/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060705.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 5, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 132 Headlines AIRLINES: D.C. Firm Files Antitrust Suit Against Air Carriers AIRLINES: U.K. Law Firm Employed in Airline Price Fixing Suit AT&T INC: Appeals Court Stays Consumer Suit Pending Arbitration AT&T INC: Newspaper Retracts Report Suggesting Wiretapping AUTOXTYLE: Recalls Conversion Kits with Sub-standard Bulbs BELLSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Hears Arguments in Race Bias Case BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Lawsuits Over Marketing of Alcohol to Minors CANADA: Appeal on Suit Over Youbou Sawmill Closure Due Today COACHMEN RV: Recalls Motor Homes to Fix Faulty Workhorse Chassis DYNCORP INT'L: $100M Suit Over Colombian Crop Spraying Continues EQUICREDIT CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Courier Fee GEOPHARMA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit GEORGIA: Clayton County Joins Suit Against Online Travel Firms GEORGIA: Suit Against HB 1059 Declared Moot Due to Federal TRO KANSAS: U.S. Files $10M Suit Against Resident Over Unpaid Loans MARION BASS: Ill. Court Suggests Venue for Kellerman Lawsuit MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Securities Lawsuits in Wis. NORTEL NETWORKS: Courts Authorize Release of Settlement Notices PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Holds Response to Individual Suit in Florida PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Cordless Nailer Posing Puncture Hazard QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Facing Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in TERI Lawsuit ST. FRANCIS: Enters $157,000 Deal to Settle Suit by Creditors TENET HEALTHCARE: Reaches Deal in S.C. Insured Patients' Lawsuit TIFFANY & CO: Fined for Unreported Hazardous Teether Rattles TOYOBO: N.J. Police Receives $10T in Zylon Vest Suit Settlement UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Recovers Stolen Computer Records UNITED STATES: Court Allows Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans WARREN GENERAL: Reaches Deal in Ohio Suit Over Patient Records WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Styrene Leak in Cincinnati Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky % Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit XM SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. ********* AIRLINES: D.C. Firm Files Antitrust Suit Against Air Carriers ------------------------------------------------------------- Niagara Frontier Distribution, Inc. commenced a purported antitrust class action against a dozen major international airlines over a conspiracy to fix prices of airfreight shipping services. The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, brought the suit on Feb. 24, 2006 on behalf of the D.C.-based distribution company, which used the services of the defendants between Jan. 1, 2000 and the present. Specifically, the suit named as defendants: -- Air France ADS, -- Air France-KLM Group ADS, -- Air France Cargo ADS, -- Air France-KLM Cargo ADS, -- Asiana Airlines, Inc., -- British Airways, plc, -- Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd., -- Deutsche Lufthansa AG, -- Lufthansa Cargo AG, -- Japan Airlines International Co., Ltd., -- Korean Airlines Co., Ltd., -- SAS AB, -- SAS Cargo Group A/S, -- UAL Corp., -- United Airlines, Inc., -- United Airlines Cargo, Inc., -- International Air Transport Association, and -- John Does I-X The law firm pointed out that the airlines, and many others, are currently under investigation for cartel behavior, relating to inflated airfreight surcharges. The investigation was the result of a global sting operation coordinated by governmental antitrust enforcement authorities from regions including the U.S., the European Commission, Canada, Switzerland, and Korea. According to the complaint, the case arises from a global conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize prices for fuel, security and insurance surcharges in air cargo shipping. Surcharges are charged by the major airlines acting as airfreight shipping providers that deliver the cargo placed by their customers, companies or individuals seeking to transport freight via air on behalf of themselves or others. The fees are charged to customers purportedly to compensate the air carriers for certain external costs for including increased cost for fuels, for additional securities measures after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist incident, for war-risk insurance premiums applied in conjunction with the outbreak of war in Iraq in 2003, and for other external costs. The complaint states that the plaintiff, on behalf of those similarly situated, seeks to recover the surcharges paid by it and other direct purchasers as a result of the airlines' conspiracy to levy these coordinated and inflated fees on their airfreight customers. It claims that the airlines' actions are in violation of the federal antitrust laws of the U.S., specifically: Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. Section 1 and Section 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. Section 15. In addition, the complaint states that victims of the cartel include all those paying such inflated surcharges. It also states that as the defendant airlines' alleged cartel activities were perpetrated worldwide on a vast number of inter-continental airfreight shipments, victims of the alleged conspiracy hail from potentially all parts of the globe. The suit is "Niagara Frontier Distribution Inc. v. Air France ADS, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00325-HHK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Henry H. Kennedy. Representing the plaintiff is Michael D. Hausfeld of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408- 4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: mhausfeld@cmht.com. AIRLINES: U.K. Law Firm Employed in Airline Price Fixing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.K.-based law firm of Irwin Mitchell joins forces with American class action specialist Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in its legal actions against several airlines over price fixing, according to Lawyer.com. Irwin Mitchell, which has a transatlantic affiliation with Cohen Milstein, is working with the firm to direct potential U.K. claimants to the U.S. Through an announcement on the firm's Web site, Irwin Mitchell is alerting U.K. citizens that they may have a claim. Irwin Mitchell partner Alan Owens pointed out that that the firm itself was not launching an action at present, although he said that there could be causes for litigation in the U.K. as well. Previously, Cohen Milstein initiated a purported price fixing class action against British Airways, PLC, and Virgin Atlantic, Ltd., in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2006). Filed on June 23, 2006 on behalf of John C. Gornik, the suit alleges that British Airways colluded with Virgin Atlantic to co-ordinate fuel-price surcharges on key transatlantic routes. Specifically, it claimed that the two carriers and others operated a "global conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices for long haul passenger flights to and from the U.K." The antitrust class action is seeking damages on behalf of all individuals who have been victimized by price fixing on passenger tickets, including fuel surcharges, on long haul flights in and out of London. The legal action comes on the heels of British Airways' admission that antitrust regulators in the U.S. and the U.K. are probing the carrier's pricing policies on long-haul passenger routes, including the setting of fuel surcharges. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?c50 The suit is "Gornik v. British Airways PLC, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03139-SLT-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Sandra L. Townes with referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Representing the plaintiffs is Linda P. Nussbaum of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, 30th Flr., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, (202) 408-4600 and (888) 347-4600, E-mail: lnussbaum@cmht.com. AT&T INC: Appeals Court Stays Consumer Suit Pending Arbitration --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff lawyer Thomas Maag, formerly of the Lakin Law firm, failed to comply with a court order to arbitrate in a class action filed against AT&T Inc., The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The suit accuses AT&T of inflating charges for a "Universal Service Fund" that the Federal Communications Commission required communication companies in order to support telecommunications services for low-income and rural telephone customers, schools, and libraries. It accuses the company of overcharging customers, and secretly keeping the difference. Madison County, Illinois Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian previously stayed the suit pending arbitration. In a mandate issued June 14, Fifth District Appellate Judge Melissa Chapman affirmed Judge Matoesian's decision to stay the suit pending arbitration. Mr. Maag is attempting to block arbitration by the American Arbitration Association as proposed by AT&T, arguing that AT&T's consumer services agreement improperly prohibited class arbitration. In denying the motion, Judge Matoesian, said the ban on class arbitration was not unconscionable. Mr. Maag is proposing to certify Sandra Ragan and Dennis Mangiaracino as representatives of a plaintiff class. The suit was filed in 2002 in County Circuit Court. Thomas G. Maag is now connected with Wendler & Ezra, P.C. Collinsville, Illinois (Madison & St. Clair Cos.). AT&T INC: Newspaper Retracts Report Suggesting Wiretapping ---------------------------------------------------------- USA TODAY has retracted a May news story that triggered several class actions accusing telecommunications companies BellSouth Corp., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp., and AT&T Inc. of wiretapping, the Atlanta Business Chronicle reports. In the May article, USA TODAY reported that the companies are participating with the National