/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060504.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 4, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 88
Headlines
ACTIVISION INC: Former Calif. Employees File Overtime Pay Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Cargo Surcharges
AMERICAN AIRLINES: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses "Marcoux" Case
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Travel Agents' Suit in N.D. Ohio
BAUSCH & LOMB: Miss. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Care
BAUSCH & LOMB: Contact Lens Care User Files Suit After Eye Loss
CALIFORNIA: To Spend $600M for Prisoners' Mental Health Care
CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Complaint Anew
CENTRAL ILLINOIS: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ill. Suit's Dismissal
COLORADO: Trial on Suit Over Parolees' Voting Rights Set Friday
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Discovery Proceeds in Travel Agents' Suit
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Lawyers for Ex-Directors Seek Fair Hearing
EVCI CAREER: N.Y. Court Considers Consolidation of Stock Suits
GTECH BRASIL: Continues to Face Suit Over 2000 Lottery Contract
HAYES LEMMERZ: Mich. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Reaches Agreement in Ga. Securities Suit
HOIST FITNESS: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Exercise Benches
HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Continues to Face Employees' Suit in Ariz.
INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Holds Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: May Trial Set for Electricity Rate Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: Enters $70M Settlement in Calif. Antitrust Suit
NC SOFT: Virtual Games Firm to Appeal Identity Theft Suit Ruling
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
SOFT DRINK MAKERS: Face New Suit Over Benzene in Fruit Drinks
PASCAL COMPANY: Recalls Oral Rinse Due to Possible Contamination
QUIZNOS SUB: Canadian Franchisee Investors Sue to Get Refunds
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Product Liability Lawsuit in Fla. Dismissed
WELLS FARGO: Wins Suit Against Clients Over Stolen Personal Data
YAHOO INC: N.J. Suit Claims Firm Defrauded Online Advertisers
UNDERWRITERS: Judge Junks Some Plaintiffs' Claims in IPO Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHINA ENERGY: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
CHINA ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Bernard M. Gross Files Stock Suit in Pa.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in Pa.
LIPMAN ENGINEERING: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in Fla.
ST JUDE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Minn.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Abbey Spanier Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Firm Files Stock Suit in Calif.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Rosen Law Initiates Stock Investigation
*********
ACTIVISION INC: Former Calif. Employees File Overtime Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP of Boston, Massachusetts,
filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court charging that
videogame publisher Activision, Inc. failed to pay overtime
compensation to its California Computer Graphics employees, as
required by California law.
The lawsuit, "Erimez v. Activision, Inc.," was filed on behalf
of a former Activision employee who worked as an animator at one
of Activision's California studios.
"Activision's Computer Graphics employees, who work many
overtime hours to produce Activision's profitable videogames,
fully deserve to be paid all the overtime compensation to which
they are entitled under the law," stated Thomas Urmy, a partner
at Shapiro Haber & Urmy.
Mr. Urmy noted that this is one of several cases that have been
filed by his firm on behalf of employees in the videogame
industry, including a lawsuit now pending against Sony Computer
Entertainment America, Inc. in the San Mateo County Superior
Court.
"Excessive overtime is endemic in the videogame industry, but we
hope that this and other lawsuits will spur major changes in the
way employers treat their employees."
The complaint alleges that Activision unlawfully classifies its
Computer Graphics employees -- whose responsibilities include
modeling, texturing, lighting and animating images in
Activision's videogames -- as "exempt" from California's laws
requiring overtime pay. The plaintiff is asking the court to
find that Activision's compensation policy is unlawful and to
award unpaid wages, penalties and punitive damages to current
and former employees who were wrongfully denied overtime pay.
Mr. Urmy also announced websites for people who want to
participate in or assist with the lawsuits. "If you have been
denied overtime by Activision or Sony Computer Entertainment, or
if you know someone who has, we want to hear from you," he said.
The plaintiff in the Activision case is also represented by
Schubert & Reed LLP and Rukin Hyland & Doria LLP, both of San
Francisco, California. On the Net:
http://activisionovertime.com;http://sonyovertime.com.
For more information, contact:
(1) Mr. Urmy of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Exchange Place,
53 State Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(617) 439-3939, E-mail: turmy@shulaw.com;
(2) Robert Schubert of Schubert & Reed LLP, Three
Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650, San Francisco, CA
94111, Phone: (415) 788-4220, E-mail:
rschubert@schubert-reed.com;
(3) Peter Rukin of Rukin Hyland & Doria LLP, 100 Pine
Street, Suite 725, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 421-1800, E-mail: peterrukin@rhddlaw.com; or
(4) Todd Heyman of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, Exchange Place
53 State Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
(617) 439-3939, E-mail: theyman@shulaw.com.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Antitrust Suits Over Cargo Surcharges
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and domestic air
carriers are defendants in approximately 25 purported federal
class actions in New York, Illinois, Florida and the District of
Columbia, all alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by conspiring to set prices and surcharges on
cargo shipments.
The suits are:
-- "Animal Land, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on February 17, 2006;
-- "Joan Adams v. British Airways, et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on February 22, 2006;
-- "Rock International Transport v. Air Canada, et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on February 24, 2006;
-- "Helen's Wooden Crafting Co. v. Air Canada, et al.,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on February 24, 2006;
-- "ABM Int'l, Inc. v. Ace Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on February 28, 2006;
-- "Blumex USA, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on March 1, 2006;
-- "Mamlaka Video v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on March 3, 2006;
-- "Spraying Systems Co. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc.,
et al." filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on March 3, 2006;
-- "Mitchell Spitz v. Air France-KLM et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on March 6, 2006;
-- "JCK Industries, Inc. v. British Airways, PLC et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on March 6, 2006;
-- "Marc Seligman v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida on March 6, 2006;
-- "CID Marketing and Promotion Inc. v. AMR Corporation
et al.," filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 7, 2006;
-- "Lynn Culver v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on March 8, 2006;
-- "JSL Carpet Corp. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
al." filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on March 10, 2006;
-- "Y. Hata & Co, Ltd. v. Air France-KLM et al." filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 13, 2006;
-- "FTS International Express v. ACE Aviation Holdings,
Inc., et al." filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2006;
-- "Thule, Inc. v. Air Canada, et al.," filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York on March 28, 2006;
-- "Rosetti Handbags and Accessories, Ltd. v. Air France
ADS, et al.," filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on March 31, 2006;
-- "W.I.T. Entertainment Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.
filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on April 3, 2006;
-- "Jeff Rapps v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on April 7, 2006;
-- "Funke Design Build, Inc. v. AMR Corporation, et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on April 7, 2006;
-- "Sul-American Export Inc. v. Air France ADS, et al.,"
filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on April 7, 2006;
-- "La Regale Ltd. v. British Airways PLC, et al." filed
in the Untied States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on April 12, 2006;
-- "J.A. Transport Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings, Inc., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on April 12, 2006; and
-- "Caribe Air Cargo, Inc. v. ACE Aviation Holdings,
Inc., et al.," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia on April 13, 2006).
The suits are alleging that the defendants violated U.S.
antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and
surcharges on cargo shipments.
These cases are expected to be consolidated, in an as yet
undetermined court, with approximately 33 other class actions in
which the Company has not been named as a defendant. Plaintiffs
are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: N.Y. Court Partially Dismisses "Marcoux" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
dismissed certain claims in the consolidated class action
against American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp.,
which was filed by a flight attendant and is entitled, "Ann M.
Marcoux, et al., v. American Airlines, Inc., et al."
On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint, that
was subsequently amended on November 30, 2004, was filed against
the Company and the Association of Professional Flight
Attendants (APFA), the Union, which represents the Company's
flight attendants.
While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of the Company's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedly
resulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement
referred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).
The RPA was one of three labor agreements the Company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.
In a related case, entitled, "Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA
Airlines, LLC, et al.," also in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, the court denied a preliminary
injunction against implementation of the RPA on June 30, 2003.
The "Marcoux" suit alleges various claims against the Union and
American relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the
RPA by individual Union members, including:
-- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and
By-laws, violation by the Union of its duty of fair
representation to its members,
-- violation by the Company of provisions of the Railway
Labor Act (RLA) through improper coercion of flight
attendants into voting or changing their vote for
ratification, and
-- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).
On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various
state law claims against the Company, all but one of the LMRDA
claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.
This leaves the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of
fair representation against the Company and the APFA (as well as
one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of
the union constitution).
The suit is "Marcoux et al v. American Airlines Inc. et al, Case
No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nina Gershon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Emily Maruja Bass, Law Offices of Emily Bass, 25
Washington Street, Suite 305 Brooklyn, NY 11201, Phone:
718-522-9705, Fax: 718-522-9707, E-mail: eb@basslaw.us;
and
(2) Martin Garbus and Mark J. Rachman, Davis & Gilbert,
LLP, 1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-468-4800, Fax: 212-468-4888, E-mail:
mgarbus@dglaw.com or mrachman@dglaw.com.
Representing the defendants are, Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr.,
Melissa C. Rodriguez and Sam Scott Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-
309-6000, Fax: 212-309-6273, E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com,
mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com and sshaulson@morganlewis.com.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Still Faces Travel Agents' Suit in N.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc., a subsidiary of AMR Corp. along with
several other air carriers is a defendant in a consolidated
class action by travel agents, which is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and entitled,
"In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561."
Between April 3, 2003 and June 5, 2003, three lawsuits were
filed by travel agents, some of whom opted out of a prior class
action (now dismissed), to pursue their claims individually
against the Company, other airline defendants, and in one case
against certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC.
The suits are:
-- "Tam Travel et. al., v. Delta Air Lines et al., in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California - San Francisco (51 individual agencies),"
-- "Paula Fausky d/b/a Timeless Travel v. American
Airlines, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio Eastern Division (29
agencies)," and
-- "Swope Travel et al. v. Orbitz, et al. in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
Beaumont Division (6 agencies).
