Recently in Financial Category

"Anatomy of a Scandal" ,the cover story of ai5000's March/April issue, addresses the mystery of why Wesleyan University's $500 million endowment failed to notice the alleged gross misconduct of its chief investment officer for close to a decade.

Wesleyan has initiated a $3 million lawsuit against its terminated CIO, Thomas Kannam, who stands accused of submitting questionable expense reports and using university resources to engage in a series of outside ventures.

"To a large extent, this story highlights a common aberration in our nation's financial system, of which Wesleyan is just an example," observed editor Kip McDaniel. "Even when alleged misconduct is practiced in plain sight, investors don't want to look too closely at the sausage-making if the individual in question is making money for us."

Paula Vasan, co-writer of the article, added, "Although the case has yet to be decided, it appears to us that neither Wesleyan nor Mr. Kannam is blameless. The evidence suggests that Wesleyan may have looked the other way, so long as it was convenient to do so."

ai5000 describes how Kannam signed a contract in 2005 agreeing not to participate in "distracting" outside business opportunities, and soon thereafter appeared to accelerate his entrepreneurial ventures. The university's lawsuit contends that Kannam expensed family trips to the university and used university staff for external ventures. Two years later, Wesleyan noticed Kannam's "extracurricular activities" and asked him to sign a "more robust" conflict-of-interest document. His wife's response to this request: "Oucheroo." Nevertheless, ai5000 reports that

this document was "impressively vague." Ultimately, under Kannam's supervision, the endowment lost 24% in 2008, well beyond the NACUBO average of -19%.

"One of the sad aspects of this case is that the trustees and administrators of the endowment are involved in doing good and likely assume that anyone who works for them has the same mindset," McDaniel commented. "Unfortunately, laissez-faire environments don't always bring out the best in people, regardless of the larger institution's admirable intentions."

A quarterly online publication, ai5000 focuses on the 5,000 largest pools of capital in the world, across pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, endowments, foundations, insurance funds and other leading institutional investors. ai5000 is edited by Charles Ruffel, founder of Asset International and PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian.

Asset International is a privately-held publisher and information provider to global pension funds, asset managers, financial advisers, banking service providers, and other financial institutions in the private and public sector. Asset International produces and distributes print and digital publications, conferences, research and data resources via its industry-leading brands PLANSPONSOR, PLANADVISER and Global Custodian. The company was acquired in January 2009 by Austin Ventures and has offices in New York, London and Stamford, CT.

Overstock.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSTK) today announced that Rocker Partners (now known as Copper River Partners) will pay $5 million to Overstock.com to settle Overstock's claims against the remaining defendants in its case against Rocker Partners, David Rocker, Marc Cohodes, and the management companies and hedge funds they controlled and advised. The defendants have agreed to dismiss their cross-complaint against Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne. Below is a letter from Patrick Byrne, the company's Chairman and CEO, commenting on the settlement (see our story at DeepCapture.com for full details).

Dear Owner:

The good guys won.

I announced Overstock's lawsuit against Rocker in an August 12, 2005 conference call I titled, "The Miscreants' Ball". In that call (and in subsequent elaboration on DeepCapture.com) I claimed that a network of dirty Wall Street players was engineering modern bear raids, destroying companies and destabilizing the system. I claimed that the network of hedge fund manipulators and compliant reporters intersected in a dirty journalist named Jim Cramer. In the network, I claimed, were hedge funds such as David Rocker's; putatively independent research firms like Gradient which essentially took dictation from hedge funds; a small group of financial journalists such as Herb Greenberg and Carol Remond who, it appears, also took assignments from this hedge fund network; Milberg Weiss (a plaintiff's class action law firm which was coordinating its lawsuits with these bear raids); and Eliot Spitzer (whose investigations as New York's Attorney General mirrored the trading activities of these hedge funds, which were among his largest backers). In addition, I said that the SEC was saying grace over all of this because they had become hopelessly "captured" by Wall Street's worst elements.

