/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050518.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 18, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 97
Headlines
ALPHARMA INC.: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: CA Attorney Lodges Securities Suit in NY
BIOMERIEUX INC.: Recalls Simplastin FTD Due To Mislabeling
BMG MUSIC: Settles Members' Suit Over Shipping, Handling Charges
CANADA: Court Rules V. Farmers in Lawsuit Over Modified Canola
CANADA: Parents of Disabled Children Sue Ontario Government
CARREKER CORPORATION: TX Court Dismisses Claims in Stock Lawsuit
CASUAL MALE: To Enter Mediation For CA Employees' Wage Lawsuit
CHICOS FAS: Reaches Settlement for Wardrobing Suit in CA Court
CONAGRA FOODS: NE Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: TX Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
FLORIDA: Homeowners Sue Over Non-Payment of Hurricane Claims
FLORIDA: SEC Issues Settled Order in Suit V. Investment Adviser
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Seeks Transfer of Overtime Lawsuit To TX
GENCORP INC.: Trial in Retiree Suit Expected To Begin Late 2005
JC PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification For TX Customer Lawsuit
MASSACHUSETTS: SEC Re-Files Treasury Bonds Insider Trading Suit
MICHAELS STORES: Shareholders File Consolidated Suit in N.D. TX
MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Labor Violations Suit
MONSANTO CO.: WV Residents Initiate Suit Due To Dioxin Exposure
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Affirms MO Lawsuit Certification Denial
MONSANTO COMPANY: Plaintiffs Dismiss Herbicide Antitrust Suits
PILKINGTON NORTH: Settles Naplate Familes' Lawsuit For $2M
PRIME DELI: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Suit Launched in MA, Disputes Redemption Fees
REVLON INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
TALARIAN CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
WD 40: Court Nixes FL Consumer Suit Certification Refusal Appeal
WD 40: CA Court Grants Summary Judgment in Consumer Fraud Suits
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Featured Conference
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Cotchett Pitre Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
DORAL FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
FINDWHAT.COM: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Squitieri & Fearon Files Stock Lawsuit in MD
MBNA CORPORATION: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
MBNA CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
MOLSON COORS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
MOLSON COORS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
R&G FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Complaint in NY
R&G FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
*********
ALPHARMA INC.: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
securities class action filed against Alpharma, Inc., two of its
board members, one of whom is an officer, and two of its former
officers.
This class action has been brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and
October 30, 2000. The complaint alleges that, among other
things, the plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the
Company's securities because, as a result of alleged
irregularities in the Company's Animal Health business in
Brazil, allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and the
October 2000 revision of its financial results for 1999 and
2000, the Company's previously issued financial statements were
materially false and misleading, thereby artificially inflating
the price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek
damages in unspecified amounts.
The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds and
the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to all
defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
with the District Court and the District Court affirmed its
earlier dismissal. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's
decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. All permitted
briefs have been filed with the Third Circuit and oral argument
was completed in 2003.
The Company has vigorously defended this appeal. Additionally,
the Company has filed a claim on its own behalf and on behalf of
each of the named individual defendants under its directors' and
officers' insurance policies and believes that insurance
coverage exists to the extent of the policy limits for the costs
incurred in defending the claims and any adverse judgment or
settlement, subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions of
the relevant insurance policy
The suit is styled "KOLLANDER v. ALPHARMA INC., et al., case no.
2:00-cv-05508-JAG," filed in the United States District Court in
New Jersey, under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. Representing
the plaintiffs is Janette S. Levey, 1485 Teaneck Road, Suite
300, Teaneck NJ 07666, Phone: (201) 837-1090.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: CA Attorney Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The City Attorney of San Francisco initiated a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against American International Group Inc. on behalf of
San Francisco's employees' retirement system, which acquired AIG
shares between October 1, 1999 and March 30, alleging securities
fraud, KTVU.com reports.
The purported class action, which seeks to recover losses
incurred by the city employees' retirement system, also names
Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s General Re Corporation unit, which has
been linked to AIG's recent accounting troubles. In a recent
news release, the Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated
that the complaint alleges that insurer AIG illegally inflated
the company's stock price with egregious business malfeasance
and violations of federal securities laws.
BIOMERIEUX INC.: Recalls Simplastin FTD Due To Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------
BioMerieux Inc., of Durham NC, is issuing a new alert on a
recall of Simplastin HTF, a tissue thromboplastin reagent that
is used in laboratory diagnostic testing of patients receiving
anticoagulant testing. The new alert is being issued because
mislabeling problems with certain lots of this product could
result in inaccurate test results, which in turn could lead to
improper patient treatment - in some cases resulting in serious
or life-threatening injury.
The recalled product can be identified by product catalog number
259846, lots 161798, 161764, and 161763 or catalog number
259847, lots 161849 and 161800. The recalled lots were
distributed worldwide, including 236 customers in the U.S.
Laboratories that have this reagent should not use it, but
instead contact the company. Laboratories who have used this
reagent should also contact any physicians or medical
institutions whose patients may be affected by this problem.
Although the company initiated a recall of these products in
March 2005, its notifications to purchasers incorrectly
indicated that the problem was of no clinical significance. The
company is now clearly informing its consignees about the
importance of this problem and the need to respond to it.
BioMerieux Inc. is notifying its distributors and subsidiaries
by Field Corrective Action communication and has notified all
customers individually about the change in the recall's status.
Customer with questions may contact the company at
1-800-682-2666 or their local BioMerieux, Inc. customer
representative. Patients or healthcare providers with concerns
about this issue can also call the company at this number.
BMG MUSIC: Settles Members' Suit Over Shipping, Handling Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
BMG Music Service settled a class action lawsuit related to its
shipping and handling charges by offering a deep discount on as
many as two CDs, The CNN/Money Reports.
According to the settlement statement that was posted on the
company's Web site, members of BMG who paid shipping and
handling charges for delivery of club items between June 14,
1998 and February 1, 2005 qualify for vouchers worth 75 percent
off the regular club price of a BMG CD.
The settlement statement also explains that BMG members who have
not yet fulfilled their contractual commitment to the music club
will receive a voucher for 75 percent off the regular club price
of one CD while those who have already purchased the requisite
number of CDs will receive a voucher for 75 percent off two
single CDs. Shipping and handling charges will be waived for CDs
obtained with the vouchers, it adds.
The class action lawsuit was filed in August 2004 against
BeMusic, a BMG music club, claiming that the music company
engaged in deceptive, misleading and unfair marketing and sales
practices in regard to its shipping and handling charges and its
advertised cost to consumers of its CDs.
BMG operates a music service in which members receive a certain
number of free CDs provided they buy one CD at regular price
within a year of joining the service. Members must pay shipping
and handling for all of the CDs, including the free ones. BMG
Music Service is a part of BMG Direct, which is a unit of
Bertelsmann AG.
For more details, visit their Web site: http://www.bmgmusic.com.
CANADA: Court Rules V. Farmers in Lawsuit Over Modified Canola
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saskatchewan farmers who claim that genetically modified canola
is hurting them financially suffered a setback in court after a
judge refused to allow the organic farmers, who called
themselves the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, to file a
purported class action against two multinational chemical
companies, The CBC News reports.
The farmers were planning to sue Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science
for financial losses claiming that they lost the organic canola
market after the companies introduced genetically modified
canola to Canadian farmers.
However, in a 179-page decision, Saskatoon Queen's Bench Justice
Gene-Anne Smith dismissed the application for certification. She
stated that the Organic Directorate failed to prove that all
organic farmers have been financially hurt by genetically
modified canola. Additionally, she pointed out that 10 years
after the introduction of genetically modified canola, some
organic farmers are still growing canola and finding markets for
it and that while some farmers may have been hurt, there's no
evidence that organic farmers as a class have suffered.
Though clearly disappointed with the ruling, Organic Directorate
president Arnold Taylor told CBC News that the organic farmers
have not given up the fight and adds that their lawyer is
studying the decision to determine if there are grounds for
appeal. He also said, "We spent three years on this and more. I
felt we had a really good case for certification as a class."