Collectively, these lawsuits seek damages and injunctive relief
alleging that the certain airline defendants and Orbitz LLC:
-- conspired to prevent travel agents from acting as
effective competitors in the distribution of airline
tickets to passengers in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act;
-- conspired to monopolize the distribution of common
carrier air travel between airports in the United
States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act;
and that
-- between 1995 and the present, the airline defendants
conspired to reduce commissions paid to U.S.-based
travel agents in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.
By order dated November 10, 2003, these actions were transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Ohio under the caption, "In re Travel Agent
Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561, Master Docket No.
1:03-30000." Judge Peter C. Economus was assigned to the case.
The suit is "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1561, Master Docket No. 1:03-30000," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Ohio under Judge Peter
C. Economus. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph M. Alioto, Jr., Ste. 3160, 555 California St.,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-434-8900, Fax: 415-
434-9200, E-mail: jaliotojr@aliotolaw.com;
(2) John H. Boone of Law Offices of John H. Boone, 555
California St., Suite 3160, San Francisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-434-1133, Fax: 415-434-9200; and
(3) Harvey B. Bruner, Bruner & Jordan, 1600 Illuminating
Bldg., 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone:
216-566-9477, Fax: 216-696-7047, E-mail:
hbbdef@aol.com; and
(4) Harold R. Collins, Jr. of Blecher & Collins, Ste. 2000,
611 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
213-622-4222, Fax: 213-622-1656, E-mail:
hcollins@blechercollins.com.
Representing the Company are:
(i) Rachel S. Brass and George A. Nicoud, III, and Mark E.
Weber of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Phone: 415-393-8293,
415-393-8308 and 213-229-7597, Fax: 415-374-8429, 415-
374-8473 and 213-229-6597;
(ii) Hugh E. McKay of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, 1700
Huntington Building, 925 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH
44115-1483, Phone: 216-443-9019, Fax: 216-443-9011, E-
mail: hmckay@porterwright.com.
BAUSCH & LOMB: Miss. Woman Files Suit Over Contact Lens Care
------------------------------------------------------------
The Langston Law Firm of Booneville filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi on
behalf of Prentiss County resident Joan Lesley, who had used
contact lens care solution Renu with MoistureLoc, the Daily
Journal Reports.
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. temporarily suspended shipments of Renu on
April 10 after complaints of eye infections arose from people
who had used it.
Ms. Lesley, designated class representative, is accusing the
manufacturer of breach of warranty, breach of implied warranty,
breach of Mississippi's Consumer Protection Act, state consumer
fraud practices and various other alleged legal misdeeds. Her
suit is also asking that Bausch & Lomb stop further sales of
Renu.
Ms. Lesley is also asking for various financial compensation
including attorneys' fees and expenses.
The suit is "Lesley v. Bausch & Lomb, Incorporated (1:06-cv-
00132-GHD-JAD)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi under Judge Glen H. Davidson,
with referral to Jerry A. Davis. Representing the plaintiff
are:
(1) Timothy Reese Balducci of Langston Law Firm, P.A., P.O.
Box 787 Booneville, MS 38829-0787, Phone: (662) 728-
3138, E-mail: tbalducci@langstonlaw.com; and
(2) Casey Langston Lott of The Lott Law Firm, P.O. Box 382
Booneville, MS 38829, Phone: 662-728-9733, E-mail:
clott@thelottlawfirm.com
BAUSCH & LOMB: Contact Lens Care User Files Suit After Eye Loss
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. faces a potential class action in Palm Beach
County, Florida over 69-year-old Zoe Wade's claim that symptoms
of fungal keratitis arose a few weeks after she began using ReNu
with MoistureLoc in January 2005, the Associated Press reports.
Seven months after her doctor recommended the removal of her
left eye, the report said.
Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
Bausch & Lomb on behalf of all users of ReNu with MoistureLoc,
contact lens solution manufactured by the Company. The contact
lens solution is linked to a serious fungal infection by the
Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Foods and Drug
Administration. Consistent use of the product reportedly
results to a serious corneal infection known as 'fusarium
keratitis', an infection of the cornea (Class Action Reporter,
April 24, 2006).
Ms. Wade's suit is the first case that claims the product caused
the loss of an eye.
Her attorney, Chris Searcy, also sued Bausch & Lomb on behalf of
a 46-year-old man who claims his vision has been impaired by the
fungus, which he contracted after using the product.
Though health officials have found no direct link between
MoistureLoc and the infection, Meg Graham, spokeswoman for
Bausch & Lomb, said the Company is working with the CDC and the
Food and Drug Administration to determine "if there is indeed a
relationship between these infections and any particular
product."
Recently, Bausch & Lomb, Inc. halted shipments and asked
retailers in the U.S. to remove ReNu with MoistureLoc from
shelves after the product was linked to reports of Fusarium
keratitis.
CALIFORNIA: To Spend $600M for Prisoners' Mental Health Care
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Karlton approved on April 27
a long-term plan to add 695 new beds for mentally ill inmates in
California as part of class action against the state, the San
Francisco Chronicle reports.
The expansion will in part address the population explosion in
the prison system, and continues the prison building
construction boom that has been ongoing for the past 25 years,
resulting to 22 new prisons. The plan will see the construction
of new mental health facilities, run by the corrections system,
at several prison sites, including Folsom and Vacaville.
Construction costs are expected to be more than $600 million.
Judge Karlton also ordered corrections officials to provide in
the short-term more mental health treatment to inmates in
compliance with constitutional requirements to provide mental
health care for prisoners. The suit alleged that in February
only 30 of 230 inmates who were referred for mental health
crisis treatment got into a program within the required 24
hours. About 20 percent of the state's inmate population need
mental health care, according to Michael Bien, the San Francisco
attorney representing the inmates.
For more information, contact Mr. Bien, Managing Partner at
Rosen, Bien & Asaro, LLP, Eighth Floor, 155 Montgomery Street,
San Francisco, California 94104 (San Francisco Co.), Phone: 415-
433-6830, Fax: 415-433-7104.
CAREER EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Complaint Anew
------------------------------------------------------------
A third amended complaint has been filed in the securities class
action filed against Career Education Corp. in Illinois federal
court.
In March 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted for the second time the Company's
motion to dismiss the action, holding that the plaintiffs had
once again failed to plead a federal securities law violation
against the Company.
In its decision dismissing the second amended complaint, the
court granted the plaintiffs until April 17, 2006 to file a
third amended complaint. Shortly before that deadline, the
plaintiffs sought an extension of time, and the court granted
the plaintiffs one last opportunity to file a third amended
complaint by no later than May 1, 2006.
"After the court has already twice ruled that plaintiffs'
attorneys have not pled a single securities law violation, it is
disappointing that they would try again, coming back for a third
time," said Associate General Counsel Scott Levine, a former
long-standing federal prosecutor. "We intend to vigorously
defend our position, as we have in the past."
Between December 9, 2003, and February 5, 2004, six purported
class actions were filed on behalf of certain purchasers of the
Company's common stock. The complaints alleged that in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, the defendants made
certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose
certain material facts about the condition of the Company's
business and prospects during the putative class periods,
causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase shares of the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.
The plaintiffs further claimed that executive officers John M.
Larson and Patrick K. Pesch are liable as control persons under
Section 20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs asked for unspecified
amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as ancillary
relief. Five of these lawsuits were found related to the first
filed lawsuit, captioned, "Taubenfeld v. Career Education
Corporation, et al. (No. 03 CV 8884)," and were reassigned to
the same judge.
On March 19, 2004, the court ordered these six cases
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the court appointed the firm of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroeder,
as lead counsel. On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which the Company moved to
dismiss on July 30, 2004.
On February 11, 2005, the Company`s motion to dismiss was
granted, without prejudice. On April 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint, which the Company moved to dismiss
on May 20, 2005. Plaintiffs filed their response brief on July
8, 2005, and the Company's reply brief is due August 8, 2005.
In addition, the court has issued an order changing the caption
of this matter to "In re Career Education Corporation Securities
Litigation."
In April, the Court granted for the second time, the Company's
motion to dismiss a securities class action against the Company
and certain of its current officers.
The court previously granted Career Education's motion to
dismiss the original amended complaint (Taubenfeld I) on
February 11, 2005. In its dismissal of the second amended
complaint, filed on behalf of a purported class of shareholders
who purchased Career Education securities between January 28,
2003, and February 15, 2005, the Court held that plaintiffs had
again failed to state a claim against Career Education.
The suit is "In re Career Education Corporation Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:03-cv-08884," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Joan
Humphrey Lefkow. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Anthony F. Fata and Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Faucher
and Cafferty, LLP 30 North LaSalle Street Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 782-4880;
(2) Joshua Lifshitz, Bull & Lifshitz, LLP 18 East 41st
Street New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 213-6222
(3) Andrei V. Rado, Steven G. Schulman, Peter Seidman,
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania
Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone:
(212) 594-5300
Representing the Company are Karl Richard Barnickol, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, Joni S. Jacobsen, David H. Kistenbroker, Katten Muchin
Zavis Rosenman, 525 West Monroe Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Il
60661-3693 Phone: (312) 902-5200.
CENTRAL ILLINOIS: Seventh Circuit Affirms Ill. Suit's Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit affirmed the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois' dismissal
of a purported class action against Central Illinois Light Co.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and Labor Management Relations Act of 1947.
In June 18, 2003, 20 retirees and surviving spouses of retirees
of various Ameren Corp. companies (the plaintiffs) filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois, against Ameren, Union Electric Co., Central
Illinois Public Service Co., Ameren Energy Generating Co. and
Ameren Services, and against Central Illinois Light Co.'s
Retiree Medical Plan, and by an amended complaint, against the
Company's Group Medical Plan (the defendants).
The retirees were members of various local labor unions of the
IBEW and the IUOE. The complaint, referred to as "Barnett, et
al. vs. Ameren Corporation, et al.," alleged, among other
things, that the defendants' recent actions requiring retirees
to pay a portion of their own health care premiums or increasing
the premiums paid by dependents or surviving spouses of retirees
violate ERISA and Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 and
constitute a breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties.
