/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060209.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 9, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 29 Headlines ABS-CBN BROADCASTING: Suit Mulled Over Phil. TV Program Stampede BIKE PRO: Recalls 50T Baby Walkers due to Injury Hazard BLUE CROSS: Second Portion of $17.5M Settlement Set for Release BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Flextome Vein-Cutting Balloon Systems BRIDGE TERMINAL: OOIDA Lease Agreements Suit Certified CANADA: Wabamun Oil Spill Triggers Lawsuit, Another One Planned CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Certifies Managers' Overtime Lawsuit GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Investor Lawsuits over Refco's IPO ILLINOIS: O'Hare International Airport Strip Search Case Settled ILLINOIS: Court Justice Karmeier Named in Misconduct Complaint INDIANA: Environ Dept. Settles 8-Year Old Wage Lawsuit for $3M INDIANA: Prosecutors Get Help from Antitrust Case Defendant INDONESIA: Muslim Group Mulls Suit over "Blasphemous" Cartoons KEMIRA CHEMICALS: Hydrogen Peroxide Business Under Investigation MICROSOFT CORP: Minn. Schools Get Windfall from Antitrust Deal NABOR WELL: Ordered to Pay $25.6M in Ventura Labor Arbitration NEW ZEALAND: Attack to Prisoners Claims Act to Bring More Suits PENNSYLVANIA: Mediation Fails, Pocono Fraud Moves Towards Trial PURINA MILLS: Recalls Pellet Poultry Feeds Due to Excessive Salt RELIANT ENERGY: April Approval Hearing of $512M Settlement Set ROYAL DUTCH: Recategorisation Issues Remain in Europe, Calif. SOUTH CAROLINA: H's Resort Condo Developer Violates HUD Law STATE FARM: Miss. Senator Lodges Complaint over Katrina Damage TARGET CORP: National Federation of the Blind Files Calif. Suit UNITED STATES: Insurers Mull RESPA Reforms at "Mid-Winter Thaw" VILLAGE LIFE: Could Face Fraud Lawsuit After Share Suspension New Securities Fraud Cases APPLICA INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. APPLICA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Fla. JARDEN CORP.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y. JARDEN CORP.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Kaplan & Fox Lodges Securities Suit in N.J. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Charles Piven Lodges N.Y. Securities Suit TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Federman & Sherwood Files N.Y. Stock Suit * Securities Class Action Settlements in 2005 Up 17% to $3.5B ********* ABS-CBN BROADCASTING: Suit Mulled Over Phil. TV Program Stampede ---------------------------------------------------------------- Network giant ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation could face a class action from victims of Saturday's stampede that killed 74 people, and injured 627, The Philippine Star reports. Anti-crime Watchdog, Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, was approached by victims' relatives and survivors, who want to seek damages from ABS-CBN, The Star reveals. The VACC is now studying whether the victims are qualified to seek compensation claims and file criminal and civil charges against the broadcasting firm. Troubled Company Reporter - Asia Pacific reports that the stampede occurred when a crowd of over 25,000 surged towards a gate at the Philsports Arena to get into the first anniversary celebration of ABS-CBN's popular television game show, "Wowowee". Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzalez told BusinessWorld that ABS-CBN, game show host Willie Revillame, and the program's organizers could be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries because they prepared the program and had control over the show. Mr. Gonzalez said the families of the victims could reach an amicable settlement to resolve the civil case, but not the criminal charges. He affirmed that the victims' families have the option to file a class action. ABS-CBN Broadcasting or Alto Broadcasting System-Chronicle Broadcasting Network -- http://www.abscbn-ir.com-- is a leading radio and television broadcasting network and multimedia company in the Philippines. It was founded in 1953, and was the first television station in the Philippines. The network's main broadcast facilities are located at the ABS-CBN Broadcast Center in Mother Ignacia St., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. (Troubled Company Reporter - Asia Pacific, Vol.9, No.28) BIKE PRO: Recalls 50T Baby Walkers due to Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- Bike Pro, Inc., of Pico Rivera, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 50,000 units of Baby Walkers. Bike Pro originally recalled these baby walkers on October 9, 2002. The company said, the walkers can fit through a standard doorway and are not designed to stop at the edge of a step. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed. No injuries or incidents, though, have been reported. The recalled walkers are intended for babies 6 months and older. The walkers are blue, green, pink and yellow. They have musical activity trays with various toys and themes including rockets and a tank with an army print cloth seat, lights and a steering wheel with a teddy bear cloth seat, and a monkey's face with a teddy bear seat cloth. "Baby" and "BEBELOVE" are printed on labels on some of the walkers. Pictures of the recalled products: (1) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06078.jpg (2) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06078.jpg (3) http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06078.jpg Manufactured in China, the walkers were sold at independent discount stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas, Michigan, Missouri, and New York from January 2000 through January 2006 for between $18 and $22. Remedy: Consumers should stop using these walkers immediately and return them to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Bike Pro Inc. at (800) 261- 2559 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. BLUE CROSS: Second Portion of $17.5M Settlement Set for Release --------------------------------------------------------------- The second round of payments in the $17.5 million class-action settlement in a case involving Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island will be sent out anytime this month, The Providence Journal reports. Peter N. Wasylyk, a lawyer for plaintiffs in the case told The Providence Journal that he expects payments to be mailed in about three weeks. Thus, according to him, checks could go out the week that begins Feb. 27. "If we can get [them] out sooner, we will," he adds. Mr. Wasylyk also told The Providence Journal that he expects that, altogether, about 26,000 checks totaling $2.2 million will be distributed in the second round. The first round of payments was held last year with checks going out in late August. A second round of payments, to essentially complete the overall distribution, was originally scheduled for November or December, but was delayed. Mr. Wasylyk explains, "Administration of the first [round] took much longer than we anticipated," adding that one reason is that lawyers and others involved in the administration of the settlement were bombarded with calls and letters from consumers with questions arising from the case. In addition, many checks were returned, requiring address changes. The lawsuits were filed in 1996 in U.S. District Court, Providence, and state Superior Court. They were consolidated in July 2003, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2005). Plaintiffs alleged that the Company secretly negotiated discounts for drugs and services, but billed patients for co- payments based on undiscounted prices. They also alleged that the insurer made only partial payments on claims under the company's Classic Blue plan, but did not forward the claims for additional payments under Classic Blue's "major medical" coverage. In January 2005, the state's leading health insurer for 66 years, settled the class actions for $17.5 million, without admitting any wrongdoing. After legal and other expenses, about $11.5 million, was made available for distribution. A company news release stated that under the settlement, the Company does not admit fault, but does accept a permanent ban on those practices, which "are no longer in place." The Company also explained in the news release that its settlement is a way to "avoid the cost and uncertainties of trial and possible appeals," and to expedite payments to the affected people. Additionally, the Company stated that it does not expect this to affect its reserves or increase rates or premiums, (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2005). The bulk of the payout, to be administered by Mr. Wasylyk, will go to an estimated 115,000 former and current subscribers, who will get $10 to $2,500, or an average of about $95 each. Mr. Wasylyk said: "Hopefully by summertime, the disbursements will occur, but what's great about this settlement is that the class members will receive the payment without a cumbersome claims process." They'll just get the checks automatically (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 14, 2005). BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Flextome Vein-Cutting Balloon Systems ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in cooperation with Boston Scientific Corporation (3574 Ruffin Road, San Diego, California 92123-2597), is issuing a Class 1 recall for the Flextome Cutting Balloon(R) Device Monorail(R) Delivery System. The Flextome Cutting Balloon(R) system is used to open blocked arteries or blood vessels. It consists of a surgical balloon with microsurgical blades attached to the sides. The balloon is inserted into the artery with a catheter, and then dilated. When the balloon expands, the microblades cut through fatty deposits, widening the blocked artery. The products are being recalled because the catheter shaft used to place the balloon in the artery may separate during withdrawal of the device from the patient. If that happens, the procedure may be prolonged, or more in-depth surgery may be required to remove the broken-off piece from the artery. The FDA comments that this product should no longer be used on patients and should be returned to Boston Scientific. It also said that this action does not affect patients who have