/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060116.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 16, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 11
Headlines
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Justice Department Launches USERRA Suit in TX
AMERICAN BIOPHYSICS: Recalls Valve Adapters Due to Injury Risk
ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Lawyer Files Suit Over Alleged Overcharging
ASHLAND INC.: Lawsuit V. Marathon Oil Merger Still Pending in NY
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces 524 Glove Product Liability Lawsuits
DILLARDS INC.: Continues To Face Second Amended Lawsuit in Ohio
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Asked MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
GENERAC POWER: Recalls 20T Generator Fuel Hoses For Fire Hazard
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 330 Jackets Due to Injury Hazard
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
IOWA: Judge Needs More Data For Local Woman's Suit V. Des Moines
MICHIGAN: ACLU Files Suit in Appeals Court V. Kent County Judge
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Appeals Court Upholds Antitrust Pact
MURPHY OIL: Judge Hears Arguments For LA Lawsuit Certification
OHIO: Traffic Camera Case V. Steubenville Delayed Due to Motion
OPPENHEIMER & CO.: EEOC Files Sexual Discrimination Suit in NY
PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit V. Park Operators Moving Towards Trial
STIHL INC.: Recalls 23.5T MS 192 T Chain Saws For Injury Hazard
TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits in CA
TEXAS: Spanish Speaking Police Officers File Suit V. Houston
TIVO INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit
VIRGINIA: Farmers Seek Class Certification For Lawsuit V. USDA
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Mediation For IL Investor Suit Unsuccessful
New Securities Fraud Cases
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
IPAC MORTGAGE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
STONE ENERGY: Mager & Goldstein Lodges LA Securities Fraud Suit
*********
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Justice Department Launches USERRA Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against American
Airlines, Inc., alleging violations of the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA). The
lawsuit represents the first class action complaint filed by the
United States under USERRA.
The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Dallas,
Texas, alleges that American Airlines violated USERRA by denying
pilots Mark Woodall, Michael McMahon and Paul Madson employment
benefits during their military service. Mr. Woodall and Mr.
McMahon serve as pilots in the Naval Reserve and hold the ranks
of Captain and Commander, respectively. Mr. Madson serves as a
pilot in the South Dakota Air National Guard and holds the rank
of Lieutenant Colonel.
"This nation depends on our reservists to faithfully carry out
their duty. No reservists - indeed, no members of our armed
forces - should ever be punished or discriminated against for
answering the call of duty," said Wan J. Kim, Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division. "The filing of this
lawsuit reflects the Civil Rights Division's continuing
commitment to fully protect our uniformed service member's
employment rights."
The complaint alleges that American Airlines conducted an audit
of the leave taken for military service by American Airline
pilots in 2001. The complaint further alleges that based on the
results of that audit, American Airlines reduced the employment
benefits of those of its pilots who had taken military leave,
while not reducing the same benefits of those of its pilots who
had taken similar types of non-military leave.
"This action shows the Labor Department and the Justice
Department are working together effectively to protect the jobs
and benefits of National Guard and Reserve service members upon
their return to civilian life, as required under USERRA," said
Charles S. Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
The Justice Department's lawsuit was filed after the Veterans'
Employment and Training Service (VETS) of the Department of
Labor referred Captain Woodall's, Commander McMahon's and Lt.
Colonel Madson's complaints to the Justice Department upon
completion of its investigation and failed settlement efforts.
For more details, contact U.S. Department of Justice, Phone:
202-514-2008 or 202-514-1888, Web sites: http://www.usdoj.govor
http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm.
AMERICAN BIOPHYSICS: Recalls Valve Adapters Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), American Biophysics Corporation, of North Kingstown,
Rhode Island, is voluntarily recalling about 335,500 units of
"L"-Shaped Quick-Clear Valve Adapters used with Mosquito Magnetr
Insect Traps.
According to the Company, the maintenance accessory is an "L"-
shaped, Quick-Clear Valve Adapter that can leak or break apart
during use, possibly striking and injuring nearby persons or
releasing pressurized carbon dioxide (CO2) that can freeze
exposed skin. American Biophysics has received 11 reports of
persons struck by broken adapters and three reports of minor
skin irritations caused by the CO2 gas.
The recall involves a maintenance accessory used to clear
obstructions in the fuel delivery system of certain Mosquito
Magnetr insect traps. The Quick-Clear Valve Adapter is a black
and gold, "L"-shaped, brass and plastic device. The adapter was
included as a maintenance accessory to clean fuel lines in newly
manufactured and retrofitted Mosquito Magnetr insect traps sold
only under the following Mosquito Magnetr model names: Defender,
Liberty, Freedom and Commercial Pro. Only "L"-shaped adapters
are affected by this recall. Mosquito Magnetr products made
since November 2003 contain only straight adapters that do not
need to be replaced. Adapters for Mosquito Magnetr traps that
use rechargeable batteries are not affected by this recall.
Manufactured in the United States, all home centers, hardware
stores, and industrial suppliers nationwide, as well as online
and catalog retailers, provided the "L"-shaped Quick-Clear Valve
Adapter as an accessory with Mosquito Magnetr insect trap
products manufactured from October 2002 through November 2003.
The adapters were sold separately for about $8. NOTE: The trap
is NOT included in the recall.
Remedy: Consumers should not use the recalled "L"-shaped Quick-
Clear Adapter on the Mosquito Magnet insect trap. Contact the
firm to receive a free replacement adapter.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact American
Biophysics Corp. toll-free at (877) 699-8727 between 8:30 a.m.
and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit their Web site at
http://www.mosquitomagnet.com.Press Contact: Betsy Kosheff,
Phone: 413-232-7057, E-mail: betsykosheff@msn.com.
ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA: Lawyer Files Suit Over Alleged Overcharging
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Fort Smith, Arkansas attorney initiated a class action lawsuit
against Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corporation, claiming that the
Company overcharged its customers, TheHometownChannel.com
reports.
Attorney Brian Meadors filed the suit on behalf of several named
clients, as well as all customers of AOG. The suit claims that
AOG charged its customers with a new rate increase on some
November bills when the increase wasn't allowed to go into
effect until December 1.
AOG spokesman Mike Callan told TheHometownChannel.com that they
have not been served with the lawsuit yet, and until they see
it, they have no comment.
ASHLAND INC.: Lawsuit V. Marathon Oil Merger Still Pending in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland, Inc. and the individual members of the Company's board
of directors continue to face a class action filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County. The
suit also names as defendants Marathon Oil Corporation, Marathon
Ashland Petroleum LLC (MAP) and Credit Suisse First Boston LLC
(CSFB).
On April 8, 2005, Shiva Singh filed a complaint on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, arising out of the
proposed transaction announced on March 19, 2004 in which the
Company would transfer its entire 38% interest in MAP as well as
certain other businesses to Marathon (the "proposed
transaction").
The complaint also alleges breach of fiduciary duty as well as
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
against Ashland, its directors, Marathon and MAP. The complaint
also alleges breach of fiduciary duty and negligence as well as
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
against CSFB.
The complaint seeks to recover from defendants an unstated sum
of damages. The complaint also seeks to enjoin the proposed
transaction (and any related shareholder vote) between the
Company and Marathon to require defendants to fully disclose all
material facts before completion of any such transaction; and to
require defendants to obtain a current, independent fairness
opinion concerning the proposed transaction. To the extent that
the proposed transaction is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, the complaint asks the court to
rescind such transaction(s) and award damages. The complaint
also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses.
