/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/050711.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 11, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 135 Headlines ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Five States Sue For Clean Air Act Violations CALIFORNIA: Reality TV Writers Files Suit, Claims Exploitation CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lawyer Seeks Participants in Derailment Suit CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File DEXATRIM Consumer Suit CHATTEM INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit V. Dexatrim in CA Court CINCINATTI BELL: KY Suit Over Wireless Roaming Charges Settled COCA-COLA CO.: Shareholders Sue for Breach of Fiduciary Duties COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Receives $48.3M of Corn Syrup Settlement COMERICA INC.: MI Court OKs Settlement For Shareholders' Suits DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lead Contamination Lawsuit V. WASA Dropped FLORIDA: Suit Filed Over Neurontin Prescription Kickback Scheme FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Vehicles Due to Damaged Tires FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Risk GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Various Strollers Due to Injury Hazard GUIDANT CORPORATION: TX Resident Lodges Suit Over Defibrillator HAWAII: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit Over Residency Restrictions on Jobs KANSAS: Family Launches Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer MASTEC INC.: FL Employees Launch Suit Over Withheld Overtime Pay MASTERFOODS AUSTRALIA: No Link Between Chocolate and Illnesses MERCK & CO.: Seeks To Postpone Vioxx Wrongful Death Trial in TX PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites TELCOLLECT INC.: To Resolve FTC Unfair Billing Charges Lawsuit TENNESSEE: Attorney General Sets Deadline For Hytrin Settlement TEXAS: High Court to Hear Gas Station Owners' Price-Fixing Case UNOCAL CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. Chevron Offer WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Victorious in $4M "Impact Fees" Suit New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ LAZARD LTD.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA OCA INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA ********* ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Five States Sue For Clean Air Act Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Allegheny Energy, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries face lawsuits filed by Pennsylvania and four other states, alleging violations of the federal Clean Air Act and state environmental regulations, the Associated Press reports. Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey and New York filed the suit in the United States District Court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company modified three western Pennsylvania coal fired-power plants without getting the required approval of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The modifications were done to extend the life of the plants but by circumventing the approval process, the Company avoided having to install modern pollution controls. "This aggressive action is necessary to protect our health because the federal government has unconscionably orphaned this case and abandoned environmental protection," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a statement, according to AP. Pennsylvania officials told AP that investigations by the federal Environmental Protection Agency found power plants were making modifications without updating pollution controls, but the Bush administration dropped investigations and enforcement. "The states are picking up where the federal government has left off in terms of enforcement," Kurt Knauss, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environmental Protection, told AP. The EPA did not immediately return a message seeking comment, AP reports. The Greensburg-based electric utility said it doesn't feel a lawsuit was necessary, given that it is working to resolve pending litigation in West Virginia that deals with the same issues. The company said it believes it is in compliance with state and federal regulations. "We consider this new action unnecessary, given our pending lawsuit in West Virginia and our plans to reduce the absolute level of emissions at our power plants," Paul J. Evanson, Allegheny Energy's chairman, president and chief executive officer, told AP. "We are moving forward as rapidly as our financial condition allows." Mr. Knauss said discussions with the Company were amicable, but that state officials felt progress was too slow in coming. "In the face of clear violations of law, we need to move to a defined, enforceable schedule to get these facilities cleaned up," Mr. Knauss told AP. "That's what we hope to achieve by going to court." The other states claim the plants contribute to acid rain and smog in their states. "The allegation is that because these three power plants ... are opening without pollution controls, the air pollution coming out of these stacks drifts on the prevailing winds and comes into New York," Marc Violette, a spokesman for New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, told AP. CALIFORNIA: Reality TV Writers Files Suit, Claims Exploitation -------------------------------------------------------------- In a bid to escalate its organizing campaign against reality TV producers, the union representing Hollywood writers recently unveiled a lawsuit initiated by a dozen scribes who allege they were denied overtime and meal breaks and ordered to falsify time cards, The Los Angeles Times reports. The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks class-action status. It is the latest effort by the Writers Guild of America, West, to keep up the pressure on production companies and networks involved in the burgeoning reality TV arena. According to Daniel Petrie Jr., president of the WGA, West, "These violations of California law are no mere accounting errors. They are deliberately designed to deny these writers the basic rights and legal protections." The 12 writers, who filed the suit, allege that the violations took place on eight shows, including "The Bachelor" "The Bachelorette," "Are You Hot?" and "The Real Gilligan's Island." They named as defendants, the networks airing the shows, including ABC, CBS, TBS and the WB, along with production companies Next Entertainment, Telepictures Productions, Syndicated Productions and Dawn Syndicated Productions. The defendants would not comment on the lawsuit, nor would Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers President J. Nicholas Counter, who is the industry's chief labor negotiator. Although he declined to comment on the complaint, an ABC spokesman said, "We believe ABC is in compliance with all applicable laws." One of the plaintiffs in the suit, writer Harmon Sharp claims that he never received any overtime pay as a story producer on "The Bachelor" or "The Real Gilligan's Island," even though he routinely worked 60 hours a week. He also claims that he was paid a flat weekly rate of $2,000 regardless of how many hours he worked, including putting in 12- to 18-hour days. He told the Los Angeles Times, "We were asked to work whatever it took, without any conversation. This is just a perfect example of how we're being exploited." Last month, the guild went public with its organizing drive, announcing that more than 75% of writers on TV reality shows had signed cards asking to be represented by the union. Their organizing drive, according to WGA officials, seeks to broadly define as reality TV storytellers such jobs as editors. In reality TV, the work of editors is considered crucial because they craft coherent, dramatic story lines from raw footage. That effort by the WGA though has sparked a potential turf war with the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, an umbrella labor group that includes editors. Though acknowledging the concern, Mr. Petrie downplayed the possibility of a jurisdictional fight saying, "We have no desire whatsoever to be in conflict with other unions and would be more than happy to cooperate." WGA officials contend in their organizing drive that because writers are deeply involved in lucrative game shows, working behind the scenes to craft game formats, coach contestants and create dramatic story lines, they should get pay and benefits similar to those of writers on conventional programs, the Los Angeles Times reports. Industry representatives, however, dispute allegations that workers are subject to sweatshop conditions and instead argue that writing for a reality show aren't tantamount to working on a scripted program. CANADIAN PACIFIC: Lawyer Seeks Participants in Derailment Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawyer for plaintiffs in a class action filed against Canadian Pacific Railway, Ltd. is seeking more participants in the suit, saying that he hopes every household in Ward County, North Dakota will soon be notified that it might have a claim stemming from a derailment and chemical spill three years ago, Money Sense reports. On January 18,2002, a Canadian Pacific freight train derailed on the edge of Minot and released roughly 290,000 gallons of the farm fertilizer. The toxic fumes from the spill killed one man and injured more than 1,600 people. Federal investigators described the tank car ruptures as "catastrophic." The National Transportation Safety Board said the wreck was caused by inadequate track maintenance and inspections, a conclusion disputed by the Company. Three Minot residents filed the lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other affected residents a week after the derailment. Mike Miller, the Fargo attorney whose firm represents the three plaintiffs and roughly 900 other Minot residents, said the case could bring 15,000 to 20,000 Minot residents into the lawsuit, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 15,2004) reports. Mr. Miller released a notification plan for the class, which includes radio and newspaper announcements and direct mailing. It is awaiting the approval of U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, who in May granted class-action status to the lawsuit. "We don't know yet how large the class will be, but it certainly will be in the 10,000 to 20,000 range," Mr. Miller told Money Sense. The Company sought permission to appeal Judge Hovland's ruling, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last month denied the request with no comment, clerk Michael Gans told Money Sense. Mr. Miller said the railway has informally objected to his proposed method for notifying potential claimants. "I really