already received treatment, because the problem occurs during the procedure. For more details, contact Abe Matthews, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Boston Scientific Corporation, 3574 Ruffin Road, San Diego, California 92123-2597, Phone: 858-254-7885, Web site: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?51f. BRIDGE TERMINAL: OOIDA Lease Agreements Suit Certified ------------------------------------------------------ Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified as class action a lawsuit filed by a driver's association against transportation firm Bridge Terminal Transport Inc., according to Layover.com. The Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association (OOIDA) and seven of its owner-operator members filed the case in June 2004 alleging that BTT violated federal truth-in-leasing regulations by failing to disclose or properly document compensation provisions in its lease agreements. In addition, OOIDA has accused BTT of unlawfully charging truckers for fuel and fuel- related transaction fees, and illegally charging truckers for insurance-related administration fees, according to the report. The class could include as many as 6,000 current and former drivers who have been parties to lease agreements with BTT since June 2000, the report said. A pretrial conference in the BTT case is scheduled for April 21, 2006. The OOIDA expects a trial date -- likely as early as this summer -- to be set during the conference. OOIDA, based in Grain Valley, Missouri -- http://www.ooida.com/ -- is comprised of more than 133,000 owner-operators, professional drivers and small business truckers from all 50 states and Canada. It also recently received class status for its case against major motor carriers such as C.R. England and Landstar. BTT, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina -- http://www.bttinc.com/--is owned by the A.P. Moller-Maersk Group of Denmark, is one of the largest marine container haulers in the United States. CANADA: Wabamun Oil Spill Triggers Lawsuit, Another One Planned --------------------------------------------------------------- A major oil spill near a popular resort lake in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada triggered the filing of a multimillion-dollar lawsuit by an aboriginal band that lived on the east shore for hundreds of years, The Canadian Press reports. The Paul First Nation is suing Canadian National Railway, as well as the federal and Alberta governments, over a derailment that fouled Lake Wabamun with toxic oil in August 2005. Chief Daniel Paul told The Canadian Press the band's 1,700 members rely heavily on fish, ducks and geese from the lake, which remained contaminated months after the spill. At a recent news conference, Chief Paul said, "There's tar balls everywhere. There's still evidence of contamination everywhere." He points out, "That water was clear for centuries and now we're dealing with a disaster." The Company, the province and Environment Canada are all refusing to comment on the lawsuit but say an extensive assessment will be done before cleanup efforts resume in the spring. In an interview with The Canadian Press, Company spokesman Jim Feeny said, "The matter is now before the courts, so we are constrained in what we can say. But I will observe that CN has undertaken and continues to undertake very extensive cleanup and remediation efforts on all sectors of the lake, including that of the Paul First Nation." The suit alleges that it took authorities 10 hours to notify the band of the spill, which reached their shores only 30 minutes after they were told about the derailment. The band hired a public relations consultant who organized the recent news conference, which included a slide show of fish, wildlife and vegetation covered with oil. As the slide show was presented, Chief Paul told reporters, "Oil continued to come ashore onto our lands right up to the time of freeze-up and we don't know what to expect when the ice has gone." Chief Paul reiterates that the major concern is that oil will seep into water wells and make people sick. He adds, "We just had eight wells tested last week again by Health Canada and we haven't seen those results yet." Robert Moyles, spokesman for Alberta's environment department, told The Canadian press that cleanup efforts will continue once the lake thaws. He maintains, "We remain committed to working with all the communities around the lake, including the Paul band, to ensure the lake is properly cleaned up." In the meantime, Environment Canada spokeswoman Nancy Hnatiuk told The Canadian Press that the department "will continue to be co- operating fully with Alberta to ensure cleanup of the spill." Chief Paul also told reporters that he plans to ensure that band members are eventually tested for any toxic effects from the oil spill, but he couldn't say who would pay for these tests. His Band's statement of claim calls for a large cash settlement from the Company for damages to lands and resources as well as the impact on the residents' way of life. On the other hand, the claim against the province alleges it failed to warn the band of contamination from the spill. None of these claims though have been proven in court and thus will be subject to statements of defense by all parties. Additionally, the band is also seeking damages from the federal government for allegedly failing to protect their treaty rights and failing to enforce federal laws. Some residents in the town of Wabamun are also planning a class action against the Company over the derailment, which spilled 700,000 liters of fuel oil and pole-treating oil. The Company offered up to $5,000 cash to people living along the lake last fall, but the offer was rejected. CARIBOU COFFEE: Minn. Judge Certifies Managers' Overtime Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge James R. Rosenbaum upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Franklin Noel to conditionally certify a class of hundreds of current and former Caribou Coffee Store Managers in an overtime case. In denying Caribou Coffee Company, Inc.'s appeal, Judge Rosenbaum removed the final hurdle to permitting the attorneys working on behalf of the class to begin notifying Store Managers about the class action. To date, several hundred notices have been sent and almost 100 plaintiffs already have joined the case. The class action, first served on Caribou on May 25, 2005, charges Caribou with wrongfully denying overtime pay due to current and former Caribou store managers. The lawsuit alleged that Caribou violated Federal and State laws by misclassifying its Store Manager positions as exempt from overtime compensation in order to avoid paying overtime wages to hundreds of employees. The complaint also alleged that Store Managers worked over 40 hours per week and spent the majority of their time engaged in non-managerial "barista" work, such as waiting on customers, making various coffee drinks, serving the customers, and ringing up the sales. Consequently, according to the complaint, Store Managers should have been paid overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. "The fact that many other managers are signing up for the case demonstrates that I am not alone," said former manager and current plaintiff, Daniel Williams-Goldberg. "Certifying the class under the Fair Labor Standards Act and notifying class members represents a critical step in the class action process," stated one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Charles N. Nauen. "As more and more current and former managers join the case every day, we look forward to vigorously pursuing their claims for overtime compensation." Several other coffee chains, including Starbucks Corp., have been sued for similar violations. The managers are represented by Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP. Plaintiff's lawyer's contact: Charles N. Nauen of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Phone: +1-612-339-6900, or Jon A. Tostrud of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Phone: 1-310-418-8262. GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces N.Y. Investor Lawsuits over Refco's IPO ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said it and other underwriters of Refco, Inc.'s August 2005 initial public offering are subjects of a number of investor lawsuits, Reuters reports. The firm's annual 10-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission revealed that various suits seeking class action status are pending at a federal court in Manhattan, New York. The suits allege violations of disclosure requirements and are seeking damages. Derivative lawsuits, which seek damages on behalf of the Company, allege underwriters played a key role in the failure of Refco's board to fulfill its fiduciary duties. The Company said the lawsuits also name Refco, Inc. and its affiliates, some Refco officers and directors, majority investor Thomas H. Lee Partners LP and outside auditor Grant Thornton as defendants. In addition, the Company said it and other lead underwriters of the IPO are defendants in a complaint filed last month on behalf of customers that owned securities in the custody of Refco. These suits allege the company and its bankers published false and misleading information about Refco. Separately, the Company said that a shareholder derivative action was filed in New York on behalf of Goldman Sachs against some of the firm's officers and directors. According to the firm's filing, the suits allege that certain individuals failed to ensure adequate due diligence was conducted before the Refco IPO. In the filing, the Company also revealed that it and other Refco IPO underwriters have received requests for information from various government agencies and self-regulatory organizations. The Company said that it is cooperating with the requests. Last fall, a flurry of lawsuits were filed against Refco on behalf of shareholders who watched their stock plummet more than 70% after the futures and commodities broker's former chief executive, Phillip Bennett, was charged with securities fraud. Soon after the public learned Mr. Bennett owned a company that owed Refco $430 million. The company filed for bankruptcy protection in October. Melvyn Weiss, a leading class-action lawyer, told Reuters in October