/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/041013.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 13, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 203
Headlines
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Suit V. Tier Rating, Pays $10M in Fees
ASHWORTH INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 8, 2004
BIOLAB INC.: Attorneys Seek Consolidation of GA Pollution Suit
COCA COLA: Israeli Vending Machine Operators File Antitrust Suit
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Judge's Final Approval Delayed By Hurricane Ivan
CONTEMPORARY AUTO: MD A.G. Curran Files Insurance Fraud Charges
FAX.COM: CA Court Issues Injunction Against Unsolicited Faxes
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Grants Preliminary Pact Approval
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Grants Approval To ERISA Lawsuit Pact
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
HILLESTAD PHARMACEUTICALS: FDA Warns Of Court Order Violations
HOMESAVERS USA: Inks Settlement Over MO Consumer Fraud Charges
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Former Landowner Lodges IN Suit V. Land Sale
INTERPOOL INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in NJ
INVESCO FUNDS: CO A.G. Salazar's Finalizes Market Timing Pact
LUTHER BROOKDALE: Settles MN A.G. Hatch Consumer Fraud Charges
MAINLINE AIRWAYS: MA Consumers Receive Refunds For Fake Tickets
MARK MAGRANN: Residents Lodge Suit V. Defective Heating Systems
MINNESOTA: A.G. Hatch Files Suit V. Two Debt Collection Agencies
MISSOURI: Resident To Pay MO Investors $40T For Securities Fraud
MISSOURI: CA Business Pays $15T To Settle No Call Law Violations
NEW YORK: Civil Service Union Lodges Suit Over "Illegal" Firings
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 30, 2004
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settlement Hearing Set November 12, 2004
PROFESSIONAL MARKETING: MN A.G. Hatch Sues Over Consumer Fraud
SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Denied For Gilder Creek Lawsuit
STAIN LIFTERS: Owner Pleads Guilty To Environmental Crime Charge
THOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Ontario Court Affirms Copyright Ruling
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
FLIGHT SAFETY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
FLIGHT SAFETY: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Suit
NEW YORK: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
REMEC INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
REMEC INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit CA
SALESFORCE.COM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
STONEPATH GROUP: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in PA
TOMMY HILFIGER: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
ZIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
*********
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Settles Suit V. Tier Rating, Pays $10M in Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard-based insurance provider, American Medical Security Group
Inc. settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the Company raised
insurance rates on certain customers based on their health, the
Green Bay Press-Gazette reports.
The proposed settlement, which was recently approved by the
Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida calls for AMS to
repay nearly all of the excess premiums paid by customers while
it used a method called tier rating, which charged some
customers more for insurance based on their health.
Though a total dollar figure for the settlement was not included
in court documents filed by the medical insurer, the settlement
did call for AMS to make a payment of $10 million in legal fees
and expenses to the class-action lawyers.
The lawsuit involves issues relating to discontinuation of
health insurance policies in 1998 and using a pricing method
called tier rating. Tier rating, which is also known as re-
underwriting, is a rating method in which unhealthy people can
be charged more than healthy people with similar coverage.
ASHWORTH INC.: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 8, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $15.25
million settlement in the matter of In Re: Ashworth Inc.
Securities Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period September 4, 1997
through July 15, 1998, and who were damaged thereby.
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 10:30 a.m. on November
8, 2004, at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, 940 Front Street, San Diego, CA
92101.
For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq. of Berger &
Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: (215) 875-3000 OR Kurt B. Olsen, Esq. of Klafter
& Olsen LLP by Mail: 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington,
DC 20037 by Phone: (202) 261-3553 OR Jeffrey D. Light, Esq. of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Mail: 401 B
Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, California 92101-4297 by Phone:
(619) 231-1058 OR Claims Administrator - Ashworth Securities
Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 8040, San
Rafael, CA 94912-8040 by Phone: 1-800-447-7657
BIOLAB INC.: Attorneys Seek Consolidation of GA Pollution Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to consolidate several cases against BioLab Inc. over a
fire at its Conyers facility, plaintiffs' attorneys have asked
Superior Court Judge David Irwin to dismiss the suits company in
Rockdale County, the Rockdale Citizen reports.
According to the attorneys, their clients want to consolidate
the cases in a Fulton County court. The suits, most of which
have been filed in Rockdale County, Gwinnett County and some in
Fulton County stems from a May 25 fire at the BioLab's Conyers
warehouse, which caused a toxin-laden chemical cloud to drift
over portions of the community.
Judge Irwin, who has yet to award class action status to the
Rockdale County suit and previously declined to issue a
temporary restraining order to stop BioLab from settling
individual claims, said he expects to make a ruling by the end
of the week. The basic legal issue is whether or not the court
has the authority to reject the request to dismiss the suit in
favor of another venue.
John Dougherty, representing BioLab, asked that the court to
deny the motion to dismiss and allow the case to continue in
Rockdale County pointing out that the venue statute in Georgia
calls for "a defendant to be sued where they reside, not where
the CEO lives."
However, Richard Hendrix, speaking on behalf of attorneys asking
that the suits in Rockdale County be dismissed, argued that the
statute does allow them the "right to change our mind" and said
they were making the decision because it was in the best
interest of their clients.
Mr. Hendrix was concerned that since BioLab was allowed to
continue settling individual claims, it could taint jury
selection should the case go to trial. The suits filed in
Fulton County are based on the fact that the president of BioLab
lives there, which has raised the legal question of whether,
that is sufficient reason for that county to have jurisdiction.
COCA COLA: Israeli Vending Machine Operators File Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vending machine operators Siey Ophir and Marlet initiated a NIS
261 million ($58.59M) class-action lawsuit against Coca Cola
Israel in Beer Sheva district court, claiming that the beverage
giant maliciously uses its cola market monopoly, the Ha'aretz,
Israel reports.
In their suit, the plaintiffs claims that the company charges
high, unfair prices and favors its subsidiary, Mashkar, which is
the largest in the automatic vending machine sector, to
distribute its soft drinks.
Furthermore the plaintiffs also claim that after Coca Cola
acquired control of Mashkar, the subsidiary began to increase
its market share until it came to dominate the sector. They also
accuse Coca Cola of selling the beverages to Mashkar at
significantly lower prices than it what it offers to other
businesses.
The plaintiffs are also alleging that while they receive a 17
percent discount off Coca Cola's price list, Mashkar allegedly
receives a 50 percent discount, which gives them an unfair edge,
and results in the undermining of the competition, which in turn
enables Coca Cola to dominate the automated machine branch.
They added that Coca Cola's policies violate directives of the
anti-trust commissioner. The plaintiffs seek recognition as a
class action suit, in the name of 300 individuals and companies
operating vending machines, noting that Coca Cola's local sales
skyrocketed to NIS 1.2 billion in 2003, which represents a 70
percent market share.
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Judge's Final Approval Delayed By Hurricane Ivan
----------------------------------------------------------------
A decision to render final approval of a $65 million settlement
to be paid by ConocoPhillips because of pollution from the old
Agrico Chemical Co. fertilizer plant will be delayed, according
Circuit Judge Michael Jones, who presided over a hearing on the
settlement, the Pensacola News Journal reports.
The judge stated that the delay was due to the fact that
everyone who wanted to speak about the matter might not have
been able to attend because of Hurricane Ivan. In light of this
development the judge has scheduled a haring on October 12,
2004, but because of extensive damage to the M.C. Blanchard
Judicial Building, the hearing is scheduled for the Pensacola
Civic Center.
