/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 19, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 120 Headlines AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Deal BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs in Redfield Lawsuit Appeal $1M Award CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit COMPUWARE CORP: Mich. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE: Compensation Sought in Alleged Sex Abuse ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Overtime Suit Settlement EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: High Court Denies Appeal on "Schindler" INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Interior Head in Contempt LAZARD LTD: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. Court MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Mondial Tournament Ads MERRILL LYNCH: Federal Judge Dismisses "Shelf Space" Lawsuit MRL INC: Recalls Defective Automatic External Defibrillators NAPLES COMMUNITY: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Overcharging NINE WEST: Recalls Sandals on Risk of Metal Tacks Detaching NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Settlement Filed NORTHERN MARIANA: Court Orders Transfer of MFN Funds to GOB NYFIX INC.: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit OHIO: Motorists Ask Refund for Multiple Fees on Single Violation PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims of Labor Law Breaches ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Judge Approves Settlement of Securities Suit SIMON & SCHUSTER: Recalls Books with Pop-up Toy Characters STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Judge Reconsiders Tip Disbursement Suit TENNESSEE: Knox County School Board Balks at Attorneys Fees THOMAS NELSON: Investors Sue Over Planned Merger with InterMedia UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots File Discrimination Suit in Va. Court UNIVERSAL ACADEMY: Facing Complaint Over Muscle Stimulators VALUEVISION MEDIA: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Posing Fire Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases CSK AUTO: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz. GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Fla. INFOSONICS CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Securities Suit INFOSONICS CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Calif. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Stull, Stull Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AT&T CORP: Aug. 11 Fairness Hearing Set for Salomon Analyst Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 11, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, Case No. 02-6801." The case was brought on behalf of all persons who purchased AT&T Corp. common stock between Nov. 29, 1999 and Oct. 25, 2000, inclusive, and/or AT&T Wireless Tracking and/or common stock between May 2, 2000 and June 14, 2002. The hearing will be held before the Honorable Gerard E. Lynch, U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Room 2103, New York, NY 10007. Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before July 12, 2006. Deadline for submission of proof of claim is Sept. 12, 2006. For more details, contact Salomon Analyst AT&T Litigation, c/o Berdon Claims Administration, LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Phone: (800) 766-3330, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web site: http://bca.berdonllp.com/claims/and http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/publications/firmnewsUser2.cfm?pubid =380. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of IPO Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of the consolidated securities class action against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., according to the company's June 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 29, 2006. On July 20, 2001, the first of a number of putative class actions for violations of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, certain of its officers and directors, and certain of the underwriters for the company's initial public offering of securities. A consolidated amended class action, "In Re Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," was filed on April 19, 2002. The complaint generally alleges that various underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in the company's initial public offering. It seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to December 6, 2000. The lawsuit against the company is being coordinated for pretrial proceedings with a number of other pending litigations challenging underwriter practices in over 300 cases as "In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)." In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice from the action, pursuant to a tolling agreement. On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an Opinion and Order dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against the company. In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer defendants, including the company, was submitted to the court for approval. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the court held a fairness hearing in connection with the motion for final approval of the settlement. The court did not issue a ruling on the motion for final approval at the fairness hearing. The settlement remains subject to a number of conditions, including final approval by the court. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Amend Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in the consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Beginning on or about May 19, 2005, several securities class action complaints were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers. These actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock from February 2001 to May 2005. They came on the heels of the company's restatement of certain financial results due to stock-based compensation accounting issues. On Jan. 12, 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 14, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock from May 2000 to May 2005. The consolidated complaint alleges, among others, violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It generally alleges that the company and the individual defendants made false or misleading public statements regarding the company's business and operations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief against the defendants. The reference complaint is "Prena Smajlaj, et al. v. Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-2042," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff firms named in complaint are: (1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, (San Francisco, CA), 100 Pine Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.772.4700, Fax: 415.677.1233, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com; (2) Nix Patterson & Roach, LLP, 205 Linda Drive, Daingerfield, TX, 75638, Phone: 903.645.7333; and (3) Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, Century Bank Plaza - Suite 400; 2900 St. Michael Drive, Texarkana, TX, 75503, Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903- 334-7007, E-mail: website@pattonroberts.com. BROWN SHOE: Plaintiffs in Redfield Lawsuit Appeal $1M Award ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing the $1 million damage award granted to them by a Colorado jury in a class action they filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., in relation to the operations at its Redfield, Colorado site. The suit was filed in March 2000 in Colorado State Court, District Court for the City and County of Denver. Plaintiffs alleged claims for trespass, nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the site. In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages. The company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties. In the first quarter of 2005, the federal court hearing a cost recovery suit against other responsible parties approved a settlement agreement between the company, its co-defendant in the class action, and an insurer, which resolved all remaining sanctions issues related to the class action. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury verdict, and the ultimate outcome and cost to the company may vary, according to the company's June 6, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended April 29, 2006. CARREKER CORP: Aug. 16 Fairness Hearing Set for Tex. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 16, 2006 for the proposed $5,250,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:03-CV-0250-B." The case was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Carreker Corp. from July 30, 1999 to Dec. 10, 2002. It alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all defendants -- the company, John D. Carreker Jr., Ronald Antinori and Terry L. Gage -- except Ernst & Young LLP, violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants, and violations of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act against defendants John D. Carreker, Jr. and Ronald Antinori (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006). The hearing will be held before the Honorable Jane J. Boyle at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, Texas 75242. Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made before Aug. 2, 2006 and July 17, 2006, respectively. Claim forms must be submitted before Oct. 2, 2006. For more details, contact Claims Administrator, Carreker Corp. Securities Litigation, Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P., P.O. Box 270, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0270, Phone: 1-800-252-5745, E- mail: http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/cases/carr/. COMPUWARE CORP: Mich. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed the consolidated securities class action filed against Compuware Corp. The suit was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from Jan. 1, 1999 to April 3, 2002 alleging the company failed to disclose under the securities laws its problems with the misappropriation of its software source code by IBM Corp. Plaintiffs further alleged that the company omitted and/or disseminated materially false and misleading statements concerning its deteriorating relationship with IBM. The court entered judgment in favor of the company on Sept. 13, 2005. Plaintiffs did not appeal and the matter is now closed, according to the company's June 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended march 31, 2006. DIOCESE OF PEMBROKE: Compensation Sought in Alleged Sex Abuse ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyers for an alleged victim of sexual abuse by a Pembroke, Canada priest plans to seek compensation from the Catholic Church, according to the Ottawa Citizen. The London-based lawyers announced the plan at a press conference in Pembroke early in June. They said they have approached the Pembroke diocese with a potential compensation plan, including monetary compensation and immediate counseling. The lead plaintiff in the suit is Ledroid Beckett, who is representing a group of victims at a Cornwall public inquiry into institutional response into allegations of sexual abuse. The accused is Msgr. Bernard Prince, who is alleged to have sexually assaulted 12 young males in the late 1960s and 1970s. Diocese of Pembroke on the Net: http://www.diocesepembroke.ca/. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Sept. Hearing Set for Overtime Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A Sept. 22, 2006 hearing is set for the final approval of the settlement in a class action pending in the Superior Court in San Mateo, California against Electronic Arts, Inc. The complaint, filed on Feb. 14, 2005 under the caption, "Hasty v. Electronic Arts Inc.," alleges that the company improperly classified "engineers" in California as exempt employees. It seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees. On March 16, 2005, the company received a first amended complaint, which contained the same material allegations as the original complaint. The company answered the first amended complaint on April 20, 2005. On May 16, 2006, the court granted its preliminary approval of a settlement pursuant to which the company agreed to make a lump sum payment of $14.9 million, to be paid to a third-party administrator, to cover: -- all claims allegedly suffered by the class members; -- plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, not to exceed 25% of the total settlement amount; -- plaintiffs' costs and expenses; -- any incentive payments to the named plaintiffs that may be authorized by the court; and -- all costs of administration of the settlement. The hearing for the court to consider its final approval of the settlement is set for Sept. 22, 2006. EMACHINES INC: Aug. 24 Settlement Hearing Set for M53XX Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Common Pleas, Lucas County, Ohio will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 24, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "David Heitbrink and Robert Rattner, et al. v. eMachines, Inc., Case No. G-4801CI200501229." The case was brought on behalf of all owners of eMachines M5305, M5309, M5310, M5312 and M5313 series notebook computers (M53XX Series). The suit alleges that the M53xx Series computers were defective in design, therefore causing them to overheat or shut down or experience a significant reduction in processing speed as a result of overheating during normal usage. It further alleges that eMachines knew of and concealed the existence of these issues at the time it sold the M53xx Series. It is thus asking claims for violation of state consumer protection statutes, uniform written misrepresentation, common omission, and breach of warranty. The hearing will be held before Judge Thomas Osowik, at the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, 700 Adams Street, Toledo, Ohio, in Courtroom 10. In that hearing the court will consider whether to grant final certification to the class for settlement purposes, and whether to approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate. In addition, the court will also consider at this hearing the request of class counsel for $2,250,000 in fees and the class representative awards to the two class representatives in the amount of $2,000.00 each, which eMachines has agreed to pay as part of this settlement over and above the other remedies. Deadline for any objections or exclusions to or from the settlement is on July 25, 2006. Postmark deadline for submitting claim form unless the effective date of the settlement is extended is on Oct. 22, 2006. For more details, contact eMachines, Class Action Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 91146, Seattle, WA 98111-9246, Phone: 1- 866-817-6513, E-mail: M53xxSeriesSettlement@gardencitygroup.com, Web site: http://www.m53xxseriessettlement.com/. HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: High Court Denies Appeal on "Schindler" ------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court kept a court of appeals decision dismissing a class action by Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime against Austria, according to reports. The suit was filed in 2000 by present and former nationals of Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered from Nazi persecution between 1938 and 1945. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year dismissed the action, clearing the way for a $210 million payout from a 2001 settlement fund. Back then, the appeals court panel, in a 2-1 decision, agreed that dismissing the case would improve U.S. relations with Austria, Israel and European nations. The settlement fund set up for the suit has so far made more than 2,000 payments to Austrian Jews whose properties were confiscated during the Nazi era and World War II, according to the report. The case is Schindler v. Whiteman, 05-1296. Claims conference: http://www.claimscon.org/ INDIAN TRUST: Plaintiffs Seek to Hold Interior Head in Contempt --------------------------------------------------------------- American Indian plaintiffs in the 10-year-old class action, "Cobell v. Norton," are asking U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth to make Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne the third successive Interior secretary held in contempt in the case, Associated Press reports. Plaintiffs are charging that the Interior Department head has continued to conceal computer security problems in violation of a 2005 court ruling requiring it to report weaknesses that could put Indian records at risk. In the past, Judge Lamberth has found Mr. Kempthorne's predecessors, Bruce Babbitt and Gale Norton, in contempt and has more than once ordered the department's computers disconnected from the Internet to protect Indians' records. Ms. Norton's contempt charge was vacated on appeal. Commenting on the case, a department spokesman told The Associated Press that officials were aware of the motion and would respond later in court documents. Case Background Filed in 1996 by Blackfeet Indian Elouise Cobell, the case became the longest and largest class action brought against the government, involving royalties for farming, grazing, mining, logging and other economic activities on tribal lands (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). The suit dates back to the 1880s, when the government, trying to break up reservations, "allotted" some Indian lands, giving 40 to 160 acres to some individual Native Americans. Back then the government leased the lands for oil, gas, timber, grazing and coal, and collected the fees to put into trust funds for Indians and their survivors (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). As of the moment the case involves 500,000 Native Americans who are asking the Interior Department to account for the billions of dollars in their ancestors' land and natural resource assets the federal government has held in trust since 1887. The issue of how to determine what is owed the Indians has gone back and forth from Judge Lamberth to the appeals court repeatedly during the last 10 years (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al., on her own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 96-1285 (RCL)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Royce C. Lamberth. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mark Kester Brown, 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2000, Phone: (775) 542-4938, Fax: 202-318-2372, E-mail: mkesterbrown@attglobal.net; (2) Dennis M. Gingold, 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 824-1448, Fax: 202- 318-2372, E-mail: dennismgingold@aol.com; (3) Richard A. Guest and Keith M. Harper, Native American Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036- 2976, Phone: (202) 785-4166, Fax: 202-822-0068, E-mail: richardg@narf.org or harper@narf.org; and (4) Elliott H. Levitas, Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP, 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 508-5800, Fax: 202-508-5858, E-mail: elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com. Representing the defendants are Robert E. Kirschman, Jr. and Sandra Peavler Spooner of the U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 616- 0328, E-mail: robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov or sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov. For more details, contact The Committee on Indian Affairs, Phone: 202-224-2251, Web site: http://indian.senate.gov;and House Resources Committee, Phone: 202-225-2761, Web site: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov. LAZARD LTD: Continues to Face Stock Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Lazard, Ltd. continues to defend itself against a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006. The company and Goldman Sachs & Co., the lead underwriter of the company's equity public offering of its common stock, as well as several members of the company's management and board of directors, have been named as defendants in several putative class actions. Plaintiffs in the putative class actions later filed a consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. The suit was brought on behalf of persons who purchased securities of the company in connection with an equity public offering or in the open market. It alleges various violations of the federal securities laws and seek, inter alia, compensatory damages, rescission or rescissory damages and other unspecified equitable, injunctive or other relief. The first identified suit in this litigation is "Arlette Miller, et al. v. Lazard Ltd., et al., case no. 05-CV-05630," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone: 212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655, E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com; (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (4) Law Offices of Marc Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000, Fax: 610.660.8080, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com; (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Melville), 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (8) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail: info@whhf.com; (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com; (10) Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10022, phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371- 5969, E-mail: inquiry@zsz.com; MATAV-CABLE: Israeli Firm Faces Suit Over Mondial Tournament Ads ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd., Golden Channels & Co. and Tevel Israel International Communications Ltd. (the Cable Companies) and D.B.S. Satellite Services (1998) Ltd. (YES) are facing a class action in the Tel-Aviv-Jaffa District Court. Plaintiffs in the suit allege that the Cable Companies and YES included advertisements in the "Mondial Tournament" (World Cup) broadcasts, causing damages to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs seek to represent a group of approximately 200,000 subscribers to the "Mondial Tournament" broadcasts. They are claiming total damages of NIS106,000,000 ($23.8 million). Matav said it is in the initial stage of reviewing and evaluating this lawsuit. Based in Netanya, Isarel, Matav -- http://www.matav.co.il-- is one of Israel's three cable television providers, serving roughly 25 percent of the Israeli cable subscriber market. Matav's current investments include 1.2% of Partner Communications Ltd., a GSM mobile phone company and 18.5% of Barak I.T.C. (1995) Ltd., one of the three international telephony providers in Israel. MERRILL LYNCH: Federal Judge Dismisses "Shelf Space" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Richard Owen dismissed a lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch & Co. in relation to its "shelf space" mutual funds, according to Associated Press. The company is accused of violating securities laws and breaching fiduciary duty for paying incentives to brokers for steering investors into purchasing "shelf space" mutual funds as well as of charging excessive fees against investors. In an opinion made public on June 13, Judge Owen said plaintiffs failed to show the company made statements that are misleading, or that investors suffered a loss as result of the alleged misrepresentations. The complaint had sought class-action status for investors in Merrill Lynch mutual funds from May 1999 to May 2004. MRL INC: Recalls Defective Automatic External Defibrillators ------------------------------------------------------------ MRL, Inc., a Welch Allyn company, is initiating a voluntary worldwide Class I recall of 580 AED20 automatic external defibrillators manufactured in Buffalo Grove, Illinois between April and October of 2003. The defibrillators have serial numbers 205199 through 205786. The company said these 580 AED20's may experience failure or unacceptable delay in analyzing the patient's ECG and may fail to deliver appropriate therapy, which possibly could result in failure to resuscitate the patient. This will occur in combination with an error message on the device display reading "DEFIB COMM FAIL SELF TEST FAILED." This problem occurs because of an intermittent electrical connection within the device. The company has received 30 related complaints about devices in this group of AED20's, corresponding to 5 percent of the 580 recalled devices which the company deems an unacceptable risk. In one instance the "Defib Comm" error delayed patient resuscitation. The company has taken corrective action and no other devices besides those manufactured between the above dates are subject to this recall. MRL, Inc. initiated notification via certified mail on June 14, 2006 to its customers who purchased AED20's in this group of devices 369 of which were sold within the U.S. and 211 outside of the US. Owners of this defibrillator should contact MRL, Inc. to obtain a loaner AED20 at no cost while their unit is being serviced. MRL, Inc. will pay all costs associated with shipping, handling and replacement of the units "DEFIB" board. This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has determined that this action is a Class I recall. The FDA defines Class I as a situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to the product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. For more information, contact MRL Inc., Phone: 1-800-462.0777 or 1-847-520-0300. NAPLES COMMUNITY: Faces Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Overcharging -------------------------------------------------------------- Naples Community Hospital in Florida is facing a lawsuit filed by a Cape Coral resident in Lee County Circuit Court, alleging improper debt collection, Naplesnews.com reports. The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of other former patients. Gladys Nikolai alleged in the suit the hospital did not submit a bill to Medical Savings Insurance, but billed her directly at a higher rate than what is reasonable. Her suit claims the hospital routinely charge full rates to the uninsured or to those insured patients whose insurance it does not recognize. The NCH Healthcare System -- http://www.nchmd.org/-- is an alliance of more than 500 independent physicians and medical facilities in dozens of locations throughout Collier County and southwest Florida. NINE WEST: Recalls Sandals on Risk of Metal Tacks Detaching ----------------------------------------------------------- Nine West Footwear Corp. of White Plains, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 6,700 pairs of Sam & Libby Girl's Thong Sandals. The company said the sandals' metal tacks, which help to hold down the sides of the strap to the sole, can detach or be pulled out, posing a laceration hazard. No incident or injuries were reported. The recalled models are the Fish, Starfish and Angelfish. The models can be identified by the decoration attached to the sandals' straps -- a fish, a starfish or an angelfish. The sandals' straps are bright pink for Starfish and bright turquoise for Fish and Angelfish. The top of the sole looks like wood and the bottom is pink for Starfish and turquoise for Fish and Angelfish. The top of the sole has a pink label with the words "Sam and Libby" written in silver. The sandals were sold in little girls' size 11 through girls' size 5. The thong sandals were made in China and are being sold at Stride Rite, Brothers, Century 21, and Marshalls stores nationwide from March 2006 through April 2006 for about $12 to $20. Consumers are advised to stop wearing these sandals immediately and return them to the store where they were purchased for a full refund. Picture of the recalled sandal: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06190.jpg. For additional information, contact Nine West Footwear's Customer Relations Department at (800) 999-1877 between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, E-mail recall@SamAndLibby.com, or visit: http://www.jny.com. NORDSTROM INC: Briefs on Objections to Calif. Settlement Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs and defendants filed briefs on objections to the settlement of the California antitrust class action, "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al.," in which Nordstrom, Inc. is a defendant. The suit against the company and other department stores and specialty retailers were filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company was originally named as a defendant along with other department store and specialty retailers in nine separate, but virtually identical class actions filed in various Superior Courts of the state of California in May, June and July 1998. The suits were consolidated in Marin County Superior Court. In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming a number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and two other retailers as additional defendants. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged that the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act collusively controlled the retail price of the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances sold in department and specialty stores. Plaintiffs sought treble damages and restitution in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during the four years prior to the filing of the original complaints. While the company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the other defendants on July 13, 2003 in order to avoid the cost and distraction of protracted litigation. In furtherance of the settlement agreement, the case was re- filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class of all persons who currently reside in the U.S. and who purchased "Department Store" cosmetics and fragrances from the defendants from May 29, 1994 through July 16, 2003. The court gave preliminary approval to the settlement, and a summary notice of class certification and the terms of the settlement were disseminated to class members. On March 30, 2005, the court entered a final judgment approving the settlement and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims and the claims of all class members with prejudice, in their entirety. On April 29, 2005, two class members who objected to the settlement filed notices of appeal from the court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. One of the objectors has since dropped her appeal, but the other filed her appeal brief on March 20, 2006. Plaintiffs' and defendants' briefs were filed on May 25, 2006. The suit is "Azizian, et al. v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:03-cv-03359," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong. Representing the plaintiffs is Guido Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111-5630, Phone: 415-217-6810, Fax: 415-217-6813, E-mail: guido@saveri.com. Representing the Company is Larry S. Gangnes, 1420 Fifth Avenue, Ste. 4100, Seattle, WA 98101-2338, Phone: (206) 223-7036, E- mail: gangnesl@lanepowell.com. NORTHERN MARIANA: Court Orders Transfer of MFN Funds to GOB ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands Judge Alex R. Munson ordered the transfer of withheld settlement monies in a class action against the garment industries and some retailers, according to the Saipan Tribune. The suit was filed by New York law firm Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP in 1999 on behalf of some garment workers who were allegedly made to work in sweatshop conditions. A settlement reached five years after, provided an award close to $20 million (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006). The complainants' counsel set aside a reserve consisting of withheld "Most Favored Nations" funds after Levi Strauss and Co. was dismissed from the lawsuit in November 2003 as among the defendants, and certain previously-settling retailers informally asserted a right to a refund of all of their payments under the MFN provisions of the settlement agreement, Judge Munson said in his order. The MFN fund was set aside after the retailers made initial contacts with workers' counsel regarding claims. But the retailers did not pursue the matter, nor participated in a settlement status conference held on June 6. Hence, on June 12, Judge Munson ordered counsel of the complainants to deliver to the Garment Oversight Board (GOB) the portion of the withheld MFN monies designated for the repatriation fund within 15 days. On June 6, plaintiffs' lawyer Pamela Parker told the judge via telephone that the disbursement of checks to the workers may be completed by the end of the month. A San Francisco firm that is representing the plaintiffs will compute the amount due to workers, said Timothy H. Bellas, chairman of the Garment Oversight Board. About 20,000 to 25,000 workers are entitled to benefit from the distribution. The recipients are in China, Philippines, Bangladesh, among others. Under the original settlement, the money is to be distributed as: Payment to workers $5.8 million Claims administrator of the distribution fund $500,000 Repatriation fund for garment workers $400,000 Monitoring fund $4 million Milberg Trust fund $565,254.80 Plaintiffs lawyer $8.75 million Of the $400,000 allotted as repatriation fund, the GOB got only a little over $350,000 because two factories did not contribute into the settlement funds, according to the report. The trust fund is to be administered by the non-profit Tides Foundation. Representing the defendants is Steven Pixley. The claims administrator is Gilradi and Co. LLC. NYFIX INC.: Conn. Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed an amended securities class action filed against NYFIX, Inc. in relation to its investment in NYFIX Millennium. The suit, initially styled "Johnson et al. V. Nyfix, Inc., et al.," also names as defendants the company's chairman and chief executive officer, its former and chief financial officers and certain of its directors. The complaint was initially filed as a purported class action claim on behalf of all buyers of the company's stock between March 30, 2000 and March 30, 2004. It alleged violations of the federal securities laws based on NYFIX's issuance of a series of allegedly false and misleading financial statements and press releases concerning, among other things, NYFIX's investment in NYFIX Millennium (Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2005). It sought unspecified amount of damages. On July 20, 2004, the court appointed three different lead plaintiffs after Fuller & Thaler Asset Management withdrew as the named plaintiff. The action was renamed "Johnson, et al. v. NYFIX, Inc., et al." The newly named plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint, which added, among other things, allegations of violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The new allegations are based fundamentally on the same allegations as the plaintiffs asserted in the original complaint. On June 9, the defendants filed a stipulated notice of dismissal, in which plaintiffs agreed to the dismissal without costs or attorneys' fees or any consideration of any kind being paid to any party. OHIO: Motorists Ask Refund for Multiple Fees on Single Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three Cleveland men filed a suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against what they alleged an illegal practice by local courts of charging defendants multiple costs for a single traffic violation, the Sun News reports. The courts charge between $50 to more than $100 to cover operating expenses. The men claims to have been overcharged in Berea, Parma and Rocky River municipal courts. They are seeking reimbursement for "tens of thousands of individuals" charged in courts throughout Ohio over the past 11 years starting after June 8, 1995. The suit wants the state to put an end to the practice of assessing court costs on a per-offense basis and to reimburse all defendants. No local courts are defendants, but the clerks of Berea, Rocky River and Parma municipal courts have been subpoenaed, the report said. PETCO ANIMAL: Calif. Court Mulls Dismissal of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has yet to rule on PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against the company. In April 2005, the company and certain senior company officers were named as defendants in several purported class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging violations of Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs purport to represent a class of purchasers of the company's stock from Nov. 18, 2004 to April 14, 2005. They allege that during such period the defendants misrepresented the company's financial position and that the plaintiff and the purported class of purchasers during that period were damaged in unspecified amounts by paying artificially and falsely inflated prices for the company's stock. In October 2005, a consolidated complaint was filed extending the class period from Aug. 18, 2004 to Aug. 25, 2005, adding additional but similar causes of action, and naming additional defendants, including other senior company officers, several former and current members of the company's board of directors, and two former stockholders of the company. In January 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to state a claim under the securities laws. A hearing on the motion was held on May 22, 2006, and the court took the matter under submission. The company has tendered these matters to its insurance carriers. The first identified complaint is "Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, et al. v. PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com; (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (3) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 E. 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mial: wfederman@aol.com; (5) Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP (LA), 1801 Ave. of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: (310) 201-915, Fax: 310-201-916, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; (6) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: 215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net; (7) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E- mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (8) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (9) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail: info@milbergweiss.com; (10) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone: 212.661.1100; (11) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, e-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (12) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com. PETCO ANIMAL: Plaintiffs Withdraw Claims of Labor Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a purported class action against PETCO Animal Supplies, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, voluntarily dismissed their claims that the company has violated California Labor Code. The suit was filed on June 27, 2005. It named as plaintiffs, Wayne Boyd, Anthony Castro, Gilbert Hernandez, and Daniel Lepkosky. It purported to represent all current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of the company's California stores from June 27, 2001 to the present. These plaintiffs alleged that during this period they were not paid all wages, were not paid overtime, were not authorized and permitted to take rest breaks as required by law, were not provided meal breaks as required by law, were not paid "reporting time" pay, and were not paid all wages upon separation from employment. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages in the form of unpaid wages, penalties and other relief. On March 2, 2006, plaintiff Gilbert Hernandez requested that his claims against the company be dismissed. This request is subject to court approval. On March 17, 2006, plaintiff Wayne Boyd requested that his claims against the company be dismissed and the court approved this request. ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Judge Approves Settlement of Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a final order and judgment approving Royal Ahold's settlement of the securities class action, "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation." Under the terms of the agreement in the securities class action, the lead plaintiffs in the securities class action agree to settle all claims against Ahold for US$1.1 billion (EUR937 million). The settlement covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters. It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities. The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares (Class Action Reporter, November 30, 2005). The settlement affects shareholders in nearly a half-dozen countries, Andrew J. Entwistle, an attorney for the shareholders, told the court. The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying shares. The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to court documents. Claims are to be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, January 10, 2006). The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the Company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years. Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia. It maintained that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate financial picture of the Company to stockholders and inflating the price of its common stock. The Company though denies any wrongdoing in the settlement (Class Action Reporter, January 10, 2006). It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the matters that Ahold first announced on February 24, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, November 30, 2005). The suit is "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C. Blake. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park Ave., New York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax: 12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com; (2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail: dan@blbglaw.com; (3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament and Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax: 13125212100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com; (4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: 12022430594, Fax: 12026865517; (5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com; (6) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 12125454600, Fax: 12125454653; (7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plz., New York, NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax: 12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com; (8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022 (9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold and Sporn, PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137; (10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com; (11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labation Rudoff and Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563, Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063 (12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church St., Ste. 301, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700, Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com; (13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax: 16313671173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; (14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone: 12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com; (15) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E- mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com; (16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201 N. Charles St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail: ssilverman@mdattorney.com; (17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10018, Phone: 12122394340; and (18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax: 12024084699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St., NW Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000, Fax: 12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com; (ii) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg, LLP, 25 S. Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201- 3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail: ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com; (iii) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 12128198200, Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com; (iv) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail: rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; (v) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, 6225 Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone: 14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail: charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and (vi) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595, Phone: 12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail: adegramont@crowell.com. SIMON & SCHUSTER: Recalls Books with Pop-up Toy Characters ---------------------------------------------------------- Simon & Schuster Inc. of New York, New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 9,000 units of Curious Buddies children's books. The company said the felt ears and limbs on the pop-up characters can detach or come apart when pulled, which may pose a choking hazard to young children. Simon & Schuster has received reports of two 6-month-old infants who detached felt from the pop-up parts of the book. One child was able to mouth the torn material. No injuries have been reported. The recalled Curious Buddies cloth books are titled "Hello, Curious Buddies!" Pictured on the cover of the books are the Curious Buddies' characters. Inside the book are two plush pop- up toy characters. These cloth books were made in China and are being sold at bookstores, discount department stores and other retailers nationwide from October 2005 through May 2006 for about $10. Consumers are advised to immediately clip off the felt ears and limbs of the pop-up characters and place them out of a child's reach. Simon and Schuster will provide consumers with information on how to return the felt pieces or the copyright tag from the book to receive a free replacement book. Picture of the recalled cloth books: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06189.jpg For more information, call Simon & Schuster at (800) 732-9531 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday visit, http://www.simonsays.com,or contact Paul Crichton, Phone: (212) 698-2809, E-mail: paul.crichton@simonandschuster.com. STARBUCKS CORP: Calif. Judge Reconsiders Tip Disbursement Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowet said she is reconsidering a preliminary ruling indicating she is prepared to rule in favor of Starbucks Corp. in a suit over the disbursement of employee tips, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. The class suit, certified March 30, alleges Starbucks allowed shift supervisors to share in the weekly distribution of customer tips at each store, violating California state law that prohibits employers from taking tips from their employees. The suit claims that supervisors are part of management and not entitled to the tips intended for counter workers, or baristas. According to Coronado attorney Terry Chapko, these tips are the property of employees and not the employer. Attorney Chapko filed the suit on behalf of Jou Chou, a former worker at Starbucks outlets in La Jolla and Hemet. Mr. Chou is a student at the University of California San Diego. Starbucks attorney Rex Heinke said Starbucks denies the claims, insisting that shift supervisors do many of the same job duties as baristas and are not management employees. Like many restaurants, Starbucks uses tip pooling, which means all tips are collected during the week and then disbursed to employees based on the number of hours they worked that week, the report says. Attorney Chapko cited the California Labor Code that defines an agent of management as being "every person other than the employer having the authority to hire or discharge any employee, or supervise, direct, or control the acts of employees." If Judge Cowett lets the case proceed, a trial would likely begin next May. Representing Starbucks is Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, California 90067-3012,Phone: 310-229-1000, Fax: 310- 229-1001. The plaintiffs are being represented by Terry J. Chapko of Chapko & English LLP, 1111 Orange Avenue, Suite A Coronado, CA 92118, Phone: 619 522 2100, Fax: 619 522 2104. TENNESSEE: Knox County School Board Balks at Attorneys Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- The Knox County Law Department asked the