Refco's underwriters should be held liable for a collapse that came just two months after a $583 million public offering. He argued underwriters failed to adequately conduct assessment before the IPO. ILLINOIS: O'Hare International Airport Strip Search Case Settled ---------------------------------------------------------------- About 87 women agreed to accept $1.9 million in compensation for what they claimed were illegal pat-downs and strip searches at Illinois' O'Hare International Airport, The Chicago Tribune reports. Judson Miner, an attorney for the plaintiffs, which filed the federal lawsuit in 1997, told The Chicago Tribune that his clients were African-American women whom customs agents pulled out of line without cause and forced to submit to sometimes humiliating searches. Jacquelyn Jordan-Akinola, a graduate student from Chicago, told The Chicago Tribune that she was strip-searched when she returned from Jamaica in July 1997. She also said that about 70 percent of the passengers on her flight were white, but when she was steered into a line to be searched, she found herself among all black women. "I was appalled," Ms. Jordan-Akinola says and added that, "It was humiliating and disgusting. ... Why would I jeopardize my career and reputation to smuggle some drugs?" Commenting on the compensation, she recently told The Chicago Tribune, "The money wasn't really the issue with me. ... We were able to bring attention" to the problem. U.S. officials admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement, according to a press statement from U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald's office. However, the office's statement said the former U.S. Customs Service, now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, supervises agents more closely and is "doing a better job of documenting its reasons for doing the appropriate searches that are done." Mr. Fitzgerald's office added that federal agents don't need a court-issued warrant to conduct searches at the airport, only a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is carrying contraband. Originally, the plaintiffs had hoped to bring the case as a class action. U.S. District Judge William Hart though turned down their request. The amount each woman received depended on the type of search and other factors, according to Mr. Miner. He added, "I think our clients were quite happy ... on balance." Female customs agents conducted the searches in the 1997 incident. According to Mr. Miner, customs agents maintained that they chose passengers to be searched based on factors such as who seemed nervous or gave inconsistent answers to questions. But he pointed out that those criteria were subjective and unreliable and that the agents disproportionately searched black women, yet "they virtually never found drugs." The suit is styled, "Anderson, et al v. Cornejo, et al, Case No. 1:97-cv-07556," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge William T. Hart. Representing the Defendant/s are, Edward M. Fox of Ed Fox & Associates, 300 West Adams St., Suite 330, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312) 345-8877, E-mail: efox@efox-law.com; and Judson Hirsch Miner of Miner Barnhill & Galland, 14 West Erie Street, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 751-1170, E-mail: jminer@lawmbg.com. Representing the Defendant/s is Kenneth L. Cunniff, Esq., 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2900, Chicago, IL 60602-2511, Phone: (312) 917-8850, E-mail: kencunniff@hotmail.com. ILLINOIS: Court Justice Karmeier Named in Misconduct Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Common Cause, BPI and Citizen Action/Illinois filed a request for an investigation of Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier concerning his participation in and decisive vote in two cases constituting the first and second largest class action judgments in the history of Illinois. According to the complaint, Justice Karmeier can be viewed as giving big business a nice return on their 2004 donations to his election campaign raising serious issues of judicial impropriety or at least the appearance thereof. Unlike elected non-judicial officials accused of accepting corporate contributions and then directly benefiting the donors, whose conduct may have to await indictment, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice or judge has an affirmative obligation to recuse himself or herself from a case in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, the complaint says. The complaint filed with the State of Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board alleged that Justice Karmeier accepted millions of dollars in donations for his 2004 election campaign and then cast the deciding vote, which supported the position of the donors in two pending cases decided in 2005. The three complainants urged an investigation into Justice Karmeier's conduct in Michael Avery v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Price v. Philip Morris Incorporated. According to the complaint, investigators will find that Justice Karmeier was not only a candidate recruited and sponsored by big business with business before the Illinois Supreme Court, but also a judge who refused to recuse himself from the Avery case despite a motion for recusal filed by the plaintiff. The Avery case had reached the Court on October 2, 2002 after the Illinois Appellate Court upheld a $1.05 billion verdict against State Farm. Almost a year later on September 16, 2003, the Price case reached the Illinois Supreme Court on direct appeal from the trial court judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. During the election, Illinois State Board of Election disclosure filings show that State Farm, its lawyers and its Amici and their lawyers donated over $350,000 to Justice Karmeier. In addition, groups affiliated with State Farm gave over $1 million. At the same time, the complaint alleges that Justice Karmeier received millions of dollars from groups affiliated with Philip Morris USA, its parent company -- Altria, Philip Morris USA's lawyers, its Amici parties and their lawyers while the Price case was pending on appeal before the Illinois Supreme Court. Before Election Day, Justice Karmeier had raised over $4.8 million. On November 4, 2004 -- in the most expensive judicial election in United States history, Justice Karmeier won the open seat on the Illinois Supreme Court. He beat Appellate Judge Gordon Maag who wrote the Avery Appellate Court opinion against State Farm and participated in the Appellate Court proceedings on an appeal of the amount of the bond in the Price case. One day after the election, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which had endorsed Justice Karmeier, wondered if "it's payback time" and whether Justice Karmeier might be tempted to "do favors for the interests that lavished millions on his campaign." For more information, contact: Todd Dietterle, State Chairman of Common Cause Illinois, Phone: +1-312-332-1103; E. Hoy McConnell, Executive Director of Business and Professional People For the Public Interest, Phone: +1-312-759-8259; or William McNary, Co- Director of Citizen Action, Illinois, Phone: +1-312-427-2114, ext. 2. INDIANA: Environ Dept. Settles 8-Year Old Wage Lawsuit for $3M -------------------------------------------------------------- The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has settled a class action lawsuit filed in 1998 by current and former DNR employees. The state must pay $3 million to members of the class for retroactive wages dating back to July 1, 1996. The settlement also calls for a $400,000 aggregate salary adjustment for members of the class starting April 9. The Indiana Department of Natural Resources has settled the long-term class action lawsuit initiated by employees in 1998 in connection with the application of Public Law 70. "I am very pleased that we were able to reach a settlement with the current and former DNR employees that were members of the class," said DNR Director Kyle Hupfer. "This litigation had gone on for far too long and bringing it to a fair and reasonable conclusion allows the DNR to move forward with total focus on fulfilling its mission." Public Law 70 went into effect on July 1, 1996. It called for a survey of state government classification systems and salary schedules for professional employees in the natural resource professions from 9 states. Based upon that survey, the State Personnel Department was to prepare a classification system and salary schedule for professional employees of the Indiana DNR. Public Law 70 expired by its own terms on July 1, 2001. Case Background The original class action was filed June 26, 1998 and the class was certified on November 8, 1999. The state has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing with respect to the application of Public Law 70. On November 5, 2003, the trial court granted the State's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal and on December 17, 2004, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case to the trial court. The State filed a Petition for Transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, which was stayed pending class action settlement approval. On February 2, 2006, the trial court entered a Final Judgment and Order Approving Settlement Agreement and Dismissing the Class Action with Prejudice. The Court determined, after hearing, that the Settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. The settlement was reached after years of extensive discovery, as well as significant motion practice and appeal. Settlement Terms Terms of the settlement provide for a $3,000,000 payment to the members of the class for retroactive wages for the period of July 1, 1996 through June 30, 2005. On a going forward basis, the settlement calls for a $400,000 aggregate salary adjustment for members of the class. Both dollar amounts include applicable attorney fees and applicable employee withholdings. Allocation of the settlement amounts among the members of the class was determined by the class, counsel for the class and the expert retained by the class. The going forward adjustment takes effect on April 9, 2006, and will show up in class members' paychecks beginning with the one covering that date. "This litigation had been