Recently in Class Action Category

Lawyers at the Houston-based complex commercial litigation law firm of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos are announcing a class-action lawsuit filed today on behalf of shareholders in Pride International Inc. in an effort to stop what the lawsuit alleges is an unfairly priced drilling sector merger announced with Ensco plc.

The shareholder class-action lawsuit filed in Harris County court alleges Pride's directors breached their fiduciary duty to shareholders by agreeing to a low share price and a restrictive merger contract that would preclude other offers.

On February 7, Houston-based deepwater drilling company Pride and British oil rig contractor Ensco jointly announced an agreement for Ensco to buy Pride for about $7 billion. The transaction is expected to close as early as the second quarter of 2011. The lawsuit asks the court to stop the merger to protect shareholders.

AZA partners Demetrios Anaipakos, Amir Alavi and John Zavitsanos filed the case with David A.P. Brower and Brian C. Kerr of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation in New York.

The lawsuit is Cary M. Abrams, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pride International, Inc., et. al., 113th District Court, Harris County, No. 2011-08672.

Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos is a Houston-based law firm that is home to true courtroom lawyers with a formidable track record in complex commercial litigation including energy, intellectual property, securities fraud, construction, and business dispute cases. AZA is one of only 32 firms in the U.S. to be recognized as "awesome opponents" in a nationwide poll of corporate general counsel who were asked to name the law firms they hope their companies never have to face in court. In fact, AZA has been hired often by the same companies the firm has prevailed against at trial. More information about the firm can be found at http://www.azalaw.com/index.html.

With offices in New York City and Baltimore County, Maryland, Brower Piven focuses on complex class action cases and other representative litigation. Brower Piven's experience ranges from representing institutional and large private investors to small individual investors and retail consumers, in complex commercial litigation and on corporate governance matters. Clients and classes represented by attorneys at Brower Piven have recovered more than $1 billion in past and pending recoveries. More information about Brower Piven can be found at the firm's website, www.browerpiven.com. SOURCE Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos

The following is being issued by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC:

Lead women plaintiffs in the sex discrimination case against Wal-Mart (Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) today filed a briefing opposing Wal-Mart's request to the U.S. Supreme Court that it review a lower court's class action decision.

In April 2010, after nearly a decade of pre-trial wrangling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of class action status for the case.  The lawsuit alleges systemic discrimination against women in compensation and promotions at Wal-Mart and its subsidiary, Sam's Club. It is the largest civil rights class action in history.  Wal-Mart has lost the class action issue four times before the U.S. District and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"This latest appeal is just another attempt to delay the case," said Betty Dukes, a Pittsburg, Calif., Wal-Mart greeter for whom the case is named. "After nearly 10 years, the women of Wal-Mart deserve our day in court."

The brief filed in opposition to Wal-Mart's Petition argues that the Ninth Circuit ruling upholding the class was proper.  It states that Wal-Mart ignores the compelling facts that led the trial court--in a detailed 84-page opinion--to conclude that there was significant proof to raise an inference of company-wide pay and promotion discrimination.  The evidence also showed that Wal-Mart lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women and long knew of the discrimination against its female employees but failed to act.

Wal-Mart's real argument, ultimately, is that "it is too big to be held accountable," according to the women's brief.  "The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation's largest employer and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner."  

The brief also states that the class certification decision in this case does not threaten employers with good records on diversity or open the floodgates to class actions.

"In fact, in the nearly four years since the Ninth Circuit first affirmed Dukes in February 2007, not a single Title VII class action - small or large - has been certified within the Ninth Circuit.  In the same four-year time period, nine Title VII class actions have been certified in the federal courts across the entire country - about two cases a year.  Only four of these cases involved private corporate employers.

"The very small number of Title VII class action cases certified in the recent past underscores another important point...  It highlights how different Wal-Mart is from the typical employer. Wal-Mart is a uniquely large and unusually uniform and centralized company."  Wal-Mart has lagged far behind its competitors in its promotion of women. The evidence against Wal-Mart fully supports a class action.

The Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to take the case by the end of the year.

For more information and a copy of the Opposition brief, visit www.walmartclass.com.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs are represented by The Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, DC; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco; Davis Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco; Public Justice Center, Baltimore; and Tinkler Law Firm and Merit Bennett, Santa Fe, N.M.   SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities of China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited (NYSE Amex: NEP) ("China North" or the "Company"), who purchased or otherwise acquired China North securities between August 14, 2009 and May 26, 2010, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges China North and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. China North is an independent, non-state-owned oil production company that engages in oil drilling project management including the exploration and the extraction of crude oil in proven oilfields in Northern China.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:  (1) that a Company officer and a Company director engineered significant improper cash transfers between the Company's bank accounts and their personal accounts; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.  

On May 27, 2010, China North issued a press release disclosing that in 2009, a Company officer and a Company director had engineered significant improper cash transfers between bank accounts of the Company and their personal accounts.  The Company also disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer was placed on administrative leave and that he had stepped down as Chairman of the Board, both pending the outcome of the Company's forensic audit.  In addition, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer and a director had resigned.  As a result of this event and a serious of other adverse events, China North's stock has been halted and investors have suffered significant losses.  

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country.  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than August 10, 2010, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  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. 

Civil rights attorney Waukeen McCoy received a favorable ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week, reversing Judge Susan Illston's sanctions because the District Court violated his constitutional right to due process of law.

In 2007, after a 5-year fight with FedEx, McCoy's clients - Edward Alvarado, Pernell Evans and Charlotte Boswell - received jury awards in the amount of $500,000, $975,000, and $3,000,000 respectively.  Also in 2007, McCoy achieved a $55 million settlement in a class action law suit against FedEx.