Since then, the SEC's turn-a-blind-eye deference towards Wall Street has been revealed by the Aguirre and Madoff-Markopoulis affairs (if not much more); Milberg Weiss imploded under DOJ indictments and its leaders were jailed; Jim Cramer was exposed on national TV for the scoundrel he is; Eliot Spitzer was also exposed (but not yet, I believe, for his real connection to this crew); Herb Greenberg and others of the journalists I named have crawled under rocks (or gone to work for the hedge fund network for which I had so implausibly claimed they were shilling); David Rocker's hedge fund melted down (thanks, according to DowJones, to the SEC finally closing the gaping option market maker loophole against which Overstock had been lobbying for three years - if only, the SEC would now institute a pre-borrow requirement); and Rocker Partners is paying Overstock $5 million (that is on top of Gradient's earlier retraction and apology, and any monies Gradient paid which I cannot disclose).

So let's score that one for the good guys.

What is of vastly greater significance than this $5 million payment, however, is an examination of the cover-up conducted by elements of the New York financial press. Taking the lead was CNBC, which spent a great deal of airtime downplaying the significance of this suit, vilifying me, and smearing Overstock. For example, though less than 1/4 of the Miscreants' Ball conference call had even been about Overstock, and the remaining 3/4 concerned the modern bear raid, CNBC aggressively distorted the former and refused to mention (or allow mention of) the latter. This pattern was followed with suspicious alacrity by some of the more prominent members of the New York financial press, some of whom (e.g., Bethany McLean) saw some public emails which demonstrated precisely the relationship I had suggested, and some of whom (e.g., Herb Greenberg, Joe Nocera, and Dan Calaruso) were later secretly taped trying to persuade other journalists to engage in a cover-up. Ultimately, I resorted to creating a website of investigative journalism called www.DeepCapture.com (winner of the 2008 Weblogs Award for Best Business Blog), at which point CNBC, Fortune Magazine Joe Nocera, etc. developed sudden cases of laryngitis about me (lest they have to mention the website where my opinions were expressed without filtering: DeepCapture.com).

Now that Overstock has won, I would expect CNBC to invite me back to discuss these events, about which CNBC was so wrong and vocal. I estimate that the chance this happens, however, are roughly the same as the chance that any mainstream journalist who covers this $5 million settlement will mention DeepCapture.com, despite its having been central to these events.

I believe that the two factors which most determine the long-term health of a nation are its education system and its capital market (that is, its systems for developing human capital and for marrying it to financial capital). The miscreants of Wall Street may not be numerous, but they work together, and their blackguard ways impose an enormous social cost on our country. Presumably that claim will strike many as more plausible than it did when I first began publicly making it in August 2005.

I'd like to thank the late John O'Quinn, in whom I found an ally. I wish also to thank Overstock's fine legal team at Stein & Lubin for the superb work they did on this case. They will now be turning their full attention to Overstock.com's pending suit against the prime brokers (see below).

Your humble servant,

Patrick M. Byrne

History of the Rocker Case

In the landmark case, filed in Marin County, California August 11, 2005, Overstock.com, along with shareholder plaintiffs, sued Gradient Analytics, Inc.; Rocker Partners, L.P.; Rocker Management, LLC; Rocker Offshore Management Company, Inc. and their respective principals. On October 12, 2005, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint against the same entities alleging libel, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and violations of California's unfair business practices act. On October 22, 2008, Overstock.com amended its complaint to name as additional defendants Cathy Longinotti, Mark Montgomery, Phillip Renna and Terrence Warzecha because of their former or existing status as general partners of Copper River Partners, L.P.