hanging over the heads of class members/DNR employees and the state," said Mr. Hupfer. "This settlement allows the DNR to have a level of certainty with respect to fiscal management and allows the involved employees to focus on their work without the continued distraction of a lawsuit." INDIANA: Prosecutors Get Help from Antitrust Case Defendant ----------------------------------------------------------- Court documents in a civil price-fixing lawsuit pending in Indiana revealed that one of the seven concrete firms named as defendants is helping federal prosecutors gather evidence in a related criminal investigation, The Indianapolis Business Journal reports. An attorney for one of the seven defendants in the civil case said in the court filing that the 27 contractors and construction firms bringing the suit have the "unique and decisive advantage" of receiving documents and statements from a cooperating individual who could receive amnesty from criminal charges. Documents though don't say which firm is serving as an informant and prosecutors declined to comment. Attorneys for the concrete firms didn't return calls or simply said that they didn't know who was helping investigators. The Chicago, Illinois office of the U.S. Department of Justice is leading a grand-jury investigation into whether companies conspired to fix prices of ready-mix concrete in the Indianapolis area. That investigation triggered lawsuits by contractors claiming they were forced to overpay for concrete (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2005). Specifically, attorneys for Cohen & Malad, LLP, in Indianapolis, Indiana and Susman Godfrey LLP in Dallas, Texas sought class-action status on behalf of contractors and construction companies that sued the concrete firms in federal court in Indianapolis last year. According to a July 26, 2005 issue of the Class Action Reporter, some of the firms that have filed suits against defendants are: (1) Van Valkenburg Builders of Avon; (2) Siniard Concrete Services of Bloomington; (3) Dan Grote of Crawfordsville; (4) Michael Reisert of Greenfield; (5) R. Shane Tharp of Indianapolis; (6) Boyle Construction Management of Indianapolis; (7) CWE Concrete Construction Inc.; (8) Kort Builders, Inc. and (9) Environ of Noblesville. In June 2005, one of the defendants, Greenfield-based Irving Materials Inc., pleaded guilty to criminal charges and accepted a $29.2 million fine, the largest ever in a domestic antitrust case. Four of its executives including President Fred Irving and his son, Vice President Price Irving were sentenced in December to five months in prison for price fixing. After Irving Materials pleaded guilty, prosecutors said they colluded with other concrete firms in the area with their executives meeting behind an Indianapolis horse barn to set numbers. However, Robert Hammerle, a lawyer for Price Irving, told Indianapolis Business Journal that prosecutors commonly offer amnesty deals in an attempt to bolster their case by persuading someone to come forward and admit involvement. "The first company in gets complete amnesty in exchange for [its] truthful cooperation," according to Mr. Hammerle, who is not involved in the civil case. He adds, "The government's position is to encourage a race to the door." The existence of an informant was revealed in a motion filed last December by Judy Woods, a lawyer for one of the civil defendants, Fishers-based Builder's Concrete & Supply Inc. In that filing, she objected to an order by Judge Sarah Evans Barker limiting discovery in the civil case until the criminal investigation is complete. In November, prosecutors had sought the order, arguing that allowing unlimited discovery to continue would undermine the grand jury's secret investigation. The government argued the defendants in the civil case could determine the scope and focus of the criminal investigation and facilitate the destruction of evidence by those who had not yet produced documents. "Although the government has conducted a substantial investigation to date and additional criminal charges are expected soon," prosecutors wrote, "it still has significant steps to take." Henry Karlson, a professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, told The Indianapolis Business Journal the prosecutors' concerns might be well grounded. Mr. Karlson said, "Potential defendants will become fully aware of what's going on before the grand jury and what the criminal liability might be." He adds, "There is always the potential for conflict in the discovery stages of a civil case while a criminal case is under investigation." However, in her motion, Ms. Woods countered that the company helping prosecutors already had cooperated with plaintiffs in the civil case before Judge Barker limited discovery. She specifically wrote, "To the extent the plaintiffs in this civil action have already had (or will have) access to such information and documents (whether from a leniency candidate or the government itself), it would be fundamentally unfair and highly prejudicial to deny the same access to defendants in this action." The Department of Justice does not have to disclose the identity of someone seeking amnesty unless ordered by a court. That hasn't happened though, court documents revealed. Judge Barker's order limits discovery in the civil case to financial documents and financial statements. In her motion though, Ms. Woods argued that such records are more help to plaintiffs in building their case than they are to defendants. Typically, plaintiffs and defendants in a civil lawsuit would gather information from the other side in a range of ways, including, taking depositions, and submitting written questions. The judge has not ruled on Ms. Woods' motion to reconsider or clarify her order that limits discovery. Plaintiffs have not objected to the judge's order as well. Richard Shevitz, chairman of Cohen & Malad's class-action group, told The Indianapolis Business Journal that the civil case is moving forward, despite the restriction on discovery. A hearing on whether to grant the suit class-action status is scheduled for March 1, 2006. "What we thought was promising was that the government did not want a complete stay and chose to limit the discovery to certain categories," Accoridng to Mr. Shevitz, who adds, "We can get our hands on their business information. At this juncture, that is what we are most concerned with." In addition, Mr. Shevitz told The Indianapolis Business Journal that attorneys at Cohen & Malad and co-lead counsel Susman Godfrey LLP conducted their own investigations to identify the seven companies named in the suit. The law firms continue to gather information, he said, and might name additional defendants. Current defendants in the case are American Concrete Co. Inc., Beaver Gravel Corp., Carmel Concrete Products Co., Prairie Material Sales Inc. and Shelby Gravel Inc., along with Irving Materials and Builder's Concrete. Mr. Hammerle pointed out though that Irving Materials could be struck from the list of potential amnesty candidates since company executives already pleaded guilty. The government sometimes will grant immunity to a second party, in a move known as "amnesty plus," Mr. Hammerle said. For those left to face penalties, according to him, the results can be "rather horrific," noting "you can literally drive a number of companies out of the market." INDONESIA: Muslim Group Mulls Suit over "Blasphemous" Cartoons -------------------------------------------------------------- The Indonesian Muslim Forum (FUI) plans to file class action against some countries, which they think have hurt Muslims' feelings by publishing a controversial cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed or by releasing hateful statements against Islam. Although the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten made a public apology regarding the "blasphemous" cartoons illustrating the Prophet Mohammed, Islamic organizations in Indonesia are still outraged. They have staged protests in several cities over the past three days. The controversy ignited after other European countries such as France, Germany, Italy and Spain re-ran the cartoons, which were originally published in September. According to FUI secretary Al Kahthtath, their legal experts are examining the possibility of issuing a class action against Denmark, Norway and France and also against the United States in relation to President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech, which is claimed to have sent a strong, negative message against Islam. KEMIRA CHEMICALS: Hydrogen Peroxide Business Under Investigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kemira Chemicals, Inc. has received a grand jury subpoena seeking documents in connection with an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division of its hydrogen peroxide business in the U.S. Kemira Oyj and Kemira Chemicals, Inc. have recently been named in class action lawsuits filed in U.S. federal and state courts by direct and indirect purchasers of hydrogen peroxide and persalts, the Finnish firm said at its October-December and 2005 full-year results. In these civil actions it is alleged that U.S. plaintiffs suffered damages resulting from a cartel among hydrogen peroxide and persalts suppliers. The existence of the European Commission's investigation is relied upon in support of the allegations, but Kemira Oyj and Kemira Chemicals, Inc. have not been informed of any allegation that relates specifically to the U.S. market. Class actions have also been initiated in Canada against Kemira Oyj, Kemira Chemicals, Inc. and Kemira Chemicals Canada, Inc. alleging plaintiffs suffered damages resulting from a cartel among hydrogen peroxide and persalts suppliers, the statement said. Kemira Oyj, Kemira Chemicals Inc. and Kemira Chemicals Canada, Inc. have not been informed of any allegation that relates specifically to the Canadian market, according to the company. Kemira -- http://www.kemira.com-- is a chemicals Group with four business areas: pulp and paper chemicals, water treatment chemicals, industrial chemicals and paints. MICROSOFT CORP: Minn. Schools Get Windfall from Antitrust Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Sauk Centre School District in Minnesota will receive $74,014.48 from a 2004 settlement of a class action lawsuit that alleged Microsoft Corporation overcharged consumers and businesses for products sold over a specific period of time, The Sauk Centre Herald reports. The amount is part of the $55.2 million compensation that schools statewide will receive in vouchers, according to a statement released from Gov. Tim Pawlenty's office in January. Initially, the Company agreed to pay $174.5 million in vouchers to businesses and consumers in Minnesota. Schools in the state could later claim what consumers did not. In 2000, the Company faced a string of lawsuits for using its market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its Windows operating system. Those federal cases were later consolidated in the U.S. 