Security Agency in a massive program to collect phone call data from millions of Americans. The revelation resulted to a number of lawsuits against the firm, and BellSouth quickly sought a retraction from the newspaper. According to Atlanta Business Chronicle, on June 30, USA TODAY said it has "now concluded that while the NSA has built a massive domestic calls record database involving the domestic call records of telecommunications companies, the newspaper cannot confirm that BellSouth or Verizon contracted with the NSA to provide bulk calling records to that database." In January, the EFF filed a class action against AT&T, accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the NSA in a massive and illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 2, 2006). The suit is "Hepting, et al. v. AT&T Corp., et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00672-VRW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Cindy Ann Cohn of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 454 Shotwell Street, San Francisco, CA 94110, Phone: 415- 436-9333 x 108, Fax: (415) 436-9993, E-mail: cindy@eff.org; and (2) Jeff D. Friedman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288- 4534, E-mail: JFriedman@lerachlaw.com. Representing the defendants are: Bruce A. Ericson and Jacob R. Sorensen of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 50 Fremont St., Post Office Box 7880, San Francisco, CA 94120-7880, Phone: (415) 983-1000, Fax: (415) 983-1200, E-mail: bruce.ericson@pillsburylaw.com and jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com. AUTOXTYLE: Recalls Conversion Kits with Sub-standard Bulbs ---------------------------------------------------------- Autoxtyle, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 23 Autoxtyle HID Conversion Kits. The company said certain Autoxtyle HID Conversion Kits, Model Nos. KAS H4, 9007, 9006, and H3, sold as aftermarket for use on passenger vehicles has bulbs that fail to conform to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108. Oncoming traffic may experience a higher than normal amount of glare which could affect drivers' vision, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash without warning. These models are included in the recall: Make / Models: Model/Build Years: KAS / 9006 9999 KAS / 9007 9999 KAS / H3 9999 KAS / H4 9999 Consumers are advised to notify Autoxtyle for a repurchase offer of non-compliant HID kits. For more information, contact Autoxtyle at 813-842-8278. BELLSOUTH CORP: Ala. Court Hears Arguments in Race Bias Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama heard oral arguments on June 1, 2006 in the race discrimination class action, "Gladys Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case No. 2:02-cv-01057-VEH." The suit alleges that the company systematically discriminates against both African American hourly workers by denying them promotions into salaried or management positions and against African American salaried workers by paying them less than their white peers. Filed on April 29, 2002, the suit was brought on behalf of about 15,000 African American employees, alleging that the discriminatory practices outlined in the complaint were long standing. Plaintiffs in the suit include Gladys Jenkins, Denise Levert, David Williams and Peggy Johnson on behalf of a class of all similarly situated African American hourly employees; and Sharon Griffin on behalf of a class of all similarly situated African American salaried employees. Specifically, the complaint contends that the company's actions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981a. According to the complaint, the company has a history of using invalid tests that even its own executives don't trust and administering those tests and other prerequisites to promotion to management in a discriminatory manner. The complaint also states that about 28% of the company's hourly employees are African American, however only 16% of management employees are African American. Substantial discovery, including obtaining documents, employee data, and taking depositions were previously completed, and plaintiffs' motion asking the court to certify the case as a class action was filed on Dec. 23, 2004. Briefing on class certification was completed in mid-July 2005. The suit is "Gladys Jenkins, et al. v. Bellsouth Corp., Case No. 2:02-cv-01057-VEH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joseph M. Sellers and Christine E. Webber of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC, West Tower, Suite 500, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 1-410-408-4604 and 1-202-408-4600, Fax: 1-410- 408-4699, E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com and cwebber@cmht.com; and (2) Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-822- 5100, Fax: 202-822-4997, E-mail: cmehri@findjustice.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Anne M. Brafford and Michael S. Burkhardt of Morgan, Lewis & Bocklius, LLP, Phone: 213-612-7335 and 1-215- 963-5000, Fax: 213-612-2501 and 1-215-963-5001, E-mail: abrafford@morganlewis.com and mburkhardt@morganlewis.com; and (ii) Jeffrey A. Lee of Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, 1901 Sixth Avenue North, 2400 AmSouth / Harbert Plaza, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-254-1987, Fax: 205-254-1999, E- mail: jlee@maynardcooper.com. BROWN-FORMAN: Faces Lawsuits Over Marketing of Alcohol to Minors ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brown-Forman Corp. and many other manufacturers of spirits, wine, and beer are defendants in a series of essentially similar class actions seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers. Nine lawsuits have been filed to date, the first three against eight defendants, including Brown-Forman: -- "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al.," District of Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183 (November 2003); -- "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al.," District Court, Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December 2003); and -- "Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division, No. 3:04cv141 (January 2004)." Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers of spirits and beer, and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch, Case No. No. 1:04cv1081," pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern Ohio. Five similar suits were filed in 2005: -- "Elizabeth H. Sciocchette v. Advanced Brands," Albany County, New York Supreme Court No. 102205 (Feb. 16, 2005); -- "Roger and Kathy Bertovich v. Advanced Brands," Hancock County, West Virginia, Circuit Court No. 05-C-42M, (Feb. 17, 2005); -- "Jacquelin Tomberlin v. Adolph Coors," Dane County (Madison, Wisconsin) Circuit Court (Feb. 23, 2005);" -- "Viola Alston v. Advanced Brands," Wayne County, Michigan, Circuit Court No. 05-509294, (March, 30, 2005), and -- "Craig Konhauzer v. Adolph Coors Company," Broward County, Florida Circuit Court, No. 05004875 (March 30, 2005). In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre- lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit there against many industry defendants, including Brown-Forman, presumably on the same facts and legal theories. The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers, negligently marketed their products to the underage, and fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct. Plaintiffs seek class action certification on behalf of: -- a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or are parents of children whose funds were used to purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants which were consumed without their prior knowledge by their children under the age of 21 during the period 1982 to present; and -- an injunctive class consisting of the parents and guardians of all children currently under the age of 21. The lawsuits seek: -- a finding that defendants engaged in a deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage persons and an injunction against such alleged practices; -- disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and -- judgment to each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees. The lawsuits, either collectively or individually, if ultimately successful, represents significant financial exposure. The company, in coordination with other defendants, is vigorously defending itself in these cases. Brown-Forman and the other defendants have successfully obtained orders to dismiss five of the pending cases: * Kreft (Colorado) in October 2005, * Eisenberg (Ohio) in February 2006, * Tomberlin (Wisconsin) in March 2006, * Hakki (D.C.) in March 2006, and * Alston (Michigan) in May 2006 In addition, plaintiff Konhauzer (Florida) has voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit. The respective plaintiffs are appealing the involuntarily dismissal, according to the company's June 29, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. CANADA: Appeal on Suit Over Youbou Sawmill Closure Due Today ------------------------------------------------------------ The Youbou Timberless Society has until today to appeal the dismissal of their class action over the closure of the Youbou sawmill in 2001, according to The Pictorial. In June, Supreme Court Justice R.D. Wilson dismissed the suit, saying it was too similar to an Industrial, Wood and Allied Workers of Canada lawsuit launched in 2001 against the B.C. government. The union, now United Steelworkers, filed the suit in 2003. It later voted to dismiss the case based on its legal counsel. In the same year, Society board member Ken James carried the suit forward on behalf of 200 displaced workers after TimberWest closed the Youbou sawmill. "July 5 is the deadline for the appeal so even if we don't have enough money by Wednesday we'll still go ahead," Mr. James said. The society needs to raise between $15,000 and $20,000 to cover lawyer expenses. The suit stems from the government's removal in 1997 of the clause that tied Tree Farm License 46 to the Youbou sawmill, allowing TimberWest Forest Corp. to continue harvesting the timber while shutting down the mill. Mr. James' lawyer is Joseph Arvay of Arvay Finlay -- http://www.arvayfinlay.com/-- Victoria, British