For their part, Monsanto spokesman Trish Jordan told CBC News
that the company is pleased with the judge's decision. He also
adds, "I think her judgment clearly shows that a lot of the
myths that are out there about impact and loss and some of the
things that are being said are simply not true or not supported
by evidence." Genetically modified canola is typically resistant
to certain herbicide.
CANADA: Parents of Disabled Children Sue Ontario Government
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ontario parents of disabled children are launching a massive
class action lawsuit against the Ontario government seeking
damages of half a billion dollars for negligence, The Canadian
TV News reports
The parents in the case lost custody of their children after
being informed that the provincial government could not provide
any further funding for their severely disabled children unless
the kids were made legal wards of the society.
Anne Larcade, who was one of those parents affected, is the lead
plaintiff in the lawsuit. In August, 2000, she was informed that
her local Children's Aid Society couldn't pay for the 24-hour
care her 15-year-old disabled son Alexandre required unless he
were made a legal ward.
Ms. Larcade told Canadian TV News, "No one can imagine what it's
like to hear the government say it needs to take their child to
get these services. We were put in that position. It's a
horrible, horrible position to be put into."
The plaintiffs allege that they are the victims of Mike Harris'
former Conservative government's cost-cutting measures
introduced in the mid-90s. They also alleged that the government
stopped using legislation designed to provide a safety net for
vulnerable children and their families. That legislation had
been passed in the early 1980s and required special-needs
agreements be signed to support children whose needs are greater
than can be met by their parents. To that extent the plaintiffs
allege the province illegally stopped entering into these
agreements with parents shortly after Mr. Harris assumed office,
in an effort to try to save money.
As Mr. Harris assumed office, the plaintiffs allege that instead
of changing the legislation, the government simply pulled
funding for special-needs agreements. The Harris government,
according to them, did not want to change the legislation itself
because that would have required a debate and they were in a
hurry to cut costs.
Doug Elliot, one of the lawyers representing the families told
Canadian TV News, "We say that if the Ontario government, the
Harris government at the time, wanted to cancel this program,
they had to go back to the legislature to do it, and they did
not. I think, really, the previous Harris government went
through the back door. They didn't want to face Parliament and
say 'We're taking this away from disabled children, we're not
going to look after disabled children anymore.' So instead they
simply went behind closed doors and said, 'We just won't do it
anymore. We will pretend the law isn't there.'"
Just recently, the families were given the green light to go
ahead with their suit against the government. Mr. Elliot told
Canadian TV News that this is the first time that a court in
Canada has certified a class action over a government's improper
cancellation of a benefits program.
CARREKER CORPORATION: TX Court Dismisses Claims in Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division dismissed several claims in the
consolidated securities class action filed against Carreker
Corporation, John D. Carreker Jr. and Terry L. Gage, styled "In
re Carreker Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No.
303CV0250-M."
On March 3, 2003, Claude Alton Coulter filed a purported class
action lawsuit (Civil Action No. 503-CV-5-Q) against the
Company, John D. Carreker Jr. and Terry L. Gage in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Texarkana Division.
These complaints, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 20, 1998 and December 10, 2002,
inclusive, allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants. These complaints also allege, among other
things, that defendants artificially inflated the value of the
Company's stock by knowingly or recklessly misrepresenting the
Company's financial results during the purported class period.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, interest and costs, including legal fees. On March 22,
2005, the Court dismissed claims by purchasers of the Company's
common stock prior to July 30, 1999.
CASUAL MALE: To Enter Mediation For CA Employees' Wage Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casual Male Retail Group, Inc. is preparing for mediation for
the class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging
violations of the state's labor laws.
In October 2003, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in California Superior Court. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the Company failed to pay overtime
compensation and to provide meal and rest breaks to the
Company's California store managers for the period May 14, 2002
through the present.
Subsequently, in a lawsuit filed in United States District
Court, Northern District of California, the case was expanded to
include all Casual Male managers nationwide. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid overtime, meal and rest period penalties, waiting time
penalties and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the California Labor Code.
The California claims were consolidated into the federal court
action and the state court lawsuit was dismissed. No class has
been certified, and the parties are currently conducting initial
discovery and preparing for mediation. The Company hopes to
resolve this case at mediation.
CHICOS FAS: Reaches Settlement for Wardrobing Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicos FAS, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it in the Superior Court for the State of California,
County of San Francisco, styled "Charissa Villanueva v. Chico's
FAS, Inc.
The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.
The Company denied the allegations, saying that no such
mandatory uniform policy exists. Although the Company believed
it had strong defenses to the allegations in this case, the
Company agreed to participate in a voluntary private mediation
on November 10, 2004. A settlement was reached at the
mediation, and the parties are in the process of preparing and
finalizing the settlement documents. The settlement must be
approved by the Court at both a preliminary and a final approval
hearing before it becomes final. Case management conference has
been reset to July 22,2005.
The suit is styled "Charissa Villanueva v. Chico's FAS, Inc.,
Case Number CGC-03-420380," filed in the California Superior
Court for San Francisco County, under Judge Arlene T. Borick.
Representing the Company is David S. Bradshaw of JACKSON LEWIS
LLP, 801 K Street Ste 2300, Sacramento, CA 95814 USA Phone:
(916) 341-0404. Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick R.
Kitchin of LAW OFFICE OF PATRICK R. KITCHIN 807 Montgomery St.,
San Francisco CA 94133 USA Phone: (415) 627-9117.
CONAGRA FOODS: NE Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Nebraska granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
styled "Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al. Case No.
810CV427." The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's executive officers.
The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the events resulting in the company's
restatement of its financial statements in its amended Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended May 28, 2000. The complaint seeks a
declaration that the action is maintainable as a class action
and that the plaintiff is a proper class representative,
unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
any other relief deemed proper by the court.
The company has reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit for
$14 million. The settlement was preliminarily approved by the
court on January 28, 2005, and following notice to the class and
completion of other steps incident to the settlement process,
will be submitted to the court for final approval.
The suit is styled "Gebhardt, et al v. Conagra Foods, et al,
case no. 4:01-cv-00427-RGK-DLP," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska, under Judge Richard
G. Kopf. Representing the Company are Patrick E. Brookhouser,
Jr., Leo A. Knowles and Edward G. Warin of MCGRATH, NORTH LAW
FIRM, 1601 Dodge Street Suite 3700, First National Tower Omaha,
NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 E-mail:
pbrookhouser@mnmk.com, lknowles@mnmk.com, ewarin@mnmk.com; and
John A. Valentine, Andrew B. Weissman, WILMER, CUTLER LAW FIRM,
2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037-1420 Phone:
(202) 663-6277 Fax: 663-6363. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
561.750.3364;
(3) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409 Phone: 561.712.8000, E-
mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net
(4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(6) Welch White & Wulff, 209 South 19th Street - Suite 300,
Omaha, NE, 68102-1705, Phone: 402.346.5700,
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: TX Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas heard on May 13,2005, Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
In the second quarter of 2004, eight lawsuits were filed in the
between December 24, 2003 and January 26, 2004, alleging federal
securities law causes of action against the Company and various
current and former officers and directors. The cases were filed
as class actions brought on behalf of persons who purchased
shares of Company common stock in the open market generally
during the period of January 14, 2003 through December 18, 2003.
Under the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, the court consolidated the actions and appointed a lead
plaintiff in the matter. An amended complaint was filed on June
30, 2004, asserting a class period of November 27, 2002 to
December 19, 2003 and naming additional defendants, including
Ernst & Young LLP, the Company's prior auditors.
The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by publishing
materially misleading financial statements that did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of Company stock. After the Company filed its Form 10-K for
fiscal 2003 on July 30, 2004, the procedural schedule was
amended so that plaintiffs had until 30 days after the Company
was current in its filings to file an amended complaint. The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in September 2004.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss all or some of the claims
in October 2004. The non-evidentiary oral argument was held on
May 13, 2005.