BECTON DICKINSON: Faces 524 Glove Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company along with other manufacturers
faced approximately 524 latex surgical glove product liability
lawsuits, filed in various state and federal courts.
In 1986, the Company acquired a latex surgical glove
manufacturing business. In 1995, they divested this glove
business.
Cases pending in Federal court are being coordinated under the
matter "In re Latex Gloves Products Liability Litigation" (MDL
Docket No. 1148) in Philadelphia, and analogous procedures have
been implemented in the state courts of California,
Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Generally, these actions
allege that medical personnel have suffered allergic reactions
ranging from skin irritation to anaphylaxis as a result of
exposure to medical gloves containing natural rubber latex.
Since the inception of this litigation, 463 of these cases have
been closed with no liability to BD (462 of which were closed
with prejudice), and 45 cases have been settled for an aggregate
de minimis amount.
The Company, along with another manufacturer and several medical
product distributors, is named as a defendant in three product
liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected
with any disease. Generally, these actions allege that
healthcare workers have sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore
needle devices manufactured by BD and, as a result, require
medical testing, counseling and/or treatment. In some cases,
these actions additionally allege that the healthcare workers
have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs seek money damages in
all of these actions.
The Company had previously been named as a defendant in eight
similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly
sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been
dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn.
In Ohio, a suit named "Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al., Case
No. 98CVB075616," was filed on July 22,1998 in the Franklin
County Court. The trial court granted class certification on
June 6, 2005. The Company has filed an appeal of the trial
court's ruling.
In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf
of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class
action certification under the laws of these states in state
court in Oklahoma, under the caption "Palmer vs. Becton
Dickinson et al., Case No. CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County District
Court," filed on October 27, 1998, and in state court in South
Carolina, under the caption "Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et al.
Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas,"
filed on November 25, 1998.
The Company continues to oppose class action certification in
these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of
appeal.
In Illinois, the matter of "McCaster vs. Becton Dickinson Case
No. 04L 012544" was settled on July 5, 2005 for an amount that
is not material to the Company's results of operations,
financial condition or cash flows. This case was originally
filed as a purported class action needlestick case in the
Circuit Court of Cook County and had been re-filed in November
2004 as an individual personal injury case.
A purported class action suit was brought against the Company
under the caption "Danielle Cardozo, by her litigation guardian
Darlene Cardozo v. Becton, Dickinson and Company, Civil Action
No. S83059, Supreme Court, British Columbia" on November 6,
2003. The suit alleged personal injury to persons in British
Columbia who received test results generated by the "BD
ProbeTec" ET instrument, and sought money damages.
DILLARDS INC.: Continues To Face Second Amended Lawsuit in Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dillards, Inc. continues to face a second amended class action
against Dillards, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. The suit also names as
defendants the Mercantile Stores Pension Plan and the Mercantile
Stores Pension Committee and was filed on behalf of a putative
class of former Plan participants.
The complaint alleges that certain actions by the Plan and the
Committee violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended (ERISA), as a result of amendments made to
the Plan that allegedly were either improper and/or ineffective
and as a result of certain payments made to certain
beneficiaries of the Plan that allegedly were improperly
calculated and/or discriminatory on account of age. The Second
Amended Complaint does not specify any liquidated amount of
damages sought and seeks recalculation of certain benefits paid
to putative class members. No trial date has been set.
The suit is styled "Christnacht, et al v. Dillards Inc, et al,
case no. 1:00-cv-00488-SSB-JS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Sandra S. Beckwith. The plaintiffs were represented by Stanley
Morris Chesley and Terrence Lee Goodman, Waite Schneider Bayless
& Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 E-mail:
stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc, or terrygoodman@wsbclaw.com.
Representing the Company are Michael Devanney Eagen and Gregory
Alan Harrison of Dinsmore & Shohl - 1, 1900 Chemed Center 255 E
5th Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-977-8200 E-mail:
michael.eagen@dinslaw.com or greg.harrison@dinslaw.com; and Gina
Marie Saelinger of Ulmer & Berne LLP, 600 Vine Street Suite 2800
Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-977-8200 Fax: 513-977-8141 E-
mail: gsaelinger@ulmer.com.
DITECH COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ditech Communications faces a consolidated securities class
action, styled "In re Ditech Communications Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C 05-02406-JSW."
Beginning on June 14, 2005, several purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, purportedly on behalf of a
class of investors who purchased the Company's stock between
August 25, 2004 and May 26, 2005. The complaints allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer.
This matter is at an early stage; no lead plaintiff has been
selected, no consolidated complaint has been filed, no discovery
has taken place and no trial date has been set.
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Asked MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gander Mountain Company asked the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and eight of its
present and former directors and executive officers.
Several suits were initially filed, namely:
(1) Joseph Merrelli v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,
(2) George Patchan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.
(3) John Stainbrook v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.
(4) Robert Schuck v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.,
(5) William C. Fernalld, Jr. v. Gander Mountain Company, et
al., and
(6) Sean Peter Sloan v. Gander Mountain Company, et al.
Each action is a purported class action brought on behalf of all
persons (except defendants) who purchased stock in the Company's
initial public offering on April 20, 2004, or in the open market
between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false and misleading public
statements about the company, and its business and prospects, in
the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering, and in filings with the SEC and press
releases issued thereafter, and that the market price of the
Company's stock was artificially inflated as a result.
The complaints allege claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs in all
six cases seek compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged
class, an award of attorneys' fees and costs of litigation, and
unspecified equitable/injunctive relief.
The Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed on August 9,
2005. The Company has moved to dismiss the Consolidated Class
Action Complaint. The Court heard the Company's motion on
December 2, 2005, but has not yet issued its ruling.
GENERAC POWER: Recalls 20T Generator Fuel Hoses For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Generac Power Systems Inc., of Waukesha, Wisconsin and
RB Royal Industries Inc., of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, are
voluntarily recalling about 20,000 units of 12" Braided Flex
Fuel Hose sold with certain Guardianr Home Standby Air-Cooled
Generators.
According to the Companies, the fuel hoses can leak if bent in
an unreasonable fashion during installation or upon completion
of installation. If an ignition source is present, a fire or
explosion can occur. Generac has received no reports of fuel
hose leaks. No injuries or property damage have been reported.
The recalled 12 inch braided flex fuel hoses are used with
Guardianr Home Standby Air-Cooled Generators with serial numbers
3789827 and below. The generators are about 4 feet by 2 feet by
2« feet, tan in color, and have identification decal tags
displaying the serial number. The decal tag is affixed to the
black divider plate that separates the engine from the control
panel and can be found by lifting the top/lid of the metal
enclosure. The fuel hose came supplied with the generator kits
and connects the fuel supply to the generator. The hose is 12
inches long and covered with braided steel. Pictures of the
recalled products:
(1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06064a.jpg
(2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06064b.jpg
(Picture of generator with connecting hose.)
Manufactured in the United States, independent and national
dealers sold these generators with the flex fuel hoses between
March 2001 and September 2003 for about $1500 to $2500.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using the generator if the fuel
hose is bent or if the ferrules (connectors) are cracked, split
or damaged in any way. Consumers with a bent hose or damaged
connector should contact Generac Power Systems or a Generac
authorized service dealer, to arrange for a free inspection and
replacement of the flex fuel hose.
Consumer Contact: Call Generac Power Systems at (800) 949-7440
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit
their Web site: http://www.generac.com.Generac's Media Contact:
Stephanie Borowski at (262) 544-4811.