At stake is a $65 million settlement Conoco and the plaintiffs'
lawyers already have agreed to distribute to the 7,917 people
who registered for the settlement, which was prompted by a 2001
class-action lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are people whose property may have been
contaminated by a plume of polluted water that has spread
underground from the old Agrico plant in central Pensacola to
Bayou Texar.
Cross Street to the south, Palafox Street to the west, Hickory
Street and Berkley Drive to the north and the bayou to the east,
roughly border the affected area, which are about 3,600 parcels
of land. It also includes all shoreline property along the
bayou.
The settlement calls for the following disbursements, divvied up
among owners between 1957 and June 15, 2004:
(1) Those who own property closest to the plant will
receive $38,000.
(2) Owners of property to the east and south of Agrico will
be allotted $12,000.
(3) Owners of land lining Bayou Texar will get $10,000.
(4) Twelve property owners who served as representatives of
the whole class of plaintiffs will receive $15,000 each
for assisting lawyers with the case.
(5) Anyone with a well on his property will get an
additional $10,000.
However, plaintiffs' lawyers believe that claimants may end up
receiving more than anticipated since only 7,917 people out of
the estimated 10,000 registered. The remaining money will be
distributed in proportion to the first payments they receive.
CONTEMPORARY AUTO: MD A.G. Curran Files Insurance Fraud Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maryland Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr.'s office filed
felony insurance fraud, felony theft and conspiracy charges
against Michael Horner, former owner of Contemporary Auto in
Harford County, and four co-conspirators, Darlene Hohl, Shannon
Smith, Monica Trawinski and Janelle Wiegand.
The filing of charges follows a joint investigation conducted by
the Office of the Attorney General, the Insurance Fraud Division
of the Maryland Insurance Administration and the Maryland State
Police.
In a nineteen count indictment filed in the Circuit Court for
Harford County, Mr. Horner was charged with felony theft,
insurance fraud and conspiring to file numerous fraudulent
automobile insurance claims totaling over $288,000.00 from
January of 2002 through January of 2004. The charges also
allege that Mr. Horner carried out this scheme by fraudulently
switching vehicle identification numbers from undamaged vehicles
to severely damaged salvage vehicles prior to their presentation
to insurance claims adjustors for inspection. Each co-
conspirator was charged with felony insurance fraud and
conspiracy to commit insurance fraud for their involvement in
the scheme.
If convicted, each of the defendants could face up to fifteen
years in prison on each count. No trial date has been set. A
criminal indictment is merely an accusation of wrongdoing, and
every individual is presumed innocent until the charges are
proven by the State.
FAX.COM: CA Court Issues Injunction Against Unsolicited Faxes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Southern California issued
an injunction against junk-fax blaster, Fax.com that prohibits
the company and its surrogates from spamming fax machines across
the country, the Wired News reports.
According to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's
spokesman Tom Dresslar, it is the first substantive ruling in a
$15 million dollar lawsuit that was filed by the attorney
general back in July 2003. He also called it decisive victory
for California citizens and businesses.
The attorney general's suit is based on a 1991 federal law,
called the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits
unsolicited commercial faxes and allows individuals and
government agencies to sue for up to $1,500 per junk fax.
It is not known how many junk faxes Fax.com has sent through its
decentralized network of fax-blasting computers since it opened
in 1998, but documents obtained by Wired News show the company
sent as many as 785,000 faxes a week in 2002.
Lawrence Markey, a staff attorney at the California-based
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, called the
injunction "great news."
According to legal experts, the injunction effectively bans
Fax.com employees, select business partners and five successor
companies from sending any unsolicited faxes, dialing random
numbers to try to reach fax machines, or telemarketing using
pre-recorded sales pitches.
Though thrilled by news of the injunction, Fax.com's tenacious
opponent, tech industry millionaire Steve Kirsch who filed a
$2.2 trillion class action lawsuit against Fax.com stated that
he was going to wait and see if it stops Fax.com's faxing ways.
"But, if it doesn't, someone is going to spend some time in
jail," Mr. Kirsch said, referring to the criminal penalties for
violating a federal court injunction. He laso told Wired News
that he also intends to push forward with his lawsuit and expand
his targets to include two other companies, Visionlab
Communications and Protus IP Solutions, both of whom now rivals
Fax.com.
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Grants Preliminary Pact Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Global
Crossing Ltd. (now Global Crossing Limited), styled "In re
Global Crossing Ltd. Securities Litigation"
Following the Company's filing for bankruptcy on January 28,
2002, approximately 50 purported shareholder class action
lawsuits were filed against certain of the Company's s then
current and former officers, directors and employees. The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants committed fraud under the
federal securities laws in connection with the Company's
financial statements and disclosures and certain other public
statements made by the Company's representatives and seek
compensatory damages, costs and expenses, and equitable and
other relief. The class actions were later consolidated.
In addition, a number of individual securities cases or other
actions based on federal or state law claims and arising out of
similar underlying facts have been filed (and in the future,
additional cases may be filed) against certain of the Company's
current and former officers, directors, and employees, seeking
damages for alleged violations of federal and state securities
laws, breach of fiduciary duties, violations of state whistle-
blower statutes, and allegations that certain former employees
were improperly restricted from selling the Company's common
stock before the price collapsed. The Company is involved only
indirectly in these cases and is not a named defendant.
The Court later entered an order preliminarily approving a
settlement between the plaintiffs and the individual officers,
directors and employees of the Company who are defendants in the
consolidated securities action. Any monetary liability that the
Company may have had in respect of these cases was discharged
upon consummation of the Plan of Reorganization.
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Grants Approval To ERISA Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Global Crossing Ltd.
(now Global Crossing Limited), alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Following the Company's filing for bankruptcy on January 28,
2002, plaintiffs filed over 15 purported class actions against
the Company's current and former officers, directors, and
employees pursuant to ERISA in connection with the
administration of its 401(k) retirement savings plans.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the ERISA
fiduciaries breached their duties to the 401(k) plan
participants by directing or otherwise being responsible for the
plans' acquiring and continuing to maintain investments in the
Company's common stock. The court consolidated most of these
actions under the caption "In re Global Crossing Ltd. ERISA
Litigation."
The consolidated complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the plaintiff class, an order compelling defendants to make
good on the losses sustained by the plans, the imposition of a
constructive trust on any amounts by which the defendants were
unjustly enriched by their actions, and an order of equitable
restitution. Although the Company is named as a defendant in
the consolidated ERISA case, plaintiffs asserted in their
consolidated complaint that they would not prosecute their
action against the Company unless or until the Bankruptcy Court
were to lift or grant relief from the automatic stay of
litigation imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. No such relief was
granted prior to the effective date of the Plan of
reorganization.
On April 30, 2002, an additional case, styled "Pusloskie v.
Winnick et al.," was commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against certain of
the Company's current and former directors, officers and
employees. This case is brought on behalf of a putative class
of the Company's former employees and asserts claims for breach
of fiduciary duties in connection with the administration of one
of the Company's 401(k) retirement plans. This additional case
does not name the Company as a defendant and was not
consolidated with the other ERISA cases.
The court entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement
between the plaintiffs and the individual officers, directors
and employees of the Company who are defendants in these ERISA
actions. Any monetary liability that the Company may have had
in respect of these cases was discharged upon the effectiveness
of the Plan of Reorganization.