FLORIDA: Homeowners Sue Over Non-Payment of Hurricane Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Four Florida homeowners, who suffered substantial property
damage as a result of last year's Hurricane Ivan, have filed
class action lawsuits against their insurance companies for
refusing to pay on their claims. Attorneys Samuel Bearman and
Edward Zebersky filed the suits on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In the complaints filed in Escambia and Santa Rosa counties, and
amended May 5, 2005, Bearman states plaintiffs should be paid
the full face value of their insurance policies to compensate
them for their extensive property damage. Under current Florida
law, if a property is a total loss - either partially or totally
due to windstorm damage - a homeowner's insurance company must
pay the full value of the policy.
Mr. Bearman asserts all four properties had windstorm damage,
yet insurance companies refuse to pay. "The plaintiffs are
simply asking that the insurance companies follow the law.
They're not asking for anything extreme or outrageous - just
what the law says they're entitled to. Unfortunately, many other
Florida residents are in the same boat. That's why we've filed
these suits as class actions," Mr. Bearman adds.
The titles of the cases and case numbers are as follows:
(1) Anthony Wheeler v. Allstate Floridian Indemnity Co.,
Case #: 2005 CA 797 (Escambia County)
(2) Richard Hoffer v. Allstate Floridian Insurance Co.,
Case #: 2005-CA-792 (Escambia County)
(3) George Turner and Nancy Turner v. USF&G Specialty
Insurance Co., Case # 05-166-CA (Santa Rosa County)
(4) Jimmy and Betty Eubanks v. State Farm Florida Insurance
Co., Case #: 05-260-CA (Santa Rosa County)
The current windstorm damage law is based on Mierzwa v. Florida
Windstorm Underwriting Association, a hotly contested case.
For more details, contact Samuel W. Bearman, Esq. at the Law
Office of Samuel W. Bearman by Mail: 820 N. 12th Ave.,
Pensacola, Florida 32501 by Phone: (800) 760-6065 by E-mail:
sbearman@bellsouth.net or visit the Web site:
http://www.bearmanlaw.com.
FLORIDA: SEC Issues Settled Order in Suit V. Investment Adviser
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order against
Andrew M. Welt, of Deerfield Beach, Florida, who was registered
as an investment adviser with the State of Florida until 2004.
The Order made findings that on May 6, 2005, a final judgment
was entered against Mr. Welt in a civil action, filed by the
Commission, entitled U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Welt, et al., U.S.D.C. for the District of Columbia, Civil
Action No. 1:05CV0783.
The Order also made findings that Mr. Welt consented to the
entry of the final judgment, which alleged that Mr. Welt
violated Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder, by engaging in
tipping and insider trading from December 1999 through August
2001, and that, during that time period, Mr. Welt was a
certified planner and investment adviser registered with the
State of Florida.
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles Superior Court in California approved the
settlement of the class action filed against GameStop
Corporation and its subsidiary GameStop, Inc., alleging
violations of the state's wage laws.
On May 29, 2003, former Store Manager Carlos Moreira filed a
class action, alleging that the Company's salaried retail
managers were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid
overtime. Mr. Moreira was seeking to represent a class of
current and former salaried retail managers who were employed by
the Company in California at any time between May 29, 1999 and
September 30, 2004. Mr. Moreira alleged claims for violation of
California Labor Code sections 203, 226 and 1194 and California
Business and Professions Code section 17200. Mr. Moreira was
seeking recovery of unpaid overtime, interest, penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.
During court-ordered mediation in March 2004, the parties
reached a settlement defining the class of current and former
salaried retail managers and will result in a cost to the
Company of approximately $2,750,000. On January 28, 2005, the
court granted approval of the settlement. The matter is now in
the claims administration process. A provision for this proposed
settlement was recorded in the 13 weeks ended May 1, 2004.
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: Seeks Transfer of Overtime Lawsuit To TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
GameStop Corporation moved to transfer a collective action filed
against it to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
On October 20, 2004, former Store Manager John P. Kurtz filed a
collective action lawsuit against the Company in U.S. District
Court, Western District of Louisiana, Lafayette/ Opelousas
Division, alleging that the Company's salaried retail managers
were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid overtime,
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Kurtz is
seeking to represent all current and former salaried retail
managers who were employed by the Company for the three years
before October 20, 2004. He is seeking recovery of unpaid
overtime, interest, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs.
On January 12, 2005, the Company filed an answer to the
complaint and a motion to transfer the action to the Northern
District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. The Company is awaiting
the court's decision on the motion.
GENCORP INC.: Trial in Retiree Suit Expected To Begin Late 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against GenCorp, Inc., styled
"Wotus, et al. v. GenCorp Inc. et al., case no. No. 5:00-CV-
2604" is expected to begin after the summer of 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
in Cleveland.
In October 2000, a group of hourly retirees filed a federal
lawsuit against the Company and OMNOVA Solutions Inc. disputing
certain retiree medical benefits. The retirees seek rescission
of the then current Hourly Retiree Medical Plan established in
the spring of 1994, and the reinstatement of the prior plan
terms. The crux of the dispute relates to union and the Company
negotiated modifications to retiree benefits that, in exchange
for other consideration, now require retirees to make benefit
contributions as a result of caps on Company-paid retiree
medical costs implemented in late 1993. A retiree's failure to
pay contributions results in a termination of benefits. The
Company prevailed in similar litigation filed in 1995 involving
salaried employees arising at the Company's Wabash, Indiana
location, styled "Divine, et al. v. GenCorp Inc., U.S.D.C., N.D.
IN (South Bend, IN), Case No. 96-CV-0394-AS."
The initial plaintiffs consisted of four hourly retirees from
the Jeannette, Pennsylvania facility of OMNOVA, the company
spun-off from GenCorp on October 1, 1999, two hourly retirees
from OMNOVA's former Newcomerstown, Ohio facility, and three
hourly retirees from the Company's former tire plants in Akron,
Ohio; Mayfield, Kentucky; and Waco, Texas. The plaintiffs sought
class certification seeking to represent all eligible hourly
retirees formerly represented by the unions URW or USWA. The
unions are not party to the suit and have agreed not to support
such litigation pursuant to an agreement negotiated with the
Company.
In December 2003, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification. The plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking reconsideration, and that motion was denied. Plaintiffs
petitioned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Court of Appeals)
for the right to seek an interlocutory appeal of the trial
court's denial of class certification. The Court of Appeals
denied that petition in August 2004. Following the Court of
Appeals' ruling on the interlocutory appeal, the trial court
lifted the stay on the Wotus case and denied a pending motion
filed on behalf of 241 individuals who sought to intervene in
the Wotus case. The result of these rulings is that the Wotus
case will move forward with the nine remaining individual
plaintiffs or their estates. Extensive discovery has already
occurred in this case. The Company has given notice to its
insurance carriers and is receiving reimbursement for portions
of its defense fees and costs. A trial in the Ohio federal court
is not expected until sometime after the summer of 2005.
The suit is styled "Wotus et al v. Gencorp, Inc., et al, case
no. 5:00-cv-02604-DAP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, under Judge Dan Aaron
Polster. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Edward J. Feinstein, Jere H. Krakoff, John E. Stember
Stember Feinstein Krakoff, 1705 Allegheny Bldg, 429
Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: 412-338-
1445, Fax: 412-232-3730, E-mail: efeinstein@sfklaw.net,
jkrakoff@sfklaw.net or jstember@sfklaw.net
(2) Ira J. Mirkin, Green Haines Sgambati, 400 National City
Bank Bldg., 16 Wick Avenue, Youngstown, OH 44503,
Phone: 330-743-5101, Fax: 330-743-3451, E-mail:
imirkin@green-haines.com
(3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Blvd., Pittsburgh, PA
15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, Fax: 412-492-8978, E-mail:
wpayne@stargate.net
JC PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification For TX Customer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. appealed the 214th
Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas' ruling granting
class action filed against it, styled "Gayle G. Pitts, et al v.