don't know what Canadian Pacific's problem is with what we've proposed," he told Money Sense. "All we're trying to do is get notice out." Canadian Pacific spokeswoman Laura Baenen said the railroad will file a formal objection. "This is far more notice than is required and will result in confusion among the public as to who is in the class and who is not," she told Money Sense. CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-File DEXATRIM Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs failed to re-file a class action against Chattem, Inc., seeking certification of a class consisting of New York residents who have purchased DEXATRIM Results or DEXATRIM Natural since January 2000. The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising out of allegedly false advertising in connection with the sale of DEXATRIM Results and DEXATRIM Natural products. None of the plaintiffs in this action alleged personal injury as a result of the ingestion of a DEXATRIM product. On March 29, 2004, a stipulation was submitted to the court dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds. Pursuant to the stipulation, the plaintiffs may re-file the class action in New York state court. These plaintiffs have not re-filed this lawsuit as of July 1, 2005. The suit is styled "Eure, et al v. Chattem, Inc., case no. 1:03- cv-08518-PKL," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Peter K. Leisure. Representing the plaintiffs is Samuel Hirsch, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2418, New York, NY 10118, Phone: (212) 947-3800. Representing the Company are Barbra Spalten Levy, McCarter and English (NJ), Four Gateway Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark, NJ 07102, Phone: (973)622-4444, Fax: (973) 624-7070. CHATTEM INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit V. Dexatrim in CA Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Chattem, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages and attorney fees against it under the California Business and Professions Code. The suit arose out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and breach of express warranty in connection with the manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of certain DEXATRIM Natural products. The lawsuit seeks certification of a class consisting of all persons who purchased DEXATRIM Natural in California during the four-year period prior to the filing of the lawsuit up to the date of any judgment obtained. The plaintiff has stipulated that the amount in controversy with individual claim and each member of the proposed class in the action does not exceed $75. CINCINATTI BELL: KY Suit Over Wireless Roaming Charges Settled -------------------------------------------------------------- Cincinnati Bell reached a tentative settlement to a lawsuit filed in Northern Kentucky over the telecommunication company's billing practices for cellular roaming charges, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports. Colleen Hegge, a lawyer at the firm of Statman, Harris, Siegel and Eyrich, told the Enquirer "We're extremely pleased that Kentucky consumers are being protected." She filed the suit in January for Covington residents Teresa and Jeff Berberich. In their suit the coupled claimed that Cincinnati Bell's wireless division improperly billed them for roaming charges under a plan that they believe allowed free roaming. Additionally, they also claimed the company would only correct charges that the couple found and would not refund for other incorrect charges or for the taxes on any improper charges. Jill Cobb, a Bell spokeswoman, confirmed that a settlement, which mirrors last month's resolution of a similar suit in Ohio, had been reached but declined further comment since the case is still pending in the courts, The Enquirer reports. The Kentucky suit was awaiting a decision by Kenton Circuit Judge Douglas Stephens over whether to grant it class action status. Now the Kentucky case is being consolidated with the Ohio suit. The Ohio suit was filed last October in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. Judge Robert Ruehlman has given preliminary approval to the settlement ending it, subject to a fairness hearing in September. The settlement of the two cases calls for the creation of a fund to be capped at $6 million for affected customers to receive up to $50 apiece in vouchers for certain Bell services. It also allows customers who can demonstrate that they had roaming charges in excess of $100 to receive up to half the money they paid in cash instead of the $50 voucher. COCA-COLA CO.: Shareholders Sue for Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- The Coca-Cola Co. faces a class action filed by several of its shareholders, alleging the administrators of the Company's 401(k) plan breached their fiduciary duty, the Atlanta Business Journals reports. In May, two heirs of a fortune in Coke stock sued SunTrust Banks Inc. for failing to diversify their trusts out of the soft drink giant's stock. The plaintiffs in the suit alleged that the administrators failed to reduce the amount of company stock in the plan and subsequent losses of 401(k) plan participants. The lawsuit claims the defendants "breached their fiduciary duties because they knew or should have known that the company's securities were not a prudent investment," among other allegations. Plaintiffs allege that at one point, Coca-Cola common stock accounted for as much as 69 percent of the total invested assets of the retirement plan. The suit covers the period between May 13, 1997, and April 18, 2005. Coke's stock price has languished in recent years. A Coke spokesman said the company had not been served with the complaint and could not comment on it, the Atlanta Business Journal reports. The plaintiffs' case is being handled by the Garber Law Firm P.C. in Atlanta and Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP out of Florida. COCA-COLA ENTERPRISES: Receives $48.3M of Corn Syrup Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc., the largest bottler of Coca-Cola soft drinks, said that it received a $48.3 million from the settlement of a price fixing lawsuit against several big corn processors, The Reuters News Agency reports. In the class action suit, which was settled last year, food and beverage companies accused processors including Archer Daniels Midland Co. and Cargill Inc. of fixing the price of high- fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is used to sweeten soda and other foods. According to the company's filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the amount CCE received will be recorded as a reduction in its cost of sales for the second quarter of 2005. It also said in the filed that the amount represents about 90 percent of the company's anticipated total settlement. It also noted that the remaining funds are expected to be received in late 2005 or early 2006. COMERICA INC.: MI Court OKs Settlement For Shareholders' Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Comerica Incorporated (NYSE: CMA) stated that the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan preliminarily approved the settlement of two shareholder class action lawsuits that were filed against Comerica in October 2002. The lawsuits followed an October 2, 2002, announcement of an incremental provision for credit losses, a related restatement of financial statements for the second quarter of 2002, and goodwill impairment for Comerica's Munder Capital Management subsidiary. Comerica agreed to the settlement without admitting any liability, and is settling the cases to avoid the risk and cost of litigation. If the settlement receives final judicial approval, Comerica will pay a total of $21 million in full settlement of such lawsuits. The payment will not affect 2005 earnings and will largely be funded by insurance proceeds, with the remainder coming from previously established reserves. The court directed that a final hearing on the settlement be held on October 24, 2005. Further details will be disclosed in a notice of settlement that will be sent to class members shortly. For more details, contact Sharon R. McMurray or Wayne J. Mielke, Media Contacts of Comerica Inc., Phone: +1-313-222-4881 or +1-313-222-4732 OR Helen L. Arsenault or Paul E. Burdiss, Investor Contacts of Comerica Inc., Phone: +1-313-222-2840. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Lead Contamination Lawsuit V. WASA Dropped ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit initiated last year against the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority over its management of lead contamination was recently dropped because the utility took adequate steps to improve water quality, according to the attorney for the two Capitol Hill families that filed the litigation, The Washington Post reports. In a prepared statement, WASA officials said that the dropping of the suit was a clear sign that they made progress in reducing the risk of lead in drinking water. They also said that the lawsuit cost them more than $1 million to defend. Filed in D.C. Superior Court in March 2004, the suit claimed that utility officials knew that the drinking water had high lead levels in 2001 but failed to protect the public, which found out only in early 2004. It sought damages on behalf of pregnant women, parents and property owners who have spent money for filters, lead pipe replacement and other costs. In June 2004 though, the Environmental Protection Agency and WASA signed a consent agreement in which the utility agreed to take a variety of steps to address the high levels of lead found in thousands of D.C. homes. Reciprocally, the WASA board later vowed to replace all the lead pipes on public property by 2010 with the city's water treatment plants, which is being run by the Army Corps of Engineers, using a chemical intended to prevent lead from leaching off pipes. Additionally, WASA officials said that the cost of defending the utility against the lawsuit included expenses for outside lawyers and experts. Officials also said they have filed an insurance claim and according to spokeswoman Michelle Quander- Collins, the deductible is $1 million. WASA's General Manager, Jerry N. Johnson, also said in a statement, "It has been WASA's position all along that this is a regulatory issue and one that the authority is committed to aggressively address with good results for our customers and the general public." James E. Berger, a lawyer in the D.C. office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, told the Washington Post that he and his clients agreed voluntarily to drop the lawsuit late last month because it had achieved its goals. He also pointed out, "The purpose of the litigation was to improve