/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060614.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, June 14, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 117
Headlines
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Labor Related Suit in Calif. State Court
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Securities Suit Deal Gets Court Approval
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces N.Y. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Smoker Fees
BODY SOLID: Recalls Treadmills Because of Speed Control Problems
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Court Partially Dismisses Stock Suit
CONNECTICUT: Greenwich Policemen Accuse Town of Discrimination
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Calif. Stock Suit Expected Early 2007
HEALTH NET: Court Dismisses Managed Care Suit Settlement Appeals
HEALTH NET: Told to Show Documents in Employer Group Plans Suit
INDIANA: Settles Bus Service Lawsuit Filed by Advocacy Group
JOE'S CRAB: Employee Files Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
KENTUCKY: Suit Filed Against Operators of Alleged Pyramid Scam
LAKESIDE FOODS: Leak in Self-Heating Containers Prompts Recall
LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Employee Files Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
MONARCH CASINO: Reaches Deal in Nev. Suit Over Gaming Machines
NEW YORK: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Litigation
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Riv Acquisition Deal
SCUBAPRO: Recalls X650 Diving Regulators with Defective Housing
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settles Overtime Suit Against Unit for $1.2M
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Warns of Small Cracks in Applicator
WAVE SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Paying $290M to Settle Shareholder Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Enters US$311M Deal with Okla. Pension Plan
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
CSK AUTO: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Arizona
CSK AUTO: Scarlato & Karon Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
INFOSONICS CORP: Klafter & Olsen Files Calif. Stock Fraud Suit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.J.
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in Mass.
XM SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
*********
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Faces Labor Related Suit in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apria Healthcare Group, Inc. is defendant in purported class
action filed in the California Superior Court for the County of
San Francisco, containing blanket claims of liability under
various California employee protection statutes and regulations
relating to:
-- payment of regular and overtime wages,
-- the timeliness of such payments,
-- the maintenance and provision of access to required
payroll records, and
-- the provision of meal and rest periods.
The suit is "Venegas v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No.
CGC-06-449669," which was filed on Feb. 21, 2006. No class has
been certified at this time, but on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all of the company's hourly employees in the State
of California, the complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages in an unspecified amount as well as other relief.
The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying all
material allegations and asserting a number of affirmative
defenses.
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Mass. Securities Suit Deal Gets Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts granted final
approval to the consolidated securities class action filed
against Aspen Technology, Inc.
In November 2004, two putative class actions were filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court District of
Massachusetts:
-- "Fener v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.), filed Nov. 9, 2004" and
-- "Stockmaster v. Aspen Technology, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 04-12387 (D. Mass.)," filed Nov. 10, 2004.
The class actions allege, among other things, that the company
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder in connection with various statements
about its financial condition for fiscal years 2000 through
2004.
On Feb. 2, 2005, the court consolidated the cases under the
caption, "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 04-12375 (D. Mass.)," and appointed The Operating
Engineers and Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension
Fund (Local 66) and City of Roseville Employees' Retirement
System as lead plaintiff, purporting to represent a putative
class of persons who purchased Aspen Technology, Inc. common
stock between Jan. 25, 2000 and Oct. 29, 2004.
On Aug. 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint containing allegations materially similar to the prior
complaints and expanding the class action period.
Following mediation, on Nov. 16, 2005, the company and the
plaintiffs on behalf of putative class members, defined to
include all persons who purchased Aspen Technology, Inc. common
stock between Oct. 29, 1999 and March 15, 2005, entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release
of Securities Action which was filed with the court on the same
date providing, among other things, for settlement and release
of all direct and indirect claims of the class concerning
matters covered by the Stipulation.
On Dec. 12, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement provided for in the Stipulation. After notice to the
class and hearing, on March 6, 2006, the court granted final
approval of the settlement, and the class action was dismissed
with prejudice.
The suit is, "Aspen Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-12375-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mario Alba, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
1173;
(2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan and Thomas G. Shapiro of Shapiro
Haber & Urmy, LLP, 53 State St., Boston, MA 02108,
Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
ted@shulaw.com and tshapiro@shulaw.com;
(3) Richard Maniskas and Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin &
Barroway, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706;
(4) David Pastor of Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State St.,
37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com; and
(5) David A. Rosenfeld and Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley,
Geller, Bowman, Coates & Rudman, LLP, 200 Broadhollow
Rd., Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-369-
7100.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Kevin B. Currid, Nicholas C. Theodorou and Brandon F.
White of Foley Hoag, LLP, 155 Seaport Boulevard,
Seaport World Trade Center West, Boston, MA 02210,
Phone: 617-832-1200, 617-832-1163 and 617-832-1170,
Fax: 617-832-7000, E-mail: kcurrid@foleyhoag.com,
ntheodor@foleyhoag.com and bfwhite@foleyhoag.com;
(ii) Thomas J. Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, LLP, One Beacon St., Boston, MA 02108, Phone:
617-573-4800, Fax: 617-573-4822, E-mail:
dougherty@skadden.com; and
(iii) John A.D. Gilmore of Piper Rudnick, LLP, One
International Place, 21st Floor, 100 Oliver St.,
Boston, MA 02110-2600, Phone: 617-406-6000, Fax: 617-
406-6100, E-mail: john.gilmore@piperrudnick.com.
AXA EQUITABLE: Faces N.Y. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Smoker Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co. faces a purported class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging it defrauded more than 100,000 customers by applying
hidden smoker fees to the policies of non-smoking children, The
Montgomery Advertiser reports.
Filed on May 16, 2006, the complaint was brought by Montgomery,
Alabama-based lawyers Jay Aughtman and Jere Beasley on behalf of
Larry E. Richards. It alleges that the company used a computer
system to automatically add the fees without their customers'
knowledge. The suit claims the company gained more than $5
million from the alleged scheme.
The company denies the allegations in the complaint. Mary
Taylor, AXA's vice president of communications states, "The cost
of insurance or premium payable on policies insuring the lives
of children is not based on the child's status as a tobacco or
non-tobacco user."
She added, "When applicable, around the time the juvenile
reaches the age of majority, a notice is sent to policy owners
seeking information on their smoking/tobacco status and based on
their response, appropriate rates are charged. We plan to
vigorously defend this."
A federal judge gave the company until July 7 to file a formal
answer to the complaint.
The suit is "Richards et al. v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance
Company, Case No. 1:06-cv-03744-PAC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A.
Crotty.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph H. Aughtman of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, PC, 272 Commerce Street, Montgomery, AL
36104, Phone: (334)-269-2343, Fax: (334)-954-7555, E-
mail: jay.aughtman@beasleyallen.com; and
(2) Andrea B. Bierstein, Jayne Conroy and Paul J. Hanly,
Jr. of Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes,
LLP, 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
US, Phone: (212) 784-6403, (212) 784-6402 and 212-784-
6401, Fax: (212) 784-6400 and 212-784-6420, E-mail:
abierstein@hanlyconroy.com, jconroy@hanlyconroy.com and
phanly@hanlyconroy.com.
BODY SOLID: Recalls Treadmills Because of Speed Control Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Endurance, a division of Body Solid Inc., of Forest Park,
Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, recalled about 700 Endurance treadmills.
The company said the treadmill can unexpectedly accelerate or
decelerate, possibly causing the user to lose control and fall.
Endurance has received nine reports of speed control problems.
No injuries have been reported.