Overstock.com asserted that David Rocker, his partner, Marc Cohodes, entities under their control, and other confederates worked with the so-called "independent" research firm, Gradient Analytics, to defame Overstock.com by publishing false information in order to drive down Overstock.com shares and profit from their short positions in the stock. Overstock.com based its complaint on affidavits from four former Gradient insiders who swore that it was well known that Gradient worked closely with some of its short-selling hedge-fund subscribers to issue "special" negative reports on specific companies targeted by those subscribers, and that Rocker, among others, had special editorial privileges and coordinated publication timing to allow his hedge fund to position their portfolios in advance of publication. Overstock.com alleged that Rocker and Cohodes participated in suggesting and editing the false reports which were published throughout the period of 2004 to 2005, and which a judge, in commenting on the frequency of the attacks referred to as, "carpet bombing." Overstock.com also asserted that high profile reporters in the financial media were given unprecedented access to the Gradient reports for the purpose of further coordinated dissemination of the false Gradient reports in Rockers concerted effort to damage and defame the company and drive down its share price.

On October 10, 2008, Overstock and Patrick Byrne reached a confidential settlement agreement with Gradient Analytics and its current and former principals. Those defendants have been dismissed from the case after issuing a statement of "regret," reversing Gradient's published positions on Overstock.com, and stating that Gradient had "examined and improved its internal policies concerning how it communicates with clients, including hedge funds, and the media."

On May 14, 2009, the shareholder plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Rocker defendants.

On November 9, 2007, Copper River Partners, L.P. f/k/a Rocker Partners L.P. filed a cross-complaint against Overstock.com and certain of its current and former directors. The Copper River cross-complaint alleged cross-defendants engaged in violations of California's state securities laws, violations of California's unfair business practices act, tortuous interference with contract and prospective business advantage, and deceit. On April 23, 2008, the court dismissed Copper River's cross claims against certain former Overstock.com directors. In that same ruling, the court dismissed four of the six claims against one of the former Overstock.com directors (and later Copper River dismissed the remaining claims against that director). In a separate ruling on the same day relating to Overstock.com and Patrick Byrne, the court dismissed the common law fraud claims and equitable indemnity claims and eliminated the possibility of money damages under Copper River's claims that Overstock.com and Byrne engaged in unfair business practices.

Trial for both the Overstock.com complaint and the Copper River cross-complaint were set for February 9, 2010.

History of the Prime Broker Case

On February 2, 2007, Overstock.com, along with five shareholder plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit in San Francisco against Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Goldman Sachs & Co., Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities LLC, Bank of New York, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and UBS Financial Services, Inc. In September 2007, Overstock.com filed an amended complaint adding two plaintiff shareholders, naming Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. as a defendant, eliminating the previous claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and clarifying various points of other claims in the original complaint.

This suit alleges that the prime broker defendants, who control over 80% of the prime brokerage market, participated in an illegal stock market manipulation scheme and that the defendants had no intention of covering short sell orders with borrowed stock, as they are required to do, causing what are referred to as "fails to deliver" and that the defendants' actions caused and continue to cause dramatic distortions within the nature and amount of trading in Overstock.com stock, as well as dramatic declines in the share price of Overstock.com stock. The suit asserts that a persistent large number of "fails to deliver" creates significant downward pressure on the price of a company's stock and that the amount of "fails to deliver" has exceeded the entire supply of outstanding Overstock.com shares. The suit accuses the defendants of violations of California securities laws and common law, specifically, conversion, trespass to chattels, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

In April 2007, defendants filed a demurrer and motion to strike the Overstock.com complaint. Overstock.com opposed the demurrer and motion to strike. In July 2007, the court substantially denied defendants' demurrer and motion to strike. In November 2007, the defendants filed additional motions to strike. In February 2008, the court denied defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Securities Anti-Fraud statute and defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com common law punitive damages claims, but granted in part the defendants' motion to strike the Overstock.com claims under California's Unfair Business Practices Act, while allowing the Overstock.com claims for injunctive relief under California's Unfair Business Practices Act.

Lehman Brothers Holdings filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008 and Barclays Bank has purchased its investment banking and trading business. Overstock.com elected not to pursue its claims against Lehman Brothers Holdings in the bankruptcy proceedings. On January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the Second Amended Complaint regarding allegations of collective action among defendants and the request for punitive damages. Also, on January 12, 2009, the prime broker defendants filed a demurrer to the first and second causes of action for conversion and trespass to chattels and a motion to strike various other allegations of the Second Amended Complaint. On March 19, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer to the first and second causes of action, but granted leave to amend the complaint. The motion to strike was denied. On April 20, 2009, Overstock.com amended its complaint against all the defendants, re-pleading conversion and trespass to chattels causes of action. The prime broker defendants again filed demurrer to the amended complaint and, on July 23, 2009, the court sustained the demurrer. Discovery in this case continues.

No trial date has been set.

SOURCE Overstock.com, Inc.

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

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals - Kaiser Sunnyside Medical Center, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Northwest and Northwest Permanente P.C., Physicians & Surgeons (collectively, Kaiser NW) has agreed to pay the United States $1,830,322.41 to settle False Claims Act liability, the Justice Department announced today. The United States contends that Kaiser NW billed Medicare between 2000 and 2004 for hospice services that had been provided by the Kaiser Northwest Region Hospice without obtaining written certifications of terminal illness required under the federal health care program.

Medicare hospice care providers like Kaiser Northwest Region Hospice must obtain written certifications of terminal illness for each hospice beneficiary's initial certification period (the first 90 days of care) from the medical director of the hospice and the individual beneficiary's attending physician, if the beneficiary has one. Medicare requires a hospice to obtain these certifications prior to billing Medicare in order to help ensure that hospice care is medically necessary.

In June 2005, Kaiser NW submitted a report to the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Inspector General disclosing that between October 2000 and March 2004, there were instances in which Kaiser NW did not obtain written certifications of terminal illness for hospice beneficiaries prior to billing Medicare for the beneficiaries' initial certification period. The settlement announced today resulted from the company's disclosure.

"By requiring that health care providers comply with Medicare's standards, we ensure that beneficiaries receive hospice care that is medically necessary and meets appropriate medical standards," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "We encourage disclosures of this nature and we consider them essential to ensuring the protection of the Medicare Trust Fund."

"This settlement furthers the strong public interest in protecting the integrity of the Medicare program and ensuring the appropriateness of hospice care for Medicare beneficiaries," said Kent Robinson, Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon.

The case was handled by the Justice Department's Civil Division, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon and the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

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

The California Redevelopment Association (CRA) announced today that it filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court to stop ABX4-26, a state budget trailer bill passed in July 2009 as part of the 2009/10 state budget. ABX4-26 authorizes a $2.05 billion raid of local redevelopment funds to use for state purposes.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of ABX4-26 and seeks to prevent the State from taking redevelopment funds for non-redevelopment purposes.

This is the second lawsuit filed by CRA. In April 2008, the Sacramento Superior Court ruled in favor of CRA and invalidated 2008 budget language that would have shifted $350 million in redevelopment funds to the State. On September 28, the State dropped its appeal in the first case, making the April decision final and binding.

"We believe the second budget raid by lawmakers is just as unconstitutional as the first," said CRA Executive Director John Shirey. "Lawmakers ignored the State Constitution and attempted to write state budget legislation around it. That's simply irresponsible policy-making, and it illustrates why many have concluded state government is broken and needs fixing."

Shirey continued, "Though we fully expect to receive a favorable decision from the court a second time, local redevelopment agencies still must be prudent and set aside funding in case the court does not rule by the time the payment is due in May 2010. What that means is that many agencies will, in effect, cease to operate because they will have no funds available for new investments in their communities. Having to set aside this huge amount of funding robs California of one of its most productive job creating engines, and at a time when unemployment is high and still rising."

Joining CRA as named plaintiffs are two redevelopment agencies: the Union City Redevelopment Agency in Alameda County and the Fountain Valley Agency for Community Development in Orange County.

The lawsuit alleges ABX4-26 is unconstitutional for two main reasons:

Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, approved by voters in 1952, states that redevelopment tax increment funds can only be used for specified redevelopment activities, specifically "to finance or refinance ... the redevelopment project." Taking redevelopment funds to balance the State's budget - the unquestioned purpose of ABX4-26 - does not qualify as a constitutionally permitted use of redevelopment funds and is therefore unconstitutional.

