/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060412.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 12, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 73 Headlines AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24 AMCOR LTD: Australian Firm Faces $300M Anti-Trust Litigation AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: UCAN Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 9 BAYER CORP: June Hearing Set for NBR Anti-Trust Suit Settlement BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles on Injury Reports CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit CANADA: HMCS Discovery Cadets Get Windfall in Sexual Abuse Case CITIGROUP INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $13.25M CONCRETE SUPPLIERS: New Info Emerge in Ind. Price-Fixing Suit DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Tenn. State Court Case DUKE ENERGY: Faces Energy Markets Manipulation Suits in Kans. DUKE ENERGY: Federal Court Approves NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement EMACHINES INC: California Lawsuit Over Empire Merger Continues ERNST & YOUNG: Florida Couple Sues Over Losses in Tax Shelters FAMILY DOLLAR: Paying $33M to Misclassified Store Employees FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Conn. Judge Okays Class in Pension Suit FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Settles Vacation Pay Lawsuit in Louisiana GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Class in Canadian Export Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Court Consolidates GMAC Debt Securities Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class H Shares Suits GENERAL MOTORS: JPMDL Considers Transfer Motions for Stock Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Approval of Retirees' Lawsuit GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Mich. Stock Suits GENERAL MOTORS: Subsidiary Faces Consolidated Mich. ERISA Suit LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until Mid-July LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Suit V. Execs Stayed Until Mid-July LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Consolidated ERISA Suit LORAL SPACE: Settlement Reached in Globalstar Securities Lawsuit MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Spending $310M for Disabled Riders' Needs MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Schools to Receive Up to $1M in Settlement MINERAL SUPPLIERS: Chinese Firms Face Price-Fixing Complaints NATURAL GAS: NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 19, 2006 OKLAHOMA: Bill Proposing to Change Civil Justice System Junked OLD ENGLAND: Australian Hotel Settles Food Poisoning Lawsuit PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts TITAN CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq UICI: Discovery Going Ahead in Texas Insurance Litigation WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Allows Motion to Appeal Suit's Dismissal Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICA SERVICE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Tenn. ASTEA INT'L: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. ESTEE LAUDER: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y. GMH COMMUNITIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25 NATURES SUNSHINE: Stull, Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J. ********* AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Stock Suit Settlement Trial Set April 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York set an April 24, 2006 fairness hearing for the proposed settlement of securities class actions against Airnet Communications Corp. The company, two of its former officers and members of the underwriting syndicate involved in the company's initial public offering (IPO) were named as defendants in a class action complaint filed on November 16, 2001 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action, Case No. 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws, and sought unspecified damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired shares of the company's common stock between December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive. The complaint charged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In substance, the suit alleged that the underwriters of the company's IPO charged commissions in excess of those disclosed in the IPO materials and that these actions were not properly disclosed. More than 300 similar class actions filed in the Southern District of New York have been consolidated for pretrial purposes under the caption of "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." On July 15, 2002, the defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. In February 2003, the motion to dismiss was granted in part with respect to the company and denied in part with respect to all issuer defendants. The claims against the company's two former officers named in the class action were dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to agreement. The issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have since drafted and agreed upon a settlement, which is pending approval by the court. A committee of the company's board of directors has accepted the pending settlement. The terms of the settlement agreement calls for the defendant issuers' insurers to guarantee the plaintiffs the amount of one billion dollars less the total of all of the plaintiffs' recoveries from the underwriter defendants. None of the proceeds will be distributed to any proposed class member until after the conclusion of the class members' proceedings with respect to the underwriter defendants. Furthermore, pursuant to the agreement, the issuer defendants have assigned all their potential claims against the underwriter defendants to a litigation trust, to be represented by plaintiffs' counsel. On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, and has scheduled a hearing on April 24, 2006, to determine whether to grant final approval. Its final approval of the proposed settlement is expected. Under the terms of the settlement, there would be no liability to be recorded by the company. Pursuant to a separate agreement, the insurers have also agreed to pay the issuers' defense costs incurred on or subsequent to June 1, 2003 on a pooling basis. In addition, pending approval, the individual tolling agreements dismissing the named individual defendants have been extended, so that the individual defendants will be covered by the settlement as well. Final approval of the settlement remains pending before the Court and, given the Court's scheduling orders, will likely not be determined until 2006. While awaiting final court approval of the settlement, the issuers, including the company, have complied with discovery obligations specified in the settlement, by providing a limited number of documents. AMCOR LTD: Australian Firm Faces $300M Anti-Trust Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Global packing company Amcor Ltd. based in Abbotsford, Australia is facing a $300 million class action over alleged anti- competitive practices, reports say. The suit was filed in Federal Court in Sydney, Australia on April 11 on behalf of about 1,700 businesses. The plaintiffs claim to have been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is investigating the matter, including some of Amcor's business activities with Visy packaging. Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted immunity by the ACCC in return for information about the alleged conduct. Ben Slade of law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman estimates that businesses incurred damages at between $2 million and $3 million as a result of anti-competitive practices. He said Amcor overcharged clients by up to 23%. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the main industries involved in the action include fruit and vegetable growers, and people in the meat, milk, beer and wine market. A date was being sought for a directions hearing into the class action and a response was being sought from Amcor, according to the Age. Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS: UCAN Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 9 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Diego will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter: "UCAN, et al. v. AT&T Communications of California, et al., Case No. GIC 837830." The case was brought on behalf of all current and former AT&T Single Line Business customers nationwide, between October 1, 2002 and January 31, 2005 who were charged a Long Distance Carrier Line Charge. The Hearing will be held before the Honorable Linda B. Quinn on June 9, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 74 of the Court, located at 330 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101. Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by May 24, 2006. Proof of claim must be submitted by July 31, 2006. For more details, contact John W. Hanson, Esq. of Rosner, Law & Mansfield, 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Floor, San Diego, CA 92131, Phone: (858) 348-1005 and Nancy L. Stagg of Fish & Richardson, P.C., 12390 El Camino Real, San Diego, California 92130-2081, Phone: 858-678-5070, Fax: 858-678-5099, Web sites: http://www.fr.comor http://www.ucansettlement.com/. BAYER CORP: June Hearing Set for NBR Anti-Trust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $9.8 million settlement with defendants Bayer AG, Bayer Corp. and Bayer Polymers, LLC, in the matter: "In Re NBR Antitrust Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-1898." The case was brought on behalf of all individuals or entities (excluding government entities) that directly purchased acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) in the U.S. or form a facility located in the U.S. from any defendant from January 1, 1995 to June 30, 2003. The hearing will be held in the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Seventh Ave., and Grant St., Courtroom 7A, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, at 1:00 p.m., on June 1, 2006. For more details, contact In Re NBR Antitrust Litigation (Bayer) c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 808071, Petaluma, CA 94975- 8071; Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005-3964 Phone: 202-408-4600 or by Fax: 202- 408-4699; Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 805 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 800-290-1952 or 212-687- 1980, Fax: 212-687-7714, E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com; and Steven O. Sidener, Esq. and Joseph M. Barton, Esq. of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, California 94105, Phone: 415-777-2230, Fax: 415-777- 5189, Web site: http://www.gbcslaw.com. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls Snowmobiles on Injury Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. of Quebec, Canada, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 3,600 Ski-Doo(R) Model Year 2005 and 2006 Mach Z(R) and Model Year 2006 MX Z Renegade 1000 Snowmobiles. The company said cracks can appear in the starter ring gears of the snowmobiles, causing ring gear fragmentation at high speeds. The debris can act as a projectile causing injury or death to riders or bystanders. Bombardier Recreational has received six reported incidents of fragmentation. There have been three reported injuries, including a laceration to a rider's foot that required stitches and one rider who suffered a fractured toe. The recall involves all models and packages of the Model Years 2005 and 2006 Mach Z and all models and packages of the Model Year 2006 MX Z Renegade 1000 Ski-Doo(R) Snowmobiles. The Mach Z model was available in black and the MXZ model was available in black or yellow. Model name is located on the side panels. The snowmobiles were made in Canada and sold by Ski-Doo dealers nationwide from September 2004 through March 2006 for between $9,300 and $11,600. Consumers with recalled snowmobiles are being sent direct notice from Bombardier Recreational. Consumers are advised to stop using these vehicles immediately and contact a local Ski-Doo dealer to schedule an appointment for a free repair. Picture of recalled snowmobile: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06542a.jpg Consumer Contact: Bombardier Recreational Phone: (888) 864-2002 (toll-free) between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site: http://www.ski-doo.com. CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present and former executives and directors. The suit originally alleged that the company and the executives and directors made materially false or misleading statements or omissions in violation of federal securities laws. The suit sought damages on behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased company stock during the period from November 19, 2003 through June 23, 2004. In October 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In November 2004, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming the company, Ronald J. Fior, its vice president for finance and chief financial officer and Reed D. Taussig, the company's former chairman and chief executive officer as defendants and amending the purported class to include individuals who purchased company stock during the period from January 22, 2004 through June 23, 2004. In February 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss in May 2005 and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs declined to amend the complaint and the court thereafter entered a dismissal with prejudice on July 5, 2005. The suit was styled, "In Re: Callidus Software, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2707," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are Robert S. Green of Green Welling LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104 Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710, E-mail: gw@classcounsel.com; and David Kessler, Michael K. Yarnoff and Christopher Nelson of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. Representing the company is James N. Kramer, William F. Alderman, M. Todd Scott of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe, LLP, 405 Howard St., San Francisco CA 94105, Phone: 415-773- 5992, Fax: 415-773-5759. CANADA: HMCS Discovery Cadets Get Windfall in Sexual Abuse Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The British Columbia Supreme Court approved a $10 million settlement in a class action alleging decade-long sexual abuse of teenage boys by officers of HMCS Discovery's sea cadet program, The Globe and Mail reports. The court ruling awarded a compensation package worth $8 million to 35 former sea cadets who were part of the suit filed by former sea cadet William White against the officers and the attorney general of Canada. In addition, an extra $1.8 million was set aside for cadets who were not party to the class action, but who were also abused and believed they may be entitled to compensation. They have 45 days to file a claim. The suit alleged that as many as 63 boys may have been abused by reserve officers who preyed on cadets from Vancouver-based HMCS Discovery between 1967 and 1977. One investigator estimates that four former officers might have abused as many as 200 cadets between 1964 and 1980. Several former officers of HMCS Discovery, which was stationed in Vancouver's Stanley Park, were named as third-party defendants to the suit. This included Conrad Sundman and Ralph Bremner, both of whom were convicted of sexually assaulting several sea cadets, who were between the ages of 13 and 17 when they were abused. In 2001, Mr. Sundman was sentenced to seven years in prison after pleading guilty to 13 counts of indecent assault and three counts of buggery. Mr. Bremner was convicted of four counts of indecent assault on boys aged between 13 and 15. In the complaint, Mr. White alleged that the federal government might have been liable for what was alleged to have occurred on HMCS Discovery. The allegation was based on the fact that the sea cadets program was set up under the National Defense Act. Essentially, Mr. White alleged that the attorney general failed to take reasonable measures in the operation or management of the program to protect the cadets from conduct of a sexual nature by employees, agents and other cadets at HMCS Discovery. Under the settlement, which was reached more than two years after the attorney general was named as a defendant, each of the 35 victims in the class action is eligible for an average payout of $227,867. However, the actual amount each victim will receive depends on the outcome of psychological tests to determine the severity of abuse. "Some will get more and some will get less," Robert Gibbens, the lawyer retained by the former cadets told The Globe and Mail. The maximum payout has been set as high as $500,000. Some victims though could still receive as little as $30,000 if they elect to take the money without undergoing a psychological test. "The settlement avoids protracted and numerous proceedings with no clear prospect of success," Justice Austin Cullen of the B.C. Supreme Court wrote in his decision. Additionally, the settlement, according to Justice Cullen, stipulates that anonymity is afforded the members of the class action and they are no longer obliged to give evidence in court or be cross-examined on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages. CITIGROUP INC: Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit for $13.25M ----------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup Inc. will pay an estimated $13.25 million to the University of California to settle a securities fraud lawsuit stemming from the 2002 collapse of WorldCom, Inc., The Associated Press reports. The settlement is the latest in a series of investor lawsuits targeting the company for its business ties with WorldCom, the telecommunications company that plunged into bankruptcy in July 2002 after revealing that its profits had been grossly exaggerated. The deal is separate from a $6 billion federal court class- action settlement completed last year by the company and other underwriters. The university, whose pension and endowment funds invested in WorldCom's stock between 1998 and 2000, opted out of the federal suit and filed its own action in San Francisco Superior Court in 2003. Like other similar suits, the university's complaint alleged that the company's investment banking subsidiary, then known as Salomon Smith Barney, consistently recommended WorldCom's stock to keep the company as a customer. Explaining their preference to sue in state court, James Holst, the university's general counsel told the Associated Press, "The merits of that strategy were borne out by the result we were able to achieve." He also explains that the federal class action settlement wouldn't have been as fruitful, since it primarily covered investors that invested in WorldCom after the university's money managers did. The payment partially reimburses the University of California of its losses on WorldCom's stock. The university's funds suffered a $353 million loss on its WorldCom investment when it sold 10.2 million shares after the accounting scandal ravaged the WorldCom's stock price. The university's retirement and endowment fund, which totals more than $64 billion, is the most likely benefactor of the settlement. But despite it, the university's suit still continues to seek damages from Arthur Andersen, the now-defunct accounting firm that audited WorldCom's books. After going bankrupt, WorldCom changed its name to MCI Inc. It was sold for $7.5 billion to Verizon Communications Inc. For more details, contact James E. Holst, General Counsel & Vice President for Legal Affairs, University of California, 1111 Franklin St., 8th floor, Oakland, CA 94607, Phone: (510) 987- 9800. CONCRETE SUPPLIERS: New Info Emerge in Ind. Price-Fixing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Federal officials have filed documents identifying the mystery barn where big players in the concrete industry in Indianapolis conspired to drive up prices, according Indianapolis Star. The meeting place was the horse barn of Fishers concrete supplier Gus B. Nuckols III, the report said. Mr. Nuckols, president of Builder's Concrete & Supply of Fishers, is identified in a proposed plea agreement as an organizer of the conspiracy. He and as many as five concrete bosses reportedly twice agreed to hike up prices citywide from July 2000 to May 25, 2004. Federal officials estimate the concrete cartel drove up prices more than 10%, according to the report. The concrete industry is now facing a consumer class action over the collusion to fix prices. Named as defendants are: -- Price Irving, the Irving Materials executive now imprisoned at Terre Haute; -- Prairie, -- Builder's Concrete & Supply; -- Shelby Materials; -- American; -- Ready Mixed; -- Carmel Concrete; and -- Beaver Gravel Representing consumers in the class action is lawyer Irwin Levin of Cohen & Malad, LLP (http://www.cohenandmalad.com),One Indiana Square, Suite 1400, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, (Marion Co.), Phone: 317-636-6481, Fax: 317-636-2593. DUKE CAPITAL: Nev. Court Mulls Motions in Tenn. State Court Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada has yet to rule on parties' motions on a Tennessee Chancery Court case transferred to Multidistrict Litigation. On January 28, 2005, four plaintiffs filed suit in Tennessee Chancery Court against Duke Capital, LLC affiliates and other energy companies seeking class-action certification on behalf of indirect purchasers of natural gas. The plaintiffs alleged they have been harmed by defendants' manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and unlawfully exchanging information, resulting in artificially high natural gas prices paid by plaintiffs in the State of Tennessee. Alleging that defendants violated state antitrust laws and other laws, plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and other relief. Defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee in March 2005, and the case was transferred to the Hon. Philip M. Pro in the District of Nevada under Multidistrict Litigation proceeding 1566, styled, "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation." Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court, and the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the filed rate doctrine and federal pre- emption. The court has yet to rule on these motions. The suit was styled, "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1566," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro. DUKE ENERGY: Faces Energy Markets Manipulation Suits in Kans. ------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy and Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC (DETM), as well as other energy companies, are defendants in several class actions in Kansas over alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets. On August 8, 2005, a plaintiff filed a lawsuit in state court in Kansas against the company, DETM and other energy companies, claiming that the plaintiff was harmed by the defendants' alleged manipulation of the natural gas markets by various means, including providing false information to natural gas trade publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and agreements. The company removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on September 8, 2005, and the case was subsequently transferred to the Hon. Philip M. Pro in the District of Nevada under Multidistrict Litigation proceeding 1566, styled, "In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation." On September 26, 2005, a class action petition was filed by two plaintiffs in state court in Kansas against various defendants including Duke Energy and the company, based on substantially similar allegations. This matter was also moved to federal court, and defendants were seeking to have the case transferred to the MDL 1566 proceeding. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to state court. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants violated Kansas' antitrust laws and sought damages in unspecified amounts. DUKE ENERGY: Federal Court Approves NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to a consolidated class action filed against Duke Energy Trading and Marketing (DETM) and other natural gas firms. The suit was filed on behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002. Commencing August 2003, plaintiffs filed three class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas futures and options contracts. The company along with numerous other entities was named as defendant. The plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated the Commodity Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses to the plaintiffs. They sought class action certification, unspecified damages and other relief. On September 24, 2004, the court denied a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims filed on behalf of DETM and other defendants, and on September 30, 2005, the court certified the class. The company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs in these consolidated cases to resolve all issues and on February 8, 2006, the court granted preliminary approval of this settlement. The agreement is subject to final court approval after notification to all class members. The suit was styled, "In Re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Master File No. 03 CV 6186 (VM)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. EMACHINES INC: California Lawsuit Over Empire Merger Continues -------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action filed against eMachines, Inc. is currently before the California State Superior Court, County of Orange. The suit, styled, "Dvorchak v. eMachines, Inc., et al.," relates to a 2001 transaction in which the company, which was then a public company, was taken private. The action originally sought to enjoin the company's merger with Empire Acquisition Corporation, to effectuate taking the company private. The court denied the requested injunction on December 27, 2001, allowing the consummation of the merger. After the merger, plaintiffs filed amended complaints seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or recision relating to the negotiations for and terms of the Merger through allegations of breaches of fiduciary duties by the company, its board members prior to the merger, and certain of its officers. The court granted class certification on August 25, 2003. Dispositive motions filed by the defendants were heard and denied by the Court in August 2004 and August 2005. The trial was previously set to start April 3, 2006. ERNST & YOUNG: Florida Couple Sues Over Losses in Tax Shelters -------------------------------------------------------------- Former Ernst & Young LLP clients in Florida are suing the accounting firm over claims they have been defrauded millions of dollars in fees through the company's failed tax shelters, Reuters reports. Lawyers representing couple Rocco and Mary Abessinio filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. The plaintiffs claim they were owed more than $40 million as a result of their investment in the firm's Personal Investment Company or PICO that cost more than $5.9 million of unnecessary fees. They paid more than $40 million in increased tax liabilities for 2001 and 2002 after PICO strategy was challenged by the Internal Revenue Service. Their suit seeks class-action status. The lawsuit accuses Ernst & Young of marketing a tax strategy, involving the creation of a "personal investment company" or PICO that "had no legitimate purpose other than as a vehicle for tax avoidance." The plaintiffs are demanding actual and punitive damages, reimbursement for not pursuing legitimate tax savings because of the PICO strategy, and other costs. "Defendants were aware or recklessly ignored that PICO was not a legitimate tax strategy, in part due to their familiarity with or participation in the marketing and/or implementation of other discredited tax shelters," wrote Sherrie Savett, a lawyer for Berger & Montague PC in Philadelphia. The proposed class includes all individuals who were advised by the accounting firm and others that the PICO tax shelter and the transactions associated with it were legal, according to The Wall Street Journal. Based in New York, Ernst & Young -- http://www.eyi.com-- is one of the world's largest accounting firms (third in revenue of the Big Four behind PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu) with some 700 offices in 140 countries, offering auditing and accounting services. The firm also provides legal services and services relating to emerging growth companies, human resources issues, and corporate transactions. FAMILY DOLLAR: Paying $33M to Misclassified Store Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- A judge has doubled the amount of back and overtime payment that Family Dollar Stores, Inc. must compensate managers misclassified as hourly employees. A Tuscaloosa federal jury on March 3 found Family Dollar Stores guilty of willfully violating labor standards by misclassifying hourly employees as salaried managers so they would not qualify for overtime. The jury awarded the plaintiffs more than $19 million in back pay and owed overtime. After reducing the verdict to $16.6 million due to some plaintiffs filing for bankruptcy, Judge U.W. Clemon, on March 31, 2006, liquidated the jury's award after siding with them that the company purposely violated the law, doubling the amount to equal $33.2 million. "We were very confident the evidence presented to the jury proved that the managers for Family Dollar were clearly nothing more than working foreman," said Greg Wiggins, lead attorney on the suit for Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis. "This case should send a strong message to Family Dollar and other retail companies that simply because you give people the title of store manager it does not make them exempt from overtime pay." The 1,424 current and past employees worked 60-80 hour work- weeks without overtime compensation due to their classification as Store Managers. The FLSA's requirements for overtime exemption state that the employee's primary duty is management of a department or subdivision and at least two or more full- time employees, as well as the authority to hire and fire employees. Evidence showed the plaintiffs actually spent only 10-20% of their time conducting such managerial duties, and the remaining time was spent doing manual labor such as unloading trucks, stocking shelves, mopping the floor, and running the cash register. "Although the defendant has stated it would appeal the case, we feel relatively confident that the verdict will be upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals," said Mr. Wiggins. Since the verdict, law firm Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis have been contacted by numerous current and/or former Family Dollar Store managers who allege the same facts. Because there are thousands of current store managers who were not plaintiffs in the Morgan case, the firm expects to file a new lawsuit on behalf of those individuals. The 1,424 plaintiffs in the Morgan case are located in over 30 states across the U.S. The suit was styled, "Morgan, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Case No. 7:01-cv-00303-UWC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge U.W. Clemon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert L. Wiggins, Jr. of Wiggins Childs Quinn & Pantazis, 301 19th Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204, Phone: 328-0640, E-mail: RWiggins@WCQP.com; and Barry V. Frederick of The Frederick Firm, 5409 Trace Ridge Lane, Hoover, AL 35244, Phone: 205-410-0822, E- mail: bvf123@charter.net. Representing the defendants are: Jay D. St. Clair of Bradley Arant Rose & White, P.O. Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709, Phone: 521-8000, E-mail: jstclair@bradleyarant.com; and Arnold W. Umbach, III, Starnes & Atchison, LLP, 100 Brookwood Place, Seventh Floor, P.O. Box 598512, Birmingham, AL 35259-8512, Phone: 205-868-6072, Fax: 205-868-6099, E-mail: tumbach@starneslaw.com. FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL: Conn. Judge Okays Class in Pension Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Janet Hall of Connecticut granted class- action certification in a lawsuit that accuses FleetBoston Financial Corp. of discriminating against older workers by switching pension plans, The Associated Press reports. Despite the dismissal of three of six counts in the lawsuit, Judge Hall, ruled that Donna Richards, a 57-year-old executive with 33 years at the bank could go forward with her case. Ms. Richards contends the company broke federal pension law by moving employees into a cash-balance plan that reduced the rate at which older workers accrued retirement benefits. With the granting of class-action certification to the case, Ms. Richards' attorney told the Associated Press that some 25,000 employees will be included into that class, 10,000 of whom no longer work for the bank. Asked for comment on the recent ruling, Shirley Norton, a spokeswoman for Bank of America Corp., which bought FleetBoston in April 2005 in a $48 billion deal, told the Associated Press that it would defend against Ms. Richards' claims. She pointed out that the judge dismissed three counts in the lawsuit, even while allowing others to go forward. The suit is styled, "Richards v. Fleetboston Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01638-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Janet C. Hall. Representing the plaintiffs is Thomas G. Moukawsher of Moukawsher & Walsh - Htfd., Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209, Hartford, CT 06106, Phone: 860-278-7000, Fax: 860-548-1740, E-mail: tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com. Representing the defendant are William F. Conlon, Scott E. Gross, Brian P. Guarraci, Erin E. Kelly, Julie A. Koca and Anne E. Rea of Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP, Bank One Plaza, One South Dearborn, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-853-7384, 312-853- 7011, 312-853-7917, 312-853-7272, 312-853-7155 and 312-853-7156, Fax: 312-853-7036, E-mail: wconlon@sidley.com, sgross@sidley.com, bguarrac@sidley.com, ekelly@sidley.com and area@sidley.com. FRUIT OF THE LOOM: Settles Vacation Pay Lawsuit in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------ Thousands of former employees of apparel company Fruit of the Loom in Acadiana, South Louisiana are set to receive the vacation pay they demanded in a class action, according to The Daily Advertiser. More than 5,000 former workers could get $100 each in settlement, said Lafayette lawyer Patrick Wartelle, who represented the class in the suits against the defunct company. Employees at Fruit of the Loom plants in Abbeville, St. Martinville, Port Barre and Jeanerette demanded for the vacation pay they said they earned but didn't get before the company laid them off. The $100 payments represent only 10% of the original settlement agreed before the company filed for bankruptcy. Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Fruit of the Loom, Inc., is a leading international, vertically integrated basic apparel company, emphasizing branded products for consumers ranging from infants to senior citizens. The company and its debtor- affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 29, 1999. It started closing its Louisiana operations in 1997. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Certifies Class in Canadian Export Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since January 1, 2001. The defendants include: -- General Motors Corporation, -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford, -- Daimler Chrysler, -- Toyota, -- Honda, -- Nissan and BMW, -- their Canadian affiliates, -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases" in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Meanwhile the more than 30 California cases were consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County under the case captions "Belch v. Toyota, et al." and "Bell v. General Motors." The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers. In addition, the complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. As amended, the complaints sought injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. On March 5, 2004, the federal court in Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. On March 10, 2006, the federal court in Maine certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief. The court expressly deferred to an unspecified later time a decision on plaintiffs' Federal Rule 23(b)(3) motion to certify a class for damages under the laws of as many as 23 states and the District of Columbia. No determination has been made to certify any of these cases as a damages class action under federal or state law. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Consolidates GMAC Debt Securities Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) and certain of the company's officers and directors are defendants in several purported class actions in Florida and Michigan courts in relation to GMAC debt securities. The suits are styled: (1) "Zielezienski, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," filed on November 29, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida; (2) "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on December 28, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan; and (3) "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on February 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Filed by Stanley Zielezienski, the Zielezienski action was filed against the company, GMAC, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman, Eric A. Feldstein; and company and GMAC officers William F. Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J.S. Clout, John E. Gibson, W. Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L. Cowger. The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the Securities Act, and with respect to all defendants except the company, Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. It also alleges that the company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus. More specifically, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained in GMAC's Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 and the Form 8-K which disclosed financial results for the quarterly period ended in September 30, 2004, as evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these quarterly results. In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as were in the previous filing, with respect to additional debt securities issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004 to March 14, 2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as defendants. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On January 6, 2006, defendants named in the original complaint removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On February 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Florida state court, which is currently being briefed by the parties. On March 28, 2006, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated order withdrawing plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. If this order is entered, the parties have agreed to seek to have this case consolidated with the J&R Marketing and Mager cases. Filed by J&R Marketing, SEP, the J&R Marketing action was filed against the company, GMAC, the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman, Eric Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard J.S. Clout; John E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John M. Devine; Gary L. Cowger; and several underwriters of GMAC debt securities. Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski case, the complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act based on alleged material misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration Statements for GMAC SmartNotes purchased between September 30, 2003 and March 16, 2005, inclusive. The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of the company's financial condition and performance as well as issues arising from GMAC's 2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three quarters ended September 30, 2005. It does not specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On January 13, 2006 defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Filed by Alex Mager, the Mager action is substantively identical to the J&R Marketing case. On February 24, 2006, J&R Marketing filed a motion to consolidate the Mager case with its case and for appointment as lead plaintiff and the appointment of lead counsel. On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Affirms Dismissal of Class H Shares Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corporation is defendant in several purported shareholder class actions in Delaware and California in relation to GM Class H common stocks. On April 11 and 14, 2003, two purported class actions, styled, "Young v. Pearce, et al.' and "Silverstein v. Pearce, et al.," were filed in Delaware Chancery Court on behalf of owners of the GM Class H shares against Hughes Electronics Corp., the company, News Corp. and the Hughes directors. On April 11 and 15, 2003, two purported class actions, styled, "Matcovsky, et al., v. Hughes Electronics Corporation, et al." and "Brody v. Hughes Electronics Corporation, et al.," were filed in Superior Court in Los Angeles, California, against Hughes, the company and the Hughes and company directors. Two purported stockholder class actions, which name only the company and its directors have been brought in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the agreements with News Corp. The suits are styled, "Wyser-Pratte Management Company v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," which was filed April 18, 2003, and "Robert LaMarche v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," which was filed April 28, 2003. The Delaware cases were consolidated in the Delaware Chancery Court and the California cases were consolidated in state court in Los Angeles and plaintiffs in both cases have filed consolidated complaints. The Delaware cases alleged that the company and its directors performed ultra vires acts and that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by approving a transaction that is more favorable to the holders of GM $12/3 par value common stock than the holders of GM Class H common stock. They claimed that the holders of GM Class H common stock were treated unfairly because: (1) GM received mostly cash for its shares while the holders of GM Class H common stock received News Corp. American Depositary Shares (ADSs) that may fluctuate in Value; (2) GM received a $275 million payment from Hughes; (3) a substantial number of shares of GM Class H common stock were contributed to various GM employee benefit plans prior to announcement of the deal to improve the prospects of shareholder approval; and (4) the transaction was announced just prior to the announcement of improved financial results at Hughes and PanAmSat to make it appear that holders of GM Class H common stock would receive a premium that would exceed the 20% recapitalization premium provided for in the GM restated certificate of incorporation, as amended. The California cases alleged that the transactions involving News Corp.'s acquisition of a 34% interest in Hughes provides benefits to GM not available to all GM Class H shareholders, in violation of fiduciary duties. The new consolidated complaints were similar to the original complaints, except that the Delaware complaint added allegations challenging the adequacy of the disclosures in the consent solicitation and only named GM and members of the GM board of directors as defendants. Plaintiffs in both cases sought unspecified damages. The company 's motion to dismiss the Delaware cases was granted by the Delaware Chancery Court on May 4, 2005. On March 20, 2006, the Delaware Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the consolidated Delaware cases. In the California cases, the claims against directors without any connection to California have been dismissed and the consolidated case has been stayed pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss the Delaware consolidated complaint. GENERAL MOTORS: JPMDL Considers Transfer Motions for Stock Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) has yet to rule on the motions by General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. and certain of the company's officers and directors that seeks consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for several securities class actions filed against them. On September 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, styled, "Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants the company, GMAC, and the company Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; Vice Chairman, John Devine; Treasurer, Walter Borst; and Chief Accounting Officer, Peter Bible. Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers of the company's debt and/or equity securities during the period February 25, 2002 through March 16, 2005. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a), and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt offerings during the class period. In particular, the complaint alleged that the company's cash flows during the class period were overstated based on the reclassification of certain cash items described in its 2004 Form 10-K. The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended 2002 and 2003. The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings forecast that were later revised significantly downward. In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and consolidated with the Folksam case, styled, "Galliani v. General Motors, et al." The consolidated suit is now called, "In re General Motors Securities Litigation." On November 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an amended complaint, which added several additional investors as plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to November 9, 2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP. In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint, the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the company's Form SEC 8-K dated November 8, 2005, which reported that its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive compensation during the class period. It also included further allegations regarding the company's accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for 2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of 2005. Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. Defendants have not yet filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously defend these actions. On January 17, 2006, the court made provisional designations of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, which designations were made final on February 6, 2006. On December 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities Litigation" (previously Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al. and Galliani v. General Motors, et. al.) and in certain other litigation against the company filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On January 5, 2006, the defendants submitted to the JPMDL an Amended Motion seeking to add to their original Motion several other lawsuits pending against the company for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The Panel heard these motions on March 30, 2006. GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Denies Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied General Motors' motion to dismiss an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuit claiming those in-charged with overseeing employees' retirement accounts failed in their responsibility. The suit claimed that the company and plan fiduciaries ignored the company's dire financial problems and in doing so imprudently managed the two retirement funds, causing employee- investors to incur huge losses. In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds cited that the company had a duty to convey complete and accurate financial information about General Motors' true financial health to the plaintiffs, something the suit claims it failed to do. The case involved two General Motors ERISA Plans namely: the Personal Savings Plan for Hourly Employees, and the Savings- Stock Purchased Program for Salaried Employees, both holding large amounts of General Motors stock. "It is our belief that GM and the investment fund committee sold out [General Motors] employees, plain and simple, " said Steve Berman, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "They stood motionless and mute while the stock's slide devastated the retirement savings of thousands." The suit claimed the defendants put the interests of the company ahead of the interests of the plan participants by continuing to offer General Motors stock as an investment option, matching employee contributions in General Motors stock and failing to diversify the stock fund when it was clear General Motors stock was not a prudent investment. According to the suit, the members of the investment fund committee were also responsible for overseeing the horribly under-funded defined-benefit pension and healthcare plans. "That gave them first-hand knowledge of GM's problems early on," Berman added. "Even when analysts begin issuing 'sell' recommendations and the company's debt was reduced to junk status, the committee refused to take action for their employees." Judge Edmonds granted State Street Bank's motion to dismiss charges against it. The judge also appointed Steve Berman as co-lead counsel for the consolidation of three suits. The consolidated suit was filed May 13, 2005. The suit is styled, "Pyrka, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-71085-NGE-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G Edmunds with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Geoffrey M. Johnson of Scott & Scott (Chagrin Falls), 33 River Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022, Phone: 440- 247-8200, Fax: 440-247-8275, E-mail: gjohnson@scott-scott.com; (2) Elwood S. Simon and John P. Zuccarini of Elwood S. Simon Assoc., 355 S. Woodward Avenue, Suite 250, Birmingham, MI 48009, Phone: 248-646-9730, Fax: 248- 258-2335, E-mail: esimon@esimon-law.com and zuccarinis@aol.com; and (3) Andrew M. Volk of Hagens Berman, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: 206-623-0594, E-mail: andrew@hbsslaw.com. Representing the defendants is Timothy A. Duffy of Kirkland & Ellis (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Mich. Court Mulls Approval of Retirees' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Michigan has yet to make a final determination on the settlement agreement in the putative class action styled, "UAW, et al. v. General Motors Corporation." On October 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees, spouses and dependants, seeking to enjoin unilateral modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested. The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to make unilateral changes. On October 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active employees and UAW retirees. On October 31, 2005, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint adding four additional retirees and one surviving spouse as putative class representatives. The lawsuit followed months of negotiations between the company and the UAW regarding changes to retiree health-care benefits and is the initial step in implementing this agreement. On December 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative class representatives finalized a settlement agreement and submitted motions to the court for certification of the class, preliminary approval of the final settlement and approval of the proposed notice to class members. At a hearing on December 22, 2005, the court granted the motion for class certification, preliminarily approved the final settlement agreement and directed that proposed notice of the settlement be mailed to class members. That mailing was complete on December 30, 2005. A final hearing to determine whether the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate with respect to the class was held on March 6, 2006. The company is awaiting a final determination on the settlement agreement by the court. The suit is styled, "United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan. Representing the plaintiffs are, (1) Michael F. Saggau and Daniel W. Sherrick of UAW International Union, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48214, US, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5240, E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net; (2) John M. West of Bredhoff and Kaiser (Washington), 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-842-2600, Fax: 22-842-1888, E-mail: jwest@bredhoff.com; and (3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, US, Phone: 412-492-5797, Fax: 412-492-8978, E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net. Representing the defendants are: Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2391; and Edward W. Risko and Francis S. Jaworski of General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff, 300 Renaissance Center, Phone: 313-667-2408, Fax: 313-667-6323, E- mail: edward.w.risko@gm.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Mich. Stock Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in two purported securities class actions filed in Michigan federal court against General Motors Corporation voluntarily dismissed their cases. The dismissed suits were: (1) "Sacco, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on November 21, 2005 by Teresa and Joseph Paul Sacco; and (2) "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on December 21, 2005 by Charles Rosen. Both of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the company, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr., John F. Smith, Jr. (in Rosen only), Peter R. Bible, and John M. Devine. Plaintiffs purported to bring claims on behalf of purchasers of General Motors stock during the period April 18, 2001 through November 9, 2005. The complaints alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints focused on certain statements regarding the Corporation's financial performance. The complaints did not specify the amount of damages sought, and defendants had no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs sought based upon the limited information available in the complaints. On January 6, 2006, the plaintiffs in Sacco filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On February 16, 2006, the plaintiffs in Rosen filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. GENERAL MOTORS: Subsidiary Faces Consolidated Mich. ERISA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Investment Management Corp. (GMIMCo), a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Corp., is one of numerous defendants in several purported class actions alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with respect to the Delphi company stock plans for salaried and hourly employees. The suits were filed in March and April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On September 13, 2005, the cases were consolidated under the case caption, "In re Delphi ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 05-CV-70882" and were transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated pretrial proceedings with other Delphi shareholder lawsuits in which GMIMCo is not named as a defendant. On March 3, 2006, the lead plaintiffs appointed by the court filed a consolidated amended class action complaint alleging that from May 28, 1999 to November 1, 2005, GMIMCo, a named fiduciary of the Delphi plans, breached its fiduciary duties to plan participants by: -- allowing them to invest in the Delphi Common Stock Fund when it was imprudent to do so; -- failing to monitor State Street Bank and Trust, the entity appointed by GMIMCo to serve as investment manager for the Delphi Common Stock Fund; and -- knowingly participating in, enabling, or failing to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty by other defendants. No determination has been made that a class action can be maintained against GMIMCo and there have been no decisions on the merits of the claims. The suit was styled, "In Re: Delphi ERISA Litigation, Case No. 2:05-cv-70882-GER-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen with referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey T. Meyers of Morgan & Meyers, 3200 Greenfield Road, Suite 260, Dearborn, MI 48120-1802, Phone: 313-961-0130; and Lynn L. Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com. Representing the defendants are: Michael P. Cooney of Dykema Gossett, (Detroit), 400 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48243- 1668, Phone: 313-568-6800, Fax: 313-568-6701, E-mail: mcooney@dykema.com; and Timothy A. Duffy, Robert J. Kopecky and Jonathan E. Moore of Kirkland & Ellis, 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2000, Fax: 312- 861-2200 and 312-861-2084, E-mail: tduffy@kirkland.com and jmoore@kirkland.com. LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Stayed Until Mid-July ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action filed against Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.'s chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors Bernard Schwartz in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled was stayed until mid-July 2006. In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky filed the suit, alleging: (1) that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about the company's financial condition relating to the sale of assets to Intelsat and Loral's Chapter 11 filing; and (2) that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him. In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. Defendant filed an answer in March 2004. Discovery has been stayed pending the outcome of mediation scheduled for January 2006. The case has been stayed until mid- July 2006. The suit is styled, "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03- cv-06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687- 7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022; and Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss & Yourman, The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025. Representing Mr. Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja and Francis James Menton, Jr., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com. LORAL SPACE: N.Y. Securities Suit V. Execs Stayed Until Mid-July ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action filed against two Loral Space & Communications Ltd. executives in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York was stayed until mid-July 2006. In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas Orndorff and Marvin Rich filed a purported class action complaint against Bernard Schwartz, the company's chief executive officer and chairman of the board of directors and Richard J. Townsend, the company's executive vice president. The complaint alleged: (1) that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about the company's financial condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for certain general and administrative expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.; and (2) that each of the defendants are secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of company common stock during the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with them. In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. Defendants filed an answer to the complaint in December 2004. Discovery has commenced and is ongoing. The parties have requested a stay of discovery pending the outcome of mediation scheduled for January 2006. The case has been stayed until mid- July 2006. The suit is styled, "Hull v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-07829- JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lauren D. Antonino, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood & Harley, 2300 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: (404) 873-3900; and Christopher Scott Hinton, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: isquith@whafh.com. LORAL SPACE: Reaches Settlement in N.Y. Consolidated ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. reached an agreement to settle the consolidated class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against it by its former employees and participants in the Loral Savings Plan. In July 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative Committee and certain existing and former members of the Board of Directors of SS/ L, including Bernard L. Schwartz. The amended complaint alleges: (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage the assets of the Savings Plan by including Loral common stock as an investment alternative and by providing matching contributions under the Savings Plan in Loral stock, (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor the committee defendants and to provide them with accurate information, (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by failing to provide complete and accurate information to Savings Plan participants and beneficiaries, and (4) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts of interest. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the Savings Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Loral stock. In September 2005, the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this case for $7.5 million payable solely from proceeds of insurance coverage and without recourse to the individual defendants. The District Court has suspended further proceedings in this case pending the outcome of the insurance litigation referred to below and final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against the company with respect to this case in an unliquidated amount. The company believes that this claim is without merit and have filed an objection in the Bankruptcy Court which is scheduled to be heard in December 2005. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the Savings Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Old Loral stock. In September 2005, the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this case for $7.5 million payable solely from proceeds of insurance coverage and without recourse to the individual defendants. The District Court has suspended further proceedings in this case pending the outcome of an insurance litigation against the company and final approval of the settlement. Plaintiffs have also filed a proof of claim against the company with respect to this case and have agreed that in no event will their claim against the company with respect to this case exceed $22 million. The suit is styled, "In Re Loral Space ERISA Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-09923-LTS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain. Representing the plaintiffs is Evan J. Smith, Brodsky & Smith, L.L.C., Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.667.6200, Fax: 610.667.9029, E-mail: esmith@brodsky- smith.com. LORAL SPACE: Settlement Reached in Globalstar Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors Bernard Schwartz preliminarily settled the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against him, the company and Globalstar Telecommunications Limited (GTL). On September 26, 2001, the nineteen separate purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by various holders of securities of GTL and Globalstar L.P. (Globalstar) were consolidated. In November 2001, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, alleging: (1) that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or failing to state material facts about Globalstar's business and prospects; (2) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged "controlling persons" of Globalstar; (3) that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue statements of material facts in or omissions of material facts from a registration statement relating to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000; (4) that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of the Securities Act for untrue statements of material facts in or omissions of material facts from a prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000; and (5) that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL. The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar, Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from December 6, 1999 through October 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with them. In December 2003, a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety was denied by the court insofar as GTL and Mr. Schwartz are concerned, and discovery has commenced and is ongoing. In December 2004, plaintiffs' motion for certification of the class was granted. In June 2004, Globalstar was dissolved, and in October 2004, GTL was liquidated pursuant to chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. This case was preliminarily settled by Mr. Schwartz in July 2005 for $20 million with final approval of the settlement in December 2005, and he has commenced a lawsuit against Globalstar's directors and officers liability insurers seeking to recover the full settlement amount plus legal fees and expenses incurred in enforcing his rights under Globalstar's directors and officers liability insurance policy. In addition, Mr. Schwartz filed a proof of claim against the company asserting a general unsecured prepetition claim for, among other things, indemnification relating to this case. Mr. Schwartz and the company agreed that in no event would his claim against the company with respect to the settlement of this case exceed $25 million. The suit was styled "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-1748 (SHS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge P. Kevin Castel. Representing the plaintiffs is Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com. Representing the company and Bernard Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja, Francis James Menton of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728- 8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com MASSACHUSETTS: MBTA Spending $310M for Disabled Riders' Needs ------------------------------------------------------------- The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and groups representing people with disabilities agreed on a settlement that would require MBTA to spend $310 million in making public transit system accessible to the disabled community, according to CBS4Boston. The suit was filed in 2002 over allegations by disability advocates who claimed broken elevators, ineffective wheelchair lifts and inaccessible stations rendered the public transit system useless to the disabled community. The settlement includes: -- a $122 million budget over the next five years to add, replace, or upgrade elevators and escalators and to ensure continued, uninterrupted service; -- training MBTA employees with the help of disabled passengers; -- continuing to buy accessible low-floor buses; and -- creating an assistant general manager for accessibility. It involves no monetary damages payment, but the MBTA has to shoulder all or a portion of the plaintiffs' legal costs. Progress of the changes will be assessed by undercover monitors and a court-appointed overseer. The settlement still needs approval by U.S. District Court Judge Morris E. Lasker. The lead counsel for the 11 plaintiffs and the Boston Center for Independent Living is Daniel S. Manning, 197 Friend Street Boston, Massachusetts, (Suffolk Co.). MICROSOFT CORP: Mass. Schools to Receive Up to $1M in Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lynn Public Schools in Massachusetts will be receiving nearly $1 million in vouchers from Microsoft Corp. as part of a settlement of a class action that accused the company of violating the state's consumer protection and unfair competition laws, The Daily Item reports. Superintendent of Schools Nicholas Kostan said Lynn is eligible for $475,000 in vouchers for new hardware, along with another $475,000 in vouchers for new software. Case Background In 2000, the company faced a flurry of lawsuits for using its market power to force customers to pay higher prices for its Windows operating system. The 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. They sought to recover alleged overcharges for these products. The courts 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 were 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). Based in Washington, Microsoft Corp. -- http://www.microsoft.com -- provides a variety of products and services, including its Windows operating systems and Office software suite. The company has expanded into markets such as video game consoles, interactive television, and Internet access. MINERAL SUPPLIERS: Chinese Firms Face Price-Fixing Complaints ------------------------------------------------------------- Chinese bauxite and magnesite suppliers are facing class action complaints filed by two U.S. clients, according to Chemical Business Newsbase. In September 2005, several Chinese magnesite suppliers were named in complaints by Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Resco Products Inc. and Texas-based Animal Science Products Inc. Recently, certain Chinese bauxite suppliers were also named in complaints by the same companies that use bauxite and magnesite as raw materials. The U.S. companies are requesting jury trial. The Chinese firms are accused of conspiring to fix and/or inflate the prices of refractory grade bauxite products they supplied. Named in the complaints is Bosai Materials, formerly Nanchuan Minerals. Ire ore company LKAB, parent of Swedish company, Minelco Group, is also named as defendant. LKAB on the Net: http://www.lkab.com/. NATURAL GAS: NYMEX Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 19, 2006 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed, partial $72.75 million settlement in the matter: "In Re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, Master File No. 03 CV 6186 (VM)." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased, sold, or settled New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Natural Gas contracts between June 1, 1999 and December 31, 2002 in a lawsuit against: -- Cinergy Marketing and Trading, L.P.; -- CMS Field Services (n/k/a Cantera Gas Co., LLC); -- CMS Marketing Services & Trading Co. (n/k/a CMS Energy Resource Management Co.); -- Cook Inlet Energy Supply, LLC; -- Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC; -- Dynegy Marketing & Trade (including West Coast Power, LLC); -- Enserco Energy, Inc.; -- Entergy-Koch Trading, LP; -- e-prime, Inc.; -- MidAmerican Energy Co.; -- Mieco, Inc.; -- ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. (f/k/a ONEOK Energy & Marketing Company, L.P.); -- ONEOK, Inc.; -- Reliant Energy Services, Inc.; -- Sempra Energy Trading Corp.; -- WD Energy Services, Inc.; -- Western Gas Resources, Inc.; -- Williams Companies, Inc.; and -- Williams Power Company (f/k/a Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Company). The hearing will be held on May 19, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Victor Marrero in Courtroom 905, U.S. District Courthouse, New York, New York. Any objections or exclusions to the settlement must be filed by April 26, 2006. Proof of claim must be submitted by July 28, 2006. For more details, contact In re Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24626, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 1-877-741-1231, Web site: http://www.naturalgascase.com/naturalgas/default.htm;and Christopher Lovell, P.C. of Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP, 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10110, Phone: 212-608-1900, Fax: 212-719-4677, Web site: http://www.lshllp.com. OKLAHOMA: Bill Proposing to Change Civil Justice System Junked -------------------------------------------------------------- A Senate committee has rejected a bill that would have affected class actions in Oklahoma, according to Associated Press. The proposal was seeking to put limits on lawsuit awards in order to protect businesses, doctors and others from being hit by large