both boys have experienced serious and continuing behavioral and learning difficulties and both have been diagnosed with significant problems in attention, learning and executive functioning. The current total cost for their medication and therapy is $30,000 to $40,000 a year; assuming no increase in the costs of medication and therapy going forward, by the time the children reach 18 years of age, Dr. Parkhurst will have spent approximately $500,000.00 in combined costs of medication and therapy.

The suit seeks injunctive relief, $200 million in compensatory damages, and an unspecified amount of money in punitive damages from WASA for failing to notify Dr. Parkhurst and other parents of young children in the District about the presence and prevalence of lead in its drinking water, as well as failing to notify plaintiffs about the dangers associated with consuming D.C. water; failing to take appropriate measures to remedy the dangers inherent in consuming the District's water; and continuing to cover up the severity and adverse consequences of the contamination from 2001 to the present. The relief sought for all members of the class includes establishing a system of ongoing medical monitoring and care for the children poisoned by the contaminated water and establishing a system of targeted educational intervention and services for children poisoned by lead in the contaminated water.

SOURCE Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

ATLANTA, Feb. 13 / -- A former Assistant United States Attorney, Aaron Danzig, has been accused of grossly overreached in his investigation in the case versus Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals and its executives. According to a lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court case number 2009CV164522, it has resulted in the wrongful death of Jessica Holda, the wife of Hi-Tech Vice President, Tom Holda. Defendant Aaron Danzig tried to get Jessica Holda to cooperate against her husband, but was notified in writing that she was not interested. Defendant Danzig then launched a full scale campaign against Jessica Holda to intimidate her into providing information against her husband, under the threat that she would be indicted, tried, sent to jail, and thus denied visitation with her infant daughter. The complaint alleges that Defendant Danzig had personal conversations, without knowledge or permission of counsel, wherein the Defendant urged Jessica Holda to inspect the house in which she lived to make copies of various documents which were the forwarded to Defendant. It is also alleged that Defendant Danzig directed warrantless searches by Drug Enforcement Administration personnel and installation of secret listening devices in Jessica's home and automobile. As time passed Jessica became more paranoid and fearful that she would be arrested and her infant daughter would be taken away from her. Aaron Danzig also had the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services come to her home in an attempt to have the couple's 1 1/2-year-old daughter removed from her custody. In the morning of February 19, 2007 Jessica Holda committed suicide with a gun she bought in December. In her suicide note, she stated that she had done nothing wrong. All she did was "trade a car." She went on to say: "I hope Aaron Danzig feels some kind of remorse. I blame him with my struggles of wanting to live." This lawsuit was brought by Jeffrey Alan Jones, as executor of the Estate of Jessica Rose Hollibaugh Holda for the benefit of Amber Stephania Holda. The lawsuit charges Aaron Danzig for infliction of emotional distress upon Jessica Holda and Wrongful Death. It is alleged the conduct was intentional and reckless; and was extreme and outrageous for a public official, officer of the Court, and an attorney for the United States Government. Aaron Danzig is now a partner in the Atlanta law firm Arnall Golden Gregory. At the time of Jessica Holda's death she was 27 years old.

DALLAS, Feb. 12 / -- Valentine's Day isn't always a celebration of undying romantic love. This year, family law attorneys in Texas are exploring ways that disputing couples can play nice, whether they stay together or are torn asunder.

For decades, litigation was the only avenue for parties in trouble. The couples would simply load their weapons and come out blazing. During the 1990s, collaborative law was developed as a viable alternative to litigation, offering a more civilized form of divorce for parties who didn't want to hate each other after they parted.

"Collaborative law (CL) is more private and confidential than the traditional litigation process," says Kevin Fuller, president of the Collaborative Law Institute of Texas, "and it usually makes better use of your time and money."

Cases handled under CL operate outside the court system, and the parties are much less likely to cause irreparable damage to family relationships than in contested litigation. This is especially important when there are children in the marriage or the couple owns a business together.

"In some cases, people come to us wanting a divorce and wind up reconciling," says Fuller, a board certified family lawyer with the firm of Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson in Dallas. "Reconciliation can be a natural part of this process. Let's say that a couple comes to us because they argue over money. The CL process is designed to allow people to look at disagreements in a new light. They might decide to reconcile and we work out a post-marital agreement that spells out how they are going to handle the finances."