In July 2004, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to certify this lawsuit as a class action. In September 2004,
the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
application to appeal the district court's decision.
In January 2005, the district court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment, which dismissed the plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice. In February 2005, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of the district court's ruling with the
U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
On February 8, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district
court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
This decision is subject to further appeal.
The suit is "Barnett, et al. v. Ameren Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:03-cv-00402-GPM-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois under Judge G. Patrick Murphy
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Cary Hammond and Sherrie A. Schroder, Diekemper,
Hammond, et al., 7730 Carondelet, Suite 200, St. Louis,
MO 63105, Phone: 314-727-1015, Fax: 314-727-6804, E-
mail: cmercer@dhstl.com and saschroder@dhstl.com;
(2) William Payne, 1007 Mount Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh,
PA 15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, E-mail:
wpayne@stargate.net; and
Representing the defendants are, Elizabeth C. Carver, Daniel M.
O'Keefe and Jeffrey S. Russell of Bryan Cave - St. Louis,
Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One Metropolitan Square,
Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, E-mail:
eccarver@bryancave.com, dmokeefe@bryancave.com and
jsrussell@bryancave.com.
COLORADO: Trial on Suit Over Parolees' Voting Rights Set Friday
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing is scheduled in state court Friday on a class action
filed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenging a
Colorado law that bars thousands of people on parole from voting
or registering to vote, the DenverPost.com reports.
In 2005, ACLU launched the suit on behalf of 6,000 Colorado
prison parolees. Norman Mueller, a volunteer attorney, told The
Associated Press that the statute violates the state
constitution, which according to him, bars prisoners from voting
only if they are in prison (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21,
2005). He also told The Associated Press, "The Colorado Supreme
Court has said in several cases that when prisoners are released
on parole, they have completed their term of imprisonment."
The suit is pending before Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
Under Colorado law, felons are allowed to vote only if they are
no longer in prison and are not on parole. In 2004, Secretary
of State Donetta Davidson discovered 6,352 possible voter
registration matches for felons, and county clerks were ordered
to check the rolls for felons and flag them for poll judges.
The suit is "Danielson et al v. Dennis, Case No. 1:05-cv-02331-
REB," filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, under Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Ty Cheung Gee and Norman R. Mueller of Haddon, Morgan,
Mueller, Jordan, Mackey & Foreman, PC, 150 East 10th
Ave., Denver, CO 80203, U.S.A, Phone: 303-831-7364,
Fax: 303-832-2628, E-mail: tgee@hmflaw.com and
nmueller@hmflaw.com; and
(2) Jennifer Jung-Wuk Lee and Mark Silverstein of American
Civil Liberties Union-Colorado, 400 Corona St., Denver,
CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482, Fax: 303-777-
1773, E-mail: jlee@aclu-co.org and msilver2@att.net.
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Discovery Proceeds in Travel Agents' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated class action pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and
entitled, "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1561," a suit filed by travel agents against Continental
Airlines, Inc. and several other air carriers.
During the period between 1997 and 2001, the Company reduced or
capped the base commissions that it paid to travel agents, and
in 2002 it eliminated such base commissions. These actions,
which were similar to those also taken by other air carriers,
lead to lawsuits.
The Company is a defendant, along with several other air
carriers, in two such lawsuits brought by travel agencies that
purportedly opted out of a prior class action entitled, "Sarah
Futch Hall d/b/a/ Travel Specialists v. United Air Lines, et
al."
That suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on June 21, 2000. In it the
defendant airlines prevailed on summary judgment that was upheld
on appeal.
The two new suits against the Company and other major carriers
allege violations of antitrust laws in reducing and ultimately
eliminating the base commission formerly paid to travel agents.
The pending cases are respectively captioned, "Tam Travel, Inc.
v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for Northern District of California on April 9, 2003 and
"Swope Travel Agency, et al. v. Orbitz LLC, et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas on June 5, 2003.
By order dated November 10, 2003, these actions were transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
MultiDistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for Northern
District of Ohio under the caption, "In re Travel Agent
Commission Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1561, Master Docket No.
1:03-30000." Judge Peter C. Economus was assigned to the case.
Discovery recently commenced.
In each of the foregoing cases, the Company believes the
plaintiffs' claims are without merit and are vigorously
defending the lawsuits.
The suit is "In re Travel Agent Commission Antitrust Litigation,
MDL-1561, Master Docket No. 1:03-30000," filed in the U.S.
District Court for Northern District of Ohio under Judge Peter
C. Economus. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph M. Alioto, Jr., Ste. 3160, 555 California St.,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-434-8900, Fax: 415-
434-9200, E-mail: jaliotojr@aliotolaw.com;
(2) John H. Boone of Law Offices of John H. Boone, 555
California St., Suite 3160, SanFrancisco, CA 94104,
Phone: 415-434-1133, Fax: 415-434-9200; and
(3) Harvey B. Bruner, Bruner & Jordan, 1600 Illuminating
Bldg., 55 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone:
216-566-9477, Fax: 216-696-7047, E-mail:
hbbdef@aol.com; and
(4) Harold R. Collins, Jr. of Blecher & Collins, Ste. 2000,
611 West Sixth Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone:
213-622-4222, Fax: 213-622-1656, E-mail:
hcollins@blechercollins.com.
Representing the Company is James A. Reeder of Vinson & Elkins,
2300 First City Tower, 1001 Fannin Street, Houston, TX 77002-
6760, Phone: 713-758-2202, Fax: 713-615-5947, E-mail:
jreeder@velaw.com.
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Lawyers for Ex-Directors Seek Fair Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for former directors of the troubled Crocus Investment
Fund is seeking an adjournment delaying the Manitoba Securities
Commission's hearing into the scandal over the Canadian
province's largest labor-sponsored fund, the Winnipeg Sun
reports. The trial is set May 1 to 19.
Ken Filkow, who represents the majority of directors, is waiting
to go before the Manitoba Court of Appeals to explain why he
thinks the MSC is biased and unable to discipline former
officers. The regulator is named alongside their clients as
defendants in a shareholders' class action. The lawyers want to
delay the hearing until the suit is through.
In 2005, approximately 500 angry shareholders in the troubled
Crocus Investment Fund filed a class action lawsuit that
targeted everyone, from the fund's former directors to the
Manitoba government, seeking about $75 million in damages (Class
Action Reporter, June 17, 2005).
Crocus Investment is also facing several other lawsuits,
including claims by three employees seeking severance and
pension benefits (Class Action Reporter, April 24, 2006).
Crocus Investment Fund stopped trading in December 2004 amid
allegations of over-inflated share value. The lawsuit seeks
$200 million in lost share value and damages.
Representing the investors are David Klein (lead lawyer) of
David Klein, Klein Lyons, Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1, Phone: (604) 874-7171; Jay Prober; and
(3) Norman Boudreau.
EVCI CAREER: N.Y. Court Considers Consolidation of Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to decide on motions seeking the consolidation of
several purported securities class actions against EVCI Career
Colleges Holding Corp. and certain of its current directors and
officers.
On December 6, 2005, "Glauser v. EVCI Career Colleges Holding
Corp., et al.," was filed on behalf of a class of EVCI's
investors who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between November 14, 2003 and October 19, 2005.
Plaintiff alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange
Act, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with
various public statements made by the Company and seeks an order
that the action may proceed as a class action and an award of
compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the other
purported class members in an unspecified amount, together with
interest and reimbursement of costs and expenses of the
litigation.
To date, five follow-on actions have been filed in the same
court alleging substantially similar claims, except that some of
these follow-on actions allege a class period from August 14,
2003 to December 5, 2005.
On February 6, 2006, motions were filed for the consolidation of
the six securities class actions filed against EVCI and for
appointment of a lead plaintiff. Those motions are still
pending.
The first identified complaint is "Geoffrey Glauser, et al. v.
EVCI Career Colleges Holding Corporation, et al., Case No. 05-
CV-10240," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
(1) Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., World Trade
Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail:
pivenlaw@erols.com;
(2) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800-705-9529, E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com
(3) Roy Jacobs & Associates, 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000,
New York, NY, 10118, E-mail:
classattorney@pipeline.com;
(4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(5) Smith & Smith, LLP, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, PA, 19020, Phone: 215.638.4847, Fax:
215.638.4867;
(6) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com;
(7) The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508,
New York, NY, 10118, Phone: 212.686.1060, Fax:
212.202.3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com; and
(8) Wolf Popper, LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
10022-6689, Phone: 877.370.7703, Fax: 212.486.2093, E-
mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com.
GTECH BRASIL: Continues to Face Suit Over 2000 Lottery Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
GTECH Brasil Ltda. (GTECH Brazil), a subsidiary of GTECH
Holdings Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action in
Brazil's Brasilia District Court of the Federal District over a
2000 Contract that obliges GTECH Brazil to provide lottery goods
and services and additional financial transaction services to
CEF for a contract term that, as subsequently extended, was
scheduled to expire in April 2003.
In February 2004, Vincius Bijos, a Brazilian, commenced a public
class action lawsuit in Brazil's Brasilia District Court of the
Federal District against the Brazilian Federal government,
Brazil's National Lottery (CEF), several former and current
officers of CEF; the former president of Racimec Inform tica
Brasileira S.A., the predecessor of the Company's subsidiary
GTECH Brazil, and GTECH Brazil itself, seeking, among the relief
requested of the Court:
-- a preliminary injunction prohibiting CEF from making
further payments to GTECH Brazil under the now
superceded 2000 Contract, and
-- an order that would terminate such contract and require
the defendants, jointly and severally, to refund
amounts received by GTECH Brazil under the 1997
Contract and the 2000 Contract, together with interest,
appropriate monetary adjustments, court costs and
expenses.
This public class action bases its claims upon numerous alleged
defects and irregularities, which the suit asserts violate
Brazilian law, in the 1997 Contract and the 2000 Contract, and
the manner in which the procurement processes that gave rise to
the awards of these contracts were organized and administered.
The Company intends to mount a vigorous challenge to the far-
reaching claims that make up this lawsuit. It notes that the
Public Ministry Attorneys filed an opinion with the federal
court disagreeing with the request that an injunction enjoining
payments from CEF to GTECH Brazil be entered and requesting that
this suit be consolidated with a civil action by the Public
Ministry Attorneys.
HAYES LEMMERZ: Mich. Stock Suit Settlement Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against thirteen of Hayes Lemmerz
International, Inc.'s former directors and officers and KPMG
LLP, the Company's independent registered public accounting
firm.
On May 3, 2002, a group of purported purchasers of certain
Senior Notes and Senior Subordinated Notes issued by the Company
commenced a putative class action lawsuit, seeking damages for
an alleged class of persons who purchased the Company's bonds
between June 3, 1999 and September 5, 2001 and claim to have
been injured because they relied on its allegedly materially
false and misleading financial statements.
On June 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint adding CIBC World Markets Corporation and Credit
Suisse First Boston Corporation, underwriters for certain bonds
issued by the Company, as defendants, but these parties were
subsequently dismissed from the action. The claims in this
action were not discharged upon the effectiveness of the Plan of
Reorganization because they were not against the Company.
Additionally, before the date the Company commenced its
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case, four other putative class actions
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan against the Company and certain of its directors and
officers, on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock from June 3, 1999 to December 13, 2001,
based on similar allegations of securities fraud.
On May 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended
class action complaint seeking damages against the officers and
directors (but not the Company) and KPMG.
Pursuant to its Plan of Reorganization, the Company purchased
directors' and officers' liability insurance to cover then-
current and former directors and officers and agreed to
indemnify certain of its former directors against certain
liabilities, including those matters described above, up to an
aggregate of $10 million in excess of the directors' and
officers' liability insurance coverage to or for the benefit of
these indemnitees.
The Company has been informed that the parties to these actions
have agreed to a settlement, which includes payment by certain
defendants, including the former directors, of $7.2 million and
that on May 10, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily
approving this settlement. The court scheduled a fairness
hearing on the proposed settlement for July 20, 2005.
On July 20, 2005 the court approved a settlement, which includes
payment by certain defendants, including the former directors,
of $7.2 million.
On June 3, 2005, the former directors filed a lawsuit against
the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to recover
from the Company the full $7.2 million settlement amount and
reasonable costs and attorney fees.
The suit is "Pacholder High Yield, et al. v. Cucuz, et al., Case
No. 2:02-cv-71778-AJT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Patrice S. Arend, Jeffrey G. Heuer, Harold D. Pope III,
Jaffe, Raitt, (Southfield), 27777 Franklin Road, Suite
2500, Southfield, MI 48034-8214, Phone: 313-961-8380,
E-mail: parend@jafferaitt.com, jheuer@jafferaitt.com,
hpope@jaffelaw.com
(2) Christine S. Azar, Stuart M. Grant, James P. McEvilly,
Megan D. McIntyre, Grant & Eisenhofer (Wilmington),
1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE
19801-2599, Phone: 302-622-7000, E-mail:
sgrant@gelaw.com, jmcevilly@gelaw.com, cazar@gelaw.com,
mmcintyre@gelaw.com
Representing the Company are:
(i) Michael I. Allen, Yoram J. Miller, Michael C. Miller,
Stuart Shapiro of Shapiro, Forman, 380 Madison Avenue
25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-972-4900,
Fax: 212-972-4900; and
(ii) George W. Burnard of Dean & Fulkerson, 801 W. Big
Beaver Road, Fifth Floor Troy, MI 48084-4767, Phone:
248-362-1300, E-mail: gburnard@dflaw.com.
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Reaches Agreement in Ga. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. settled the consolidated
class action pending against it in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and captioned,
"In re: HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-2800 (CC)."
There are three lead plaintiffs in the suit, namely: Operating
Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund
(Local 66), Timothy J. Ditchey and Dr. Ludger Gertesmeyer. The
suit names as defendants the Company and:
(1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,
(2) Ronald Gully,
(3) Martin McGahan,
(4) Victoria W. Beck,
(5) Roy S. Brown,
(6) John House, and
(7) Russell H. Maddox
On July 3, 2004, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
was filed, amending and consolidating several previously filed
shareholder class action lawsuits alleging securities fraud.
The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleges
fraudulent disclosures relating to the results of the clinical
trial for the Company's orthopaedic shock wave device, treatment
revenue utilizing such device, insurance Company reimbursement,
medical device sales, and earnings projections. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and
expenses.
All claims in the dispute were fully settled pursuant to an
Order and Final Judgment by the court at December 1, 2005
fairness hearing. The insurance carrier of the officers and
directors paid the entire cost of the $2.825 million settlement
(including interest).
For more details, contact In re: HealthTronics Surgical
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group,
Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6349, Merrick, NY
11566-9000, Phone: (800) 259-2350; Maya Saxena of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP, 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 600 Tower
1, Boca Raton, FL 33486, Phone: 561/361-5000, Fax: 15613678400,
E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com; and Lauren S. Antonino, Esq.
of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888
or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6826, E-mail: lantonino@chitwoodlaw.com.
HOIST FITNESS: Injury Reports Prompt Recall of Exercise Benches
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hoist Fitness Systems Inc., also doing business as Body Gear, of
San Diego, California, is recalling 48,000 Hoist exercise
benches.
The Company said the bench's front frame assembly (with the foot
rest) can fail to lock into place allowing users who grab the
bench to position themselves to get their fingers entrapped
between the front and back frame assemblies. This poses
laceration and amputation hazards.
Hoist has received two reports of injury, one consisting of a
hand laceration and the other consisting of a partially
amputated finger.
The recalled exercise benches are free-standing and typically
used for free weight workouts. They have white, gray, or black
steel bases, with a black vinyl bench seat and backrest. The
Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench," "Folding Flat Bench," and
"Folding Ab-Crunch Bench" are included in this recall. Although
the bench names and model numbers do not appear on the benches,
the serial number is located on a white sticker behind the seat
of the bench. Only benches with certain serial numbers are
included in this recall.
Name of Product Model Number
Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench" HF-140
HF-142
BodyGear by Hoist "5 Position Fold-Up Bench" BG-141
BG-143
Hoist "Folding Flat Bench" HF-4163
Hoist "Folding Ab-Crunch Bench" HF-4262
The exercise benches were made in China and sold at specialty
dealer stores and large sporting goods retailers nationwide from
February 2004 through January 2006 for between $100 and $300.
Consumers are advised to contact Hoist Fitness to see if their
bench's serial number is included in this recall. If it is, the
consumer must stop using the recalled exercise bench and arrange
to receive a free repair kit. Consumers who own the Hoist
"Folding Flat Bench" should contact Hoist to return the bench
for a full refund.
Picture of the recalled exercise bench:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06149a.jpg
For additional information, contact Hoist, Phone: (866) 849-4797
(toll-free) anytime. On the Net: http://www.hoistfitness.com,
http://www.bodygearfitness.com,E-mail:
benchrecall@hoistfitness.com or benchrecall@bodygearfitness.com
HONEYWELL RETIREMENT: Continues to Face Employees' Suit in Ariz.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan is a defendant in a
purported class action in U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona entitled, "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan."
Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to
allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp. (a
predecessor entity) when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed
to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of
the plan.
In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these
claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other
claims.
Honeywell strongly disagrees with, and intends to appeal, the
Court's adverse ruling. No class has yet been certified by the
Court in this matter.
In light of the merits of the Honeywell's arguments on appeal
and substantial affirmative defenses, which the Court has not
yet considered, Honeywell continues to expect to prevail in this
matter.
Accordingly, Honeywell does not believe that a liability is a
probability and reasonably estimable and has not recorded a
provision for this matter in financial statements.
The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
Representing the plaintiffs are, Daniel Lee Bonnett and Jennifer
Lynn Kroll of Martin & Bonnett, PLLC, 3300 N. Central Ave., Ste.
1720, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-240-6900, Fax: 602-240-2345,
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com and jkroll@martinbonnett.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Michael L. Banks and Amy Covert of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, 1701 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-
2721, Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749, Fax: 215-
963-5001, E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com and
acovert@morganlewis.com.
(2) Dawn L. Dauphine of Osborn Maledon, PA, P.O. Box 36379,
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379, Phone: 602-640-9000, Fax: 602-
640-6075, E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com.
INTRAWARE INC: N.Y. Court Holds Fairness Hearing for IPO Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
held a fairness hearing April 24, 2006 for the proposed
settlement of a securities class action against Intraware, Inc.
In October 2001, the Company served with a summons and complaint
in a purported securities class action. On or about April 19,
2002, we were served with an amended complaint in this action,
which is now titled, "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."
The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased our common stock from February 25, 1999
(the date of our initial public offering) through December 6,
2000. It names as defendants the Company, three of its present
and former officers and directors, and several investment
banking firms that served as underwriters of our initial public
offering.
The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:
-- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
-- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.
The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of our stock.
No specific damages are claimed.
Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000. All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.
On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of
which the Company and its three named current and former
officers and directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.
On or about October 9, 2002, the Court entered and ordered a
Stipulation of Dismissal, which dismissed the three named
current and former officers and directors from the litigation
without prejudice.
On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an order denying in part
the issuer-defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss, including
those portions of the motion to dismiss relating to the Company.
In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer-defendants, including us, was submitted to the Court.
The underwriter-defendants in the "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation (collectively, the underwriter-
defendants)," including the underwriters of our initial public
offering, are not parties to the stipulation of settlement.
The settlement provides that, in exchange for a release of
claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the insurers of
all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a surety
undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery from
the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants.
The amount the Company's insurers would be required to pay to
the plaintiffs could range from zero to approximately $3.5
million, depending on plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-
defendants and from other non-settling parties.