HURLEY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 330 Jackets Due to Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Hurley International, of Costa Mesa, California, is
voluntarily recalling about 330 units of Boy's Windbreaker
Jackets with Drawstrings.
According to the Company, the jackets have a drawstring through
the hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children. In February
1996, the CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist
drawstrings of upper garments such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No incidents or injuries have been reported.
The recalled jackets are black or gray, and were sold in youth
sizes up to size 20. "HurleyCo" is stitched on the upper left
outside of the jacket. The style number BJ06GS is printed on a
label sewn inside the left side seam of the jacket.
Manufactured in Hong Kong, the jackets were sold at various
department and specialty stores nationwide from July through
early December, 2005 for about between $50 and $60.
Remedy: Consumers should remove the drawstring to eliminate the
hazard.
Consumer Contact: For more information, call Hurley toll-free at
(800) 747-9994 between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, write to Hurley at help@hurley.com, or visit the Hurley
Web site: http://www.hurley.com.
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Inrange
Technologies, Inc., certain of its officers and the underwriters
of its initial public offering (IPO).
A shareholder class action was initially filed on November 30,
seeking recovery of damages caused by the Company's alleged
violation of securities laws, including section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934.
The complaint, which was also filed against the various
underwriters that participated in the Company's IPO, is
identical to hundreds of shareholder class actions pending in
this court in connection with other recent IPOs and is generally
referred to as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation." The complaint alleges, in essence, that the
underwriters combined and conspired to increase their respective
compensation in connection with the IPO by receiving excessive,
undisclosed commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of
IPO shares, and trading in the Company's stock after creating
artificially high prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in"
or "laddering" arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations
of IPO shares agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for
more than the public offering price for Inrange shares) and
dissemination of misleading market analysis on the Company's
prospects. The suit further alleged that the Company violated
federal securities laws by not disclosing these underwriting
arrangements in its prospectus.
The defense has been tendered to the carriers of the Company's
director and officer liability insurance, and a request for
indemnification has been made to the various underwriters in the
IPO. At this point the insurers have issued a reservation of
rights letter and the underwriters have refused indemnification.
The court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss claims
under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
because of the absence of a pleading of intent to defraud. The
court granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but no
further amended complaint has been filed. The court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss claims under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933. The court has also dismissed the
Company's individual officers without prejudice, after they
entered into a tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.
On July 25, 2003, the Company's board of directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter. The settlement would provide, among other things, a
release of the Company and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the complaint.
The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims it may have
against its underwriters.
In June 2004, an agreement of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval. The underwriters objected to the
proposed settlement and the plaintiffs and issuer defendants
separately filed replies to the underwriter defendants'
objections. The court granted the preliminary approval motion
on February 15, 2005, subject to certain modifications. If the
parties are able to agree upon the required modifications, and
such modifications are acceptable to the court, notice will be
given to all class members of the settlement, a "fairness"
hearing will be held and if the court determines that the
settlement is fair to the class members, the settlement will be
approved. On August 31, 2005, the court preliminarily approved
the proposed settlement. After notice of the proposed settlement
is sent to settlement class members, a fairness hearing will be
held in 2006 before any final settlement is approved, if at all.
The suit is styled "IN RE INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION," filed in relation to "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
IOWA: Judge Needs More Data For Local Woman's Suit V. Des Moines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polk County District Court Judge Michael Huppert says that he
needs more information about a local woman's finances before he
will put her at the forefront of a class action lawsuit that
could result in $26 million in refunds to Des Moines, Iowa
utility customers, The Des Moines Register reports.
In a recent 11-page ruling, the judge left open the question of
whether the city will be forced to pay back five years' worth of
so-called "franchise fees" collected on MidAmerican Energy
bills.
Previously, the judge ruled that a special fee on utility bills
that officials of the city used to lower property tax rates this
year is illegal. The judge's ruling was in the favor of Lisa
Kragnes, who sued the city in 2004 over a 5 percent surcharge on
gas and electricity bills that she said represents an unfair
tax. He had ruled that the so-called franchise fee should be
abolished. The ruling though does not address whether those
who've paid the fee should get refunds, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 11, 2006) reports.
Attorney Brad Schroeder in June 2004 sued the city, saying that
the franchise fee is illegal because it amounts to a tax that
isn't specifically spelled out in Iowa law. The suit, which was
filed on behalf of the 34-year-old Des Moines woman "and all
others similarly situated," sought to block the city from
collecting the fee and demanded a full refund of all money
collected over the last five years, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (January 11, 2006) reports.
Essentially, Judge Hupper's ruling denies a request to turn Ms.
Kragnes' case into a class action lawsuit. However, it did leave
the door open if she can prove she has the money to pay legal
fees to take the fight all the way to the state Supreme Court if
necessary.
City leaders though immediately praised the decision as a step
in the right direction. "We're real pleased," City Councilwoman
Christine Hensley told The Des Moines Register.
MICHIGAN: ACLU Files Suit in Appeals Court V. Kent County Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a move reserved for extraordinary cases, the American Civil
Liberties Union of Michigan filed a class action lawsuit in the
Michigan Court of Appeals to force a state judge to comply with
a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling granting poor people the
right to attorneys on appeal.
"Thumbing your nose at the U.S. Supreme Court is almost unheard
of in the judicial system," said Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan
Executive Director. "And, in this case, the judge seems to
believe he is above the law, or at least above the Supreme
Court."
Last June in a landmark decision, Halbert v. Michigan, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down a 1999 Michigan law that barred judges
from appointing attorneys to help poor people who have pled
guilty to appeal their sentences. The Court specifically ruled
that forcing poor people to navigate the appeals process without
a lawyer violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
of the Constitution.
Despite the Halbert ruling, Kent County Circuit Court Judge
Dennis C. Kolenda has denied appellate counsel to several poor
people and stated that he has no obligation or intention of
following the Supreme Court's ruling in the future and
characterized the ruling as "incorrect" and "illogical."
In the lawsuit filed in the Court of Appeals - called a
"Complaint for Superintending Control" - the ACLU asserted that
the Supreme Court took pains to address, and reject, the
argument that a poor criminal defendant could waive the right to
appointed counsel on appeal. The lawsuit also points out that
both the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of
Appeals have repeatedly held over the last half-century that
statements by the highest court, meant to be a guide to future
proceedings, is binding precedent. In addition, the Michigan
Supreme Court has issued a series of orders for implementing and
following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halbert, but
Judge Kolenda has also chosen to defy the Michigan Supreme
Court.
"The tragedy of this case is that while Judge Kolenda is defying
the Supreme Court, dozens of individuals are being denied their
constitutional right to counsel simply because they are poor,"
said ACLU Cooperating Attorney David Moran, who argued Halbert
for the ACLU. "As a result, sentencing errors are left
uncorrected and the Michigan taxpayers are picking up the bill
for inmates wrongfully serving time."
It is unclear exactly how many people are affected by Judge
Kolenda's refusal to appoint counsel. The ACLU believes that the
only mechanism to protect both its clients and other individuals
in the same situation is to ask the Court of Appeals to exercise
superintending control over Judge Kolenda and order him to
follow the Supreme Court.
In addition to Moran, ACLU cooperating attorneys Terence
Flanagan, Mark Granzotto and James Czarnecki are litigating the
case, along with Michigan ACLU Legal Director Michael J.
Steinberg and Executive Director Kary Moss.