GLOBAL CROSSING: NY Court Approves ERISA Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York preliminarily approved the settlement of the
shareholder class action filed against Global Crossing Ltd.'s
(now Global Crossing Limited) current and former officers,
directors, and employees and against the Frontier
Corporation/Global Crossing Change of Control Severance Plan
(the "Severance Plan).
The suit makes claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in connection with the administration of
the Severance Plan. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things,
that the purported ERISA fiduciaries and the Severance Plan
breached their duties to the plan's participants in suspending
payments of severance benefits in connection with the Company's
bankruptcy filing. The case has been coordinated (but not
consolidated) with the securities and the other ERISA class
actions in the Southern District of New York, where it is
pending under the caption "Simonetti v. Perrone."
The Company is not named as a defendant in the "Simonetti" case
and the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed the Severance Plan
as a defendant. The court entered into an order preliminarily
approving a settlement between the plaintiffs and the individual
officers, directors and employees of the Company who are
defendants in that case. Any monetary liability that the
Company may have had in respect of this case was discharged upon
the effectiveness of the Plan of Reorganization.
HILLESTAD PHARMACEUTICALS: FDA Warns Of Court Order Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration informed Hillestad
Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., of Woodruff, Wisconsin, that the
firm is violating a court order prohibiting the company from
using drug claims in the promotion of its dietary supplement
products. FDA took this action after an inspection of the firm
revealed that it was promoting various dietary supplements with
claims that they could treat, prevent, cure or mitigate disease
-- even though none of these products has ever been shown to be
safe or effective for these uses.
In a letter delivered to Hillestad Pharmaceuticals, FDA
instructs the firm to cease these illegal practices or face
further FDA action, including a possible contempt proceeding for
failure to comply with the court order. The letter also directs
the firm to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $23,000.00,
which reflects sales of Opti-Cran, Hi-C Level, Ginkgo Biloba,
and St. John's Wort that were made in violation of the court
order.
In July 2000, the company agreed to a consent decree issued by
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Wisconsin as part of a settlement of a case FDA and the
Department of Justice had brought against it for marketing
unapproved new drugs -- products not shown to be safe or
effective for their intended uses -- in violation of the Federal
Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. Under the terms of the decree, the
firm was required to cease making such drug claims and destroy
all promotional materials containing such claims.
An FDA inspection of the firm, however, revealed that such
unapproved drug claims are being made in promotional materials
such as monthly newsletters the company distributes. These
newsletters contain claims that certain products can prevent
viral and bacterial disease or treat medical conditions such as
diabetes, depression, impotence and allergies.
HOMESAVERS USA: Inks Settlement Over MO Consumer Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina business that promises to help people avoid
foreclosure on their homes will provide refunds to Missouri
consumers who were required to pay for services up front, in
violation of Missouri law. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon
obtained an agreement with HomeSavers USA LLC, based in
Charlotte, N.C., after consumers complained about the business.
One Missouri consumer learned of HomeSavers USA through a credit
counseling service, another through a television ad. The
consumers told the Attorney General that HomeSavers USA promised
to work with their mortgage company to lower their payments and
keep them afloat. The two Missouri consumers paid hundreds of
dollars hoping this service would help them.
HomeSavers USA contacted the consumers' mortgage company and
tried to work out lower payments, but was not successful in
doing so. The consumers say they received nothing of value from
their contract with HomeSavers USA.
HomeSavers USA agreed to pay $830 in restitution for the two
consumers, one of whom is from St. Louis and the other from
Wellington, which is in Lafayette County. The agreement also
provides for the Attorney General to seek restitution from the
business for consumers who file proof within the next sixty days
that they purchased foreclosure consulting services from
HomeSavers USA and were either charged for those services before
the work was fully completed or who did not receive three days
to cancel the contract.
For more details, contact the Attorney General's Office by
Phone: 800-392-8222 or visit the Website: http://www.ago.mo.gov
by November 1.
In the agreement approved by Cole County Circuit Judge Richard
Callahan, HomeSavers USA agrees to comply with the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act. This includes giving consumers
three days to rescind a contract and asking for payment only
after work has been completed.
INDIANAPOLIS POWER: Former Landowner Lodges IN Suit V. Land Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
William R. O'Neal, a former Morgan County farmer and landowner
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against the
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. over payments it made to him and
other landowners for thousands of acres of land in the county it
originally said would be used for a power plant, the
Indianapolis Star reports.
Filed recently in Morgan Superior Court, the suit stems from the
$13 million sale of the forest and farmland to the state and
private investors in late 2003. According to Mr. O'Neal, since
1970s, he and the others lost land that had been in their
families for generations when IPL used pressure tactics to get
them to sell their property, which the state partially bought.
On of the tactics Mr. O'Neal alleges is the utility's threat to
use eminent domain to force him and others to sell their
property but never built a power plant that it said was planned
there. Furthermore, Mr. O'Neal contends that IPL should give
them a share of the profits from the sale because the property
was never used for public purposes.
Mr. O'Neal's attorney, Richard Boe said as many as 150 former
property owners or their heirs could join the litigation.
According to him most of the former landowners are upset because
IPL paid them about $500 per acre for land, which the company
later sold to the private investors for $3,353 per acre.
INTERPOOL INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Interpool, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
In February and March 2004, purchasers of the Company's common
stock filed several lawsuits against the Company and certain of
its present and former executive officers and directors. The
complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's reported Consolidated Financial
Statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and
the nine months ended September 30, 2002, which the Company
announced in March 2003 would require restatement. Each of the
complaints purported to be a class action brought on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's securities during a
specified period.
INVESCO FUNDS: CO A.G. Salazar's Finalizes Market Timing Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar's office finalized its
settlement with Invesco Funds Group Inc. to resolve allegations
that it permitted excessive market timing activity in a number
of its mutual funds, including those trading in international
and foreign securities. A preliminary agreement with Invesco
was announced in early September.
The Colorado Attorney General filed a consumer protection
lawsuit against Invesco on December 2, 2003. Under terms of the
final settlement, Invesco will pay $210 million in restitution
and disgorgement to injured investors and $115 million in civil
penalties. That $325 million will be paid to the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which also announced
today its final agreement with Invesco. The SEC will establish
a mechanism for distribution of the $325 million to affected
Invesco fund shareholders.
In addition, Invesco will pay $1.5 million to be held in trust
by the Colorado Attorney General to reimburse its costs and
attorney fees and to be used for consumer and investor education
and future enforcement activities. That payment will be due on
or before November 8, 2004.
In addition to Invesco's payment of restitution and civil
penalties to settle Colorado's lawsuit, Invesco's sister
corporation, AIM Investors, Inc., simultaneously agreed to pay
$50 million in disgorgement and penalties and the two entities
further agreed to roll back future advisory fees by $75 million
over the next five years to settle claims by the New York
Attorney General's Office and the SEC.
"The settlement agreement concludes nearly a year of very
intense and time-consuming investigation and negotiation,"
Attorney General Salazar said in a statement. "We are pleased
that Invesco and AIM have stepped up and have agreed to
dramatically modify the way they conduct business."
"Current and future shareholders in their mutual funds will
benefit greatly from a new environment of full disclosure and a
renewed commitment to do what is in the best interests of those
shareholders," he added.