If the plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the
underwriter-defendants, our insurers would have no liability for
settlement payments under the terms of the settlement. If the
plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company believes
its insurance will likely cover its share of any payments
towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery deficit.
Management estimates that its range of loss relative to this
matter is zero to $3.5 million. Presently there is no more
likely point estimate of loss within this range.
As a consequence of the uncertainties described above regarding
the amount we will ultimately be required to pay, if any, as of
February 28, 2006, the Company has not accrued a liability for
this matter.
On August 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement. A fairness hearing for the settlement was held
in April.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
LAFAYETTE UTILITIES: May Trial Set for Electricity Rate Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on a suit filed by Louisiana residents against
Lafayette Utilities System over allegedly excessive electricity
bills is set May 22, 2006, 10:00 a.m. before Judge Edward Rubin,
Fifteenth Judicial District Court in Lafayette, according to The
Daily Advertiser.
Lawyers for the plaintiff are appealing the dismissal of a class
action filed by Matthew Eastin and Elizabeth Naquin last year,
2theAdvocate reports (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 27, 2006).
State District Judge Durwood Conque dismissed the suit in
November saying the proper procedure in appealing Lafayette
Utilities rates is through the LPUA.
Now, the complaint is asking the Lafayette Public Utilities
Authority (LPUA) to refund the alleged historical overcharges
and "in-lieu-of-tax" payments made by Lafayette Utilities to the
city, according to the report. It also claims the fuel cost
rate of the electricity bill is too high. Lafayette Utilities
pays the city general fund about $16 million each year, the
report noted.
The suit requests, among others, to stop Lafayette Utilities
from issuing bonds to finance a fiber optics network project
until the Lafayette Utilities rate issue is resolved by the
LPUA. The project is subject of a separate suit by BellSouth
Corp.
The suit contends an issuance of bonds under an ordinance
adopted by the City-Parish Council on March 21 would violate a
decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. It says the
bonds are to be secured by residual revenues of Lafayette
Utilities' other operations. Those residual revenues are the
overcharges they claim to have paid in the form of excessive
electrical rates.
Defendants in the case are councilmen and City-Parish President
Joey Durel. The plaintiffs are represented by Pendley Law Firm
of Plaquemine that specializes in class actions, according to
the report.
Pendley Law Firm on the Net: http://www.pendleylawfirm.com
MICROSOFT CORP: Enters $70M Settlement in Calif. Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in an antitrust suit brought by government entities
located in California against Microsoft Corp. entered a
tentative $70 million settlement to resolve the case.
The class action lawsuit was filed in August 2004 by the law
firm of Townsend and Townsend and Crew -- counsel for the City
and County of San Francisco and the City of Los Angeles, and the
counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, Los Angeles and Contra
Costa. The cities and counties alleged that Microsoft engaged
in anticompetitive conduct and used its market power to
overcharge members of the government class.
Microsoft denies these claims, and maintains that it developed
and sold high quality and innovative software at fair and
reasonable prices.
The $70 million in settlement benefits will be divided among the
State of California and local government entities that can use
them to obtain cash refunds upon the purchase of any brand of
qualifying computer hardware and software.
Richard L. Grossman, attorney for the government plaintiffs,
said, "This antitrust settlement will provide state and local
governments with a fabulous opportunity to obtain their choice
of a wide variety of computer products sold by any competitor in
the market."
"We value our relationship with these cities and counties and
are pleased to reach a settlement that allows us all to focus on
the future," said Tom Burt, corporate vice president and deputy
general counsel for Microsoft.
The plaintiffs have approved the basic terms of the settlement
and the parties are negotiating a final settlement agreement to
be presented to the court for approval in "City and County of
San Francisco v. Microsoft Corporation." The case is pending
before the Honorable J. Frederick Motz in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland.
For more information, contact Richard L. Grossman of Townsend
and Townsend and Crew, LLP, Phone: +1-415-273-7580, E-mail:
rlg@townsend.com; or Brian C. Colucci, Director of Marketing,
Phone: +1-415-273-4769, E-mail: bccolucci@townsend.com, On the
Net: http://www.prnewswire.com.
NC SOFT: Virtual Games Firm to Appeal Identity Theft Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Korean virtual games developer, NCSoft Corp., will appeal a
court ruling that ordered the Company to pay about $500 each to
five players of its popular online game, Lineage II, vnunet.com
reports.
An analyst had told the Korea Times that although the total
damages awarded were small, the case is dangerous for NCSoft
because it could provide fuel for claimants who are demanding
millions of dollars in another, much larger, identity theft.
Lawmarket Asia says 8,574 people are seeking $1,026 each in
damages in a suit filed with a Seoul court against the Internet
games developer for alleged virtual identity theft. The suit
arose after it was discovered that some players of online game
Lineage were using identities of others that they obtained from
the Internet or through other illegal channels (Class Action
Reporter, Mar. 30, 2006).
The Company, which has strongly denied liability, would
potentially face claims of more than $1 billion if that class
action were to succeed in its present form.
PARADIGM MEDICAL: Completes Settlement of Federal, State Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. has settled federal and state
class actions filed against it.
On August 26, 2005, the federal court entered an order and final
judgment granting final approval of the settlement agreement
reached on February 22, 2005 in the federal court class action
lawsuit and dismissing the complaint filed in the lawsuit with
prejudice as against the Company and its former executive
officers, Thomas F. Motter, Mark R. Miehle and John W. Hemmer.
In addition, the court permanently enjoined class members in the
lawsuit and their successors and assigns from instituting any
other actions against the Company and its former executive
officers that had been or could have been asserted by the class
members against the Company and its former executive officers in
the federal court class action lawsuit.
Following the entry of the order and final judgment in the
federal court class action, there was a 30 days period to appeal
the order and final judgment. The 30-day period lapsed and no
appeal was made of the order and final judgment.
Consequently, the order and final judgment entered by the
federal court is non-appealable. Under the terms of settlement
of the federal court class action lawsuit, U.S. Fire Insurance
Company, which issued a Directors and Officers Liability and
Company Reimbursement Policy to the Company for the period from
July 10, 2002 to July 10, 2003, agreed to pay the sum of
$1,507,500 in cash to the class members that purchased
securities of the Company during the period between April 17,
2002 and November 4, 2002.
On August 23, 2005, the state court entered a final judgment and
order of dismissal with prejudice, granting final approval of
the terms of settlement reached on February 23, 2005 in the
state court class action lawsuit, dismissing the state class
action lawsuit and all claims contained therein against the
Company and its former executive officers, and enjoining the
class members in the lawsuit from prosecuting the settled claims
against the Company and its former executive officers.
Following the entry of the final judgment and order of dismissal
with prejudice in the state court class action lawsuit, there
was a 30-day period to appeal the final judgment and order.
The 30-day period has now lapsed and no appeal was made of the
final judgment and order. Consequently, the final judgment and
order entered by the state court is non-appealable.
Under the terms of settlement of the state court class action
lawsuit, U.S. Fire agreed to pay the sum of $625,000 in cash to
the class members that purchased shares of Series E Convertible
preferred stock on or about July 11, 2001.
The federal court class action was initially filed on May 14,
2003 by Richard Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Utah.
The lawsuit was consolidated into a single action on June 28,
2004 with two other class action lawsuits -- the class action
lawsuit filed by Michael Marone on June 2, 2003 and the class
action lawsuit filed by Lidia Milian on July 11, 2003 against
Paradigm Medical and its former executive officers in the same
court.
The consolidated action was captioned: "In re: Paradigm Medical
Industries Securities Litigation," with lead plaintiffs Rock
Solid Investments of Miami, Inc., Brito & Brito Accounting, Inc.
and Joseph Savanjo.
Albert Kinzinger, Jr., initially filed the state court class
action lawsuit on October 14, 2003, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, against Paradigm Medical and
its former executive officers in the Third District Court for
Salt Lake County, State of Utah.
On February 22, 2005, the Company executed written settlement
agreements to settle the federal and state court class action
lawsuits. As a condition to the settlement agreements, the
courts in such lawsuits must have entered orders granting final
approval of the settlements reached in those respective actions,
and such orders must have become final and non-appealable.
The federal suit is "Rock Solid Invst Mia v. Paradigm Med Ind,
et al., Case No. 2:03-cv-00448-TC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Utah, under Judge Tena Campbell.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy, 1
Exchange Pl., Ste. 3750, Boston MA, 02109-2817, Phone:
(617) 439-3939; and
(2) Thomas R. Karrenberg, Anderson & Karrenberg, 50 W.
Broadway, Ste. 700, Salt Lake City Utah 84101, Phone:
(801)-534-1700, E-mail: tkarrenberg@aklawfirm.com.
Representing the Company was Brent O. Hatch, Hatch James &
Dodge, 10 W. Broadway, Ste. 400, Salt Lake City, UT 84101,
Phone: (801) 363-6363, E-mail: bhatch@hjdlaw.com.
SOFT DRINK MAKERS: Face New Suit Over Benzene in Fruit Drinks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law firm McRoberts, Roberts & Rainer LLP filed additional class
action against In Zone Brands, producer of fruit drink
BellyWashers 2/3 Less Sugar, and Talking Rain Beverage Company,
alleging their drinks contained cancer-causing chemical benzene
above America's legal limit for drinking water, Beverage Daily
reports.
The suit alleged independent laboratory tests had shown both
companies had drinks contaminated with benzene, a chemical than
can form when vitamin C and a preservative in the drink are
exposed to heat or light. Studies show that benzene can cause
immune system problems and cancer.
Similar lawsuits were also filed in Boston, Florida and
Washington, D.C. The lawsuits were filed against Talking Rain
Beverage, of Washington; Zone Beverages, of Georgia; and Polar
Beverages, of Massachusetts. They were lodged in U.S. District
Court in Kansas City, Kansas (Class Action Reporter, May 3,
2006).
The Kansas suit is "Gonzalez v. In-Zone Brands, Inc. et al.