Columbia (Vancouver Island Co.). COACHMEN RV: Recalls Motor Homes to Fix Faulty Workhorse Chassis ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coachmen RV, LLC, in cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 32 units of motor homes. The company said certain motor homes built on Workhorse Chassis may have been equipped with incorrect steering intermediate shafts. The spline can strip while the steering wheel is being turned. This steering condition could result in a loss of steering control, increasing the risk of a crash. These models are included in the recall: Make/Models : Model/Build Years: COACHMEN/EPIC 2007 GEORGIE BOY/CRUISE MASTER 2006 GEORGIE BOY/LANDAU 2006 Consumers are advised to contact the company for inspection, and if necessary, replacement of the steering intermediate shaft. For more information, contact Workhorse at 1-877-294-6773 or Coachmen RV at 574-825-5821. DYNCORP INT'L: $100M Suit Over Colombian Crop Spraying Continues ---------------------------------------------------------------- DynCorp International, LLC remains a defendant in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia over the spraying of narcotic plant crops along the Colombian border adjacent to Ecuador, according the company's June 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006. On Sept. 11, 2001, a class action seeking $100.0 million on behalf of approximately 10,000 citizens of Ecuador was filed against the company and several of its former affiliates. The action alleges personal injury, property damage and wrongful death as a consequence of the spraying. The spraying operations are conducted under a Department of State contract in cooperation with the Colombian government (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2006). Ecuadorian Indians are charging that the company was contracted to carry out fumigation of illicit crops in neighboring Colombia recklessly sprayed their homes and farms, causing illnesses and deaths, and destroying crops. The legal complaint was brought under the Alien Tort Claims Act, which allows foreign citizens to sue U.S. companies in courts here over acts committed abroad. In addition to charging the company with violating the Alien Tort Claims Act, the complaint alleges the company also breached the U.S. Torture Victim Protection Act, among others. It seeks millions of dollars in compensation and an immediate halt to spraying that allegedly affects Ecuador. The complaint also calls into question Plan Colombia, the U.S.-funded strategy to combat narcotics launched a few years back by Colombian President Andres Pastrana. Plan Colombia involves $7.5 billion for social and economic development and $1.3 billion, pledged by the U.S., mostly for military equipment and training, and aerial fumigation of illicit coca, marijuana, and poppy crops. Colombian politicians and officials have said that although they favor eradicating narcotics crops, a new strategy is needed because fumigation with the herbicide glyphosate is causing illness, destroying pastures and food crops, poisoning livestock, and displacing thousands of small farmers. The terms of the Department of State contract provide that the Department of State will indemnify the company against third- party liabilities arising out of the contract, subject to available funding. The company is also entitled to indemnification by Computer Sciences Corp. in connection with this lawsuit, subject to certain limitations. Additionally, any damage award would have to be apportioned between the other defendants and the company. The suit is "Arias et al v. Dyncorp et al, Case No. 1:01-cv- 01908-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Washington under Judge Richard W. Roberts. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John C. Bonifaz of The Law Offices of Cristobal Bonifaz, 48 North Pleasant Street, P.O. Box 2488, Amherst, MA 01004-2488, Phone: (413) 253-5626; and (2) Terry Collingsworth and Natacha H. Thys of International Labor Rights Fund, 2001 S Street, NW Suite 420, Washington, DC 20009, Phone: (202) 347-4100, Fax: 202-347-4885, E-mail: terry.collingsworth@ilrf.org and natacha.thys@ilrf.org. Representing the defendants are, Joe G. Hollingsworth, Eric Gordon Lasker, Katharine R. Latimer and Iqnacia S. Moreno of Spriggs & Hollingsworth, 1350 I Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005-3305, Phone: (202) 898-5800, (202) 898-5843 and (202) 898- 5831, Fax: (202) 682-1639, E-mail: jhollingsworth@spriggs.com, elasker@spriggs.com, klatimer@spriggs.com and imoreno@spriggs.com. EQUICREDIT CORP: Ill. Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Courier Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Madison County Circuit Judge Don Weber has dismissed a class action brought against EquiCredit Corp. by the Lakin Law Firm over a $30 courier fee, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The case is the third Lakin class action dismissed by Judge Weber in the seven months since he has been judge. The firm had made attempts to remove him from all its pending Madison County class actions. The suit was filed in 2003 by Gary Treadway as special administrator of his mother Juanita's estate, claiming his mother did not know the mortgage company would keep some of the $30 it charged to obtain loan documents to complete a loan transaction in 1999. In his dismissal order, Judge Weber wrote that if the plaintiff were to prevail she would have received about $10, but should the case proceeds as a class action, the case would generate perhaps millions of dollars in attorney's fees. Judge Weber said plaintiff's argument was weak by writing. In concluding, Judge Weber wrote, "This court recognizes the difference between consumer fraud and sharp, but not lawful business practices. In our free society, a buyer has some obligation to make a reasonable investigation of charges such as these." For more details, contact Gerald R. Walters of The Lakin Law Firm, Phone: (618) 254-1127, Fax: (618) 254-0193, Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/CM/Custom/Home.asp. GEOPHARMA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class action against GeoPharma, Inc. over the announcement of regulatory approval for its medical device Mucotrol(TM). In December 2004 and January 2005, five securities class actions were filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with certain press releases issued by the company relating to Belcher Pharmaceuticals' planned introduction of Mucotrol. The suits were: -- Mat eVentures v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 04 Civ. 9463); -- Moshayedi v. GeoPharma, Inc., Jugal Taneja, Mihir Taneja, and Kotha Sekharam (SDNY 04 Civ. 9736); -- Sarno v. Mihir Taneja, Kotha Sekharam, and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 04 Civ. 9975); -- Farwell v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05 Civ. 188); and -- Taylor v. Kotha Sekharam and GeoPharma, Inc. (SDNY 05 Civ. 258) Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek unspecified damages allegedly suffered in connection with their respective purchases and sales of the company's securities during the class period. On March 9, 2005 the court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 18, 2005 plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On June 6, 2005 defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. By Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2005 the court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the action without prejudice, with leave to re-plead. On Oct. 24, 2005 plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended class action complaint in the action. The company again moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and after the issues were fully briefed by the parties, by Opinion and Order dated Jan. 27, 2006 the court again dismissed Plaintiffs' action, this time with prejudice. The suit is "In Re: Geopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-09463-SAS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; and (2) Roy Laurence Jacobs of Roy Jacobs & Associates, 60 East 42nd Street 46th Floor, New York, NY 10165, Phone: 212- 867-1156, Fax: 212-504-8343, E-mail: rljacobs@pipeline.com. Representing the company is Robert Allen Scher of Foley & Lardner, LLP, 90 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 682-7474, Fax: (212) 687-2329, E-mail: rscher@foley.com. GEORGIA: Clayton County Joins Suit Against Online Travel Firms -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clayton County Board of Commissioners agreed to take part in a class action against online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms are underpaying taxes to the city for brokering hotel rooms, the Clayton News Daily-Online reports. Georgia's Clayton County is trying to recover more than $250,000 from a hotel excise tax, which is allegedly being withheld by online companies like Expedia.com, Travelocity.com and others. According Kevin Ross, an attorney handling the case, the travel agencies gain access to rooms to give to the public and sell them online, negotiating a low, wholesale rate with hotel companies for unbooked rooms and adding a fee to rent the room at a profit to online bookers. The travel companies allegedly access a full amount of hotel and sales taxes and collect them, improperly remitting that money to the local government. Art Sackler, Executive Director for Interactive Travel Services Association, which represents 14 online travel service companies, said the suits wrong on the facts and law, explaining that these Web sites depend on the hotels to include fees into the price they quote online. Mr. Ross said that the case is still in the preliminary stages, but he expects the trial to begin in January. Similar suits are filed in 19 counties or cities in the metro area, including Cobb County, Dekalb County, Fulton County, Augusta, Rome, and Alpharetta. Mr. Ross said that many other areas, such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia, are also bringing separate class actions against the on-line travel companies. Those lawsuits have yet to be concluded. Previously, the City of Rome, Georgia, Hart County, Georgia, and the City of Cartersville, Georgia filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of themselves and other cities, counties and governments which have enacted transient occupancy taxes and/or excise taxes on lodging in the State of Georgia (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2006). Named as defendants in the suit, which was filed on Nov. 18, 2005, are: -- Hotels.com, L.P., -- Hotels.com GP, LLC, -- Hotwire, Inc., -- Cheap Tickets, Inc., -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc., -- Expedia, Inc., -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), -- Lowestfare.com, Inc., -- Maupintour Holding, LLC, -- Orbitz, Inc., -- Orbitz, LLC, -- priceline.com, Inc., -- Site59.com, LLC, -- Travelocity.com, Inc., -- Travelocity.com, L.P., -- Travelweb, LLC, -- Travelnow.com, Inc., -- Onetravel, Inc. (d/b/a onetravel.com), and -- Does 1 through 1000 GEORGIA: Suit Against HB 1059 Declared Moot Due to Federal TRO -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronnie K. Batchelor of the Gwinnett Superior Court has denied a registered sex offender's request to be exempted for six months from residency restrictions under Georgia's House Bill 1059, citing a recent decision by a federal judge in a matter related to the case, the Gwinnett Daily Post reports. On June 29, C.J. "Jack" Spence of Lawrenceville, filed the suit on behalf of registered sex offender Bryan Sumrak, asking the judge for a six-month reprieve to give his client time to sell his house and make other living arrangements. Citing the recently issued temporary restraining order by Judge Clarence Cooper of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, which halts the enforcement of H.B. 1059, Judge Batchelor said that Sumrak's case was a "moot point." H.B. 1059 broadens the law governing where registered sex offenders may reside by prohibiting them from living or working within 1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school or "area where minors congregate," including parks and recreation facilities, playgrounds, skating rinks, neighborhood centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools and bus stops (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2006). Despite the decision, Mr. Spence may still pursue the lawsuit, because he believes the sex offender law violates the Georgia Constitution as well as the U.S. Constitution. For more information on the Gwinnett suit, contact C.J. "Jack" Spence of Giannini & Spence, LLC, 220 W. Crogan Street, Suite 200, Lawrenceville, GA 30045, Phone: 770-237-3800 or Toll-Free: 1-866-733-3800, E-mail: cjspence@gwinnettlegal.com. KANSAS: U.S. Files $10M Suit Against Resident Over Unpaid Loans --------------------------------------------------------------- Wamego resident Crystal S. Merritt is facing a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, seeking to recover about $10,953.04 from unpaid loans guaranteed by the Nebraska Student Loan Program and then reinsured by the U.S. Department of Education. Filed on June 27, 2006, the suit named as plaintiff the United States of America, by and through Eric F. Melgren, U.S. Attorney for the District of Kansas, and Tanya Sue Wilson, Assistant U.S. Attorney from the same district. According to the Count I of the complaint, on Sept. 9, 1992, the defendant, who is also known as Crystal S. McCarter, executed a promissory note to secure a loan of $2,625.00 from the Manhattan Federal Savings & Loan at the applicable note rate. The loan obligation was guaranteed by the NSLP and then reinsured by the Education Department under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C Section 1071 et. seq. (34 C.F.R. Part 682). The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the note, but no payments were credited to the outstanding principal owed on the loan. The borrower defaulted on the obligation on Aug. 7, 1994, and the holder filed a claim on the guarantee. Due to this default the guaranty agency paid a claim in the amount of $2,800.27 to the holder. The guarantor was then reimbursed for that claim payment by the Education Department under its reinsurance agreement. The guarantor attempted to collect the debt from the borrower, but was unable to collect the full amount due and on June 13, 2001, assigned its right and title to the loan to the Education Department. The complaint claims that the defendant failed to make the payments due and owing pursuant to the terms of said note, thus she is wholly in default. The lender assigned all right, title and interest in said note, which was described above, to the U.S. of America as guarantor pursuant to the terms of the Federal Loan Insurance under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery on the promissory note. Plaintiff elected to exercise its option to declare the entire unpaid principal plus interest to be immediately due and payable and has made demand for said amount. There is due and owing plaintiff from said defendant in the amount of $2,800.27 principal and interest of $2,051.00 accrued to May 3, 2006, together with interest thereafter at the applicable note rate until date of judgment, plus interest after the date of judgment at the legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 until paid, plus filing fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(a)(2), plus current and future costs of this action. Count II of the complaint states that on Jan. 4, 1993, defendant executed a promissory note to secure a loan of $3,000.00 from Manhattan National Bank at the applicable note rate. This loan obligation was also guaranteed by the NSLP and then reinsured by the Education Department under loan guaranty programs authorized under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended 20 U.S.C. Section 1071 et. seq. (34 C.F.R. Part 682). The holder demanded payment according to the terms of the note. No payments were credited to the outstanding principal owed on the loan. The borrower defaulted on the obligation on Feb. 15, 1994, and the holder filed a claim on the guarantee. Due to this default the guaranty agency paid a claim in the amount of $3,462.29 to the holder. The guarantor was then reimbursed for that claim payment by the Education Department under its reinsurance agreement. Pursuant to 34 C.F.R. Section 682.410(b)(2), the guarantor charged the borrower interest on the total amount paid to the holder. The guarantor attempted to collect the debt from the borrower. The guarantor was unable to collect the full amount due and on June 13, 2001, assigned its right and title to the loan to the Education Department. Defendant has failed to make the payments due and owing pursuant to the terms of said note and is wholly in default. As before, all right, title, and interest in said note described above was assigned by the lender to the U.S. as guarantor pursuant to the terms of the Federal Loan Insurance under Title IV, Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery on the promissory note. Plaintiff elected to exercise its option to declare the entire unpaid principal plus interest to be immediately due and payable and has made demand for said amount. There is due and owing plaintiff from said defendant, on the note, the sum of $3,462.29 principal and $2,639.48 interest accrued to May 3, 2006, plus interest thereafter at the applicable note rate until the date of judgment, plus interest after the date of judgment at the legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 until paid, plus current and future costs of this action. The suit seeks a judgment against the defendant, on Court I for the sum of $2,800.27 principal and $2,051.00 interest accrued to May 3, 2006, together with prejudgment interest at 6.10% per cent until the date of judgment, plus interest thereafter at the legal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1961 until paid. On Count II, the suit seeks a judgment against the defendant for the sum of $3,462.29 principal and $2,639.48 interest accrued to May 3, 2006, together with prejudgment interest at 6.50% per cent until the date of judgment, plus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2412(a)(2), together with the current and future costs of this action. The suit is "U.S. of America v. Merritt, Case No. 5:06-cv-04071- SAC-KGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Sam A. Crow with referral to Judge K. Gary Sebelius. Representing the plaintiff is Tanya S. Wilson, Office of U.S. Attorney -- Topeka, 290 U.S. Courthouse, 444 S.E. Quincy Topeka, KS 66683-3592, Phone: 785-295-2850, Fax: 785-295-2853, E-mail: tanya.wilson@usdoj.gov. MARION BASS: Ill. Court Suggests Venue for Kellerman Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Circuit Judge Daniel Stack in Madison County, Illinois invited any defendant in a suit against Marion Bass Securities to move to transfer the suit to Cook County, according to The Madison St. Clair Record. Earlier, at least one defendant moved to dismiss the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens so plaintiff Al Kellerman could file it at Hennepin County courthouse in Minneapolis. Also, at least one defendant moved for transfer to Tazewell County courthouse in Pekin. But on June 13, Judge Stack signed an order saying "The court finds, however, that Cook County, Illinois, would appear to be the most convenient forum for all of the parties." The suit was filed in 2001, claiming defendants deceived people into investing in nursing homes. One of the defendants, Robert Mitchell, a Chicago attorney, already died this year. MERGE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Putative Securities Lawsuits in Wis. -------------------------------------------------------------- Merge Technologies Inc., d.b.a. Merge Healthcare (Nasdaq: MRGE; TSX: MRG), faces seven putative securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the company's common stock between Aug. 2, 2005 and March 16, 2006. The suit was filed against the company and two of its former officers, Richard A. Linden and Scott T. Veech. One of the complaints also names Brian E. Pedlar, interim co-president and co-chief executive officer of the company. The cases arose out of the company's March 17, 2006 announcement that the company would revise the company's results of operations for the fiscal quarters ended June 30, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, as well as the company's investigation of allegations made in anonymous third-party complaints received by the company. Plaintiffs allege that the company and individual defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaints seek damages in unspecified amounts. Competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff have been filed, but the court has not yet ruled on them. On April 24, 2006, the company received a letter from Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, purportedly on behalf of a stockholder, alleging that members of the company's Board of Directors, Mr. Linden, and Mr. Veech breached their fiduciary duties to the company by allegedly violating generally accepted accounting principles and engaging in improper accounting and financial reporting. The letter demands that the Board take action to recover damages allegedly suffered by the company. The company's board of directors is considering its response to this demand. The suits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin under Judge Rudolph T Randam, are: (1) "Maiden v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00349-RTR," on behalf of Rosalind Maiden. Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com (filed March 22, 2006); (2) "Stahl v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00356-RTR," on behalf of Howard A Stahl. Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com (filed March 23, 2006); (3) "Weber v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06- cv-00375-RTR," on behalf of Kenneth Weber. Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482- 8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com (filed March 29, 2006); (4) "Brotman v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00431-RTR," on behalf of Carl Brotman. Representing the plaintiffs is Audley H Fuller of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 1 Liberty Sq - 8th Fl, Boston, MA 2109, Phone: 617-542- 8300, Fax: 617-542-1194 (filed April 6, 2006); (5) "Smith et al v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00483-RTR Rudolph," on behalf of Glynn D Smith. Representing the plaintiffs is Beth J Kushner of von Briesen & Roper SC, 411 E Wisconsin Ave - Ste 700, PO Box 3262, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3262, Phone: 414-287- 1373, Fax: 414-276-6281, E-mail: bkushner@vonbriesen.com (filed April 11, 2006); and (6) "Derzay v. Merge Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00493-RTR," on behalf of John E Derzay. Representing the plaintiffs is Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, 3620 E Layton Ave., Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax: 414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com (filed April 17, 2006). Representing the defendants are David H. Kistenbroker and Michelle T. McGuinness both of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 525 W Monroe St., Ste. 1600, Chicago, IL 60661-3693, Phone: 312-902- 5200 and 312-902-5490, Fax: 312-577-4481 and 312-577-4418, E- mail: david.kistenbroker@kattenlaw.com and michelle.mcguinness@kattenlaw.com. NORTEL NETWORKS: Courts Authorize Release of Settlement Notices --------------------------------------------------------------- Judges in three Canadian provinces and the U.S. have authorized the mailing of notices of settlement to hundreds of thousands of potential claimants around the world in a suit against Nortel Networks Corp., according to the Toronto Star. The 33-page notices are to be mailed in mid-July to start the settlement process, the report said. Nortel Networks is facing lawsuits in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey and in courts in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia in Canada. The suits were brought on behalf of shareholders who acquired Nortel Networks Corp. securities as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and as late as Feb. 15, 2001. They allege, among others, violations of U.S. federal and Canadian provincial securities laws. Settlement Terms Earlier in the year, The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board (OTPP) and several plaintiffs reached agreement in principle with Nortel Networks Corp. to settle two major securities- related class actions. The conditional settlement is for approximately $2.4 billion in cash and Nortel common stock. The settlement, which is subject to a number of conditions, is part of a global settlement between Nortel, and certain of its current and former directors, and the lead plaintiffs for two separate securities fraud class actions -- Nortel I and Nortel II -- currently pending against the company in the U.S. District Court in New York, New York. In 2004, OTPP and the New Jersey Department of the Treasury were appointed by a U.S. federal judge to head the prosecution of the Nortel II case, the second of two major cases arising from the disclosure of significant accounting improprieties at Nortel in recent years. The Nortel II case is being prosecuted on behalf of persons who purchased Nortel common stock between April 24, 2003 and April 27, 2004. Nortel I's class period is Oct. 24, 2000 through Feb. 15, 2001. The total consideration Nortel is paying to the two investor classes comprises $575 million in cash, plus 14.5% of the company's current equity (approximately 628 million shares). Based on the $3.02 closing price of Nortel common stock on Feb. 7, 2006, the settlement equity would be worth approximately $1.9 billion. The Nortel I settlement calls for certain investors to receive US$438,667,428 in cash, minus legal fees, litigation expenses and administration costs, plus 314,333,875 common shares, according to the report. The Nortel II settlement calls for certain investors to receive CA$370,157,418 in cash, minus fees, expenses and administration costs, plus 314,333,875 shares of common stock of Nortel, the report said. Court Hearings New York lawyer George Bauer said the U.S. court hearing to review objections is set for Oct. 26, 2006 with Canadian hearings to follow. Eligible investors will have 120 days from the date of the notice mailing to file their claims. The payment by the company will be allocated equally between the two investor classes using an allocation formula worked out between the Nortel I and Nortel II lead plaintiffs with the active assistance of Judge Sweet. The settlement in principle has at least three significant conditions, including governance provisions, insurance issues and securities regulators' approvals for issuing the 628 million Nortel settlement shares. If the conditions to the settlement are satisfied, the settlement must be approved by the Honourable Loretta A. Preska, U.S. District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, after notice to the Nortel II class. Ontario Teachers' was represented in the "Nortel II" litigation and the settlement negotiations by New-York based outside counsel at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. For more information contact Deborah Allan, Director, Communications of Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, Phone: (416) 730-5347, E-mail: deborah_allan@otpp.com. PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Holds Response to Individual Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the 11 putative class actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Paincare Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors agreed to make no responses to the individual complaints until a consolidated complaint was filed. The suits arose in connection with the company's determination to restate certain of its historical financial statements. The international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP was hired by the company to defend it against theses suits. On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed one of the first complaints under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer. Entitled, "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00362-JA-DAB," the suit alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the company's financial statements which appear to relate principally to the company's previously announced intention to restate certain past financial statements. Mr. Mould seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from Aug. 27, 2002 to March 15, 2006. Ten additional complaints were filed shortly after before the same court, which recite similar allegations. To allow for the selection of a lead plaintiff(s) and counsel, and the consolidation of the individual class action complaints, plaintiffs and defendants have agreed that a response to the individual complaints is not required until after a consolidated complaint has been filed, according to the company's June 29, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended March 31, 2006. The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with referral to Judge David A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs is Kenneth J. Vianale of Vianale & Vianale, LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107, Fax: 561/392-4775, E-mail: e- file@vianalelaw.com. Representing the company is Bruce J. Berman of McDermott, Will & Emery, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200, Miami, FL 33131-4336, Phone: 305/358-3500, Fax: 305/347-6500, E-mail: bberman@mwe.com. PORTER-CABLE: Recalls Cordless Nailer Posing Puncture Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Porter-Cable, of Jackson, Tennessee, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 25,000 units of Porter-Cable Cordless Brad Nailer. The company said the nailer can eject a nail while the switch is in the "off" position if the trigger is pulled and it is placed on a surface. This can pose a serious injury to consumers or bystanders. Porter-Cable has received two reports of injuries, including puncture wounds to the leg and back requiring surgical removal of the nail. The nailer is used to drive nails into wood. Model number BN200V12 is located on the name plate on the magazine of the unit. "Porter+Cable" is printed on the nailer's motor housing. The nailers were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold at major home center and hardware stores nationwide from September 2001 through December 2005 for between $230 and $280. Picture of the recalled nailer: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06201.