J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., (DMS), AEGON
Direct Marketing Services, Inc., and J. C. Penney Life Insurance
Company n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Company, case No. 01-03395-
F."
The suit involves the sale of J. C. Penney Life Insurance
accidental death and dismemberment (ADD) insurance over the
telephone. The named plaintiffs allege that they did not give
permission to defendants to charge their credit cards for ADD
insurance premiums. They allege that the scripted questions
asked during the telephone sales presentation are inadequate to
obtain permission to charge the customer's credit card,
primarily because the customer is not told that the insurance
company already has his or her credit card number.
The Lawsuit originally also included as defendants J. C. Penney
Company, Inc., and J. C. Penney International Insurance Group,
Inc. The plaintiffs have since dismissed these parties. The
Lawsuit originally also included named plaintiffs who did not
deny giving permission to charge their credit cards for
premiums, but who alleged that they had submitted claims that
were wrongfully denied. Those former named plaintiffs and their
claims were severed into a separate lawsuit captioned "York, et
al v. J. C. Penney Company, Inc., J. C. Penney Direct Marketing
Services, Inc., J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company, J. C.
Penney International Group, Inc., AEGON Direct Marketing
Services, Inc., AEGON USA, Inc., and Commonwealth General
Corporation, No. 02-2651-F," in the 214th District Court of
Nueces County, Texas ("the Severed Lawsuit").
The assets of DMS, including the stock of JCPenney Life, were
sold to Commonwealth General Corporation ("Commonwealth"), a
domestic subsidiary of AEGON, N. V., pursuant to a Stock
Purchase Agreement dated as of March 7, 2001, among Commonwealth
as Purchaser, DMS as Seller, and JCP as Parent corporation of
DMS. Thus, as a matter of law, all of the liabilities of
JCPenney Life stayed with that company after the sale.
Commonwealth is currently providing defense to DMS.
Under the Agreement, J.C. Penney Corporation (JCP) and DMS
agreed to indemnify Commonwealth for any liability of JCPenney
Life, but only to the extent that such liability arises out of
or relates to a breach of a representation and warranty in the
Agreement. Commonwealth may claim entitlement to indemnification
from JCP and DMS if a final determination in the Lawsuit is
adverse to JCPenney Life, and Commonwealth successfully contends
that the liability arose out of a breach of a representation or
warranty in the Agreement. JCP's and DMS's liability for
breaches of representations and warranties is subject to both a
deductible and a cap.
In September 2002, the trial court certified the Lawsuit as a
national class action. On July 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals
for the Thirteenth District of Texas reversed the certification
order and remanded the case to the trial court. Plaintiffs filed
a second supplemental motion for Class Certification, this time
seeking a Texas class only. On January 31, 2005, the trial court
granted the motion, certifying a Texas class. Defendants have
filed a motion to appeal that order with the Court of Appeals
for the Thirteenth District of Texas, styled "Stonebridge Life
Insurance Company f/k/a J. C. Penney Life Insurance Company; J.
C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc., J. C. Penney Life
Insurance Company n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Company (JCPenney
Life), and AEGON Direct Marketing Services, Inc. v. Gayle G.
Pitts, et al, No. 13-05-131-CV."
The Severed Lawsuit was originally pled as a class action, but
the plaintiffs amended their petition and now assert only
individual claims.
On February 3, 2005, Vicente Balderaz filed a complaint in the
First Judicial District, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe
(No. D-0101-CV2005-00249) against the same defendants as the
Lawsuit and asserting essentially the same claims. The New
Mexico Lawsuit seeks certification of a nation-wide class.
MASSACHUSETTS: SEC Re-Files Treasury Bonds Insider Trading Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission re-filed a civil suit in
federal court in Boston against Steven E. Nothern arising from
trading in U.S. Treasury 30-year bonds minutes before the
Treasury Department's October 31, 2001, announcement that it
would no longer issue such bonds.
The Commission previously filed an action against Mr. Nothern,
Peter Davis, Jr., a Washington, D.C.-based consultant, and
former Goldman, Sachs & Co. economist John Youngdahl in
September 2003 based on the same facts alleged in the instant
complaint, but voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to Nothern
in November 2003. Mr. Davis and Mr. Youngdahl settled with the
Commission in September and November 2003, respectively. For
more information about this case, see the Commission's
Litigation Release No. 18322, dated September 3, 2003, and
Litigation Release No. 18453, dated Nov. 12, 2003. The action is
titled, SEC v. Steven E. Nothern, USDC, District of
Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 05-CV-10983 (NMG)(LR-19223).
MICHAELS STORES: Shareholders File Consolidated Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors continue to face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
On various dates between February 4, 2003 and March 25, 2003, 10
purported class action lawsuits were filed. All of these
lawsuits have been consolidated. The suits assert various
claims under Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 related to actions prior to the Company's
announcement on November 7, 2002, that, among other things, it
had revised its outlook for the fourth fiscal quarter of 2002,
adjusting downward its guidance for annual earnings per diluted
share.
The consolidated complaint charges that, prior to that
announcement, the Company and certain of the other defendants
made misrepresentations and failed to disclose negative
information about the financial condition of the Company while
the individual defendants were selling shares of the Company's
Common Stock.
MICHAELS STORES: Canadian Employees Launch Labor Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaels Stores, Inc. and Michaels of Canada face a class
proceeding filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on
behalf of the Company's current and former employees in Canada.
On December 20, 2002, James Cotton, a former store manager
of Michaels of Canada, ULC, the Company's wholly-owned
subsidiary, and Suzette Kennedy, a former assistant manager of
Michaels of Canada, commenced a proposed class proceeding on
behalf of themselves and current and former employees employed
in Canada. The Cotton claim alleges that the defendants violated
employment standards legislation in Ontario and other provinces
and territories of Canada by failing to pay overtime
compensation as required by that legislation. The Cotton claim
also alleges that this conduct was in breach of the contracts of
employment of those individuals. The Cotton claim seeks a
declaration that the defendants have acted in breach of
applicable legislation, payment to current and former employees
for overtime, damages for breach of contract, punitive,
aggravated and exemplary damages, interest, and costs.
MONSANTO CO.: WV Residents Initiate Suit Due To Dioxin Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. faces a class action filed by 15 plaintiffs in the
Putnam County, West Virginia state court, styled "Virdie Allen,
et al. v. Monsanto, et al." The suit also names as defendants
Pharmacia Corporation and seven others.
The Company is named as the successor in interest to the
liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all
current and former residents, workers, and students who, between
1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans
contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The
complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a
chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by
Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia
and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo Nobel and
Flexsys are named defendants in the case but Solutia is not, due
to its pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages
for property clean up costs, loss of real estate value, funds to
test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human
contamination and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint
also seeks an injunction against further contamination and
punitive damages. Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of
defendants tendered their cases to Monsanto for indemnification
and defense. Monsanto has rejected the tender by Akzo Nobel and
is currently reviewing the tender submitted by the Flexsys
defendant group.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Court Affirms MO Lawsuit Certification Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
denial of class certification for the consolidated lawsuit filed
against the former Monsanto Company and other biotechnology
companies, alleging violations of federal antitrust law.
Farmers initially filed two purported class actions concerning
the Company's biotechnology trait products - one on December 14,
1999, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia,
which complaint was amended in March 2001 to add Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection,
and Bayer CropScience as defendants; and the other on February
14, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois. The suits were later consolidated in the in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The complaints included both tort and antitrust allegations. The
tort claims included alleged violations of unspecified
international laws through patent license agreements, alleged
breaches of an implied warranty of merchantability, and alleged
violations of unspecified consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices laws, all in connection with the sale of genetically
modified seed. The antitrust claims included allegations of
violations of various antitrust laws, including allegations of a
conspiracy among defendants to fix seed prices in the United
States in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs
sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to
antitrust, treble, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.