(2:06-cv- 02163-KHV-JPO)," under Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, with
referral to James P. O'Hara.
Representing the plaintiff, MeLisa Gonzales, are Gregory M.
Garvin and Neil S. Sader of Sader & Garvin LLC, 4739 Belleview
Ave.-Ste. 300, Kansas City, MO 64112-1364, Phone: 816-561-1818,
Fax: 816-561-0818, E-mail: ggarvin@sadergarvin.com, E-mail:
nsader@sadergarvin.com.
PASCAL COMPANY: Recalls Oral Rinse Due to Possible Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal Company, Inc. in Bellevue, Washington, is recalling all
lots and all flavors of:
-- NeutraGard 0.05% Neutral Sodium Fluoride Anti-cavity
Treatment Rinse, and
-- NeutraGard Plus 0.2% Neutral Sodium Fluoride Anti-cavity
Treatment Rinse, all flavors (Mint and Tropical Blast).
The anti-cavity rinse solutions are packaged in clear 16 oz.
plastic bottles because they may be contaminated with bacteria
called Burkholderia cepacia and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
The organism, Burkholderia cepacia poses little medical risk to
healthy people. However, people who have certain health
problems like weakened immune systems or chronic lung diseases,
particularly cystic fibrosis (CF), may be more susceptible to
infections with B. cepacia. B cepacia is a known cause of
infections in hospitalized patients. The effects of B. cepacia
on people vary widely, ranging from no symptoms at all, to
serious respiratory infections, especially in patients with CF.
The organism, Pseudomonas aeruginosa may cause urinary tract
infections, respiratory system infections, dermatitis, soft
tissue infections, bacteremia, bone and joint infections,
gastrointestinal infections and a variety of systemic
infections, particularly in patients with severe burns and in
cancer and AIDS patients who are immunosuppressed. Pseudomonas
aeruginosa infection is a serious problem in patients
hospitalized with cancer, cystic fibrosis, and burns.
Pascal Company, Inc. has initiated a recall to the consumer
level. Approximately 55,000 bottles were distributed worldwide
since 2001 to dental wholesalers, who in turn distributed the
products to dental offices. These products were not available
at any retail outlets or pharmacies.
The problem was discovered during recent testing of samples
stored for long-term studies conducted after the products were
distributed. Only a small number of batches produced since 2001
showed the presence of these organisms, primarily in batches
distributed prior to 2005. A majority of batches tested
negative for the presence of these organisms. However, because
Pascal Co., Inc. did not test all batches, the Company has
decided to issue a recall for all batches distributed since
2001.
Consumers and dental offices that have the product are advised
to discontinue use of the product and destroy it immediately, or
return it to their place of purchase for further processing.
Consumers may contact Pascal Company, Inc. at 800-426-8051; On
the Net: http://www.pascaldental.com
Any adverse reactions experienced with the use of this product
should also be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program, Phone: 1-
800-FDA-1088, Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178, Mail: MedWatch, HF-410, FDA,
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787, On the Net:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch.
QUIZNOS SUB: Canadian Franchisee Investors Sue to Get Refunds
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Statement of Claim filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice on behalf of almost 200 Ontario franchisee class members
against Quiznos Sub, America's second largest submarine sandwich
chain, seeks a refund of all deposits and payments along with
damages for those who did not receive a franchise location after
paying franchise fees.
Contracts with Quiznos and franchisee class members allow
franchisees only 12 months to find retail space that would be
approved by Quiznos. The Statement of Claim alleges Quiznos knew
that it takes much longer on average to secure such space.
Whether the franchisees find an acceptable location or not,
franchise fees and sales taxes totaling $30,495.00 are not
refundable under the contract.
Many of the proposed franchisee class members have been without
a site for several years, some since 2001.
The proposed class action challenges Quiznos' right to keep the
franchise fees and claims that franchisees are not informed how
difficult and time-consuming it would be to find a suitable
location and whether each franchisee's designated territory
contains a suitable site.
For further information, contact Ben V. Hanuka of Goldman Sloan
Nash & Haber LLP, 250 Dundas Street West, Suite 700, Toronto,
Ontario M5T 2Z5, Phone: (416) 597-6489, Fax: (416) 597-3370, E-
mail: hanuka@gsnh.com, On the Net:
http://www.QuiznosClassAction.com.
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Product Liability Lawsuit in Fla. Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division, ordered the dismissal with prejudice of the
product liability lawsuit filed by Salvatore Dimiceli against
electronic control device manufacturer, TASER International,
Inc.
This is the 14th wrongful death or injury lawsuit that has been
dismissed or judgment entered in favor of TASER International in
the past 24 months.
"We are very pleased to have the U.S. District Court order the
dismissal of this product liability lawsuit," commented Douglas
Klint, Vice President and General Counsel for TASER
International.
"Our strategy of aggressively defending this litigation is
beginning to show results and we will continue to relentlessly
fight these lawsuits with overwhelming medical and scientific
evidence showing that the TASER(r) device was not the cause of
injury or death. We strongly believe that the scientific
evidence shows that TASER technology is among the safest use of
force alternatives as evidenced by the fact that over 30 world-
class medical and scientific experts are testifying on the
safety of the TASER device."
"By contrast, purported 'expert opinions' claiming TASER devices
are unduly dangerous have been unable to withstand scientific
scrutiny. For example, the most prominent expert in cases
against the Company has been James Ruggieri. In deposition, Mr.
Ruggieri admitted that he is in fact a high school dropout with
no engineering degrees. Independent expert analysis of his most
recent report on electro-shock weapon safety in the Journal of
the National Academy of Forensic Engineers illustrated simple
math errors resulting in an error of 69,920% exaggeration in his
power calculations for the TASER device."
"Another adverse plaintiff 'expert' is Gary Ordog, whose medical
license was recently suspended by the Medical Board of
California effective May 26, 2006 with:
-- 7 years probation with various terms and conditions and
90 days actual suspension to be served beginning June
11, 2006 through Sept. 8, 2006; and
-- shall be prohibited from engaging in a medical-legal or
forensics practice of medicine during the period of
probation.
For more information, visit:
http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LIC
ENSE_NUMBER=43038&P_LTE_ID=790.
"We are confident in the world-class quality of our experts and
our science and we are prepared to aggressively expose any
expert the plaintiffs may offer against us in litigation,"
concluded Mr. Klint.
TASER International was named as defendant in 35 lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs alleged either wrongful death or personal
injury in situations in which the TASER device was used (or
present) by law enforcement officers or during training
exercises (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 28, 2005).
Three of the cases are firearms-related death cases and not
death allegedly caused by Taser device. One case is a class
action -- presently believed to be a class of one. One case has
been dismissed by summary judgment order, two cases have been
dismissed with prejudice, another case was dismissed without
prejudice but has been refiled, and the balance of the cases are
pending.
In each of these lawsuits, the plaintiff is seeking monetary
damages from the Company. In one case the plaintiff is seeking
injunctive relief in addition to monetary damages. Cases are
being submitted for the defense of each of these lawsuits to the
Company's insurance carriers as the Company maintained during
these periods and continue to maintain product liability
insurance coverage with varying limits and deductibles.
The suits are:
(1) Del-Ostia, filed in March 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Wrongful death lawsuit - dismissed with prejudice
(2) Alvarado, filed in April 2003 in the California
Superior Court, wrongful death lawsuit - now in
discovery phase
(3) City of Madera, filed in June 2003 in California
Superior Court, wrongful death suit - dismissed by
summary judgment
(4) Borden, filed in September 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana,
wrongful death suit - discovery phase
(5) Thompson, filed in September 2004, in Michigan Circuit
Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase
(6) Pierson, filed in November 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
wrongful death suit - discovery phase
(7) Glowczenski, filed in October 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
wrongful death suit - stayed
(8) LeBlanc, filed in December 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California,
wrongful death suit - discovery phase
(9) Elsholtz, filed in December 2004 in Texas District
Court, wrongful death suit - discovery phase
(10) Kerchoff, filed in June 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
training injury suit - dismissed, then re-filed
(11) Powers, filed in November 2003 in Arizona Superior
Court, training injury suit - trial set for November
2005
(12) Cook, filed in August 2004 in the Nevada District
Court, Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase
(13) Stevens, filed in October 2004 in the Ohio Court Common
Pleas, training injury suit - discovery phase
(14) Eckenroth, filed on November 2004 in the Arizona
Superior Court, training injury suit - Discovery Phase
(15) Lipa, filed on February 2005 in Michigan Circuit Court,
Training Injury suit - Discovery Phase
(16) Dimiceli, filed on March 2005 in Florida Circuit
Court, Training Injury suit - now dismissed
(17) Cosby, filed in August 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District New York,
Injury During Arrest - summary judgment motion being
filed
(18) Blair, filed March 2005 in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Injury
During Detention - summary judgment motion filed,
awaiting ruling
(19) Madrigal, filed in May 2005 in the Arizona Superior
Court, Wrongful Death suit - Dismissed with Prejudice
(20) Washington, filed in May 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Wrongful Death suit - Discovery Phase
(21) Clark, filed in May 2005 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Wrongful
Death suit - Discovery Phase
(22) Collins, filed May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
Training Injury suit - discovery phase
(23) Allen, filed in May 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
Training Injury suit - discovery phase
(24) Sanders, filed in May 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California,
Wrongful Death - discovery
(25) Fleming, filed in May 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana,
Wrongful Death suit - discovery
(26) Woolfolk, filed in June 2005 in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Wrongful Death suit - complaint served
(27) J.J. & J.B., filed in July 2005 in Florida Circuit
Court, 2 Training Injuries - Complaint Served
(28) Lewis, filed in July 2005 in the United States District
Court in Tallahassee, Florida, Injury During Arrest -
Complaint Served
(29) Village Of Dolton, filed in August 2005, in the United
States District Court Northern District of IL, class
action - complaint served
(30) Lash, filed in August 2005 in the United States
District Court Eastern District, Missouri, Injury
During Arrest - Complaint Served
(31) Howard, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
Training Injury suit - Complaint Served
(32) Wagner, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
Training Injury suit - Complaint Served
(33) Gerdon, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior Court,
Training Injury suit - Complaint Served
(34) Gallant, filed in August 2005 in Arizona Superior
Court, Training Injury suit - Complaint Served
(35) Nowell, filed in August 2005 in the United States
District Court, Northern District, Texas, Wrongful
Death suit - Complaint Served
WELLS FARGO: Wins Suit Against Clients Over Stolen Personal Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Doty in Minnesota did not hold Wells
Fargo & Co. negligent in the loss of consumer personal financial
data stolen from a contractor that had not encrypted the
information, CNET News.com reports.