the drinking water, and we think that's happened. We don't see any need to have private litigation that's going to cost them money. We'd rather spend that money on having them improve the drinking water." The lawsuit was the first one brought against the utility since the lead contamination was disclosed, and utility attorneys had argued that it would impose excessive costs even as the problem was being addressed. FLORIDA: Suit Filed Over Neurontin Prescription Kickback Scheme --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit was initiated by two Florida plaintiffs, one a Lee County resident, against Pfizer Inc., claiming the pharmaceutical giant employed a kickback scheme with doctors to prescribe an anti-epilepsy medication for off-label use that can increase risk of cancer and other permanent health problems, The Naples Daily News reports. The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, was originally filed February in Lee County Circuit Court but was removed and filed recently in federal court in Fort Myers. Another defendant in the suit is Eckerd Corporation, which the suit accuses of failing to stop the flow of improperly prescribed Neurontin, in part because of its own profit at Eckerd pharmacies, and therefore placed its own customers at a health risk. In their suit, Joan Craft, 59 and Ronald Russell of Hillsborough County claim Pfizer employed a kickback scheme with physicians who prescribed Neurontin for purposes not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, for which there is no scientific evidence that the drug is safe and effective for other uses. The plaintiffs are seeking the establishment of a medical monitor program for class action plaintiffs who will require continuous medical monitoring and treatment. According to the suit, the kickback practice and other questionable marketing techniques were initiated by Parke-Davis, the maker of the anti-epilepsy drug and a division of Warner- Lambert. It goes on to state that Pfizer acquired Warner-Lambert in 2000 and is responsible for any acts or omissions of Parke- Davis prior to the acquisition. In a prepared statement, Pfizer spokesman Bryant Haskins responded to the suit by saying, "We've reviewed the allegations in this case and believe that the claim for medical monitoring is supported neither by good medical practice nor by the law. Physicians have relied on Neurontin to treat millions of patients since its approval in 1994. Pfizer is not aware of any medical issues involving the use of Neurontin that would justify the medical monitoring called for in this lawsuit." The FDA approved Neurontin as an add-on drug in the event a primary anti-epilepsy medication is not effective. With a limited potential market of just two million people living with epilepsy in the United States and a patent expiration set for December 1998, Parke-Davis decided in 1995 to increase Neurontin sales by marketing the drug for other purposes. Additionally, the suit states that rather than submit for FDA approval to market the drug for other purposes, Parke-Davis decided to market it illegally because of the significant profit potential for off-label use, such as for bipolar disorder, seizures, pain, attention deficit disorder, migraines, restless leg syndrome, drug and alcohol withdrawal, and other uses. While it is legal for physicians to write prescriptions for a medication's use other than what it was approved for by the FDA, the promotion by a drug manufacturer of off-label uses is illegal, the suit pointed out. Nonetheless, the suit goes on to state that Parke-Davis hosted "consultants" meetings with physicians and funneled illegal payments to them for writing off-label prescriptions of the drug. At these events, according to the suit, doctors attended dinners and were paid to listen to presentations about off-label usage of the drug, which were done by company employees or physicians hired to make pitches for the drug. The suit also states that at these events, Parke-Davis got physicians to sign consulting agreements and later tracked their prescribing habits to see if they had increased prescribing of Neurontin for which they were paid. Often the consultants meetings were held in Florida with all hotels and other expenses covered by Parke-Davis, the suit states. Dozens of these consultants meetings were held from 1995 to 1997, including one on Marco Island in early February 1996, another on Marco in April 1996, and a third event was held in Naples, whose date was not included in the action. No physicians were named in the lawsuit and it does not disclose how many doctors accepted a $200 honorarium for just showing up at these events or accepted some other form of payment for writing off-label prescriptions for the drug. The suit also states that Parke-Davis made kickbacks to doctors to have them come to continuing medical education seminars about off-label use of Neurontin. These events were set up to appear to qualify for an exception to the FDA's "off-label" marketing of a drug, whereby physicians are allowed to learn of other uses for drugs at independent seminars. In this case, though, according to the suit, Parke-Davis controlled all aspects of these continuing medical education seminars despite the involvement of a third-party organization. Moreover, the suit states that the continuing medical education seminars were accredited by continuing education organizations, which virtually meant that physicians who accepted the Parke- Davis junkets did not have to pay tuition and spend time fulfilling licensure obligations of continuing education by attending truly independent education programs. Other ways that Parke-Davis recruited physicians was to pay them grants to host their own Neurontin speaking events, and the company hired "medical liaisons" to promote the drug, who were in effect surrogate sales representatives that made misrepresentations about their medical background, even representing themselves as researchers, according to the lawsuit. Another technique was to pay doctors to lend their names to scientific articles that were actually prepared and written by third parties retained by the company. False statements made by Parke-Davis employees to doctors included that scientific evidence exists that the drug is effective for the off-label uses promoted but which is not the case, according to the lawsuit. The company also made payments to its own employees to stay silent about the practices and trained employees how to avoid detection of their activities by the FDA, the lawsuit says. In 2000, Warner-Lambert reported that more than 78 percent of Neurontin prescriptions had been for conditions other than epilepsy. According to the lawsuit, sales of the drug in 2000 were $1.3 billion and later rose to $1.7 billion. FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Vehicles Due to Damaged Tires -------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 10061 units of both 2006 Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator vehicles due to damaged tires. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V310000. According to the ODI, on certain sport utility vehicles, the left hand side tires may have damage at the center tread. The tread damage was caused by a section of steel fingerplate on a conveyor that had become sharp over time due to ware. Overtime, the damage may be sufficient to allow belt corrosion, which could ultimately lead to a tread separation, which could result in a crash. As a remedy, the dealer will have all four tires inspected (to ensure inspection of the left hand side tires that may have been rotated to the other side of the vehicle) for tire tread damage and, if necessary, replace the damaged tire. For more details, contact Ford by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or the NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web site: http://www.safecar.gov. FORD MOTOR: Recalls 10,061 Sport Utility Vehicles For Crash Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company is cooperating with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling 10,061 sport utility vehicles (SUV), namely: (1) FORD / EXPEDITION, model 2006 (2) LINCOLN / NAVIGATOR, model 2006 On these sport utility vehicles, the left hand side tires may have damage at the center tread. The tread damage was caused by a section of steel fingerplate on a conveyor that had become sharp over time due to wear. Over time, the damage may be sufficient to allow belt corrosion, which could ultimately lead to a tread separation, which could result in a crash. Dealers will have all four tires inspected (to ensure inspection of the left hand side tires that may have been rotated to the other side of the vehicle) for tire tread damage, and if necessary, replace the damaged tire. The recall is expected to begin on July 15,2005. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-392-3673 or contact the NHTSA's vehicle safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or visit the Company's Website: http://www.safercar.gov GRACO CHILDREN'S: Recalls Various Strollers Due to Injury Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Graco Children's Products Inc., of Exton, Pennsylvania is voluntarily recalling about 1 million units of Graco Duo Tandem Strollers and 142T units of Graco MetroLite Strollers. These strollers can fail to latch properly and unexpectedly collapse while in use. This can result in broken bones, cuts, bumps, bruises and other injuries to young children riding in the stroller and consumers pushing the stroller. For the Duo Tandem strollers, Graco has received reports of 306 collapses causing 230 reported injuries, including a broken arm, and a cut to a child requiring 46 stitches. For the MetroLite strollers, Graco has received reports of 223 stroller collapses causing 34 reported injuries including 18 bumps and bruises to the head or body. Other injuries associated with both strollers include cuts, scrapes, scratches, pinched fingers and muscle pulls. The recalled Duo Tandem strollers, manufactured between 1994 and 1999, have two seats, one seat in front and one seat in back. The strollers have a blue, white or green plastic and steel frame. They have four wheels in the front and two wheels in the rear. The cloth seats and tops have various colors and patterns. There is a label with the model and serial number on the stroller's frame. Only strollers with serial numbers and model numbers listed below are included in this recall. Graco Duo Tandem Model Numbers = Serial Number Range (1) 7950, 7955, 7960, 7965, 7970, 7980 = Between 01011994 and 12311999. (2) 7990 = Between 01011996 and 10311998. The recalled MetroLite strollers, manufactured in 2000 and 2001, have a blue, gray or black plastic