On September 22, 2003, the District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment on all tort claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion to
allow the tort claims to proceed as a class action. On
September 30, 2003, the District Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class
action. On March 7, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision denying
class certification of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims.
MONSANTO COMPANY: Plaintiffs Dismiss Herbicide Antitrust Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed two class actions filed against Monsanto
Co. and its predecessor, the former Monsanto Company, alleging
that beginning in 1988, they conspired with competitors, through
a series of negotiations and legal settlements, to fix the price
of glyphosate-based and paraquat-based herbicides at prices
higher than the market would otherwise bear. One of the
lawsuits was filed in state court in California and one in state
court in Tennessee. Each lawsuit alleged claims on behalf of
all direct purchasers of glyphosate-based or paraquat-based
herbicides in the United States from March 1, 1988, to the
present and seeks monetary damages.
On February 10, 2005, the California case was resolved when
plaintiffs dismissed all of their claims with prejudice and
without payment of any compensation by the Company.
PILKINGTON NORTH: Settles Naplate Familes' Lawsuit For $2M
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing Naplate families reached a class action
settlement that was preliminary approved by the court with
Pilkington North America, the glassmaker that once operated as
Libbey-Owens-Ford, The LaSalle News Tribune reports.
Under the settlement, nearly 250 homeowners will split $2
million, while plaintiffs' lawyers get $820,000. Specifically,
Naplate homeowners will receive $1,000 each, except for three
families whose homes were significantly contaminated. Kelly and
Lori Aubry whose home will be purchased by Pilkington will get
$350,000, while Lloyd Vicki Ludwig and Joseph and Kim Nanouski,
the named plaintiffs on the lawsuit get $150,000 and $80,000,
respectively. Pilkington attorney Nicholas Kouletsis, reached
by telephone in his Princeton, New Jersey office declined
comment on the settlement, the LaSalle News reports.
In their suit, plaintiffs had alleged that in 2003, the Ohio-
based company had pumped millions of pounds of arsenic and
arsenic-contaminated wastes into Naplate's soil, air and
drinking water.
On December 9, a federal jury ruled against the plaintiffs
though was not the end of the case. Chicago attorney Shell
Bleiweiss told the Tribune that he and his fellow plaintiffs'
lawyers filed a motion to vacate the jury verdict giving
Pilkington an incentive to enter settlement talks. He also said
that Judge James B. Zagel will decide whether to accept the
settlement on July 7.
PRIME DELI: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Deli Corporation of Lewisville, Texas is recalling 63,476
units of 7 Eleven Grilled Sandwich and 7 Eleven Big Eats brand
sandwiches because they have the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.
The sandwiches are labeled with "Handmade On" codes of 0502
through 0507 located on the product label. The product was
packaged in flexible plastic film. Recalled products are as
follows:
(1) 7 Eleven Grilled Sandwich, Grilled Italian Deli on
Focaccia Bread with Parmesan Mayonnaise, 7.1 oz,
product code 72240
(2) 7 Eleven Grilled Sandwich, Gilled Chicken with Herb
Roasted Tomatoes Sandwich, 6.8 oz, product code 72259
(3) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey, Ham, Cheddar Cheese & Bacon
on White Bread, 7.8 oz, product code 01013
(4) 7 Eleven Big Eats Corned Beef & Swiss Cheese on
Sourdough Bread, 8.1 oz, product code 01066
(5) 7 Eleven Big Eats Black Forest Ham and Mozzarella
Cheese on Cracked Wheat Bread with Honey Mustard
Mayonnaise & Hot Chopped Red Peppers, 8.8 oz, product
code 00322
(6) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey, Ham & Provolone Cheese on
Tomato Basil Bread, 7.8 oz, product code 01018
(7) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey, Ham & Swiss Pita with
Southwestern Mayonnaise, 9.3 oz, product code 73192
(8) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey & Cheddar Cheese Sub, 4.7 oz,
product code 72437
(9) 7 Eleven Big Eats Colossal Club Sub, 12.6 oz, product
code 73444
(10) 7 Eleven Big Eats Ham & Swiss on Potato Roll, 2.7 oz,
product code 73895
(11) 7 Eleven Big Eats Smoked Turkey & Jack on Wheat Bread,
7.6 oz, product code 71795
(12) 7 Eleven Big Eats Smoked Turkey & Jack Cheese on Wheat
Bread, 3.3 oz, product code 01064
(13) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey and Pepperjack Cheese on
Potato Roll, 2.2 oz, product code 71738
(14) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey with Zesty Havarti Cheese on
Walnut Scallion Bread with Grilled Onions and Bacon,
9.4 oz, product code 01097
(15) 7 Eleven Big Eats Croissant with Egg, Ham & Cheese, 4.1
oz, product code 72999
(16) 7 Eleven Big Eats Smoked Turkey & Spicy Pepperoni on
Tomato Basil Bread with Tomato Feta Spread, 8.8 oz,
product code 01029
(17) 7 Eleven Big Eats Chicken Caesar on Cracked Wheat
Bread, 8.5 oz, product code 00382
(18) 7 Eleven Big Eats Ham & Swiss Cheese Sub, 4.9 oz,
product code 70063
(19) 7 Eleven Big Eats Turkey & Swiss Pita, 9.5 oz, product
code 70730
(20) 7 Eleven Big Eats Ham & Cheese Sandwich, 5.5 oz,
product code 74728
All 7 Eleven Grilled Sandwich and 7 Eleven Big Eats brand
sandwiches were sold in 7 Eleven stores in North and Central
Texas.
There have been no reports of illnesses associated with the
recalled product. The problem was discovered through FDA
sampling during an inspection. Prime Deli Corporation is working
with the FDA to ensure that the problem has been resolved.
Consumers who have purchased 7 Eleven Grilled Sandwich and 7
Eleven Big Eats brand sandwiches are urged to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact Janey Carpenter at 214-841-6585. For media questions
contact Kevin Gardner 214-828-7694.
PUTNAM INVESTMENT: Suit Launched in MA, Disputes Redemption Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Putnam Investment, which settled market-timing charges by state
and federal regulators, had 52 of its mutual funds recently
named in a class action suit, The Boston Business Journal
reports.
The suit is disputing the redemption fees, which are common in
the industry that Putnam charges certain shareholders when they
sell their fund shares. Specifically, the complaint filed in
Suffolk Superior Court in Boston disputes that shareholders
should not have to pay because Putnam funds' trustees breached
their contract with investors by allowing market timing.
According to the attorneys of Gilman and Pastor LLP, the Boston
law firm that filed the suit, they are asking Putnam to drop the
fees for current investors and refund redemption fees paid by
shareholders of the 52 funds beginning October 28, 2003, when
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the Secretary of
State's office filed court actions against Putnam Investments.
Since its filing back in April 4, the case been moved to federal
court in Boston, and more recently assigned to U.S. District
Court in Baltimore, where hundreds of market-timing class-action
suits against Putnam and 20-odd other fund companies have been
consolidated. It was brought on behalf of holders of Class B
shares of 52 Putnam funds. Those shares typically are bought
without an upfront "load," but investors are charged when they
sell.
The fee is separate from the 2 percent redemption charge Putnam
unveiled last year to discourage market timing, which applies to
sales of stock and bond funds within five days of the initial
purchase.
In their complaint, shareholders argue that they should be given
the opportunity to sell without paying the fee because Putnam,
by allowing market timing of its funds, breached an "implied
term" of its contract with investors. That implied term,
according to them is that Putnam would "conduct itself with a
high degree of integrity."
In addition, attorneys for the shareholders argue that class
members "should be free to decide whether, under the
circumstances, they wish to remain shareholders without the
disincentive of a penalty if they decide to redeem their
shares."
Market timing refers to the frequent buying and selling of
shares in a mutual fund to take advantage of "stale" prices. A
market-timer may move money into an international fund after
seeing that the American stock markets rose that day. The timer
does it on the expectation that overseas stocks will rise when
those markets open the next day.