In December 2009, Judge Susan Illston, sanctioned McCoy $25,000 because she alleged "Mr. McCoy attempted to avoid rigorous scrutiny of his reported hours," claiming that McCoy submitted false time records for statutory attorney's fees.  Alvarado et al v. FedEx (3:04-cv-00098-SI)

However, on June 17, 2010, the Ninth Circuit reversed Illston's sanctions with prejudice and remanded the case back to the District Court, handing down an additional blow to FedEx.  The Court found that the sanctions imposed by Judge Ilston were "criminal in nature" because they were "intended to punish McCoy for his conduct and to vindicate the court's authority and integrity of the judicial process, not to compensate FedEx for losses sustained or to coerce McCoy into compliance with a court order."

A point of contention in the matter was whether McCoy filed false declarations of his time records, which are used in the Court's assessment of attorney's fees.  According to McCoy, it would have been impossible to submit contemporaneous time records for the three prevailing parties - Alvarado, Evans and Boswell - because the matter originated as a multi-plaintiff case in which McCoy represented 24 FedEx employees.  The majority of McCoy's legal preparation was for the group benefit as a whole rather than one plaintiff in particular.  At no time did McCoy attempt to mislead the Court by claiming that he kept contemporaneous time records.  

When one party files false declarations, the opposing party may file a Rule 11 motion to request that the Judge impose sanctions.  To challenge McCoy's time records filing, FedEx ignored this established remedy, which would have allowed McCoy to respond or correct the problem. Instead FedEx filed an Inherent Powers motion which allowed Judge Ilston to bypass the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to impose sanctions and deny McCoy his due process.  

McCoy avers that Judge Ilston maintains a personal vendetta against him.  Despite lacking customary justifications for choosing to seal documents, Ilston selectively sealed only documents related to the payments of attorneys' fees and the amount of money the class representatives received in Satchell, a related case. McCoy calls for more transparency in the Court's records so that the public can witness the District Court's abuse of power.  

SOURCE Law Offices of Waukeen Q. McCoy

A class action lawsuit alleging that the Detroit Police Department (DPD) systematically abused and mistreated arrestees was filed on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 in the United States Federal Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. A copy of the complaint is available at www.fhwnlaw.com.

The suit, Jonathan Brown, et al v. City of Detroit, was filed by the Chicago law firm of Loevy & Loevy and the Troy, Michigan law firm of Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro.  The suit alleges that thousands of individuals were arrested and denied basic constitutional rights by the DPD from May 27, 2007 through the present date.  A similar class action lawsuit against the Chicago Police Department recently settled for $16.5 million.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the DPD engaged in a repeated pattern of detaining individuals for long periods of time - often in excess of 48 hours - without allowing them access to a judge.  These individuals were denied food, water, and sleep during their detentions.  The complaint charges that these inhumane conditions were often used to obtain false confessions from suspects, while genuine perpetrators were left free to continue committing crimes.

The suit has three classes of plaintiffs.  Class one is comprised of thousands of people who were detained by the DPD overnight or for more than 16 hours in a 24-hour period and who were deprived of basic human needs for rest and hygiene.   Plaintiffs in the second class were arrested by the DPD and detained in excess of 48 hours without a judicial determination of probable cause.  The third group of plaintiffs consists of individuals detained by the DPD in excess of 24 hours without being provided at least two meals.

More than 42,000 gallons of oil have been leaking daily following a massive explosion on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, with the potential to cause major economic and environmental damage

Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit (AL-2010-CR256941) against British Petroleum ("BP") and several other companies with ties to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The firm seeks to represent individuals and businesses that have incurred damages related to the disaster, including;  real property damages; personal property damages; loss of profits and earning capacity; loss of commercial and subsistence use of natural resources; increased costs of public services; and, loss of revenues.

The oil spill resulted from the explosion and sinking of the oil platform Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20th. Coast Guard officials estimate 5,000 barrels a day are leaking into the Gulf. The oil slick made landfall in southern Louisiana early Friday and is expected to reach Mississippi and Alabama within the coming days.

Experts are calling this the worst environmental crisis since the Exxon Valdez and are predicting the economic impact to be greater than that associated with hurricane Katrina. They estimate the massive oil spill has the potential to negatively affect the entire Gulf coastline. This includes a negative economic impact on thousands who earn their livelihood in the fishing industry, as well as tourism, itself a major industry along the scenic oceanfront. Additionally, the environmental impact is expected to be severe, with oil and byproducts damaging fragile marshlands, marine and bird life.

"We are calling on the Alabama congressional delegation to do everything in their power to speed federal resources to the Gulf coast in order to minimize damage to the environment and the thousands of families that depend on these waters for their livelihood. Our thoughts and prayers are with responders," said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley Allen.

Beasley Allen has an experienced Toxic Tort section that includes lawyers and staff who have handled numerous environmental disaster cases. Protection of people, their property, and their livelihood from large corporate polluters is one of Beasley Allen's top priorities. Our attorneys are fighting to make a difference in the lives of those threatened by environmental pollution. We currently are handling class action litigation against the Tennessee Valley Authority in the largest coal ash spill in U.S. history. These are difficult cases, but Beasley Allen is fighting to make a difference. From the largest toxic tort settlement in U.S. history for PCB contamination - $700 million - to a $20.7 million verdict against Continental Carbon for air pollution, Beasley Allen is playing a significant role in toxic tort cases.

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. ("LDK Solar"; NYSE: LDK), a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, announced today that it has reached an agreement to settle the securities class action lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court of Northern California. After submitting the proposed settlement agreement to the court on February 16, 2010, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on February 17, 2010. The settlement is not final until the class receives notice of the settlement and the court grants final approval of the settlement terms.