A recent story in Texas Lawyer tells about a new effort to establish a third track of family law known as reconciliation law (RL), and the founding of an organization called the Peaceful Family Law Practice Group.

With RL, there is a willingness to save the marriage whenever possible. Parties voluntarily enter into a legally binding agreement to work on the relationship. If the attorneys can't settle a CL case, they must withdraw and let different attorneys take the case into court. In RL, if the parties decide not to get back together, the attorneys can finish the case.

Whatever their differences, though, their goals are the same for Valentine's Day and every other day: allow families to avoid the potential head-on collision of divorce litigation.

SOURCE Koons, Fuller, Vanden Eykel & Robertson

TROY, Mich., Feb. 11 / -- A former decorated U.S. Marine Sergeant filed a 10 million dollar claim against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on Friday, February 6, 2009 for being harassed and targeted because of his faith as a Muslim. Sgt. Affraz Mohammed was falsely accused, prosecuted, and later acquitted during court martial proceedings for allegedly attempting to purchase an unlicensed firearm.

During his wrongful prosecution, and because of his faith, Sgt. Mohammed was repeatedly harassed and tormented for being a Muslim and was repeatedly called a "Terrorist" and a "Taliban Marine." Sgt. Mohammed, who had an exemplary record with the Marines, was honorably discharged because he has been rendered disabled for suffering from extreme mental and emotional distress from the mental torture he had to endure.

Commenting on Sgt. Mohammed's ordeal, Mr. Shereef Akeel, his attorney said "This mistreatment of a decorated United States Marine who served his country with honors and distinction is shameful and simply unacceptable. This man should have been commended for protecting out borders with pride, not targeted because of his faith."

Akeel and Valentine, PLC has specialized in many civil rights and discrimination cases. For more information on this or other cases, please contact Akeel & Valentine, PLC, at (248) 269-9595 or visit their website at www.akeelvalentine.com

CWA union officials threaten financial penalties against independent-minded workers; national group announces offer of free legal aid

MORRISTOWN, N.J., Feb. 10 / -- Responding to employee reports across America of union intimidation, a national organization announced today that it will provide free legal assistance to AT&T Mobility employees who are threatened with fines for exercising their right to go to their jobs during an imminent national strike.

Communication Workers of America (CWA) union officials may order 20,000 AT&T employees to abandon their jobs at any moment. Numerous employees across America have contacted National Right to Work Foundation attorneys for advice after being falsely informed that they have no right to resign from formal union membership and will face hefty fines as union members if they choose to do their jobs during the strike.

Foundation attorneys have already helped two New Jersey AT&T employees file unfair labor practice charges against the Communications Workers of America (CWA) Local 1101 union for this misconduct.

Under the Supreme Court decision Pattern Makers v. NLRB, workers have an absolute right to resign from formal, full dues-paying membership at any time. Union officials' attempts to block workers from resigning clearly violate this precedent. Union officials have no legal power to punish nonmember employees for honoring their commitments to their employer.

Union officials have told CWA union members in Washington, Michigan, Ohio and New Jersey that any attempt to resign from union membership is prohibited. In Ohio, CWA bosses responded to one worker's inquiry by telling him that he was employed in a "forced union" state. Foundation attorneys anticipate filing additional unfair labor practice charges for these union-abused workers in the coming weeks.

Moreover, union officials informed workers that anyone who refuses to follow strike orders will be subject to exorbitant financial penalties. In previous Foundation cases, union strike fines have exceeded thousands of dollars per worker per day.

The charges filed by Foundation attorneys seek an immediate injunction from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to prevent CWA union bosses from stopping workers' voluntary resignations. The charges also call for a rescission of any disciplinary action taken against workers attempting to resign, a repeal of the union's illegal rules preventing workers from resigning union membership and a notice informing all employees of their legal right to resign from the union at any time.

"It's particularly despicable to threaten workers with fines if they refuse to abandon their jobs in the midst of an economic crisis," said Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "All workers should be free to support their families, free from ugly threats by union bosses."

"The National Right to Work Foundation stands ready to defend the rights of any AT&T employee who is being illegally threatened or coerced by CWA union bosses," added Gleason.

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in over 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is www.nrtw.org.