Market timing is not illegal, but it often runs counter to the
investment strategies outlined in a fund's prospectus. Many
funds say they discourage or penalize market timing, also known
as rapid trading.
REVLON INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Revlon, Inc.
and certain of its present and former officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit also names as defendant REV Holdings Inc., a Delaware
corporation and the predecessor of REV Holdings LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (REV Holdings).
The suit was initially filed on September 27, 2000, on behalf of
Dan Gavish, Tricia Fontan and Walter Fontan individually and
allegedly on behalf of all others similarly situated who
purchased the securities of the Company and REV Holdings between
October 2, 1998 and September 30, 1999. The complaint, amended
by the plaintiffs in November 2001, alleged, among other things,
that Revlon, Inc., certain of its present and former officers
and directors and REV Holdings Inc. violated, among other
things, Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
On September 29, 2004, the court dismissed the Second Gavish
Action, without prejudice. Company counsel has subsequently
received a second amended complaint. If this matter is pursued,
Revlon, Inc. intends to defend it vigorously as the Company
believes it is without merit. In light of the settlement of the
defendants' insurance claim for this matter and the other
purported class actions filed in 1999 and settled in June 2003,
which the Company recorded in the fourth quarter of 2002, the
Company does not expect to incur any further expense in this
matter.
The suit is styled "Gavish, et al v. Revlon, Inc., et al, case
no. 1:00-cv-07291-SHS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Sidney
H. Stein. Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody and Aaron
Lee Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-
mail: ssbny@aol.com; and Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Yourman,
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176 Phone:
212 682-3025 Fax: 212 682 3010 E-mail: jweiss@wynyc.com.
TALARIAN CORPORATION: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Talarian
Corporation, certain of its underwriters, and certain of its
former directors and officers.
The suit, styled "In re Talarian Corp. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," claims that the purported improper
underwriting activities were not disclosed in the registration
statement for the Company's IPO and seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased Company
securities during the time period from July 20, 2000 to December
6, 2000.
A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and
individual defendants in the coordinated litigation was
conditionally accepted by the Company and given conditional
preliminary Court approval. The completion of the settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including final Court
approval.
Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action,
and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain
claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an
amount equal to $1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all the cases.
The suit is styled "IN RE TALARIAN CORPORATION INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
TIBCO SOFTWARE: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 TIBCO
Software, Inc., certain of its directors and officers and
certain investment bank underwriters.
The suit, styled "In re TIBCO Software Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," alleges violations of federal
securities laws. This is one of a number of cases challenging
underwriting practices in the initial public offerings (IPOs) of
more than 300 companies, which have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."
Plaintiffs generally allege that the underwriters engaged in
undisclosed and improper underwriting activities, namely the
receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and customer
agreements regarding post-offering purchases of stock in
exchange for allocations of IPO shares. Plaintiffs also allege
that various investment bank securities analysts issued false
and misleading analyst reports. The complaint against the
Company claims that the purported improper underwriting
activities were not disclosed in the registration statements for
the Company's IPO and secondary public offering and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased Company securities or sold put options during the
time period from July 13, 1999 to December 6, 2000.
A proposal to settle the claims against all of the issuers and
individual defendants in the coordinated litigation was
conditionally accepted by the Company and given conditional
preliminary Court approval. The completion of the settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including final Court
approval.
Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action,
and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain
claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay an
amount equal to $1.0 billion less any amounts ultimately
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all the cases.
The suit is styled "IN RE TIBCO SOFTWARE, INC. INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
WD 40: Court Nixes FL Consumer Suit Certification Refusal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Appeals Court denied plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of
class certification to a lawsuit filed against WD 40 Co.,
alleging damages arising out of the use of the automatic toilet
bowl cleaners (ATBCs) marketed and sold by the Company under the
brand names, 2000 Flushes and X-14.
The suit was filed on October 2, 2002 in the Circuit Court of
the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida.
Plaintiff Michael William Granese, a Florida citizen, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, seeking class action
status in the State of Florida. The plaintiff sought to certify
a class of plaintiffs consisting of consumers in the state of
Florida who, since September 1, 1998, purchased and used ATBCs
sold by the registrant. Class certification was sought for
claims for damages based upon the purchase price of the ATBCs
arising out of alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (Fla. Stat. Sections 501.201 &
501.213) for the asserted failure to disclose to consumers that
the ATBCs allegedly could cause harm to internal toilet tank
components and for the representations that the ATBCs are safe
for plumbing and septic systems.
On April 26, 2004, the Florida Circuit Court issued an order
denying the plaintiff's application for class certification. On
March 9, 2005, an appeal of the Circuit Court's order was denied
and the matter is being remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
WD 40: CA Court Grants Summary Judgment in Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court in California granted WD 40
Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the class actions filed
against it, related to its 2000 Flushes Bleach, 2000 Flushes
Blue Plus Bleach and X-14 Anti-Bacterial automatic toilet bowl
cleaners (ATBCs) products.
Two separate but substantially identical legal actions were
filed in September 2003 against the Company in the San Diego
County, California and the Alameda County, California Superior
Courts by Patricia Brown on behalf of the general public seeking
a remedy for alleged violation of California Business and
Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., and 17500. The
complaints alleged that the Company misrepresented that its 2000
Flushes Bleach, 2000 Flushes Blue Plus Bleach and X-14 Anti-
Bacterial automatic toilet bowl cleaners (ATBCs) are safe for
plumbing systems and unlawfully omitted to advise consumers
regarding the allegedly damaging effect the use of the ATBCs has
on toilet parts made of plastic and rubber. The complaints
sought to remedy such allegedly wrongful conduct:
(1) by enjoining the Company from making the allegedly
untrue representations and to require the Company to
engage in a corrective advertising campaign and to
order the return, replacement and/or refund of all
monies paid for such ATBCs;
(2) by requiring the Company to identify all consumers who
have purchased the ATBCs and to return money as may be
ordered by the court; and
(3) by the granting of other equitable relief, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
On September 18, 2003, Patricia Brown voluntarily dismissed the
Alameda County action and elected to pursue the claims in San
Diego Superior Court. On June 14, 2004, the complaint was
amended to re-allege violations of the same statutes based on a
theory that the ATBCs were negligently designed; the amended
complaint seeks remedies similar to those originally pleaded.
Another complaint was filed against the Company on September 4,
2003, in the San Diego County, California Superior Court by
Genevieve Valentine. This complaint was brought as a nationwide
consumer class action on the same or similar grounds as alleged
in the Brown Actions and sought substantially similar relief on
behalf of the purported class of similarly situated plaintiffs.
An amended complaint was filed by the plaintiff on June 14, 2004
alleging putative causes of action for unjust enrichment, breach
of warranty, negligent design, and negligent inspection or
testing of the ATBCs. This action was later consolidated with
the pending San Diego County Brown Action.
During the second quarter ended February 28, 2005, the Company
filed a motion for summary judgment in the San Diego Actions. On
March 25, 2005, the trial court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment as to both actions. Unless a timely appeal is
filed, the San Diego Actions will be dismissed.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Featured Conference
--------------------------
Don't miss NorthStar Conferences' "The Class Action Litigation
Summit," which will take place June 8-9, 2005 in New York City.
In this time of increased corporate scrutiny, businesses are
more susceptible than ever to the threat of a national class
action. You will get up-to-the-minute information and strategic
advice directly from seasoned practitioners. Inside and outside
counsel will share a variety of perspectives on how to
anticipate, prevent, contain, and prepare for litigation.
For more information; call 1-866-265-1975 or visit
http://www.northstarconferences.com/conferences.asp?code=56LAW01
&pcode=CAR1.
