/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/040929.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, September 29, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 193
Headlines
ARVINMERITOR: Recalls 80 Defective Axles Due To Accident Hazard
BARRICK GOLD: LA Antitrust Suit Seeks Damages For Gold Investors
BERKELEY NUTRITIONALS: CSPI Files FTC Lawsuit V. Sex Supplement
BODYFLEX SYSTEM: Marketers Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Suit
CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses $1B Suit V. Holocaust Claims Agency
CALIFORNIA: FTC Files Suit V. Operation For Defrauding Hispanics
CORAL CALCIUM: Infomercial Marketer Settles FTC Fraud Charges
CUMMINS ENGINE: Recalls Diesel Engines Due To Fire, Injury Risk
EATON HYDRAULICS: Recalls Motor Assemblies For Production Defect
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 34,013 Vehicles Because of Accident Hazard
GAMBRO AB: REN Corporation Investors Sue Over Cobe Acquisition
GILBERT PLUMBING: EEOC Commences Suit Over Racial Discrimination
GOLD KIST: AL Court Grants Arbitration Motion For Antitrust Suit
GOLD KIST: GA Court Enters Summary Judgment in Lawsuit V. Merger
GOLF HOST: State Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lease Lawsuit
IKEA HOME: Recalls 25,000 Wall Cabinets Due To Injury Hazard
INDIANA: Voters Sue For Republican Choice on Absentee Ballots
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
KENTUCKY: Jury Awards $44M To Former Racetrack Shareholders
LOUISIANA: Judge Dismisses Teflon-Coated Jaw Implant Suit V. LSU
MASSACHUSETTS: Former Bishop Indicted on Child Sex Abuse Charges
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: To Comply With EU Ruling If Appeal Fails
NATURA PRODUCTS: Recalls 9.4T Pacifiers Due To Choking Hazard
NATURAL GAS FIRMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Natural Gas Suit
NEW JERSEY: Ocean Township, Long Branch Sued For Rental Laws
TELEPHONE COMPANIES: Sprint, AT&T Settle FTC Consumer Charges
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Discrimination Suit V. DOJ
VIRGINIA: Ex-Residents Settle Claims V. City of Portsmouth, PRHA
WAL-MART STORES: CA Judge Halts Discovery in Gender Bias Lawsuit
WEST VIRGINIA: Residents Take Part In Suit V. Corridor D Project
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
CONCORD CAMERA: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
FANNIE MAE: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
NEW YORK: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
NEW YORK: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
NEW YORK: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
STAAR SURGICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NM
STAAR SURGICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
STONEPATH GROUP: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Suit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
*********
ARVINMERITOR: Recalls 80 Defective Axles Due To Accident Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling 80
ArvinMeritor Axles, P/Nos. MFS- MFS-14-143A-NN58 and MFS-14-
143A-NN60 manufactured between November 2002 and May 2003 and
sold for use on international vehicles.
The tie rod arms installed had not been induction hardened and
may fatigue. Should a fatigue failure occur of the tie rod arm,
the vehicle operator can lose vehicle control, possibly
resulting in an accident.
ArvinMeritor is working to identify the owners of the affected
vehicles and will notify and repair the vehicles free of charge.
The recall is expected to begin during October 2004.
Owners who take their vehicles to an authorized dealer on an
agreed upon service date and do not receive the free remedy
within a reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
248-435-8793 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety Hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).
BARRICK GOLD: LA Antitrust Suit Seeks Damages For Gold Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone in the United States who lost money trading gold since
1998 could recover damages from Barrick Gold and J.P. Morgan
Chase if a federal class action anti-trust lawsuit filed in New
Orleans prevails, according to the Gold Anti-Trust Action (GATA)
Committee.
The suit is being underwritten by Blanchard & Co., the New
Orleans coin and bullion dealer, and builds on Blanchard's own
anti-trust suit against Barrick and Morgan Chase in U.S.
District Court in New Orleans. The first suit, which is in the
"discovery" or evidence- collecting phase, charges Barrick and
Morgan Chase with manipulation of the gold market. That suit
seeks injunctive relief -- a court order to stop Barrick and
Morgan Chase from manipulating the gold market -- and is
expected to go to trial in April 2005.
The class action lawsuit, in which gold investors Greg McKenzie
and A.J. Miller are the lead plaintiffs, will attempt to
quantify the financial harm done by Barrick and Morgan Chase to
gold investors and devise a remedy for their restitution.
"We expect to obtain compensation for all gold owners, not only
for their losses from their gold investments but also for the
profits they should have realized," Blanchard CEO Donald W.
Doyle Jr. said in an interview with the Gold Anti-Trust Action
Committee.
GATA consultant Reginald H. Howe brought a similar federal
lawsuit in Boston in 2000. It was dismissed on jurisdictional
grounds in 2002. Since then GATA has documented and publicized
evidence of manipulation of the gold market by Barrick, Morgan
Chase, other bullion banks, and the U.S. government.
"The exact number of gold owners who are members of the class is
unknown at this time and can be determined only through
appropriate discovery and expert testimony," Doyle told GATA.
"But we allege, on information and belief, that the members of
the class owned, during the period at issue, about 96.5 million
ounces of gold having a market value of $38.58 billion at $400
per ounce. Once a judgment is obtained and the amount of damages
suffered by the class members is determined, those damages will
automatically be tripled under the mandatory provisions of the
federal anti-trust laws.
"In 1983 Barrick Gold Corp. was a start-up company with a single
mine in Canada and a founder with no experience in the gold
business," Doyle said. "By 2001 Barrick had amassed off-balance-
sheet assets that were worth more than the market capitalization
of the next five biggest gold-mining companies in the world
combined. Barrick made $2.3 billion on its short sales of gold
and made a profit on those short sales for 62 consecutive
quarters. A short sale is inherently a high-risk speculation.
How many true speculations have ever been profitable for 62
consecutive quarters?"
Blanchard's original lawsuit charges essentially that Morgan
Chase provided Barrick with so much borrowed gold -- presumably
obtained from central banks -- on such favorable terms that
Barrick could overwhelm the market and move prices up or down at
will and not have to repay the borrowed gold for many years if
at all. In some years, Blanchard maintains, Barrick was able to
supply to the market more gold than was supplied by all the
bullion banks combined.
In an attempt to have Blanchard's lawsuit dismissed, Barrick,
according to GATA, seemed to acknowledge the plaintiff's
premises. Barrick submitted a motion arguing that in borrowing
gold and selling it into the market, the company was acting as
the agent of central banks and carrying out their policies in
the gold market and thus should share their immunity from
lawsuits.
U.S. District Judge Helen Berrigan rejected Barrick's motion and
sent the case on for discovery and trial.
"While the price of gold fell by more than 25 percent," Doyle
said, "Barrick was able to increase its annual operating cash
flow by more than 400 percent. Barrick became the dominant gold
mining company in the world through acquisitions made with the
profits from its short sales of gold. By suppressing and
depressing gold prices, Barrick forced its competitors to sell
gold assets and companies at fire-sale prices.
"The measures that Blanchard has taken have already been good
for the gold industry and our clients. Since we began
discussions with Barrick in this lawsuit, the company has
reduced its hedging position by 10 million ounces, adding gold
demand and subtracting gold supply. On December 2, 2003,
Barrick's president and chief operating officer announced that
Barrick had given up hedging for good. By consenting to the
termination of its short sales of gold -- assuming that Barrick
honors its commitment -- the company took a major remedial step
sought by Blanchard's original complaint.
"I believe that the class action will be successful in
recovering damages and putting a stop to practices that have
suppressed and depressed the price of gold and all tangible
assets," Doyle concluded.
Blanchard's Internet site with information about its litigation
is: http://www.savegold.org/or http://www.gata.org/latest.html
BERKELEY NUTRITIONALS: CSPI Files FTC Lawsuit V. Sex Supplement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a
complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against
Berkeley Nutritionals, alleging deceptive advertising for its
Enzyte sex supplement, WebMD reports.
The CSPI has started investigating "better erection pills," or
supplements marketed in "pharmaspeak," mainly through spam
mails, claiming to help consumers get better erections or
thicker penises. Several examples cited were Enzyte, Elexia,
Pro-Erex, Vahard, VasoRect, Big Daddy, Libido-Max, Suregasm.
CSPI researchers analyzed evidence on the most common
ingredients contained in Enzyte and similar products, namely
arginine, ginseng, ginkgo, horny goat weed, maca, and Tribulus
terrestris (testicle tissue), and the herb yohimbe.
"There is no evidence that any of those ingredients in the
amounts found in Enzyte have the effect they claim," CSPI senior
nutritionist David Schardt said in a news release. "This
applies to just about every one of these products out there."