Under the terms of the agreement, all of the claims in the securities class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. All of the defendants will receive a complete release of all the claims alleged in the case. The settlement agreement expressly states that it does not include any finding that any defendant committed any wrongful act. The defendants continue to maintain that the allegations in the case have no merit at all. To avoid legal expenses, uncertainties and distraction of management, LDK Solar elected to settle the case. As part of the settlement terms, LDK Solar and its insurance carrier will pay a total of $16 million (approximately 5% of the alleged damages) to compensate the class members and to cover all legal and administrative expenses.

"After more than a two year-period of litigation, LDK Solar believes the settlement is in the best interest of the Company and its shareholders," stated Xiaofeng Peng, Chairman and CEO of LDK Solar. "The resolution of this matter puts the litigation behind us and reduces the Company's ongoing legal expenses."

About LDK Solar ( LDK)

LDK Solar Co., Ltd. is a leading manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, which are the principal raw material used to produce solar cells. LDK Solar sells multicrystalline wafers globally to manufacturers of photovoltaic products, including solar cells and solar modules. In addition, LDK Solar provides wafer processing services to monocrystalline and multicrystalline solar cell and module manufacturers. LDK Solar's headquarters and manufacturing facilities are located in Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Xinyu City, Jiangxi Province in the People's Republic of China. LDK Solar's office in the United States is located in Sunnyvale, California.

Safe Harbour Statement - LDK Solar

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbour provisions of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All statements other than statements of historical fact in this press release are forward-looking statements, including but not limited to, the terms of the settlement agreement may be objected to and/or may not receive final approval, LDK Solar's ability to raise additional capital to finance its operating activities, the effectiveness, profitability and marketability of its products, the future trading of its securities, the ability of LDK Solar to operate as a public company, the period of time during which its current liquidity will enable LDK Solar to fund its operations, its ability to protect its proprietary information, the general economic and business environment and conditions, the volatility of LDK Solar's operating results and financial condition, its ability to attract and retain qualified senior management personnel and research and development staff, its ability to timely and efficiently complete its ongoing construction projects, including its polysilicon plants, and other risks and uncertainties disclosed in LDK Solar's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and are based on information available to LDK Solar's management as of the date hereof and on its current expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections about LDK Solar and the solar industry. Actual results may differ materially from the anticipated results because of such and other risks and uncertainties. LDK Solar undertakes no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances, or changes in its expectations, assumptions, estimates and projections except as may be required by law.

SOURCE LDK Solar Co., Ltd.

Judge Robert Schaffer of the 152nd Judicial District Court in Houston has approved a class-action lawsuit settlement that would distribute approximately $4.6 million to former employees of the former First City Bancorporation. Each of the more than 2,400 eligible members of the class may receive payments of approximately $1,800 or more.

"These beneficiaries are likely to be retirees in their 70s and 80s for whom this financial settlement could be very welcome," says David Furlow of Thompson & Knight LLP and counsel for the class. "There remain several hundred former First City employees who have not responded to our efforts to contact them about their rights to receive a distribution from the settlement fund, and the deadline to do so is approaching."

Former First City employees who have questions about their eligibility should review the information on the Class Administrator's Web site at www.firstcityclassaction.com. Under the terms of the settlement, class members must currently submit a claims form before Friday, Dec. 18, 2009, to receive a distribution from the settlement fund. Membership in the class depends on whether a former First City employee was an annuitant under Prudential Insurance Company Group Annuity Contracts GA-5858 (which includes GA-5524) and GA-5523.

The dispute involved a defined-benefit retirement plan established and funded solely by First City for employees in 1976. First City cancelled the plan for being overfunded 10 years later. The company then made lump-sum payments to some participants and purchased long-term annuities on behalf of other employees from the Prudential Insurance Company.

After First City was declared insolvent in 1992 and went through an involuntary bankruptcy, successor corporations took the position that the former First City employees should receive nothing from the annuity investments.

Lead Class Counsel Robert S. MacIntyre, Jr. of Houston's MacIntyre & McCulloch, LLP, emphasizes that these payments will not affect anyone's right to receive pension benefits.

SOURCE Thompson & Knight LLP

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Berman DeValerio are issuing the following statement regarding the American Home Mortgage Action:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE (Other OTC: AHMIQ) (Other OTC: AHMMQ) (Other OTC: AHMNQ) SECURITIES LITIGATION, 07-MD-1898 (TCP)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CLASS ACTIONS

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlements, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SHARES OF AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE INVESTMENT CORP. ("AMERICAN HOME") COMMON AND/OR PREFERRED STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 19, 2005 THROUGH AND INCLUDING AUGUST 6, 2007 AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY, INCLUDING ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED AMERICAN HOME COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENTS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH SECONDARY OFFERINGS CONDUCTED ON AUGUST 9, 2005 AND APRIL 30, 2007 (TOGETHER THE "OFFERINGS").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, (i) of the pendency of this action (the "Action") as a class action on behalf of the persons and entities described above (the "Class"), except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition; and (ii) that three settlements reached in this Action (i.e., a settlement with the Individual Defendants in the amount of $24 million for the benefit of all Class Members; and settlements with defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP in the amount of $4.75 million, and with underwriter defendants in the amount of $8.5 million for the benefit of a subclass consisting of Class Members who purchased American Home common stock pursuant or traceable to the Offerings through and including August 6, 2007 (the "Offerings Subclass")) have been proposed that will fully and finally settle all claims against and release all Defendants. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Thomas C. Platt, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 100 Federal Plaza, Courtroom 1040, Central Islip, NY 11722 at 1:30 p.m. on January 13, 2010 (i) to determine whether the proposed Settlements should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) to determine whether the Settled Claims against the Settling Defendants and other Released Parties should be dismissed with prejudice; (iii) to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation should be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; and (iv) to consider the application of Lead Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENTS, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN ONE OR MORE OF THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlements, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), with the attached Claim Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re American Home Mortgage Securities Litigation, c/o Analytics Incorporated, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 2011, Chanhassen, MN 55317-2011, 1-877-265-3429. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.amhomemortgagesecuritieslitigation.com, or from Lead Counsel's websites www.blbglaw.com and www.BermanDeValerio.com.