Because Invesco, and the retail mutual funds managed by Invesco
have largely been merged into the investment management
operations of its sister corporation, AIM Advisors, Inc., AIM
has agreed to be bound by the Colorado settlement and to make
all payments required by that settlement. In addition, AIM has
agreed to significant corrective measures designed to create
greater board and adviser accountability to fund shareholders
and to prevent the kinds of abuses that gave rise to the
Attorney General's lawsuit against Invesco. Some of those
measures include:
(1) A requirement that the chairman of Board of Trustees of
the Invesco/AIM funds be truly independent, without any
prior connection to the company;
(2) New requirements for disclosure to investors of
expenses and fees;
(3) New requirement that AIM will hire a full-time senior
officer or independent consultant to ensure that fees
charged by AIM to the funds are negotiated at arm's
length and are reasonable;
(4) Stronger policies designed to detect and to prevent
market timing of Invesco/AIM's funds, including market
timing that occurs through omnibus accounts;
(5) Prohibitions on the solicitation and acceptance of so-
called "sticky assets" in exchange for trading
privileges in excess of prospectus limitations; and
(6) Retention of an independent compliance consultant, and
periodic compliance audits in order to insure that
policies and procedures in place to prevent abusive
trading are being followed.
Shareholders in one or more the Invesco funds affected by this
market timing activity are advised that issues relating to the
manner and timing of any restitution will be determined under
SEC procedure at some point in the future. An independent
distribution consultant will design a plan of distribution and
the SEC will solicit public comments on any proposal before
approving it. Information concerning such procedures will posted
when available on the SEC's website (www.sec.gov) and on the
Colorado Attorney General's website, http://www.ago.state.co.us.
LUTHER BROOKDALE: Settles MN A.G. Hatch Consumer Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch reached a settlement with
Luther Brookdale Buick Pontiac GMC, resolving the State's
investigation into Luther's use of Minnesota consumers' credit
information without their authorization, the AG said in a
statement.
Luther used consumers' credit information to screen consumers
for sending solicitations. The solicitations were fake checks
that deceptively looked like they were from the United States
Bankruptcy Court and guaranteed by the State of Minnesota.
Luther mailed the fake checks to Minnesota consumers with
discharged bankruptcies.
The State alleged that Luther's unauthorized use of consumers'
credit information violated the financial privacy of over 12,000
Minnesota consumers and was specifically prohibited by the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and also violated Minnesota
consumers fraud statutes.
"The law should not allow this type of invasion into consumers'
financial privacy for marketing purposes. At the very least, we
should allow consumers to opt-in before companies can obtain and
use their credit information for marketing purposes," said
Solicitor General Lori Swanson. "Consumers should know that as
the law stands now, the burden is on them to opt-out at all the
national credit reporting agencies by calling 1-888-5-OPT OUT
(1-888-567-8688)."
The agreement calls for a $250,000 payment to the State and a
court-ordered injunction against the dealership. The injunction
requires the following:
(1) Luther cannot obtain or use consumers' credit
information without first obtaining authorization from
each consumer or making a firm offer of credit as
required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
(2) Luther will provide the required disclosures telling
consumers that they have the right to stop the use of
their credit information for marketing purposes.
(3) Luther will not send direct mail advertisements
purporting to be from the United States Bankruptcy
Court offering automobile financing to consumers who
have previously filed for bankruptcy.
(4) Luther will not send direct mail advertisements
representing that its automobile financing is
guaranteed or endorsed by the State of Minnesota.
(5) Luther will not send direct mail advertisements
representing that its offer for automobile financing is
only available to a limited list of consumers or for a
limited time, when it is not.
The settlement must be approved by the U. S. District Court of
Minnesota. For more details, contact the Office of Minnesota
Attorney General Mike Hatch by Mail: 1400 NCL Tower, 445
Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 by Phone: (651) 296-3353 or
1-800-657-3787
MAINLINE AIRWAYS: MA Consumers Receive Refunds For Fake Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 consumers who bought tickets for flights from Los
Angeles to Hawaii on "Mainline Airways," a non-existent airline
a local college student created, have received refunds,
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly announced in a
statement in September.
As a result of a lawsuit filed by AG Reilly last year, 212
consumers - identified by AG Reilly's Office and the Hawaii
Attorney General's Office - have received restitution totaling
approximately $80,000. A settlement filed by AG Reilly in
Suffolk Superior Court resolves the original lawsuit against
Luke R. Thompson, who was a freshman at Babson College in
Wellesley when he was accused of selling airline tickets for
non-existent flights over the Internet.
"Consumers should never forget to be careful when buying
anything over the Internet -- things are not always as they
appear," AG Reilly said. "This website appeared to be
legitimate, but was not."
AG Reilly's complaint, filed in June 2003, alleged that Mr.
Thompson sold fares for as low as $89 even though he had nothing
in place - no baggage claim, ticket counters, flight crews,
leased planes, or permits and approvals to operate flights.
The agreement prohibits Mr. Thompson from advertising,
publishing, or selling airline tickets, vouchers, or fares,
through any medium, including the Internet and e-mail, unless
authorized by the United States Department of Transportation.
Mr. Thompson also cannot inaccurately describe the true status
of any of his business operations. Moreover, he is enjoined
from acting as a charter tour operator and/or a travel agency
without a license. The judgment also imposes a suspended $5,000
civil penalty.
Consumers with questions about this case or other consumers
issues should contact AG Reilly's Consumer Complaint Hotline at
(617) 727-8400 or log onto AG Reilly's website at
www.ago.state.ma.us.
Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey G. Why of AG Reilly's
Consumer Protection and Antitrust Division handled this case
with assistance from Quinton Dale, chief of AG Reilly's
Investigations Division, and investigators Dante Annicelli, Lou
Russo, and Monique Cascarano.
MARK MAGRANN: Residents Lodge Suit V. Defective Heating Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark MaGrann Associates Inc., a Moorestown heating design
company and Thermal Design Inc., a Freehold installer have been
named as defendants in a class-action lawsuit alleging defective
home heating systems were installed in the Waretown development,
Greenbriar Oceanaire, The Courier Post reports.
The lawsuit, which also names developer U.S. Homes Corp. of
Freehold and was filed in Superior Court in Burlington County,
alleges 339 heating systems in the 55-and-older development are
defective and do not allow temperatures to exceed 60 degrees in
the first-floor living rooms.
According to the plaintiffs, Greenbriar Oceanaire residents
Ronald J. and Filomena Bruno and Nicholas and Barbara Bonamassa,
as a result of the defects they have been forced, throughout the
last two winters, to use extra sweaters and blankets in order to
be comfortable inside their new homes.
The alleged defects include heat registers placed too high in
walls that don't allow proper circulation of warm air in the
living rooms, no metal ductwork mains to connect ducts to the
supply and return and flexible ductwork in excess of 14 feet.
The suit seeks repair of the defects paid for by the defendants.
MINNESOTA: A.G. Hatch Files Suit V. Two Debt Collection Agencies
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Office of Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed
lawsuits against two debt collection agencies, Allied
Interstate, Inc. and JBC and Associates, P.C. for engaging in
business practices which violate Minnesota debt collection and
consumer protection laws. Both companies are alleged to have
used unlawful tactics to collect debts that were not valid or to
collect money from the wrong Minnesota consumer.
"Debt collection agencies are becoming more emboldened and
employing more aggressive collection activities. In the past,
we've seen debt collectors use harassing techniques to collect
debts. We are now seeing companies like JBC and Allied crossing
the line by trying to coerce consumers into paying
unsubstantiated debts and amounts that were not even owed by
them in the first place," said Solicitor General Lori Swanson in
a statement.