The recall includes the T7, T7.1, T8 and T9.1 models of the
Endurance Treadmills. The treadmills are black and silver. The
model number is located along the side of the running surface
near the end of the treadmill. Consumers should check the
serial number, located on the front lower shroud of the
treadmill along the vertical surface on a white sticker, and
contact the company to confirm their treadmill is included in
the recall.
The treadmills were manufactured by Joong Chen Industries, of
Taiwan and are being sold at fitness equipment stores from
September 2004 through April 2005 for between $2,000 and $2,500.
Consumers are advised to stop using these treadmills immediately
and contact Endurance to schedule a free on-site repair.
For additional information, contact Endurance at (800) 496-5632
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or send an
email to treadmillrecall@endurancecardio.com.
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Wash. Court Partially Dismisses Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
granted Cell Therapeutics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action, but gave plaintiffs leave
to amend its complaint.
Beginning in March 2005, a number of purported shareholder class
actions, alleging violations of federal securities laws, were
filed against the company, James Bianco and Max Link. These
actions were consolidated.
On Nov. 7, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and Amended
Class Action Complaint against the company, James Bianco and
Jack Singer. The consolidated and amended complaint asserts
claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on behalf of a
class of purchasers of common stock during the period from Nov.
14, 2003 to March 7, 2005.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by, among other things, making false statements
of material facts and/or omitting to state material facts to
make the statements not misleading in connection with the
results of the Company's STELLAR clinical trials for its drug
XYOTAX.
No estimate of possible loss or range of loss resulting from the
lawsuit can be made at this time. Management believes that the
allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to
defend the actions vigorously.
On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss this
class action complaint. On May 4, 2006 the court granted the
company's motion to dismiss this lawsuit with leave to the
plaintiffs to amend.
The suit is "Heywood v. Cell Therapeutics Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00396-RSM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington under Judge Ricardo S. Martinez.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Michelle M. Backes of Schiffrin & Barroway, 280 King Of
Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-
mail: mbackes@sbclasslaw.com;
(2) Tamara J. Driscoll of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins, 1700 Seventh Avenue, Ste. 2260,
Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-749-5544, Fax: 206-749-
9978, E-mail: tdriscoll@lerachlaw.com;
(3) Douglas C. McDermott of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
LLP, 1301 5th Ave., Ste. 2900, Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: 206-623-7292, E-mail: doug@hbsslaw.com; and
(4) Jay H. Zulauf of Hall Zanzig Zulauf Claflin Mceachern,
1200 5th Ave., Ste. 1414, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
206-292-5900, Fax: 206-292-5901, E-mail:
jzulauf@hallzan.com.
Representing the defendant are Daniel J Dunne, Jr. and Robin
Wechkin of Heller Ehrman, LLP, 701 5th Ave., Ste. 6100, Seattle,
WA 98104-7098, Phone: 206-447-0900, Fax: 206-447-0375, E-mail:
daniel.dunne@hellerehrman.com & robin.wechkin@hellerehrman.com.
CONNECTICUT: Greenwich Policemen Accuse Town of Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven members of the Greenwich Police Department filed a
purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut accusing the town of racial
discrimination, The New York Times reports.
The main allegation in the suit is that the department has
"systematically and continuously discriminated" against members
of racial and ethnic minorities in its hiring and promotional
practices.
The suit claims the department disproportionately detained and
arrested members of minorities, and use highly offensive
language to refer to racial minorities.
Plaintiffs in the suit include five African-American and two
Hispanics, who all makeup roughly half the African-Americans and
Hispanics in the department and nearly 5 percent of its work
force. Plaintiffs in the suit, who are represented by attorney
Lewis Chimes, includes:
-- Terral Hardy,
-- John Rodriguez,
-- Scott Johnson,
-- Carlos Franco,
-- John Woodward,
-- Robert Brown, and,
-- Vincent O'Banner.
According to the suit, the seven plaintiffs had "individually
and collectively sought redress" internally before seeking
relief in the courts.
It also claims that the department "manipulated assignments of
the few minority officers on the job to foster the appearance of
diversity," and has never appointed a black or Hispanic chief,
deputy chief or captain.
In addition, the suit also contends that only 3 of the 66
officers hired since 1992, who are still with the department are
African-American or Hispanic.
Plaintiffs were particularly concerned on the fairness of the
application process for the sergeant position.
The suit is "Hardy et al v. Greenwich, Case No. 3:06-cv-00833-
WWE," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Warren W. Eginton.
Representing the plaintiffs is Lewis H. Chimes of Garrison
Levin-Epstein Chimes & Richardson, 405 Orange St., New Haven, CT
06511, Phone: 203-777-4425, E-mail: lchimes@garrisonlaw.com.
ESS TECHNOLOGY: Trial in Calif. Stock Suit Expected Early 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against ESS Technology, Inc. and certain of its present and
former officers and directors is slated for early 2007,
according to the company's May 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
March 31, 2006.
On Aug. 12, 2002, following the company's downward revision of
revenue and earnings guidance for the third fiscal quarter of
2002, a series of putative federal class actions were filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Complaints alleged that the company and certain of its present
and former officers and directors made misleading statements
regarding the company's business and failed to disclose certain
allegedly material facts during an alleged class period of Jan.
23, 2002 through Aug. 12, 2002, in violation of federal
securities laws.
These actions were consolidated and are proceeding under the
caption, "In re ESS Technology Securities Litigation."
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of the putative
class. They later amended their consolidated complaint on Nov.
3, 2003, which the company then moved to dismiss on Dec. 18,
2003.
On Dec. 1, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part
the company's motion to dismiss, and struck from the complaint
allegations arising prior to Feb. 27, 2002.
On Dec. 22, 2004, based on the court's order, the company moved
to strike from the complaint all remaining claims and
allegations arising prior to Aug. 10, 2002.
On Feb. 22, 2005, the court granted the company's motion in part
and struck all remaining claims and allegations arising prior to
Aug. 1, 2002 from the complaint.
In an order filed on Feb. 8, 2006, the court certified a
plaintiff class of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities
during the period beginning Aug. 1, 2002, through and including
Aug. 12, 2002.
On March 24, 2006, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his
operative complaint, seeking to extend the beginning of the
class period back to April 24, 2002 and to re-allege that
certain public statements the company made during that expanded
time period that the court previously found to be inactionable
were false and misleading.
The company believes that plaintiff's motion is improper and is
opposing it. A hearing on the motion was held May 19, 2006.
By stipulation, discovery in the action has been stayed pending
the court's resolution of plaintiff's motion. A trial date has
been tentatively set for early 2007.
The suit is "In re ESS Technology, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 02-CV-4497," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (San
Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
Phone: 206.749.5544, Fax: 206.749.9978, E-mail:
info@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (S.F., CA),
100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA, 94111,
Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534; and
(3) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
support@milberg.com.
Representing the Company are Meredith N. Landy and Joshua D.
Baker of O'Melveny & Myers, 2765 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park, CA
94025-7019, Phone: 650.473.2600, Fax: 650.473.2601, E-mail:
mlandy@omm.com or jbaker@omm.com.
HEALTH NET: Court Dismisses Managed Care Suit Settlement Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit granted unopposed
motions to dismiss several appeal regarding the settlement of
the lead physician provider track case in "In Re Managed Care
Litigation, MDL 1334."
Various class actions against managed care companies, including
the company, were transferred by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings as, "In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL
1334."
This proceeding was divided into two tracks, the subscriber
track, comprising actions brought on behalf of health plan
members, and the provider track, comprising actions brought on
behalf of health care providers.
On Aug. 19, 2003, the court dismissed the final subscriber track
action involving the company, "The State of Connecticut v.