If you are a Class Member (including an Offerings Subclass Member) and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action. To exclude yourself from the Class (including the Offerings Subclass), you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than December 23, 2009, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any objections to any of the proposed Settlements, the proposed plan of allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel for the Class and counsel for the applicable Settling Defendants such that they are received no later than December 23, 2009, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel:

    Steven B. Singer, Esq.
    Avi Josefson, Esq.
    Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
    1285 Avenue of the Americas
    New York, NY 10019
    (800) 380-8496
    www.blbglaw.com

    or

    Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
    Kathleen M. Donovan-Maher, Esq.
    Berman DeValerio
    One Liberty Square
    Boston, MA 02109
    (800) 516-9926
    www.BermanDeValerio.com

By Order of the Court

Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com/cases/index

http://www.bermandevalerio.com/Securities/Index.asp

http://www.amhomemortgagesecuritieslitigation.com/

SOURCE Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

TrueBeginnings LLC, the owner and operator of the True.com online dating website, has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit that was brought against it by a former subscriber who alleged that True had unlawfully charged fees to his credit card after he cancelled his subscription. True denies all of the allegations, and has agreed to settle the case to focus on key priorities for the company, to best serve its customers, and because a successful defense of the Litigation would be expensive and distracting. On September 22, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas approved the settlement. Members of the settlement class have until October 21, 2009, to submit claims forms to participate in the settlement.

The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that True had a pattern and practice of imposing unauthorized charges on the credit cards or debit cards of subscribers who had previously cancelled their subscription. Discovery in the lawsuit revealed that True had in place a system -- which it called Auto-Subscription -- whereby certain former subscribers could automatically re-subscribe by clicking on certain hyper-links. The lawsuit alleged that True did not adequately inform the former subscribers of the existence of the Auto-Subscription system, or of the fact that they would be subject to re-subscription based upon clicking on those hyper-links. Among other things, True asserted this practice is convenient for its customers; the Auto-Subscription process merely initiated a new free trial, with both internet and email reminders about how and when to cancel to prevent any subscription fees.

As part of the settlement, True has agreed to pay $1.5 million into a settlement fund over a period from February 2009 through March 2010. Certain former True subscribers are eligible to make claims for refunds of either $35 (if they were charged only a single month's fees) or $50 (if they were charged two or more month's fees). In addition, a larger group of former subscribers will be offered 45 days of free subscription service on the True.com website. True also has agreed to a Court order requiring an intervening affirmative action or step to its Auto-Subscription system, to indicate that the potential subscriber assents to re-subscription.

Plaintiff is represented by Jonathan Tycko of the law firm of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, based in Washington, D.C., and Jon Sheperd of the law firm of Alston & Bird LLP, based in Dallas, Texas. About the settlement, Mr. Tycko said: "We believe this is a great result for True's former subscribers. Those former subscribers who were charged as a result of True's Auto-Subscription system can get a substantial refund, and we have put a stop to True's former practice of re-subscribing its customers via Auto-Subscription." In response, True's spokesperson said, "We want to do what is best for our current and potential subscribers, and a successful defense of this lawsuit diverts our attention from that objective. We therefore have agreed to this settlement in order to return our focus to bringing people together, even though we deny any wrongdoing."

The lawsuit is titled Thomas Wong v. TrueBeginnings, LLC d/b/a True.com, Civil Action No. 3-07CV1244-N (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas). More information about the settlement is available at the website www.trueclassaction.com.

SOURCE Tycko & Zavareei LLP

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of securities of Huron Consulting Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: HURN) ("Huron" or the "Company") between April 27, 2006 and July 31, 2009 inclusive (the "Class Period").

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Huron and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huron is a consulting company formed by former partners of Arthur Andersen, LLP which claims to help clients comply with complex regulations, resolve disputes, recover from distress, leverage technology, and stimulate growth. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that since 2006, the Company had improperly accounted for earn-out payments made in connection with four acquisitions; (2) that as a result, the Company had overstated its net income and earnings per share for the affected periods, and had understated its non-cash compensation expenses; (3) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 31, 2009, the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would restate its financial results for fiscal years 2006 through 2008 and the first three months of 2009 due to the Company's failure to properly account for certain payments made in connection with four acquisitions. These payments were received by the sellers in connection with the sale of certain acquired businesses that were subsequently redistributed among themselves and to other select Huron employees. Under the accounting rules, these payments should have been classified as non-cash compensation expenses.

Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $30.66 per share, or 69.13 percent, to close on August 3, 2009 (the next trading day) at $13.69 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than October 5, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 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.

    CONTACT:  Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP
              Darren J. Check, Esq.
              David M. Promisloff, Esq.
              280 King of Prussia Road
              Radnor, PA 19087
              1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
              Or by e-mail at info@btkmc.com

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

This week hundreds of delivery drivers at the nation's largest uniform provider, Cintas, were notified a $22.75 million settlement agreement had been reached in the class action overtime lawsuit, Veliz v. Cintas Corporation. It was a long road for the uniform delivery drivers, whose suit, filed in 2003, alleged Cintas misclassified thousands of their route drivers as exempt employees in order to avoid paying overtime required by state and federal laws.