According to CSPI findings, arginine occurs naturally in nearly
every food, and is converted in the body into nitric oxide,
which relaxes and opens up blood vessels in the body, and that
there is little or no evidence that taking arginine as a
supplement works with any sexual problems.
Yohimbe is an unreliable natural source of the prescription drug
Yohimbine, which is sometimes prescribed for erectile
dysfunction. However, Yohimbine may cause sudden spikes in
blood pressure, the CSPI says, according to WebMD.
Mr. Schardt stated that the only exception was ginseng, as some
ginseng products contain large amounts of a specially processed
form of ginseng which has been shown - in two studies from South
Korea - to help one in four men with erectile dysfunction.
However, he says this ginseng was not the type found in Enzyte.
"There's no evidence that any ingredient -- singly or in
combination, in amounts found in Enzyte -- have the effect the
company claims," he told WebMD.
"It's really extraordinary that this product is advertised on
television, in newspapers, making these claims that just have no
basis," Mr. Schardt continued. "It's really too bad that the
FTC, the agency that regulates advertising, has been so slow in
protecting consumers . Enzyte is more successful subtracting
from the male wallet than it is adding to the male organ. It's
basically just an expensive placebo."
According to Jack Mydlo, MD, professor and chair of urology at
Temple University School of Medicine, the sex supplements are
the "snake oil of the new millennium." He stated that people
are so frustrated or desperate, and they don't want to spend too
much money, so they buy these things. "Most of these companies
make their millions in a few months, and then pull up stakes by
the time they're found out. They don't care, they've made their
money," he told WebMD.
Placebo effect is very instrumental in these pills, Dr. Mydlo
tells WebMD. "People believe that they work, so they might work
a little for a little while. But true scientific studies have
been done with Levitra, Viagra, Cialis, and they are FDA
approved. They are medications that have been shown to work
better than a placebo."
CSPI also looked at Enzyte's past advertising claims. "The
company's original claim was that Enzyte would add 3 inches to a
man's penis," says Dr. Schardt. "That claim was challenged by
the Better Business Bureau, which investigated and hammered them
for having no evidence. That claim was dropped from the
advertising."
The FTC's lax attitude about regulating the products is likely
because "they are not causing any harm," says Schardt.
"However, a lot of people are wasting their money, and are
having a difficult time getting their money back. Enzyte has a
very poor track record giving money back on their guarantees.
There are thousands of complaints with the Ohio State Attorney
General's Office. There are two class action suits against them
for non-refunded money. There's even a web site devoted to
complaints from Enzyte customers."
WebMD tried to contact Berkeley Nutritionals for comment, but
received only an emailed statement: "Berkeley stands behind its
Enzyte formulas. Medical professionals have established a
correlation between reduced cardiovascular function and reduced
erectile function... There is substantial data that shows that
ginkgo biloba assists with circulatory problems. Further,
indications that Korean red ginseng may be beneficial in
improving the quality of male erections comes from traditional
use, in vitro, and animal experiences, as well as a few clinical
trials. Finally, Berkeley strongly promotes that its products --
including Enzyte -- work best in conjunction with a healthy
lifestyle and many of our customers report this to be the case
of Enzyte."
"That's how these companies operate," Schardt tells WebMD. "They
take a study conducted in entirely different conditions and
claim it has the same effect on the body . The FDA and the FTC
have been lax when it comes to policing these so-called sex
supplements. Until they act, consumers are best advised to drag
any unsolicited emails . from the inbox to the trash."
BODYFLEX SYSTEM: Marketers Settle FTC Deceptive Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marketers of the BodyFlex+ System (BodyFlex) have agreed to
settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that they
deceptively advertised that BodyFlex causes users to lose from
four to 14 inches in the first seven days. The proposed
settlement, which requires court approval, establishes a $2.6
million consumer refund program, and requires the defendants to
stop making the false claims about BodyFlex challenged in the
FTC's complaint.
BodyFlex is an 18-minute routine involving stretching, deep
breathing, and exercises with the BodyFlex Gym Bar - a plastic
exercise bar with a resistance band. In 2003, the defendants
promoted BodyFlex in a heavily-aired national infomercial and on
the Internet at www.bodyflex.com. The ads claimed, "in just
seven days you can lose from four to 14 inches guaranteed with
BodyFlex Plus."
The FTC's complaint, filed in federal district court in November
2003, and amended in January 2004, charges that the defendants
made false and unsubstantiated claims that:
(1) BodyFlex causes users to lose from four to 14 inches
across six body areas in the first seven days without
reducing calories;
(2) BodyFlex causes users to burn enough body fat to
achieve the claimed inch loss in the first seven days;
and
(3) a clinical study proves that BodyFlex causes
significant fat loss and inch loss in the first seven
days.
The FTC's amended complaint names Savvier, Inc. and Savvier, LP,
California companies; their principals, Jeffrey Tuller and Jack
Ching Chung Chang; BodyFlex, Inc., a Nevada corporation; and its
principal and BodyFlex spokesperson Greer Childers. In a
stipulated motion filed on August 31, 2004, the FTC asked the
court to dismiss charges against defendant Jack Ching Chung
Chang.
The proposed stipulated final judgment and order bans the
remaining settling defendants from making the false claims
challenged in the complaint. It also prohibits the defendants
from making claims, for any product, service, or program that
purports to provide weight-loss, inch-loss, fat-loss, exercise
or fitness benefits, and for any dietary supplement, food or
drug, without scientific substantiation. The order further
prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting test or research
results for any of these covered products, services, or
programs.
The order requires Savvier LP to establish and administer a $2.6
million consumer refund program. Savvier LP also will pay the
administrative costs of the refund program. Under the program,
dissatisfied consumers will have an opportunity to receive
either a full refund or a pro rata share, depending on the
consumer response to the refund offer. Savvier LP will send
notices to BodyFlex purchasers describing how they can receive a
refund. After the refund program is completed, any unused funds
will be disgorged to the U.S. Treasury. The FTC has established
a consumer hotline number for BodyFlex: 202-326-2935.
The order also contains a $36 million "avalanche clause," which
would make this entire amount immediately due if the court finds
that the defendants misrepresented their financial condition.
Finally, the order contains various recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants'
compliance.
CALIFORNIA: Judge Dismisses $1B Suit V. Holocaust Claims Agency
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger dismissed
a lawsuit against the International Commission on Holocaust Era
Insurance Claims that accuses it of helping Italian insurance
giant Assicurazioni Generali SpA stall in paying off more than
$1 billion allegedly owed to Holocaust survivors and their
families, Bestwire Services reports.
Three California Holocaust survivors sued the Commission, which
was in charge of disbursing World War II-era insurance claims to
Holocaust victims and their families, in September 2003.
In their suit, which they plan to appeal, the Holocaust
survivors accused the commission of violating California's state
businesses-and-professions statute, a tactical move that avoided
federal issues that could have seen the case pulled into the
federal court system. ICHEIC's lawyers argued that the case
interferes with U.S. foreign policy, but a federal judge in
February sent the lawsuit back to state superior court
In the latest ruling, Judge Highberger found that ICHEIC isn't
subject to the jurisdiction of the California court system. He
also found that the claims presented by the three men are a
foreign-policy question and therefore are properly handled by
the executive branch of the federal government.
In a statement, Claremont, Calif., attorney William Shernoff,
lead attorney for the plaintiffs said he planned to appeal.
The state court verdict isn't the last step in this case,
according to Shernoff; he has earlier said that such suits are
only the first step and that he hopes to turn the case into a
class action with as many as 3,000 plaintiffs.
CALIFORNIA: FTC Files Suit V. Operation For Defrauding Hispanics
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Los Angeles-based operation has been cited by the Federal
Trade Commission with perpetrating a classic work-at-home scam.
USS Elder Enterprises, Inc., America Vespucia Corporation,
Ricardo Elder Partners, Inc., and Ricardo E. Gonzalez, doing
business under a series of fictitious names and operating as a
common enterprise, targeted Spanish-speaking consumers looking
for well-paying jobs that do not require English skills.
The FTC alleges that the defendants, through ads in various
Spanish-language newspapers and magazines, offered easy product
assembly work, such as key chains or jewelry, and high weekly
earning potential. Interested consumers were led to believe
that they could earn between $112 and $700 a week for such work.
The FTC alleges that the defendants' business practices violated
the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR).