state Court of Appeals on June 1 to reconsider a lower court's order awarding almost $48,000 to two plaintiff attorneys in a suit over the school district's alternative school program, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports. Attorneys Dean Rivkin and Brenda McGee are due to receive $45,000 in legal fees and $2,971 in expenses for their services under a lower court ruling. The attorneys had fought for the rights of expelled and suspended students to education while under disciplinary action. They argued in court filings they deserved to be paid because their suit resulted to the improvement of education services for suspended or expelled students. The school system set up an alternative program in the 2003-04 school year where students could attend classes for a few hours at night. Mr. Rivkin and Ms. McGee also challenged the quality of a revised program offered by the school in 2004-05. In September 2005, Chancellor Daryl R. Fansler refused to judge on the matter. He also rejected claims that the district violated the due-process rights of the suspended students. Plaintiffs have appealed Judge Fansler's ruling in the 2004-05 program. The suit was filed in April 2003 in Knox County Chancery Court against the Knox County school board and Superintendent Charles Lindsey on behalf of some 500 suspended and expelled students. For more information, contact Dean Hill Rivkin, College of Law, The University of Tennessee College of Law, 1505 West Cumberland Avenue, Knoxville, Tennessee 37996-1810, Phone: 865-974-4241, 865-974-6595. THOMAS NELSON: Investors Sue Over Planned Merger with InterMedia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Nelson, Inc. is defendant in a purported class action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee in relation to its merger agreement with an affiliate of InterMedia Partners, L.P. On Feb. 24, 2006, the company and each of its directors were named as defendants in the suit, "City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System v. Thomas Nelson, Inc., et al." The suit was brought in connection with the company's announced agreement and plan of merger with an InterMedia affiliate and certain agreements related thereto with the company's chairman, Sam Z. Moore. Plaintiffs in the action allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, pursuing a transaction without regard to the fairness of the transaction to all of the company's shareholders and without properly valuing the company and allowing a competitive bidding process to take place. They also allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by taking steps to discourage other acquisition proposals, including by agreeing to an excessive termination fee in the Merger Agreement. The suit seeks among other things, certification as a class action, a determination that fiduciary duties were breached, injunctive relief against the proposed transaction and recovery of costs of the plaintiffs, including attorneys' fees. UNITED AIRLINES: Pilots File Discrimination Suit in Va. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- A group of 15 United Airlines employees filed a federal lawsuit against the Air Line Pilots Association union for discriminating against nonunion pilots. According to the complaint, the ALPA union hierarchy purposefully and illegally failed to inform nonunion employees of their right to sell future United stock shares issued during the airline's bankruptcy reorganization plan. The workers filed the class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for all nonmember United pilots -- a number estimated to exceed 200. The airline and ALPA union officials agreed that, prior to the issuance of the new United stock upon its emergence from bankruptcy, each pilot would have the option to sell their future right to receive the stock. Any pilot could exercise that option by authorizing ALPA union officials to sell his or her interest in the claim for the highest price achievable in the market. As a result of this agreement, employees who participated in the auction profited from the new United stock at a substantially greater amount than what the shares could be sold for when subsequently distributed. But ALPA union officials informed only union members -- not nonmembers -- of this option to participate in the auction. Information regarding the option to sell future stock, and the forms required to participate in the auction, were secluded to a remote "members only" portion of the union's Web site accessible only with a password not given to nonmembers. According to Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation, the ALPA union hierarchy deliberately and unlawfully misled nonmembers in an attempt to retaliate against the union for refusing formal union membership. "Union officials wanted to send a message to all employees that they had better toe the union line," Mr. Gleason said. Employees who are not formal members of the ALPA union are still forced to accept the terms of the union's monopoly bargaining contract and all of its provisions regarding salary, benefits, seniority, and pensions. Under the Railway Labor Act, it is unlawful for employees to negotiate their own, more- favorable contracts with their employer. The Act also stipulates that the ALPA union owes nonmembers in the bargaining unit a so- called "duty of fair representation," which supposedly prevents union officials from acting against the interests of those refraining from formal union membership. The United pilots' lawsuit seeks an order declaring that the ALPA union breached its duty of fair representation, as well as damages for each employee equal to the share difference between the auction sales price for the claims and the actual trade price of the stock at the time it was issued, plus interest. For more information contact, Patrick Ashby of the National Right to Work Foundation, Phone: 703-770-3306. UNIVERSAL ACADEMY: Facing Complaint Over Muscle Stimulators ----------------------------------------------------------- U.S. authorities have filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut seeking the seizure and ultimate forfeiture of numerous muscle stimulators and their component parts and accessories imported by Universal Academy, Inc. of Markham, Ontario, Canada. The devices were stored in a distribution warehouse in Meriden. According to Kevin J. O'Connor, U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut, and Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, Acting Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the complaint alleges that the muscle stimulators violated a series of FDA statues in that the devices are both adulterated and misbranded. The muscle stimulators are being sold as "Dr. Ho's Double Massage" and "Dr. Ho's Muscle Massage." On June 8, the U.S. Marshals Service, accompanied by FDA officials and State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection Drug Control Agents, executed a warrant to seize the items, which have an estimated retail value of more than $1 million, from Fosdick Fulfillment Corporation in Meriden. U.S. Attorney O'Connor noted that Fosdick has cooperated fully in the investigation. The devices, components, and accessories, are allegedly adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because they are unapproved class III medical devices and they do not meet mandatory performance standards. In addition, the devices are labeled for use to treat serious medical conditions, including diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, arthritis, and migraine headaches. Since these devices have not been approved by FDA, the safety parameters associated with their use and the efficacy of the devices for use to treat diseases have not been determined. These devices are misbranded because their labeling lacks adequate directions for intended use, they are not labeled prescription use only, and they are not being used by consumers by order of a licensed practitioner. They are further misbranded because they were manufactured at an unregistered facility. U.S. Attorney O'Connor noted that the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York