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, (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2006). 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, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005). The ruling on injunctive relief and the ruling dismissing the federal claims of indirect purchasers are currently on appeal to the U.S. 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, (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 2, 2005). Statewide, 467 school districts and charter schools will receive vouchers intended to supplement current technology budgets, updating computer software and hardware and enhancing professional development for teachers and staff. Sauk Centre School Superintendent Dan Brooks told The Sauk Centre Herald, "The settlement will help us supplement the considerable effort we have made in technology over the past few years." He explains that the district started paperwork on it some months ago when Garry Nelson, the school's technology coordinator, "sought input from staff as how best to supplement hardware and software needs in the district in anticipation of this settlement." Mr. Brooks added, "We have a number of purchase orders set to go, based on staff input." Under the settlement, all of the products purchased must be from approved lists, administered through a court process. Mr. Brooks explained the money for each school district was calculated using a complex formula, through this court supervised process, which involved the number of free-reduced students participating in the school lunch program. The dollar amounts individual schools will receive range from several hundred dollars to $6.3 million. In the area, the Albany School District will receive $63,148.23, Belgrade-Brooten-Elrosa School District $70,310.24, Long Prairie-Grey Eagle School District $145,578.25 and Melrose School District $101,859.70. Mr. Brooks told The Sauk Centre Herald that since this is a voucher system, it might take some time to get reimbursed for the purchases so they will be "metering out the purchase orders." He said, "It is anticipated that expenditures will actually happen over the course of the next couple of years." Schools have until 2012 to use the vouchers. NABOR WELL: Ordered to Pay $25.6M in Ventura Labor Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Retired Judge Richard Neal has ordered Nabor Industries Ltd.'s well-servicing unit operations in California to pay $25.6 million in his interim arbitration ruling Monday, according to The Associated Press. Employees filed the suit in 2003 in Ventura County Superior Court. Nabors later asked that the case be settled through binding arbitration, and Judge Neal conducted hearings for two weeks in October 2005. Judge Neal's ruling will give workers, who alleged Nabors Well Services failed to allow employee lunch breaks or pay travel costs, between $5,000 and $50,000 each, according to plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Palay. The amount will be distributed to 2,649 workers. The ruling covers time worked between 1999 and 2003, and also applies to workers who serviced rigs in Santa Maria, Bakersfield, Long Beach and Los Angeles, Mr. Palay said. Nabors also violated a separate California labor law requiring employers to pay for travel time to work sites in certain circumstances, according to Mr. Palay. A 2000 California law penalizes employers for not providing breaks to workers. Los Robles Hospital and Medical Center in Thousand Oaks was ordered last year to pay $4.75 million to 1,000 workers for missed breaks and unpaid overtime. NEW ZEALAND: Attack to Prisoners Claims Act to Bring More Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- A new law limiting payouts for human rights cases filed by prisoners in New Zealand stands to face challenge, according to Stuff.co.nz. Wellington lawyer Tony Ellis, who took a controversial illegal behaviour-management regime (BMR) case in Auckland Prison, is planning Supreme Court action this year to argue inmate rights, the report said. The potential suit stands to question the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act that the New Zealand government introduced in June to address public uproar over payouts to inmates for alleged human rights breaches. The Act was pushed through Parliament after five inmates were awarded $130,000 in 2004 for harsh treatment in an illegal BMR in Auckland Prison. The act limits compensation to "exceptional cases" and victims will have first call on any compensation that is paid. The challenge could see a flood of new claims, the report said. The Corrections Department already received $1 million in new claims last year, the report said citing figures under the Official Information Act. PENNSYLVANIA: Mediation Fails, Pocono Fraud Moves Towards Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in more than 90 federal civil lawsuits alleging home-sale fraud in the Poconos acknowledged in a joint status report that mediation efforts failed, according to The Pocono Record. The latest turn of events mean that scores of individual cases contending that Tannersville developer Gene Percudani, former partner Gerald Powell and their companies used inflated appraisals to sell homes for more than they were worth might be headed to trial. The suit also names suspended appraiser Dominick Stranieri, Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp., and Chase Vice President William Spaner. However, U.S. District Judge Christopher Conner of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania will have to decide what happens next. David B. Banks of Lafayette, one of several attorneys representing the homebuyers told The Pocono Record, "Now the ball is in the judge's court as to what we have to do. We'd advise that it move forward towards trial." Mr. Percudani's attorney, Ernie Preate Jr. of Scranton said the trial is the logical next step. He said "I suspect the judge is going to put us on a tight schedule and get the case ready for trial. Still, we have a lot more discovery to do, depositions to take." Approximately 16 months ago, the parties entered into mediation with a retired chief U.S. District Court judge, Donald E. Ziegler, as part of an effort to reach a "global" settlement of all claims -- including a separate state attorney general's civil suit against Mr. Preate, Mr. Powell and Mr. Stranieri seeking $10 million in restitution and penalties. But, in a joint written status report, due to Judge Conner by Feb. 1, stated that the parties were simply too far apart, despite formal and informal discussions. According to the statement, "Some of the parties engaged in further discussions but failed to narrow their differences sufficiently. As a result, all of the parties agree that further mediation would not be fruitful." Chase isn't named in the state's suit, but was sued in the private federal action. Chase though denied any culpability, saying Mr. Percudani duped them into buying mortgages he originated, and the company has filed its own suit against him and Mr. Stranieri. In addition, Chase agreed in 2002 to re- issue new mortgages to 200 homeowners that reduced what they owed by up to $50,000 each, after an independent appraiser determined the homes were sold far above their true market value. The federal civil suit was originally filed as a class action, but Judge Conner ruled circumstances of each home sale were unique, so the claims had to be adjudicated individually. The buyers' attorneys responded by filing a "mass action" in which each transaction is to be decided on individual merits. Neither side is certain how the cases will proceed if trials are set, though one possibility is that scores of "mini trials" will be held within the larger filing. If so, it's possible that the parties might negotiate an overall settlement after just a few "mini trials," based on any prevailing trend in the outcomes. For more details, contact Ernest D. Preate, Jr., Scranton Electric Building, 507 Linden Street, Suite 600, Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503, (Lackawanna Co.), Phone: 570-558-5970, Fax: 570-558-5973. PURINA MILLS: Recalls Pellet Poultry Feeds Due to Excessive Salt ---------------------------------------------------------------- Purina Mills, LLC, is voluntarily recalling a specific lot of 488 bags of Purina Layena(R) Sunfresh Recipe(TM) Pellets poultry feed. The affected product was manufactured in 50-pound bags in Spokane, Washington on January 3, 2006, and sold after that date. It was shipped to 15 retail dealers in Idaho, Montana, Washington and Oregon. The specific packages included in this limited recall have the lot number 6JAN03SPK2 printed on the sewing strip of each bag. The Product Code is 61R3. Product testing indicated some of this lot contains excessive salt and as such does not meet Purina Mills' quality standards. Customers who have purchased Purina Layena Sunfresh Recipe Pellets with the specified lot number are asked to return the product to their dealer for replacement. This voluntary recall does not include any other Purina Mills products, or other lots of Purina Layena(R) Sunfresh Recipe(TM) Pellets. For more information, contact Purina Mill's Spokane Feed Plant Customer Service Department. Phone: (800) 456-0032 (toll free), Monday - Friday, 7 a.m.