The FTC's complaint names as defendants USS Elder Enterprises,
Inc. and America Vespucia Corporation, both doing business as
Salomon Press Financial Publications, Salomon Press, Editorial
Salomon, Compa¤”a Americana, Compa¤”as Americanas, and
Escritorio P£blico Internacional; Ricardo Elder Partners, Inc.,
doing business as Escritorio P£blico Internacional; and Ricardo
E. Gonzalez, also known as Ricardo Elder.
According to the complaint, the defendants promote their phony
work-at-home business opportunities to consumers throughout the
United States, specifically targeting Hispanic consumers. The
ads refer consumers to telephone numbers for additional
information. When consumers call these numbers, they are told
that, for a fee ranging from $50 to $180, the consumers will
receive assembly product work for pay, or substantial assistance
in obtaining such work, and that they could potentially earn a
substantial amount of money, depending on their ability and the
products they choose. Some consumers are told that, if they are
not fully satisfied with the assembly projects, the defendants
will refund their money.
In other cases, the defendants promise consumers that their
money would be refunded after a trial period. Consumers are
instructed to send their payment in cash, by money order, or by
wire transfer. Occasionally, the defendants' representatives
personally collect the money from consumers' homes.
According to the complaint, however, consumers who pay the fee
do not receive the promised assembly project work or substantial
assistance getting such work. Few, if any, realize the promised
earnings. Instead, according to the FTC, consumers receive a
booklet in Spanish that contains lists of companies to contact
that allegedly offer work-at-home opportunities. These companies
no longer exist; they require payment of additional fees; or
they have no relationship with the defendants. When consumers
complain and request a refund, their efforts are thwarted by the
defendants who simply do not respond, or place conditions on
receiving a refund that have not been previously disclosed to
consumers.
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants
misrepresented:
(1) that consumers will obtain assembly project work for
pay or substantial assistance in obtaining such work;
(2) that consumers are likely to earn a substantial amount
of money; and
(3) that the defendants will provide refunds to consumers.
The FTC is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief
and consumer redress. The Commission vote authorizing staff to
file the complaint was 5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, Southern
Division, on August 31, 2004.
For more information, contact Brenda Mack of the FTC Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or contact Barbara
Anthony, Robin E. Eichen or Elvia Gastelo of FTC's Northeast
Region - New York by Phone: 212-607-2829
CORAL CALCIUM: Infomercial Marketer Settles FTC Fraud Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
A prolific infomercial marketer and personality reached a
settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, over charges that
he falsely claimed that a coral calcium product can cure cancer
and other serious diseases and that a purported analgesic called
Biotape can permanently cure or relieve severe pain.
The FTC settlement broadly bans Mr. Kevin Trudeau from appearing
in, producing, or disseminating future infomercials that
advertise any type of product, service, or program to the
public, except for truthful infomercials for informational
publications. In addition, Mr. Trudeau cannot make disease or
health benefits claims for any type of product, service, or
program in any advertising, including print, radio, Internet,
television, and direct mail solicitations, regardless of the
format and duration.
Mr. Trudeau agreed to these prohibitions and to pay the FTC $2
million to settle the charges. He is paying $500,000 in cash
and transferring residential property located in Ojai,
California, and a luxury vehicle to the Commission to satisfy
the $2 million monetary judgment against him. In the event that
the court finds that Mr. Trudeau or his companies misrepresented
their financial condition, the order would require him to pay
$20 million pursuant to an "avalanche clause."
"This ban is meant to shut down an infomercial empire that has
misled American consumers for years," said Lydia Parnes, Acting
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in a
statement. "Other habitual false advertisers should take a
lesson; mend your ways or face serious consequences."
In nationally-televised infomercials, Mr. Trudeau advertised
that Coral Calcium Supreme, a dietary supplement purportedly
made from Japanese marine coral, provided the same amount of
bioavailable calcium as two gallons of milk, could be absorbed
into the body faster than ordinary calcium, and could cure
cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, lupus, and other
illnesses.
In a separate infomercial, Mr. Trudeau claimed that Biotape, an
adhesive strip, provided permanent relief from severe pain,
including debilitating back pain, and pain from arthritis,
sciatica, and migraines.
In June 2003, the FTC filed a complaint in the Northern District
of Illinois against Mr. Trudeau and some of his companies,
alleging that these disease claims for Coral Calcium Supreme
were false and unsubstantiated. The Commission also alleged in
a separate action that Trudeau violated a 1998 FTC order by
making the Coral Calcium Supreme claims and the pain-relief
claims for Biotape.
In July 2003, Mr. Trudeau entered into a stipulated preliminary
injunction that prohibited him from continuing to make the
challenged claims for Coral Calcium Supreme and Biotape. This
summer the court found him in contempt of court for violating
this preliminary injunction when he disseminated a direct mail
piece and an infomercial making the prohibited coral calcium
claims. The court ordered him to cease all marketing for coral
calcium products.
The settlement permanently bans Mr. Trudeau and the other
defendants, Shop America (USA), LLC, Shop America Marketing
Group, LLC, and Trustar Global Media, Limited ("defendants"),
from appearing in, producing, or disseminating infomercials that
advertise any product, service, or program and, regardless of
the advertising medium used to make the claim, from making
representations that any product, program, or service can cure,
treat, or prevent any disease or provide health benefits. The
order's ban on future infomercials exempts infomercials for
books, newsletters, and other informational publications.
In addition, the order prohibits the defendants from
transferring, selling, or renting personal information collected
from customers who purchased Coral Calcium Supreme and requires
the defendants to destroy this information for certain
customers. Finally, the order contains standard recordkeeping
provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants'
compliance with its prohibitions and requirements.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the stipulated
final order was 5-0. The stipulated final order for permanent
injunction was entered in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on September 3,
2004.
For more information, contact Brenda Mack of the FTC Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2182 or contact Heather
Hippsley or Daniel Kaufman by Phone: 202-326-3285 or
202-326-2675
CUMMINS ENGINE: Recalls Diesel Engines Due To Fire, Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cummins Engine Company, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling
1,189 diesel engines, on Monaco Motorhomes, model 2003-2004.
On certain motorhomes equipped with Cummins Engines, oil can
leak into the engine compartment from a crack in the cup plug.
Oil leakage on a hot engine can result in an engine compartment
fire, possibly resulting in injuries.
Cummins is conducting the owner notification and remedy for this
campaign. Cummins will install a steel cup plug boss cap to all
affected engines. For more details, owners should contact
Cummins customer assistance center by Phone: 1-800-343-7357 or
Monaco Motorhomes by Phone: 1-800-685-6545, or contact the NHTSA
auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).
EATON HYDRAULICS: Recalls Motor Assemblies For Production Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Hydraulics is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
300 hydraulic motor manifold assemblies.
Certain Eaton Hydraulics motor manifold assemblies model MCD
7810, REV G, P/N 02-198616, part of motor manifold assembly
100AT00002A produced between December 2002 and March 2004, and
sold for use on North American Bus Industries (NABI) model 40LFW
have defects. The lack of an orifice in the proportional valve
manifold assembly leads to pressure oscillations, which may
ultimately lead to a degradation of power-assisted steering.
Loss of power assist could result in a vehicle crash, possibly
resulting in serious injury or death.
The Company will notify the owners of the transit buses and
repair the vehicles by installing an orifice free of charge. The
recall is expected to begin. Owners who take their vehicles to
an authorized dealer on an agreed upon service date and do not
receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should contact
the Company by Phone: 952-967-7168 or contact the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).
FORD MOTOR: Recalls 34,013 Vehicles Because of Accident Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) by recalling 34,013 sport utility
vehicles, namely Ford Freestar, model 2004 and Mercury Montery,
model 2004.
Certain minivans may have been produced with front wheel hub
assemblies that were not heat treated correctly. This condition
may lead to the development of small cracks in the hub. If the
cracks were to progress, this could eventually result in wheel
separation. Wheel separation may lead to loss of vehicle
control and potentially result in a vehicle crash.
Dealers will replace the front hub, rotors and wheel bearings.
The recall began on September 20,2004.
For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-392-3673
or contact the NHTSA's auto safety Hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT
(1-888-327-4236).
GAMBRO AB: REN Corporation Investors Sue Over Cobe Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swedish company Gambro AB faces a shareholder class action filed
in Florida court, over a year-old acquisition by Cobe
Laboratories, Inc., the Denver Business Journal reports.
The Company purchased Cobe in 1990. The suit also names
subsidiary company Gambro Renal Products, Inc.
Former owners of stock in dialysis provider REN Corporation
filed suit and are seeking class-action certification against
Gambro. Cobe - now Gambro Inc -- paid $190 million for the
outstanding shares of REN. The lawsuit claims that former
officers and directors of Cobe failed to disclose certain
information about the deal.
GILBERT PLUMBING: EEOC Commences Suit Over Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Plumbing Co. faces a class action filed by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging its
supervisors made repeated racial slurs and insults to its
Hispanic workers, the Houston Chronicle reports.