also has filed a civil complaint and has seized approximately $2.7 million worth of Dr. Ho medical devices. Protecting the public against products illegally marketed without FDA approval is an important part of the mission of our agency," stated FDA Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach. "The unapproved claims on products such as these often lead patients to forego proven therapies, which can cause serious health consequences." The FDA under the direction of Gail T. Costello, New England District Director, is investigating this case. Assistant U.S. Attorney William M. Brown, Jr., and Jennifer Caruso -- a trial attorney from the FDA Office of Chief Counsel -- are prosecuting the case. The case has been assigned to Senior United States District Judge Alfred V. Covello in Hartford. VALUEVISION MEDIA: Recalls Torchiere Lamps Posing Fire Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- ValueVision Media Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, recalled about 2,200 units of Dragonfly, Petunia, Iris, and Rose Torchiere Lamps imported by River of Goods, of Eagan, Minnesota. The company said an electrical problem can cause the torchiere lamps to spark, smoke or burn posing a fire or burn hazard to consumers. ValueVision has received five reports of the recalled lamps sparking, smoking and/or burning, including minor property damage. One minor burn injury has been reported. The torchieres are Tiffany-style lamps with glass shades with either dragonfly, petunia, iris or rose designs. The Dragonfly torchiere has a dragonfly design glass shade. It was sold as part of a three-lamp set including a floor lamp, a table lamp and a torchiere lamp. Only the torchiere lamp in the set is included in this recall. The Dragonfly torchiere was sold as item numbers V38109 and K18266. The item numbers are located on the products' packaging. The Petunia torchiere has a pastel floral design glass shade and was sold individually as item number V38762. The Iris torchiere has an iris design glass shade and was sold individually as item number V38763. The Rose torchiere has a rose design glass shade and was sold individually as item number V38764. The torchieres were manufactured in China are being sold at ShopNBC, which is ValueVision's television home-shopping channel, and at http://www.shopnbc.combetween November 2005 and April 2006 for about $200 for the set that includes the Dragonfly lamp, and about $50 to $90 for the other individual lamps. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled torchiere lamps and contact ValueVision to receive a full refund. ValueVision is contacting consumers who bought these lamps directly. Picture of the recalled torchieres: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06558d.jpg For more information, contact ShopNBC at (800) 676-5523 between 6 a.m. and midnight CT Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday, or visit http://www.ShopNBC.com. New Securities Fraud Cases CSK AUTO: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ariz. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of CSK Auto Corp. between Sept. 2, 2004 and March 24, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the class period concerning the company's financial performance and prospects, thereby artificially inflating the price of CSK Auto securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties have until Aug. 8, 2006, in which to move for Lead Plaintiff status. For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E- mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS: Glancy Binkow Files Stock Suit in Fla. --------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired securities of GlobeTel Communications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) between December 30, 2005 and April 11, 2006, inclusive. The complaint charges GlobeTel and certain of the company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning GlobeTel's business and prospects caused the company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. GlobeTel provides an integrated suite of telecommunications products and services, utilizing Stored Value, Voice over Internet Protocol, and wireless access technologies. The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants repeatedly touted a purportedly $600 million joint venture with a Moscow based LLC, Internafta, to install wireless networks and provide Internet service throughout Russia. The company announced the "binding agreement" in a Dec. 30, 2005 press release. Based on the news, GlobeTel shares surged from $2.19 to $3.68 per share, a more-than-75% increase on extremely heavy trading volume. The complaint alleges that almost immediately after the deal's announcement in January 2006, Internafta failed to pay GlobeTel the first $150 million installment required under the joint venture agreement, and then repeatedly missed the agreement's payment deadlines. Finally, on April 11, 2006, an article published in The Motley Fool questioned the credibility of the entire deal. As a result of this news, GlobeTel's stock plunged 15% the next day, on unusually heavy trading volume, to close on April 12, 2006, at $1.78 per share. Interested parties have no later than June 27, 2006, ask the court for appointment as lead plaintiff For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. and Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. INFOSONICS CORP: Charles J. Piven Files Calif. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of InfoSonics Corp. (IFO) between May 9, 2006 and June 9, 2006, inclusive. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties may move the court no later than Aug. 14, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. For more details, contact The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E- mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com. INFOSONICS CORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of InfoSonics Corp. between May 9, 2006 and June 9, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants had improperly accounted for warrants issued in connection with a January 2006 private placement. In addition, it is alleged that while in possession of material nonpublic information regarding an investigation into its accounting for warrants, defendants sold large amounts of their personal holdings for proceeds exceeding $3 million. Before the market opened on June 12, 2006, InfoSonics disclosed that it would need to restate its previously reported financial results, and that it would need to revise downward its first quarter net income from $1.738 million to $1.173 million as a result of the improper accounting treatment of the warrants. On this news, shares of InfoSonics fell to a close of $17.38 on June 12, down $6.84 from the previous close of $24.22. Interested parties may no later than Aug. 14, 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. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Stull, Stull Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody 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 the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that Vonage's technology platform experienced problems carrying telephone data over the networks of certain Internet service providers, including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL; -- that Vonage's Voice over Internet Protocol technology did not properly allow facsimile transmissions; -- that the Company did not adequately inform investors about the history of Vonage's management team; -- 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; -- 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 -- 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 serious technical and logistical issues plagued the Company's Directed Share Program. In the seven days after the IPO, shares of Vonage declined over 30 percent. Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than Aug. 1, 2006. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, Fax: 212/490-2022, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.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 * * *