Second, raiding $2.05 billion in redevelopment funds constitutes an unconstitutional impairment of contracts. Under Article XVI, Section 16 of the State Constitution, redevelopment agencies irrevocably pledge redevelopment (tax increment) revenues to pay back bonds and other obligations that raise the capital to fund redevelopment projects. By raiding funds that are pledged to pay back bonds and other creditors, ABX4-26 impairs the contractual pledge of revenues on which redevelopment financing is based.

In Union City, the State raid threatens to delay the 100-acre BART Station District redevelopment project. The project, a collaboration between the Union City Redevelopment Agency, other local transit agencies and the state and federal governments, includes remodeling the BART station to create a two-sided station with additional parking; nearby new housing; new offices; and retail space. This transit-oriented development has been in the works for 10 years. To date, the Union City Redevelopment Agency has invested more than $60 million in the project, including clean up of hazardous materials and construction of public infrastructure. Project delay jeopardizes state Prop. 1C housing funds needed to construct the housing. The Union City Redevelopment Agency has no unobligated funds to pay the $7.7 million required to be paid under ABX4-26.

"It's unthinkable that all our hard work could unravel because of the irresponsibility of the State Legislature and the Governor," said Mark Evanoff, Union City Redevelopment Agency Manager. "This project will bring new life, new jobs, and economic opportunity to Union City, and it is exactly the type of development needed in the Bay Area to reduce traffic and carbon emissions by centering jobs and homes near public transit. Unfortunately, it's all at risk because State lawmakers won't follow the Constitution."

The CRA lawsuit also identifies additional constitutional violations, including two illustrated by the Fountain Valley Agency for Community Development's situation, which impacts education funding and demonstrates why attempts to ignore the law are ill-advised.

In Fountain Valley, ABX4-26's requirement that money transferred to schools from redevelopment agencies be spent on pupils residing in the redevelopment project area, or in housing assisted by the redevelopment agency, will result in expenditures of approximately $3.3 million on only 64 students attending the Garden Grove School District. That's $52,518 per pupil. Average per-pupil spending in California is about $8,500.

At the same time, State assistance to the Garden Grove school district will be reduced by $3.3 million, resulting in a significant reduction in funds available to spend on the vast majority of students not residing in the redevelopment project area or in housing assisted by the redevelopment agency.

This is in direct violation of the 1970s U.S. Supreme Court decision Serrano v. Priest which prohibits spending disparities based on geography, and a violation of Proposition 98, which obligates the State to provide funding for school districts, not funding for a special, limited group of students.

"This is exactly what happens when lawmakers don't think things through," said Raymond Kromer, Fountain Valley Agency for Community Development Executive Director, and Fountain Valley City Manager. "You wind up with unintended consequences that clearly aren't in anyone's best interests, especially not the students'."

SOURCE California Redevelopment Association

PharmaNet Development Group, Inc., a leading provider of clinical development services to innovative pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical device companies, today announced that the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has notified the Company that it has completed a two and half year investigation of the Company related to revenue recognition, earnings, company operations and related party transactions and does not intend to recommend any enforcement action by the Commission. The investigation, which is now closed, was originally initiated as an informal investigation in 2006 and became formal in March 2007.

"We are very pleased that the SEC has concluded its investigation of the Company and is recommending that no action be taken by the Commission," commented Jeffrey P. McMullen, president and CEO, PharmaNet Development Group, Inc. "This very favorable outcome now allows us to put this matter behind us."

About PharmaNet Development Group, Inc.

PharmaNet Development Group, Inc., a global drug development services company, provides a comprehensive range of services to the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, generic drug and medical device industries. The Company offers early and late stage consulting, Phase I clinical studies and bioanalytical analyses, and Phase II, III and IV clinical development programs. With approximately 2,300 employees and 40 facilities throughout the world, PharmaNet is a recognized leader in outsourced clinical development. For more information, please visit our website at www.pharmanet.com.

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

Toronto Canada Mina Mar Group Inc (www.minamargroup.com) a privately held Canadian company today filed a lawsuit in Toronto Canada against Belmont Partners. www.belmontpartners.net and Joseph Meuse personally.

Amongst other things, the companies purchased by Mina Mar Group had the following names and trading symbols: Vsheild Software Corp. - VSHE, King Resources Inc. - KING and Aztec Technology Partners, Inc. - AZTC. In summary, Mina Mar Group takes the position that assets were removed from the 3 aforementioned companies which belong to all of the shareholders, however Joseph Meuse admitted to Miro Zecevic President of Mina Mar Group that these assets were distributed to only to some, but not all of the shareholders. Miro Zecevic said "Upon learning this, it just didn't sit well with us. That action exposed us and these Companies to law suits from dissenting shareholders, SEC inquiries, sanctions and other possible liabilities that Mina Mar did not anticipate and did not bargain for.

"We are extremely disappointed that Belmont and Mr. Meuse (The X management) simply refused to address these matters and other matters when brought to their attention. Moreover there are other serious irregularities that were discovered by our internal forensic research analysts that would seriously undermine any minority shareholder of these companies. In addition any company that merged with these issuers would have been in peril. Our team has worked very hard over the past several months by completing filings on Pink Sheets and increasing these issuers ranks from "STOP NO INFORMATION" to "YIELD LIMITED INFORMATION" and including introducing these issuers to substantial companies in Europe USA and China as per various past news releases. All of these pending deals are now off the table. We have a very strong presence in China with approximately 20 Chinese companies looking to enter the public markets with reverse mergers. In good conscience and as a good corporate citizen we can not recommend these companies to our clients nor provide any sort of meaningful investor relations to these issuers shareholders. We recently launched a shareholder advocacy division where we assist minority shareholders in cases where the issuers are abusive or where the issuers simply abandon the assets, and leave minority shareholders in the cold. This Belmont matter goes against the very principles we believe in."

Mina Mar Group acknowledges the efforts of Big Apple Consulting, a USA based company, who is also involved in a similar type of lawsuit with Belmont on a similar and unrelated transaction.

The entire Mina Mar Group law suit against Belmont Partners can be viewed at this link http://www.minamargroup.com/client_interests.php

SOURCE Mina Mar Group

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

The two-year-long meltdown in real estate values and sales has generated confusing options confronting property owners fearful of losing their homes as they fall behind in mortgage payments.

One well-known Tampa Bay law firm, which specializes in helping clients avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes, has recognized the growing "vogue" of mortgage modifications: the simple-sounding but complex process of working with lending institutions to decrease mortgage principals or interest rates, or extend the time for mortgage loan repayment, all of which decrease the financial burden on homeowners.

At its best, it is a good solution for some, says Shawn Yesner, managing partner in the firm of Yesner & Boss. At worst, it is a scam that can plunge desperate homeowners even deeper into the mortgage morass.

"Our goal for our clients is to make it possible for them to keep their homes with an affordable modification, or at least to reduce or eliminate their liability under their loans," said Yesner. "We don't want to add to their financial burdens, so we keep our rates low, much lower than fees demanded by 'foreclosure-rescue' scammers. Our work always includes legal services provided by a Florida-licensed attorney who specializes in foreclosure issues."

Yesner cautions that mortgage modifications are not a quick-fix for everyone. Many mortgages that are modified still go into default in a matter of months. Yet, the advantages for the property owner with a successful modification is being able to keep the home at an affordable monthly price. The incentive for the lender is the opportunity to turn a non-performing loan back into a good investment and sidestep foreclosure action in which the lender winds up owning a property it cannot sell while maintenance costs keep growing.

"So many people are desperate to save their homes they are vulnerable to scammers," said Christopher Boss, a partner in the firm Yesner & Boss. "Any time a company guarantees results, it should raise a huge red flag. And Florida law requires that homeowners be given certain disclosure documents. If they aren't provided, that should be a huge red flag."

SOURCE Yesner & Boss

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.