Physicians Health Services of Connecticut, Inc.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
on Aug. 7, 2000, on grounds that the State of Connecticut lacked
standing to bring the ERISA claims asserted in the complaint.
That same day, the court ordered that the subscriber track be
closed "in light of the dismissal of all cases in the Subscriber
Track." The State of Connecticut appealed the dismissal order
to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and on Aug. 10, 2004,
the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal.
On Feb. 22, 2005, the Supreme Court of the U.S. denied
plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the Eleventh
Circuit's decision to uphold the dismissal.
The provider track includes these actions involving:
-- "Shane v. Humana, Inc., et al., including Health Net,
Inc., filed in the Southern District of Florida on
Aug. 17, 2000 as an amendment to a suit filed in the
Western District of Kentucky;
-- "California Medical Association v. Blue Cross of
California, Inc., PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc.,
PacifiCare Operations, Inc. and Foundation Health
Systems, Inc." filed in the Northern District of
California in May 2000;
-- "Klay v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, et al.,
including Foundation Health Systems, Inc., filed in
the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 22, 2001
as an amendment to a case filed in the Northern
District of California;
-- "Connecticut State Medical Society v. Physicians Health
Services of Connecticut, Inc.," filed in Connecticut
state court on Feb. 14, 2001;
-- "Lynch v. Physicians Health Services of Connecticut,
Inc." filed in Connecticut state court on Feb. 14,
2001;
-- "Sutter v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc." filed in
New Jersey state court on April 26, 2002;
-- "Medical Society of New Jersey v. Health Net, Inc., et
al.," filed in New Jersey state court on May 8, 2002;
-- "Knecht v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.,
filed in the District of Oregon in May 2003;
-- "Solomon v. Cigna, et al.," including Health Net, Inc.
filed in the Southern District of Florida on Oct.
17, 2003;
-- "Ashton v. Health Net, Inc., et al." filed in the
Southern District of Florida on Jan. 20, 2004; and
-- "Freiberg v. UnitedHealthcare, Inc., et al., including
Health Net, Inc., filed in the Southern District of
Florida on Feb. 24, 2004)"
These actions allege that the defendants, including the company,
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments to providers, imposed unfair
contracting terms on providers, and negotiated capitation
payments inadequate to cover the costs of the health care
services provided and assert claims under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, and several state common law doctrines and
statutes.
"Shane," the lead physician provider track action, asserts
claims on behalf of physicians and seeks certification of a
nationwide class. The "Knecht," "Solomon," "Ashton" and
"Freiberg" cases all are brought on behalf of health care
providers other than physicians and seek certification of a
nationwide class of similarly situated health care providers.
Other than "Shane," all provider track actions involving the
company have been stayed.
On May 3, 2005, the company and the representatives of
approximately 900,000 physicians and state and other medical
societies announced that the company had signed an agreement
settling Shane, the lead physician provider track action.
The settlement agreement requires the company to pay $40 million
to general settlement funds and $20 million for plaintiffs'
legal fees. Deadline for class members to submit claim forms in
order to receive a portion of the settlement funds was Aug. 21,
2005.
This deadline was extended by agreement to Nov. 21, 2005 for
class members who reside or practice in a county declared as a
disaster area as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
During the three months ended March 31, 2005, the company
recorded a pretax charge of approximately $65.6 million in
connection with the settlement agreement, legal expenses, and
other expenses related to the MDL 1334 litigation.
The settlement agreement also includes a commitment that the
company institute a number of business practice changes. Among
the business practice changes the company have agreed to
implement are:
-- enhanced disclosure of certain claims payment
practices;
-- conforming claims-editing software to certain editing
and payment rules and standards;
-- payment of electronically submitted claims in 15 days
(30 days for paper claims);
-- use of a uniform definition of "medical necessity" that
includes reference to generally accepted standards of
medical practice and credible scientific evidence
published in peer-reviewed medical literature;
-- establish a billing dispute external review board to
afford prompt, independent resolution of billing
disputes;
-- provide 90-day notice of changes in practices and
policies and implement various changes to standard form
contracts;
-- establish an independent physician advisory committee;
and,
-- where physicians are paid on a capitation basis,
provide projected cost and utilization information,
provide periodic reporting and not delay assignment to
the capitated physician.
The settlement agreement requires the company to implement these
business practice changes by various dates, and to maintain them
for a four-year period thereafter.
On Aug. 26, 2005, the District Court issued an order granting
its final approval of the settlement agreement and directing the
entry of final judgment.
In October 2005, Stanley Silverman, M.D., Scott Calig, M.D.,
Russell Stovall, M.D. and Forrest Lumpkin, M.D. filed Notices of
Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit of the District Court's order
granting its approval of the settlement agreement.
Consequently, the effective date of the settlement will be
delayed pending the appeal. On Feb. 9, 2006, the Eleventh
Circuit dismissed Dr. Stovall's appeal because his notice of
appeal was untimely.
On Feb. 28, 2006, Dr. Stovall filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Eleventh Circuit's dismissal order. On March 2, 2006,
the Eleventh Circuit granted Drs. Silverman and Calig's
unopposed motion to dismiss their appeal.
On March 14, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit granted Dr. Lumpkin's
unopposed motion to dismiss his appeal. When all appeals have
been exhausted and the settlement agreement becomes effective,
the company anticipates that the settlement agreement will
result in the conclusion of substantially all pending provider
track cases filed on behalf of physicians.
HEALTH NET: Told to Show Documents in Employer Group Plans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ordered
Health Net, Inc. to produce a number of privileged documents for
inspection in relation to a consolidated class action filed
against the company.
Two suits were initially filed, namely: "McCoy v. Health Net,
Inc. et al.," and "Wachtel v. Guardian Life Insurance Co."
These suits are styled as nationwide class actions and are
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class of subscribers in a number of the
company's large and small employer group plans.
The Wachtel complaint initially was filed as a single plaintiff
case in New Jersey State court on July 23, 2001. Subsequently,
the company removed the Wachtel complaint to federal court, and
plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert claims on behalf of
a class of subscribers in small employer group plans in New
Jersey on Dec. 4, 2001.
The McCoy complaint was filed on April 23, 2003 and asserts
claims on behalf of a nationwide class of Health Net
subscribers. These two cases have been consolidated for
purposes of trial.
Plaintiffs allege that Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the
Northeast, Inc. and Health Net of New Jersey, Inc. violated
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection
with various practices related to the reimbursement of claims
for services provided by out-of-network providers. Plaintiffs
seek relief in the form of payment of benefits, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees.
During 2001 and 2002, the parties filed and argued various
motions and engaged in limited discovery. On April 23, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification seeking to
certify nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers. The
Company opposed that motion and the Court took it under
submission.
On June 12, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which was ultimately denied. On Aug. 8, 2003, plaintiffs
filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Health Net, Inc. as a
defendant and expanding the alleged violations.
On Dec. 22, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment
on the issue of whether Health Net utilized an outdated database
for calculating out-of-network reimbursements, which the company
opposed. That motion, and various other motions seeking
injunctive relief and to narrow the issues in this case, are
still pending.
On Aug. 5, 2004, the District Court granted plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and issued an Order certifying two
nationwide classes of Health Net subscribers who received
medical services or supplies from an out-of-network provider and
to whom Defendants paid less than the providers' actual charge
during the period from 1997 to 2004.