"After six long years of delay tactics and needless posturing by Cintas, drivers will finally receive just compensation for overtime work performed that was wrongly withheld," said Bruce Raynor, President of Workers United, the laundry workers union that has been working with Cintas production workers seeking to form a union. "In the end justice was delayed but not denied, as Cintas ultimately agreed to the recommended settlement agreement negotiated through the arbitration process."

The Cintas drivers who pick up soiled uniforms, oily rags and other items and drop off a fresh supply were classified by the company as salaried workers instead of hourly workers, who would be entitled to overtime pay. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires workers to be compensated for all hours worked, unless they are specifically exempted. Executives and professionals are exempted and can be required to work more than 40 hours a week without being paid overtime. The drivers argued that their jobs driving trucks, delivering uniforms and servicing existing contracts do not make them exempt from being paid for hours worked over 40 hours.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, Altshuler Berzon LLP, are notifying plaintiffs that the general terms of settlement had been reached. However, a frame work for allocation of funds is still being worked on and it will still be months before the final settlement agreement is approved by the court. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Cintas is the largest uniform rental provider and industrial launderer in North America. Cintas provides laundry, uniforms and other business services to customers across North America. The company has a troubling history with worker protection laws, including being assessed the largest proposed OSHA fine in the service sector for safety violations surrounding the death of Eleazar Torres Gomez in Oklahoma.

Workers United, SEIU is a union of 150,000 workers in the US and Canada who work in the laundry, food service, hospitality, gaming, apparel, textile, manufacturing and distribution industries.

Source: Workers United

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas. The lawsuit, Douglas, et al. v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 4:09-cv-00652, was filed on Friday, July 31, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, on behalf of "all persons employed by First Student, Inc. as drivers and/or dispatchers at its terminal in Little Rock, Arkansas at any time from August 1, 2006 to the present."

This is the second class action lawsuit filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc., which describes itself on its website as "North America's leading school bus transportation services company and responsible for safely transporting 4 million students to and from school every day." Another class action lawsuit, Hoffman v. First Student, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-1882, is currently pending against First Student, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Hoffman case, which also alleges claims of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Maryland, has already been approved by the court as a class action and will go to trial soon.

The lawsuit that was just filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers employed by First Student, Inc. in Arkansas alleges that First Student, Inc. violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas state laws by failing to pay its bus drivers and dispatchers for all hours and overtime worked. For example, the Complaint alleges that drivers are paid for two and a half hours for their morning route and two and a half hours for their afternoon route regardless of how many hours it actually takes them to complete their routes and complete other work associated with their routes such as pre-trip and post-trip inspections. Similarly, the bus drivers allege that they are not paid for all of their work time for field trips and athletic events. First Student, Inc.'s website states that it maintains a fleet of more than 60,000 school buses and 68,000 drivers nationwide.

"First Student, Inc. appears to be engaging in violations of the federal and state overtime laws by requiring its bus drivers and dispatchers to spend numerous hours working off-the-clock and without compensation. The plaintiffs have filed this lawsuit to ask that First Student, Inc. be held accountable for failing to pay its employees wages they have legitimately earned," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs. Another attorney for the plaintiffs in both cases, C. Christopher Brown of Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, states, "The conduct we have seen in these cases and across First Student, Inc.'s terminals, whether in Baltimore, Maryland or Little Rock, Arkansas, is similar, and it is important that it be addressed by the courts and that a remedy is fashioned that will ensure that First Student, Inc. changes its policies to ensure that workers are paid for all of their time spent working."

Current and former employees of First Student, Inc. can obtain additional information about these lawsuits by calling Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656 or Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen at (215) 875-3053, or by email at scarson@bm.net or sschalman-bergen@bm.net. Information concerning the above cases, including electronic copies of the complaints, is also available at www.bergermontague.com .

This case is being prosecuted by a national consortium of law firms including Berger & Montague, P.C., based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP, based in Baltimore, Maryland; and Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, based in San Francisco, California. An additional law firm, Lavey & Burnett, based in Little Rock, Arkansas, is also representing the workers in the case filed on behalf of bus drivers and dispatchers in Arkansas.

SOURCE Berger & Montague, P.C.

The notice process has begun in a pending class action against MetLife. The class action involves MetLife's April 2000 conversion from a mutual insurance company to a stock company. The nationwide class action certified by the Federal Court in New York includes more than 8.6 million current and former MetLife policyholders.

The notice of the class action will be mailed to more than 5 million current and former policyholders. The notice will also be published in two national newspapers. A more detailed notice is available at www.insuranceclassaction.net. Additional information is also at 800-961-8147.

The text of the mailed notice is set out below.

    ------------------------------------------------------------
    United States District Court
    Eastern District of New York

    In Re MetLife Demutualization Litigation
    00cv2258 (TCP) (AKT)

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ("MetLife Co.") POLICYHOLDERS WHO RECEIVED IN METLIFE CO.'S DEMUTUALIZATION AT LEAST (a) 11 TRUST INTERESTS OR (b) $156.75 IN CASH OR POLICY CREDITS.

YOU MAY BE A CLASS MEMBER IN THIS LAWSUIT AND YOUR RIGHTS COULD BE AFFECTED.

This notice describes (1) this class action lawsuit; (2) the class definition; (3) your right to share in any judgment or settlement, and the binding effect on you of any judgment or settlement if you do not exclude yourself from the class; (4) your right to be excluded from the class and how to exclude yourself; and (5) how to get more information.