and steel frame. The cloth seat and top have various colors and patterns. The strollers have four wheels in the front and two wheels in the rear. These strollers were sold as a stand-alone stroller and also as part of a travel system that included an infant car seat/carrier and a base. The car seat/carrier is not affected. There is a label on the cross bar under the footrest containing the model and serial number. Only strollers with serial numbers between 10012000 and 12312001 in the first 8 digits and the following model numbers are included in this recall. Graco MetroLite Model Numbers: 6110DW, 6114NGS, 6110F3, 7410CON, 6111FKB, 7413CML, 6114HAV, 7413MRN, 6114JAM. Manufactured in China, the Duo tandem strollers were sold at all discount, department and juvenile product stores nationwide from January 1994 through December 2000 for between $80 and $150. While the MetroLite strollers were sold at all discount, department and juvenile product stores nationwide from November 2000 through December 2002 for between $100 and $200. Consumers should stop using these strollers immediately and contact the firm to receive a free repair kit. The kit includes a custom-designed latch that consumers should attach to the stroller's frame to ensure it is properly latched. The repair kit will be available in approximately 1 to 2 weeks. Consumer Contact: Call Graco at (800) 981-4412 anytime or log on to the firm's Web site: http://www.gracobaby.com. GUIDANT CORPORATION: TX Resident Lodges Suit Over Defibrillator --------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Motal, a 62-year-old Corpus Christi, Texas heart patient stated that he filed a lawsuit against Guidant Corporation claiming that the cardiovascular device maker concealed a potentially life-threatening flaw in a defibrillator, the Reuters News Agency reports. Indianapolis-based Guidant last month recalled 50,000 implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) -- the stopwatch- size devices that monitor and regulate errant heart beats -- after reports of two deaths and several reports of device failure. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week gave the recall on some of the device models its highest priority status. In his suit filed on July 5 in the 94th State District Court in Nueces County, Louis Motal claimed that Guidant knew his ICD, a Ventak Prizm 2 Model 1861, was a flawed older version. In addition, he also claimed that the device, implanted in 2001, had a defect that could cause it to short-circuit at any time, adding that he was shocked more than five times on one occasion when it malfunctioned. Previously, attorneys in New York filed a class action lawsuit against Guidant, which agreed to be purchased by Johnson & Johnson on behalf of patients who were implanted with the recalled devices. HAWAII: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit Over Residency Restrictions on Jobs --------------------------------------------------------------- American Civil Liberties Union of Hawaii initiated a class action lawsuit against Honolulu County and the state on behalf of two men denied the opportunity to apply for government jobs, TheHawaiiChannel.com reports. According to ACLU officials, both Kevin Walsh and Blaine Wilson were told not to apply because each of them maintains a legal residence in Florida. Hawaii ACLU director Lois Perrin pointed out that such residency restrictions are unconstitutional. As the moment though, both the state attorney general's and the Honolulu corporation counsel's offices had no comment on the case, TheHawaiiChannel.com reports. KANSAS: Family Launches Wrongful Death Suit V. BTK Serial Killer ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Witchita Eagle, Bill Wegerle, who was falsely accused of the 1986 murder of his wife, Vicki, has filed suit against admitted BTK serial killer Dennis Rader, the man who really killed her. The lawsuit brought by Mr. Wegerle and his children, Stephanie Clyne and Brandon Wegerle is the second against Mr. Rader since he pleaded guilty on June 27 to killing 10 people over the past three decades. Jim Thompson, the Wichita lawyer representing the Wegerles, told the Wichita Eagle "We want to keep him from ever profiting from his crimes." Attorney Jim McIntyre filed a similar case just last week on behalf of Carolyn Hook, daughter of Marine Hedge, whom Mr. Rader killed in 1985. Both lawsuits seek to attach a court judgment to any financial reward Mr. Rader may realize from the sale of his story. And, according to Mr. Thompson there will be more before Mr. Rader's sentencing, which is scheduled for August 17. Mr. Thompson told The Wichita Eagle, "We should be filing another one within the next week." Mr. McIntyre also expects more families affected by BTK's killings to follow suit, since he had filed the Hedge family suit as part of a class action, which still needs to be certified by a judge. He also told The Wichita Eagle, "Eventually, I'd expect them to all show up in court. Ultimately, I expect them to all end up in one forum, whether it be part of a class action or with multiple clients and multiple lawyers." Mr. Wegerle, according to his lawyers has a unique case, since he lived for years under the cloud of being suspected in his wife's brutal murder. Mr. Thompson pointed out, "He had to live with that for so long." He also explains that the suit notes that as a toddler, Brandon Wegerle was at home with his mother when she was strangled. Vicki Wegerle's killing went unsolved for nearly 20 years and most of that time, it wasn't even officially tied to the BTK case. However, in March 2004, after a quarter-century of silence, BTK sent a letter to The Wichita Eagle. It contained a copy of Mrs. Wegerle's driver's license, which was missing, and pictures of her bound and on the floor of her home. Mr. Wegerle's suit seeks unspecified damages for wrongful death and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It also seeks damages for trespassing, "intrusion upon seclusion" for entering her house under false pretenses and "intentional misrepresentation." The last two claims stem from Mr. Rader's statement in court on June 27 in which he said that he gained access to Mr. Wegerle's house by posing as a telephone repairman. Damage claims would usually be limited by the law to around $250,000. Mr. Thompson told The Wichita Eagle that the lawsuits ensure that any money Mr. Rader made would go to the proper families. MASTEC INC.: FL Employees Launch Suit Over Withheld Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Tampa Bay area wire installers, who include five of Hispanic origin, launched a class action lawsuit against their South Florida employer for withholding overtime pay, The St. Petersburg Times reports. In their suit, the eleven former and current employees allege that the publicly traded MasTec Inc. did not pay overtime and pressured them not to report overtime hours worked. One of the employees, Jose A. Gonzalez of Brandon, who was fired in March, claims, "They want us to work six days a week, 10 to 12 hours a day, and they're wanting us to lie about our time." Aside from joining the suit, Mr. Gonzalez has also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board saying he was fired in retaliation for his union organizing. Coral Gables-based MasTec specializes in installing wire and cable infrastructure for utility, telephone, Internet and television companies. DirecTV and Comcast Cable Communications are among the company's biggest contracts. MasTec is also one of the largest Hispanic-owned companies in the nation. Chairman Jorge Mas Jr. took over the reins from his late father, a Cuban exile and founder of the Cuban American National Foundation. The Mas family owns 42 percent of the company, according to federal records. The company has a reputation for hiring workers of Hispanic descent nationwide. A MasTec attorney told the St. Petersburg Times that the company follows federal standards for overtime pay. The attorney, Michael Nearing, also told the St. Petersburg Times, "We're certain our practices in the Tampa office are appropriate. It's an unhappy event when the first remedy employees seek is to air our laundry in public." MasTec had weathered an accounting scandal in recent years and has been fighting debt. The company recently cut its employee force to 6,500 from about 10,000 and folded its international operations in Brazil and Spain. MasTec president Austin Shanfelter said in a June presentation with analysts that the company is focused on improving its margins and reaching profitability. Several employees involved in the lawsuit also started a union organizing drive with the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-Communications Workers of America during their off hours. Unpaid overtime was an issue often discussed by those contemplating a union. For example, according to Mr. Gonzalez, the employees complained that they were required to attend mandatory 6 a.m. company meetings that would last 45 minutes, but they couldn't get compensated for time spent at the meeting. Some employees also complained that the company charged them if they took the company van home overnight or they wouldn't get paid for the time it took them to drive to an installation appointment, Mr. Gonzalez said. Former employee James Stahl, who like Mr. Gonzalez was also fired in March and is leading the overtime complaint in federal court told the St. Petersburg Times, "You were told not to put down hours if you want work. If you put down overtime, sometimes they'd change it, or they'd screw up your payroll and dock you money." Previously, Mr. Stahl helped direct union organizing until he was fired, and again like Mr. Gonzalez, he has also filed an NLRB complaint alleging retaliation. Additionally, Mr. Stahl had also filed a couple of safety violation complaints against MasTec with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The MasTec attorney though called Mr. Stahl a "chronic complainer" and at the same time denied the accusation that the company docked workers and manipulated pay records, saying it takes pay practices very seriously. The federal lawsuit has no basis, he adds. MASTERFOODS AUSTRALIA: No Link Between Chocolate and Illnesses -------------------------------------------------------------- MasterFoods Australia New Zealand, the Company that makes the Mars and Snickers bars in Australia, said that there was no established link between its products and illnesses reported by people who ate the chocolate, the Associated Press reports. Last week, the Company received a letter claiming that seven contaminated bars had been placed on shelves in the Sydney area. The Company immediately ordered the recall of Mars and Snickers bars. The company's President, Andy Weston-Webb, told AP that about 30 people had called a special phone line to report various health complaints after eating the chocolate bars. However, he said "no proper connection" had been made between the chocolates and the reported illnesses, which included stomach aches, diarrhea and headaches. Mr. Weston-Webb said the company planned to destroy hundreds of thousands of the recalled chocolates later this week to ensure that there was no risk of contamination. "It will be done in a safe and supervised way," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "We just want to make sure we destroy them properly and safely." Mr. Weston-Webb said he has not yet seen financial figures to show how badly the recall has affected the company, and that Mars and Snickers bars will only be returned to store shelves once the company is confident they are safe. A total of four letters have been sent to the Company's headquarters in the southern city of Ballarat containing threats against an unidentified company that is not related to MasterFoods. Police say they don't know why MasterFoods was targeted, AP reports. The first letter, received on June 8, contained a Snickers bar that was later found to be laced with a pesticide-like substance. The latest letter, received late Wednesday, was turned over to police, Mr. Weston-Webb told AP. MERCK & CO.: Seeks To Postpone Vioxx Wrongful Death Trial in TX --------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. is seeking to postpone for at least 60 days the first wrongful death trial over its controversial pain reliever Vioxx, saying that it cannot receive a fair trial in a lawsuit filed in Texas court if it begins next week as scheduled, the Associated Press reports. The lawsuit was filed by a woman whose husband died in 2001 due to the use of the controversial drug. Last September, the Company withdrew the drug after research linked it to increased risk for heart attack and stroke. Since then, more than 2,400 Vioxx lawsuits have been filed nationwide. The Company cited recent publicity about the drug as a reason for their request. New Jersey Superior Court Judge Carol E. Higbee has questioned attorneys from both parties in the litigation against Merck & Co.'s controversial arthritis drug Vioxx, in the hopes of discovering how The Associated Press obtained a potentially damaging document, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 7,2005) story reports. The document indicated that Merck scientists were considering combining Vioxx with another compound to lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes. The document appeared to undermine earlier statements of the Company that officials believed the drug was safe before they recalled last September 2004, after a study linked Vioxx to increased heart attack and stroke risks. Merck inadvertently gave the document to plaintiff lawyers during evidence gathering in one of the hundreds of Vioxx lawsuits. On May 27, Judge Higbee ruled that the document was privileged and could not be used at trial. She ordered attorneys with copies to destroy them or return them to Merck immediately. The Company had insisted the document was an attorney-client communication between company scientists and in- house patent counsel, AP reports. A hearing on Merck's motion was slated for Tuesday in Wharton, Texas. Mark Lanier, attorney for the plaintiff in the suit, said he will oppose a delay, AP reports. The company also said in a motion that a lawsuit brought Thursday by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott seeking $250 million in damages for Vioxx purchases has "effectively eliminated any possibility Merck can receive a fair trial beginning July 11." It also noted that a law firm which helped the attorney general's office on the lawsuit represents at least six plaintiffs suing the company, AP reports. "The timing of the (state) lawsuit is hardly a coincidence," according to Merck's motion. Mr. Lanier told AP Monday that the Company signed an agreement with him in May not to postpone the trial for any reason other than the health of the lead attorneys. He also said he would oppose the motion for a delay because the story about the Texas attorney general's lawsuit did not receive prominent coverage in the Houston Chronicle - the region's major newspaper - and that the newspaper in Brazoria County did not publish the AP article. The suit is expected to be heard in that county, south of Houston. PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due to Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peekay International Inc. of Maspeth, New York is recalling raisins because they may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled raisins were packed in 7 oz., uncoded plastic bags and distributed in New York City through retail stores. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of raisins which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased raisins should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-326-2045. TELCOLLECT INC.: To Resolve FTC Unfair Billing Charges Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A company that sent bills to consumers for services consumers did not order has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges that the billing scheme violated federal law. The Company is barred from billing consumers without their express consent and is required to monitor the vendors with which it does business and take action, including ending its relationship with a vendor, if the vendor engages in illegal billing practices. In May 2003, the FTC charged TelCollect, Inc., working on behalf of Alyon Technologies, Inc., and its principal, Stephane Touboul, with illegally billing consumers for adult videotext services purportedly accessed on the Internet. According to the FTC, Alyon downloaded a dialing program onto consumers' computers, allegedly after consumers clicked on a button to agree to the terms and conditions for such a download. The dialing program then disconnected consumers' Internet connections and reconnected them to the defendants' network, then billed consumers $4.99 for each minute they had supposedly purchased the services, regardless of whether the line subscribers had authorized the purchase. The FTC's complaint stated that the Company was responsible for collecting on past-due payments, allegedly sending bills to consumers on company letterhead that said the "delinquent account formerly owed to Alyon Technologies Inc has been placed with the Company for recovery . This communication is from a debt collector." The Company also was responsible for answering the toll-free "customer service" hotline listed on some of the allegedly delinquent bills. In December 2004, Alyon and Stephane Touboul settled FTC charges and dropped their claim to more than $17 million in consumer bills. They are barred from billing a consumer or claiming a consumer owes money for any videotext service without the consumer's express, verifiable authorization. They are further barred from planting software on consumers' computers without their consent. In the settlement announced July 7, 2005, the Company is permanently barred from billing a consumer for any videotext services unless it has verification that the consumer is an adult who has expressly agreed to purchase the services and has received clear and conspicuous notice of all the terms and conditions associated with the purchase. The defendant also is required to obtain written agreement from each vendor it works with that the vendor will comply with the terms of the stipulated order. The order requires that the Company monitor each vendor, including conducting investigations of consumer complaints of unauthorized billing, and take appropriate action, which may include terminating its business relationship, against any vendor who fails to comply. The order contains standard recordkeeping and reporting provisions to assist the FTC in determining the defendant's compliance. The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the stipulated final order was 5-0. The complaint was entered in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, on June 13, 2005. Copies of the stipulated final order are available from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish (bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. For more details, contact Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674 or contact David Torok, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3075, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/alyon.htm. TENNESSEE: Attorney General Sets Deadline For Hytrin Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Tennessee Attorney General's Office said that a July 15 deadline was set for consumers who purchased the brand-name prescription drug Hytrin and are eligible for refunds from a $30.7-million, nationwide agreement, The Nashville City Paper reports. According to Attorney General Paul Summers, "It is imperative [that] consumers who have purchased this drug file their claims with the settlement administrator as soon as possible." Hytrin is used in the treatment of hypertension and enlarged prostate and is manufactured by Abbott Laboratories with its generic version being called Terazosin and produced by Geneva Pharmaceuticals. According to a federal class action lawsuit, Abbott wrongfully paid Geneva to delay introduction of its generic version of Hytrin and took other steps to delay competition from lower- priced generic versions of its product. In his announcement of the settlement deadline, Mr. Summers said, "Tennesseans should never be forced to pay higher prices for brand named treatments when lower cost alternatives are available. We hope this agreement will help compensate those who were unjustly overcharged for their inconvenience." Though the settlement agreement is still subject to final court approval, if it were approved, Abbott and Geneva would provide $28.7 million for consumers and third party payers (for example, insurance companies) in Tennessee and 17 other states. For more details, contact In re Terazosin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions Inc., P.O. Box 24607, West Palm Beach, Fl 33416, Phone: 1-877-886-0283, Web site: http://www.terazosinlitigation.com. TEXAS: High Court to Hear Gas Station Owners' Price-Fixing Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court will hear a price-fixing case that pits big oil companies against the owners of gas stations and could affect some of the biggest names in American business, The Houston Chronicle reports. Accepted by the court at the end of its term, the case stems from the issue of whether a joint venture created by Texaco and Shell Oil Co. can sell gasoline at the same price to all distributors under laws designed to preserve competition. The case, which was dubbed by antitrust experts as to be one of the more significant business issues that the high court considers when it goes back to work in October, comes from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in favor of the gas station owners. In a brief that was filed in favor of the oil companies, David Price, an attorney with the Washington Legal Foundation said, "Beyond the implications for these very major industry players, the 9th Circuit's decision has far-reaching implications for all kinds of joint ventures. It would create potential for antitrust liability when a joint venture makes routine decisions, like pricing." Filed on behalf of 23,000 service station owners, the class action lawsuit argues that the joint venture violated antitrust laws making it illegal to limit competition by setting a common price for a product made by competing companies. The creation of two refining and marketing joint ventures in 1998 allowed Texaco and Shell to continue to sell their brands separately but save an estimated $800 million each year by sharing refining capacity and the cost of selling the fuels. At the pump, consumers saw Texaco and Shell as two different brands of gas, but the gas was sold at the same wholesale price by the joint venture. The joint venture at the heart of the lawsuit, Equilon, operated in the western United States. Texaco and Shell were partners with Saudi Refining in a similar joint venture called Motiva that operated in the eastern U.S. Recently though Texaco's stake in the joint venture was sold to Shell Oil Co. after Texaco was taken over by ChevronTexaco Corp. For their part, the oil companies vehemently argued that setting a price for gas produced under Equilon was a necessary part of doing business, even if it was sold under two brand names. According to the 9th Circuit Court though, the companies that joined to create Equilon sharply increased the price of their gasoline in some West Coast cities, including Los Angeles, at a time when oil prices were at near-historic lows of $10 to $12 per barrel, which resulted in additional costs being passed by distributors to consumers. Daniel Shulman, an attorney for the plaintiffs, described the move as price-fixing and pointed out that it falls under the "per se" rule of antitrust law, which makes it illegal regardless of the circumstances. He also argued, "The Supreme Court has said for 50 years that joint ventures are not entitled to any type of special protection." However, those backing the oil company argue that the situation should be judged according to the "rule of reason," which allows joint ventures to set prices if they are efficient. The idea is that such combinations may produce new products, made less expensively or more plentiful for consumers. The U.S. government in a court brief that reinforces the defendants arguments, urged the high court to overturn what it saw as an error by the appeals court and treat Equilon as a separate company created to refine and sell fuel more efficiently, which it said should exempt it from price-fixing rules. The brief, which was written by, Paul Clement, acting solicitor general also said that the appeals court's decision poses a threat to the proper enforcement, both private and public, of the antitrust laws. Mr. Shulman countered that Equilon should not qualify as efficient, since it did not create a product that was different from what Texaco and Shell produced independently. Though the American Antitrust Institute, a nonprofit group that aims to increase competition among businesses, has not yet taken a stance on the issue, its president, Bert Foer told the Chronicle that a reversal by the high court has the potential to set a precedent that could hurt consumers. He also told the Chronicle that instead of doing a joint venture to create something new, Texaco and Shell "are doing a joint venture to eliminate the competition that previously existed between them." Experts familiar with the matter pointed out to the Chronicle that the last time the high court ruled on a similar antitrust case was in 1979, in Broadcast Music v. CBS. In that case, justices declared price-fixing is allowed only if the joint venture can prove its efficiency. The two cases, which will be combined for argument before the court, are Texaco v. Dagher and Shell Oil Co. v. Dagher. UNOCAL CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Lawsuit V. Chevron Offer --------------------------------------------------------------- Unocal Corporation's board of directors faces a class action filed by its shareholders, alleging the directors breached their fiduciary duty by accepting a bid from Chevron Corporation too quickly, the South China Morning Post reports. "It seemed to us that (Unocal's board) went very quickly to the Chevron bid without fully testing the value of the company in the marketplace," the report quoted Jeff Westerman, a lawyer with Milberg Weiss that is leading the case, as saying. Last week, a judge in the Superior Court of California of Los Angeles, which has jurisdiction over El Segundo-based Unocal, ordered that the two lawsuits, filed in April be combined in a single suit, AFX reports. The plaintiffs in the class action suit, Michael Lieb and Paul Callan, have yet to take a public position on China CNOOC Ltd.'s USD18.5 billion cash bid, which is about USD2 billion higher than the current market value of Chevron's cash-share offer. WASHINGTON: Kitsap County Victorious in $4M "Impact Fees" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In a closely watched case with sweeping implications for counties throughout Washington, the State Supreme Court ruled that developers may not wait for years after receiving building permits to challenge the imposition of "impact fees" that help pay for new roads, parks and schools. The Supreme Court's decision was a major victory for Kitsap County, which otherwise faced losing nearly $4 million in such fees (including interest) it imposed on 2,000 developers between 1995 and 1999. The developers brought a class action suit in 1999. By the time the suit was initiated, much of the building had occurred and the County had no other way to fund roads, schools and parks. "This ruling shows that the State Supreme Court recognizes the basic needs of local governments and that those needs must be protected," said Russ Hauge, Kitsap County Prosecutor. "I especially want to thank our attorneys at Buck & Gordon who have passionately pursued this case for six years. But it is also important to note the dedication of our County Commissioners, and the County's Civil Division of the Prosecutor's Office, whose diligent efforts paid off after years of hard work." The County raised a number of defenses to the lawsuit, including an argument that any land use challenges had to be brought under the state Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) within 21 days after permits were issued. The Supreme Court accepted this argument. None of the 2,000 class action members had done so, thus their claims were dismissed. "On behalf of the taxpayers of Kitsap County, I'm grateful that the Justices understood the importance of this issue to all counties and cities," said Chris Endresen, Kitsap County Commissioner. "There are many, many situations just like ours throughout the state, and the message to developers in each is now very clear -- you can't wiggle out of agreements to pay your fair share of the public's cost of supporting your developments after you've already built." "When I was first elected, one of the first things I did was sit in the Supreme Court Chambers during the argument and hear the merits of this case. I feel the expert presentation of our case by Buck & Gordon led to the decision coming out in favor of the County," said Patty Lent, Kitsap County Commissioner. The case, James T. James v. Kitsap County (Washington Supreme Court No. 73747-9), hinged on Kitsap County's assessment of impact fees for building permits issued during years in which it had no approved comprehensive plan under the State's Growth Management Act (GMA). The GMA mandates that counties have such a plan to assure that roads, parks, schools and other infrastructure exist to support growth, as a condition of granting permits. Kitsap County tried unsuccessfully for years to adopt a comprehensive plan but was attacked on all sides by a variety of competing interests. Faced with the prospect of a total moratorium on development, the County and nearly 2,000 builders and developers entered into agreements stating that the County would issue permits and impose impact fees, but forestall collection of the money until a comprehensive plan was adopted. Only years later, when a comprehensive plan was finally adopted and the County sought to collect the impact fees, did the developers challenge them in court, arguing that the County had no right to collect for the years it was out of compliance with the GMA. The majority, in what was a divided opinion, said: "Additionally, and particularly with respect to impact fees, the purpose and policy of Chapter 82.02 RCW in correlation with the procedural requirements of LUPA ensure that local jurisdictions have timely notice of potential impact fee challenges. Without notice of these challenges, local jurisdictions would be less able to plan and fund construction of necessary public facilities." According to Peter Buck of Buck & Gordon, LLP, which represented the County in the long-running case, "The Court has again affirmed that, when people want to challenge a land use matter, they must do so within 21 days. County officials and the citizens they represent were blindsided by the delay, but they've prevailed. It's a huge win for the people of Kitsap County, who retain that $4 million for roads and parks." New Securities Fraud Cases AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of AuthentiDate Holding Corp. (NASDAQ: ADAT) publicly traded securities during the period between September 29, 2003 and May 27, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges AuthentiDate and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. AuthentiDate provides web-based content authentication services that address the verification of digital information in all business processes. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects, specifically about revenues to be derived from an agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. The Company also concealed certain internal control problems. These false statements caused AuthentiDate stock to trade at artificially inflated levels, reaching as high as $18.69 per share in January 2004. Taking advantage of this artificial inflation, AuthentiDate completed a private placement of its stock in February 2004, raising $69 million in net proceeds. AuthentiDate's CFO and former CEO also took advantage of the inflation, selling 156,000 shares of their AuthentiDate stock for proceeds of $1.7 million. On April 13, 2005, AuthentiDate announced the dismissal of its accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Later, on April 29, 2005, AuthentiDate filed a Form 8-K with the SEC disclosing it had hired a new accounting firm and also that on April 15, 2005, its CFO had sent a letter to certain members of the Company's Board of Directors, advising them of the existence of corporate governance issues. The Company hired special counsel to investigate the letter. Then, on May 27, 2005, the Company issued a press release announcing that "its ongoing discussions with the United States Postal Service regarding the status of its Strategic Alliance Agreement had reached a critical stage with the receipt of a second notice from the Postal Service stating that it had failed to attain the performance metrics required by the Strategic Alliance Agreement during the period February 2005 through April 2005." On this news, AuthentiDate's stock collapsed to $2.94 per share on volume of 1.28 million shares. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. CARRIER ACCESS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Carrier Access Corporation (NASDAQ: CACSE) publicly traded securities during the period between October 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Carrier Access and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Carrier Access designs, manufactures and sells converged access equipment to wireline and wireless carriers. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results and its business prospects. As a result of these false statements, the Company's shares traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, allowing the defendants to use the Company's shares as currency in its acquisition of Paragon Networks and to sell 6 million shares to the public in a secondary offering, raising proceeds of $78 million. However, according to the complaint, by July 20, 2004, due to the defendants' concerns about the government's stance towards accounting fraud, the Company announced a reduction in the Company's projections, sending its shares down 37%, a loss of $4.73 to $8.06. On May 5, 2005, the Company issued a press release in which it announced it had received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter which indicated that "although the company filed its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, the filing did not include management's assessment of its internal controls over financial reporting and the associated auditor attestation report . . . ." As a result, the Company's stock was subject to delisting on the Nasdaq Stock Market. Then on May 20, 2005, the Company issued a press release stating that it was in the process of performing a detailed review of all significant customer relationships and as part of those reviews was evaluating the propriety of the timing of revenue and cost recognition and other revenue recognition issues. The release stated: "At this point in time, the Company has determined that certain revenues and direct costs have been recorded in incorrect periods. The amounts that have been quantified to date are significant and, as a result, previously issued financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and certain interim periods in each of the years ended December 31, 2004, and 2003, will be restated." On this news the Company's stock fell to $4.60 per share. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Exide Technologies (Nasdaq: XIDE) ("Exide") between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Schatz & Nobel, P.C. also has substantial experience representing employees who are damaged by losses in their employer's stock purchased and held by their company 401(k) plans. If you bought Exide stock through your Exide retirement account and have information or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact us. The Complaint alleges that Exide violated federal securities laws. Under a $365 million senior secured credit facility, Exide was required to maintain a specified ratio of debt to equity ("Leverage Ratio Covenant"), and to maintain minimum consolidated earnings before income, taxes, depreciation, amortization ("EBITDA") ("EBITDA Covenant") (collectively, the "Covenants"). Defendants represented that Exide could maintain compliance with the Covenants, however, on February 14, 2005, defendants revealed that Exide was in violation of the Leverage Ratio Covenant. Defendants assured investors, that Exide's lenders would waive the Leverage Ratio Covenant and emphasized that Exide was in compliance with the EBITDA Covenant, and was not at risk of default. On May 17, 2005 defendants announced that: (1) Exide failed to satisfy the minimum EBITDA Covenant; (2) several "unanticipated and unusual items," had resulted in a reduction of earnings (3) Exide was unable to properly forecast its inventory requirements; and (4) because Exide had violated a contract, it was required to record an adjustment of $1.5 to $2 million. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. LAZARD LTD.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. today initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Lazard Ltd. (NYSE: LAZ) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the initial public offering of Lazard shares, together with those who purchased their shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant Lazard, Goldman Sachs & Co. and one or more of Lazard's officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. NEWMONT MINING: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against defendant Newmont and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. NEWMONT MINING: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) ("Newmont" or the "Company") between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Newmont, a gold producer, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, defendants knew, but concealed the following: (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade ore at certain mines, which costs more to process; (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had increased, increasing total production costs; (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could extract in 2005 was overstated; and (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005, Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its exploration costs would significantly increase. On April 26, 2005 Newmont announced that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations. Unbeknownst to investors, Newmont's Peruvian, Indonesian, Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On this news, Newmont's stock dropped from its April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than $38 per share on April 27, 2005. Before the truth about Newmont's operational and financial difficulties was disclosed, Newmont was able to place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. NEWMONT MINING: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CO ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corporation (NYSE: NEM) publicly traded securities during the period between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges Newmont and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Newmont is a gold producer with assets or operations in the United States, Australia, Peru, Indonesia, Canada, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, New Zealand, Ghana and Mexico. The complaint alleges that despite making repeated positive statements about the Company's operations and financial expectations throughout the Class Period, defendants announced on April 26, 2005 that the Company's Q1 2005 earnings would fall short by two-thirds of what analysts had been expecting based on the Company's frequent guidance and investor presentations. Unbeknownst to investors, Newmont's Peruvian, Indonesian, Australian and New Zealand mines had grossly underperformed. On this news, Newmont's stock price fell precipitously from its April 26, 2005 closing price of $40.25 per share to less than $38 per share on April 27, 2005, on extremely high trading volume. Meanwhile, because the Company's stock had traded at inflated prices throughout the Class Period, Newmont was able to place over $600 million worth of notes in March 2005, just weeks before the truth about the Company's operational and financial difficulties would be disclosed. According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (1) Newmont had been processing only stockpiled low-grade ore at certain mines, which costs more to process; (2) Newmont's costs for commodities used in mining had increased, increasing total production costs and cash production costs; (3) the amount of copper and gold Newmont stated it could extract in 2005 was overstated; and (4) as a result of operating difficulties in Q1 2005, Newmont's cash generation had declined by 50% and its exploration costs would significantly increase. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. OCA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District Court of Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of OCA, Inc. (NYSE: OCA) common stock during the period between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides business services to orthodontic and pediatric dental practices in the United States. The company provides affiliated practices with a range of operational, purchasing, financial, marketing, administrative, and other business services, as well as capital and proprietary information systems. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed quarterly reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which described the Company's financial performance. As alleged in the Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others: (1) that defendants had engaged in improper accounting practices. OCA has now admitted that its prior financial reports are materially false and misleading as it announced that it is going to restate its results for the first three quarters of 2004 and potentially prior periods; (2) that certain journal entries in the Company's general ledger were improperly recorded; (3) that certain data provided to the Company's independent accounting firm had been improperly changed; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial condition; and (5) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the Company's patient receivables and patient revenue were materially overstated at all relevant times. On June 7, 2005, the Company shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements for 2004 and that it had placed the Company's Chief Operating Officer, Bartholomew E. Palmisano Jr., on administrative leave. Specifically, the Company admitted that, among other things, it had materially overstated its patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three quarters of 2004. Following this announcement, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.53 per share, or almost 38%, to close at $2.50 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. OCA INC.: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in LA -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of OCA, Inc. (NYSE:OCA) ("OCA" or the "Company") between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period, thereby artificially inflating the price of OCA securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq. or Robert J. Linsmier of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN, 55401, Phone: (612) 339-6900, E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com or rjlinsmier@locklaw.com. OCA INC.: Mager White Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Mager White & Goldstein, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of securities of OCA, Inc. ("OCA" or the "Company")(NYSE:OCA) between May 18, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that OCA and certain of its officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements during the Class Period which resulted in artificially inflating the value of OCA stock. Specifically, on June 7, 2005, defendants disclosed that they had overstated patient receivables in the 2004 Form 10-Q filings for the quarters ending March 31, June 30, and September 30, 2004. The extent of restatement for these periods has yet to be revealed by the Company. Additionally, defendants knew or recklessly failed to disclose that: (1) they were involved in improper accounting practices; (2) the Company had improperly changed some of the data supplied to its independent accountants; (3) certain journal entries in OCA's general ledger were improperly recorded; and (4) the Company lacked the necessary internal controls to accurately determine its financial condition. The market reacted to these disclosures and on June 7, 2005, OCA's stock fell nearly 40%, closing at $2.58 per share. For more details, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein of Mager White & Goldstein, LLP, 2825 University Drive, Suite 350 Coral Springs, FL, 33065, Phone: 954-341-0844 or 866-274-8258, Fax: 954-341-0855, E-mail: jgoldstein@mwg-law.com, Web site: http://www.mwglawfirm.com. OCA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in LA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of OCA, Inc. (F/K/A Orthodontic Centers of America, Inc.)("OCA" or the "Company")(NYSE: OCA) between May 18, 2004 and June 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges OCA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. OCA provides business services to orthodontic and pediatric dental practices in the United States. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company recorded certain revenues and direct costs in incorrect periods; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times; and (5) the defendants' statements about the Company's status and progress were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On June 7, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, OCA announced that it had identified certain errors in its calculation of patient receivables reported during 2004, and had determined that the amount of patient receivables reported at each of March 31, June 30 and September 30, 2004 was overstated by material amounts. News of this shocked the market. Shares of OCA fell $1.55 per share or 38.4 percent, on June 7, 2005, to close at $2.48 per share. For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J. Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. POSSIS MEDICAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Possis Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: POSS) between September 24, 2002 and August 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The action, is pending against defendants Possis, Robert G. Dutcher (CEO and President) and Eapen Chacko (CFO). The complaint alleges that Possis's primary product was the AngioJet System, a non-surgical, minimally invasive catheter system designed to rapidly remove blood clots using a stream of water. The complaint further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, and contrary to defendants' representations: (1) the AngioJet System was not more effective than existing alternatives, including competing drug therapies, such as the leading product Urokinase, nor did AngioJet reduce significant procedural complications or significantly increase positive benefits such as improved blood flow or other similar effects; (2) AngioJet could not be expanded as a "technology platform" because AngioJet was not in the first instance effective for routine use in a broad range of heart attack patients to reduce the size of infracts; and (3) as a result of the foregoing problems, Possis could not maintain its projected revenue growth or achieve sustained revenue growth targets as high as 35%. The truth emerged on August 24, 2004. On that date, shares of Possis fell precipitously and the Company lost almost 40% of its market capitalization after it was disclosed that AngioJet failed to demonstrate clinical superiority in the majority of heart attach patients. Shares of Possis traded down more than $11.75 per share, or 38%, to $19.00 per share, as defendants lowered 2005 earnings and revenue guidance. The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to and did conceal the true safety and efficacy of AngioJet, and defendants' ability to expand and develop Prossis's AngioJet technology, because it enabled defendants to artificially inflate the price of Possis shares and then allowed defendants and other Company insiders to sell more than 361,730 shares of their privately held Possis stock to the unsuspecting public for proceeds in excess of $7.07 million while in possession of material adverse, non-public information about the Company. For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735, Fax: 610-660-8080, E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com. R&G FINANCIAL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of R&G Financial Corporation ("R&G Financial" or the "Company'') (NYSE:RGF), between April 21, 2003 and April 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). All persons and institutions who purchased securities of R&G Financial during the Class Period may move the Court not later than June 27, 2005, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. The Complaint charges R&G Financial and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors. R&G Financial is a diversified financial holding company with operations in Puerto Rico and the United States providing banking, mortgage banking, investments, consumer finance and insurance through its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's operations and financial performance. Unbeknownst to public investors, the true facts, which defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose to the investing public during the Class Period, included that the Company was using fraudulent accounting practices, including failing to record impairment losses for the deterioration in the value of residual interests retained, and materially overstated its net income, net gain on mortgage loan sales and net capital and that the Company was using ineffective risk-management and hedging strategies against the increasing risk of rising interest rates. On April 25, 2005, defendants disclosed that the Company would need to restate its earnings for the prior two-year period. Specifically, R&G Financial disclosed that the Company's financial reports from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2004 would incur charges to reflect impairments of $90 million to $150 million on retained residual interests. As a result of this news, R&G Financial's stock price plummeted 35%, on unusually high volume, falling $23.18 in one day. The next day, April 26, 2005, the Company announced the Securities and Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation concerning the financial restatement announced by R&G Financial the previous day, as well as the underlying issues addressed in the Company's April 25 press release. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E- mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. TIBCO SOFTWARE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Scott + Scott LLC initiated a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of TIBCO Software, Inc. ("TIBCO" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: TIBX) from September 21, 2004 through March 1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint charges TIBCO and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. TIBCO engages in the development and marketing of software solutions for the integration of business information, processes, and applications in various industries outside the financial services market. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Staffware PLC integration was not yet complete; (2) that the failed integration of Staffware was causing material disruptions for the Company; (3) that the failed Staffware integration caused a paralysis of leadership in the Company's European management, which resulted in a lack of execution in all European markets for the Company; (4) as such, the Company was unable to close any licensing deals that resulted in revenue of more than $5 million; and (5) that TIBCO did not maintain an adequate system of internal financial, operational or disclosure controls so as to reasonably assure the accuracy, completeness and veracity of the Company's public statements and representations to investors. On March 1, 2005, defendants announced that TIBCO's results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 were well below guidance. Even worse, during TIBCO's first quarter of fiscal year 2005 conference call, defendants revealed that Staffware not only remained unintegrated, but because of integration- related problems, European sales had been paralyzed. News of this shocked the market. Shares of TIBCO fell $1.86 per share, or 20.9 percent, to close at $7.04 per share on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact Amy K. Saba of Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: +1-800-332-2259 ext. 26, E-mail: asaba@scott-scott.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 * * *