SOURCE National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation

BOSTON, Feb. 5 / -- The national law firm of Gilman and Pastor LLP (http://www.gilmanpastor.com) with offices in Boston, Massachusetts, and Naples, Florida, announces that a class action lawsuit has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased American International Group, herein ("AIG") Series FP Structured Notes (the "Notes") through several major investment banking firms since November 17, 2006. The latest wave of failed and fraudulent investments involves "structured investments". Such structured notes subjected investors to significantly more risk than may have been disclosed. Holders of these notes face losses, in some cases, of their entire principal investments. Gilman and Pastor LLP is finding that many investors have not been aware of their financial plights since their financial statements generally have not reflected current value but only alleged value at maturity.

Gilman and Pastor LLP is investigating over thirty (30) structured note issuers and more than forty (40) banks who have issued or sold structured offerings. These include:

    ABN AMBO Bank N.V.                Incapital LLC
    AIG                               JP Morgan Chase
    Bank of America                   Lehman Brothers
    Barclays Bank                     Merrill Lynch
    Bear Stearns                      Morgan Keegan
    Charles Schwab                    Morgan Stanley
    Citigroup                         RBC Royal Bank
    Countrywide Securities            Societe Generale
    Credit Suisse                     Sun Trust Bank
    Deutsche Bank                     UBS
    E-Trade                           Wachovia Corporation
    Harris National Association

"We are identifying offerings that made serious misstatements and omissions of material fact and deceived investors as to the risks of investing in these notes," Gilman and Pastor LLP said in a statement. The structured investments were generally offered and sold as suitable for investors seeking to protect their entire principal investment. Issuers and sellers allegedly touted and emphasized the protection of principal as a chief objective, when investors are now learning they may be at risk for losing virtually all of their investment. Investors should act promptly to protect their interests.

For nearly 30 years, Gilman and Pastor LLP has been one of the nation's leading firms representing investors in securities fraud actions and litigation to correct egregious corporate practices and breaches of fiduciary duty to investors. To discuss investment losses that exceed $100,000, contact us in confidence by calling (888) 252-0048 or online as follows:

   For More Information as to Specific Offerings, see
   http://structuredproductsinvestmentfraud.com and
   http://www.structured-investment.com 
SOURCE Gilman and Pastor LLP

Third Largest Penalty for Discharge Permit Violations

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Patriot Coal Corporation, one of the largest coal mining companies in the United States, has agreed to pay a $6.5 million civil penalty to settle violations of the Clean Water Act, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the state of West Virginia announced today.

The settlement includes the third largest penalty ever paid in a federal Clean Water Act case for discharge permit violations. In addition, Patriot has agreed to extensive measures designed to ensure Clean Water Act compliance at its mines in West Virginia. The consent decree includes innovative and heightened operating standards which should serve as a model for the coal mining industry in Central Appalachia.

"This settlement represents a very important step in making sure that the coal mining industry is in compliance with the Clean Water Act," said John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division. "It will benefit the citizens of West Virginia and helps make sure that the Mountain State's streams and rivers are not damaged."

"This settlement continues to set the bar high for the coal industry and Clean Water Act enforcement in general. Today's settlement reiterates EPA's commitment to maintaining clean and healthy waterways," said William T. Wisniewski, acting Regional Administrator for EPA's mid-Atlantic region.

In a joint complaint filed concurrently with the consent decree, the United States and the State of West Virginia alleged that Patriot violated its Clean Water Act permits more than 1,400 times -- representing over 22,000 days of violations between January 2003 and December 2007 at its mining complexes in West Virginia. During this time, Patriot and its subsidiaries allegedly discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment, and other pollutants into dozens of rivers and streams in West Virginia. Excess discharges of these pollutants can significantly harm water quality and aquatic life in West Virginia's streams.

As part of the settlement, Patriot has agreed to implement extensive measures to prevent future violations and to perform environmental projects, at a total estimated cost of $6 million. Specifically, Patriot will develop and implement a company-wide compliance-focused environmental management system including creating a database to track information relevant to compliance efforts; conduct regular internal and third-party environmental compliance audits; implement a system of tiered response actions for any possible future violations; and conduct annual training for all employees and contractors with environmental responsibilities. The company will also perform five stream restoration projects in local watersheds and perform assessments of mining impacts on aquatic life.

With corporate headquarters in St. Louis, Patriot owns and operates 16 mining complexes in West Virginia and Kentucky.

The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court. A copy of the consent decree is available on the Department of Justice Web site at: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice