/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/051102.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 2, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 217
Headlines
3M CO.: Working To Resolve Tape Antitrust Lawsuits in Ten States
ALCOA CANADA: Faces Possible Quebec Residents' Injury Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: CA iPod Nano Lawsuit Could Drive Away Customers
AQUILA INC.: KS Court Approves $1M Securities Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: Man Joins Gender Discrimination Lawsuit V. Shelter
CALLAWAY GOLF: Trial in TN Consumer Fraud Suit Set Summer 2006
COPPER MOUNTAIN: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
EQUITYLINK LLC: Owners on Trial Over Predatory Lending Scheme
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 123,292 2005-06 Vehicles For Fire Hazard
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Judge Refuses to Certify Tobacco Class Action
INDONESIA: SPR Files Suit Over Decision to Increase Fuel Prices
ITT EDUCATIONAL: IN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
KPMG LLP: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval to $225M Settlement
MALIBU TOYS: Recalls Halloween Candies Due to High Lead Content
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Working To Settle Antitrust, Fraud Suits
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for MD Antitrust Suit
MOTOROLA INC.: Settles Financial, Legal Claims in Telsim Case
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Copper Tube Fraud Suits in TN, CA, MA
PERRIGO CO.: Continues To Face PPA Personal Injury Litigation
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle Shareholder Fraud Suits
RIDLEY INC.: Faces Several Mad Cow Disease Lawsuits in Canada
ROHM & HAAS: Faces PA Lawsuits For Plastics Additives Antitrust
SEMPRA ENERGY: Chairman Resumes Testimony in CA Antitrust Suit
SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
SERVICE CORPORATION: TX Court Allows Consumer Suit To Proceed
TITAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in IL Court
TOYOTA MOTOR: Minivan Owners Launches Suit Over Run Flat Tires
TRIBUNE CO.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. IL
TRIBUNE CO.: Advertisers Sue Over Inflated Circulation Numbers
TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Refuses to Dismiss Cell Phone Suits
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Discovery Beings in Stock Suit Remand Appeal
WORTHINGTON FOODS: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Sulfites
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in NJ
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
DANA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges OH Securities Suit
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Extends Suit's Class Period
REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
*********
3M CO.: Working To Resolve Tape Antitrust Lawsuits in Ten States
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. reached a settlement for the class actions filed against
it on behalf of indirect purchasers of tape, in California,
Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Kansas, South
Carolina, New Mexico, and Iowa.
The Company has also entered mediation for two similar suits
pending in the United States District Court in Philadelphia
(some of the pending actions were filed in the fourth quarter of
2004 and one was filed in January 2005).
These cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and
unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for transparent tape, and
they seek to recover on behalf of variously defined classes of
direct and indirect purchasers damages in the form of price
overcharges the Company allegedly charged for these products.
In the case in federal court in California in which the lower
court had previously granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
parties' joint request to hold the plaintiffs' appeal of the
summary judgment ruling in abeyance pending settlement
discussions.
The Company has reached a proposed settlement in February 2005
with all named plaintiffs in the 12 indirect purchaser antitrust
putative class actions pending against the Company in the
various state courts noted above and in the California federal
court. If an agreement is executed by the parties and receives
federal court approval and all conditions in the agreement are
satisfied, the settlement would terminate all 12 actions and
release the claims of class members nationwide. The amount of
the proposed settlement is not material to the Company. The
proposed settlement does not affect the class and individual
actions brought by direct purchasers of 3M transparent tape that
are pending in a federal court in Pennsylvania and does not
constitute any admission of liability by the Company.
Pretrial proceedings were held in the direct purchaser class
action pending in the federal court in Philadelphia. In August
2004, that court certified a class consisting of all 3M
customers who directly bought transparent and invisible tape
(but not private label tape) from October 1998 to the present.
Thereafter, two additional lawsuits were filed against the
Company by alleged direct tape purchasers in the federal court
in Philadelphia. In one, the plaintiff opted out of the class
described above and filed an individual lawsuit in September
2004. In the other, the plaintiff filed a purported class action
in December 2004 on behalf of customers (private label tape
purchasers) excluded from the August class certification order;
the Company has moved to dismiss that action as untimely and on
other grounds. At a status conference with the court, the
parties in the four pending direct purchaser cases (one class
action, one purported class action and two individual actions)
agreed to engage in mediation to attempt to settle all or part
of the litigation.
ALCOA CANADA: Faces Possible Quebec Residents' Injury Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Canada Inc. faces potential class action in Quebec,
Canada, filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of all
past, present and future owners, tenants and residents of Baie
Comeau's St. Georges neighborhood.
Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the Canadian Province
of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to Institute
a Class Action and for Designation of a Class Representative
against Alcoa Canada Inc., Alcoa Limitee, Societe Canadienne de
Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British Aluminum in the
Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie Comeau on
August 25,2005. He alleges that defendants, as the present and
past owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau,
have negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants
from the smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
or PAHs, that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the
St. Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood.
If allowed to proceed as a class action, plaintiff seeks to
compel additional remediation to be conducted by the defendants
beyond that already undertaken by them voluntarily, seeks an
injunction against further emissions in excess of a limit to be
determined by the court in consultation with an independent
expert, and seeks money damages on behalf of all class members.
APPLE COMPUTER: CA iPod Nano Lawsuit Could Drive Away Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Experts are warning that the class action suit filed against
Apple Computer, Inc. over defects in its new iPod Nano players,
may harm the company's reputation among customers, Vnunet.com
reports.
Nano owners, who initiated the lawsuit, are alleging that the
music player's screen scratches easily, rendering it unreadable.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Northern
District of California in San Jose. The consumers want their
money back plus a share of the company's profits on the music
player's sales, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October
24, 2005) reports. The suit, which was filed on behalf of Nano
owner Jason Tomczak and others who have purchased the device,
brings complaints about the ultra-slim device that have been
festering on blogs and message boards into the courts. It
alleges that Mr. Tomczak rubbed a paper towel on his nano's face
and "that alone left significant scratches," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 24, 2005) reports.
The lawsuit charges that screens on the tiny flash-based digital
audio players "scratch excessively during normal usage,
rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable, and violating
state consumer protection statutes. and causing Plaintiff class
members to incur loss of use and monetary damages," an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (October 24, 2005) reports. The
suit alleges that Apple new the screens on the Nano were faulty
and still allowed the players to be sold, passing the cost and
hassle of replacing them on to the customer. The complainant is
asking for punitive damages and a share of future Apple profits.
The U.S. courts have yet to rule on whether the class action
suit can go ahead or not and Apple has a month to respond to the
allegations.
"With things like this it's more the way they are handled rather
than the problem itself that can hurt sales," according to Rob
Bamforth, principle analyst at Quocirca. He also told
Vnunet.com, "Apple has had a good reputation for quality and
their design style is very good. The way they replaced the
cracked screens did them a lot of good; it recognized the
problem and addressed it."
Mark Firmani, spokesman for Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who are
pursuing the action told Vnunet.com, "The goal of the suit is to
protect consumers. If they solve the problem and make good this
suit would go away instantly."
Scratch complaints about the iPod nano, unveiled September 6,
have been the subject of many web message boards, blogs, and
even some news stories, which lawsuit cites. The plaintiffs,
represented by the law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and
David P. Meyer & Associates, are asking for damages including
the price paid for the Nanos, statutory and punitive damages,
and attorneys' fees. They are asking for a share of Nano
profits, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 24,
2005) reports.
The suit is styled, "Tomczak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No.
5:05-cv-04244-RS," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Richard
Seeborg. Representing the Plaintiff/s are: Steve W. Berman of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Ave., Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-
mail: steve@hbsslaw.com and Elaine T. Byszewski or Lee M. Gordon
of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 700 South Flower St., Suite
2940, Los Angeles, CA 90017-4101, Phone: 213-330-7150, Fax:
213-330-7152, E-mail: elaine@hagens-berman.com or
lee@hbsslaw.com.
AQUILA INC.: KS Court Approves $1M Securities Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to end litigation over its buyback of shares in
early 2002, Aquila Inc. settled five securities class action
lawsuits for $1 million in cash, The Kansas City Star reports.
The settlement recently received preliminary approval from U.S.
District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr., who set a February 3 hearing
to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.
Commenting on the deal, Aquila spokesman Al Butkus told The
Kansas City Star, "This will close the door on another piece of
business from our old unregulated businesses, and we're glad
it's over." He adds, "The settlement will avoid future legal
costs."
Back in March, Judge Gaitan threw out the suits, finding that
the shareholder-plaintiffs were unable to show that Aquila's
alleged misrepresentations had caused them damages. The
plaintiffs though appealed, and Aquila agreed to the settlement
to end the appeal. Judge Gaitan's March ruling was a major
legal victory for the Kansas City-based utility, which had faced
a host of copycat actions seeking damages of at least $174
million. The suits were later consolidated into one action.
The litigation stemmed from a 2002 stock buyback by Aquila,
which was then known as UtiliCorp United Inc. It specifically,
focused on the company's failure to form an independent audit
committee after it spun off 20 percent of its energy trading
subsidiary's stock in April 2001. The companies recombined nine
months later, when UtiliCorp officials decided the subsidiary
needed the help of UtiliCorp's balance sheet and UtiliCorp
reacquired the shares. UtiliCorp then changed its name to
Aquila, the name of the subsidiary. The lawsuits alleged that
the failure to form an audit committee allowed UtiliCorp to buy
back the stock at a less-than-optimum price per share.
Between the spinoff and Aquila's disclosure more than four
months later that it had not formed the audit committee,
Aquila's stock price dropped below the spinoff price of $24. The
stock's decline came amid a drop in energy prices and energy
trader Enron Corporation's spectacular tumble into bankruptcy.
In addition, the consolidated action charges that UtiliCorp
sought to take advantage of its energy trading arm's depressed
stock price by offering to reacquire the shares for 0.6896
shares of UtiliCorp stock - or $20.68 per share - when the offer
was made and $18 per share when the exchange was commenced.
CALIFORNIA: Man Joins Gender Discrimination Lawsuit V. Shelter
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Grass Valley, California man is claiming he was turned away
because of his gender when he sought help from the county's
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Coalition, according to the
man's attorney, The Union.com reports.
The man, Patrick Neff, is part of a class action lawsuit filed
along with three other men and one woman against the State of
California and two state-funded domestic violence agencies,
including Grass Valley's Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Coalition and Women Escaping a Violent Environment in
Sacramento, said Mr. Neff's attorney, Marc Angelucci.
The men are claiming that they have continually been refused
services by these agencies, while the woman, a 21-year-old
daughter of one of the men, says she was repeatedly harmed by
having to witness years of abuse of her father by her mother
because no help was available from Women Escaping a Violent
Environment.
Representatives from Grass Valley's Domestic Violence Coalition
had not yet learned of the lawsuit and so would not comment on
it. However, Niko Johnson, a DVSAC board member, did tell The
Union.com that services offered by the agency are the same for
men and women. She specified, "We do crisis counseling. We have
our crisis line. We meet with individuals. We have safe housing
capabilities. We help them find more permanent housing. We offer
transportation, court advocacy, particularly around restraining
orders."
Ms. Johnson also told The Union.com that the only service that
is currently not available for men is a support group. She
reiterated though, "We offer that when we can, when there is the
need. I haven't known that there have been that many (male)
clients (recently)."
Though lack of support for male abuse victims is a nationwide
problem, Edward Dunning of Family Interventions Project, a
nonprofit that researches abuse cases told The Union.com, "What
I do know is from coast to coast men are not part of the
funding. If you are a man, unless you want to go to a batterers'
group, that is pretty much the only available." Mr. Dunning was
the one who initially referred Mr. Neff to Mr. Angelucci after
Mr. Neff sought his help through a crisis hotline.
Mr. Angelucci, a Los Angeles-based construction attorney who
occasionally does men's rights work, told The Union.com that he
has taken the case pro bono because he feels there is a lack of
representation for men in this area. He adds, "I've known about
this (type of discrimination) for a very long time. Either
nobody cares or nobody wants to do anything about this."
Mr. Dunning told The Union.com that he initially referred Mr.
Neff to Mr. Angelucci after Mr. Neff sought his help after not
receiving services from Grass Valley's Domestic Violence and
Sexual Assault Coalition.
According to Mr. Dunning, "I agonized for weeks before sending
him to Mr. Angelucci." He told The Union.com that he eventually
did because he wanted to help stop the characterization of
domestic abuse and sexual assault as a purely male or female
issue. Since that characterization is not that clear, Mr.
Dunning adds, "If this (lawsuit is) handled properly it can be
very beneficial, but if it is handled from an angry man point of
view, it is not going to be productive for anybody."
Katie Kull Francis, a district attorney who handles a bulk of
the county's domestic violence and assault cases, was surprised
to learn of Mr. Neff's complaint against DVSAC, saying it was a
first. She also told The Union.com that she is not familiar with
Mr. Neff's case and so could not comment on it specifically.
CALLAWAY GOLF: Trial in TN Consumer Fraud Suit Set Summer 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit filed against Callawy Golf Co. in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, styled "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 3:04-cv-
442 (Lundsford II)," is set for the summer of 2006.
In the fall of 1999 the Company adopted a unilateral sales
policy called the "New Product Introduction Policy" (NPIP). The
NPIP sets forth the terms on which the Company chooses to do
business with its customers with respect to the introduction of
new products.
Customers filed several class actions against the policy,
including:
(1) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV,
pending in Tennessee state court (Lundsford I);
(2) Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607, pending in
Kansas state court;
(3) Murray v. Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case No.
3:04CV274-H, pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina; and
(4) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
442, pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee (Lundsford II)
Lundsford I was filed on April 6, 2001, and seeks to assert a
putative class action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000. Plaintiff asserts violations of Tennessee and Kansas
antitrust and consumer protection laws and is seeking damages,
restitution and punitive damages. The court has not made any
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action. In light of the subsequently filed Lundsford II case,
the parties agreed to stay Lundsford I and to dismiss it without
prejudice once the federal court proceedings in Lundsford II are
underway. Subsequent to this agreement, plaintiff moved to
reactivate Lundsford I and that motion is currently pending.
In Foulston, filed on November 4, 2002, plaintiff seeks to
assert an alleged class action on behalf of Kansas consumers who
purchased Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP and seeks
damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law.
The trial court in Foulston stayed the case in light of
Lundsford I. The Foulston court has not made any determination
that the case may proceed in the form of a class action.
The complaint in Murray was filed on May 14, 2004, alleging that
a retail golf business was damaged by the alleged refusal of
Callaway Golf Sales Company to sell certain products after the
store violated the NPIP, and by the failure to permit plaintiff
to sell Callaway Golf products on the internet. The proprietor
seeks compensatory and punitive damages associated with the
failure of his retail operation. The Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, and has answered the complaint denying
liability. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and a
trial date in December 2005 has been set by the court.
Lundsford II was filed on September 28, 2004 and the complaint
asserts that the NPIP constitutes an unlawful resale price
agreement and an attempt to monopolize golf club sales
prohibited by federal antitrust law. The complaint also alleges
a violation of the state antitrust laws of Tennessee, Kansas,
South Carolina and Oklahoma. Lundsford II seeks to assert a
nationwide class action consisting of all persons who purchased
Callaway Golf clubs subject to the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000. Plaintiff seeks treble damages under the federal antitrust
laws, compensatory damages under state law, and an injunction.
The Lundsford II court has not made a determination that the
case may proceed in the form of a class action. The parties are
engaged in discovery and motion practice. Plaintiff has moved
for summary judgment and to certify the case as a nationwide
class action. On July 13, 2005 the court denied the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment. On July 20, 2005, the court denied
plaintiff's motion to certify the case as a nationwide class
action. The court also denied plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.
On September 22, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit denied plaintiff's request to file an interim
appeal of the class certification issue. The plaintiff's request
to the district court for permission to appeal the adverse
ruling on the summary judgment ruling is pending. Trial has been
set for the summer of 2006. The parties are engaged in
discovery and motion practice.
The suit is styled "Lundsford v. Callaway Golf Co et al., case
no. 3:04-cv-00442," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennesee, under Judge James H.
Jarvis. Representing the Company are David Ettinger of
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohen, 2290 First National
Building, 660 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone:
313-465-7368, Fax: 313-465-7369, E-mail: dettinger@honigman.com;
and Thomas W. Rhodes and Edward Wasmuth, Jr. of Smith, Gambrell
and Russell, 1230 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 3100 Promenade II,
Atlanta, GA 30309-3592, Phone: 404-815-3551, Fax: 404-815-6851,
E-mail: trhodes@sgrlaw.com or ewasmuth@sgrlaw.com. Representing
the plaintiffs is Gordon Ball of Ball & Scott, 550 Main Avenue
750 NationsBank Center, Knoxville, TN 37902-2567, Phone:
865-525-7028, fax: 865-525-4679, E-mail:
filings@ballandscott.com.
COPPER MOUNTAIN: NY Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Copper
Mountain Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.
In December 2001, the Company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, now captioned "In re Copper
Mountain Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10943."
In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters. The amended complaint also contains a claim for
violation of section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 based on allegations that this omission constituted deceit
on investors. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.
Similar complaints, collectively referred to here as the "IPO
Lawsuits," were filed in the same court against hundreds of
other public companies ("Issuers") who conducted IPOs between
1998 and 2000. On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were
consolidated for pretrial purposes before United States Judge
Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York. On July
15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the
IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among others). On
October 9, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing our named
officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice,
pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations with
respect to these officers and directors until September 30,
2003. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company
and almost all of the Issuers, and denying the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claims against the Company and many of the
other issuers.
In June 2003, the Issuers reached a tentative settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs that would, among other things,
result in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the
Issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits. In
addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the event
that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the IPO
Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers. In September 2003, in connection with
the tentative settlement, those officers and directors who had
entered tolling agreements agreed to extend those agreements so
that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized. In June 2004, the Company executed a final
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs.
On February 15, 2005, the Court issued a decision certifying a
class action for settlement purposes, and granting preliminary
approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain
bar orders contemplated by the settlement. In addition, the
settlement is still subject to statutory notice requirements as
well as final judicial approval.
The suit is styled "In re Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10943, "
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300,
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
EQUITYLINK LLC: Owners on Trial Over Predatory Lending Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of a self-proclaimed home foreclosure rescue service
recently went on trial over accusations that it was running a
predatory lending scam that tricked Denver-area clients into
giving up their homes, The Rocky Mountain News reports.
William Turner, founder of Westminster-based EquityLink LLC, and
company partners James Elder and John Hamner were named as
defendants in a class action lawsuit that was filed in Jefferson
County District Court two years ago. The suit alleges that they
deceived financially stressed borrowers into a lease/buy-back
program that saddled them with high-cost loans and stiff
penalties.
In opening arguments before Judge Brooke Jackson, defense
attorney Bobbee Musgrave stated that EquityLink's so-called
HomeSaver program provided a "genuine second chance" for Denver-
area homeowners who were behind in their mortgage payments and
facing foreclosure. Mr. Turner, EquityLink's principal owner,
created the program in 1999 after experiencing the devastating
loss of his own home to foreclosure, according to Ms. Musgrave.
She pointed out that the HomeSaver program used independent
appraisers to ensure clients received a fair market value when
they signed over title to their homes. Clients would then rent
the house back with the right to buy the property back within
two to five years.
Plaintiff attorney John Head made their opening argument by
pointing out that of EquityLink's 279 HomeSaver clients since
2000, just 72 have been able to repurchase their houses. Mr.
Head pointed out that ultimately, one out of three customers are
evicted and end up losing their homes because they can't afford
their new monthly EquityLink payments, typically 30 percent
higher than their old mortgages.
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 123,292 2005-06 Vehicles For Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation in cooperation with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) is voluntarily recalling about 98,007 units
of 2002-03 Chevrolet / 2002-03 Trailblazer EXT, GMC / Envoy, and
2003 Isuzu / Ascender sports utility vehicles due to fire
hazard. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID Number: 05V494000.
According to the ODI, certain SUVs have a rear side closure
latch that may not latch or unlatch due to corrosion caused by
road splash, such as water and road salt. These vehicles are
registered or sold in the following states: Connecticut,
Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
If the door is not latched properly and it goes unnoticed, it
may open while the vehicle is in motion. If an occupant fell out
of the vehicle, personal injuries could occur.
As a remedy, dealers will install a seal along the lower part of
the rocker panel to prevent intrusion of corrosive material, and
inspect the rear side closure latches. Functional latches will
be cleaned and lubricated. Non-functioning latches will be
replaced. The recall is expected to begin during January 2006.
For more details, contact Chevrolet, Phone: 1-800-630-2438, GMC,
Phone: 1-866-996-9463, Isuzu, Phone: 1-800-255-6727, OR the
NHTSA Auto Safety Hotline: 1-888-327-4236 or 1-800-424-9153, Web
site: http://www.safecar.gov.
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Judge Refuses to Certify Tobacco Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Court Judge Maurice Cullity refused certification for
Ontario's second tobacco class action filed against Imperial
Tobacco Canada, the Company said in a statement.
"We are pleased that this unsubstantiated action will not
proceed further," said the company's spokesperson, Christina
Dona. The proposed class action focused solely on Imperial
Tobacco Canada and on the allegation that its cigarettes have
not been manufactured as 'fire safe'. "Regardless of how a
cigarette is manufactured or by what company, it is important to
remember that a lit cigarette should always be treated with care
and never left unattended," she said.
In his written decision, which was released recently, the
Honorable Justice Maurice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice stated "This is not a typical product-liability case.
Quite apart from the obvious risks inherent in the product if it
is used carelessly, and the virtually ever-present relevance of
contributory fault on behalf of the smoker, the diverse
circumstances in which fires can occur are reflected in the
individual issues."
When the hearings began on September 13, 2005, Imperial Tobacco
Canada argued that the Plaintiffs had presented no evidence that
shows that a cigarette - let alone a cigarette manufactured by
Imperial Tobacco Canada - was the cause of the fire, and there
was no evidence produced to substantiate negligence on the part
of the company.
In Canada's first tobacco class action suit, the Honorable
Justice Warren Winkler of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
refused certification of this class action against Canada's
three largest tobacco manufacturers on February 4, 2004, writing
in his judgment that the class action would take "1,000 years of
litigation".
For more details, contact Christina Dona, Manager, Media
Relations, Imperial Tobacco Canada, Phone: (514) 932-6161, ext.
2474 and (Cell) (514) 704-8717.
INDONESIA: SPR Files Suit Over Decision to Increase Fuel Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Association of Public Advocates (SPR) filed a class action
in the Central Jakarta District Court over the central
government's decision to increase fuel prices, The Jakarta Post
reports.
SPR coordinator FX Arif Poyuono told The Jakarta Post, "We
understand that the policy is an offense against the law that
protects the welfare of the people."
Besides President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President
Jusuf Kalla, the lawyers also named the Golkar Party, the
Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), noted Muslim preacher Abdullah
Gymnastiar and expert on energy Kurtubi as defendants for
supporting and convincing the people to accept the fuel price
increases. Fuel prices rose by an average 126.6 percent on
October 1.
ITT EDUCATIONAL: IN Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana dismissed the consolidated securities class action
against ITT Educational Services, Inc. and ten of its current
and former directors and executive officers, styled "City of
Austin Police Retirement System, Individually And On Behalf Of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
et al."
This action is a result of the court's June 18, 2004 order to
consolidate 13 separate securities class action lawsuits filed
from February 26, 2004 through April 23, 2004. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by engaging in an unlawful course
of conduct, pursuant to which the defendants knowingly or
recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices and courses
of business to conceal adverse material information about the
Company's financial condition, and that this conduct operated as
a fraud and deceived the plaintiffs.
The complaint also alleges that the defendants made various
deceptive and untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading to the plaintiffs, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase the Company's securities at artificially inflated
prices. The putative class period in this action is from
October 17, 2002 through March 8, 2004. The plaintiffs seek,
among other things, an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, interest, costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
On September 14, 2005, the court dismissed without prejudice all
of the claims against all of the defendants in the Austin
Action, and gave the plaintiffs until October 14, 2005 to file
an amended complaint. In particular, the court ruled that:
(1) the plaintiffs failed to state a claim of securities
fraud under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 of the SEC, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.106-5;
(2) the plaintiffs' allegations failed to meet the
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) or the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(b); and
(3) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the FRCP, the plaintiffs'
allegations of control person liability under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a),
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
The suit is styled "CITY OF AUSTIN POLICE RETIREMENT SYSTEM v.
ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. et al., case no. 1:04-cv-00380-
DFH-TAB," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, under Judge David Frank Hamilton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(i) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
mail: info@lerachlaw.com;
(ii) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY) One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065
Phone: 212.594.5300;
(iii) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New
York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax:
212.952.0608
KPMG LLP: Judge Gives Preliminary Approval to $225M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh gave preliminary
approval to a $225 million settlement that accounting giant
KPMG, LLP, and a law firm reached with about 275 former clients
who used its tax shelters, The Associated Press reports.
According to lawyers in the case, the approval came after Judge
Cavanaugh heard two days of testimony in an unusual hearing
prompted by objectors' claims that the settlement negotiations
were flawed by ethical violations by some lawyers for the
clients.
The Internal Revenue Service found the tax shelters, which
helped taxpayers who bought them elude $2.5 billion in taxes, to
be "abusive." A grand jury in New York has indicted 19 people,
including KPMG's former chief financial officers, former KPMG
tax professionals and a former lawyer at Sidley, Austin, Brown &
Wood LLP, which worked with KPMG, in connection with the shelter
sales.
The settlement, which was reached after both parties agreed to a
year of mediation with former U.S. District Judges Nicholas
Politan of New Jersey and Daniel Weinstein of California, would
end litigation lodged by KPMG clients who, in the late 1990s,
bought tax shelters that R.J. Ruble, a partner for Sidley
Austin's predecessor firm, Brown & Wood, helped develop, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 6, 2005) reports.
Court records show that R.J. Ruble wrote more than 600 letters
to clients declaring that the shelters would withstand Internal
Revenue Service scrutiny. However, plaintiffs claim that even
while the shelters were being sold, KPMG officials wrote memos
expressing doubts about their validity. Eventually, sale of the
shelters was discontinued after the IRS disallowed them, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 6, 2005) reports.
With the preliminary approval, Judge Cavanaugh scheduled a
fairness hearing, a standard procedure in a class action
settlement, for February 24, 2006.
Despite Judge Cavanaugh's decision, Kevin H. Marino, a lawyer
for objectors told The Associated Press that they would appeal
the preliminary approval. Mr. Marino maintains that negotiations
were marred by collusion and conflicts of interest. He noted
that Milberg Weiss filed the class action suit about a year
after settlement negotiations began. In addition, he also noted
that Milberg Weiss had an apparent conflict of interest during
the talks because it was representing an individual client, Mark
Kottler of Boca Raton, Florida, in a suit against KPMG.
The preliminary approval came after Judge Cavanaugh heard
testimony from Melvyn I. Weiss, a noted class action lawyer
whose firm negotiated the settlement with KPMG. In his
testimony, Mr. Weiss denied that talks were tainted. He
specifically said, "My testimony was that we acted in good faith
and in the best interests of our clients and other class members
in an arms-length and vigorous negotiation." Judge Cavanaugh
also heard similar assertions from the two retired judges who
mediated between KPMG and Milberg Weiss.
The settlement would provide $195 million compensation to former
clients of KPMG and Sidley Austin who participated in the tax
shelters known as Blips, Flip and Opis, as well as some former
clients who participated in a shelter called Short Option
Strategy.
Awards, which by law cannot cover back taxes and IRS penalties,
will be a portion of the transaction fees that the taxpayers
paid to arrange the shelters. The average payout would be
$750,000, according to Mr. Weiss. He adds that taxpayers without
statute of limitation issues would get about 65 percent of their
fees, while those with such issues would get 25 percent. The
remaining $30 million would go to Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP.
The four shelters were the subjects of KPMG's settlement
agreement with federal prosecutors in New York in August. Under
that agreement, KPMG admitted criminal wrongdoing in creating
fraudulent tax shelters and agreed to pay $456 million in
penalties. However, under that same agreement, KPMG won't face
criminal prosecution as long as it complies with its terms.
The case before Judge Cavanaugh is among dozens of lawsuits
brought by former KPMG clients in state and federal courts
around the nation. According to KPMG's deferred-prosecution
agreement with federal prosecutors, KPMG sold the four shelters
to about 600 wealthy people from 1996 to 2002.
The suit is styled, "SIMON et al v. KPMG LLP et al, Case No.
2:05-cv-03189-DMC-MF," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are James E. Cecchi and Melissa E.
Flax of CARELLA BYRNE BAIN GILFILLAN CECCHI STEWART & OLSTEIN,
PC, 5 Becker Farm Road, Roseland, NJ 07068, Phone:
(973) 994-1700, Fax: (973) 994-1744, E-mail:
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com and mflax@carellabyrne.com.
Representing the Defendant/s are, Dennis J. Drasco of LUM,
DANZIS, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC, 103 Eisenhower Parkway, Roseland,
NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com; and Anthony J. Marchetta of Pitney Hardin,
200 Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932, Phone: 973-966-8032,
E-mail: amarchetta@pitneyhardin.com.
MALIBU TOYS: Recalls Halloween Candies Due to High Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
The distributor of Halloween candy that lights up, along with
store displays, has voluntarily recalled these products from
Maine stores after discovering both items have high lead
content. The products, Finger Lite Light-Up Candy Necklaces and
Lite-Up Candy Rings, were distributed by Malibu Toys of
California.
The voluntary agreement to recall the products and packaging
comes after Malibu Toys was alerted by the Toxics in Packaging
Clearinghouse (TPCH), which coordinates the implementation of
packaging laws in 19 states including Maine.
Individual packages of this Halloween novelty lollipop are
displayed on retail shelves in a box with a blinking pumpkin.
The blinking light is powered by a battery, which is attached to
a printed circuit board with lead-based solder. As a packaging
component, the printed circuit board assembly violates the
toxics in packaging requirement that no restricted heavy metals
are intentionally added to a package or packaging component.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection's Ron Dyer
said," Nineteen states, including Maine, have Toxics in
Packaging legislation that prohibit the intentional introduction
of mercury, cadmium, lead and hexavalent chromium in packaging.
The legislation was the result of a multi-state effort to limit
the amount of toxic heavy metals entering the solid waste
stream."
Retail stores listed in Maine as receiving the items include
CVS, Kmart, Movie Gallery, Rite Aid, Target, Walgreen's and Wal-
Mart.
The toxics in packaging laws, most of which were introduced in
the early 1990s, have been instrumental in changing industry
practices and removing these persistent bioaccumulative toxins
from packaging, and ultimately the environment and adversely
impacting public health. The laws, in fact, were so successful
that the European Union adopted the same restrictions.
This week, October 23-29, is National Lead Poisoning Prevention
Week. Most cases of childhood blood lead poisoning in Maine are
caused by exposure to dust and chips of leaded paint from pre-
1950 housing. Products and their packaging containing lead may
also contribute to elevated blood lead levels and should be kept
away from young children.
For more details, contact Ron Dyer, Phone: 207-287-4152, E-mail:
ron.e.dyer@maine.gov.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Working To Settle Antitrust, Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation is working to settle several antitrust,
unfair competition, and overcharge class actions filed against
it in various state and federal courts on behalf of variously
defined classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the
Company's personal computers (PCs) operating system and certain
software applications products.
The federal cases have been consolidated in the United States
District Court for Maryland. These cases allege that the Company
competed unfairly and unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for
operating systems and certain software applications, and they
seek to recover alleged overcharges for these products. To date,
courts have dismissed all claims for damages in cases brought
against the Company by indirect purchasers under federal law and
in 17 states. Nine of those state court decisions have been
affirmed on appeal. An appeal of one of those state rulings is
pending. There was no appeal in four states. Claims under
federal law brought on behalf of foreign purchasers have been
dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Maryland as have all
claims brought on behalf of consumers seeking injunctive relief
under federal law.
The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the
federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, as is
a ruling denying certification of certain proposed classes of
U.S. direct purchasers. Courts in eleven states have ruled that
indirect purchaser cases may proceed as class actions, while
courts in two states have denied class certification. In 2003,
we reached an agreement with counsel for the California
plaintiffs to settle all claims in 27 consolidated cases in that
state.
Under the settlement, class members will be able to obtain
vouchers that entitle the class members to be reimbursed up to
the face value of their vouchers for purchases of a wide variety
of platform-neutral computer hardware and software. The total
value of vouchers issued will depend on the number of class
members who make a claim and are issued vouchers. Two-thirds of
the value of vouchers unissued or unredeemed by class members
will be made available to certain schools in California in the
form of vouchers that also may be redeemed for cash against
purchases of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer
hardware, software, and related services. The Company also
reached similar agreements to settle all claims in a number of
other states. The settlements in these states are structured
similarly to the California settlement, except that, among other
differences, one-half of the value of vouchers unissued to class
members will be made available to certain schools in the
relevant states. The maximum value of vouchers to be issued in
these settlements, including the California settlement, is
approximately $1.9 billion. The actual costs of these
settlements will be less than that maximum amount, depending on
the number of class members and schools who are issued and
redeem vouchers.
The settlements in Arizona, California, the District of
Columbia, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana,
New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, and West Virginia have received final court
approval. The proposed settlement in Nebraska has received
preliminary approval by the court, but still requires final
approval. The Company estimates the total cost to resolve all
of these cases will range between $1.3 billion and $1.6 billion,
with the actual cost dependent upon many unknown factors such as
the quantity and mix of products for which claims will be made,
the number of eligible class members who ultimately use the
vouchers, the nature of hardware and software that is acquired
using the vouchers, and the cost of administering the claims
process, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement for MD Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland, on behalf of all governmental entities,
agencies, and political subdivisions of the State of California
that indirectly purchased the Company's operating system or word
processing and spreadsheet software during the period from
February 18, 1995 to the date of trial in the action.
On August 27, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, the
City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles, San Mateo, Contra Costa,
and Santa Clara Counties filed a putative class action against
the Company in San Francisco Superior Court. The plaintiffs
seek treble damages under California's Cartwright Act and
disgorgement of unlawful profits under its Unfair Competition
Act resulting from our alleged combinations to restrain trade,
deny competition, and monopolize the world markets for PC
operating systems and word processing and spreadsheet
applications (and productivity suites including these
applications).
The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for
Maryland. Its motion to dismiss the complaint was granted in
its entirety on April 18, 2005 with leave to file an amended
complaint alleging claims under the Cartwright Act based on
conduct within the four-year statute of limitation the court
ruled applies to the plaintiffs' claims. The Company and the
plaintiffs have entered into a tentative settlement in this
matter, which has been approved by four plaintiffs and is
pending approval by the two remaining plaintiffs. If approved,
this settlement will resolve all claims asserted in the lawsuit.
The suit is styled "City and County of San Francisco et al v.
Microsoft Corporation, case no. 1:04-cv-03705-JFM," filed in the
United States District Court in the District of Maryland, under
Judge J. Frederick Motz. Representing the plaintiffs is Eugene
Chatham Crew of Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Two
Embarcadero Cntr Eighth Fl, San Francisco, CA 94111-3834, Phone:
14155760200, Fax: 14155760300, E-mail: ecrew@townsend.com.
Representing the Company is Robert A. Rosenfeld of Heller Ehrman
White McAuliffe LLP, 333 Bush St, San Francisco, CA 94104-2878,
Phone: 14157726000, Fax: 14157726268, E-mail:
rrosenfeld@hewm.com.
MOTOROLA INC.: Settles Financial, Legal Claims in Telsim Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., reached an agreement to settle Motorola's
financial and legal claims against Turkish cellular phone
operator Telsim Mobil Telekomunikasyon ("Telsim"), and the
Turkish Savings and Deposit Insurance Fund (TMSF).
Under the agreement, Motorola settled its claims for a cash
payment of $500 million which the company received today plus
the right to receive 20% of the proceeds from the sale of Telsim
assets over $2.5 billion. Motorola further agreed to dismiss its
litigation against Telsim as well as Motorola's pending demand
for arbitration against the Government of Turkey at the
International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes
(ICSID) in Washington, D.C. In addition, Motorola agreed not to
pursue collection efforts against certain corporate defendants
under TMSF control, subject to certain conditions.
The agreement permits Motorola to continue its efforts, except
in Turkey and certain other agreed upon countries, to enforce
its previous judgment rendered on behalf of Motorola against the
Uzan family for perpetrating a massive fraud against Motorola
through their control of Telsim.
Commenting on the deal, Motorola issued the following statement:
"This agreement represents a positive outcome for all parties.
Motorola has attained certainty of payment and has agreed to
halt collection efforts against Telsim. The Turkish Government's
cooperation and diligent efforts to find a solution to allow
Motorola to collect on its debt while preserving the business
operations of Telsim, instills confidence in Turkey's strong
economic and investment climate. The agreement also makes
possible Motorola's continued support for Telsim's operations,
which we believe will benefit Telsim's subscribers and the
entire Turkish telecommunications sector. Motorola looks forward
to working cooperatively with the Government, TMSF and potential
purchasers to ensure maximum value from the sale of Telsim and
to facilitate a swift and successful transaction."
As previously reported, Motorola and certain current and former
directors and officers are defendants in two class action suits
regarding Telsim matters. The Company is also involved in an
ongoing investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission
regarding Telsim matters. These matters remain outstanding.
MUELLER INDUSTRIES: Faces Copper Tube Fraud Suits in TN, CA, MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Industries, Inc. has been named as a defendant in
several purported class action complaints brought by direct and
indirect purchasers alleging anticompetitive activities with
respect to the sale of copper plumbing tubes in the United
States.
Two such purported class actions were filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the
Federal Actions), four were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco (the California
Actions), one was filed in the Circuit Court for Shelby County,
Tennessee (the Tennessee Action), and one was filed in the
Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, County of
Middlesex (the Massachusetts Action, and with the Federal
Actions, the California Actions and the Tennessee Action - the
Actions).
Wholly owned Company subsidiaries, WTC Holding Company, Inc.,
Deno Holding Company, Inc., and Mueller Europe Ltd. are named in
all of the Actions, and Deno Acquisition Eurl is named in two of
the Actions. All of the Actions, which are similar, seek
declaratory (except for the Massachusetts Action) and monetary
relief.
Deno Acquisition Eurl has not been served with the complaint in
either of the Actions in which it is named, and only the Company
has been served with the complaint in the Tennessee Action. All
of the Actions, which are similar, seek declaratory (except for
the Massachusetts Action) and monetary relief. Plaintiffs'
motions to consolidate and for appointment of lead counsel in
the Federal Actions and plaintiffs' motion to consolidate the
California Actions have been granted. On July 6, 2005, a motion
to dismiss the Federal Actions for failure to state a claim was
granted as to WTC Holding Company, Inc. and Deno Holding
Company, Inc. and denied as to Mueller Industries, Inc. Mueller
Europe's motion to dismiss the Federal Actions for lack of
personal jurisdiction and on other grounds is pending. The
Company's demurrer to the complaint in the California Actions
and the Company's motion to dismiss the Tennessee Action for
failure to state a claim are pending. The Company has not yet
been required to respond to the complaint in the Massachusetts
Action. The Company subsidiaries named in the Actions have not
yet been required to respond to the complaints in the
California, Tennessee, and Massachusetts Actions.
PERRIGO CO.: Continues To Face PPA Personal Injury Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Perrigo Company is currently defending numerous individual
lawsuits pending in various state and federal courts involving
phenylpropanolamine (PPA), an ingredient used in the manufacture
of certain over-the-counter (OTC) cough/cold and diet products.
The Company discontinued using PPA in the U.S. in November 2000
at the request of the FDA. These cases allege that the plaintiff
suffered injury, generally some type of stroke, from ingesting
PPA-containing products. Many of these suits also name other
manufacturers or retailers of PPA-containing products. These
personal injury suits seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages.
The Company maintains product liability insurance coverage for
the claims asserted in these lawsuits. The Company believes that
it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and intends to
vigorously defend them. At this time, the Company cannot
determine whether it will be named in additional PPA-related
suits, the outcome of existing suits or the effect that PPA-
related suits may have on its financial condition or operating
results, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Working To Settle Shareholder Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International Inc. is expected to soon
settle for at least $400 million most shareholder lawsuits that
were filed after an accounting scandal forced the company to
restate billions in revenue, The Associated Press reports.
According to a source familiar with the proposed settlement, it
will cover Denver, Colorado-based Qwest, some former executives
and its board of directors. However, the source, who asked not
to be identified so as not to interfere with ongoing settlement
talks told The Associated Press that the settlement does exclude
former Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio and former Chief Financial
Officer Robert Woodruff. Lately, Qwest has been pushing for the
resolution of the lawsuits and pending investigations in an
effort to put the scandal behind it.
The government investigation into Qwest began in February 2002
with the Securities and Exchange Commission eventually
discovering that fraud did occur at Qwest occurred between April
1999 and March 2002, which allowed it to improperly report
approximately $3 billion in revenue that facilitated its 2000
merger with U.S. West.
In addition, the SEC also found out that Qwest repeatedly booked
revenue from one-time sales of equipment and fiber-optic swaps
while falsely claiming to investors that the income was
recurring. Qwest later restated earnings from 2000 and 2001 to
erase about $2.2 billion in revenue. In the shareholder
lawsuits that are supposedly to be settled soon, it was alleged
that Qwest, the former officers and board members concealed
information about the billion-dollar revenue.
According to the source, the settlement will be paid out of a
$750 million reserve that Qwest has set aside for legal
purposes. The deal though did not cover former executives,
since earlier this year sued, the SEC seven of them, including
Mr. Nacchio and Mr. Woodruff, accusing them of orchestrating the
fraud that led to the restated revenue. The SEC is seeking
compensation from the executives as well as civil penalties.
RIDLEY INC.: Faces Several Mad Cow Disease Lawsuits in Canada
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ridley Inc. (TSX: RCL), which disclosed in April 2005 that it
was named as a co-defendant in proposed class action lawsuits
filed in four provinces of Canada, is providing an update on the
status of pending lawsuits. The Government of Canada and Ridley
Inc.'s majority shareholder, Ridley Corporation Limited of
Sydney, Australia, are also named as co-defendants in the
lawsuits.
The lawsuits seek recovery of damages, including punitive
damages, for losses allegedly incurred by Canadian cattle
farmers as a result of the international bans on the importation
of Canadian beef and cattle following the announcement on May
20, 2003 of the diagnosis of bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) in a cow in Alberta.
There are substantial preliminary legal arguments raised by the
defendants, which must be resolved prior to any hearing to
certify the lawsuits as class actions. Ridley Inc. and Ridley
Corporation Limited have filed notices of motion to strike the
statement of claim and dismiss the Ontario action. These motions
are scheduled for argument at a hearing in Toronto in November.
Ridley Inc. believes that there are reasonable prospects that
the actions against it will be struck out but, at this
preliminary stage, is unable to provide any further comment as
to the likely outcome of any aspect of the lawsuits.
Only after these preliminary legal arguments have been resolved,
and only if the lawsuits are certified as class actions, will
the courts, to the extent it remains necessary, proceed to
address the merits of any factual allegations raised by the
plaintiffs. The proceeding in Quebec has been stayed pending a
decision in the Ontario hearing to dismiss the claims against
Ridley Inc. and the other defendants. The proceedings in Alberta
and Saskatchewan are also currently in abeyance.
Ridley Inc., one of North America's leading commercial animal
nutrition companies, has been examining its insurance position
in respect of these lawsuits. As previously reported, all
relevant insurers were notified of the plaintiffs' claims and
have been kept informed of relevant developments. A number of
those insurers have reserved their position, while others have
adopted the position that their policies do not respond to the
claims, including the legal costs currently being incurred.
Based on its analysis and investigations, Ridley Inc. believes
there is little prospect of any of the insurers responding
favourably under these policies. Ridley Inc. will continue to
fund the cost of its defence of the lawsuits from operating cash
flow and may take action against the relevant insurers in the
event of further developments in respect of these insurance
policies and if the prospects of success appear reasonable.
For more details, contact Steven J. VanRoekel President & CEO of
RIDLEY Inc., Phone: (507) 388-9618, Web site:
http://www.ridleyinc.com.
ROHM & HAAS: Faces PA Lawsuits For Plastics Additives Antitrust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rohn & Haas Co. faces several class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
alleging antitrust law violations with its sale of plastics
additives.
Nine private federal court civil antitrust actions were later
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, including one that originally had been
filed in State Court in Ohio and another involving an individual
direct purchaser claim that was filed in federal court in Ohio.
These actions have been brought against the Company and other
producers of plastics additives products by direct purchasers of
these products and seek civil damages as a result of alleged
violations of the antitrust laws. The named plaintiffs in all
but one of these actions are seeking to sue on behalf of all
similarly situated purchasers of plastics additives products.
Federal law provides that persons who have been injured by
violations of Federal antitrust law may recover three times
their actual damages plus attorneys' fees.
In addition, in August 2005, a new indirect purchaser class
action antitrust complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidating all but
one of the indirect purchaser cases that previously had been
filed in various state courts, including Tennessee, Vermont,
Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas and Ohio. The only remaining state
court indirect action is the one filed in California.
SEMPRA ENERGY: Chairman Resumes Testimony in CA Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In resuming his testimony in a class action lawsuit Sempra
Energy and its two utilities, Southern California Gas Co. and
San Diego Gas & Electric Co., the company's chairman and chief
executive officer told a San Diego jury that a spike in natural
gas prices had little to do with skyrocketing California
electricity prices five years ago, The Associated Press reports.
During his second day of testimony in a civil lawsuit being
heard in San Diego Superior Court, Stephen Baum, who was the
first individual called to the witness stand in the case, says
the energy crisis was caused by too few power plants, a hot
summer and unusually cold winter, too little hydroelectric power
from the Northwest and companies gaming the market.
Mr. Baum's remark under questioning by a Sempra attorney
appeared aimed at undercutting the premise of the multibillion-
dollar lawsuit against Sempra and its two utilities. As he
testified, a giant pricing chart was presented to jurors by
Sempra's attorney, which was headlined, "Electricity caused the
energy crisis -- not natural gas."
Additionally, Mr. Baum gave jurors a detailed tutorial on what
in his view caused California's power crisis. His reasons
included a long hiatus in the construction of new power plants,
an unusually hot summer followed by an unusually cold winter, a
drop in hydroelectric power supplies from the Pacific Northwest
and companies that were unfairly taking advantage of a newly
deregulated market. "We thought some of the market participants
were gaming the market, and we wanted it investigated, stopped,"
according to Mr. Baum. Later, he told reporters that the
culprits included Enron Corporation.
The suit, which was originally filed in December 2000 against
Sempra and its utilities and later consolidated in San Diego
Superior Court, alleged that they conspired with El Paso Natural
Gas Corporation to prevent competition for cheaper and more
plentiful Canadian natural gas. Additionally, the suit alleges
that Sempra and its companies conspired to protect their
respective market dominance over the supply and transportation
of natural gas into and within California, reaping enormous
profits at the expense of California consumers and businesses,
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005)
reports.
The plaintiffs stated that the alleged agreement happened in a
clandestine meeting at a Phoenix hotel involving 11 senior
SoCalGas, SDG&E and El Paso executives in September 1996, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (January 24, 2005) reports.
Last week, the plaintiff's lead attorney, Pierce O'Donnell,
questioned Mr. Baum for more than three hours about his public
statements during the power crisis and the relationship with El
Paso. The focus remained on what happened when 11 executives of
SoCal Gas, SDG&E and El Paso met at the Embassy Suites Hotel
near Sky Harbor Airport on September 25, 1996, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 31, 2005) reports.
Responding to the attorney's questions, Mr. Baum stated that
could not recall an internal company meeting held two days after
his colleagues gathered in Phoenix, though minutes shown to
jurors said that he was there. During that meeting, Mr. Baum
allegedly discussed bidding jointly with El Paso on a pipeline
project to serve a power plant in Samalayuca, Mexico, about 45
miles south of the Texas border. Mr. Baum reiterated, "I've
thought an awful lot about this, I don't have an independent
recollection of this meeting,", an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (October 31, 2005) reports.
Still, Mr. Baum recalled considering a joint bid with El Paso,
though nothing came of it. Sempra lead attorney Robert Cooper
told reporters outside the courtroom that the possibility of a
joint bid was discussed at the Phoenix hotel but El Paso quickly
lost interest, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October
31, 2005) reports.
According to the lawsuit, SoCal Gas agreed not to compete
against El Paso on the Samalayuca pipeline. El Paso, in turn,
abandoned plans to bring cheap Canadian gas to California. At
the time of the alleged conspiracy creation, Mr. Baum was chief
executive of Enova Corporation, then SDG&E's parent company, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 31, 2005) reports.
Mr. Cooper, the Sempra attorney, said during his opening
statement that the Phoenix meeting was an effort by SoCal Gas to
rid itself of unused capacity that it was leasing on El Paso's
pipeline system - an obligation that was costing between $40
million and $50 million a year. Nothing came of the overture, he
said, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October 31, 2005)
reports.
The stakes in the lawsuit are potentially huge for Sempra, which
was formed in 1998 from the merger of SoCal Gas and SDG&E. Under
California law, the nearly $8 billion in damages alleged by
plaintiffs, including the city and county of Los Angeles, would
triple to about $23 billion if Sempra loses. The initial phase
of the trial looks at only two subclasses of plaintiffs that
allege combined damages of about $1.3 billion, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (October 31, 2005) reports.
SERVICE CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International faces a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and several of its
current and former executive officers or directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division. The suit is styled "Conley Investment Counsel
v. Service Corporation International, et al; Civil Action 04-MD-
1609."
The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits,
namely:
(1) Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corporation International,
et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL; In the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada;
(2) Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corporation International,
et. al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL; In the United
States District for the District of Nevada; and
(3) Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corporation International,
et. al.; Cause No. 04-CV-20114; In the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida
The suit alleges that the defendants failed to disclose the
unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites at two
cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida.
Since the action is in its preliminary stages, no discovery has
occurred, and the Company cannot quantify its ultimate
liability, if any, for the payment of damages.
The suit is styled "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service
Corporation International et al, case no. 4:04-md-01609," filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Representing the lead
plaintiff are Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana Suite 1302
Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
tbilek@hb-legal.com; and Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP Three Bala Plz E Ste 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
Phone: 212-545-4600. The Company is represented by
Andrew M. Edison and J. Clifford Gunter III of Bracewell and
Giuliani LLP, 711 Louisiana Ste 2300 Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713-221-1371 Fax: 713-221-2144; and Roger B. Greenberg of
Schwartz Junell et al, 909 Fannin Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77010
Phone: 713-752-0017 Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com.
SERVICE CORPORATION: TX Court Allows Consumer Suit To Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International continues to face a consumer
fraud class action filed in the County Court of El Paso County,
Texas, County Court at Law Number Three, styled "David Hijar v.
SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc.,
and Service Corporation International, case no. 2002-740 (Hijar
Lawsuit)."
The Hijar Lawsuit is a putative statewide class action brought
on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations who
purchased funeral services from the Company or its subsidiaries
in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. Plaintiffs allege
that federal and Texas funeral related rules (Rules) required
the Company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from
third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and
that the failure to make required disclosures of markups
resulted in fraud and other legal claims.
The Company believes that the plaintiffs' interpretation of the
Rules is incorrect. The Hijar Lawsuit seeks to recover an
unspecified amount of monetary damages. Each side in the Hijar
Lawsuit filed motions to summarily establish that its
interpretation of the Rules was correct, and the judge has ruled
in favor of the plaintiffs. No class has been certified.
TITAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in IL Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Titan International, Inc. faces a shareholder class action
derivative lawsuit filed on October 18, 2005, in the Circuit
Court of 8th Judicial Circuit in Adams County, Illinois.
Lemon Bay Partners, LLP filed the suit against the Company, all
of its board of directors and One Equity Partners LLC, alleging
damages from the cash merger offer and asking the court to stop
the shareholders from voting on the cash merger offer.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Minivan Owners Launches Suit Over Run Flat Tires
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against Toyota Motor Corporation
and Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. alleges the two companies sold
"defective tires" to certain buyers of Toyota's popular Sienna
minivans, The Dow Jones Newswires reports.
Filed by a pair of New York Law firms on behalf of Stanley Monk
and other buyers of the Sienna, the claims that "run-flat" tires
produced by Goodyear under the company's Dunlop brand wear out
after approximately 10,000 miles of use, according to Roger
Bernstein, an attorney representing the class. He said that the
Dunlop tires need to be replaced on a yearly basis, which means
they are "defective."
The tires are what are known as run-flat, meaning the vehicle
can continue to drive for a period of time even when the tires
are deflated. While run-flats are seen as safer than traditional
tires, they are also known to be less robust in their rubber
composition and could wear out sooner than traditional tires,
according to various industry publications and engineering
experts.
Mr. Bernstein told The Dow Jones Newswiresthat the allegedly
defective tires cost buyers $1,300 or more to replace. In
addition, he alleges that the problem is aggravated by the fact
that Toyota does not equip its minivans with spare tires.
Jeff Peterson, a service technician with the Rinke Toyota
dealership in Centerline, Michigan, told The Dow Jones Newswires
that Toyota Sienna's run-flat tires traditionally last 30,000
miles. He adds that he is unaware of defects to the tires in
question.
According to company spokesman John McCandless, Toyota equips
all-wheel-drive editions of the Sienna with run-flat tires and
the company does not offer a spare tire because of the amount of
space needed for the all-wheel-drive mechanicals.
Toyota sold 159,000 Siennas in 2004 and is on track to match
that total in 2005, according to trade publication Ward's
Automotive Reports.
Toyota spokesman Xavier Dominicis told Dow Jones Newswires that
Toyota is unaware of the lawsuit and the company "does not
traditionally comment on pending litigation." It is at least
the second time that Toyota has been sued concerning poor tire
performance in the United States, Mr. Bernstein told The Dow
Jones Newswires.
TRIBUNE CO.: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Tribune Company and certain of its officers face several
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's securities (NYSE:TRB) securities from January 24,
2002 through July 15, 2004, inclusive.
The complaints alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors knowingly or recklessly overstated the
Company's circulation numbers throughout the Class Period, and
thereby caused the Company's stock price to trade at
artificially inflated prices in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Specifically, the true facts, which were known by defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:
(1) since at least FY 2001, Defendants were inflating the
circulation of Tribune's Hoy and Newsday publications;
(2) as a result of said inflation, the Company's financial
results during the Class Period were artificially
inflated (including revenue, earnings per share ("EPS")
and accounts receivables), and the Company's
liabilities were understated;
(3) the Company's revenue and income was grossly overstated
by millions of dollars;
(4) defendants had knowingly established extremely weak, if
not purposeless, circulation controls which allowed for
the circulation overstatements and did not require that
circulation managers certify the claimed circulation;
and
(5) as a result, defendants' ability to continue to achieve
future EPS and revenue growth would be severely
threatened and would and did result in $95 million in
costs, fines, refunds and investigation expenditures.
In June 2004, Tribune reported that two of its papers, Newsday
and Hoy, had inflated circulation figures since 2001. This
announcement set off a wave of increased scrutiny throughout the
publishing industry, with advertisers keen to ensure that they
were not being similarly duped. Tribune also came under
increased scrutiny with the Audit Bureau of Circulations, a non-
profit, private entity charged with monitoring the accuracy of
circulation numbers for publications nationwide. As a result of
this increasing pressure, Tribune admitted on July 15, 2004 that
its reported circulation numbers for Hoy and Newsday were
overstated. Tribune eventually announced it was conducting an
internal investigation and that it may refund to advertisers all
amounts that they had been overcharged. In response to this
announcement, Tribune's stock price fell to $41 at the close of
business on July 15, 2004, and has never recovered.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is styled
"Margaret K. Hill, Trustee of Kelk Irrevocable Trust, et al. v.
Tribune Company, et al.," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:
(1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
(2) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310)
201-915, Fax: (310) 201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
(3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173,
(4) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com
(5) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
212.661.1100,
(6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com
(7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(8) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
TRIBUNE CO.: Advertisers Sue Over Inflated Circulation Numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. continues to face several class actions filed in New
York state and federal courts, alleging the Company overcharged
for advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers at
their "Newsday" and "Hoy" publications.
Newsday is a morning newspaper published seven days a week and
circulated primarily in Long Island, New York, and in the
borough of Queens in New York City. Hoy, New York, is a Spanish
language newspaper that is also published seven days a week, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 3,2004) states.
On February 11, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court in New York by certain
advertisers of "Newsday" and "Hoy," New York. The purported
class action also alleges that entities that paid a "Newsday"
subsidiary to deliver advertising flyers were overcharged. On
July 21, 2004, another lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
Court by certain advertisers of "Newsday" alleging damages
resulting from inflated "Newsday" circulation numbers as well as
federal and state antitrust violations. On July 8, 2005, a
lawsuit was filed in New York State Court by a former "Hoy"
advertiser alleging damages resulting from inflated "Hoy," New
York, circulation figures.
TUT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Tut Systems,
Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.
On October 30, 2001, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a suit
styled "Whalen v. Tut Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-
9563." An amended complaint was filed on December 5, 2001. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002.
The consolidated amended complaint asserts that the prospectuses
from the Company's January 29, 1999 initial public offering and
its March 23, 2000 secondary offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offerings. The
complaint alleges claims against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors under Section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and alleges claims against certain of its current and
former officers and directors under Sections 15 and 20(a) of the
Securities Act. The complaint also names as defendants the
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering and
secondary offering.
Similar suits were filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. Therefore, for
pretrial purposes, the "Whalen" action is being coordinated with
the approximately 300 other suits before United States District
Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York under the matter "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation." "The individual defendants in the "Whalen" action,
namely, Nelson Caldwell, Salvatore D'Auria and Matthew Taylor,
were dismissed without prejudice by an October 9, 2002 Order of
the Court, approving the parties' October 1, 2002 Stipulation of
Dismissal. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and
Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.
In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer-defendants, including the Company, was submitted to
the Court on June 14, 2004 in the "In Re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation." On February 15, 2005, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement, conditioned upon the
parties' modification of a proposed bar order with respect to
potential contribution claims. The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, most of which are outside of the Company's
control, including approval by the Court. The underwriters named
as defendants in the "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation" (collectively, the "underwriter-defendants"),
including the underwriters named in the "Whalen" suit, are not
parties to the stipulation of settlement.
The stipulation of settlement provides that, in exchange for a
release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the
insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a
surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery
from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants. The ultimate amount, if any, that may be paid on
behalf of the Company will therefore depend on the final terms
of the settlement, including the number of issuer-defendants
that ultimately participate in the final settlement, and the
amounts, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs from the
underwriter-defendants and other non-settling defendants.
In the event that all or substantially all of the issuer-
defendants participate in the final settlement, the amount that
may be paid to the plaintiffs on behalf of the Company could
range from zero to approximately $7.0 million, depending on
plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-defendants and from
other non-settling parties and the amount of insurance available
under the Company's applicable insurance policies. If the
plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the underwriter-
defendants, no settlement payments would be made on behalf of
the Company under the proposed terms of the settlement. If the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes
that its insurance will likely cover some or all of its share of
any payments towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery
deficit.
The suit is styled "In re Tut Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01-CV-9563-SAS" filed
in relation to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Refuses to Dismiss Cell Phone Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider throwing out class
action lawsuits that accuse cell phone makers of failing to
protect users from unsafe levels of radiation, The Associated
Press reports.
The cell phone industry argued in its appeal that because the
phones comply with federal rules, the lawsuits should be
dismissed. However, Justices still declined without comment to
consider the appeal.
The suits were filed in state courts in Maryland, Georgia,
Louisiana, New York and Pennsylvania, which are all seeking to
force manufacturers to make phones safer. The lawsuits call for
the usage of headsets, on grounds that they could reduce risks
of brain tumors, and instructions for users. Consumers who filed
the various lawsuits claim that the industry violated various
state laws on consumer protection, product liability, negligence
and fraud.
Previously, a divided panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Richmond said the lawsuits could proceed, and Nokia
Inc., and other companies appealed to the Supreme Court. At
issue for the high court was whether federal standards
regulating wireless phones including uniform national limits on
radiation emissions pre-empt the state law claims.
Andrew McBride, Nokia's attorney, argues that federal rules must
be protected because "a reliable and seamless interstate
wireless network is a national resource -- essential to homeland
security, public safety and the economic health of this
country."
However, Harley Thomas Howell, the lawyer for those who filed
the lawsuits, countered, "The fact that a portable wireless
telephone is a regulated product does not affect its status as a
consumer product."
Many groups had urged the Supreme Court to hear the case,
including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which said that
companies following federal regulations in design, manufacture,
marketing, labeling and testing of products should not face
damages "under a patchwork of state tort laws."
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Discovery Beings in Stock Suit Remand Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. has appealed a ruling remanding the
shareholder class action filed against it, five former officers
of WM Holdings and Arthur Andersen, LLP, WM Holdings' former
independent auditor, to Illinois state court.
In December 1999, an individual brought an action on behalf of a
proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common
stock before November 3, 1994, and who held that stock through
February 24, 1998. The action is for alleged acts of common law
fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. An appeal of
that remand has been filed by the Company. Only limited
discovery has occurred and the defendants continue to defend
themselves. The extent of possible damages, if any, in this
action cannot yet be determined.
This case has remained in the pleadings stage for the last
several years due to numerous motions and rulings by the court
related to the viability of these claims. The defendants
removed the case to federal court in Illinois, but a remand
order has been issued. Only limited discovery has occurred and
the defendants continue to defend themselves vigorously.
In April 2002, a former participant in WM Holdings' Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans and another
individual filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against WMI, WM
Holdings and others, attempting to increase the recovery of a
class of ERISA plan participants based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998 and the securities class action against the Company that
was settled in November 2001. Subsequently, the issues related
to the latter class action have been dropped as to the Company,
its officers and directors. The case is ongoing with respect to
WM Holdings and others, and WM Holdings intends to defend itself
vigorously.
WORTHINGTON FOODS: Recalls Products Due to Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Worthington Foods of Battle Creek, MI is recalling about 6,000
cans of Worthington Choplets Vegetable and Grain Protein Patties
because they may contain undeclared egg and milk. People with an
allergy or severe sensitivity to egg or milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.
The affected cans of Worthington Choplets were distributed in
Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, New York, Ohio,
Oregon and Washington State through grocery and natural food
retail stores and foodservice distributors.
The product is packaged in a 1 LB. 4 oz can with a green
Worthington Choplets label and a bar code of 28989 22503. Only
cans with a manufacturing code beginning with 06085 CS L stamped
on the bottom of the can are included in this alert.
No allergic reactions have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the label
for Worthington Choplets, which does not declare egg or milk,
was mistakenly applied to a limited number of cans containing a
veggie hot dog type product containing egg and milk.
Subsequently the packaging does not reveal the presence of egg
or milk.
Consumers who have a Worthington Choplets can with a bar code of
28989 22503 and a manufacturing code beginning 06085 CS L
stamped on the bottom should call 1-800-557-6525.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 3-4, 2005
MANUFACTURER'S LIABILITY CONFERENCE: LEGAL PROTECTIONS CRUCIAL
TO YOUR BOTTOM LINE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 4, 2005
CLASS ACTION & UCL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
ReConferences.com
Costa Mesa, CA
Contact: 818-783-7156
November 7, 2005
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 7-8, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO
THE DIGITAL AGE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 7-8, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 7-8, 2005
FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE LITIGATION & ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Downtown Conference Center at Pace University, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2005
CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2005
C-8/PFOA SCIENCE, RISKS & LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Resort, Santa Barbara, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 10-11, 2005
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Four Seasons Resort Santa Barbara
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 14-15, 2005
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 15-16, 2005
12TH ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON LITIGATING BAD FAITH AND
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
Fontainebleau Resort, Miami, FL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
November 17-18, 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
MassTortsMadePerfect.Com
Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 800-320-2227; 850-436-6094 (fax)
December 1-2, 2005
INSURANCE AND REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26-27, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENDING WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf Hotel, San Francisco, CA
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
December 5-6, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 5-6, 2005
ADVANCED NATIONAL FORUM ON ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE AND
CLAIMS
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
December 6, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 7, 2005
ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton New York, Battery Park
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-14, 2005
10TH ANNUAL DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Waldorf Astoria, New York, NY, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com;877-927-1563
December 12-13, 2005
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Caesars Palace, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-13, 2005
LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Pentagon City, Washington DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 23-24, 2005
ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 5-8, 2006
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 16-17, 2006
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Coral Gables, Miami, Florida
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 25-26, 2006
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
Practising Law Institute
New York
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
November 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 01, 2005
REAL WORLD APPLICATION OF ADDITIONAL INSURED CLAIMS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 02, 2005
VIOXX(R) THE ERNST JURORS SPEAK
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 16, 2005
HRT
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17, 2005
FOOD LIABILITY--ADVERTISING PRACTICES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY TUTORIAL
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 30, 2005
PESTICIDES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 30, 2005
ASBESTOS SCREENINGS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6, 2005
WELDING RODS
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 7, 2005
PERCHLORATE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 8, 2005
SSRI's TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2005
FINITE RISK REINSURANCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2005
CLASS CERTIFICATION--HOW TO GET A CLASS CERTIFIED OR DEFEAT
CERTIFICATION
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15, 2005
D&O TELECONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 15, 2005
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ISSUES
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. ("Barrier")
(Nasdaq:BTRX) common stock during the period between April 29,
2004 and June 29, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Shareholders who
purchased Barrier stock in the Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
on April 29, 2004 and/or in its Secondary Offering on February
9, 2005 are also included in this class action.
The complaint charges Barrier and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Barrier is a biopharmaceutical
company, engaged in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of pharmaceutical products in the field of
dermatology. The complaint alleges that Barrier made a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and products under development. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts:
(1) that the Company had failed to perform its clinical
trials in conformity with FDA guidelines as they had
failed to disclose that they had secretly substituted
the petroleum base within Zimycan, the effect of which
was to substantially lessen the likelihood that the
drug could achieve FDA approval;
(2) that Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy
profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, in fact, as
investors ultimately learned, Hyphanox was
significantly less effective than fluconazole/Diflucan;
and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
Barrier.
For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Phone: (212) 686-1060 or 1-866-767-3653, Fax:
(212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com, Web site:
http://www.rosenlegal.com.
BARRIER THERAPEUTICS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of
Barrier Therapeutics, Inc. ("Barrier" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
BTRX) between April 29, 2004 and June 29, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). Also included are those who purchased Barrier pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") on or about April 29, 2004 in its Secondary Offering on
or about February 9, 2005.
The complaint alleges that Barrier violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and products under
development. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts:
(1) that the Company had failed to perform its clinical
trials in conformity with FDA guidelines as they had
failed to disclose that they had secretly substituted
the petroleum base within Zimycan, the effect of which
was to substantially lessen the likelihood that the
drug could achieve FDA approval;
(2) that Hyphanox did not have a better safety or efficacy
profile than fluconazole/Diflucan and, in fact, as
investors ultimately learned, Hyphanox was
significantly less effective than fluconazole/Diflucan;
and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
reasonable basis for their positive statements.
On June 29, 2005, Barrier announced, among other adverse facts,
that the Company's drug trials failed to demonstrate that
Hyphanox worked as well as fluconazole. On this news, the price
of Barrier stock plummeted over $6.75 per share, a decline of
over 45%, to close below $8.00 per share on June 30, 2005.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com.
DANA CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges OH Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo) on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Dana Corporation (NYSE: DCN)
("Dana" or the "Company") from April 21, 2004 through October 7,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").
The complaint charges Dana, Michael J. Burns, and Robert C.
Richter with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Dana Corporation engages in the engineering, manufacture,
supply, and distribution of systems and components for vehicle
manufacturers worldwide. It operates in two segments, Automotive
Systems Group and Heavy Vehicle Technologies and Systems Group.
The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations regarding Dana's financial statements, business,
and prospects were materially false and misleading when made.
Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose:
(1) that the Company had improperly recognized price
increases in its commercial- vehicle business, which
materially inflated its income figures;
(2) the Company's financial statements were presented in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP"); and
(3) that the Company lacked the necessary personnel and
controls to issue accurate financial reports and
projections.
On September 15, 2005, Dana cut its full-year earnings forecast
to about 60 cents to 70 cents a share from a range of $1.30 to
$1.45 previously, excluding gains and losses on divestitures and
asset sales, and other items. Before the announcement, analysts'
average estimate for Dana's 2005 earnings stood at $1.20 a
share. Additionally, the Company said it likely would restate
second-quarter results to correct inappropriate recognition of
price increases in its commercial vehicle business during the
period, a move that could reduce earnings by $10 million to $15
million. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana
stock fell dramatically, from $12.78 per share on September 14,
2005 to $9.86 per share on September 15, 2005, a one-day drop of
22.8 percent on unusually heavy trading volume.
On October 10, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, Dana
announced that it would restate its 2004, first-quarter 2005,
and second-quarter 2005 financial statements. Also, the Company
stated that it had postponed its third-quarter 2005 earnings
release and was withdrawing its earnings guidance for full-year
2005. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Dana stock
fell dramatically, from $9.19 per share on October 7, 2005 to
$6.04 per share on October 10, 2005, a one-day drop of 34.28
percent, on unusually heavy trading volume.
For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
MERCURY INTERACTIVE: Scott + Scott Extends Suit's Class Period
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which initiated the first
securities fraud class action in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Mercury
Interactive Corporation ("Mercury" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
MERQE) and individual defendants on August 21, 2005, extended
the Class Period on behalf of Mercury Interactive securities
purchasers to now include the period from October 22, 2003,
through October 4, 2005, inclusive.
The suit was originally brought on behalf of all shareholders
who purchased or acquired MercInteractive securities from
December 1, 2004 until July 5, 2005. The case is also brought on
behalf of those purchasing notes convertible to shares of
Company stock, pursuant to the Company's 0 Coupon Senior
Convertible Notes (due 2008 offering).
MercInteractive, an enterprise software company, provides
software and services to the business technology optimization
(BTO) marketplace. Its BTO offerings, known as Mercury
Optimization Centers, consist of integrated software, services,
and practices that enable companies to use a center of approach
to govern the priorities, processes, and people of information
technology (IT); deliver and manage applications; and integrate
IT strategy and execution. MercInteractive offers products and
services in three product lines: IT governance, application
delivery, and application management. The company's IT
governance offerings are used to prioritize and automate IT
business processes from demand through production. Its
application delivery offerings enable customers to optimize
custom-built and prepackaged software applications before they
go into production. MercInteractive's application management
offerings enable customers to optimize business availability and
problem resolution, as well as to proactively manage and
automate the repair of production problems. In addition, the
company provides a range of professional and educational
services, as well as customer support offerings that enable
partners and customers to implement, customize, manage, and
extend its BTO offerings. MercInteractive offers its products
and services primarily through its direct sales organization, as
well as through inside corporate sales professionals worldwide.
The company has strategic alliances principally with Oracle, SAP
AG, Siebel Systems, and Accentor. Mercury Interactive
Corporation was founded in 1989 and is headquartered in Mountain
View, California.
As late as April 28, 2005, Defendants increased their previous
2005 annual guidance, serving to affirm prior statements that
the company was continuing in a positive direction. Unbeknownst
to investors, it is alleged that Defendants concealed auditing
expenses during the class period.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or Amy K. Saba of Scott
+ Scott, LLC, Phone: 1-800-332-2259, +1-619-251-0887 or
1-800-332-2259, ext. 26, E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
asaba@scott-scott.com, Web site: http://www.scott-scott.com.
REFCO INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Refco, Inc.
(NYSE: RFX) between August 11, 2005 and October 13, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").
The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.
For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St.,
Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.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 * * *