To read the Complaint for Superintending Control filed in Brown
v. Kolenda, visit:
http://www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendacomplaint.pdf.To read
the Brief in Support of the Complaint, visit:
http://www.aclumich.org/pdf/briefs/kolendabrief.pdf.
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Appeals Court Upholds Antitrust Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Court of Appeal for the First District upheld a
class action settlement against Microsoft Corporation, The TG
Daily reports.
In the case, plaintiffs claimed that the Company used its
tremendous market share to overcharge customers for the Windows
operating system. More than $1 billion in vouchers were awarded,
but a full third of the settlement went unclaimed.
The case was originally filed in February 1999 and plaintiffs
claimed that the Company overcharge buyers of the Windows 95 and
98 operating systems by as much as $40 a copy. The Company and
the plaintiffs hashed out a settlement that included vouchers
for $5 to $29 dollars that could be redeemed for software and
hardware. The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
California customers who purchased Windows, the Office
productivity suite and other Company software from February 1995
to December 2001.
A third of the unclaimed voucher funds are to be returned to the
Company, while two-thirds will go to California schools. Charles
Q. Jakob, one of the plaintiffs in the case, objected to the
settlement and wants the unclaimed funds to be distributed to
the plaintiffs. But, the court disagreed and dismissed Mr.
Jakob's challenge.
In January 2003, the Company agreed to pay as much as $1.1
billion in vouchers, which consumers and businesses can use for
cash reimbursements after buying some computer products,
including those from rivals, such as Apple Computer. The
vouchers are similar to the rebates consumers use when buying
new computer equipment, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(January 4, 2005) reports.
Under the settlement, two-thirds of the unclaimed money will be
used to buy computer equipment or pay for teacher training and
curriculum development for financially stressed California
schools. The Company gets to keep the rest, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (January 4, 2005) reports.
According to Eugene Crew, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in
the case with Townsend Townsend & Crew in San Francisco, "These
are not coupons. These are vouchers that will allow you to buy
any computer product and get cash back." Though no one knows the
total value of the claims made so far, he estimates that 80
percent of those eligible are businesses, which stand to reap a
considerable amount of money. "Some of the biggest companies
that have a lot of computer desktops will have huge claims -- $1
million, $2 million, $3 million," he adds. Robert Grossman,
Crew's co-counsel in the suit, said 80 percent of the state's
largest companies have already filed claims. However scores of
smaller businesses that could garner thousands of dollars or
much more have yet to act, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (January 4, 2005) reports.
MURPHY OIL: Judge Hears Arguments For LA Lawsuit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
At a recent hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Eldon
Fallon, attorneys over whether homeowners, whose property fell
victim to an oil spill from Hurricane Katrina, could band
together and sue Murphy Oil Corporation in a class action
lawsuit, Reuters reports.
At a New Orleans, Louisiana federal court, attorneys for
residents of St. Bernard Parish, where the spill occurred,
argued that the Company is responsible for oil damage to some
10,000 houses in an area of about 6 sq. miles (15.54 sq. km).
However, the Company`s attorneys countered that the spill, which
it has blamed on an "act of God," affected fewer homes and that
those residents do not constitute the legal basis for a class
action lawsuit.
The judge is expected to issue a written ruling deciding whether
the case should become a class action lawsuit following the
hearing, which was slated to continue throughout of last week.
The El Dorado, Arkansas-based Company has been trying to ward
off a slew of class action suits that were filed after 1 million
gallons of oil spilled into homes and canals in Meraux after
Hurricane Katrina's storm surge lifted a massive storage tank
off its base. In an effort to narrow the potential scope of
those suits, Murphy opened up five claims offices and started
contacting residents two months after the storm. It offered
people tens of thousands of dollars for damage to their homes if
they dropped out of the suits, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 17,2005) states.
However, a previous hearing in federal court, plaintiffs'
attorneys alleged that the Company is providing false and
misleading information about the massive oil spill. The
allegation was made in a hearing in which plaintiffs' attorneys
sought to convince Judge Fallon to restrict the Company from
entering into settlement talks with victims of the Meraux oil
spill. In that hearing, plaintiffs' attorneys pointed out to
Judge Fallon that the Company has downplayed and misled people
about the potential long-term health and environmental risks of
the 1 million gallon oil spill that washed into about 1,500
homes. They also charged that the Company is making people think
that the contaminated area is smaller than it actually is. In
addition, the attorneys contended that under the enduring
chaotic conditions victims are unable to get adequate legal help
and that the court should safeguard them from predatory
practices, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 7,
2005) reports.
Judge Fallon agreed in part with the lawyers, pointing out that
the Company needs to tell victims to consult a lawyer before
settling and that they would waive their legal rights in the
case by accepting money. In addition he also said that the
Company couldn't seek out residents who had not previously
contacted it on their own or those who have lawyers. IN essence
the judge ordered the Company to be more transparent in its
settlement talks with oil spill victims, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (November 17, 2005) reports.
The spill sent some 85,000 barrels of crude oil from a storage
tank at Murphy`s Meraux refinery in St. Bernard into the
surrounding community and drenched houses in several feet of
oily sludge. The August 29 hurricane and the flooding that
followed devastated St. Bernard Parish, which lies to the east
of New Orleans and had a pre-storm population of almost 70,000
people.
The suit, which was filed by property owner Patrick Joseph
Turner on behalf of at least 500 property owners in St. Bernard
Parish, states, "As a direct and proximate cause of the
negligence of the defendant, plaintiffs sustained damages that
include contamination of property, mental anguish, emotional
distress, inconvenience, loss of use, loss of property value,
loss of income, loss of profits, loss of business opportunity
and fear of cancer," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 20, 2005) reports.
Joe Bruno, an attorney for the residents told Reuters, "The
release of crude oil from Murphy Oil turned a community
otherwise contaminated by floodwater into a community
contaminated by toxicants. The dominant issue is the necessity
of a community-wide clean-up." Local officials previously told
Reuters that at least half the 27,000 homes in the parish may
have to be razed, and others will need extensive clean-ups or
major repairs.
About two-dozen people already have filed individual lawsuits
against the Company that could be merged into a class action
case. The Company's attorney Kerry Miller though told Reuters
that it has settled privately with about 5,400 people in about
1,800 homes, paying out about $50 million to residents and $13
million to clean up public property.
The suit is styled, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No.
2:05-cv-04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge Eldon
E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson.
Representing the Plaintiff/s is Mickey P. Landry of Landry &
Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112,
Phone: 504-299-1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com and Joseph
M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, 855 Baronne St., New Orleans, LA
70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335, E-mail: jbruno@brunobrunolaw.com.
Representing the Defendant/s is George A. Frilot, III of Frilot
Partridge Kohnke & Clements (Lafayette), 107 Global Circle,
Lafayette, LA 70503, Phone: 337-988-5422, E-mail:
gfrilot@fpkc.com.
OHIO: Traffic Camera Case V. Steubenville Delayed Due to Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to a recent motion by one of the defendants, a pending class
action lawsuit on behalf of the 6,000 people who got speeding
tickets from the controversial traffic cameras that were
installed throughout the city of Steubenville, Ohio, the
progress of the case will be delayed, The WTOV9.com reports.
Filed by Steubenville-based attorney Gary Stern, the suit was
brought on behalf of his wife, who recently received two
speeding tickets. Mr. Stern claims that the cameras are
unconstitutional for a number of reasons among those are that
motorists don't have the right to appeal. The traffic cameras
read the speed of cars driving by, and if you are in excess of
the speed limit, you are mailed an $85 ticket, according to
court documents, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 25, 2005) reports.
Under a recent court-ordered injunction, anyone who got a
traffic camera ticket after it has two more months before they
need to pay. Those who already paid will have to wait longer to
see if they'll get their money back.
Back in December, a judge ruled that tickets issued from the
camera couldn't be enforced until the case goes to court, which
was supposed to be next week. Now, however, Trafficpax, the
owner of the cameras, asked a judge to take them off the
lawsuit. Although the judge pushed back the court date, the
cameras won't be back anytime soon. Mr. Stern told The
WTOV9.com, "The preliminary injunction that was issued by Judge
Henderson remains in effect until the March 9th final hearing."
The reason for the wait is due to Trafficpax's claims that they
shouldn't be part of the lawsuit because they have nothing to do
with the Steubenville ordinance.
Commenting on the Company claim, Mr. Stern told The WTOV9.com,
"I wonder, I'm very suspicious of Trafficpax. If they want out
of the lawsuit, is that so they can take the money and run?" He
also said that Steubenville doesn't have any information on, who
already paid tickets' that was all kept by Trafficpax. Mr. Stern
pointed out, "Without the information from Trafficpax as to who
paid the money. We don't know who to send the money back to."
Judge Henderson will hear Trafficpax argument on January 16,
2006. From there, the case is set to go to court on March 9,
2006.
OPPENHEIMER & CO.: EEOC Files Sexual Discrimination Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued financial
services company Oppenheimer & Co. for sex discrimination
claiming that a woman was denied a job interview because of her
gender, Reuters reports.
The federal agency's suit seeks an unspecified amount of money
for the woman and asks the court to order the Company, a unit of
Oppenheimer Holdings, to cease any sex discrimination. The
Company though disputed the allegation and said in a statement
that a woman manages the branch office in question.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of Jaime Sanders after attempts
to settle the matter out of court failed. It claims she was
denied the job interview for a broker trainee position in June
2003. It said, "Ms. Sanders discovered this sex discrimination
when her brother and male colleagues were immediately granted
job interviews over the phone, while she and her female
colleagues were told that the position had been filled."
Ms. Sanders was seeking an interview with Fahnestock & Co.,
which had acquired CIBC Oppenheimer's asset management group in
2002. The merged company subsequently took the name Oppenheimer
& Co.
In its response to the suit, Oppenheimer also said, "The company
disputes Ms. Sanders' allegations because Oppenheimer has and
has had in the past a clear written policy prohibiting unlawful
discrimination. Oppenheimer has been and continues to be an
equal opportunity employer."
The suit was the latest in a string of recent cases alleging
forms of sexual discrimination or misbehavior at Wall Street
firms.
PENNSYLVANIA: Lawsuit V. Park Operators Moving Towards Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against the operators of Two Mile Run
County Park in Pennsylvania is moving towards a trial in Venango
County Court, The Oil City Derrick reports.
Filed in December 2004, the suit by Donald M. Plumer Jr. and
Joyce S. Plumer of Oil City and Richard A. and Annette K.
Burgert of Myerstown was brought on behalf of all those who were
granted land for the 2,700-acre park in Oakland Township and
Sugarcreek Borough. It charges that some park operations violate
Article I, Section 27, of the state Constitution, which "limits
and binds the power of government in its use of public lands,"
and/or the terms of the deeds granting the land for the park.
The suit names as defendants the Venango Park and Natural
Resources Authority, and Parks Unlimited, the firm owned by
Marty and Ann Rudegeair, which has managed the park since 1998.
The suit requests:
(1) A permanent injunction voiding the transfer of the park
property to the authority or a ruling invoking the
penalties for improper transfer of Project 70 lands
(2) That all "commercial activities" associated with oil,
gas, and timbering operations be prohibited at the park
(3) That the use of the gate and gate fees be prohibited
(4) Attorney's fees and costs.
The land for the park was acquired under the state Project 70
Land Acquisition and Borrowing Act of 1964, which provided for
the acquisition of land for recreation, conservation and
historic purposes. The park was a county entity until October
2003, when then county commissioners Bob Murray, Deb Lutz and
Larry Horn transferred ownership and responsibility for all park
property to the newly-created Venango Park and Natural Resources
Authority, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 21,
2005) reports.
In a recent move related to the suit, however, some of the
original landowners are asking the state Commonwealth Court to
reverse the county's transfer of the park to the park authority.
Originally, the class action suit included the charge that in
its transfer of the park property to the authority, the county
failed to get the approval of the General Assembly as required
when Project 70 lands are "disposed of or used for other
purposes." It also argued that several aspects of park
operations, including oil, gas and timbering activities at the
park and the gate and access fees, are inconsistent with Project
70 requirements that the land be used for "recreation,
conservation and historical purposes."
However, Venango County President Judge H. William White, in a
September 2005 ruling, eliminated the arguments surrounding
Project 70 from the suit, agreeing with preliminary objections
that "the only party authorized to enforce Project 70 is the
Commonwealth." Following that ruling, Michael Hadley, who is
representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, asked the state
court in late December 2005 to require the state Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources to reverse the transfer of
the park to the authority and return ownership to the county.
The department has 30 days from the time the document was filed
to respond.
STIHL INC.: Recalls 23.5T MS 192 T Chain Saws For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Stihl Inc., of Virginia Beach, Virginia, is voluntarily
recalling about 23,500 units of Stihl-brand MS 192 T Chain Saws.
According to the Company, these chain saws can leak fuel, posing
a fire hazard. A connection in the ignition grounding system
could loosen and create a spark, posing a fire hazard. Also the
springs in the clutch assembly could come out of position
allowing a spring of the clutch to be projected from the saw
housing resulting in injury to the user.
The recalled Stihl-brand chain saws have model number MS 192 T,
located on the side of the chain saw's starter housing. They
include serial numbers 264371702 through 266087005, which is
located on the top/front of the chain saw's housing.
Manufactured in the United States, the products were sold at
authorized Stihl dealers nationwide from January 2005 through
July 2005 for about $280.
Remedy: Consumers should stop using these chain saws immediately
and return them to an authorized Stihl dealer for a free repair.
Consumer Contact: Call Stihl Inc. at (800) 610-6677 between 7
a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit Stihl's Web
site: http://www.stihlusa.com.
TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities, Derivative Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: THC) reached agreements in
principle to settle federal securities class action lawsuits
brought against the Company on behalf of certain purchasers of
Tenet securities as well as shareholder derivative litigation
brought by certain stockholders of Tenet for the benefit of the
company. If approved by the courts, the agreements would settle
the litigation entitled, "In Re Tenet Healthcare Corporation
Securities Litigation" and "In Re Tenet Healthcare Corporation
Derivative Litigation," pending in the U.S. District Court in
Los Angeles and California Superior Court in Santa Barbara,
respectively.
As part of the agreements, Tenet will pay $215 million in cash
to settle the securities class action litigation, to be paid
into an escrow account within 10 days after the federal and
state courts grant preliminary approval. The funds will be
disbursed to certain purchasers of Tenet securities according to
a distribution plan to be devised and approved by the federal
court.
The Company said it expects that its insurance for directors and
officers will contribute approximately $75 million toward the
total cost of the settlements. Taking into account the insurance
contribution, the net cost of the settlement to the company
should be approximately $140 million, which the company will
record as a charge in its fourth quarter, ended December 31,
2005.
The Company said the parties anticipate that federal derivative
litigation now pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles
will be dismissed if the state court in Santa Barbara approves
the settlement of the state derivative litigation.
Tenet also said that under the agreements two former senior
executives of the company agreed to contribute an additional
$1.5 million of their personal funds to the settlement. Jeffrey
C. Barbakow, former chairman and chief executive officer, will
contribute $1 million of his own funds and Thomas B. Mackey,
former chief operating officer, will contribute $500,000 of his
own funds. Tenet said the settlement agreements cover all the
former directors and officers named in the litigation, but not
its outside auditors, who are also defendants in the securities
litigation.
"These settlement agreements represent an equitable conclusion
to one of the significant private civil litigation issues
arising from actions and events that took place at the company
prior to 2003," said Peter Urbanowicz, Tenet's general counsel.
"Over the past three years, Tenet's board of directors and
management team have dramatically enhanced the company's
governance and compliance programs. In 2004, we resolved the
major patient litigation that faced the company. We have now
resolved this major securities and derivative litigation. This
settlement is another significant step forward in our
turnaround."
Beginning in mid-2003, Tenet made broad changes to its corporate
governance and currently ranks highest among all hospital
companies and second among all U.S. companies in the Standard &
Poor's 500 for governance, according to Institutional
Shareholder Services. Tenet, as part of a major effort to
improve transparency, has also substantially expanded its
disclosure of financial and operating information, including
data on clinical quality within its hospitals.
The settlement covers a series of securities class action
lawsuits that were filed against the company beginning in late
2002 on behalf of persons who purchased Tenet securities between
January 11, 2000 and November 7, 2002. These actions were
consolidated in January 2003 in the U.S. District Court in Los
Angeles. The cases alleged that Tenet and a number of its former
officers and directors made or were responsible for false and
misleading statements concerning the company's receipt of
Medicare outlier payments and other issues.
Beginning in November 2002, several shareholder derivative
actions were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Barbara. In early 2003,
additional shareholder derivative actions were filed in the U.S.
District Court in Los Angeles. All of these derivative actions
were brought by certain Tenet shareholders on behalf of and for
the benefit of Tenet against certain members of the company's
board and senior management. The suits alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, mismanagement, unjust enrichment and other
causes of action.
Plaintiffs' firms involved in the action styled, "In Re Tenet
Healthcare Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-8462
RSWL," which was consolidated in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Ronald
S.W. Lew, with referral to Judge Ralph Zarefsky, are:
(1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia,
PA 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax: 215.875.4604, E-
mail: investorprotect@bm.net;
(2) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, (New York, NY), 10
E. 40th St., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com;
(3) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP, (Little
Rock, AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR 72221-5438,
Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505;
(4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;
(5) Chitwood & Harley, 1230 Peachtree St., N.E., 2900
Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 888.873.3999;
(6) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (New York, NY), 805 Third
Ave., 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
info@kaplanfox.com;
(7) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022-
6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-mail:
IRRep@wolfpopper.com.
For more details, contact Media: Steven Campanini, Phone:
469-893-6321 or Investors: Thomas Rice, Phone: 469-893-2522.
TEXAS: Spanish Speaking Police Officers File Suit V. Houston
------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston Police Organization of Spanish Speaking Officers
(OSSO) plans to announce the filing of a Class Action Complaint
with the EEOC against the City of Houston and the Houston Police
Department, The khou.com reports.
In November 2005, OSSO filed a class action complaint with the
Houston Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
EEOC on behalf of the present and past members of the Homicide
Division's "Chicano Squad."
TIVO INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against TiVo, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors and the underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering has been set for April 24,2006
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
On June 12, 2001, a securities class action lawsuit, styled
"Wercberger v. TiVo et al.," was filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from September
30, 1999, the time of its initial public offering, through
December 6, 2000. The central allegation in this action is that
the Company's IPO underwriters solicited and received
undisclosed commissions from, and entered into undisclosed
arrangements with, certain investors who purchased the Company's
common stock in its IPO and the after-market.
The complaint also alleges that the TiVo defendants violated the
federal securities laws by failing to disclose in the Company's
IPO prospectus that the underwriters had engaged in these
allegedly undisclosed arrangements. More than 150 issuers have
been named in similar lawsuits. In July 2002, an omnibus motion
to dismiss all complaints against issuers and individual
defendants affiliated with issuers (including the Company's
defendants) was filed by the entire group of issuer defendants
in these similar actions. On October 8, 2002, the Company's
officers were dismissed as defendants in the lawsuit.
On February 19, 2003, the court in this action issued its
decision on defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss. This decision
dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to the Company but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to the Company and
virtually all of the other issuer-defendants.
On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement
with the Company and the other issuer defendants. The proposed
settlement provides that the plaintiffs will be guaranteed $1.0
billion dollars in recoveries by the insurers of the Company and
other issuer defendants. Accordingly, any direct financial
impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers in accordance with the proposed settlement.
In addition, the Company and the other settling issuer
defendants will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that
they may have against the underwriters. If recoveries in excess
of $1.0 billion dollars are obtained by the plaintiffs from the
underwriters, the Company and the other issuer defendants'
monetary obligations to the class plaintiffs will be satisfied.
Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Federal District Court overseeing the IPO
Litigation.
On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the terms of the proposed settlement. The Court also
certified the settlement classes and class representatives for
purposes of the proposed settlement only. On August 31, 2005,
the Court issued an order scheduling a fairness hearing for
April 2006 to determine whether the proposed settlement should
be approved.
The suit is styled "In re TiVo, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," both pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
Phone: 212.594.5300
(3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com
(4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
(6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
newyork@whafh.com
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Refuses To Review Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Hampshire refused Tycon
International, Inc.'s motion to revise its 2004 ruling graing in
part the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class actions filed against it and certain of its former
directors and officers.
More than two dozen securities class actions were initially
filed, and now been transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. In eight of the actions, plaintiffs have
moved to have their cases remanded to state courts.
On January 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the
New Hampshire securities actions filed "In Re Tyco International
Securities Litigation," a Consolidated Securities Class Action
Complaint against the Company certain of the Company's former
directors and officers and its former auditors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.
As to the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. Claims against the
Company's former directors and officers are also asserted under
Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among other things:
(1) Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed
acquisitions;
(2) misstatements of Tyco's financial results;
(3) the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
promulgated in 1999) on the Company's earnings
performance;
(4) compensation of certain of our former executives;
(5) their improper use of our funds for personal benefit
and their improper self-dealing real estate
transactions;
(6) their sales of Tyco shares;
(7) payment of $20 million to one of the Company's former
directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and
(8) the criminal investigation of the Company's former
Chief Executive Officer
The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.
On March 31, 2003, Tyco made a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint. The other defendants moved
to dismiss shortly thereafter. On October 14, 2004, the Court
granted Tyco's motion, in part, and denied it in part. The
Court granted Tyco's motion to dismiss Count II of the
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging a violation of Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against all defendants. The Court denied
Tyco's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Counts V and VI alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933.
In addition, the Court granted former director Michael
Ashcroft's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Counts III and IV alleging a
violation of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, respectively, and Count VII alleging a violation of
Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On January 7, 2005, the Company answered the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint. On January 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs
made a motion for class certification, which the Company opposed
on July 22, 2005. That motion is still pending. On July 5, 2005,
the Company moved for revision of the Court's October 14, 2004
order in light of a change in law, insofar as the order denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for
failure to plead loss causation. On December 2, 2005, the Court
denied the Company's motion.
UTI WORLDWIDE: Continues To Face Gulf War Personal Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide, Inc. continues to face a consolidated class
action filed in the District Court of Brazaria County, Texas,
23rd Judicial District, where it is alleged that various
defendants sold chemicals that were utilized in the 1991 Gulf
War by the Iraqi army that caused personal injuries to U.S.
armed services personnel and their families, including birth
defects. The suit names 82 other defendant companies.
Two class action lawsuits originally filed on September 19, 1995
were subsequently consolidated. The lawsuits were brought on
behalf of the military personnel who served in the 1991 Gulf War
and their families and the plaintiffs are seeking in excess of
$1 billion in damages.
To date, the plaintiffs have not obtained class certification.
The company believes it is a defendant in the suit because an
entity that sold the company assets in 1993 is a defendant. The
Company believes it will prevail in this matter because the
alleged actions giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the
Company's purchase of the assets, the Company said in a
regulatory filing. The company further believes that it will
ultimately prevail in this matter since it never manufactured
chemicals and the plaintiffs have been unable to thus far
produce evidence that the company acted as a freight forwarder
for cargo that included chemicals used by the Iraqi army.
VIRGINIA: Farmers Seek Class Certification For Lawsuit V. USDA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Virginia farmers, who claim that they are owed money from
the federal government's $10 billion tobacco buyout, are asking
that their lawsuit against the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) be certified as a class action, Richmond
Times Dispatch reports.
Daniel Caldwell, an attorney with the Penn Stuart and Eskridge
law firm in Abingdon, who represents the farmers told The
Richmond Times Dispatch, "There has been quite a bit of interest
from other growers. We have been in contact and communication
with more than 50." According to him, some are from Virginia and
some are from other states.
Filed in U.S. District Court in Abingdon, the suit claims that
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns exceeded his authority
by deviating from the formula Congress approved to calculate
payments to farmers. As a result of the changes, according to
Washington County burley-tobacco growers William J. Neese and
Daniel M. Johnson, they will lose hundreds of thousands of
dollars, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 22,
2005) reports.
Mr. Caldwell contends that Congress established clear rules for
calculating buyout payments. However, according to him, Mr.
Johanns instead applied a "convoluted formula" that has the
effect of benefiting tobacco companies, who are financing the
buyout.
Mr. Caldwell explained to The Richmond Times Dispatch, "There is
a huge savings to the tobacco industry by using the secretary
[of agriculture's] formula instead of Congress' formula. We have
been told by authorities in the industry that the secretary's
formula probably will result in savings to the industry of about
$600 million. That is $600 million that should go into the
pockets of farmers," an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(September 22, 2005) reports.
The lawsuit stems from Congress' decision last year to terminate
the federal government's nearly 70-year-old supply-and price-
control program for tobacco crops, returning U.S. leaf
production to a fully free-market system for the first time
since the Great Depression, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 22, 2005) reports.
In that decision, Congress along with extensive lobbying by
farmer organizations also approved a nearly $10 billion buyout
to compensate farmers for the loss of tobacco quotas,
essentially government-issued production licenses that had been
treated as assets over the years. The buyout is expected to
channel about $660 million to farmers and quota owners in
Virginia during the next 10 years, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 22, 2005) reports.
Under the legislation passed by Congress, farmers who grew
tobacco in 2002, 2003 and 2004 should be compensated $3 per
pound based on their 2002 quota. Owners of tobacco quota, which
includes people who don't farm but owned these production
licenses and leased it to active farmers, should be compensated
$7 per pound, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September
22, 2005) reports.
The suit alleges that Mr. Johanns issued regulations in April
that include other factors in the calculations for active
producers. The regulations shift the calculations from the
amount of quota to a farmer's actual sales of tobacco, according
to Mr. Caldwell. "The secretary simply does not have discretion
to come along and change the formula and substitute his judgment
for the judgment of Congress," he said, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (September 22, 2005) reports.
The lawsuit contends that Mr. Neese should receive $563,307 from
the buyout, but he will only get $189,948 under the USDA
calculations, while Mr. Johnson should receive $503,166 but will
only get $216,977. It also states that Mr. Neese tried to appeal
the calculations but was told by the Washington County Farm
Service Agency that the formula could not be appealed, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (September 22, 2005)
reports.
To reinforce their case, the farmers also submitted to the court
a letter from Sen. George Allen, R-Va., to J.B. Penn, the USDA's
undersecretary of farm and foreign agriculture services. In that
letter, which was written three months before the deadline for
farmers to apply for buyout payments, Sen. Allen expressed
concerns that the USDA's formula "appears to deviate from the
clear direction of the Congress" and "could lead to a less than
equitable result for some active producers," an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (September 22, 2005) reports.
If the court approves the request for class action status, the
lawsuit could involve thousands of farmers. Mr. Caldwell told
Richmond Times Dispatch, "Our view of this case is that the
[buyout] statute is very straightforward and very simple. The
secretary [of agriculture] just made it -- without authority to
do so -- overly complicated and way beyond the intent of
Congress."
About 380,000 quota holders and 181,000 producers participated
in the buyout, which will pay out $951 million a year for 10
years. Tobacco companies and importers are footing the bill for
the buyout, which eliminates price supports in place since the
1930s and allows companies to buy tobacco at a cheaper price.
The suit is styled, "Neese et al v. Johanns, Case No. 1:05-cv-
00071-gmw-pms," filed in United States District Court for the
Western District of Virginia, under Judge Glen M. Williams.
Representing the Plaintiff/s are, Cameron Scott Bell and Daniel
Hill Caldwell of PENN STUART & ESKRIDGE, P.O. BOX 2288,
ABINGDON, VA 24212-2288, Phone: 276-628-5151 and 276-623-4410,
Fax: 276-628-1730 and 276-628-5621, E-mail: cbell@pennstuart.com
and dcaldwell@pennstuart.com. Representing the Defendant/s is
Marcia Nancy Tiersky of THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE., NW WASHINGTON, DC 20530, Phone:
202-514-1359, Fax: 202-318-0486, E-mail:
marcia.tiersky@usdoj.gov.
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Mediation For IL Investor Suit Unsuccessful
----------------------------------------------------------------
The mediation between Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. and the parties
in the second amended consolidated securities class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against it and certain of its current and former
officers was unsuccessful.
On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1107," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers. The complaint makes reference to
the litigation filed by Capital Factors, Inc. ("Capital
Factors") and settled as disclosed in the Company's Quarterly
Report in Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31,
2004 and to the Company's November 21, 2003 announcement that it
had discovered violations of Company policy by the Company's
Executive Vice President, Merchandising, with respect to Company
documentation regarding the age of certain store inventory.
The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods. The complaint purports to allege the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue and inventory during the putative class
period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The Complaint
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the same court against
the Company and certain of the Company's current and former
officers, charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging
that the Company and its officers made false and misleading
statements and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory
during the putative class period of November 19, 2001 to
December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint are
similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.
On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory,
and vendor allowances during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations
of this complaint are similar to those made in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint discussed above.
On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions. On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint. The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.
On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 04 C 3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003. The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint discussed above.
On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint. On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint
with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed
the Kaplan action as a separate action. On August 2, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. The motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied
in part, with plaintiffs granted leave to file an amended
complaint by February 10, 2005.