Judge Doty said in his March ruling Wells Fargo was not
negligent because the information was not misused by the
thieves.
The consumer information was lost when, in October 2004, thieves
stole computers from Regulus Integrated Solutions, a firm Wells
Fargo hired to print monthly statements from certain customers
who had mortgages and student loans from its subsidiaries. They
contain names, addresses, Social Security numbers and account
numbers.
After the theft was known, two of the bank's customers, Kristine
Forbes and Morgan Koop, filed a class action to hold Wells Fargo
liable for emotional distress, negligence, breach of contract
and breach of fiduciary duty. They claim monetary compensation
for the extra time they spent monitoring credit reports.
Judge Doty rejected the arguments saying the plaintiffs had not
actually suffered damages. At the same time, it found Wells
Fargo not negligent because there has not been an indication
that thieves used the data, and granted the bank's motion for
summary judgment.
YAHOO INC: N.J. Suit Claims Firm Defrauded Online Advertisers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo, Inc. is facing a class action in New Jersey over
allegations the Company engaged in "syndication fraud" against
online advertisers, the Washington Post reports.
The advertisers pay Yahoo to display their ads on search results
and on the Web pages of partner Web sites. But instead, the
suit says, Yahoo displayed these ads via spyware and adware
products and on so-called "typosquatter" Web sites.
By placing ads into illegal platforms, the Company is defrauding
pay-per-click advertisers who thought they were paying to have
their ads displayed alongside search-engine results generated by
certain keywords that the advertisers bid on, the complaint
says. The suit claims the practice earns Yahoo extra revenues
because, as known, spyware advertising is much cheaper than
search engine advertising. It also claims Yahoo deliberately
manipulates the system to do this.
Among the "spyware vendors" named in the complaint as partners
in Yahoo's ad program are Direct Revenue and Intermix.
The lawsuit asks:
-- certification of the case as class action, with
plaintiff as class representative and plaintiff's
counsel as class counsel;
-- compensatory relief, including disgorgement of
defendants' allegedly ill-gotten gains;
-- permanent injunction barring defendants from engaging in
unlawful practices alleged by the suit;
-- prejudgment interest;
-- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
-- trial by jury.
For more information on the suit, visit:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?88a
The suit is "Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo, Inc., Overture
Services, Inc. and John Doe Companies, Inc.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing the
plaintiffs are:
(1) Lisa J. Rodriquez, Esquire of Donna Siegel Moffa,
Esquir, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033
(856)795-9002;
(2) Benjamin G. Edelman of Law Offices of Benjamin Edelman,
27A Linnaean St. Cambridge, MA 02138 (617)359-3360;
(3) Michael J. Boni of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., One South
Broad St., Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215)
238-1700;
(4) Alan M. Feldman of Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter &
Tanner, Thomas More Marrone, 25th Floor, 1845 Walnut
St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 567-8300;
(5) Michael D. Donovan of Donovan Searles, LLC, 1845 Walnut
St., Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 732-6067;
(6) Jonathan Shub of Sheller, Ludwig & Badey, P.C., 1528
Walnut St. 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-790-
7300
UNDERWRITERS: Judge Junks Some Plaintiffs' Claims in IPO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Lawrence M. McKenna denied class status to
one class of plaintiffs in a case alleging that Wall Street
underwriters improperly fixed commissions on small initial
public stock offerings, the Wall Street Journal reports.
The judge ruled that plaintiffs in the suit -- representatives
of creditors of Western Pacific Airlines and Equalnet
Communications Corp., both of which went bankrupt after a public
offering in 1995 -- could not represent the group of issuers
because they only acquired the rights to sue as creditors'
representatives. The judge said that while antitrust claims may
be transferable, class membership is not, according to the
report.
The suit first filed in 1998 alleged that stock issuers in the
IPOs valued at $20 million to $80 million were harmed when the
underwriters fixed commissions at 7%.
IPO purchasers may proceed with the suit, but an earlier ruling
bars them from collecting damages, the report said.
Defendants in the original suit are:
-- Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
-- Bancboston robertson, Stephens, Inc.,
-- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc.,
-- Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc.,
-- CS First Boston Corporation,
-- Legg, Mason, Wood, Walker, Inc.,
-- Bancboston robertson, Stephens, Inc.,
-- Jeffries & Co.,
-- Painewebber Group, Inc.,
-- J.C. Bradford & Co.,
-- Warburg Dillon Read,
-- CIBC Oppenheimer Corp.,
-- Ing, Baring, Furman, Selz, LLC,
-- Cowen & Co.,
-- BT Alex Brown, Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,
-- Everen Securities Inc.,
-- Piper, Jaffray & Co., Incorporated,
-- A.G.Edwards, Inc.,
-- CIBC Oppenheimer Corp.,
-- Ing, Baring, Furman, Selz, LLC,
-- Prudential Securities Incorporated,
-- Bancboston Robertson, Stephens, Inc.,
-- Hambrecht & Quist, Inc.,
-- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
-- Lehman Brothers Inc.,
-- J.C. Bradford & Co.,
-- Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities,
-- Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.,
-- Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
-- BT Alex Brown, Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.,
-- Hambrecht & Quist, Inc.,
-- Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
-- J.C. Bradford & Co.,
-- Nationsbanc Montgomery Securities,
-- Hambrecht & Quist, Inc.,
-- J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,
-- Lehman Brothers Inc.,
-- Everen Securities Inc.,
-- Piper, Jaffray & Co., Incorporated,
-- J.C. Bradford & Co.,
-- Everen Securities Inc.,
-- J.C. Bradford & Co.,
-- Piper, Jaffray & Co., Incorporated,
-- Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Incorporated,
The suit is "In Re: Public Offering, et al. (1:98-cv-07890-LMM-
DFE)" filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna, with referral to
Douglas F. Eaton.
Representing the plaintiffs is Randall Keith Berger of Kirby,
McInerney & Squire, L.L.P., 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: (212) 371-6600.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Brendan Joseph Dowd of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Times
Square Tower, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036,
Phone: 212-326-2000, Fax: 212-326-2061, Fax:
bdowd@omm.com; and
(2) Joseph M. Fairbanks of Saul Ewing LLP, Lockwood Place,
500 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202-3171, Phone:
(410) 332-8600
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHINA ENERGY: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of China Energy Savings Technology, Inc.
(CESV) between April 21, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against China Energy, Kwun-Luen Siu,
Lawrence Lok, Yuen-Ming and Sun Li.
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.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose:
-- that the Company's private placement offering in
January 2006 was fraught with self dealing; and,
-- certain information involving the facts and
circumstances about certain underlying transactions
related to the rescission of certain Rule 144a legal
opinions by the Company's prior securities counsel.
On January 17, 2006, the Company announced an underwriting
agreement to raise $50 million through a private placement of
Company stock.
The very same day, China Energy announced that Mr. Sun Li
resigned as Chairman and CEO of the Company. Upon his
resignation, the Company immediately appointed Kwun Luen Siu
Chairman of the Board and CEO.
On January 20, 2006, China Energy filed two registration
statements indicating that the Company could offer up to ten
million shares of its common stock and in addition the Company
also indicated that selling stockholders could sell up to 6.05
million shares.
Shortly thereafter, on February 9, 2006, China Energy announced
that it was delaying the filing of its SEC Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended December 31, 2005, due to the recent change in
management.
On February 14, 2006, the Company filed its delayed Form 10-Q,
which revealed that the Company and its independent auditors was
the subject of an informal SEC inquiry. On February 15, 2006,
NASDAQ announced that trading was halted in China Energy. The
shares of the Company have been halted by NASDAQ ever since.
Interested parties may move the Court no later than June 30,
2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class.
For more details, contact Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone:
(888) 753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com.
CHINA ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded
securities of China Energy Savings Technology, Inc. (CESV)
between April 21, 2005 and February 15, 2006, inclusive. The
lawsuit was filed against China Energy, and certain of its top
officers and directors.
The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose that insiders had sold
several million unregistered Company shares in apparent
violation of applicable rules, based upon rescinded legal
opinions.
Further, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose material information concerning the Company's private
placement offering in January 2006.
On February 15, 2006, Nasdaq announced that trading was halted
in China Energy pending the receipt of further information
concerning the stock sales and the rescinded legal opinions.
Trading in China Energy shares have been halted since then.
Form more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (888)
884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Bernard M. Gross Files Stock Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard M. Gross, P.C., initiated class action, numbered 06-
1820, was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Discovery
Laboratories Inc. (DSCO) between December 28, 2005 and April 25,
2006, inclusive.
The action is pending against defendants Discovery Laboratories,
Inc. and Robert J. Capetola, President and Chief Executive
Officer.
The Complaint charges Discovery Labs and Robert J. Capetola with
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market during the Class
Period.
As alleged in the Complaint, defendants made misrepresentations
and/or omissions regarding the progress of U.S. regulatory
approval for its self-described "lead product" Surfaxin.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly represented
that they anticipated FDA approval of Surfaxin in April 2006.
On April 25, 2006, the Company revealed that Surfaxin's
"stability" (its ability to be stored for long periods without
any change in its efficacy or its chemical profile) had not been
achieved and that such failure would cause a "significant delay
in the U.S. regulatory process."