On Aug. 23, 2004, the company requested permission from the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to appeal the District
Court's class certification Order pursuant to Rule 23(f) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
On Nov. 14, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
granted the company's motion for leave to appeal. On March 4,
2005, the Third Circuit issued a briefing and scheduling order
for the company's appeal. Briefing on the appeal was completed
on June 15, 2005.
The Third Circuit heard oral arguments on Dec. 15, 2005. No
decision has yet been rendered on the appeal.
On Jan. 13, 2005, counsel for the plaintiffs in the
McCoy/Wachtel actions filed a separate class action against
Health Net, Inc., Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., Health Net
of New York, Inc., Health Net Life Insurance Co., and Health Net
of California, Inc. captioned, "Scharfman v. Health Net, Inc.,
05-CV-00301 (FSH)(PS)," in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey.
That suit was filed on behalf of the same parties who would have
been added to the McCoy/Wachtel action as additional class
representatives had the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to amend their complaint in that action. This
new action contains similar allegations to those made by the
plaintiffs in the McCoy/Wachtel action.
Discovery has concluded and a final pre-trial order was
submitted to the District Court in McCoy/Wachtel on June 28,
2005. Both sides have moved for summary judgment, and briefing
on those motions has been completed.
In their summary judgment briefing, plaintiffs also sought
appointment of a monitor to act as an independent fiduciary to
oversee the administration of the company's Northeast health
plans, including claims payment practices.
The company opposed the appointment of a monitor.
Notwithstanding its pending Third Circuit appeal of the District
Court's class certification order, a trial date was set for Aug.
19, 2005.
On July 29, 2005, the company filed a motion in the District
Court to stay the District Court action and the trial in light
of the pending Third Circuit appeal.
On Aug. 4, 2005, the District Court denied the company's motion
to stay and instead adjourned the Aug. 19 trial date and ordered
that the parties be prepared to go to trial on seven days'
notice as of Aug. 19, 2005.
The company immediately filed a request for a stay with the
Third Circuit seeking an order directing the District Court to
refrain from holding any trial or entering any judgment or order
that would have the effect of resolving any claims or issues
affecting the disputed classes until the Third Circuit rules on
the class certification order.
Plaintiffs cross-moved for dismissal of the class certification
appeal. On Aug. 27, 2005, the Third Circuit granted the
company's motion for a stay and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion.
Plaintiffs have not specified the amount of damages being sought
in this litigation and, although these proceedings are subject
to many uncertainties, based on the proceedings to date, the
company believes that the amount of damages ultimately asserted
by plaintiffs could be material.
On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a motion with the District
Court seeking sanctions against the company for a variety of
alleged acts of serious misconduct, discovery abuses and fraud
on the District Court.
The sanctions sought by plaintiffs and being considered by the
Court include, among others, entry of a default judgment,
monetary sanctions, including a substantial award for
plaintiffs' legal fees and either the appointment of a monitor
to oversee claims payment practices and dealings with state
regulators or the appointment of an independent fiduciary to
replace the company as a fiduciary with respect to claims
adjudications for members.
Plaintiffs also are seeking the appointment of a discovery
special master to oversee any further document production. On
Aug. 12, 2005, the company responded to plaintiffs' motion
denying that any sanctionable misconduct, discovery abuses or
fraud had occurred.
The District Court conducted hearings for 11 days on this issue
from October 2005 through March 2006. Throughout the time that
the Court has held these hearings, the parties have taken
additional depositions and have submitted additional briefing on
several issues that have arisen.
The hearings have now been concluded. Following the conclusion
of the sanctions hearings, the parties submitted proposed
findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court has
taken these proposals under advisement and the company are
awaiting a decision.
While the sanctions proceedings were progressing, the Court and
the Magistrate Judge overseeing discovery entered a number of
orders relating, inter alia, to production of documents.
On March 9, 2006, the Magistrate Judge ordered that all e-mails
of all Health Net companies be searched for documents responsive
to all of plaintiffs' document requests. The practical effect
of this order would be to require the company to restore all e-
mails from back-up tapes and to review them along with e-mails
on all current servers. The company was ordered to complete
this project by April 4, 2006.
Health Net appealed this order to the District Court, and sought
a stay of the April 4 deadline for production. Plaintiffs
opposed that appeal.
On May 5, 2006, the court entered an order dealing with a number
of outstanding issues, including discovery issues related to the
Feb. 28 and March 9, 2006, discovery orders.
Regarding discovery, the court ordered, among other things, that
Health Net produce e-mails for the 18 individuals identified in
the Feb. 28 order and e-mails for an additional 41 current or
former Health Net employees, for the period July 1, 1998 to Jan.
10, 2005.
As a result of the Court's discovery order, the company, its
outside counsel and consultants are engaged in efforts to
restore, review and produce such emails.
Also included in the May 5, 2006 order was a determination that
plaintiffs, in their effort to obtain production of documents
that Health Net asserts are protected from disclosure by the
attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges, had
presented evidence sufficient to support a finding, at this
preliminary stage of the case, that Health Net may have
obstructed justice, and that the elements of the crime-fraud
exception to the attorney-client privilege may have been met, in
connection with misleading statements and misrepresentations
that may have been made by Health Net personnel to the New
Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance and the Court in
connection with Health Net's use of outdated data to calculate
the reimbursement of claims for services provided by out-of-
network providers.
As a result, the Court ordered the company to produce a number
of privileged documents for inspection by the Court in order for
the Court to determine whether a crime or fraud was committed
such that the privileged documents should be provided to
plaintiffs.
The suits are "Wachtel, et al v. Guardian Life Insura, et al.,
Case No. 2:01-cv-04183-FSH-PS," and "Mccoy v. Health Net, Inc.,
et al., case no. 2:03-cv-01801-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey under Faith S.
Hochberg.
Representing the plaintiffs is Barry M. Epstein of Sills Cummis
Epstein & Gross PC, One Riverfront Plaza, Newark, NJ 07102-5400,
Phone: (973) 643-7000, E-mail: bepstein@sillscummis.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Herve Gouraige of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Two
Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-5003,
Phone: 973 642-1900, E-mail: hgouraige@ebglaw.com; and
(2) Heather V. Taylor, Mccarter & English, Four Gateway
Center, 100 Mulberry Street, Newark NJ 07102, Phone:
973-639-5905, E-mail: htaylor@mccarter.com.
INDIANA: Settles Bus Service Lawsuit Filed by Advocacy Group
------------------------------------------------------------
Public and private organizations facing a suit demanding
improvements in bus transportation for the disabled in Lake
County reached a settlement with the main plaintiff in the suit,
Everybody Counts, Inc., an Indiana-based advocacy organization,
according to the nwiTimes.com.
The parties have agreed to pages of consent decrees that would
improve service for disabled riders by greatly enhancing
monitoring and accountability.
Federal law requires busing organizations that receive federal
grants to provide accessible transportation for people who are
blind, wheelchair-bound or otherwise disabled.
However, in its lawsuit filed on April 9, 1998, Everybody
Counts, said that bus agencies in Hammond, East Chicago, Gary,
and two paratransit services that span Lake County did not meet
the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and
other laws. It also accused the state of funneling federal
grants without monitoring compliance.
Under the settlement, committees will be created to advise Gary,
East Chicago, Hammond and the Northwest Indiana Regional
Planning Commission on how to address complaints and improve
service; a consultant will be hired to monitor overall
compliance; and Everybody Counts will hold classes in
sensitivity awareness training on the needs of disabled riders
at the expense of the staff and administrators who handle busing
for those four groups.
A federal judge will approve the settlements only after a public
hearing, which as of press time has not been scheduled.