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the nailer immediately and contact Porter-Cable to receive free caution labels and an instruction manual insert. For more information, call Porter-Cable toll-free at (800) 940- 3126 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Website: http://www.Porter-cable.com. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Facing Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C, on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest Savings and Investment Plan, filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Colorado, against: * Qwest Communications International Inc., and * Qwest Telephone Concession Plan for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Plaintiffs are seeking: -- reformation of the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and the documents governing it to comply with ERISA; -- an Order requiring Qwest to fund the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan, as reformed, in accordance with ERISA's funding provisions; -- the appointment of an independent fiduciary to administer the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan and manage its assets including its right to receive contributions from Qwest in compliance with ERISA; and -- an Order requiring the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan to reinstate the benefits to Plaintiffs and other class members consistent with the terms of the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan, as reformed. The lawsuit also seeks a determination that the Plan is a defined benefit pension plan covered by ERISA, seeks to reform the Plan so that it complies with ERISA and also seeks to restore telephone concession benefits to retirees of Qwest (or its predecessors, such as U.S. West) and its employees who were vested in the Plan pursuant to ERISA. Since March 2002, putative class actions were filed under ERISA against Qwest Communications International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries for the Qwest Savings and Investment Plan and predecessor plans, or the Plan from March 7,1999 to the present. Allegations The ERISA suits allege, among other things, that the defendants breached fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries by allegedly: -- allowing excessive concentration of the Plan's assets in Qwest's stock; -- requiring certain participants in the Plan to hold the matching contributions received from Qwest in the Qwest Shares Fund; -- failing to disclose to the participants the alleged accounting improprieties that are the subject of the consolidated securities action; -- failing to investigate the prudence of investing in Qwest's stock; -- continuing to offer Qwest's stock as an investment option under the Plan; -- failing to investigate the effect of the Merger on Plan assets and then failing to vote the Plan's shares against it; -- preventing Plan participants from acquiring Qwest's stock during certain periods, and, -- as against some of the individual defendants, capitalizing on their private knowledge of Qwest's financial condition to reap profits in stock sales. In December of 2003, Qwest announced that, beginning in January of 2004, it would no longer provide the Telephone Concession to retirees and employees after they retired, who had been receiving the Telephone Concession, and lived outside the Qwest service area. In 2004, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a complaint against Qwest Communications International Inc., and the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan, on behalf of its client alleging that Qwest violated nearly every provision of the ERISA governing defined benefit plans with respect to the Qwest Telephone Concession Plan by failing to treat the provision of the Telephone Concession to retirees as an ERISA covered employee benefit plan. In changing the terms of the benefit to the Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent, violated the anti-cutback provision of ERISA Section 204(g), 29 U.S.C. Section 1054(g), which prohibits plan amendments that reduce the accrued benefit under the terms of the plan. Likewise, the decision by Qwest to cut benefits applied to current employees and their beneficiaries living outside of the Qwest service area who were entitled to receive the same benefit upon retirement, as of the end of 2003. As a result of the cut in benefits, these current employees and their beneficiaries also will be deprived of the benefit when those employees retire, in violation of ERISA's vesting and accrual provisions, ERISA Sections 203 and 204, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1053 and 1054. A copy of the amended complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d03 The suit is "Rathbun v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-00711-LTB-MJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock, with referral to Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Laurie B. Ashton of Keller Rohrback, PLC, 3101 North Central Avenue, #900 Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248- 0088, Fax: 602-248-2822, E-mail: lashton@kellerrohrback.com; (2) Robert Joseph Barton and Whitney R. Case both of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC-Washington, DC, 1100 New York Avenue, NW, West Tower #500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4600, Fax: 202-408-4699, E- mail: jbarton@cmht.com and wcase@cmht.com; and (3) John F. Head of Head & Associates, P.C., 730 Seventeenth Street, #740 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303- 623-6000, Fax: 303-623-4211, E-mail: jfhead@headlawyers.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Michael Brian Carroll and Christopher J. Koenigs both of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- Denver, United States District Court Box 12, 633 Seventeenth Street, #3000 Denver, CO 80202, Phone: 303-299-8474 and 303-299-8458, Fax: 303-298-0940, E-mail: mcarroll@sah.com and ckoenigs@sah.com; and (2) Stephanie J. Quincy of Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.- Phoenix, 1850 North Central Avenue, #500 Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-636-2000, Fax: 602-234-7979, E-mail: squincy@sah.com. SOUTH CAROLINA: Supreme Court Upholds Ruling in TERI Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The state had until July 1 to refund government pensioners the money they paid as pension contributions when they returned to work after retiring, according to Associated Press. In May, the South Carolina Supreme Court found the state in violation of a labor contract with state retirees who returned to work when it required them to contribute toward their pensions. On June 1, the court upheld its ruling and imposed a deadline for the state to pay the money back at 6 percent interest. Under a Teacher and Employee Retention Incentive program created in 2001, state employees who retire after 28 years may return to work and earn pension benefits and a salary for up to five years without contributing to the retirement system. The benefits are set aside until the person retires permanently. But lawmakers changed the rules last year and required them to pay. Now the Supreme Court said the state has to return the money plus interest to retirees who signed up for the program before Jul. 1, 2005. The money contributed to the TERI program was set aside in August when the court grated class action status to the case. It was to remain in an interest-bearing account until the suit was settled. Justices said the case applied to all the 13,400 state retirees in the program. According to the Associated Press report, the state is paying $31.9 million to the employees. A second, smaller group of refund checks will be mailed by Sept. 1, 2006. As per the court's ruling, interest will accrue at 11.25 percent starting July 1. The circuit judge has yet to decide how much the plaintiffs' lawyers will receive. The Supreme Court has also sent part of the lawsuit back to the lower court to determine if a contract existed between the state and another group of working retirees not covered under the TERI program. The suit is "Layman v. State of South Carolina." The employees are represented by lawyers Cam Lewis and Dick Harpootlian of 1410 Laurel Street, Columbia, South Carolina (Lexington & Richland Cos.) ST. FRANCIS: Enters $157,000 Deal to Settle Suit by Creditors ------------------------------------------------------------- St. Francis Health System has settled for $157,000 a class action filed against it on behalf of creditors, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The agreement is part of ongoing efforts to dissolve the 137-year old hospital system. Final payments to distribute assets of the health provider to creditors and pension-eligible former employees should be made within the next three months, said attorney Jay Blount of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, the Downtown law firm in charge of dissolving St. Francis. He expects the system to be legally dissolved sometime next year. What remains to be distributed are nearly $6 million in proceeds from asset sales as well as future proceeds from the final assets of the St. Francis Health Foundation. Unsecured creditors will receive about $4 million, and more than 3,000 pensioners will receive $1.9 million. Pensioners already received lump-sum payments totaling about $60 million. TENET HEALTHCARE: Reaches Deal in S.C. Insured Patients' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corp., Piedmont Medical Center's parent, has agreed to refund money to uninsured patients who were treated at the South Carolina hospital between Oct. 7, 2001, and May 22, 2006, and who paid within 30 days of receiving the bill, The Herald reports. According to a legal notice, uninsured patients could be reimbursed for up to 20 percent of their medical bills by filling out a claim form and becoming a part of the settlement class, which is free. The notice also stated that a final hearing on the state lawsuit is scheduled on Aug. 29, 2006 at 10 a.m. in the Chester County Courthouse with