The Company admitted that although it had been testing the
"production validation batches" periodically for "stability,"
stability had never been achieved.
The market reacted negatively to this shocking news. The price
of Discovery Labs (DSCO) common stock sank 53% to close at
$2.20.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., which
has significant experience and expertise in prosecuting class
actions.
Interested parties may no later than June 30, 2006, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the Class.
For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The Wanamaker
Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19103,
Phone: (866) 561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com.
DISCOVERY LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in 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 common stock of Discovery
Laboratories, Inc. (DSCO) between December 28, 2005, and April
25, 2006, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.
Specifically, defendants made misrepresentations and/or
omissions regarding the progress of U.S. regulatory approval for
its self-described "lead product" Surfaxin. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants repeatedly represented that they
anticipated FDA approval of Surfaxin in April 2006.
On April 25, 2006, Discovery revealed that Surfaxin's
"stability" (its ability to be stored for long periods without
any change in its efficacy or its chemical profile) had not been
achieved and that such failure would cause a "significant delay
in the U.S. regulatory process."
The Company admitted that although it had been testing the
"production validation batches" periodically for "stability,"
stability had never been achieved. On this news, Discovery
shares fell 53% to close at $2.20.
Interested parties may no later than June 30, 2006, request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class.
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.
LIPMAN ENGINEERING: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Lipman Electronic Engineering, Ltd. (LPMA) on the NASDAQ
National Market and/or Tel Aviv Stock Exchange between October
4, 2004 and September 27, 2005.
The complaint alleges that Lipman violated federal securities
laws by making materially false or misleading public statements
concerning its acquisition of Dione, Plc.
On September 28, 2005, Lipman admitted that the "weaker than
expected performance of Dione" caused Lipman to lower its 2005
earnings guidance from $1.39 - $1.42 per share, to $0.88 - $0.98
per share.
Lipman also announced that it had terminated the employment of
Dione CEO Shaun Gray and that it anticipated it would take a
non-cash impairment charge relating to goodwill and other
intangible assets in 2005.
On this news, Lipman stock fell from a close of $26.19 per share
on September 27, 2005, to close at $20.48 per share on September
28, 2005.
Interested parties may no later than May 24, 2006, request the
Court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.
For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 1-800-337-
4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site:
http://www.ssbny.com.
PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Case No. 6:06-cv-587) on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of PainCare
Holdings Inc. (PRZ) between August 27, 2002 and March 15, 2006
inclusive.
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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of PainCare securities.
Defendants include PainCare, Randy Lubinksy and Mark Szporka.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results.
On March 15, 2006, the Company announced that, as a result of
on-going discussions with the SEC concerning accounting
irregularities, it will restate all of its historical financial
statements for the years ended December 31, 2000, December 31,
2001, December 31, 2002, December 31, 2003 and December 31,
2004, and the quarters ended March 31, 2005, June 30, 2005 and
September 30, 2005. On this news, PainCare's stock plunged to
as low as $2.50 per share on the first day of trading following
the announcement.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known or
recklessly disregarded by the defendants but concealed from the
investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:
-- the Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded material
adverse information about the Company's financial
results and then existing business condition;
-- as a result, the Company's projections and reported
results were based upon defective assumptions and/or
manipulated facts; and
-- the Company's financial statements were materially
misstated due to the fact that PainCare failed to
properly account for expenses and consistently
overstated earnings.
The Complaint alleges that defendants engaged in improper
accounting practices in order to bolster PainCare's stock price,
thereby enabling the Company to complete numerous acquisitions
of related pain care companies during the Class Period.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants
directly participated in an accounting fraud, which materially
overstated the Company's financial results in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
Defendants materially overstated PainCare's financial results by
improperly accounting for its numerous acquisitions and certain
other non-cash expenses. As a result of these violations, the
Company is now forced to restate its financial results for
fiscal years 2000 through 2005.
For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee of
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street,
New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-
3701, E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com.
ST JUDE: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Minn.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, initiated a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical, Inc.
(STJ) common stock during the period between January 25, 2006
and April 4, 2006.
The complaint charges St. Jude and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. St. Jude, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the
development, manufacture and distribution of cardiovascular
medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management,
cardiac surgery, cardiology and atrial fibrillation therapy
areas and implantable neuromodulation devices.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's prospects for growth in market share for its core
product, implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs).
St. Jude temporarily gained market share due to a disruption in
its rival Guidant's business. Thereafter, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's ability to maintain its temporary gain in market share
and even increase it going forward.
As a result of defendants' false statements, St. Jude's stock
traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
allowing its top officers to reap $14.5 million in insider
trading proceeds and to receive substantial bonuses.
On April 4, 2006, after the market closed, the Company announced
preliminary results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2006,
stating that first quarter results were impacted by lower than
expected revenues from ICDs, which were expected to be below the
Company's guidance.
On this news, the Company's stock fell $5.05 per share to close
at $36.25 per share on April 5, 2006, a drop of 12%, the largest
stock decline suffered by St. Jude in more than 6 years.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
-- while St. Jude had gained market share due to problems
experienced by ICD market leader Guidant, this growth
was not sustainable;
-- given the increased volatility in the ICD market, the
Company had no reasonable basis to make projections
about its share in the ICD market; and
-- the Company was not gaining market share from Guidant
and in fact would not be able to maintain the share it
temporarily gained from Guidant due to the disruption
in Guidant's business.
Interested parties must move the Court no later than 60 days
from April 10, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff.
For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin, Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/stjude/.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Abbey Spanier Lodges Stock Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, commenced a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation
(Nasdaq: VTSS) between October 23, 2003 and April 26, 2006
inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that defendants made material
misstatements and omitted information regarding the timing of
stock option grants made to key executives.
On April 17, 2006, Louis Tomasetta (the Company's Chief
Executive Officer), Eugene Hovanec (the Company's Executive Vice
President) and Yatin Mody (the Company's Chief Financial
Officer) were placed on administrative leave while the Company
investigated the stock option transactions.
On April 26, 2006, Vitesse announced that its financial
statements for its fiscal years ending September 30, 2003,
September 20, 2004 and September 30, 2005 as well as the quarter
ending December 31, 2005 "should not be relied upon". On this
news, Vitesse shares dropped from $2.51 to $1.82.
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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Vitesse securities.
The Complaint alleges that the Company's October 23, 2003 press
release, its Form 10-Ks for its years ended September 30, 2003,
September 30, 2004 and September 30, 2005 and the Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended December 31, 2005 were all materially false
and misleading because the financial statements included in each
document did not fairly present the financial condition of the
Company.
Defendants include Vitesse, Dr. Vincent Chan, Ph.D., James A.
Cole, Alex Daly, Moshe Gavrielov, John C. Lewis, Dr. Louis
Tomasetta, Ph.D., Yatin Mody, Eugene F. Hovanec and Edward
Rogas, Jr.
Interested parties may no later than July 3, 2006 request that
the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.
For more details, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee of
Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street,
New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-
3701, E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Pomerantz Firm Files Stock Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, initiated in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
against Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (VTSS) and certain of
its officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
Company during the period from October 23, 2003 to April 26,
2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Vitesse, headquartered in Camarillo, California, engages in the
design, development, manufacturing, and marketing of integrated
circuits for systems manufacturers in the communications and
storage industries. The Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period Defendants:
-- failed to properly account for credits issued to or
requested by customers;
-- failed to properly apply payments received to the
appropriate account receivable; and
-- failed to properly account for the stock options grated
to senior officers and directors.
On April 18, 2006, after the trading of Vitesse common stock had
been halted, the Company issued a press release entitled
"Vitesse Announces Appointment of Special Committee to
Investigate Timing of Stock Option Grants."
The following day, Vitesse shares plunged more than 32% from the
prior day's close of $3.11 per share, to a closing price of
$2.48 per share. A little over a week later, after the market
closed on April 26, 2006, the Company issued another press
release entitled "Vitesse Announces That Its Reported Financial
Statements Should Not be Relied Upon and that it has Engaged An
Acting Chief Financial Officer." The following day, Vitesse
shares plunged 23.5% with a closing price of $1.83 per share.
Interested parties have until July 3, 2006, to ask the Court for
appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class.
For more details contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
of the Pomerantz Firm, Phone: 888.476.6529, E-mail:
tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.pomlaw.com.
VITESSE SEMICONDUCTOR: Rosen Law Initiates Stock Investigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated an investigation into allegations
that Vitesse Semiconductor Corp. (Nasdaq: VTSS) may have
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading financial statements during the reporting periods for
the three months ended December 31, 2005 and the three years
ended September 30, 2005.
On April 18, 2006 the Company shocked the market when it
announced that it had appointed a Special Committee of
independent directors to conduct an internal investigation
relating to past stock option grants, the timing of such grants
and related accounting and documentation.
The Company also announced that it had put on "administrative
leave" the Company's founder and current CEO Louis R. Tomasetta,
the Company's CFO Yatin Mody, and the Company's Executive Vice
President Eugene Hovanec. Following this announcement, Vitesse
stock fell 20%.
On April 26, 2006 the Company announced that as a result of the
ongoing internal investigation, the Company's "reported
financial statements for the three months ended December 31,
2005 and three years ended September 30, 2005 and possibly
earlier periods should not be relied upon."
The Company also announced for the first time, that "additional
issues have arisen concerning the Company's practices in
connection with credits issued to or requested by customers (for
returned products or otherwise) and the related accounting
treatment, as well as the application of payments received to
the proper accounts receivable." As a result of this
announcement the Company's stock fell an additional 27%.
As a result of these allegations, the Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased Vitesse stock during the period from June 30, 2003 to
April 26, 2006 against the Company and its current and former
management.
For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. or Phillip Kim,
Esq., Phone: 866-767-3653, (212) 686-1060 and (917) 797-4425,
Fax: (212) 202-3827, E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or
pkim@rosenlegal.com, Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.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, Francisco
Eltanal, Jr., Janice Mendoza 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 * * *