A fifth group, the private Tradewinds paratransit bus service,
has agreed to pay legal settlement of $90,000 to Everybody
Counts.
Two organizations, though, have not agreed to settle. These are
the Indiana Department of Transportation and the Northwest
Indiana Community Action Corp.
The suit is "Everybody Counts, et al. v. NIRPC, et al., Case No.
2:98-cv-00097-PPS-APR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Philip P. Simon with
referral to Judge Andrew P. Rodovich.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Nada Djordjevic, Robert L. Graham, Steven M. Siros,
Emma J. Sullivan and Karen A Waple of Jenner & Block,
LLP - Chi/IL, One IBM Plaza, 330 N. Wabash Ave.,
Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: 312-222-9350, 312-840-8607
and 312-843-7241, Fax: 312-840-7334, 312-840-7785, 312-
840-7717, 312-840-8707 and 312-840-7341, E-mail:
ndjordjevic@jenner.com, rgraham@jenner.com,
ssiros@jenner.com and esullivan@jenner.com; and
(2) Edward A. Voci, 1111 S. Boulevard, Oak Park, IL 60302-
2812, Fax: 708-358-8624.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Thomas M. Fisher of Indiana Attorney General's Office -
IAG/302, Indiana Government Center South, 302 W.
Washington Street, 5th Floor, Indianapolis, IN 46204-
2770, Phone: 317-232-6255, Fax: 317-232-7979, E-mail:
Tom.Fisher@atg.in.gov; and
(ii) Carli D. Fish of Cozen O'Connor, PC - Chi/IL, 222 S.
Riverside Plaza, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone:
219-931-0560, Fax: 219-931-5370.
JOE'S CRAB: Employee Files Labor Violations Lawsuit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe's Crab Shack - San Diego, Inc. is defendant in purported
class action in the Superior Court of California in San Diego,
alleging violations of state labor laws.
On April 4, 2006, Kyle Pietrzak and others similarly situated
filed the suit, which alleges that the defendants violated wage
and hour laws, including the failure to pay hourly and overtime
wages, failure to provide meal periods and rest periods, failing
to provide minimum reporting time pay, failing to compensate
employee for required expenses, including the expense to
maintain uniforms, and violations of the Unfair Competition Law.
KENTUCKY: Suit Filed Against Operators of Alleged Pyramid Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was initiated against the operators of an alleged
pyramid scheme in Louisville, Kentucky, WAVE 3 reports.
Among the defendants is Eli Ohayon, the man convicted of fourth
degree assault charges for assaulting WAVE 3 investigator Eric
Flack last year in his probe of a similar scheme, Louisville
Pro.
The suit was filed by people who say they were defrauded of tens
of thousands of dollars by what they believed was a legitimate
multi-level marketing operation. It is seeking tens of
thousands of dollars in damages.
One of the plaintiffs is Gerald Grett, who Mr. Ohayon recruited
in 2002 to a company called Phoenix USA. Plaintiffs' attorney,
Ann Oldfather told WAVE 3, "They were told that they could buy
this inventory and re-sell it for handsome mark ups when in fact
Phoenix was charging them retail for the inventory in the first
place. So there literally was no way to make money."
The presiding judge in the case set a Aug. trial date.
For more details, contact Ann B. Oldfather of Oldfather &
Morris, 1330 South Third Street, Louisville, KY 40208-5509,
Phone: (502) 637-7200, Fax: (502) 589-5338.
LAKESIDE FOODS: Leak in Self-Heating Containers Prompts Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lakeside Foods, Inc., in cooperation with the federal Food and
Drug Administration, recalled all production codes of all
products in 10 oz. self-heating containers because the company
recently learned that some cans may be contaminated with
spoilage organisms or harmful bacteria due to seal leakage.
There have been no reported illnesses associated with this
product.
This recall affects the following brands and items:
- Wolf Gang Puck Rich Caramel Latte
- Hillside French Vanilla Latte
- Decadent Chai Tea Latte
- Hillside Hazelnut Latte
- Wolf Gang Puck Rich Espresso Latte
- Hillside Mocha Latte
- Wolf Gang Puck French Vanilla Latte
- Decadent Hot Chocolate
- Wolf Gang Puck Rich Mocha Latte
- Decadent Mint Hot Chocolate
- Hillside Double Shot Latte
- Yummers Hot Chocolate
- Beaumont Gold French Vanilla
- Beaumont Gold Double Shot
- Chef Jay's Zesty Chicken
- Chef Jay's Hearty Beef
- Chef Jay's French Onion
Affected products were distributed in the states of: Alabama,
Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa,
Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Nebraska, New Hampshire,
New Jersey, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin. It reached consumers through a variety of
distribution avenues including retail and grocery stores and the
internet.
Consumers who have purchased any of the above products are
advised not to use the product even if it does not look or smell
spoiled and to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund.
For more information, contact Lakeside Foods, Inc. at 1-800-466-
3834 Ext. 4090.
LANDRY'S SEAFOOD: Employee Files Labor Violations Suit in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landry's Seafood House - Arlington, Inc. and Crab Addison, Inc.
are defendants in purported class action in the Superior Court
of California in Los Angles, alleging violations of state labor
laws.
On March 2, 2006, and subsequently amended, Kristina Brask and
others similarly situated filed the suit, alleges that the
defendants violated wage and hour laws, including the failure to
pay hourly and overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods
and rest periods, failing to provide and maintain uniforms, the
failure to provide correct itemized statements to the employee,
the taking of unlawful deductions, and violations of the Unfair
Competition Law.
MONARCH CASINO: Reaches Deal in Nev. Suit Over Gaming Machines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monarch Casino & Resort, Inc. reached a settlement in a
consolidated class action filed against it and other
manufacturers, distributors and casino operators of video poker
and electronic slot machines.
The company is a defendant in class action litigation cases,
namely:
-- "William Poulos v. Caesar's World, Inc. et al., Case
No. 94-478-Civ-Orl-22;"
-- "William H Ahern v. Caesars World, Inc. et al., Case
No. 94-478-Civ-Orl-22;" and
-- "Larry Schrier v. Caesars World Inc., et al., Case No.
95-923-LDG (RJJ)."
These cases were consolidated for purposes of litigation, and in
which the company is one of numerous named defendants.
The complaints allege that manufacturers, distributors and
casino operators of video poker and electronic slot machines,
including the company, have engaged in a course of conduct
intended to induce persons to play such games based on a false
belief concerning how the gaming machines operate, as well as
the extent to which there is an opportunity to win on a given
play.
They also charge Defendants with violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, as well as claims of
common law fraud, unjust enrichment and negligent
misrepresentation, and seek damages in excess of $1 billion
without any substantiation of that amount.
On Aug. 7, 2005, U.S. District Judge Roger L. Hunt granted the
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on all claims made by
Plaintiffs, and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims in their entirety.
On Oct. 14, 2005, Plaintiffs William Poulos and Brenda McElmore
lodged a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to appeal from the
District Court's order of summary judgment in favor of
defendants and two discovery orders also issued by the district
court.
Most recently the parties have reached a global settlement
agreement, which will dispose of all litigation and place final
closure on this lawsuit. Documentation of the settlement is in
the process of being formalized. The anticipated settlement
will not generate any material financial impact the company.
The suit is "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's World, Inc, et al.,
Case No. 2:94-cv-01126-RLH-RJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Roger L. Hunt, with
referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Douglass A. Mitchell of Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV
89101, Phone: (702) 382-7300, Fax: (702) 382-2755, E-
mail: dmitchell@bsfllp.com; and
(2) Mary Boies of Boies & McInnis, P.O. Drawer 67, Empire
Building, #5 Bedford, NY 10506, Phone: (914) 234-3700,
Fax: (914) 234-0929.
Representing the company is Dennis L. Kennedy of Bailey Merrill,
8691 West Sahara Ave., Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89117-5830,
Phone: 702-562-8820, Fax: 702-562-8821, E-mail:
dkennedy@baileymerrill.com.
NEW YORK: Continues to Face Consolidated Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. is defendant in a consolidated
securities class action in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of New York.
In 2004, the company and various executive officers and
directors were named in certain putative securities law class
actions brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, and one class action brought in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, that was
later removed by the defendants to federal court.
On Aug. 9, 2005, the court consolidated the actions and
appointed a Lead Plaintiff.
On Oct. 6, 2005, the Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities,
other than defendants, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities from June 27, 2003 to July 1, 2004.
That suit is alleging claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10 and 14 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5, promulgated pursuant to
Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Registration
Statement issued in connection with the Company's merger with
Roslyn Bancorp, Inc. and other documents and statements made by
executive management were inaccurate and misleading, contained
untrue statements of material facts, omitted other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading, and
concealed and failed to adequately disclose material facts,
pertaining to, among other things, the company's business plans
and its exposure to interest rate risk.
Defendants moved to dismiss the action on Dec. 19, 2005. That
motion remains pending, during which period discovery is stayed
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.
The first identified complaint is "Toby Olsen, et al. v. New
York Community Bancorp, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-4165,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
Plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;
(2) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;
(3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com; and
(4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Faces Several Suits Over Riv Acquisition Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Riviera Holdings Corp. is defendant in purported class actions
pending in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada over a
definitive merger agreement under which Riv Acquisition
Holdings, Inc. will acquire all of the outstanding shares of the
company.
Between April 6, 2006 and April 25, 2006, five class action
complaints were filed against the company and its directors,
each on behalf of a named plaintiff shareholder and all others
similarly situated.
The named plaintiffs in the complaints are:
-- "Thomas A. Trozzi (Case No. A520076, filed on April 6,
2006);"
-- "Phillip LaBarbara (Case No. A520100, filed on April 7,
2006);"
-- "Todd Veeck (Case No. A520136, filed on April 7,
2006);"
-- "Norberto Silva (Case No. A520638, filed on April 19,
2006);" and
-- "Robert Strougo (Case No. A520911, filed on April 25,
2006)."
Plaintiff Thomas A. Trozzi notified the company on April 10,
2006, that he did not agree to be a party to a lawsuit filed
against the company or to have such a lawsuit filed in his name.
On April 17, 2006, the Trozzi complaint against the company was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs in each of the four remaining lawsuits allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the company shareholders by entering into the
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated April 6, 2006 (Merger
Agreement), among Riv Acquisition Holdings Inc., Riv Acquisition
Inc. and Riviera Holdings Corp. (RHC) at a price the plaintiffs
considered to be inadequate.
On April 6, 2006, RHC and Riv Acquisition Holdings Inc., entered
into a definitive merger agreement under which all of the
outstanding shares of RHC will be acquired for $17.00 per share
in cash, other than shares owned by William L. Westerman, RHC's
chief executive officer.
Mr. Westerman had entered into a previous personal agreement to
sell his shares to the investment group for $15 per share in
cash and to vote his shares in favor of the acquisition. The
transaction is expected to be complete sometime in the first
half of 2007, subject to shareholder approval and licensing by
gaming authorities.
In the complaints the plaintiffs request the court to do the
following, among other things:
-- certify all Company shareholders, other than the
defendants and persons or entities related to or
affiliated with any defendants, as a class for purposes
of a class action,
-- enjoin consummation of the transactions contemplated by
the Merger Agreement and
-- rescind the Merger Agreement.
SCUBAPRO: Recalls X650 Diving Regulators with Defective Housing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scubapro of El Cajon, California, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 670 Scubapro
X650 Second Stage Regulator.
The company said a manufacturing error could cause the main
housing of some regulators to change shape over time, which
could cause the cover and diaphragm to become dislodged. If
this occurs, airflow will be interrupted and the regulators will
no longer function, posing a drowning hazard to users. No
injuries were reported.
The recall involves some X650 second stage regulators. All X650
second stage regulators are clearly marked with a blue capital
"X" next to the numbers "650" in white. Affected regulators
have a visible bump located on the right side of the unit
between the letter "C" and where the mouthpiece attaches to the
regulator body.
The regulators were made in Genova, Italy and are being sold at
authorized Scubapro dealers in the U.S. from June 2005 through
May 2006 for between $400 and $670.
Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately and
contact Scubapro to determine if they have an affected second
stage regulator. If so, they will receive a free replacement
regulator. The company is contacting registered owners of the
product directly.
For more information, contact Scubapro at (800) 808-3948 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit their Web
site at http://www.scubapro.com.
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Settles Overtime Suit Against Unit for $1.2M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Urban Outfitters Inc. agreed to pay up to about $1.2 million to
settle a California class action filed against its Anthropologie
Inc. unit, alleging misclassification of employees as exempt
from overtime, The TwinCities.com Pioneer Press reports.
On Mar. 26, 2004, an employee filed the suit in the Superior
Court of California for Orange County seeking class-action
status, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief,
(Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).
It alleges that under California law, plaintiff and certain
other employees were misclassified as employees exempt from
overtime and seeks recovery of unpaid wages, penalties and
damages, (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).
On Oct. 6, 2005, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2006).
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Warns of Small Cracks in Applicator
------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International and the U.S. Food and
Drugs Administration notified healthcare professionals about a
serious problem with Diastat AcuDial delivery systems, which are
pre-filled syringes that contain diazepam.
The company has received complaints concerning small cracks at
the base of the plastic tip of the applicators with resulting
leakage of the medication when the plunger is depressed,
preventing full dosing and potentially resulting in a sub-
optimal therapeutic response.
Diastat is indicated for rectal administration in the management
of selected refractory patients with epilepsy on stable regimens
of anti-epileptic drugs, who require intermittent use of
diazepam to control bouts of increased seizure activity.
These are designed to deliver the drug rectally to certain
epilepsy patients with acute repetitive seizures, a condition
that can lead to status epilepticus if it's not controlled.
The problem is that the base of the applicator tips of the 10
and 20 mg syringes can crack, and this can allow the diazepam
gel to leak out while it's being administered. If that happens,
the patient could be under-dosed and thus not receive enough of
the drug to control seizures. The frequency of cracks has
varied, but as many as six percent of syringes in some lots have
shown cracks.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals is working to fix the problem, but the
new version of the product won't be available until this summer.
Until then, the current Diastat AcuDial syringes will continue
to be sold because there are no other available treatments that
can be administered at home.
Because of this, patients and their caregivers are advised to
check their syringes carefully to see if the base of the
applicator tip is cracked. When inspecting the syringe, it's
critical to not remove the applicator cap fully.
Users of Diastat AcuDial who discovered a crack in the
applicator are advised to return the syringe to the pharmacy and
exchange it for a new one at no cost. If no crack is initiall
discovered, the syringes should be re-inspected once a month
because these cracks can develop over time.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals has sent letters to physicians caring
for epilepsy patients advising them to tell their patients about
this problem. The company has also told pharmacists to inspect
all of the product on their shelves before dispensing it, and to
tell patients they should also inspect the syringes.