This Lawsuit In April 2000, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company ("MetLife Co.") converted from a mutual insurance company to a stock company, called "demutualization." The suit is against MetLife Co. and MetLife, Inc. ("Defendants") by policyholders in the demutualization ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs allege Defendants sent policyholders an information package that omitted material facts and contained false statements, to win the policyholders' vote to demutualize. Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated certain federal securities laws and damaged class members. Defendants deny plaintiffs' claims and are contesting the suit. Defendants believe they did not omit material information or make false statements to policyholders, and that class members were not damaged.

Class Members You received this notice because you may be a class member. In a class action, claims common to a group, called class members, are litigated together. The results bind all class members. Class members' rights will be affected by this lawsuit.

You are a class member if you received in MetLife Co.'s demutualization (a) 11 or more trust interests in MetLife, Inc. stock or (b) cash payment or policy credits of $156.75 or more.

Remaining a class member If you are a class member and do not exclude yourself (as described below), you will remain a class member. You will be represented by Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel, Jared Stamell, Esq. You will share in any judgment and be bound by the Court's decisions, whether favorable or unfavorable. You will not be personally liable for attorneys' fees or other expenses. You may not bring your own suit for the same claims. (If you wish, you may be represented in this class action by your attorney at your own expense.)

Excluding yourself You can exclude yourself from the class. If you exclude yourself, you will not share in any judgment in the case or be bound by the Court's decisions, and may pursue your own claim against Defendants individually, at your own expense.

TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF, YOU MUST MAIL BY September 8, 2009 a signed, dated statement (with your name, the policy owner's name (if different from your name), policy number, your address and telephone number) saying you exclude yourself from the MetLife Demutualization Litigation to: MetLife Demutualization Litigation, Notice Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co LLC, P.O. Box 808054, Petaluma, CA 94975-8054

More Information This notice does not describe all the lawsuit's details. All papers filed in this case can be inspected at: Clerk, U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722. Additional information, including a more detailed notice, is at: WWW.INSURANCECLASSACTION.NET

DO NOT ADDRESS QUESTIONS TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT OR THE JUDGE.

DO NOT CALL METLIFE OR YOUR AGENT ABOUT THIS NOTICE OR THE CASE.

FOR QUESTIONS VISIT WWW.INSURANCECLASSACTION.NET OR CALL 800-961-8147.

SOURCE Law firm of Stamell & Schager, LLP

The NAACP and nine class representatives today filed a motion for class certification in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, on behalf of a nationwide group of current and former employees of Eli Lilly Company. At the same time, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the pharmaceutical giant discriminates against its African-American employees in pay, promotion and related promotional opportunities and that Lilly's discriminatory policies and practices deny these African Americans an equal opportunity to advance in their careers.

Accompanying the class certification motion and amended complaint were certified declarations by more than 100 members of the class throughout the United States regarding their adverse employment experiences at the company.

The legal actions were announced at 11 a.m. Tuesday on the steps of the U.S. District Courthouse in Indianapolis by Angela Ciccolo, National General Counsel of the NAACP; plaintiffs' spokesperson Cassandra Welch; and the plaintiffs' attorney and new Co-lead Counsel David Sanford, of Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP.

Sanford Wittels & Heisler, a national civil rights firm with offices in Washington, D.C., New York City and San Francisco, and the Morelli Ratner firm, a New York City-based plaintiff's firm have joined with Rose & Rose, a civil rights firm in Washington, DC, as Co-lead Counsel in the matter. The plaintiff's local counsel in Indiana is Rob Dassow of Hovde, Dassow & Deets, LLC.

The NAACP, Cassandra Welch in her individual capacity, as well as Raynard Tyson, Sheryl A. Davis, Clara Walker, Delores Ryan, Allison Carter, Lawanda Rutledge, Joy Mason, Kelly French and Jackie Colbert are named as class representatives on behalf of themselves and the class of current and past employees of Eli Lilly who experienced pervasive and longstanding racial discrimination as Lilly employees. There are an estimated 2,000 members of the class.

"More than 100 African American employees have filed declarations outlining the toll of Eli Lilly's discrimination on them and their families. Lost earnings and benefits coupled with the humiliation and distress of years of not being recognized for their merit and being held back because of the color of their skin," said Mr. Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP. "Companies like Eli Lilly who practice the anachronistic policies of racial discrimination harm not only the victims, but the competitiveness of U.S. business which must conduct business in an increasingly diverse marketplace."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay, and attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to redress Lilly's pervasive and discriminatory employment practices.

All of the plaintiffs worked at Lilly locations in the U.S. over the past three decades and many continue to work there today: Mr. Tyson resided in North Carolina and was employed by Lilly from 1999 through 2004; Ms. Davis has been employed as a sales representative by Lilly in Memphis, TN, since March 2000; Ms. Walker resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1988; Ms. Ryan resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1977; Ms. Carter resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 2000; Ms. Rutledge resides in Olympia Fields, IL, and has been employed at Lilly since 2003; Ms. Mason resides in Indianapolis and has been employed at Lilly since 1998 and Kelly French resides in Indianapolis and was employed at Lilly from 1999 through 2008.

"Lilly discriminates against its African-American employees by advancing the company's white employees more quickly, and by denying African-American employees equal job assignments, promotional opportunities, training, compensation and other benefits of employment," said Mr. Sanford, Co-Lead Class Counsel. "These actions are part of Lilly's continuing pattern and practice of treating African-American employees differently from white employees. Such callous and unlawful behavior gives a new and warped meaning to the term 'lily white.' It cannot be allowed to continue."

Ms. Welch resided in Indianapolis during her employment by Lilly from 1992 until 2004. She is a long-time member of the NAACP, which is committed to the improvement of the social and economic status of minority groups, the elimination of racial prejudice and discrimination, and the attainment of civil rights and equal opportunities for its members and others. The majority of the members of the NAACP are African American.