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 21, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Irvine Crowne Plaza/OC Airport, Catalina Ballroom, Irvine, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
May 24-25, 2005
PREVAILING OVER CUSTOMER CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Warwick Hotel, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
June 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 3-5, 2005
United States v. Philip Morris: Jumpstarting Private Tobacco
Litigation
22nd Conference of the Tobacco Products Liability Project
Boston, MA
Contact: conference@tplp.org
June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Wilshire Grand Hotel & Centre, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
June 4, 2005
2005 CRITICAL ISSUES IN EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Continuing Education of the Bar
Red Lion Hotel, Sierra Room, Sacramento, CA
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
June 8, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago Gleacher Center, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
New York City
Contact: http://www.northstarconferences.com/
June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 13-14, 2005
PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 16-17, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20-21, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
June 22, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION: POST-
CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
June 22-23, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Intercontinental, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20-21, 2005
REACT 2005
American Conferences
Hyatt Regency Newport, Newport, Rhode Island
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com
July 21-22, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
July 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY: PHARMACEUTICAL AND MEDICAL DEVICE ISSUES
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
August 25-26, 2005
CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005 AND OTHER EMERGING CLASS
ACTION ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 2005
LAW CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)
February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
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
------------------------
May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 01-31, 2005
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
June 15, 2005
IT AND NETWORKING SECURITY TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
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
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH 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
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
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
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Cotchett Pitre Files Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who
purchased securities of American International Group, Inc.
("AIG") between October 1, 1999 and March 30, 2005 (the "Class
Period").
Plaintiff's Complaint alleges causes of action under Section
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The named defendants are AIG, C.V. Starr & Co., Inc., Starr
International Inc., General Reinsurance Corporation, Maurice
Greenberg, Howard Smith, Christian Milton, and L. Michael
Murphy.
Plaintiff alleges that defendants made false statements and
concealed material information concerning AIG's financial
condition and accounting practices relating to, among other
items, non-traditional insurance products, assumed reinsurance
transactions, and use of affiliated entities for executive
compensation. Plaintiff alleges that AIG structured transactions
for the primary purpose of accomplishing a desired accounting
result, including a sham reinsurance deal set up with defendant
General Reinsurance Corporation to bolster reserves,
transactions with supposedly independent companies that were in
fact controlled by AIG, incorrectly classified losses, and
questionable estimates on deferred acquisition costs.
Plaintiff also alleges that it and other class members suffered
damages from this specific conduct, first revealed to the public
in 2005. Plaintiff alleges that, between February 14, 2005, when
AIG first disclosed that it had received subpoenas from the SEC
and the New York Attorney General, and April 1, 2005, after AIG
issued a press release relating to this conduct, AIG's share
value fell approximately 30%. AIG has since announced a need to
restate its financial statements for the years ended December
31, 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000, the quarters ended March 31, June
30, and September 30, 2004 and 2003, and the quarter ended
December 31, 2003, and that its prior financial statements for
those periods should no longer be relied upon. Plaintiff's
action seeks to pursue claims related to the alleged misconduct
that was not revealed until 2005 and manifested by the loss of
share value in 2005. Conversely, Plaintiff's action is not based
upon and does not seek to represent a class to pursue claims
related to defendants' participation in so-called "bid rigging"
and/or "PNC" transactions, which were the subject of other
regulatory investigations and civil actions originally filed in
2004, and which allegedly led to independent damages manifested
by a drop in AIG's share value in 2004.
For more details, contact Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy by
Mail: San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, California 94010 by Phone: (650) 697-6000
by Fax: (650) 697-0577, 692-1112 or 692-3606 or visit their Web
site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com/offices.shtml.
DORAL FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross initiated a class action suit
against Doral Financial Corporation in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased Doral securities (stocks and/or
notes)(NYSE:DRL) between May 15, 2000 and April 19, 2005.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants,
Doral Financial Corp., Salomon Levis, Richard Melendez and
Richard F. Bonini made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects.
Defendants failed to disclose to the investing public that the
Company was improperly overvaluing its floating rate interest
only ("IO") Strips, an important part of its mortgage portfolio,
and thereby substantially inflating its financial results during
the Class Period. As a result, during the Class Period the
Company's net income and net gain on mortgage loan sales were
materially overstated, the Company's return on equity and
capital were materially overstated, and the Company's reported
net capital was materially overstated. Defendants also failed to
disclose to investors that the Company's risk management,
hedging strategies and internal controls were deficient and
would not protect the value of Doral's portfolio in a rising
rate environment, despite repeated reassurances to the contrary.
On April 19, 2005, Doral announced that it was restating its
financial results for 2000 through 2004. According to Doral, the
restatements are necessary to correct the accounting treatment
for valuing Doral's IO Strip portfolio. Doral admitted that
eventually it will be required to take a charge of between $290
million and $435 million. As a result of these false statements,
Doral's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $49.45 per share on January 18,
2005. The Company sold $740 million worth of notes and $345
million worth of preferred stock during the Class Period.
However, after the truth was revealed in Doral's press release
on April 19, 2005, the Company's shares fell to below $16 per
share.
For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. 1515
Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.
FINDWHAT.COM: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager White & Goldstein, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
acquired securities of FindWhat.com ("FindWhat") (Nasdaq:FWHT)
between January 5, 2004 and May 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit alleges that FindWhat, Craig Pisaris-Henderson,
Brenda Aguis, Frederick E. Guest and Phillip R. Thune violated
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose
and misrepresenting the following:
(1) FindWhat's failure to appropriately acknowledge the
goodwill impairment resulting from the Company's merger
with Miva;
(2) FindWhat's failure to reveal that the Company had been
actively seeking new accountants since January 2005;
(3) the Company's violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices ("GAAP") in determining their
financial results; and
(4) the Company's lack of necessary internal controls.
As a result, FindWhat's financial results were materially
inflated at all relevant times.
On May 2, 2005, FindWhat announced that the Company's
accountants, Ernst and Young LLP, were resigning. The company
also revealed that it had recorded an adjustment in its
consolidated financial statements for 2004, relative to
recognition of the goodwill impairment. The market reacted to
this news, and on May 3, 2005, FindWhat fell $2.04 per share, or
26%, to close at $5.71 per share. On May 4, 2005, FindWhat
announced the resignation of its CFO, Brenda Aguis. On this
news, the Company's stock plummeted an additional $2.33 per
share, or 38% on May 5, 2005.
For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein of Mager White
& Goldstein by Mail: 2825 University Drive, Suite 350, Coral
Springs, Florida 33065 by Phone: (954) 341-0844 or
(866) 274-8258 by Fax: (954) 341-0855 or by E-mail:
jgoldstein@mwg-law.com.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, against GlaxoSmithKline plc
("GlaxoSmithKline" or the "Company") (NYSE:GSK), on behalf of
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of GlaxoSmithKline
between February 21, 2001 and August 5, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").
The complaint alleges that GlaxoSmithKline violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
GloxoSmithKline improperly concealed deficiencies with its
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") drug, Paxil, in
treating adolescent depression. On August 5, 2004, the Wall
Street Journal published an article that reported that a new
analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs
(including Paxil) and suicidal tendencies in young people.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 or by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.
MARTEK BIOSCIENCES: Squitieri & Fearon Files Stock Lawsuit in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
on behalf of investors who purchased the securities of Martek
Biosciences Corporation (NYSE:MATK) ("Martek" or the "Company")
during the period from December 9, 2004 through April 27, 2005
(the "Class Period").
The suit claims that Martek and its officers misrepresented the
Company's financial performance and failed to disclose
significant problems with the Company's business in order to
complete an $81 million stock offering. The claims are brought
pursuant to the federal securities laws and allege that Martek
and the officers who are named in the lawsuit violated the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The lawsuit seeks to recover for investors who bought the
Company's securities, including those investors who bought the
Company's common stock in the January 2005 secondary offering.
On April 27, 2005 investors began to learn the truth when Martek
issued a press release that revealed the significant shortfall
in its sales and earnings. In response to this news Martek's
shares fell from $60.08 per share to close at $32.49 on April
28, 2005.
For more details, contact Sara Mirsky or Stephen J. Fearon, Jr.
of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by
E-mail: smirsky@sfclasslaw.com or Stephen@sfclasslaw.com.