The workers also were required to work in the rain while others
weren't. The Company also allegedly denied sick leave and
sometime withheld pay for its Hispanic workers, Rudy Sustaita,
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission attorney who filed
the case, told the Chronicle. W. Hunter Shurtleff with the firm
of Davis & Davis in Bryan told the Chronicle Gilbert Plumbing is
still investigating the claims, but it denies the EEOC's
allegations.
The EEOC also filed another bias suit against Upma Enterprises,
doing business as Subway Sandwiches and Salads, for firing an
employee allegedly because she was pregnant. The shop, on West
Bellfort in Stafford, reduced the hours of Elisa Stewart after
the owner said he was worried she might injure herself, her baby
or an employee, according to the lawsuit.
GOLD KIST: AL Court Grants Arbitration Motion For Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama granted Gold Kist, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration
for a class action filed against it, styled "Ronald Hughes
Gaston v. Gold Kist Inc."
Mr. Gaston, a member of the Company's cooperative whom the
Company terminated as a hatching egg producer, filed the suit
against the Company and four additional chicken-processing
firms. The suit also has an additional Plaintiff, Matthew
Burnett, who is associated with Burnett Farms, which is a member
of the Company's cooperative.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants have conspired to prevent
competition for production contracts and seek to represent a
putative class of all contract farmers and sellers of hatching
eggs and live broilers who produced hatching eggs or live
broilers in the United States since February 23, 1998.
The Company moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims
based on arbitration agreements contained in Gold Kist's
production contracts, membership agreements, and By-Laws. The
Court granted Gold Kist's motion to compel arbitration and
stayed Plaintiffs' claims against the other defendants pending
completion of arbitration between Plaintiffs and the Company.
Plaintiffs have not yet initiated an arbitration against the
Company.
GOLD KIST: GA Court Enters Summary Judgment in Lawsuit V. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia entered summary
judgment in favor of Gold Kist, Inc. in the class action filed
against it, its chief executive officer and the members of the
Company's board of directors, styled "Wylene Jordan, et al v.
Gold Kist Inc., et al."
The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed vote of our members on
the approval of the merger of Gold Kist into New Gold Kist,
alleging that such merger, which would result in the conversion
of Gold Kist from a cooperative marketing association to a for
profit corporation, violates provisions of the Georgia Non-
Profit Corporation Code and/or violates provisions of our By-
Laws. The lawsuit also seeks a declaratory judgment that the
conversion does not comply with the Company's By-Laws; that the
conversion does not comply with Georgia law; and that proceeds
of a conversion be distributed to current and former member
equity holders in proportion to their patronage equity.
The lawsuit finally alleges the Company's chief executive
officer and each member of its Board of Directors breached their
fiduciary duty by approving the plan of conversion and the
proposed public offering.
On September 2, 2004, an order for summary judgment was entered
in favor of all of the defendants, and the plaintiffs have
agreed not to pursue any appeal.
GOLF HOST: State Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lease Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Court granted summary
judgment in favor of Golf Host, Inc. in the class action filed
against it, whereby the plaintiffs allege breaches of contract,
including breaches in connection with the Rental Pool Master
Lease Agreement.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages and declaratory
judgment stating that the plaintiffs are entitled to participate
in the rental pool if one exists, a limitation of the total
number of club memberships and a limitation of golf course
access to persons who are either condominium owners who are
members, their accompanied guests, or guests of the resort.
Depositions of class members and others, including depositions
of prior executives of the Company, have been taken and
additional discovery remains. The Court has postponed the
previously scheduled trial date of February 3, 2003; a new trial
date has not yet been set.
As of December 31, 2003, the Court had decertified the class and
denied the plaintiffs' subsequent motion to permit additional
owners to intervene in the lawsuit. In addition, the plaintiffs
filed a complaint seeking to "pierce the corporate veil." The
court dismissed the veil piercing complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiffs appealed the decertification of the class; the denial
to intervene and the veil piercing dismissal to the Florida
Court of Appeals, Second District. The Court of Appeals has
affirmed the lower court's decertification of the class and has
affirmed the lower court's dismissal with prejudice of the veil
piercing case.
No decision on the intervention appeal has been made. The
Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have
a material adverse effect on the its financial condition or
results of operations, the Company stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.
IKEA HOME: Recalls 25,000 Wall Cabinets Due To Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
IKEA Home Furnishings, of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 25,000 BERTBY Glass-
Door Wall Cabinets.
Some of these glass-door wall cabinets have the wrong sized
screws for the safety bracket, which can result in the cabinet
not being properly secured to the wall. The cabinets can fall
and injure nearby consumers. IKEA has received two reports of
cabinets falling. No injuries have been reported.
Description: The glass-door wall cabinets have "BERTBY," the
product article number (380.472.10) and supplier number (14709)
written on a label on the underside of the bottom panel or on
the topside of the top panel. The cabinets are about 67-inches
high.
Manufactured in Italy, the cabinets were sold at IKEA stores
nationwide from January 2002 through September 9, 2004 for about
$100.
IKEA is offering a free repair kit. Consumers should contact
IKEA to determine if their wall cabinet needs this repair.
Consumer Contact: Contact IKEA at (888) 966-4532 anytime or
visit the company's Web site at http://www.ikea-usa.com
INDIANA: Voters Sue For Republican Choice on Absentee Ballots
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Vigo County Election Board in Indiana faces a class action
filed in the United States District Court in Indiana by two
daughters of a former Vigo County Republican Party chairman,
challenging the constitutionality of the Vigo County Election
Board to mail ballots that omit the name of a Republican
candidate, the Tribune Star reports.
Minister and former Terre Haute, Indiana police officer Jeff Lee
dropped out of the Indiana House District 46 race on September
16, citing plans to move out of the district and eventually out
of Indiana. The Election Board this week voted to mail absentee
ballots on Thursday without listing any Republican candidate for
District 46 nor a circle for a successor candidate.
Kathleen Grace Bopp and Lydia Grace Bopp filed the suit, seeking
to stop the board from mailing the absentee ballots, claiming it
would disenfranchise them and at least 188 voters who have
requested absentee ballots who would not be able to vote for a
Republican candidate in the House District 46 race, the suit
states.
That would deny them equal protection under the 14th Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, as well as their due process right to
have the election conducted in a manner that is not
fundamentally unfair, attorney James Bopp Jr., father of the two
college students, told the Tribune Star.
"This is contrary to Indiana law," Mr. Bopp said. "Indiana law
mandates that once a vacancy is filled, i.e. as of Monday when
the [GOP] caucus meets, that the Election Board must reprint the
ballots or paste the name in . They have already decided they
will not do that."
He added, "Not only are they intending to violate Indiana law,
they are also disenfranchising several hundred absentee voters
in District 46 that will receive ballots that will only list the
Democrat, Vern Tincher, and will not list any Republican or a
place to vote Republican."
The suit seeks a temporary restraining order from U.S. District
Judge Larry J. McKinney, who has set a hearing for 9 a.m.
Tuesday in Indianapolis. The request also includes any attorney
fees and costs.
A Republican Party caucus to name a replacement for Lee is set
for 7 p.m. Monday in Clay City, located in the middle of the
district. Incumbent Rep. Brooks LaPlante, R-Terre Haute, is the
only candidate. Mr. LaPlante previously had said he would not
run for re-election.
Kathleen Bopp is registered to vote in Harrison precinct E-2 in
Vigo County. She is temporarily away from home while attending
the University of Dayton, in Dayton, Ohio. Lydia Bopp is
registered in the same precinct and temporarily away from home
while attending Indiana University in Bloomington. The two have
requested absentee ballots after learning of Mr. Lee's
withdrawal from the District 46 race.
Attorney Bopp said the problem can be resolved by printing a new
ballot or using "pastes" on the ballot. "But obviously it is
the intent of the Democrats not to fix it in order to manipulate
the process and gain votes for their candidate," he told the
Star. "The problem is this disenfranchises many voters and they
should be ashamed of themselves for that."
"I'd say it was Republicans who disfranchised voters in District
46," Terry Burns, communications director of the Indiana
Democratic Party, told the Star, referring to Mr. Lee's late
withdrawal from the race, one that Democrats claim is illegal.
The Indiana State Democratic Central Committee in a 1 p.m. legal
hearing Monday is requesting Vigo County Judge David Bolk
prevent Lee's withdrawal from the ballot.
The board already has decided not to take any steps to fix the
ballot. Vigo County Clerk Patricia Mansard, one of three
members of the Election Board, said she is "waiting for the dust
to settle on (Monday's) lawsuit. I have not read the (federal)
lawsuit."
"We have tried to proceed with the information that we have,"
she told the Star. "We will try to proceed according to
election law and have a ballot ready. My thought was to try to
act in the favor of the greatest good and the greatest number of
voters and candidates and have a ballot ready . I think that it
is extremely important to have a ballot on time."