"I have been subjected to blatant and persistent pay discrimination throughout my tenure at Lilly," said Ms. Welch. "I had to endure years of racist comments and threats -- including having a dark-colored doll with a noose around its neck left on my desk -- just to remain employed. My complaints to supervisors were never properly investigated, and I was ultimately let go by the company based on an untrue allegation by a co-worker."

Similar employment horror stories of the nine class representatives are described in the filing and in the more than 100 declarations.

"As these individual and collective employment experiences make clear, for several decades Lilly has intentionally engaged in discriminatory practices with indifference to the federally protected rights of its African American employees," said Ms. Ciccolo, General Counsel of the NAACP. "This company's longstanding policies and patterns of discrimination have injured and damaged these nine class representatives and all of the other African-Americans it employs. The legal actions we are taking in Indianapolis federal court are required to bring that injury and damage to a prompt and permanent end."

SOURCE Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the 8.875% Trust Preferred Securities of Regions Financing Trust III (the "Securities") (NYSE: RF-PZ) who purchased or otherwise acquired the Securities pursuant or traceable to the April 2008 Offering (the "Offering").

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Regions Financial Corporation ("Regions" or the "Company") and certain of its officers and directors, its auditor, and the underwriters of the Offering with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Regions engages in consumer and commercial banking, trust, securities brokerage, mortgage and insurance products and services. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's Offering, defendants failed to disclose or indicate the following: (1) that the Company improperly accounted for goodwill; (2) that the Company improperly accounted for impaired assets; (3) that the Company improperly recorded provisions for loan losses; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; (5) that the Company was not as well capitalized as represented; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's Registration Statement was false and misleading at all relevant times.

On or about April 28, 2008, the Company conducted the Offering. In connection with the Offering, the Company filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively referred to as the "Registration Statement") with the SEC. The Offering was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise over $345 million by selling 13.8 million shares of the Securities to investors at a price of $25 per share. On January 20, 2009, Regions announced dismal financial results for the fourth quarter of 2008. Details included a $6 billion non-cash charge for impairment of goodwill, a $469 million loss resulting from non-performing assets, and an increase in the loan loss provision to $1.150 billion. Then, on February 2, 2009, it was reported that Moody's had downgraded the Company, largely due to its deteriorating loan portfolios in the troubled Florida market. As a result of these disclosures, the price of the Securities has declined significantly.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.btkmc.com.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than June 1, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 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.

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

The following statement was issued today by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP:

Notice is hereby given that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of securities of Insight Enterprises, Inc. (Nasdaq: NSIT) ("Insight" or the "Company") between April 22, 2004 and February 6, 2009 inclusive (the "Class Period").

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 Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq. or David M. Promisloff, Esq.) toll free at 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or via e-mail at info@btkmc.com" target=_new>info@btkmc.com.

The Complaint charges Insight and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Insight provides brand-name information technology hardware, software, and services to large enterprises, small to medium-sized businesses, and public sector institutions in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company committed errors in the manner in which it accounted for certain aged trade credits; (2) that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On February 9, 2009 the Company shocked investors when it announced that it would be restating previously reported earnings because management had identified errors in the way it historically accounted for certain aged trade credits. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $2.85 per share, or 43.8 percent, to close on February 9, 2009 at $3.05 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by the law firm of Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts throughout the country. Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world.

For more information about Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check or to sign up to participate in this action online, please visit www.btkmc.com

If you are a member of the class described above, you may, not later than May 26, 2009, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. 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.

SOURCE Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP

Today, Freedom Watch announced the filing of a class action lawsuit by shareholders of AIG to force the directors of the company to themselves pay back the millions in illicit bonuses, dividends and other perks they paid out to themselves and other officials who destroyed the company's financial standing.

The lawsuit, filed in the federal court in Los Angeles, is wide reaching and will accomplish what Congress cannot, given the patent illegality of its taxing scheme, which violates the U.S. Constitution as it would tax ex post facto and discriminately.

Larry Klayman, the Chairman and General Counsel of Freedom Watch, who represents the shareholders in their class action suit, issued this statement:

"Today, the American people, not the compromised ruling elite in Washington, D.C., have begun a second American Revolution to take the country back from the con men on Wall Street, and on Pennsylvania Avenue - who under successive administrations played a central role in the meltdown of the U.S. financial system and economy. Freedom Watch will not rest until justice is done and it won't come from the Obama administration, bent on deceiving the U.S. taxpayer that it intends to clean up this corruption, all the while lining the pockets of its friends at AIG with government bailout money, who gave handsomely to have the President elected."

The lawsuit also seeks to recover, from the directors, the losses of the shareholders of the last many months and years, as well as to make AIG whole under new leadership, without the use of government money.

A copy of the complaint can be found at www.freedomwatchusa.org

Source: Freedom Watch

Lawsuit Alleges that Drywall Emits Toxins Harmful to Humans and Property.

Jason and Melissa Harrell recently filed a class action lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court on behalf of themselves and other homeowners who purchased defective homes. The Harrells allege that drywall installed in their new home, and those of their neighbors, emits destructive and harmful toxins and renders the homes unsafe and uninhabitable. The defective drywall was installed in the Harrell's home by the builder, South Kendall Construction Corp., and supplied by Banner Supply Company.

In January 2008, Jason and Melissa Harrell purchased their newly constructed home in Palm Isle Estates, a single family home community in Homestead, Fla. Shortly after moving in, the Harrells noticed foul odors in the home, their children began experiencing significant respiratory problems and Jason began suffering headaches. The Harrells also experienced problems with their air conditioning system, appliances, internal wiring and other electrical systems rendering them, in some cases, inoperable. Black soot appeared on the copper wiring in the home and in other places.