The complaint against Allied Interstate, a Minnesota-based
collection agency, alleges that the company has attempted to
collect debts from the wrong person. The lawsuit outlines the
following illegal collection practices by Allied:
(1) Failure to Provide Proper Notice: Allied often
initiates its debt collection over the phone without
sending a letter to the consumer. When consumers
dispute the debt on the phone, the company does not
tell them that the debt is valid unless they dispute it
in writing; that Allied must verify the debt on written
request by the consumer; and that Allied must cease
collection on the disputed debt until verification of
the debt is provided to the consumer.
(2) False Representation About the Status or Character of
Debt: Allied has continued collection phone calls to
innocent consumers, after consumers have orally told
the debt collector they have the wrong person or that
they do not owe the debt.
The second lawsuit alleges that JBC, a New Jersey-based
collection agency, unlawfully attempts to collect debts for its
clients with threats of legal action that cannot be taken. The
complaint alleges:
(i) Attempts to Collect on Disputed Debts Without Providing
Verification: JBC ignores timely, written disputes by
consumers and continues collection efforts without
providing the necessary verification. The law requires
JBC to cease collection of disputed debts until the
company mails verification to the consumer.
(ii) Unlawful Threats to Sue on Time-Barred Debts: JBC
improperly threatens legal action against Minnesota
consumers for debts that are barred under Minnesota's
six-year statute of limitations for civil claims on
dishonored checks.
(iii) False and Misleading Representation About $100 Civil
Penalties: JBC threatens consumers with statutory
penalties that are incorrect and are higher than state
law. Minnesota law provides for a civil penalty up to
$100, with the precise amount determined by a court.
JBC nevertheless attempts to coerce consumers into
automatically paying the $100 civil penalty without any
determination by the court.
The lawsuits charge both companies with violating Minnesota's
consumer protection and debt collection statutes. The Attorney
General's Office is seeking to prohibit JBC and Allied from
engaging in unlawful debt collection practices. The lawsuit also
requests civil penalties, consumer restitution, costs and
attorney's fees. The suit against Allied was filed in Hennepin
County District Court, and the JBC lawsuit was filed in Ramsey
County District Court.
BC is a California professional corporation with its
headquarters located at 2 Broad Street, 6th floor, Bloomfield,
New Jersey. Allied is a Minnesota corporation with its principal
place of business located at 800 Interchange West, 435 Ford Road
in Minneapolis.
For more details, contact the Office of Minnesota Attorney
General Mike Hatch by Mail: 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 5510 or by Phone: (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787
MISSOURI: Resident To Pay MO Investors $40T For Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sedalia man will repay several Missouri investors more than
$40,000 total as part of a sentence handed down today in Pettis
County, Attorney General Jay Nixon announced in a statement.
In March, James Michael Barnes pleaded guilty to four counts of
securities fraud and three counts of unlawful merchandising
practices. The charges were contained in a grand jury
indictment returned last October at the request of Attorney
General Nixon.
According to the terms of a plea agreement, Mr. Barnes delivered
to the court a check for $40,578. The money will be used to
repay investors. The sentence also puts Mr. Barnes on probation
for five years and orders him to perform 500 hours of community
service during his probation at a nursing home or other facility
or organization serving the elderly. He is also prohibited from
selling securities, investments or insurance products during his
probation.
Circuit Judge Donald L. Barnes suspended the execution of a
sentence of seven years on each of the securities fraud charges
and four years on each of the unlawful merchandising practices
charges, with the sentences to run concurrently.
James Barnes admitted to selling securities and long-term care
insurance policies to several elderly Missouri residents and
diverting the funds to his bank account in Pettis County. He
lived in Warsaw at the time the crimes occurred.
Mr. Barnes also misrepresented the return on the investments and
the names of the companies issuing the investments and insurance
policies. In addition, he failed to tell investors he was not
registered with the Missouri Secretary of State's Office to sell
securities, and that his license to sell insurance had been
revoked by the Missouri Department of Insurance.
The Securities Division of the Secretary of State's Office
referred the matter to the Attorney General's Office and
assisted with the investigation.
For more details, contact Press Secretary Scott Holste by Phone:
573-751-8844 by Fax: 573-751-5818 or by E-mail:
communications@ago.mo.gov
MISSOURI: CA Business Pays $15T To Settle No Call Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
A California business that offers tips on point-spread betting
on sports events must pay the state of Missouri $15,000 for
making telemarketing calls in violation of the Missouri No Call
law, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon announced in a
statement.
Attorney General Nixon obtained the court-approved assurance of
voluntary compliance today in St. Louis City Circuit Court
against Marc Meghrouni, of Irvine, California. AG Nixon says
his office received more than 60 complaints from Missourians on
the No Call list about telemarketing calls they received from
Meghrouni's business, Jack Price Sports.
"Thanks to complaints we received from No Call team members, we
were able to crack down on these telemarketing calls that should
not have been made," AG Nixon says. "The money Jack Price
Sports is paying will be put right back into the No Call program
to further help protect Missourians from unwanted telemarketing
calls."
In addition to paying $15,000 to the state, Mr. Meghrouni has
agreed to not make any more telemarketing calls to Missourians
on the No Call list and to abide by other provisions of the No
Call law.
To date, Nixon's office has obtained $1,198,000 in judgments
against businesses that violated the No Call law. More than 1.6
million residential phone numbers in Missouri are on the state's
No Call list. Missouri residents not yet on the state No Call
list may register their home telephone number at no charge
online or through a toll-free number at 1-866-NOCALL1
(866-662-2551). Complaints about No Call violations also may be
filed by submitting a complaint form or calling the same toll-
free number.
NEW YORK: Civil Service Union Lodges Suit Over "Illegal" Firings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Long Beach's civil service union initiated a lawsuit against the
Republican-led administration for illegally firing a dozen of
its members earlier this year, Newsday reports.
In the suit, which was recently filed in State Supreme Court in
Mineola, New York, the union charges that city officials of
violating an agreement that gives tenure to employees and allows
them to take other jobs or else go to arbitration before
termination.
However, city officials have said they had several legitimate
reasons for the firings, including eliminating jobs to
consolidate departments. Union lawyer Louis D. Stober said he
expected the courts to reverse the firings, which were effective
July 1.
In papers filed before Justice Stephen A. Bucaria, the union
said it had filed a class-action grievance with the city in May
alleging a violation of contract on behalf of provisional
employee, grievances that are still pending.
Employees named in the suit are Mary Cammarato, Kenneth Colon,
Arthur Collins, Barbara Davis, Matthew Dwyer, David Fraser, Saul
Gold, Ralph Horowitz, Richard Schuh, Greg Scott and Peter Snow.
The suit seeks to force the city to arbitrate the terminations
and enforce the contract.
Mr. Stober told Newsday that he has also filed a separate suit
on behalf of the employees, alleging that they were fired
because of their association with the Democratic Party. "We're
asking for $1 million each in punitive damages, $500,000 in
compensation, and all back pay and benefits for them," he said.
NEWPOWER HOLDINGS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 30, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter of In Re: NewPower Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock during the period between October 5, 2000
and December 5, 2001, including any "friends and family"
purchasers of stock on or about October 5, 2000.
The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 2:00 p.m. on November
30, 2004, at the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, 300 Quarropas Street, White Plains, New
York, 10601-4150.