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Consolidated Consumer Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Intuit,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
alleging violations of the California Business and Professions
Code and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).
Plaintiff Anthony Flannery filed the first suit in March 2004,
styled "Anthony Flannery v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-
CV-016394." The suit alleged that the Company's retirement of
certain services and live technical support associated with its
Quicken 1998, Quicken 1999 and Quicken 2000 products constituted
a breach of express and implied warranties and violated sections
17200 and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code,
as well as the CLRA. The complaint seeks certification as a
class action, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees from the Company.
On April 21, 2004, plaintiff Daniel Mason, on his behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against Intuit in Santa Clara Superior Court making
allegations virtually identical to those of Anthony Flannery.
The suit was styled "Daniel J. Mason v. Intuit Inc.
et al, Civil No. 1-04-CV-018345)."
On July 14, 2004, the Court consolidated the two cases pursuant
to stipulation of the parties. On July 29, 2004, plaintiffs
filed a consolidated First Amended Complaint, styled
"Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation, Master File No. 1-04-CV-
016394, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara."
Intuit's response to that Complaint is due on October 8, 2004.
The parties have only recently initiated discovery. No trial
date is set.
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consumer class action against
Intuit, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of
Santa Clara, styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al,
Civil No. 1-04-CV-020277, Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara."
On May 24, 2004, plaintiff Cynthia Belotti, on her behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company in Santa Clara Superior Court,
alleging that Intuit's retirement of certain add-on business
services and live technical support associated with its
QuickBooks 2001and QuickBooks 2002 products constituted a breach
of express and implied warranties and violated sections 17200
and 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The
complaint sought certification as a class action, as well as
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorney's fees from Intuit.
The First Amended Complaint added Ental Precision Machining,
Inc., as plaintiff. Plaintiffs' counsel has also dismissed
without prejudice all claims on behalf of Cynthia Belotti. The
Company's response to that Complaint is due on October 8, 2004.
The parties have only recently initiated discovery. No trial
date is set.
KENTUCKY: Jury Awards $44M To Former Racetrack Shareholders
-----------------------------------------------------------
A Simpson Circuit Court jury awarded $44 million in damages to
former shareholders, who sued the company that operated Dueling
Grounds Race Course in Franklin in the mid-1990s, the Lexington
Herald-Leader reports.
Arnold Pessin of Lexington and Robert D. Oldham of Nashville,
who were shareholders in Dueling Grounds Entertainment Corp. in
1997, when the bankrupt racetrack was sold to a consortium
headed by Churchill Downs, filed the class action lawsuit. After
acquired by Churchill Downs, the track was renamed Kentucky
Downs.
The judgment was against Dueling Grounds director, James E.
Sparrow, a director of Dueling Grounds Entertainment Corp., and
the accountant for majority owners Earl and Rita Sinks, Michael
S. Rakusin. Mr. Sparrow and Mr. Rakusin were each ordered by
the court to pay $6 million in compensatory damages and $16
million in punitive damages.
According to Jason Hargadon, one of two Lexington attorneys for
the former shareholders, the verdict could mark the end of the
7-year-old case that has been dubbed as a "Kentucky version of
Enron and Worldcom." The other attorney representing the
shareholders was Ben Keller.
LOUISIANA: Judge Dismisses Teflon-Coated Jaw Implant Suit V. LSU
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ad Hoc Civil District Judge Louis A. DiRosa dismissed a lawsuit,
which was filed as a national class action that accuses
Louisiana State University of hiding results of early studies of
a Teflon-coated jaw implant, the Associated Press reports.
The suit was seen as a potentially costly one not only for LSU,
but for the state as well, which essentially insures the
university. Suits in Texas and Canada brought settlements
totaling more than $60 million. The state of Louisiana has paid
almost $1.5 million to settle five other claims against LSU and
Dr. John Kent, an oral surgeon.
Instead of accepting the suit, the judge ordered the women who
filed the suit to pay its costs, saying they waited too long to
sue. Furthermore, the judge in a separate decision found that
the plaintiffs in the case don't have enough in common for a
class action suit.
Judge DiRosa pointed out that he dismissed the suit because it
had missed the deadline since the claims had to be filed within
one year from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's recall of
the implants in January 1990.
The suit originally named LSU and Dr. Kent, an oral surgeon and
consultant for Vitek Inc. of Texas, which made the small disc,
known as a Proplast implant that was meant to keep the jawbones
from rubbing against each other.
Marianne James of Shreveport and Linda Ett of North Carolina
filed the original lawsuit in 2002. They, along with Gail Dasher
of Alabama, had received money from earlier claims against Vitek
Inc., which went bankrupt in 1994, after 2,300 implant
recipients filed claims against it.
Ms. Ett and Ms. James got money from the bankruptcy claims,
while the latter along with Ms. Dasher were among 4,000
residents of the United States and Canada who got $52 million in
class-action settlements from Vitek and Houston's Methodist
Hospital in 1995.
Those suits claimed that Teflon, which was supposed to make the
joint glide easily, disintegrated in the body and caused a wide
variety of immune system problems. The newest lawsuit was filed
later, based on information that an LSU doctor had tested the
implants on dogs and monkeys in the 1980s.
MASSACHUSETTS: Former Bishop Indicted on Child Sex Abuse Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Massachusetts Bishop Thomas Dupre was indicted on child
rape charges, becoming the first Roman Catholic official
indicted in the sex abuse scandal within the American church,
the Associated Press reports. The indictment was announced by
Hampden County District Attorney William Bennett.
Bishop Dupre, 70, was accused of molesting two boys in the
1970s, the county prosecutor said. In February, he resigned as
head of the Springfield Diocese after nine years, after The
Republican newspaper of Springfield confronted him with
allegations he abused two boys while he was a parish priest.
Bishop Dupre cited health reasons for his departure.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: To Comply With EU Ruling If Appeal Fails
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation is ready to put out a stripped-down
version of its Windows software on the market should it fail to
persuade a judge to suspend a landmark European Union antitrust
decision, the Associated Press reports.
On March 24, the European Commission declared Microsoft guilty
of abusing its "near monopoly" with Windows software. It levied
a record fine of 497.2 million euros ($613 million) and demanded
changes in how the Washington-based software giant operates in
Europe to improve competition globally.
The 20-member commission ordered the Company to offer a version
of its Windows operating system without Windows Media Player and
to encourage computer makers to provide other audiovisual
software as it nears the end of its ten-year antitrust
investigation, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (March
25,2004) reports. The Commission also ordered the Company to
license information to make the servers of rivals more
compatible with Windows desktop machines. Windows runs more
than 95 percent of all personal computers.
The Company appealed the decision, asking the European Court of
First Instance in Luxembourg to annul the European Commission's
March 24 decision, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June
10,2004) reports.
"We'll certainly be ready to comply," Microsoft's chief lawyer,
Brad Smith, said at a news conference, according to AP. He said
the U.S. software giant had "spent millions of dollars over the
past few months" to prepare a version of its ubiquitous
operating system that would satisfy EU regulators. The software
giant earlier argued that it would face difficulties
implementing the Media Player order, arguing that the software
for playing digital audio and video was integral to other
functions of the operating system, such as the "help" system.
The two sides will meet before the president of the Luxembourg-
based European Court of First Instance Bo Vesterdorf, who will
decide whether to freeze the EU's punishment pending a final
decision on the appeal, which could take several years.
NATURA PRODUCTS: Recalls 9.4T Pacifiers Due To Choking Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natura Products Downey Inc., of City of Commerce, California is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 9,400 Jaloma
pacifiers.
The pacifiers are banned under federal law. They failed federal
safety tests, come apart, and can pose a choking hazard to
infants and small children. CPSC has received one report of a
pacifier nipple that detached from the pacifier while in the
mouth of a seven-month-old. The child was not injured.
The pacifiers, which measure three inches long and about 1«
inches across the base, are pink, blue, green or white plastic
with a yellow nipple. The pacifiers have a circular handle and
the shield is labeled "Jaloma." The nipples are filled with a
sugary substance.
Manufactured in Mexico, the pacifiers were sold at various small
Mexican supermarkets and commercial retailers nationwide from
March 2004 through August 2004 for between $0.35 and $1.
Consumers should immediately take the pacifiers away from young
children and return them to the store where purchased for a full
refund.