- 4:30 p.m. RELIANT ENERGY: April Approval Hearing of $512M Settlement Set -------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action settlement between plaintiffs representing business and residential consumers of electricity in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington and defendants Reliant Energy, Inc. and its affiliates is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. The class action for California residents is entitled Wholesale Electricity Antitrust Cases I & II, JCCP 4204 & 4205 (the "California Case"). The class action for residents of Arizona, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington is entitled Egger, et al. v. Reliant Energy Inc., et al., ("Egger") JCCP 4204-00009. To see more information about the Settlement and consumer legal rights, visit http://www.reliantenergysettlement.com,or call 1-866-216- 0276. The proposed Settlement includes all individuals and entities in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah and Washington that purchased electricity for their home or business (and not for resale or distribution) at any time between July 1, 1998 and October 12, 2005. Plaintiffs in the California Case allege that Reliant agreed with other companies to create false shortages, and engaged in other conduct, in order to raise the prices of wholesale electricity. Plaintiffs in Egger allege that the same misconduct also resulted in higher wholesale electricity prices in the Western States. Reliant denies that it has done anything wrong. Settlement Terms The Settlement provides approximately $512 million in cash and other consideration. Of this amount, $138.5 million will be paid to the Attorneys General of California, Oregon and Washington, including funds for the benefit of electricity ratepayers. Reliant will also give up over $299 million in claims it has raised against the State of California and California utility companies. Opt-out Deadline Class Members who do not wish to be included in the Settlement Class or bound by the terms of the Settlement must exclude themselves in writing on or before March 15, 2006. The address to which exclusion requests should be sent, and the information required within the request, varies depending on the state in which the energy consumer resides. Complete information on how Class Members can opt-out is available at http://www.reliantenergysettlement.com. Fairness Hearing Schedule The Court has scheduled a Fairness Hearing for April 28, 2006, in the courtroom of the Honorable Joan M. Lewis, Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101, to determine whether the settlement with Reliant is fair, adequate, and reasonable and should be given final approval. ROYAL DUTCH: Recategorisation Issues Remain in Europe, Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. investigations and British proceedings relating to Royal Dutch Shell plc's overstatement of proved reserves have all been settled, the Hague, Netherlands firm said. In a note to its fourth-quarter and year-end results, Royal Dutch said: The U.S. Department of Justice investigation and proceedings by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.K. Financial Services Authority (FSA) with respect to Royal Dutch Shell plc in regards of the recategorisation of Shell's proved oil and gas reserves for periods prior to 2004, have all been settled. The Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) have announced that their findings do not give rise to any further actions at this time. The class action against certain Shell companies on behalf of employees participating in U.S. savings plans under the US Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has been settled. Shell also has reached a settlement in the Derivative action case. Pending in relation to the recategorisation issues are investigations by Euronext Amsterdam and the California Department of Corporations, and a securities class action in U.S. courts. On January 6, 2006, certain Dutch pension funds, and German and Luxembourgian institutional shareholders filed two new related actions in the court in which the class action is pending. With respect to these pending actions and investigations, the management cannot currently predict the manner and timing of the resolution of these pending matters, is currently unable to estimate the range of possible losses from such matters and does not currently believe the resolution of these pending matters will have a material impact on Royal Dutch Shell's financial condition, although such resolutions could have a significant effect on periodic results for the period in which they are recognized. Dutch Pension Funds Lawsuit Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP of Heerleen, Netherlands is the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit of 26 Dutch pension funds against Royal Dutch Shell to recover losses linked to an accounting scandal in which Shell overstated its oil and gas reserves from 1997 to 2003, The Pensions & Investments reports (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2006). The securities fraud suit, filed by the $225 billion Dutch fund in U.S. District Court in New Jersey, is believed to be the first of its kind in the Netherlands. The 26 pension funds represent the majority of the Dutch labor force. According to the lawsuit, filed on January 6, 2006, the group collectively bought more than 200 million Shell shares between 1999 and 2005. Court documents revealed that when Shell disclosed that it had overstated reserves by several billion barrels in early 2004, it lost about $16 billion in market value. Since then, the energy giant reduced its estimated reserves four more times, resulting in an aggregate loss of more than $25 billion in value to shareholders. Shell spokeswoman Lisa Givert told The Pensions & Investments in an e-mail statement that the Company plans to "rigorously defend itself against the action." SOUTH CAROLINA: H's Resort Condo Developer Violates HUD Law ----------------------------------------------------------- The developer of the H's Resort condominium project in North Myrtle Beach, Florida cites a federal law violation for his cancellation of contracts to sell condos. Harvey Graham Jr. in November cancelled contacts entered with at least 60 people to buy units at H's Resort over the past two years. Mr. Graham's lawyer Henrietta Golding said the contracts were canceled because they violated the federal Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, which requires developers of large real estate projects to register them with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, according to Bradenton Herald. Developers must also give buyers a property report that includes a summary of the project, its builders, finances and other information. The registration and property report must be completed before any sales are made. Violations carry a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and five years in prison. Ms. Golding said it is not clear what penalty the developer might face or what effect the violation will have on the class action lawsuit filed by prospective buyers. Mr. Graham has raised prices on the units by as much as 51%. He wants to resell the condos to be built at Second Avenue North and North Ocean Boulevard, at the higher prices, but a circuit judge prevented him because the lawsuit is still in the early stages. Judge Thomas Cooper Jr., though, said the HUD violation might indeed give Graham a strong case for canceling the contracts. Construction has not started, according to the report. The buyers' lawsuit accuses Mr. Graham of fraud and breach of contract. STATE FARM: Miss. Senator Lodges Complaint over Katrina Damage -------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who lost his home due to Hurricane Katrina, initiated a lawsuit against insurance giant, State Farm over its refusal to pay for replacing his house, Consumeraffairs.com reports. The Company has stonewalled Sen. Lott and other South Mississippians that lost their homes on the grounds that their homeowner's policies do not cover flood damage. Though home insurance typically does not cover floods, the homeless Mississippians contend that it was wind and wind-driven water that destroyed their homes. Technically, wind damage is covered by homeowner's policies. Sen. Lott's lawsuit adds powerful political muscle to the dispute. The state's attorney general, Jim Hood, sued five large insurers in September seeking to override the exclusions and there are numerous individual and class action lawsuits pending in the courts. In a press statement, the former Senate major leader said, "Today I have joined in a lawsuit against my longtime insurance company because it will not honor my policy, nor those of thousands of other South Mississippians, for coverage against wind damage due to Hurricane Katrina." The Company and other insurers though vehemently deny that they are liable for the damages. They even pointed out that the lawsuits "threaten the foundation of the economy of the state" by trying to undercut legal contracts. While Republicans in Congress are quick to bash plaintiffs' lawyers who file class action suits on behalf of consumers, Sen. Lott had no trouble turning for legal help to his brother-in- law, Richard Scruggs, a famous and enormously successful plaintiffs' lawyer who has won huge judgments against tobacco and asbestos companies, among others. Sen. Lott and Mr. Scruggs were neighbors along the Gulf Coast in Pascagoula and both lost their homes in the storm. The suit alleges that the Company wouldn't cover Mr. Lott's total loss because it was caused by a "storm surge" from the Gulf, rather than by wind. It argues that the policy is supposed to cover losses from "storm systems" and that damage from storms typically includes not only wind but also storm surges. TARGET CORP: National Federation of the Blind Files Calif. Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The National Federation of the Blind initiated a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court against Target Corp., claiming that the giant retail chain discriminates since its Web site is inaccessible to blind customers, The Bay City News reports. The lawsuit claims, "Target thus excludes the blind from full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of daily life." Specifically, it charges that the alleged lack of access violates two California laws, the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, told Bay City News that blind people gain access to the Internet by using keyboards along with special software that translates visual information into spoken words. According to the suit, the Company's Web site, Target.com, fails to include features such as an invisible code embedded beneath images that would enable blind customers to use the screen-reading software. Mr. Maurer argues, "Blind customers should have the same access to Target's online service that Target offers its sighted customers." In addition to the national federation, the plaintiffs in the case include the federation's California affiliate and a blind person, Bruce Sexton, a student at the University of California at Berkeley. The lawsuit seeks to be certified as a class action on behalf of all blind Californians who want to use the Web site. The Minneapolis, Minnesota-based discount retailer has 1,400 stores in 47 states, including 205 in California, and had revenue of $47 billion in 2004, according to company information. UNITED STATES: Insurers Mull RESPA Reforms at "Mid-Winter Thaw" --------------------------------------------------------------- Reform in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act otherwise known as RESPA is coming soon, however it won't look much like the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) recently failed effort to reform that law, The Inman News reports. This was the consensus of panelists discussing RESPA and related compliance issues at United General Title Insurance Co.'s "Mid- Winter Thaw" conference on Mexico's Baja peninsula. Enacted in 1974, RESPA provides for the advance disclosure of closing costs and to prohibit kickbacks and excessive fees in the home-buying process. Back in 2004, intense opposition from most segments of the real estate industry killed HUD's efforts to reform RESPA. The difference today, according to Philip Schulman, a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP, is that HUD officials are listening to the feedback they received from industry executives in a series of round table discussions last year. And what they heard, Mr. Schulman tells Inman News, is that most of those groups don't want any part of the "bundled" or guaranteed settlement services packages that represented half of the two-pronged reform proposal HUD had proposed. Mr. Schulman told The Inman News, "Industry trade groups made it clear that they don't need bundling. They said if it will work and the market wants bundling, then the market will do it. There's no need for a rule that will shift power and money from one side of the settlement services table to another." Given that feedback, Mr. Schulman predicted, "Bundling will be off the table in any proposed rule." The focus, rather, he expects, will be on improving the good faith estimate by requiring more accurate estimates, closer to the actual closing costs, and imposing penalties when the gaps are too large. He adds, "This is where the battle lines will be drawn in the next six to eight months." Kenneth Harney, a nationally syndicated real estate columnist for the Washington Post, and managing director of the National Real Estate Development Center, agreed, predicting that HUD's new proposal, when it comes, will amount to "RESPA reform lite," the major change being a restructured good faith estimate "with minimal tolerances." He pointed out, "There may be some regulatory relief along with it, but that will be about it." Since agency officials invested so much time and effort in the reform process, and promoted the bundling idea so heavily, they will have to say something about that, according to Mr. Harney. His prediction: They will say the agency's reform effort encouraged the industry to move in that direction on its own, so that regulations are no longer necessary. "They will salute the industry and declare victory," he suggested. While HUD has not said anything publicly about RESPA in recent months, Mr. Harney told The Inman News that he has learned the agency has sent its responses to the industry and the Bush Administration comments about the last proposal, along with a package of options, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Indicating that HUD is getting closer to issuing a new proposal, Mr. Harney pointed out, "That's very significant." He expects OMB will respond quickly, after which HUD can consider the comments, issue a policy statement indicating the general direction of its reform plan, and then propose a new rule before the end of this year. "There is a distinct chance of that happening," according to Mr. Harney. Meanwhile, HUD recently intensified its enforcement efforts targeting "sham" business arrangements that illegally skirt RESPA's ban on referral fees, reported Robert Pratte, a partner in the Minnesota law firm Briggs & Morgan and a specialist in RESPA litigation. Rattling off a series of recent settlement agreements, with dollar amounts ranging from $80,000 to $40 million, he cautioned industry executives to pay close attention to RESPA compliance. Mr. Pratte told The Inman News that while RESPA enforcement efforts are intensifying, the volume of RESPA class-action suits has declined mainly because the plaintiffs' bar "made a big mistake" when it shifted its focus from attacking technical disclosure violations to challenging "yield spread premiums (YSP)." According to him, the shift represents "a core business practice." In earlier cases, lenders weighed the cost of settling the litigation against the cost of the fight, Mr. Pratte said, with the YSP suits, the cost of losing was "turning over the keys to the shop. So they fought to the death, and beat them to death. Nearly every one of these cases has disappeared." However, according to Mr. Pratte, RESPA litigation hasn't disappeared and the new cases, challenging various disclosure issues, raise a key question: "How do you balance the push to disclose every minute detail against the push to simplify the closing settlement process, speed it up, and make it easier and less costly?" VILLAGE LIFE: Could Face Fraud Lawsuit After Share Suspension ------------------------------------------------------------- Litigation financier IMF is planning to launch class action in the federal court against Village Life Ltd. in behalf of investors who lost money after buying shares in the firm's flotation last year, The Sydney Morning Herald reports. IMF claims the retirement village operator in Milton Queensland, Australia misled investors in the 2004 share offering. Shares in the company, which listed at $1.05 in 2003 and hit an all- time high of $2.88 early last year, has been suspended at $0.35. The company recently warned it could post a first-half loss and could need significant new capital to stay afloat. Under International Financial Reporting Standards, its balance sheet could show net liabilities, Village Life Managing Director Stephen Lonie said. He is not promising the company could remain a going concern. The firm failed to meet its target of filling 95% of its 81 retirement villages with enough residents to pay fees it pays to the villages' owner, ING Real Estate Community Living Fund. It only achieved average occupancy rates of 84%. Village Life Ltd. on the Net: http://www.villagelife.com.au/. New Securities Fraud Cases APPLICA INC.: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Applica Incorporated (APN) between November 4, 2004 and April 28, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against defendant Applica and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. APPLICA INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Applica Incorporated (APN). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from November 4, 2004 through April 28, 2005. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. JARDEN CORP.: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of Jarden Corp. ("Jarden" or the "Company") (JAH) from between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements regarding Jarden's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following: (1) that the merger between Jarden and Holmes was plagued by integration problems; (2) that the statements concerning growth from the Holmes acquisition were inherently unreliable because Holmes had no reasonable way to repeat its performance in 2005 due to the loss of tens of million of dollars in revenue from a deal Holmes had with Procter & Gamble; and (3) that Jarden's statements concerning the Holmes acquisition were based on overly optimistic forecasts. On January 12, 2006, prior to the opening of the market, Jarden provided a business update for fiscal 2005 as well as its outlook for fiscal 2006. Therein, the Company stated that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market had been led to expect. On this news, shares of Jarden fell $3.37 per share, or 11%, to close at $27.05 per share on January 12, 2006. For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. and Ximena Skovron, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone: 1-800-440-986 or 1-212-279- 5050, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com or xskovron@aftlaw.com. JARDEN CORP.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the publicly traded securities of Jarden Corp. ("Jarden" or the "Company") (JAH) between June 29, 2005 and January 11, 2006, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired Jarden through its acquisition of Holmes Group, Inc. ("Holmes"). The Complaint alleges defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements regarding Jarden's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following: (1) that the merger between Jarden and Holmes was plagued by integration problems; (2) that the statements concerning growth from the Holmes acquisition were inherently unreliable because Holmes had no reasonable way to repeat its performance in 2005 due to the loss of tens of million of dollars in revenue from a deal Holmes had with Procter & Gamble; and (3) that Jarden's statements concerning the Holmes acquisition were based on overly optimistic forecasts. On January 12, 2006, prior to the opening of the market, Jarden provided a business update for fiscal 2005 as well as its outlook for fiscal 2006. Therein, the Company stated that Holmes' profit margins and product mix were not what the market had been led to expect. On this news, shares of Jarden fell $3.37 per share, or 11%, to close at $27.05 per share on January 12, 2006. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. SFBC INTERNATIONAL: Kaplan & Fox Lodges Securities Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, initiated a class action suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against SFBC International, Inc. ("SFBC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SFCC) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of SFBC between August 4, 2003 and December 15, 2005 (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial prospects, thus causing SFBC's shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. In particular, the complaint alleges that the facts, known by each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (1) that, in order to insure that it had enough participants for its drug testing contracts, the Company provided inadequate disclosures in its consent forms regarding the dangers of particular tests to wrongfully induce participants, who were primarily low income, uneducated U.S. citizens or immigrants; (2) that the Company structured compensation payments to trial participants to assure its participants would not drop out of a drug testing trials or report uncomfortable or adverse reactions to a drug; (3) that the integrity of the Company's reviews of potential drug trials were compromised by conflicts of interest; (4) that the Company's financial results were achieved as a direct result of its engagement in such wrongful practices; (5) that the defendants concealed SFBC's unethical business practices so that it could continue to report strong revenue, earnings, and tout its ability to outperform competitors; and (6) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that if SFBC's improper and irregular business practices were discovered that it would have a material effect on the Company's financial health. It is further alleged in the complaint that during the Class Period, SFBC insiders sold more than $26 million worth of their own shares at artificially inflated prices. The complaint alleges that after the truth about SFBC began to be revealed, SFBC's stock price declined from $41.49 per share to $15.78 per share, a decline of approximately 62%. Since the end of the Class Period, the Company's President and Chairman reportedly resigned and the Company has reportedly received a request from the SEC concerning the Company's former executives. For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Joel B. Strauss, Donald R. Hall, Jeffrey P. Campisi and Laurence D. King of KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP, 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10022, Phone: (800) 290-1952, (212) 687-1980 and (415) 772-4700, Fax: (212) 687-7714 and 415-772-4707, E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Charles Piven Lodges N.Y. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTWO) between October 25, 2004 and January 27, 2006, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against defendant Take-Two and one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Federman & Sherwood Files N.Y. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. (TTWO). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from October 25, 2004 through January 27, 2006. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: (405) 235-1560, Fax: (405) 239-2112, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com, Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com. * Securities Class Action Settlements in 2005 Up 17% to $3.5B ------------------------------------------------------------- Securities class action settlements reached unprecedented levels in 2005, Cornerstone Research reports. Excluding WorldCom's over $6.1 billion settlement and Enron's $7.1 billion (and counting) settlement, the total value of cases settled during 2005 grew to an all time high of $3.5 billion, surpassing 2004's over $2.9 billion tally by more than 17%. The annual study compares settlements in 2005 against earlier settlements of cases filed since the passage of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in December 1995. The increase in the total value of cases settled in 2005 is due to an almost 10% increase in the number of cases settled compared to 2004 (124 vs. 113) and the average settlement size ($28.5 million in 2005 vs. $26.4 million in 2004), as well as the number of "mega" settlements over $100 million (nine in 2005). Most striking is the upward trend in the median (midpoint) settlement amount, which is an indicator of the more typical case. In 2005, half of all settlements exceeded $7.5 million whereas historically, through 2004, the median settlement amount has been only $6.3 million -- a 19% increase. "While in recent years we have been observing an increasing number of very large settlements, never before have we observed such a large single-year increase in the median settlement amount," commented Dr. Laura Simmons, a principal in Cornerstone Research's Washington, DC office and an author of the study. Contributing to the increase may be a growing frequency of cases involving accounting-related allegations, as well as institutional investors serving as lead plaintiffs. The percentage of cases involving restatements of financial statements grew to 40% in 2005, almost double the figure for 2004. In addition, more than 35% of all 2005 settlements were associated with an institutional investor lead plaintiff, compared to only 20% for the prior year. The median settlement amount for all cases involving financial restatements is $7.5 million, compared to only $5.8 million for cases without restatements. Median settlements in all cases with an institution as lead plaintiff are $10.7 million compared to only $5.0 million for cases without an institutional lead plaintiff. Settlements are significantly higher for suits involving either of these factors, even when other variables such as the size of the case are considered. "The association between institutional investor lead plaintiffs and higher settlements may partially be attributable to institutions choosing to participate in stronger cases rather than a causal effect on settlement amounts, though in at least one case this year an institutional lead plaintiff had a significant influence on the settlement outcome," noted Ms. Simmons. Namely, in the WorldCom matter, outside directors contributed funds from their personal assets to the settlement fund, apparently at the demand of the lead plaintiff, the New York State Common Retirement Fund. By far, the most important determinant of settlements amounts is "estimated damages." Interestingly, while average "estimated damages" remained at high levels, for the first time in post- Reform Act history, they actually decreased slightly from the prior year's average -- from $2.3 billion in 2004 to $2.2 billion in 2005. For purposes of the study, "estimated damages" are calculated based on a simplified version of a model often used by plaintiffs to estimate the number of shares damaged and the amount of alleged stock price inflation. Some observers believe that lower damages may persist into future years as a result of the 2005 unanimous landmark Supreme Court decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, where the court ruled that plaintiffs must show a causal link between the alleged misrepresentations and the subsequent actual losses suffered by plaintiffs. "The Supreme Court's decision in Dura is clearly the most significant decision in many years affecting the calculation of class action security damages," said Stanford Law School Professor Joseph Grundfest, Director of the Stanford University Securities Class Action Clearinghouse and former Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission. "It is now not enough for plaintiffs to prove that a fraud caused them to pay too high a price for a stock: they also have to prove that the fraud's disclosure, and not other intervening factors, caused the stock's price to decline. Dura will therefore cut back on plaintiff damage awards in some cases, but the decision's full impact is impossible to predict until we see how the lower courts interpret the decision's language." Analyzing 735 cases that have settled since the passage of the Reform Act, the study found several other leading factors that tend to influence settlement amounts. For example, when the SEC also took action against the defendants in the form of an administrative proceeding or litigation release, the median settlement amount was $10.3 million vs. only $5.5 million when the SEC did not take action. Even more significantly, in cases where corresponding derivative actions (e.g., suits filed against officers and directors on behalf of the defendant corporation) were filed, the median settlement was $15 million vs. $5.1 million in cases without derivative actions. Companion derivative actions tend to be associated with larger class action cases, as well as cases involving accounting allegations, SEC actions, and institutions serving as lead plaintiff. However, even considering these factors, they are still associated with higher class action settlements. Leading the charge in the actual number of settlements secured were the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman (firms that previously composed the now defunct Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach). The two firms were responsible for securing more than half of the settlements in 2005 -- 32% and 25%, respectively. Finally, while the Cornerstone study finds a significant increase in settlement amounts in 2005, a report recently issued by the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in cooperation with Cornerstone Research found decreases in 2005 in both the number of case filings, as well as the amount of investor losses associated with case filings. Since there is a delay between case filings and case resolutions, these results suggest -- along with the effects of the Dura decision -- potential lower settlement values in the future. A full copy of Cornerstone Research's "Post-Reform Act Securities Settlements: 2005 Review and Analysis" is available at http://securities.cornerstone.com. Additionally, Dr. Simmons and Professor Grundfest are available for interviews. ********* 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, Teena Canson 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 * * *