The Harrells repeatedly asked their builder to fix the problems, but it failed to correct them. The Harrells were forced to move out of their home and into a rental. With no resolution in sight, the Harrells turned to legal counsel. "The Harrell's thought they were buying their dream home," said Joey Givner, attorney for the Harrells. "Instead, they stepped into a nightmare." Several of the approximate 100 homeowners in the Palm Isles Estates have already relocated for similar reasons.

The lawsuit, brought by the law firms of Higer Lichter & Givner, The Blumstein Law Firm and Podhurst Orseck, alleges that the defective drywall emits toxins, including carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide. "These toxins pose serious health threats, including headaches, respiratory ailments and other health problems. They also corrode various metals within the structure of the homes and disrupt with the operation of electronic equipment," said attorney Mark Blumstein. "People buy homes for shelter and protection; not homes that make them sick."

According to the lawsuit, South Kendall Construction Corp. purchased this defective Chinese drywall from suppliers including Banner, a Miami-based company who supplied the drywall for the construction of the homes. It is believed that the manufacturer of the drywall exported approximately 67.3 million pounds of Chinese-made drywall into the United States, which is enough to build up to 7,500 average-size single-family homes. "There are many others experiencing the same problems as the Harrells," said attorney David Lichter. "Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to get companies to do the right thing is to sue them. The Harrells want a safe house, not a sick house."

A special phone line has been set up for those seeking information on the issue 305-356-7549.

SOURCE The Blumstein Law Firm

Berger & Montague, P.C. has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Rieke, et al. v. Monaco Coach Corporation, Civil Action No. 09-50444-KJC, on behalf of 2,600 employees who were laid off by Monaco Coach Corporation in December 2008 and thereafter without receiving any notice. Monaco Coach Corporation, the manufacturer of luxury recreational vehicles headquartered in Coburg, Oregon, and traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol MNC until trading was suspended on March 3, 2009, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 5, 2009. The lawsuit claims that Monaco violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act") which provides that employers must give sixty days notice to employers prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. The lawsuit seeks sixty days wages and benefits in lieu of the notice.

The lead plaintiffs, Randy Rieke, Cary Rieke, Gary Betts, Joyce Betts, Michael Dager, Angel Dager, Diana Hensley, and Jenny Ossthun, were all employed by Monaco at its headquarters in Coburg, Oregon. However, the lead plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of all employees who were part of the layoffs, including those who worked at Monaco's facilities located in Milford, Indiana, Wakarusa, Indiana, and Warsaw, Indiana.

"The WARN Act provides for sixty days advance notice of plant closings and mass layoffs to affected employees, and Monaco Coach Corporation has admitted publicly that it did not give such notice," said Shanon Carson of Berger & Montague, P.C., an attorney for the plaintiffs. "We will vigorously seek just compensation for our clients and their co-workers and ask simply that the company comply with the federal laws passed by Congress to protect employees from being abruptly terminated without notice, which substantially impacts their ability to find substitute work and support their families." Mr. Carson also noted that some of the lead plaintiffs and other affected workers are doubly impacted because they are husband and wife.

Former employees of Monaco Coach Corporation who were part of these layoffs can obtain additional information by calling Shanon Carson at (215) 875-4656, or by email at scarson@bm.net" target=_new>scarson@bm.net. This lawsuit is being prosecuted by the Philadelphia law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. (www.bergermontague.com), which consists of over 60 attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex litigation. The firm's Employment Law Group has extensive experience in representing employees in class and collective action litigation, and the firm has played lead roles in major cases for almost 40 years resulting in recoveries of billions of dollars for its clients and the classes they represent.

SOURCE Berger & Montague, P.C.

Important deadlines are approaching for class members of a proposed class action settlement related to the average wholesale prices of certain prescription drugs. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval of the Proposed Settlement in July 2008. In the lawsuit, In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, No. 01-CV-12257-PBS, MDL No. 1456, plaintiffs claimed that drug manufacturers unlawfully inflated the published average wholesale price of certain drugs, increasing what certain consumers and others paid. The defendants deny any wrongdoing.

Consumers who paid percentage co-payments or full payments for any of the covered drugs between January 1, 1991 and March 1, 2008 are eligible for money back. (A percentage co-payment varies with the cost of the drug; refunds are not available to those who paid flat co-payments.) Requests to be excluded from the Settlement and objections to the Settlement must be postmarked by March 16, 2009. Consumer Class Members must file claims by May 1, 2009.

The Proposed Settlement includes approximately $21.8 million for payments to consumers who file valid claims. Qualifying consumers can get a minimum of $35 by certifying under oath that they paid percentage co-payments for the covered drugs. Or, with receipts or bills for percentage co-payments for the covered drugs, they can receive more money back. For some of the drugs, the payment is up to three times the amount of the co-payment.

The approximately 200 covered drugs are used for the treatment of many medical conditions and are often, but not always, injected in a doctor's office or clinic. The drugs include those for treatment of cancer, HIV, asthma, allergies, infections, inflammation, pain, gastrointestinal, lung and blood issues, and other conditions.

The Defendants, 11 drug manufacturers, deny any wrongdoing, and have stated that while they believe they have strong defenses to the claims asserted, they have entered into the Settlement as a reasonable way to resolve the litigation and avoid the further expense, burden, and inconvenience that would result if they continued to litigate.

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on April 27, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. For detailed information, including a list of all the covered drugs and a claim form, call toll-free 1-877-465-8136, visit www.AWPTrack2Settlement.com, or write: AWP Track 2 Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 951, Minneapolis, MN 55440-0951.

SOURCE AWP Track 2 Settlement Administrator

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

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

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