On February 10, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint. On March 2, 2005, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on this
motion is complete and the parties are awaiting the Court's
ruling. If the Company is successful on its motion, the class
in this action may be limited to the period November 19, 2001
through June 6, 2002. On April 19, 2005, the Court issued an
order, sua sponte, directing the parties to submit simultaneous
briefs addressing what impact, if any, the Supreme Court's
ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo, 125 S.Ct. 1627
(2005), has on Plaintiff's loss causation allegations. In
response to this order, the Company filed a brief on May 4, 2005
in which it requested that the Court dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety for failure to adequately plead loss
causation.
On June 30, 2005, the Court denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss. On July 28, 2005, Defendants filed their Answers to the
First Amended Consolidated Complaint. Written discovery has
commenced and document production is ongoing. On September 23,
2005, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class certification
Briefing on this motion is not yet completed. The parties have
entered mediation for November 8, 2005 in an attempt to resolve
the 10(b)-5 claims.
New Securities Fraud Cases
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a securities fraud
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.
("IMH" or the "Company") (NYSE:IMH) and individual defendants.
Presently, the class is defined in the complaint as those who
purchased Impac securities between May 13, 2005, and August 9,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). However, any purchaser of
Impac securities can contact the firm as the Class Period may
change as information is revealed. Impac is a mortgage real
estate investment trust ("REIT") that acquires, originates,
sells and invests primarily in non-conforming and sub-prime
("B/C") mortgages, including warehouse and repurchase financing
to originators of mortgages.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated provisions of the
United States securities laws causing artificial inflation of
the Company's stock price. According to the complaint, during
the Class Period, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
systems for corporate compliance, necessary to
accurately ascertain the Company's overall condition;
(2) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
true financial health of the Company; and
(3) that as a result, the Company's statements with respect
to its future prospects and the intrinsic value of its
business lacked an objective basis.
According to the complaint, while the Company heralded
extraordinarily positive financial guidance and business
prospects, the defendants knew but failed to reveal that their
material indicators of the Company's true financial condition
pointed to lower than expected results for the second fiscal
quarter of 2005, as compared to previous quarters. Rather than
disclose this adverse information to investors, Company
insiders, including defendants, sold more than 300,000 shares of
Company stock, reaping more than $5.5 million in proceeds. Then,
on August 9, 2005, IMH shocked the market, by posting a net loss
of $55 million, or 78 cents per share, compared to prior year
profits of $143.2 million, or $2.17 per share. The shocking news
included a forecast for a steep reduction in third quarter
dividends, falling as much as 33% versus the previous quarter,
to $0.50 to $0.60 per share. On the news, IMH shares plunged
nearly 40% from a Class Period high of $22.32, to close at
$13.46 on August 10, 2005, on exceptionally heavy volume of over
6.4 million shares.
For more details, contact Neil Rothstein and David R. Scott of
Scott + Scott, LLC, Phone: (800) 332-2259 or (800) 404-7770, E-
mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com and drscott@scott-scott.com.
IPAC MORTGAGE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: IMH) between May 13, 2005,
and August 9, 2005, both dates inclusive (the ``Class Period'').
The Complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
(1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
Company's overall condition;
(2) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
true financial health of the Company;
(3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
statements with respect to its future prospects and the
intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
reasonable basis.
IMH is a mortgage real estate investment trust ("REIT") that
acquires, originates, sells and invests primarily in non-
conforming, Alt-A mortgages, small-balance, multi-family
mortgages, and sub-prime or B/C mortgages. The Company also
provides warehouse and repurchase financing to originators of
mortgages.
According to the complaint, while the Company was unabashedly
positive in its public statements, the defendants knew but
failed to reveal that material indicators of the Company's true
financial condition would be lower than expected for the second
fiscal quarter of 2005, as compared to previous quarters. Rather
than disclose this adverse information to investors, Company
insiders, including defendants, took the opportunity to sell
more than 300,000 shares of their personally held Company stock,
reaping more than $5.5 million in proceeds. Shortly thereafter,
on August 9, 2005, IMH shocked the market, revealing that it was
posting a net loss of $55 million, or 78 cents per share,
compared to a profit of $143.2 million, or $2.17 per share, a
year earlier and forecasted a reduced dividend of .50 cents to
.60 cents a share in the third quarter (down from the previous
.75 cents per share). On this news, IMH shares plunged
approximately 40% from a Class Period high of $22.32 to close at
$13.46 on August 10, 2005 on volume of nearly 6.5 million shares
-- or roughly 13 times above average daily volume.
For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, Phone (888) 643-6735 or (610) 660-8000,
Fax: (610) 660-8080, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com, Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.
IMPAC MORTGAGE: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: IMH)
("Impac" or the "Company") during the period between May 13,
2005 and August 9, 2005 (the "Class Period"), both dates
inclusive. If you are a member of the class, you may request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff by no later than 60
days from January 10, 2006.
The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that, during the Class Period, the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
(1) that the Company lacked an adequate internal system of
controls necessary to accurately ascertain the
Company's overall condition;
(2) that the Company's quarterly guidance concealed the
true financial health of the Company;
(3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
statements with respect to its future prospects and the
intrinsic value of its business lacked in all
reasonable basis.
IMH is a mortgage real estate investment trust ("REIT") that
acquires, originates, sells and invests primarily in non-
conforming, Alt-A mortgages, small-balance, multi-family
mortgages, and sub-prime or B/C mortgages. The Company also
provides warehouse and repurchase financing to originators of
mortgages.
According to the complaint, while the Company was unabashedly
positive in its public statements, the defendants knew but
failed to reveal that material indicators of the Company's true
financial condition would be lower than expected for the second
fiscal quarter of 2005, as compared to previous quarters. Rather
than disclose this adverse information to investors, Company
insiders, including defendants, took the opportunity to sell
more than 300,000 shares of their personally held Company stock,
reaping more than $5.5 million in proceeds. Shortly thereafter,
on August 9, 2005, IMH shocked the market, revealing that it was
posting a net loss of $55 million, or 78 cents per share,
compared to a profit of $143.2 million, or $2.17 per share, a
year earlier and forecasted a reduced dividend of .50 cents to
.60 cents a share in the third quarter (down from the previous
.75 cents per share). On this news, IMH shares plunged
approximately 40% from a Class Period high of $22.32 to close at
$13.46 on August 10, 2005 on volume of nearly 6.5 million shares
-- or roughly 13 times above average daily volume.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody 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.
STONE ENERGY: Mager & Goldstein Lodges LA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Mager & Goldstein, LLP, initiated a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Stone
Energy Corporation ("Stone Energy" or the "Company")(NYSE:SGY)
between June 17, 2005 and October 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period which resulted in
artificially inflating the value of Stone Energy stock.
During the Class Period, defendants assured investors through
press releases and SEC filings that the reporting of Stone
Energy's proved reserves was done in compliance with SEC
guidelines. As a result, the Company's stock traded at over $62
per share in September 2005. However, on October 6, 2005,
defendants shocked investors by revealing that an internal
reserve review performed during the third quarter would
necessitate significant downward adjustments to Stone Energy's
previously reported reserves. As a result of this news, the
value of Stone Energy fell from $56.07 to $48.14 per share,
during unusually high trading.
For more details, contact Lee Albert of Mager & Goldstein, One
Liberty Place, 21st Floor, 1650 Market St., Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: 215-640-3280 or 866-284-3280, Fax: 215-640-3281,
E-mail: lalbert@magergoldstein.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 2006. 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 * * *