Judge Kenneth G. Goode. The case is a spin-off of one suit filed and settled in California that contended uninsured people should get the same discount from health-care facilities as insurance companies. It alleges that uninsured patients at the hospitals were not provided the required discount and were overcharged for the medical care they received. Cam Lewis, who represents the plaintiffs, explains that insurance companies negotiate to get medical care discounts of up to 40 percent, while patients with no insurance pay full price. Aside from Piedmont Medical, the proposed settlement also involves East Cooper Community Hospital in Mount Pleasant and Hilton Head Health System. For more details, call (800) 280-8427 or visit http://www.tenetclassaction.com/tes. TIFFANY & CO: Fined for Unreported Hazardous Teether Rattles ------------------------------------------------------------ Tiffany & Co. of New York agreed to pay a $262,500 civil penalty to settle allegations that the company failed to report a hazard with its infant teether rattles, a penalty, which has been provisionally accepted by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. CPSC alleged that Tiffany & Co. failed to report to the government in a timely manner that the center bar on the Farm Teether Rattle could break, releasing small beads and animal figures, which posed a choking and aspiration hazard to babies. Tiffany & Co. received at least three reports of defective solder joints in the teethers between November 2003 and February 2004. The company stopped selling the product in March 2004. In one incident, a baby was reported to have mouthed a small animal figure that fell off of the teether rattle. The firm reportedly failed to notify consumers who had purchased the teether and did not report the problem to CPSC until after the Commission had opened its own investigation and requested Tiffany to do so. The firm recalled about 3,700 of the teether rattles, which sold for $150 each, in February 2005. Picture of the recalled teether rattle: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml05/05544.jpg For more information about the recall, contact Tiffany and company at (800) 464-5000 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.tiffany.com. In agreeing to settle the matter, Tiffany denies it violated the Consumer Product Safety Act by failing to report defects with its Farm Teether Rattles in a timely manner. TOYOBO: N.J. Police Receives $10T in Zylon Vest Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The New Jersey Police Department won a $10,220 settlement in a class action over bulletproof vests made with the material Zylon, according to NorthJersey.com. The borough had purchased 14 Zylon vests for approximately $800 each. It will use the settlement money to buy new body armor for the borough's Emergency Response Team. The suit against Toyobo Co., Ltd., the Japanese company that developed Zylon, as well as Michigan-based body armor manufacturer, Second Chance Body Armor Inc., was brought after a California police officer was shot and killed in 2003 while wearing a vest made with Zylon. Second Chance recalled more than 100,000 vests made with the material after finding that Zylon body armor are prone to failure. Zylon is sold under the trade names ULTIMA, ULTIMAX and TRIFLEX. The lawsuit alleged that these vests fail to meet the performance characteristics for which they were warranted, that the vests are unfit for their intended purpose and that the allegedly defective condition of the vests was withheld from the marketplace. On Sept. 23, the District Court for Mayes County, in the State of Oklahoma approved a settlement of the class action. Also named as defendant in the suit is Toyobo America, Inc. The settlement provided for a settlement fund of $29 million, a replacement vest option in which class members can purchase a replacement vest from Armor Holdings Products at deeply discounted prices and an option to receive a voucher from Armor Holdings in the amount of a class member's pro rata share of the settlement fund plus 10%. In order to receive settlement proceeds, the settlement required claimants to register by Sept. 9, 2005. That deadline was extended and late registrations are being accepted through July 1, 2006. Class members who registered their contact information by Nov. 21, 2005 were mailed an Election of Benefits Form on Nov. 28, 2005, according to a statement from Zylon Vest Class Action Web site. Proceeds from the Settlement were mailed the week of April 17, 2006 to all registrants who timely filed an Election of Benefit Form, the statement said. The suit is "Lemmings v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc." Cir. Ct. Mayes City. OK #CJ-2004-62. For more information, visit Zylon Vest Class Action Web site: http://www.zylonvestclassaction.com. UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Recovers Stolen Computer Records ---------------------------------------------------------------- Law enforcement authorities have recovered the laptop and external hard drive stolen in early-May from a Veterans Affairs employee's home, Veterans Affairs Secretary R. James Nicholson announced on June 29. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, a preliminary review of the equipment by computer forensic experts determined that the database remains intact and has not been accessed since it was stolen. A thorough forensic examination of the recovered computer equipment is underway, and the results will be shared once the investigation is completed, a statement from the Veterans Affairs said. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing class actions on behalf of individuals whose personal information were stolen in May. It is accused of "unreasonably" delaying to report the theft of the personal information to law enforcers. One class action against the company was filed by Mason Law Firm, the law offices of Peter N. Wasylyk in Prividence, and the law office of Andrew S. Kierstead in Portland. The firms did not specify the amount they are asking from the government for the loss of the files that contain personal data, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, disability ratings, and certain medical information. The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose." The files have not yet been recovered. It contains personal information of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as 1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National Guard members and 645,000 reserve members The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53 A similar suit, "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al. v. Nicholson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Plaintiffs in the case are: -- Citizen Soldier, Inc., -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc., -- Veterans For Peace, Inc., -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc. -- Charles L. Clark, -- David Cline, -- James E. Malone, -- John Rowan Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J. Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320 Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252- 1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co. UNITED STATES: Court Allows Credit Monitoring Offer to Veterans --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge William Bertelsman has allowed the Veterans Affairs Department to publicize a no-cost credit monitoring offer to veterans whose personal information was stolen, according to Associated Press. Earlier, Judge Bertelsman barred the government from going ahead with offer, and set a hearing to determine whether the offer should be revived. On a June 30 hearing, Judge Bertelsman said: "I don't see anything objectionable in it...The court can't tell a government agency how it can communicate with its constituents." The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is facing class actions on behalf of individuals whose personal information were stolen in May. It is accused of "unreasonably" delaying to report the theft of the personal information to law enforcers. After the suits were filed, the Veterans Affairs Department announced plans to offer free monitoring for a year to the victims. It said it would send out letters to affected veterans and military personnel in early August. It also posted information on the government's Web site. The Senate already approved $160 million to pay for the credit monitoring. But lawyers for the veterans argued that the government's offer could jeopardize their chance of receiving greater compensation under a class action. They said in court papers it should be made clear whether veterans who take the government deal will have to give up their rights in court. The opposition prompted U.S. District Judge William Bertelsman in Kentucky to hold the program. On the recent hearing, Judge Bertelsman ordered the Veterans Affairs to state on its Web site that accepting the credit- monitoring offer does not waive a veteran's right to participate in any future litigation against the department. One class action against the company was filed by Mason Law Firm, the law offices of Peter N. Wasylyk in Prividence, and the law office of Andrew S. Kierstead in Portland. The firms did not specify the amount they are asking from the government for the loss of the files that contain personal data, including names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, disability ratings, and certain medical information. The data were stolen during a burglary of the home of a Veterans Affairs employee, who early in May copied the files from the department's facilities onto his computer and/or external disks and brought them home for an "unspecified purpose." The files have not yet been recovered. It contains personal information of 26.5 million veterans discharged since 1975 and as many as 1.1 million active-duty military personnel, 430,000 National Guard members and 645,000 reserve members The suit is "Daniel Kennedy, et al. v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of the District of Columbia under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. Defendants are the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; R. James Nicholson, Secretary; Gordon