For more information, contact the company at 1-877-361-2719.
WAVE SYSTEMS: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Mass.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Systems Corp., its chief executive officer and its chief
financial officer, are defendants in a consolidated securities
class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.
The suit is "Brumbaugh et al. v. Wave Systems Corp. et al., Civ.
No. 04-30022 (D. Mass.) (MAP)." Alleged purchasers of the
company's Class A Common Stock filed the purported class action
during the class period July 31, 2003 through Feb. 2, 2004.
The complaint claims that the company and the named individuals
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(1934 Act), Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder and Section
20(a) of the 1934 Act by publicly disseminating materially false
and misleading statements, relating to the company's agreements
with Intel and IBM. It does not specify the amount of alleged
damages plaintiffs seek to recover.
The suit is "Brumbaugh v. Wave Systems Corporation et al., Case
No. 3:04-cv-30022-MAP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Michael A. Ponsor.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stuart L. Berman and Darren Check of Schiffrin &
Barroway LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706;
(2) David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, 60 State Street,
37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax:
617-742-9701, E-mail: dpastor@gilmanpastor.com;
(3) John C. Martland, Martland & Brooks LLP, Stonehill
Corporate Center, Suite 500, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA
01906, Phone: 617-742-9700, Fax: 617-742-9701, E-mail:
jcmartland@gilmanpastor.com; and
(4) Karen Reilly and Marc I. Willner, Schiffrin & Barroway,
LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone:
610-667-7706, Fax: 610-667-7056.
Representing the Company are:
(i) Michael D. Blanchard and Robert A. Buhlman of Bingham
McCutchen LLP - Hartford, One State Street, Hartford,
CT 06103, Phone: 860-240-2700, Fax: 860-240-2818, E-
mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com or
robert.buhlman@bingham.com; and
(ii) Eunice E. Lee and Raquel J. Webster, Bingham McCutchen
LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA 02110, Phone: 617-
951-8000, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
eunice.lee@bingham.com or raquel.webster@bingham.com.
WILLIAMS COMMUNICATIONS: Paying $290M to Settle Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Williams reached an agreement in principle to settle shareholder
class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of Williams
securities purchasers between July 24, 2000, and July 22, 2002.
Under the terms of the agreement, Williams will pay $290 million
to plaintiffs, subject to court approval. The settlement will
be funded through a combination of insurance proceeds and cash
on hand, and will not have a material effect on the company's
liquidity position. Of the total settlement, Williams expects
to pay approximately $145 million to $220 million in cash to
fund the settlement, while it expects the balance to be funded
by its insurers.
Williams plans to record a second-quarter, pre-tax charge in the
same dollar range as its expected cash outlay. On an after-tax
basis, the charge is estimated to be approximately $98 million
to $148 million, or 16 cents to 24 cents per diluted share. The
exact amount of the charge within the aforementioned range is
subject to final determination and timing of certain insurer
coverage allocations. The company considers the charge a non-
recurring item.
Williams noted that it chose to settle this litigation as part
of the company's efforts to resolve legacy issues and move
forward with its plans for profitable growth.
Williams and the plaintiffs plan to file definitive settlement
agreements in early August with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma. The settlement would be funded
within 30 days of the court's preliminary approval of the
agreement, which could occur as soon as mid-August.
Williams and various other parties to the agreements do not
admit to any liability by the company, its directors or
officers. In addition, there were no findings of any violation
of federal securities laws.
The agreement is exclusive of the company's litigation with
plaintiffs representing a class of Williams Communications
securities purchasers. That suit is pending in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Williams, through its subsidiaries, primarily finds, produces,
gathers, processes and transports natural gas. The company also
manages a wholesale power business. Williams' operations are
concentrated in the Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountains, Gulf
Coast, Southern California and Eastern Seaboard. More
information is at http://www.williams.com.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Enters US$311M Deal with Okla. Pension Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan (OTPP) reached a US$311
million cash settlement agreement in the securities class action
against The Williams Companies, Inc., certain of its directors
and officers, its auditor, and its underwriters.
OTPP is the court-appointed co-lead plaintiff in the Williams
Securities Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma. OTPP, with co-lead plaintiff the
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, led the prosecution of this
action on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Williams
securities between July 24, 2000 and July 22, 2002.
This settlement was reached shortly before trial was scheduled
to commence. It follows intensive litigation, during which the
lead plaintiffs engaged in a massive discovery effort, including
more than 180 depositions and reviews of more than 18 million
pages of documents.
The allegations in the complaint relate to Williams' former
telecommunications subsidiary Williams Communications, Inc.
(WCG) and Williams' energy trading operation, known at the time
as Energy Marketing & Trading (EM&T). Included is Williams'
alleged failure to provide timely disclosure that it would incur
a multi-billion dollar loss in connection with Williams'
guarantees of certain WCG financial obligations. The lead
plaintiffs also allege that the defendants had non-public
information about WCG showing that WCG's financial condition was
worse than public disclosures during the class period indicated.
In connection with Williams' EM&T business, the complaint
alleges that Williams manipulated the valuation of its long-term
energy contracts in the midst of the California energy crisis in
2001. Based on these valuations, the lead plaintiffs allege
that Williams inflated earnings by hundreds of millions of
dollars during the class period.
The complaint, which was filed on Oct. 7, 2002, alleges
securities claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.
This settlement represents the largest securities class action
recovery in the history of Oklahoma.
Commenting on the settlement, President and Chief Executive
Officer, OTPP, Claude Lamoureux stated: "This recovery is an
excellent example of the positive impact that institutional
investors can have in securities class actions. On behalf of
the 264,000 retired and active teachers for whom we invest, we
are glad that U.S. securities laws have the teeth needed to
obtain this kind of settlement from defendants, as they allow
shareholders' rights to be upheld and at least partial
compensation for losses to be achieved."
The settlement is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma. Claims on behalf of
purchasers of WCG securities are the subject of a separate
lawsuit still pending before the court.
Lead plaintiffs were represented by Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, court-appointed lead counsel.
The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan is an independent corporation
responsible for investing the $96 billion fund and administering
the pensions of Ontario's 163,000 elementary and secondary
school teachers and 101,000 retired teachers.
For more information, contact Deborah Allan, Director,
Communications and Media Relations of Ontario Teachers' Pension
Plan, Phone: (416) 730-5347, E-mail: deborah_allan@otpp.com.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
June 15-16, 2006
WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The University of Chicago, Gleacher Center
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 15-16, 2006
LITIGATING, SETTLING AND MANAGING ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 20-21, 2006
12TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY
INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
Crowne Plaza Union Square, San Francisco, CA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 20-22, 2006
PREVENTING, MANAGING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF OBSTETRIC
MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Park Hyatt, Philadelphia, PA
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 22-23, 2006
PACIFIC NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Hotel Monaco, Seattle
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 22-23, 2006
5TH INTERNATIONAL GUIDE TO REINSURANCE CLAIMS AND COLLECTIONS
American Conference Institute
Park Central, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 29 - 30, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Swiss"tel Chicago , Chicago, IL
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 30, 2006
INFLUENCING DAMAGE AWARDS
Bridgeport CE
Westin Bonaventure Hotel, LA
Contact: 818-783-7156
July 19-20, 2006
LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 19-20, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
July 27-28, 2006
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2006: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu
September 28-30, 2006
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Boston
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
October 12-13, 2006
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678
November 16-17, 2006
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 30-December 1, 2006
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 2007
MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
June 15, 2006
ARE YOU COVERED - WHAT EVERY IN-HOUSE LAWYER NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT
INSURANCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2006
FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 13, 2006
TEFLON LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via
e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CSK AUTO: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of CSK Auto Corporation between Aug. 2, 2004 and March 24, 2006,
inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.