For more details, contact Katharine M. Ryan or Kay E. Sickles of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: (610) 667-7706 or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com OR Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Mail: 197 South Federal Highway -
Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432 OR Claims Administrator - In Re:
NewPower Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden
City Group, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6157, Merrick, NY
11566-9000 by Phone: 1-877-824-4629
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settlement Hearing Set November 12, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter of
Warmack-Muskogee Limited Partnership and E-Z Mart Corp. v.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP et al., Case No. (E2001-504-3) on
behalf of all persons in the United States, including but not
limited to individuals, corporations, partnerships, joint
ventures, associations and any other form of legally-recognized
entity, who at any time between October 16, 1991 and December
31, 2002 paid to and/or reimbursed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG LLP, Capgemini U.S. LLC, and/or
BearingPoint, Inc., and any predecessors of the foregoing, fees,
costs, or expenses, including travel-related costs or expenses,
such as costs and expenses of airline travel providers,
ticketing and reservation system providers, hotels, providers of
ground transportation (such as rental cars and coach/limousine
providers), restaurateurs, travel agencies, and issuers of
charge cards," subject to certain exclusions.
The Fairness Hearing is scheduled for November 12, 2004 at 9:00
a.m. before the Honorable Kirk Johnson at the Circuit Court of
Miller County, Arkansas, 412 Laurel Street, Texarkana, Arkansas
71854.
For more details, contact Lon D. Packard of Packard, Packard &
Johnson, PC by Mail: 4 Main Street, Los Altos, CA 94022 OR
Michael Angelovich of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP by Mail: 2900
Saint Michael Drive, Fifth Floor, Texarkana, TX 75503 OR George
L. McWilliams of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams, Greer & Capshaw
LLP by Mail: 2900 Saint Michael Drive, Fourth Floor, Texarkana,
TX 75503 OR Kevin A. Crass of Friday, Eldredge & Clark LLP by
Mail: 2000 Regions Center, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Little Rock,
AR 72201-3493 OR W. Kelvin Wyrick of Law Offices of W. Kelvin
Wyrick by Mail: 610 Laurel Street, Texarkana, AR 71854 OR C.
Michael Buxton of Vinson & Elkins LLP by Mail: 1455 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20001-1008 OR visit the settlement
Web sites: http://www.eytravelsettlement.com/or
http://www.travelsettlementcapgemini.com
PROFESSIONAL MARKETING: MN A.G. Hatch Sues Over Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch filed a lawsuit in Ramsey
County District Court against Professional Marketing Services of
the Twin Cities, Inc. d/b/a Bernard Haldane ("Bernard Haldane")
for misrepresenting the services it provides to job seekers, to
whom it charges $5,000 to $16,000.
The complaint alleges that the company, in its advertisements
and sales presentations, misrepresents its purported career
counseling and job placement services. Bernard Haldane
represents to job seekers that it has exclusive access to a
"hidden job market" with thousands of employment opportunities
not available to the general public; that its fees are based on
a purported "market analysis" and will likely be reimbursed by
the hiring company; and that consumers who use its services
obtain a job within 90 to 120 days. The lawsuit alleges that
these representations, and others, are false, deceptive, and
misleading.
"In a time where a high number of people are looking for
employment and family budgets are tight, Bernard Haldane took
consumer's money and their trust," said Solicitor General Lori
Swanson. "Our lawsuit hopes to help stop other consumers from
being deceived by the misleading claims of this company and to
help recover money for people who were taken advantage of by its
promises."
Over 1,000 Minnesota consumers paid Bernard Haldane between
$5,000 and $16,000 for its purported career-counseling program
during the past two years, totaling millions of dollars. The
lawsuit also names as a defendant Barry Layne, the president of
Bernard Haldane.
The suit alleged that the Company misrepresents its exclusive
access to employment opportunities and its relationship with
potential employers and recruiters. Bernard Haldane represents
it has exclusive access to 300 to 500 jobs a week, and
relationships with thousands of potential employers and career
counselors. In fact, Bernard Haldane compiles job opportunities
from sources available to the general public. Furthermore,
instead of Bernard Haldane "reaching out" on behalf of the
consumer to recruiters and employers, Bernard Haldane instructs
the consumer to mass mail letters at the consumer's own expense.
Susan Zimmerman-Rowe, a former Bernard Haldane client, stated
that she was promised "exclusive" access to employment
opportunities and a large starting salary. "Instead, I got a
website address with old listings, a videotape of interviewing
techniques, an outline to create my own resume with little
guidance from Haldane, a couple of hours of false promises from
a Haldane `counselor,' and no response when I requested a refund
of the unused portion of the exorbitant fee I paid to Haldane,"
said Ms. Rowe.
Don Egan, another former client, states, "There was a real
disconnect between Haldane's representations about their
database of jobs and the reality that I basically had to
generate my own leads. I didn't pay Haldane nearly $14,000 to
tell me to go around contacting my past business associates
begging for a job."
The suit also alleged the Company misrepresents its exclusivity.
Bernard Haldane represents that it is exclusive and only works
with a limited number of people. If a consumer did not earn at
least $45,000 per year and have five years of experience,
Bernard Haldane represents that the consumer would not be
allowed to meet with a sales representative or be eligible for
its purported services. In a further attempt to appear
exclusive, Bernard Haldane states that it gets five hundred
calls and resumes a week, but only works with ten people.
In reality, Bernard Haldane's training materials indicate that
it will accept anyone who has $5,000 to pay its fee, regardless
of past work experience or whether the individual made less than
$45,000 a year.
The suit further alleged that the Company misrepresents the
existence, basis and likelihood of reimbursement of its fees and
purpose and use of its financial questionnaire. Bernard Haldane
represents to Minnesota consumers that a financial questionnaire
it requires each consumer to fill out prior to meeting with a
sales representative is part of its career counseling service.
In fact, the financial questionnaire is used to find out if the
consumer has the ability to pay Bernard Haldane's fee and to
later calculate the amount of that fee. Sales staff are
specifically instructed to stop inquiring about a consumer's
financial background once it is determined that "they can pay
our fee."
After initially avoiding answering consumer questions about the
existence of its fees, Bernard Haldane represents to Minnesota
consumers that its fees are based on a "market analysis" and
calculated by a computer. In fact, Bernard Haldane charges
consumers approximately 10% of their past salary, which is
lowered or raised at the discretion of Bernard Haldane. Bernard
Haldane also represents that the fees are likely to be
reimbursed by the hiring company, which is misleading, since
Bernard Haldane has no substantiation that clients get their
fees reimbursed.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction, consumer restitution, and civil
penalties. Bernard Haldane has franchise offices throughout the
United States. Professional Marketing Services of the Twin
Cities, Inc. d/b/a Bernard Haldane is the office that is the
subject of this lawsuit. The Minnesota Bernard Haldane office is
located at 3433 Broadway Street NE, Minneapolis, Minnesota
55413.
For more details, contact the Office of Minnesota Attorney
General Mike Hatch by Mail: 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101 or by Phone: (651) 296-3353 or
1-800-657-3787.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Status Denied For Gilder Creek Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Larry Patterson denied class action status for a
lawsuit initiated by Greenville residents over the flooding
along Gilder Creek, the Greenville News reports.
Mauldin resident Greg Branyon filed the suit against Greenville
County and about 40 builders, alleging that houses along the
creek were flooded numerous times due to rampant construction.
The suit specifically alleges that the county has failed to
adopt appropriate guidelines and zoning laws, which has resulted
in years of development that has caused flooding.