G. Mansfield, Deputy Secretary; and John Doe, employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. A full-text copy of the complaint is available for free at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?b53 A similar suit, "Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. et al. v. Nicholson et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01038-JR," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Plaintiffs in the case are: -- Citizen Soldier, Inc., -- National Gulf War Resource Center, Inc., -- Radiated Veterans Of America, Inc., -- Veterans For Peace, Inc., -- Vietnam Veterans Of America, Inc. -- Charles L. Clark, -- David Cline, -- James E. Malone, -- John Rowan Representing the plaintiffs in the Kennedy suit is Douglas J. Rosinski of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., 1320 Main Street, Suite 600, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: (803) 252- 1300, E-mail: douglas.rosinski@ogletreedeakins.co. WARREN GENERAL: Reaches Deal in Ohio Suit Over Patient Records -------------------------------------------------------------- Warren General Hospital reached a settlement in a protracted class action pending in Ohio's Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court over patient records, Tribune Chronicle reports. The 11-year-old class action, which claimed that the hospital breached patient confidentiality, is entitled, "Cheryl A. Biddle v. Warren General Hospital." It was filed in 1995 by two former patients on behalf of 12,000 hospital users. According to the suit, patient records were turned over to a local law firm that wanted to help pay the hospital bills through federal Supplemental Security Income benefits. One of the former hospital clients, Ms. Biddle, found that a secretary with the law firm of Elliot, Heller, Maas, Moro & Magill, had given her records to a Youngstown television station. The firm was also named as a defendant in the suit, but it later settled the case in December 2003. Under that deal, the 501 plaintiffs each received between $400 and $800 in damages from the total $130,000 paid out by the law firm or its insurance carrier. The latest settlement was between the same plaintiffs and Warren General Hospital Association, a non-profit holding company. Attorney Dennis P. Zapka, who represented the plaintiffs, explains that the $360,000 payment amounted to $513 payments to 478 people. He said that some 30 other people whose information was more sensitive, were given between $750 and $1,500. In addition, a $25,000 incentive award was given to Ms. Biddle. For more details, contact Dennis P. Zapka of McLaughlin & McCaffrey, LLP, Eaton Center, Suite 1350, 1111 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2500, Phone: 216-623-0900, Fax: 216-623- 0935, E-mail: dpz@paladin-law.com, Web site: http://www.lawyers.com/paladin-law/. WESTLAKE CHEMICAL: Settles Suit Over Styrene Leak in Cincinnati --------------------------------------------------------------- Entities involved in Cincinnati East End styrene leak in August have reached partial class certification and settlement with residents affected by the accident, according to WCPO.com. Westlake Chemical Corp., Kinder Morgan Liquid Terminals and Indiana Ohio Railway Corp. reached the agreement in a suit filed after a rail car leaked styrene near Lunken Airport on Aug. 28, forcing the evacuation and shelter in place of more than 800 residents and 100 business nearby. The rail car caught fire after being parked along the tracks for about nine months. Cincinnati then filed a class action against the rail line owner and the shipping company that sent the chemical. The suit sought reimbursement for city police, fire fighters, and other services needed to help contain the hazardous chemical vapor leak. The recent settlement will allow those residents who did not previously settle with the railroad company to be compensated depending on their proximity to the leaking car. Financial details of the agreement were not revealed. A fairness hearing is set Aug. 28, 2006. Notices are expected to be sent out as early as July 12, 2006. A second settlement was also reached for the businesses and employees who lost wages during the evacuation, the report said. According to an article by The Enquirer in January, companies linked to the chemical leak agreed to pay at least $2 million in compensation to residents and businesses, including $28,000 to Cincinnati Public Schools. For more information, contact Statman Harris and Eyrich LLC and Keating Muething and Klekamp: http://www.shselegal.com/. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 20-21, 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 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 26-27, 2006 REINSURANCE ARBITRATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 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 May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ July 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com July 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com July 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com July 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com July 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 July 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 July 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com July 11, 2006 PPA AND EPHEDRA 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 July 20, 2006 ASBESTOS LEGISLATION - IS A SOLUTION TO THE CRISIS AROUND THE CORNER? Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 25, 2006 UNDERSTANDING HOW AN MDL WORKS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com July 27, 2006 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST RETAILERS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com August 9, 2006 HEARING LOSS CLAIMS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time August 10, 2006 SULFATES LITIGATION Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com August 15, 2006 VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time August 16, 2006 ASBESTOS SCREENINGS Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com August 17, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS AND DEVICES Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com time 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 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Brodsky % Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities UnitedHealth Group, Inc. between Dec. 27, 2004 and May 23, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint charges UnitedHealth and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: -- that the company purposely concealed the true dates of stock option grants; -- that the company failed to properly record its stock- based compensation expenses; -- specifically, that the company improperly treated stock option expenses as deductible, thereby failing to comply with Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, overstated its earnings, and understated its expenses; -- that the company's financial statements were presented in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the company lacked the necessary personnel and controls to issue accurate financial reports and projections; and -- that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On April 7, 2006, UnitedHealth stunned investors when it announced that the company had received an inquiry from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Specifically, the company reported that its Board of Directors had formed a Committee comprised of independent directors to retain and work with outside legal counsel to review the company's current and historic stock option grant practices. On this news, shares of the company's stock dropped $2.96, or 5.43 percent over the course of several days, from $54.51, on April 6, 2006, to close, on April 11, 2006, at $51.55. On April 26, 2006, after the market closed, UnitedHealth announced that the company had adopted enhanced corporate governance policies, including share ownership guidelines for officers and directors. On May 22, 2006, Moody's Investors Service revised its outlook on the company to negative from stable, citing increased uncertainty over the outcome of investigations into the company's practices of granting stock options. On this news, shares of the company's stock dropped 90 cents, or 2.1 percent, to close, on May 23, 2006, at $42.82 per share. Interested parties may no later than July 7, 2006, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90, E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com. XM SATELLITE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. between the expanded period July 28, 2005 and May 24, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements. Specifically, defendants made misrepresentations regarding XM's ability to reduce the costs of its new subscribers as it reached its goal of 9 million subscribers by year-end 2006. In anticipation of XM's competitor Sirius' contract with shock jock Howard Stern, XM began to spend extraordinarily large sums on its marketing efforts. Nevertheless, defendants represented that XM expected to exceed 9 million subscribers by year-end 2006 and that XM had been successful in lowering its subscriber acquisition costs. Throughout the class period, defendants failed to disclose that XM's subscriber acquisition costs would rise to extraordinary levels and that it would not meet its subscriber guidance. During the class period, several key insiders of XM made huge sales of their personal holdings. On Feb. 16, 2006, the company announced a much wider loss in the fourth quarter on higher costs for marketing and acquiring subscribers. XM announced that its subscriber acquisition cost per customer was $89, compared to $64 in the same period of the prior year. Then, on May 24, 2006, XM announced that it was reducing its subscriber guidance for 2006 from 9 million to 8.5 million. Upon this announcement, shares of XM fell $1.76, or 13%, to close at $13.75 per share. Interested parties may no later than July 3, 2006, to request the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. ********* 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 * * *