Consumer Contact: Consumers should call Natura Products Downey
collect at (323) 726-9098 between 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. PT Monday
through Friday OR Eliut Moreno via e-mail at
natura90040@yahoo.com
NATURAL GAS FIRMS: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Natural Gas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York refused to dismiss
a class action filed against several units of the nation's
largest energy companies, charging them with manipulating
natural gas futures contracts for their own benefit, Dow Jones
Newswires reports. The 29 energy company defendants include
units of:
(1) American Electric Power Co. (AEP);
(2) Cinergy Corp. (CIN);
(3) Duke Energy (DUK);
(4) Dynegy Inc. (DNY);
(5) El Paso Corp. (EP);
(6) Encana Corp. (ECA);
(7) Oneok Inc. (OKE);
(8) Reliant Energy Inc. (RRI) and
(9) Williams Cos. (WMB).
The suit alleges that the defendants knowingly submitted false
price and volume information on spot trading of natural gas to
several industry publications with the goal of artificially
skewing reports on natural gas trades. As a result, the futures
market for natural gas was artificially altered.
The suit further alleges that 10 of the energy companies
manipulated gas future prices by engaging in "wash trades," - a
pair of trades between two companies that cause no change in
beneficial ownership, but give the appearance of higher trading
volume, according to the judge's order.
Judge Victor Marrero refused to dismiss the suit, noting that
the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission had conducted their own
investigations into similar conduct by the energy companies,
resulting in at least $180 million in fines and civil penalties,
Dow Jones reports. He also rejected separate motions to dismiss
the case by five other energy companies.
"The court, for the most part, cannot ignore common sense and
accept defendants' intimations of surprise that plaintiffs'
complaint in this action is the first thing they have heard
about these allegations and that it does not furnish enough
notice of what these claims could possibly relate to," Judge
Marrero said, Dow Jones reports.
NEW JERSEY: Ocean Township, Long Branch Sued For Rental Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Two separate class action lawsuits have been filed in federal
court against Ocean Township and Long Branch councils, who
recently passed housing ordinances that allow only one
additional certificate of occupancy per year for single-family
homes in single-family zones, Asbury Park Press reports.
According to Gary E. Fox, the plaintiffs' attorney from the law
firm Fox & LaMantia in Ocean Township, the lawsuits were filed
on behalf of Ocean Township and Long Branch Citizens Against
Housing Discrimination, property owners, tenants and potential
tenants, alleging violations of the state Municipal Land-Use
Law, the federal Fair Housing Act and the constitutional rights
of landlords and tenants.
The Long Branch suit, which was filed September 10 while the
Ocean Township suit was filed on September 15, both suit are
currently pending in the U.S. District Court in Trenton.
The suits are seeking to force the municipalities, their mayors
and council members to declare the ordinances unconstitutional
and invalid and award the plaintiffs compensatory damages,
punitive damages and attorney fees.
The ordinances passed originally aimed to curb seasonal rentals
that are often associated with high turnover rates and Monmouth
University and West Long Branch University tenants. Many
permanent residents in the area have since have protested over
the influx of students at public meetings, blaming them for
their once quiet neighborhoods in to areas frequented by police,
with drunken people, drug arrests, speeding cars and horns
blowing well past midnight.
However, Mr. Fox points out that by targeting young college
students and affecting a large number of minority renters Ocean
Township and Long Branch discriminate against renters and
potential renters based on age, race and family status.
TELEPHONE COMPANIES: Sprint, AT&T Settle FTC Consumer Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation and AT&T Corporation will pay $1.125 million
and $365,000, respectively, to settle Federal Trade Commission
charges that they failed to notify certain applicants for
telephone service of their rights under federal credit laws.
The FTC charges that Sprint used consumers' credit reports to
deny them telephone service, and that both AT&T and Sprint
placed conditions or restrictions on consumers' service, without
disclosing information required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA). The disclosures must include that consumers have the
right to obtain a free copy of the credit report and to dispute
errors in it.
According to the FTC, Sprint and AT&T obtain consumers' credit
reports to determine their eligibility for telephone service. In
some cases, the companies deny service, require consumers to
make an advance payment or deposit, or limit the charges they
may incur if the credit review shows the consumer to be a credit
risk.
The FTC complaint alleges that all of these are "adverse
actions" under the FCRA, triggering the companies' obligation to
provide the consumers with a notice disclosing:
(1) the adverse action taken;
(2) the name, address, and phone number of the credit
bureau from which the consumer's credit report was
obtained;
(3) that the credit bureau did not make the decision to
take the adverse action and is unable to provide the
consumer the specific reasons why the adverse action
was taken;
(4) the consumer's right to obtain a free copy of the
consumer report within 60 days from the credit bureau;
and
(5) the consumer's right to dispute with the credit bureau
the accuracy of any information in his or her report.
The FTC alleges that AT&T and Sprint in many instances took
adverse action, but failed to provide complete notices (or, in
the case of Sprint, in some cases failed to provide any notice)
in violation of the FCRA. The incomplete notices allegedly
failed to tell consumers, among other things, of their rights to
a free credit report and to dispute the accuracy of information
in it. The FTC also alleges that Sprint violated the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by failing to provide the notices
mandated by that statute or by omitting certain required
information in their notices.
The consent decrees order Sprint to pay $1,125,000 in civil
penalties and AT&T to pay $365,000. The decrees bar the
companies from future violations of the adverse action notice
requirements of the FCRA and, in the Sprint decree, the ECOA.
Both consent decrees contain standard recordkeeping procedures
to assist the FTC in monitoring the companies' compliance.
The FTC's complaint against Sprint names as defendants Sprint
Corporation, Sprint Communications Company L.P., and Sprint's 19
subsidiaries that provide local telephone service in 18 states.
The Sprint complaint was filed at the FTC's request by the
Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Florida, Tallahassee Division, on
September 9, 2004, and the AT&T complaint was filed on the same
date in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
Newark Division. The Commission vote to refer the complaints
and proposed consent decrees to the Department of Justice for
filing was 5-0.
For more details, contact Jen Schwartzman of the FTC Office of
Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or contact Ron Isaac of
the FTC Division of Financial Practices by Phone: 202-326-3224.
UNITED STATES: Settlement Reached in Discrimination Suit V. DOJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) informs all
class members in the class action entitled Durnford v. Aschroft,
EEOC Case No. 100-2000-07059X (formerly EEOC Case No. 100-A0-
7059X) that a settlement has been reached in the aforementioned
action.
The Settlement Agreement, provides that the United States
Department of Justice, EOIR (the Agency) will pay a total of
eleven million five hundred thousand dollars ($11.5 million),
which will be deposited into a Settlement Fund. This $11.5
million is the entire payment by the Agency to settle this case.
This payment covers all damages, interest, and taxes, as well as
costs, fees, and expenses incurred by the Class Counsel for the
totality of the litigation. A Claims Administrator designated by
Class Counsel will be solely responsible for the distribution of
the funds according to formulas. There will be no non-monetary
relief.
Filed by Class Agent Lawrence D. Durnford, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated as an EEO complaint against the
Agency on March 1, 1996, alleging discrimination on the basis of
race (White) and sex (male). Mr. Durnford alleged discrimination
in his non-selection for the position of immigration judge
during 1994 and 1995. After several years of litigation on
procedural and class certification issues, on April 25, 2002,
the EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ) defined the Class as "White
male applicants for employment not selected as immigration
judges during 1994 and 1995."
In September 2002, the EEOC AJ bifurcated the issue of liability
from that of damages. That month, the parties entered into
extensive liability-related discovery and preparation, which
included deposing 35 witnesses, including expert witnesses, the
disclosure of extensive amounts of documents and the exchange of
expert reports. During the pendency of discovery, Mark Glickman
was added as a Class Agent. The hearing on liability, initially
scheduled for June 2003, was stayed pending mediation by a
private mediator. Mediation took place in Washington, DC and
Austin, Texas.
Throughout litigation, the Agency denied any wrongdoing or
liability. The Class and the Agency disagreed as to liability
and damages, including the amount recoverable if the Class
prevailed and the calculation of monetary damages. In January
2004, after nearly nine years of litigation and five months of
mediation, the Agency and the Class Agents reached an agreement
in principle. The agreement in principle was the basis for the
negotiations that led to the Settlement Agreement.
For more details, contact Class Counsel Kator, Parks, & Weiser,
P.L.L.C. by Mail: 812 San Antonio St., Suite 100, Austin, TX
78701 by Phone: (512) 322-0600 by Fax: (512) 477-2828 by E-mail:
IJ_Class@katorparks.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.katorparks.com/durnford%20agreement.htm
VIRGINIA: Ex-Residents Settle Claims V. City of Portsmouth, PRHA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former residents of Fairwood Homes recently settled their claims
for relocation benefits and discrimination against the City of
Portsmouth, the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority
("PRHA") and the development's owners, among others.
The settlement provides families who left after Jan. 1, 2001,
with a payment that is expected to range between $3,200 and
$1,200, depending on the number of families that file claims. In
addition, the City and Portsmouth Partners, the development's
owners, will pay $725,000 to establish a fair housing center in
Portsmouth.