However, Judge Patterson ruled that damage claims were too
varied to allow class action. In addition, Mr. Branyon could no
longer serve as the class action plaintiff because he no longer
lives in the flood plain. He further pointed out that for a
suit to become a class action, it must be proven there are too
many plaintiffs involved to have separate trials, the plaintiffs
have similar complaints, the defendants' response is similar for
all the plaintiffs, and damages exceed $100 for each plaintiff.
Instead of allowing the suit to proceed as a class action, the
judge decided to consolidate the three lawsuits over flooding on
Gilder Creek into one case that will be heard in August at the
earliest. Though heard together each plaintiff has been ordered
by the judge to seek their own damages if the county and
developers were found liable.
STAIN LIFTERS: Owner Pleads Guilty To Environmental Crime Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
A carpet cleaning company owner pled guilty to discharging a
pollutant to waters of Maryland before the Baltimore County
Circuit Court, Attorney General J. Joseph Curran, Jr. announced
in a statement.
The Honorable J. Grason Turnbull, II, accepted the plea of
Ronald Lee Curland, 38, of Cherry Chapel Road in Reisterstown,
Maryland, and owner/operator of Stain Lifters Carpet Care, Inc.
The court sentenced Mr. Curland to 18 months of probation.
On the morning of December 17, 2003, an investigator with the
Attorney General's Environmental Crimes Unit observed Mr.
Curland dumping carpet cleaning wastewater onto a driveway of a
residence in the 3300 block of Lightfoot Drive in the Pikesville
area of Baltimore County. Mr. Curland used a hose to discharge
a wastewater holding tank under the company's van. The
wastewater, which contained dirt and detergents and had an
elevated pH level, flowed into a nearby storm drain.
Investigators followed the flow from the adjoining storm drain
to a nearby unnamed tributary of Moores Branch which is itself a
tributary of the Jones Falls. Approximately fifty gallons of the
wastewater was dumped.
In addition to being placed on probation, Judge Turnbull ordered
the defendant to perform fifty hours of community work service
and imposed a fine of $5,000 and suspended $2,500 of the fine.
In light of the defendant's lack of any prior criminal record,
Judge Turnbull granted the defendant probation before judgment.
The maximum sentence for the illegal discharge of a pollutant
into waters of the State, is up to a year in prison and/or a
fine of $25,000. In the event the defendant violates any of the
terms of his probation the Court could impose a sentence up to
the maximum penalties.
The conviction follows a joint investigation conducted by the
Environmental Crimes Unit of the Office of the Attorney General
and the Maryland State Police.
THOMSON NEWSPAPERS: Ontario Court Affirms Copyright Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeal recently affirmed important new
copyright decision that pitted thousands of freelance writers
against the Thomson Newspapers Corp., then the publisher of The
Globe and Mail (now published by Bell Globe Media), in a major
class action lawsuit, the Toronto Star reports.
The case involved a lawsuit launched by Canadian author and
freelance writer Heather Robertson, who wrote two articles that
were published in the Globe in 1995 that later included in
several databases.
In her suit Ms. Robertson argued that the inclusion of the
articles without permission or compensation constituted an
infringement of her copyright. For its part, the Globe argued
that inclusion of the work in the database fell within its
copyright as a collective work or compilation of material.
Granted that the Copyright Act, bestows copyright to the
original author of a work, the statute also contemplates the
possibility of copyright being granted to a party that compiles
existing material and casts it in a unique manner. While that
copyright holder does not hold copyright in the individual works
that constitute the compilation, the collection itself benefits
from copyright protection.
When freelance writers began to assert that they were entitled
to additional compensation for the inclusion of their work
within the databases, the publishers balked, claiming that they
could rely on existing copyright law to support the additional
use of the work.
At the trial, an Ontario court concluded that the use of Ms.
Robertson's work within the Globe's databases fell outside of
its compilation copyright, which the Ontario Court of Appeal
affirmed last week.
The court ruled that in both form and function, the Globe
newspaper and database differ. In form, the newspaper is limited
to the events of the day, whereas the database expands daily
with a new collection of articles. In function, the newspaper's
primary purpose is to provide readers with the news, while the
database is chiefly used for research.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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 25-26, 2004
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE SALES AND MARKETING OF DRUGS
American Conferences
Philadelphia
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
VIOXX 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 8, 2004
EPHEDRA UPDATE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 9, 2004
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.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
January 24-25, 2005
THIRD ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP TEN
ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 31-February 01, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL
LITIGATION
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 31-February 01, 2005
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 1, 2005
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION E&0
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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
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
------------------------
October 2-31, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "LAW AND DISORDER: SUE-- LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 2-31, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "DODGING THE BULLET": LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 2-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 2-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 2-31, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 2-31, 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
October 2-31, 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
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
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
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons including American
and Canadian investors who purchased the securities of Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) (TSX: BEV) in the period from
June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004. The firm cautions investors that
although many lawyers may advertise about participation in the
lawsuit, few of them have actually filed lawsuits.
"The Bennett lawsuit alleges that the company and its ranking
executives polluted the market with misleading information for
more than a year about the company's largest contract, which was
largely withdrawn immediately after Bennett announced it," said
Ralph M. Stone, a partner at the firm. "This enabled the
company's insiders to unload tens of thousands of shares at an
enormous profit, leaving public investors holding the bag."
Following the publicity generated by Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP's
lawsuit, several lawyers will issue press releases about
lawsuits, even though they have not investigated them or filed
them, in an effort to solicit clients. The law firm has filed
the first lawsuit relating to Bennett Environmental, Inc. Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP is continuing to conduct a significant
investigation of Bennett Environmental, which is only available
to its clients and is not available to other law firms.
The law firm is continuing to investigate the company and has
developed significant information concerning other contracts,
and numerous other disclosure violations committed by the
defendants.
For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New
York, NY 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Bennett Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) securities between June
2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.
The action charges that defendants violated the 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 more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net
FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the "Company")
(NYSE:FOE), between October 28, 2003 and July 22, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Ferro securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com
FLIGHT SAFETY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. (AMEX:FLT) between January 14, 2003
and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut against defendant Flight Safety
Technologies, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or
directors. 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 more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: 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
FLIGHT SAFETY: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. (AMEX:
FLT) ("Flight Safety' or the "Company') publicly traded
securities during the period between January 14, 2003 and July
16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period'), against defendants
Flight Safety and certain of its officers and directors.
The complaint charges that Flight Safety and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector.
For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm by Phone: 866-767-3653 or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Infineon Technologies AG ("Infineon")
(NYSE:IFX) publicly traded securities during the period between
March 13, 2000 and July 19, 2004 (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Infineon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Infineon manufactures and markets a wide variety of
polymer and specialty products.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements about Infineon's business
and prospects and concealed Infineon's involvement in price
fixing activities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants concealed the following
material adverse facts from the investing public that from on or
about July 1, 1999 until on or about June 15, 2002, Infineon and
its co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a conspiracy in
the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate
competition by fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory
("DRAM") to be sold to certain original equipment manufacturers
("OEMs") of personal computers and servers, the conspiracy
consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concert
of action among Infineon and its co-conspirators, the
substantial terms of which were to agree to fix the prices for
DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs and that for the purpose of
forming and carrying out the conspiracy, Infineon and its co-
conspirators:
(1) participated in meetings, conversations, and
communications in the United States and elsewhere to
discuss the prices of DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs;
(2) agreed during those meetings, conversations, and
communications to charge prices for DRAM at certain
levels to be sold to certain OEMs;
(3) issued price quotations in accordance with the
agreements reached; and
(4) exchanged information on sales of DRAM to certain OEM
customers for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing
adherence to the agreed-upon prices and artificially
inflating the Company's revenue and profits.