lawsuit awards and high insurance rates. It contemplates limiting medical malpractice to $300,000. Meanwhile, it would add a section on class action that opponents said would hamper royalty owners owed money by oil companies. Arguments in support of the bill contend that lawsuits against doctors and manufacturers drive up the cost of health care and other services and products, encouraging professionals to go out of the country. Four Republicans voted for the bill, but the State Judiciary Committee and seven Democrats rejected it. OLD ENGLAND: Australian Hotel Settles Food Poisoning Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Australia's Old England Hotel settled a food poisoning class action filed by individuals who became ill after eating there during a festive season two years ago, The Herald Sun reports. The class action, launched by the Maurice Blackburn Cashman law firm, alleges that food prepared by and served at the hotel was contaminated with Salmonella bacteria. The Statement of Claim alleges that the Old England Hotel breached the Trade Practices Act by serving food, which was defective, unfit for the purpose and unmerchantable. It thus seeks compensation for injuries, including gastroenteritis, nausea, diarrhea, cramps, fever, pain and suffering. Under the settlement, which was approved by Justice Neil Young of the Federal Court, the historic Melbourne hotel has to pay significant compensation to the victims. In approving the deal, Justice Young noted that the hotel admitted liability and the victims' damages claims would now be assessed. An estimated 2000 people ate at the hotel between December 23, 2003 and January 7, 2004, the time period wherein the food poisoning occurred. With the court's approval of the deal, any patron who became ill during this period may be entitled to compensation ranging between $5000 and $20,000. The lead plaintiff in the case, a 47-year-old father who did not want to be named, became seriously ill along with his daughters then aged five and eight. He claimed that they were affected for weeks after the meal and that the younger child was treated at the Royal Children's Hospital. Patrons reported symptoms of gastroenteritis, nausea, diarrhea and fever. According to applicants' lawyer, Bernard Murphy, the worst affected were the elderly. For more details, contact Bernard Murphy, Anna Neesham and Carly Nadenbousch of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Phone: 03 9605 2735, Fax: 03 9600 2407, E-mail: cnadenbousch@mbc.aus.net. PINNACLE FOODS: Issues Allergy Alert on Brownie Mix with Walnuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pinnacle Foods Group Inc. of Mountain Lakes, New Jersey is recalling a limited production run of Duncan Hines Double Fudge Brownie mix due to undeclared walnuts ingredient. The Brownie mix was manufactured by a co-packer for distribution by Pinnacle. The recall applies only to "Duncan Hines(R) Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownies" with the lot code listed below, which were sold at Safeway stores located only in Northern California, Nevada and Hawaii serviced by Safeway's Tracy, California Distribution Center. These cartons may contain "Walnut Brownie" mix rather than the "Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownie" mix and could therefore contain nuts not listed on the carton. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts may run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. This voluntary recall was initiated after the company received call from a consumer informing the company that the "Duncan Hines(R) Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownies" she purchased actually contained a walnut brownie mix. There have been no reports of illness as a result of this incident. Production Code information: Retail Carton UPC Code: 6-44209-31131-6 Carton Description: "Duncan Hines(R) Family- Style Chewy Fudge Brownies", 21 oz. Box "Best If Used By" code located on bottom of carton: Jun 16, 07 GC6 "HH:MM", where HH:MM is a time stamp. People who are allergic to or have a severe sensitivity to treenuts, should not consume this product. Consumers are advised to return the product to the store where purchased for a full refund. The product is safe to eat by people who are not allergic to nuts. The Food and Drug Administration has been made aware of this recall. This announcement applies only to the ""Duncan Hines(R) Family Style Chewy Fudge Brownies" and does not apply to any other Duncan Hines products sold by Safeway in the states listed above. Consumers Contact: Pinnacle Foods, Phone: 1-800-554-5680. TITAN CORP: Faces Lawsuits Over Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq ------------------------------------------------------------- Two lawsuits were filed against the Titan Corporation and other defendants alleging that they participated in, approved of, or condoned the mistreatment of prisoners by U.S. military officials in certain prison facilities in Iraq in violation of federal, state and international law. The first of these cases was filed on June 9, 2004 and styled, "Saleh v. Titan Corporation, No. 04-CV-1143 R," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against the company, CACI International, Inc. (CACI), and its affiliates, and three individuals, one formally employed by Titan and one by a Titan subcontractor. Plaintiffs in the Saleh suit are asking class certification. The second case styled, "Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation, No. 04- CV-1248," was filed on July 27, 2004, on behalf of five individual plaintiffs against the company, CACI and CACI affiliates, and contains allegations similar to those in the Saleh case. Class certification has not been requested in Ibrahim. UICI: Discovery Going Ahead in Texas Insurance Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- UICI continues to face "Association-Group" Insurance Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. A status conference was held for the case on April 7. UICI and MEGA were named as defendants in a purported class action suit filed on May 6, 2004, styled, "Diaz v. The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company, UICI, et al.," in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of San Bernardino, Rancho, Case No. RCV-080379. Plaintiffs alleged, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of all other policyholders of MEGA in California that the defendants engaged in an illegal and fraudulent marketing scheme in violation of California common law and the California Business and Professions Code 17200. They also have alleged that defendants: (1) "maintain NASE to illegally avoid premium rate regulation," (2) fail to issue insurance coverage to members of the NASE on a guaranteed issue basis in violation of California law, (3) and rescind certificates in violation of California law. The suit sought injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount. UICI and MEGA were also named as defendants in a purported class action filed on May 14, 2004, styled, "Joyce, et al. v. UICI, MEGA, National Association for the Self-Employed, et al.," in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC315580. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and committed fraud, professional negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. In addition, they also alleged, on behalf of themselves and persons similarly situated in the state of California, that defendants violated the unfair competition restrictions of California Business and Professions Code 17200. They sought injunctive relief and monetary damages in an unspecified amount. On June 21, 2004, defendants removed the Joyce case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On December 10, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) issued an order transferring these actions to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas for coordinated pretrial proceedings (In re UICI "Association-Group" Insurance Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1578). WELLS REAL: Ga. Court Allows Motion to Appeal Suit's Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia granted plaintiffs' motion to appeal the dismissal of a class action filed against Wells Real Estate Investment, Inc.'s President And Director Leo. F. Wells, III, Wells Capital and Wells Management in. A suit styled, "Hendry, et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III, et al., Civil Action No. 04-A-2791 2," was initially filed. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to permit voluntary dismissal of this suit, and it was subsequently dismissed without prejudice. In November 2004, the same plaintiffs filed a second putative class action complaint against, among others, Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Management, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051 6." The second action alleged, among other things, that: (1) Mr. Wells and Wells Capital breached their fiduciary duties to the limited partners of Wells Real Estate Fund I, a previously syndicated real estate partnership sponsored by Wells Capital and Mr. Wells, in connection with certain disclosures and prior actions relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds; (2) the defendants breached an alleged contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the limited partners of Fund I relating to an alleged waiver of deferred management fees; and (3) certain misrepresentations and omissions in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited partners of Fund I caused that consent solicitation to be materially misleading. The plaintiffs sought, among other remedies, judgment against Mr. Wells and Wells Capital, jointly and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial: punitive damages, disgorgement of fees earned by the general partners of Fund I, enforcement of the alleged contract relating to the alleged waiver of deferred management fees, and an award to the plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. Pursuant to orders entered July 1, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all counts in the complaint. Thus, this action has now been dismissed, subject to the plaintiffs' right to file a notice of appeal within the required time period. On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the court to vacate and re-enter the orders to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration or notice of appeal. On February 15, 2006, the court heard argument on the plaintiffs' motion to vacate and to re-enter the judgments previously entered on July 1, 2005. Following the argument, the court stated orally from the bench that it would grant the motion, so the judgments could be re-entered to allow the plaintiffs thirty days within which to file a notice of appeal. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- April 24-25, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealey Publications Hyatt Regency, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 27-28, 2006 RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS American Conference Institute New York Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com April 27-28, 2006 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conference Institute San Francisco Contact: 1-888-224-2480 or customercare@americanconference.com May 1-2, 2006 INSURANCE/REINSURANCE COMPANY RUN-OFF CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 8-9, 2006 CATASTROPHIC LOSS CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Amelia Island, FL Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 18, 2006 MEALEY'S EMAIL DISCOVERY & RETENTION POLICIES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Fairmont San Francisco Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 25-26, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE 2006: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu June 5-6, 2006 ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton (Arlington St.) Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 8-9, 2006 RETAIL & HOSPITALITY LIABILITY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Intercontintental Buckhead, Atlanta Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 8-9, 2006 ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 12-13, 2006 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 22-23, 2006 PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE Mealey Publications Hotel Monaco, Seattle Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 19-20, 2006 LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE Mealey Publications The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 16-17, 2006 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 30-December 1, 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ April 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com April 01-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com March 30, 2006 LEAD LITIGATION: THE IMPACT OF THE RI DECISION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 11, 2006 HURRICANE AND NATURAL DISASTER CONFERENCE SERIES TELECONFERENCE: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIMS ANALYSIS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 18, 2006 FRAUDULENT JOINDER TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 26, 2006 P2P NETWORKS AND LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: PROTECTION OF DIGITAL MATERIALS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 4, 2006 TOUGH CASES IN TOUGH PLACES TELECONFERENCE: STRATEGIES IN PLAINTIFF FRIENDLY JURISDICTIONS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 16, 2006 WORKING WITH EXPERTS IN A TOXIC TORT CASE TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 18, 2006 ETHICS TELECONFERENCE: THE CLASSIFICATION OF CLIENT EXPENSES IN MASS TORTS--CASE SPECIFIC VS. COMMON BENEFIT EXPENSES Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 23, 2006 EMERGING TRENDS IN BAD FAITH LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 6, 2006 PREEMPTION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 15, 2006 ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com June 20, 2006 FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 13, 2006 TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. ________________________________________________________________ Sources: http://www.mealeys.com/conferences_schedule.html http://www.cleonline.com/ https://www.ali-aba.org/aliaba/CRSLST.asp http://www.americanconference.com/Conferences.htm http://www.ceb.com http://www.pli.edu http://www.worldjustice.com/class_action_seminars/ http://www.aei.org/events/filter./events.asp http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/index.html http://masstortsmadeperfect.com New Securities Fraud Cases AMERICA SERVICE: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in Tenn. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of America Service Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ASGRE) between September 24, 2003 to March 16, 2006, inclusive, (the Class Period). The lawsuit was filed against America Service and certain officers and directors of the company. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the company and certain officers and directors issued numerous false and misleading statements about the company's financial condition. In particular, the company failed to disclose or misrepresented that: (1) America Service was not charging its customers in accordance with their contracts; (2) That America Service failed to properly credit customers with discounts, rebates, and price concessions; (3) That the company failed to provide customers with appropriate credits for returned pharmaceutical products; (4) That the company inappropriately established and utilized reserves to help the company more closely meet its budgeted results. On March 15, 2006, after the markets closed, America Service announced the findings of an internal investigation into the company's practices. Consequently, based upon the results of the investigation, the company will restate earnings for the years ended December 31, 2001, through December 31, 2004 and for the first six months of 2005, and issue refunds, of $3.6 million to customers where it failed to appropriately credit their accounts. In reaction to the news, shares fell $5.65 per share, or approximately 29%, to close at $13.95 per share. For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com. ASTEA INT'L: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Astea International, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATEA) between May 11, 2005 and March 31, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E- mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. ESTEE LAUDER: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. (NYSE: EL) from April 28, 2005 through October 25, 2005, inclusive. The complaint charges Estee Lauder and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the demand for Estee Lauder's cosmetic products had sharply decreased due to consumers increasingly purchasing cosmetic products from alternate sources; (2) that Estee Lauder lacked the ability to effectively analyze promotions, wherefrom the company derived a substantial amount of business, which resulted in increased marketing costs; (3) that to mask the adverse effects of slowing sales, defendants flooded retailers with the company's products, which defendants knew would cut into 2006 sales; (4) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements concerning the company's future prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On September 19, 2005, after the market closed, Estee Lauder revised downward its guidance for the first half of fiscal 2006, but reaffirmed the company's outlook for full-year fiscal 2006. On this news, shares of the company dropped $4, or 9.9 percent, to close at $36.48 per share on September 20, 2005. On October 26, 2005, before the market opened, Estee Lauder announced financial and operational results well below analysts' expectations, including a decline of as much as 33 percent in profits, and significantly lowered guidance for the 2006 fiscal year. The company reported net earnings from continuing operations for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 of $61.8 million, a 38 percent drop compared with $95.7 million last year. Diluted earnings per common share from continuing operations for the quarter were 28 cents compared with 41 cents reported in the prior year. On this news, shares of Estee Lauder sank $2.55 per share, or 7.7 percent, to close on October 26, 2005 at $30.71 per share. For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. GMH COMMUNITIES: Schatz Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of GMH Communities Trust between October 28, 2004 and March 10, 2006, inclusive. Also included are all those who purchased in a secondary offering on or around September 28, 2005. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements in order to inflate earnings, issue dividends, and complete a secondary offering. Specifically, in completing its year-end closing of its 2005 financial statements, GMH's Chief Financial Officer wrote to the Audit Committee of the board indicating certain problems including the "tone at the top" from the company's executive management. The Audit Committee launched an investigation and found, among other things, that the company had material weaknesses in internal controls, that pressure was exerted by key executives on the accounting function and that there was a need for adjustments in the company's financial statements for current and prior periods. On this news, shares fell 23% from the close of $16.83 on March 10, 2006 to reach $12.90 by the close on March 13. 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. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set April 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, reminds investors who purchased the common stock of Micron Technology Inc. during the period February 24, 2001 to February 13, 2003 that the deadline be appointed as lead plaintiff is April 25, 2006. Pomerantz filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho (1:06-cv-00105-EJL) against the company and certain of its officers. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of The Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. The complaint alleges that during the class period, Micron, along with others in the industry, engaged in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory ("DRAM"). DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product used in personal computers. Micron and other manufacturers conspired to raise the price of DRAM sold to certain original equipment manufacturers of personal computers and servers. In June of 2002, Micron received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") related to an industry-wide investigation into alleged anti-competitive practices among DRAM manufacturers. At the time, Micron's management refuted any wrongdoing. In September 2004, Infineon, Micron's competitor, pled guilty to participating in a criminal conspiracy from July 1, 1999 to June 15, 2002. In November 2004, Micron finally admitted that the DOJ's investigation revealed evidence of price fixing by Micron employees. The complaint further alleges that defendants' issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market, artificially inflating the company's stock. More specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose the following materially adverse facts to the market: (1) that Micron engaged in illegal anti-competitive behavior to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of DRAM; (2) that Micron's financial results throughout the Class Period were materially inflated as a direct result of the price-fixing conspiracy due to the company's illegal behavior of price-fixing; and (3) that the company's financial projections during the class period lacked a reasonable basis because they were issued while the company involved itself in an illegal price-fixing scheme. For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb and Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: 888-476-6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com. NATURES SUNSHINE: Stull, Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in Utah --------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (OTC: NATR), formerly (NASDAQ: NATRE), between October 19, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that defendant violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants concealed the following: (1) that NSPI lacked requisite internal controls, and, consequently, the company's projections were based upon defective assumptions; and (2) that the company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for foreign transactions. As a result of defendants' false statements, NSPI's stock traded as high as $23.34 per share. During the Class Period, while NSPI was trading at artificially inflated prices, top officers sold over $1.9 million worth of their NSPI stock. On February 17, 2006, NSPI announced that it had expanded a previously announced review of selected financial information concerning certain foreign operations and that it had revealed notice from NASDAQ that its common stock was subject to delisting. On March 20, 2005, the company filed an 8-K announcing that its previous financial statements could no longer be relied upon and that it had expanded its investigation to include other matters related to NSPI's financial statements. Then on March 24, 2006, the company announced that it had received a non-compliance notice from the Nasdaq due to its failure to file its Form 10-K in a timely manner. On this news, NSPI's stock fell to $11.68 per share. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. SAC CAPITAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against SAC Capital Management L.L.C.: Biovail Corporation Common Stock (NYSE: BVF). 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 June 5, 2003 to March 24, 2006. 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. ********* 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, Maria Cristina 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 * * *