Specifically, defendants made misrepresentations concerning CSK
Auto's earnings, assets and business prospects causing the
Company's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels. While
the Company's stock was artificially inflated due to defendants'
false statements, certain officers and directors sold 75,106
shares of their CSK Auto stock for proceeds of $1.1 million.
Then on March 27, 2006, CSK Auto issued a press release
announcing that it would postpone the release of its fourth
quarter and fiscal 2005 financial results. The postponement was
necessary to provide adequate time for the Company to conduct a
thorough review of certain accounting errors and irregularities
discovered in the course of its ongoing assessment of internal
control over financial reporting and an internal audit.
On this news, CSK Auto stock dropped $1.26 to $14.64 per share,
after hitting a low of $14.40 per share.
Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff no later than Aug. 8, 2006.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Website: http://www.snlaw.net.
CSK AUTO: Scarlato & Karon Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of CSK Auto Corporation (CSK) between Aug. 2,
2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive.
The complaint, which was filed against CSK and certain officers
and directors, alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued a
series of false and misleading statements with respect to CSK's
earnings, assets and financial prospects, which caused its
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels.
The Complaint further alleges that the Company's internal
controls were inadequate and that its financial statements were
not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP).
On March 27, 2006, the Company announced that it would postpone
the release of its fourth quarter and fiscal 2005 financial
results. The release was delayed so that the Company could
review certain accounting errors and irregularities discovered
during its assessment of internal controls.
In reaction to the news, shares of CSK fell $1.26 per share to
$14.64 per share.
Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff no later than Aug. 8, 2006.
For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq., The Law Firm of
Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796.
INFOSONICS CORP: Klafter & Olsen Files Calif. Stock Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Klafter & Olsen LLP initiated a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf
of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of
InfoSonics Corporation from May 9, 2006 through and including
June 9, 2006.
The complaint alleges that InfoSonics and its top officers
engaged in a scheme to defraud InfoSonics investors in violation
of the federal securities laws by reporting false financial
results on May 8, 2006 for its first quarter ended March 31,
2006.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants knew, or
with deliberate recklessness disregarded, that the Company had
improperly accounted for warrants issued in connection with a
January 2006 private placement which enabled it to report net
income of $1.738 million for that quarter.
The Complaint further alleges that, while in possession of
material nonpublic information concerning InfoSonics accounting
for the warrants, defendants sold massive amounts of their
personal holdings between May 11, 2006 and June 7, 2006 for
proceeds exceeding $3 million. Indeed, as the Company admitted
in a Form 8-K filed on June 12, 2006 with the SEC, InfoSonics
had determined by Monday, June 5, 2006 that it would need to
restate its previously reported financial results because it had
improperly accounted for the warrants.
Nevertheless, its Chief Financial Officer and the President of
the Company's Latin American operations continued to sell their
personal InfoSonics stock even after that determination.
On June 12, before the market, InfoSonics disclosed it would
need to restate its previously reported net income for the first
quarter down to $1.173 million, a decrease of 32.5%, due to the
improper accounting treatment of the warrants.
InfoSonics stock immediately plunged more than 28% that day on
extraordinarily high volume.
For more details, contact Kurt B. Olsen of Klafter & Olsen LLP,
Phone: +1-202-261-3553.
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, initiated a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Vonage
Holdings Corporation or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock
pursuant or traceable to the company's May 23, 2006 initial
public offering.
This claim is also being brought on behalf of Vonage customers
who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through
the Vonage Directed Share Program.
The complaint charges Vonage, the underwriters of its IPO, and
certain of its officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
(1) that Vonage's technology platform experienced problems
carrying telephone data over the networks of certain
Internet service providers, including Time Warner
Inc.'s AOL;
(2) that Vonage's Voice over Internet Protocol technology
did not properly allow facsimile transmissions;
(3) that the company did not adequately inform investors
about the history of Vonage's management team;
(4) specifically, that Vonage failed to disclose that
Tyco's ADT Security division took $600 million in
charges for accounting improprieties while defendant
Michael Snyder was President of the division;
(5) that the company did not adequately inform Vonage
customers that opened brokerage accounts and
participated in Vonage's Directed Share Program
concerning the customers' obligations to purchase
allocated shares; and
(6) specifically, that Vonage customers that participated
in the Directed Share Program were obligated to
purchase allocated shares before they received notice
that their conditional offers had been accepted, and
were led to believe that the IPO would take place later
than May 23, 2006.
Immediately following Vonage's IPO, shares of Vonage plunged
from the offering price of $17.00 per share to close, on May 24,
2006, at $14.85 per share, a loss of $2.15, or 12.6 percent, on
concerns about the Company's ability to compete in the
marketplace.
Following these concerns, shares of Vonage continued to fall on
news that the company's Directed Share Program was plagued by
serious technical and logistical issues. In the seven days
after the IPO, shares of Vonage declined over 30 percent.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway,
which prosecutes class actions in both state and federal courts
throughout the country.
Interested parties may, not later than Aug. 1, 2006, move the
court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class.
For more details, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard A.
Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706,
E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.sbclasslaw.com.
XERIUM TECHNOLOGIES: Howard Smith Files Securities Suit in Mass.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Xerium Technologies Inc. (NYSE:XRM)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public
offering on or about May 16, 2005 through Nov. 15, 2005. The
class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning Xerium and its
business and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price
of Xerium securities. No Class has yet been certified in the
above action.
Interested parties have until Aug. 7, 2006, in which to move for
Lead Plaintiff status.
For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law
Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888)
638-4847, Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
XM SATELLITE: Glancy Binkow Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, representing shareholders of XM
Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. announces 24 days remaining to
move to be a lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia. All persons and institutions who purchased securities
of XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. (Nasdaq:XMSR) between July
28, 2005 and Feb. 15, 2006, inclusive, may move the Court not
later than July 3, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff.
The Complaint charges XM and the Company's chief executive
officer with violations of federal securities laws. Among other
things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
concerning XM's operations and prospects caused the Company's
stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages
on investors.
XM operates as a satellite radio service, providing music, news,
information, entertainment and sports programming to vehicle,
home and portable radio receivers, primarily in the U.S.
The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements
concerning XM were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded and failed to disclose
that:
-- XM was unable to attain its stated subscriber goal of 6
million subscribers at year end, without increasing its
costs to acquire new subscribers;
-- in order to achieve its subscriber goal, XM would be
making huge expenditures during fourth-quarter 2005,
thereby increasing the Company's new-subscriber
acquisition costs;
-- as a result of these expenditures, the Company's net
losses were substantially increased, contrary to the
declining subscriber acquisition costs and net losses
touted by defendants; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements
concerning the Company's continued ability to lower its
subscriber acquisition costs were lacking in any
reasonable basis.
On Feb. 16, 2006, defendants shocked the market when XM issued a
press release announcing the Company's financial results for
fourth-quarter and full-year 2005. The disclosure of its
increased subscriber acquisition costs caused XM shares to
plummet 13 percent, to close on Feb. 17, 2006, at $21.96 per
share on unusually heavy trading volume. The next day, XM
shares continued to fall, losing an additional 10 percent, to
close on Feb. 17, 2006, at $21.57 per share.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits,
and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.
For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax:
(888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com.
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, 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 * * *