As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices,
enabling the Company to consummate a $5.5 billion IPO and a $1
billion bond offering, together with stock-for-stock
acquisitions using the Company's inflated shares as currency.
On July 19, 2004, defendants acknowledged the seriousness of a
Justice Department investigation into Infineon's price fixing
practices when they announced they had recorded a $190 million
charge for the antitrust investigation. Then, on September 15,
2004, the Associated Press issued an article which stated:
"German computer chipmaker Infineon Technologies AG has agreed
to plead guilty to price fixing and will pay a $160 million
fine.... In a plea agreement filed in U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, Infineon acknowledged conspiring with other companies
to fix prices of widely used computer memory products between
July 1999 and June 2002."
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/infineon/
NEW YORK: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
New York Community Bancorp, Inc ("NYCB" or the "Company")
(NYSE:NYB) between June 27, 2003 and May 9, 2004, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against NYCB and
Joseph R. Ficalora and Michael P. Puorro ("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 or misrepresented that Defendants
manipulated the Company's financial results in order to appear
more attractive for a potential merger, that this was
accomplished through leveraged growth, funded by short-term
sources and that the Company's projections about growth and
interest rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYCB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized several investment banks to review
strategic alternatives for the Company. During this Class Period
the Company had maintained that it could thrive in a rising
interest rate environment. However, the sudden engagement of the
investment banks to examine these alternatives was the market's
and investors' indication that the NYCB's strategy may not be
working as planned. Following the announcement, the Company
shares fell 5.5% to close at $21.60 per share on volume or
roughly 9 million shares.
For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=NYCB
REMEC INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Remec, Inc. ("Remec" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: REMC) between
September 8, 2003 and September 8, 2004 inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California against defendants Remec,
Inc, Ronald E. Ragland (former Chief Executive Officer) and
Winston Hickman (Chief Financial Officer).
Remec is a designer and manufacturer of high frequency
subsystems used in the transmission of voice, video and data
traffic over wireless communications networks and in space and
defense electronics applications. The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, defendants issued quarter after quarter
of improving financial results, including increasing
profitability in the Company's wireless division. Defendants
also filed regular reports with the SEC, certifying that Remec's
financial reporting was accurate and that the Company's internal
controls were adequate. As a result of these statements, Remec
stock traded nearly $12 per share during 2003.
On September 8, 2004, after the market closed, defendants
shocked the market by announcing that Remec would have to take
an enormous goodwill impairment charge of $62.4 million for its
wireless division - the same division that defendants assured
investors was on a path to profitability. The next day, contrary
to their repeated assurances regarding the integrity of Remec's
financial controls, defendants revealed that the Company had
identified "potential control deficiencies" and that certain tax
authorities were reviewing the Company's tax filings. As a
result of these announcements, Remec stocked plunged to only
$4.21 per share, and has lost more than 50% of its value.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya
Saxena or Joseph E. White III by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road
Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: (561) 361-5000 by E-
mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com
REMEC INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Remec
Inc. (Nasdaq: REMC) ("Remec") between September 8, 2003 and
September 8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included
are all those who acquired Remec's shares through its
acquisition of Paradigm Wireless Systems.
The Complaint alleges that Remec, a designer and manufacturer of
high frequency subsystems used in the transmission of voice,
video and data traffic over wireless communications networks,
and certain of its officers and directors issued materially
false statements. Specifically, defendants issued quarter after
quarter of improving financial results, including increasing
profitability in Remec's wireless division. Defendants also
filed regular reports with the SEC, certifying that Remec's
financial reporting was accurate and that the Company's internal
controls were adequate.
On September 8, 2004, after the market closed, defendants
announced that Remec would have to take an enormous goodwill
impairment charge of $62.4 million for its wireless division --
the same division that defendants assured investors was on a
path to profitability. The next day, contrary to their repeated
assurances regarding the integrity of Remec's financial
controls, defendants revealed that the Company had identified
"potential control deficiencies" and that certain tax
authorities were reviewing the Company's tax filings. On the
next trading day, Remec shares plunged to a close of $4.30 per
share. During the Class Period, Remec stock traded as high as
$12.86 per share.
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
SALESFORCE.COM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of all purchasers
securities of salesforce.com, inc. (NYSE: CRM) from June 21,
2004 through July 21, 2004, inclusive.
The complaint charges that salesforce, Marc R. Benioff, and
Steve Cakebread violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
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 that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
that its revenues and earnings per share were steadily
declining; that the defendants concealed the aforementioned
facts from the investing public in order to boost the price of
the I.P.O., which netted the Company $126 million; and and that
as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the
Company's growth and progress.
On July 21, 2004, salesforce warned that profit and revenue for
the full year will be lower than expected, and the stock
promptly plunged. Shares of salesforce fell $4.36 per share or
27.15 percent, on July 21, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610-660-8000 or
888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com
or visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182
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
STONEPATH GROUP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of Stonepath, Inc.
("Stonepath" or the "Company") (Amex: STG) between May 7, 2003
and September 20, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Stonepath and certain officers and directors of the
Company.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.
The complaint further 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 Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gustavo
Bruckner, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com
TOMMY HILFIGER: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities 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 Tommy Hilfiger Corporation
("Tommy" or the "Company") (NYSE:TOM) between November 3, 1999
and September 24, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Tommy and Tommy Hilfiger, Joel J.
Horowitz, Joseph Scirocco, Joel H. Newman, Silas K.F. Chou,
Lawrence S. Stroll, James P. Reilly and David F. Dyer
("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 the
Defendants shifted profits to lower-tax jurisdictions by paying
buying-agency commissions to Tommy subsidiaries, that Defendants
reported revenue generated in the United States as if it were
earned in a foreign division, lowering the Company's tax rate
and that as a result its results were not reported in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting principles.
On September 24, 2004, after the market closed, Tommy announced
that Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Tommy, had received a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York seeking
documents relating to the division's domestic and international
buying office commissions since 1990. In reaction to this news,
shares of Tommy tumbled, falling $2.87 per share, or 21.8% to
close at $10.30 per share.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
800-495-1868 or visit their Web site:
investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com
ZIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:04-cv-2018-N) on behalf
of all securities purchasers of the Zix Corporation
(Nasdaq:ZIXI)("Zix" or the "Company") from October 30, 2003
through May 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Zix, John A. Ryan, Steve M. York, Ronald
A. Woessner, Daniel S. Nutkis, Russell J. Morgan, Wael Mohamed,
and Dennis F. Heathcote with violations of Sections 10(b)-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder. 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 deployment of e-prescription
services was languishing;
(2) that the Company seriously underestimated the hurdles
of deploying e-prescription services in medical offices
that lack up-to-date IT infrastructure;
(3) as a result of these factors, the Company's deployment
rate of 1,000 physicians a month was unattainable; and
(4) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
projections lacked in any reasonable basis.
On May 4, 2004, Zix announced financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2004. In the press release, the
Company's numbers were well below expectations. This news
shocked the market. Shares of Zix fell $2.12 per share or 15.58
percent on May 5, 2004, to close at $11.49 per share. On the
following day, shares of Zix fell an additional $2.60 per share
or 22.63 percent to close at $8.89 per share.
For more details, contact Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail:
Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.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 * * *