"We're thrilled that families who lived at Fairwood Homes will
get compensated for everything they went through -- it's why we
brought this case in the first place," said Lucinda Pitt, a
former resident who was a lead plaintiff in the case. "And the
fair housing center will improve the city and benefit everyone
in Portsmouth who cares about eliminating discrimination."
Because the case was brought as a class action in the federal
district court in Norfolk, the court must approve the
settlement. The court is expected to hold a preliminary hearing
in the next two weeks. If the court approves the settlement,
attorneys plan to mail notice of the settlement to former
residents, and will set up a web site
(http://www.fairwoodhomescase.org)and a 1-800 number to provide
additional information. Near the end of the year, the court will
determine whether to give the settlement its final approval.
To qualify for the payment, former residents must have lived at
Fairwood Homes for at least 3 months, and must not have
"skipped" out of the property with unpaid back rent. Residents
who qualify can obtain the payment by submitting a claim form.
Residents will not be required to prove that they were illegally
displaced, or show any damages from being put out. Residents who
do not wish to receive this payment may choose to "opt out" of
the settlement and retain their rights to file relocation claims
separately.
"This settlement is a victory for everyone involved," said
Barbara Arnwine, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights Under Law, the national civil rights
organization representing the former residents. "The fair
housing center is a wonderful legacy for Portsmouth -- one that
will address discrimination and provide an institution that can
speak out for housing rights when they are threatened."
The fair housing center will be established by HOME, Inc., a
non-profit fair housing and housing counseling organization
operating since 1971 in Richmond, where it has developed a
productive relationship with the city. In its new Portsmouth
office, HOME will provide fair housing education and training,
investigate claims of discrimination, and work with other local
organizations to ensure consumer access to the housing related
services they need. In the long term, and as additional funding
becomes available, HOME hopes to expand its services to include
programs it currently provides in Richmond, such as trainings
for first-time home-buyers and mortgage credit counseling.
"We're excited about expanding our services into Portsmouth.
Cities are better off with effective advocates addressing
ongoing housing discrimination and promoting affordable housing
-- and residents are, too," said Connie Chamberlain, Executive
Director of HOME.
Other provisions of the settlement include an obligation that
PRHA support developers seeking to build affordable housing, a
requirement that the City and PRHA consult with the United
States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") if
they determine that relocation benefits are not owed in future
redevelopment plans, payments to the class representatives who
worked for over two years to bring the suit, and an award of
attorneys' fees.
"We're pleased that this settlement provides fair relief for
former residents, and, more importantly, demonstrates a
commitment by PRHA to work with the development community to
provide affordable housing in this tight housing market," said
David Jones, an attorney for the class of former residents.
The former Fairwood Homes residents originally filed the suit,
Pitt et al. v. City of Portsmouth et al., Civil Action No.
02cv489 (E.D. Va.), in June 2002. The suit claimed that the
residents were entitled to federal relocation benefits because
the City used Empowerment Zone funds to close and redevelop the
Fairwood Homes site. HUD also became involved, threatening to
withhold Empowerment Zone funding if federal relocation benefits
were not provided.
In addition, the residents claimed that the City, the owners of
Fairwood Homes, and others, discriminated against the
predominantly black community by agreeing to not enforce the
housing code for years while residents lived there. The
residents also claimed that the City used a "code enforcement
blitz" to force the owners to close and sell their community for
redevelopment. The property owners, Portsmouth Partners, also
filed a complaint arguing that the City's decision to close the
property discriminated against residents.
Also named as a defendant was Empowerment 2010, Inc., which was
involved in planning the redevelopment of the site.
The plaintiffs are represented pro bono by the Lawyers'
Committee in Washington, D.C.; the Washington, D.C., and
Madison, Wis., offices of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, LLP;
the Washington, D.C. and New York, N.Y., offices of Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP, and the Charles E. Malone Law Firm in Norfolk, Va.
For more details, contact Jonathan P. Hooks of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law by Phone: 202-662-832
WAL-MART STORES: CA Judge Halts Discovery in Gender Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco federal judge recently ruled that discovery in a
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sex-discrimination suit will be halted
until an appeal of the class certification is resolved, CBS
MarketWatch reports.
In late June, a ruling by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins
certified the case as a class-action suit and included 1.6
million women in the case, making it the largest civil-rights
lawsuit ever confronted by a private employer.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California agreed
last month to review Judge Jenkins' decision, which is expected
to rule on it by spring.
In their suit, the women, which include employees hired by Wal-
Mart (WMT) since Dec. 26, 1998 claim they were consistently held
back from promotions and paid less than male counterparts since
at least 1987. The suit also calls for future hires to be
included in the class action until the court issues an order
ending the allegedly illegal practices.
The world's largest retailer has consistently argued that
hiring, promoting and firing decisions were made at individual
store levels and urged the judge to pull the cases apart for
each store. They further argued that the suit doesn't take into
account the thousands of women whose paychecks are bigger than
their male counterparts.
WEST VIRGINIA: Residents Take Part In Suit V. Corridor D Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 75 residents of Lake Washington are taking part in a class
action lawsuit against the state of West Virginia and the
contractors for the Corridor D project claiming that the clay
and other sediments left from the recent construction is
polluting their home, WTAP-TV reports.
According to Will Crichton, who is representing the residents,
"All the material that they've placed on the land out there has
flowed into Lake Washington and caused terrible environmental
conditions in the lake. It's become cloudy, filled with clay and
mud."
It's a situation that resident Rodney Starcher says makes it
impossible to fish, swim, or even admire the lake. Furthermore,
Mr. Starcher says, "The last thing we wanted was to do a
lawsuit. What's a shame is that this all could have been
resolved in the fall. All we wanted was a sediment pond built,
something to keep their muck out of the lake."
Mr. Crichton reiterates that his clients did not want to resort
to a lawsuit, which is to be filed in the next 30 days. The
residents say they just want their lake back.
In response to the suit, the state's Division of Highways told
WTAP, "There is a long history of problems in this area, even
before Corridor D. However, we cannot comment further until the
lawsuit is received and an investigation is conducted."
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
September 29-30, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 7-8, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New York, NY
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
October 15, 2004
TOXIC TORTS IN CALIFORNIA
BridgePortCE
Grand Hyatt San Francisco CA
Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax: (818) 505-1497
October 21, 2004
ADVANCED SKILLS FOR LITIGATION PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 25-26, 2004
THE ADVANCED MEDICO-LEGAL GUIDE TO REDUCING THE
RISK OF OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conferences
The Disney Grand Floridian Resort, FL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
October 26, 2004
ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 29, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New Orleans
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
November 1-2, 2004
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2004: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
PLI New York Center -- New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu
November 4-5, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES,
TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 8, 2004
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8, 2004
ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
SULFATE ATTACK ON CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 15-16, 2004
THE STRATEGIC GUIDE TO INSURANCE INSOLVENCY
OVERCOMING BUSINESS, LEGAL AND REGULATORY HURDLES
American Conferences
The Park Central New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
December 6-7, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6-7, 2004
MTBE & USTs LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9-10, 2004
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-14, 2004
THE 9TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL & TRIAL
ATTORNEYS DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Plaza Hotel, New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
January 24-25, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENCING OBESITY CLAIMS
THE LATEST INFORMATION ON LEGAL EXPOSURES, LEGISLATION
AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
American Conferences
St. Regis Hotel, Washington DC
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago Tuition $
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
September 01-28, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CONCORD CAMERA: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, on behalf of all persons who purchased
common stock of Concord Camera Corporation ("Concord")
(NASDAQ:LENS) between August 14, 2003 and May 10, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against Concord, Ira Lampert,
Harlan Press, and Richard Finkbeiner.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between August 14, 2003 and May
10, 2004, thereby artificially inflating the price of Concord
common stock. Concord designs, develops, manufactures and sells
easy-to-use image capture products on a worldwide basis. 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's inventory levels were materially
inflated;
(2) that the Company's financial results were materially
impacted by the significant inventory provisions,
ranging from $6 to $7 million;
(3) that the Company's net loss was artificially deflated
through the application of manufacturing labor and
overhead costs to inventory; and
(4) that, as a result, the Company's financial results were
materially inflated at all relevant times.
On May 11, 2004, Concord announced that it would file Form 12b-
25 with the SEC extending the Company's time to file a Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 27, 2004. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Concord fell $1.58 per share or 34.20 percent,
on May 11, 2004, to close at $3.04 per share.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com
FANNIE MAE: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Federal National Mortgage
Association ("Fannie Mae" or the "Company") (NYSE:FNM) between
October 16, 2003 and September 22, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Fannie Mae and certain
officers and directors ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants knew, but actively concealed that the Company
employed accounting practices in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting principles in order to maintain a steady earnings
progression, that the Company's officers, including the
Defendants, committed these violations in order to achieve
performance bonuses, and that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was unable to ascertain its true financial
condition.