MBNA CORPORATION: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of MBNA
Corporation ("MBNA" or the "Company") (NYSE:KRB) between January
20, 2005 and April 21, 2005 (the "Class Period") seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").
The action, numbered 05cv4725(KMK), is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants MBNA, Bruce L. Hammonds (President and CEO),
Kenneth A. Vecchione (CFO), Richard K. Struthers, Charles C.
Krulak, John R. Cohran, III, Michael G. Rhodes, Lance L. Weaver,
and John W. Scheflen.
The complaint alleges that defendants projected annual income
growth of 10% and continued to make this projection during the
Class Period. In the weeks following the projection, the
Company's top officers and directors sold more than $75 million
worth of their own shares. The complaint alleges that instead of
truthfully disclosing during the Class Period that MBNA's
business was not as healthy as represented, defendants caused
MBNA to falsely represent the strength of its growth in new
loans, the decrease in delinquency rates, the decrease in loan
loss rates, its ability to wean its sales model off teaser no-
interest promotions, the value of its interest-only
securitization strips and its forecasted earnings. On April 21,
2005, defendants disclosed that MBNA had earned only $0.02 in Q1
2005 -- a 94% decline from the $0.59 per share it reported in Q4
2004 -- and that it was guiding 2005 EPS growth down to
"significantly below" its prior 10% growth estimate. Following
the Company's April 21, 2005 disclosure, the Company's stock
price plummeted from its closing price of $23.11 per share on
the close of April 20, 2005 to below $19 per share on extremely
high trading volume of 51 million shares.
For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.
MBNA CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against MBNA Corporation ("MBNA") (NYSE: KRB) and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons
who purchased MBNA common stock on the open market from January
21, 2005 through April 20, 2005. The action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
The complaint alleges that, beginning on January 21, 2005,
defendants made representations to the market that MBNA was
positioned to meet its 10% earnings per share growth objective
for 2005. However, defendants failed to disclose that MBNA was
experiencing higher payment volumes than usual from its U.S.
credit card customers and that such payments would negatively
impact MBNA's earnings, which would in turn cause MBNA to fall
far short of its earnings per share growth objective.
Defendants' improper actions were revealed on April 21, 2005,
when MBNA announced that its net profit for the first quarter
had plunged 94%. Defendants further revealed that, despite the
fact that defendants had previously represented that MBNA was
poised to achieve its stated growth target, management now
believed that MBNA's 2005 earnings per share would be
significantly below its 10% growth target.
In response to the April 21, 2005 disclosures, MBNA stock
plummeted to $19.28 per share on extremely heavy volume of 51.8
million shares, as compared to a closing price of $23.11 the
prior day.
For more details, contact Caroline S. Curtiss of Wolf Popper LLP
by Phone: +1-212-451-9620 or +1-877-370-7703 by Fax:
+1-212-486-2093 or +1-877-370-7704 by E-mai8l:
ccurtiss@wolfpopper.com or irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com.
MOLSON COORS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of former shareholders of Molson
Inc. ("Molson") who received shares of Molson Coors Brewing
Company ("Molson Coors" or the "Company") (NYSE: TAP) as a
result of the February 9, 2005 merger of Molson by and into the
Adolph Coors Company ("Coors"), open market purchasers of the
common stock of Coors from July 22, 2004 to February 9, 2005,
inclusive and open market purchasers of the common stock of the
Company, following completion of the merger between Molson and
Coors on or about February 9, 2005 to April 27, 2005, inclusive,
and who were damaged by the decline in the Company's stock.
Plaintiff is seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against the Company, Peter H. Coors, W.
Leo Kiely III, Charles M. Herington, Franklin W. Hobbs, Randall
Oliphant, Pamela Patsley, Wayne Sanders, Albert C. Yates,
Timothy V. Wolf, Peter Swinburn, David G. Barnes and Peter M.R.
Kendall.
The complaint alleges that in order to get the necessary
shareholder approval for the merger between Coors and Molson,
defendants failed to disclose, in press releases and Proxy
Statement(s), that at the time the merger closed on or about
February 9, 2005, which was well into the first fiscal quarter
of 2005, Coors was not operating according to plan and had
experienced material adverse changes in its business and at the
time of the merger, defendants had violated the terms of the
merger agreement and Proxy/Prospectus by failing to disclose
that Coors's business was being, and foreseeably would continue
to be, adversely impacted by conditions that were causing Coors
to perform well below plan and consensus estimates. Defendants
concealed these material facts because it enabled them to
effectuate the merger in a manner that allowed the relatives and
heirs of the Coors and Molson families to dominate the combined
Company, as detailed in the complaint.
On April 28, 2005, only weeks after the merger closed, before
the open of trading, defendants published a release announcing
disappointing results for the Company's first quarter of 2005.
Immediately following publication of this release, shares of the
Company fell precipitously, almost $14.50 per share, to $63.00
per share, a decline of almost 20%, a testament to investors'
surprise and disappointment in the results. The same day,
defendant O'Neill resigned from his post as Chair of Office of
Synergies and Integration, taking with him $4.8 million as a
severance payment.
For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.
MOLSON COORS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of former shareholders of Molson
Inc. ("Molson") who received shares of Molson Coors Brewing
Company ("Molson Coors") (NYSE: TAP) as a result of the February
9, 2005 merger of Molson by and into the Adolph Coors Company
("Coors"), open market purchasers of the common stock of Coors
from July 22, 2004 to February 9, 2005 and open market
purchasers of the common stock of Molson Coors, following
completion of the merger between Molson and Coors on or about
February 9, 2005 to April 27, 2005.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by making materially false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges Coors failed to
disclose that it was not operating according to plan in the
first quarter of 2005 in order to safeguard its planned merger
with Molson. On April 28, 2005, after the merger, Molson Coors
disclosed disappointing results for the first quarter of 2005.
On this news, Molson Coors shares fell from a close of $77.30 on
April 27, 2005, to close at $63.00 on April 28, 2005.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
R&G FINANCIAL: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Complaint in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross initiated a class action suit
against R&G Financial Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased R&G securities (stocks and/or notes)
(NYSE:RGF) between April 21, 2003 and April 25, 2005.
The complaint alleges that from April 21, 2003 through April 25,
2005 ("Class Period"), defendants, R&G Financial Corp., Victor
J. Galan, Joseph R. Sandoval and John A. Koegel failed to
disclose that its earnings were materially undermined by
aggressive assumptions relating to "gain on sale" income and the
value of "interest only" or "IO" Strips it retained upon the
completion of securitization transactions and that those and
other material accounting and valuation issues caused it to
prepare and to disseminate materially false financial statements
in violation of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
The complaint alleges the R&G knowingly or recklessly
misrepresented its true financial condition and inflated the
price of its securities artificially during Class Period.
Ultimately, on April 25, 2005, R&G announced that it would
restate its audited financial statements for the years ended
December 31, 2003 and December 31, 2004 and interim periods
therein. After the truth began to be revealed in R&G's press
release on April 25, 2005, the Company's shares fell to below
$15 per share, previously trading as high as $40 per share. On
April 26, 2005, R&G announced that the SEC had commenced an
investigation into the restatement.
For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. 1515
Locust Street, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19102 by Phone:
866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600 by E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com
or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.
R&G FINANCIAL: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of R&G Financial Corporation ("R&G")
(NYSE:RGF) between April 21, 2003 and April 25, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period") against R&G and certain of its officers
and/or directors.
The Complaint alleges that R&G violated the federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that R&G used improper
accounting assumptions to value its interest only ("IO")
residuals used in securitization transactions. On March 25,
2005, R&G announced that it would restate its financial results
for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Then on April 26, 2005, R&G
announced that it was subject to an informal SEC probe relating
to its restatement announcement. On this news, shares of R&G
fell from a close of $23.18 per share on April 25, 2005, to
close at $15.10 on April 26, 2005.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 or by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.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 Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.
Copyright 2005. 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 * * *