Additionally, the firm is also conducting an investigation into
the Company regarding potential violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in relation to
its handling of investments in the Company's employee retirement
benefit plan. In particular, the investigation focuses on
whether the Company and certain plan administrators breached
their fiduciary duties by negligently misrepresenting and
failing to disclose material facts to the plan and the
participants and permitting the plan to hold Fannie Mae stock
when it was imprudent to do so.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com
NEW YORK: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of New York
Community Bancorp Inc. (NYSE:NYB) between June 27, 2003 and May
9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For mor edetails, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
NEW YORK: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of New York Community Bancorp
Inc. ("NYB" or the "Company") (NYSE:NYB) between June 27, 2003
and May 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges NYB, Joseph R. Ficalora and Michael P.
Puorro with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
(1) that defendants manipulated the Company's financial
results in order to appear more attractive for
potential merger deals;
(2) that this was accomplished through leveraged growth
funded by short-term funding;
(3) the Company's projections about growth and interest
rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made; and
(4) that the Company's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.
On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist the Company in
undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including
remaining independent. Commenting on the announcement, defendant
Ficalora stated, "We have always been a company that has focused
on shareholder value, and this review is consistent with that
focus." News of the engagement of Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. shocked the market. For months, and in numerous interviews,
filings and press releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that,
given the nature of the Company's business, assets, and
liabilities, NYB would not only do better than its rivals in its
sector, but even thrive in an environment of rising interest
rates. Furthermore, Ficalora stated that NYB's predictions were
based on lower interest rates, and that an interest-rate
increase would be good for the company. However, the sudden
engagement of three financial firms to "review strategic
alternatives" was the market's and investors' first indication
that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned or advertised.
Following NYB's announcement, in intra-day trading on Monday,
May 10, 2004, NYB dropped over $2.53 per share from its previous
close, on May 7, 2004, of $24.13 per share, or 10.5%, to close
at a low of $21.60 per share. At the close of trading, NYB had
fallen $1.33 per share, or 5.5%, to close at $21.80 per share on
volume of 9 million shares -- nearly three times its usual
volume.
For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com
NEW YORK: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of New York Community
Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: NYB) ("NYB") between June 27, 2003 and May
9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all
those who acquired NYB's shares through its acquisition of
Roslyn Bancorp.
The Complaint alleges that NYB, the holding company for New York
Community Bank, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false statements. Specifically, NYB failed to
disclose that:
(1) defendants manipulated the Company's financial results
in order to appear more attractive for potential merger
deals;
(2) this was accomplished through leveraged growth funded
by short-term funding;
(3) NYB's projections about growth and interest rate
sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis when
made; and
(4) NYB's financial results were materially inflated at all
relevant times.
On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist NYB in undertaking a
review of its strategic alternatives, including remaining
independent. News of the engagement of three financial firms to
"review strategic alternatives" was the market's first
indication that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned.
For months, and in numerous interviews, filings, and press
releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that NYB would not only
do better than its rivals in its sector, but even thrive in an
environment of rising interest rates.
For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net
STAAR SURGICAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of STAAR Surgical Company. ("Staar Surgical"
or the "Company")(Nasdaq:STAA) between April 3, 2003 and January
6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint charges David Bailey and Staar Surgical with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims that
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations concerning
Staar Surgical's business operations and prospects artificially
inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on
investors. Staar Surgical develops, manufactures and distributes
products, including implantable lenses, used by ophthalmologists
and other eye care professionals to improve or correct vision in
patients with cataracts, refractive conditions and glaucoma. The
Complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded
that their public statements concerning Staar Surgical's
implantable lenses ("ICLs") were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose significant problems with the
manufacture of these devices. These significant problems
included, but were not limited to:
(1) methods, facilities and/or controls used for the
manufacture, packing and storage of the ICLs that were
not in conformance with Current Good Manufacturing
Practice; and
(2) failure to establish and maintain procedures to assure
that valid methods were used to test the raw materials
and finished ICL devices.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendants knew but failed to
adequately report to the Federal Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") the existence of serious injuries and/or malfunctions
attributable to Staar Surgical's IOL/ICL which were likely to
cause or contribute to serious injuries, despite defendants'
knowledge of these malfunctions and injuries. Significantly,
these serious problems jeopardized Staar Surgical's ability to
gain FDA approval for U.S. marketing of its ICLs - anticipated
to be the "dominant revenue generators for the Company over the
next four to five years." None of these serious problems,
however, which threatened FDA approval of Staar Surgical's ICLs,
were timely disclosed to investors.
On January 6, 2004, the FDA website posted a warning letter to
Staar Surgical concerning serious violations of manufacturing
standards and the failure of the Company to adequately report to
the FDA the existence of adverse events associated with the
Company's ICLs. This news shocked the market and sent the price
of Starr Surgical shares plummeting, to close almost 18% below
the previous day -- one day before the disclosure of the FDA's
warning letter -- thereby damaging investors.
For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com
STAAR SURGICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of STAAR Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:STAA) between April 3, 2003 to January 6,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against STAAR and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose meaningful manufacturing
difficulties for the Company's premier product the ICL or
implantable contact lenses and injuries resulting from this
product. On January 6, 2004, the Company received a warning
letter from the Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding
violations of manufacturing standards and inadequate reporting
concerning the ICL. In reaction to the news, shares of STAAR
fell approximately 18% to $9.22 per share.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com
STAAR SURGICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Mexico on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of STAAR Surgical Company
(Nasdaq: STAA) ("STAAR") between April 3, 2003 and January 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that STAAR and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements. Specifically,
defendants knew but failed to adequately report to the Food &
Drug Administration ("FDA") the existence of serious injuries
and/or malfunctions attributable to STAAR Surgical's implantable
lenses ("ICLs"), which were likely to cause or contribute to
serious injuries. These serious problems jeopardized STAAR
Surgical's ability to gain FDA approval for U.S. marketing of
its ICLs -- anticipated to be the "dominant revenue generators
for the Company over the next four to five years." None of these
serious problems, however, which threatened FDA approval of
STAAR Surgical's ICLs, were timely disclosed to investors.
On January 6, 2004, the FDA website posted a warning letter to
STAAR Surgical concerning serious violations of manufacturing
standards and the failure of the Company to adequately report to
the FDA the existence of adverse events associated with STAAR
Surgical ICLs. On this news, STAAR shares plummeted to $9.22,
almost 18% below the previous days close of $11.18.
For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net
STONEPATH GROUP: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class
action lawsuit, numbered 04cv 0515, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against
defendants Stonepath Group, Inc., Dennis L. Pelino, Chairman of
the Board of Directors and Chief Executive of the Company, Bohn
L. Crain, Chief Financial Officer, and Thomas L. Scully,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, on behalf of all
persons who purchased Stonepath securities (AMEX:STG), between
May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004 seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The case
has been assigned to Judge Stewart Dalzell.
The complaint charges Stonepath and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Stonepath describes itself as a non-asset based third-
party logistics services company providing supply chain
solutions on a global basis. It offers a full range of time-
definite transportation and distribution solutions through (its)
Domestic Services platform, which manages and arranges the
movement of raw materials, supplies, components and finished
goods for our customers. The Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented that it had understated
its accrued purchased transportation liability and related costs
of purchased transportation rendering the Company's financial
statements materially false and misleading because they
understated the Company's liabilities and expenses, and
overstated the Company's net income and earning before income,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"). As a result of
the above, the Company's reported financial results were in
violation of GAAP.
On September 20, 2004, the Company announced its intention to
restate its fiscal year 2003 and first and second quarter 2004
financial statements. As a result of this news, the price of
Stonepath stock dropped 46% from September 19, 2004, and closed
at $0.86 per share on heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. by Mail:
1515 Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com
STONEPATH GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Stonepath
Group, Inc. (AMEX:STG) between May 7, 2003 and September 20,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For mor edetails, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com
STONEPATH GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Stonepath Group, Inc.
("Stonepath" or the "Company") (AMEX:STG) between May 7, 2003
and September 20, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Stonepath and Dennis L. Pelino, Bohn
H. Crain and Thomas L. Scully ("Defendants").
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that it had
understated its accrued purchased transportation liability and
related costs of purchased transportation. As a result of the
understatement, the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP").
On September 20, 2004, the Company reported that it was going to
restate its fiscal year 2003 and the first two fiscal quarters
of 2004. As a result of this restatement, Stonepath shares fell
46%, to trade at $0.86 per share on very heavy volume.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2004. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *