/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060706.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 6, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 133 Headlines APPLE CANADA: Court Certifies Class in "St-Germain" iPod Suit APPLE CANADA: Faces Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Nano in Ontario APPLE CANADA: Quebec Court Mulls Stay for "Royer-Brennan" Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Consumer Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Claims in "Blackwell" PowerBook G4 Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Begins in "Butzer" Powerbook G4 Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Transfer of Ark. PowerBook Suit to Calif. BAYER CORP: Philadelphia Court Approves Baycol Suit Settlement CEQUENT ELECTRICAL: Recalls Breakaway Switches for Crash Hazards DEJA VU: Shreveport, La. Residents Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Sept. Trial Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal EAST COOPER: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for Patients' Lawsuit EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Remained Stayed in N.J. Stock Suit FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit FIRST AMERICAN: Faces N.H. Suit Over Refinanced Property Charges GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Refuses to Review Dex-Cool Lawsuit GTECH HOLDINGS: Settles R.I. Lawsuits Over Lottomatica Merger H&R BLOCK: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Miss., N.Y. KANSAS: U.S. Files $10T Suit Against Resident Over Unpaid Loans LIBERTY WASTE: Suit Filed Over Pollution Caused by Dumpsite LONG ISLAND: N.Y. Utility Regulator Says Firm Exempt from Review MARSH SUPERMARKETS: Faces Ind. Suit Over MSH Supermarkets Merger MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Recalls Regulator Prone to Fail at High Temp. MONSANTO CO: Continues to Face Suit in W.V. Over Dioxin Exposure MONSANTO CO: June 2007 Trial Set for Ill. ERISA Violations Suit NIGERIA: PDP Faction Files Suit to Nullify Officers' Election PENTAIR INC: Celebrity Receives $193M Award in M/V Horizon Suit R-VISION: Recalls Motor Homes Built with Chevrolet Chassis SHERNOFF'S SALADS: Listeria Contamination Prompts Salad Recall UFI FILTERS: Recalls Purolator Filters with Defective Connector VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Roadside Assistance" Charge New Securities Fraud Cases ESCALA GROUP: July 10 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff VONAGE HOLDINGS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.J. ********* APPLE CANADA: Court Certifies Class in "St-Germain" iPod Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A Canadian court granted class certification to a case filed by plaintiffs seeking the return of the Canadian Private Copying Levy charged on their iPod purchases. The suit, "St-Germain v. Apple Canada, Inc." was filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Aug. 5, 2005. Plaintiffs want the refund of the levy on iPod purchases in Quebec between Dec. 12, 2003 and Dec. 14, 2004. The levy has been declared invalid by a Canadian court. The company has completed a refund program for this levy. A class certification hearing took place Jan. 13, 2006. On Feb. 24, 2006 the court granted class certification and a notice was published during the last week of March 2006. Apple Canada Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/ca/-- is headquartered in Markham, Ontario and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple products are available at more than 450 Authorized Apple Canada Dealer locations across Canada. APPLE CANADA: Faces Lawsuit Over Faulty iPod Nano in Ontario ------------------------------------------------------------ Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc. are defendants in a suit filed in Ontario as a purported class action by iPod nano purchasers in Canada. Styled, "Mund v. Apple Canada Inc. and Apple Computer, Inc.," the case was filed on Jan. 9, 2006, alleging that that the iPod nano is defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. Apple Canada Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/ca/-- is headquartered in Markham, Ontario and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple products are available at more than 450 Authorized Apple Canada Dealer locations across Canada. APPLE CANADA: Quebec Court Mulls Stay for "Royer-Brennan" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action, "Royer-Brennan v. Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc.," are awaiting a court decision on a motion to stay the case for lis pendens. Filed in Montreal, Quebec, Canada on Nov. 9, 2005, plaintiffs in the suit are seeking authorization to institute class actions on behalf of iPod nano purchasers in Quebec over allegations that the product is defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use, rendering the screen unreadable. In two Quebec class actions, a motion to stay the Royer-Brennan suit for lis pendens was heard by the court on April 21, 2006. The parties await a decision. Apple Canada Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/ca/-- is headquartered in Markham, Ontario and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apple Computer, Inc. Apple products are available at more than 450 Authorized Apple Canada Dealer locations across Canada. APPLE COMPUTER: Calif. Court Sustains Demurrer in Consumer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Santa Clara County Superior Court in California sustained Apple Computer, Inc.'s demurrer on 16 of 17 causes of action in the consumer fraud suit, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc." Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005. The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties. Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song- Beverly Act. Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act -- California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. -- and a claim for false advertising. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2005. Plaintiffs' amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as the selling of used equipment as new, failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and fraud related to the opening of Apple Retail stores. Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition (Section 17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on 16 of 17 causes of action. APPLE COMPUTER: Denies Claims in "Blackwell" PowerBook G4 Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. has denied allegations in a purported class action over its PowerBook G4 portable computers that is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Filed on Feb. 10, 2006, the suit, "Blackwell v. Apple Computer," was brought on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the company's PowerBook G4s. The complaint alleges defects in the memory of the computers. It also alleges that the purported defects extend to other series of the company's portables and states that plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the complaint to include these other series. Plaintiffs assert claims for alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The complaint seeks remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief. The company filed an answer to the complaint on March 15, 2006 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The suit is "Blackwell v. Apple Computer, Case No. 5:06-cv- 00908-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Richard Seeborg. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) C. Donald Amamgbo of Amamgbo & Associates, 1940 Embarcadero, Oakland, CA 94606, Phone: (510) 434-7800; (2) Judith Blackwell of Blackwell & Blackwell, 484 Valle Vista, Oakland, Ca 94610, US, Phone: (510) 835-2848; and (3) Reginald Von Terrell, Esq. of The Terrell Law Group, 223 25th Street, Richmond, CA 94804, Phone: 510/237- 9700, Fax: 510-237-4616, E-mail: REGGIET2@AOL.COM. Representing the defendants are Heather A. Moser, Andrew D. Muhlbach and Penelope A. Preovolos of Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-268-7091, (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7187, Fax: (415) 268-7522, E-mail: hmoser@mofo.com, AMuhlbach@MoFo.com and ppreovolos@mofo.com. APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Begins in "Butzer" Powerbook G4 Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action, "Butzer, et al., v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed the action on Aug. 23, 2005 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the company's PowerBook G4 portable computers. The suit alleges defects in the memory of the computers. It further alleges that this purported defect extends to other series of the company's portables and states that plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the complaint to include these other series. Plaintiffs assert claims for alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Song- Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. The complaint seeks remedies including restitution and/or damages and injunctive relief. The company filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 19, 2005 denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The case is in discovery stage. The suit is "Butzer et al v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05-cv-03414-RMW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte. Representing the plaintiffs is Blake M. Harper of Hulett Harper, LLP, 550 West C Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-338-1133, Fax: 619-338-1139, E-mail: office@hulettharper.com. Representing the company is Penelope A. Preovolos of Morrison & Foerster LLP, 425 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-268-7187, E-mail: ppreovolos@mofo.com. APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Transfer of Ark. PowerBook Suit to Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. filed a motion to transfer the class action over faulty PowerBook G4 portable computers currently pending in the U.S. District Court for District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California. The suit, "Wirges v. Apple Computer Inc.," was filed on Jan. 20, 2006 on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of the company's PowerBook G4s. Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of warranties, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act, strict products liability and unjust enrichment. The company filed an answer to the action on Feb. 28, 2006. It has also filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The suit is "Wirges v. Apple Computer Inc., Case No. 4:06-cv- 00096-JMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas under Judge James M. Moody. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) W. Howard Mowery of Mowery Law Firm, 2801 Richmond Road, Post Office Box 38, Texarkana, TX 75503, US, Phone: 903-823-0101, E-mail: hmowery@cableone.net; (2) Jack Thomas Patterson, II of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, 111 Center Street, Suite 1315 Little Rock, AR 72201, US, Phone: 501-372-3480, E-mail: jpatterson@pattonroberts.com. Representing the defendants is William A. Waddell, Jr. of Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP - Little Rock, Regions Center, 400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000, Little Rock, AR 72201-3493, Phone: (501) 370-1510, E-mail: waddell@fec.net. BAYER CORP: Philadelphia Court Approves Baycol Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark I. Bernstein of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas granted final approval to a national class action settlement reimbursing union health and welfare funds, self- insured employers, and insurers (third-party payors), for losses caused by the withdrawal of Baycol cholesterol medication in August 2001. Under the settlement, class members, who submit a claim form with the necessary documentation, will receive compensation keyed to the volume of their Baycol purchases just before the drug was withdrawn. The settlement allows each class member to choose between two alternative methods to measure their purchase costs to accommodate class members who may not have detailed records of each covered prescription. Settlement notices and claim forms were mailed to approximately 35,000 potential class members, after the court granted preliminary approval to the settlement in March 2006. The court's approval order also provides that defendants will pay fees and expenses for plaintiffs' counsel, over and above the compensation for class members. Class members will have until Sept. 16, 2006, to submit their claims and participate in the settlement. Both Bayer Corp. and Glaxo Smith-Kline jointly marketed the drug. A copy of the Court's Final Approval is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d11 Baycol Third Party Payor Settlement on the Net: http://www.pennsylvaniabaycolthirdpartypayorlitigation.com/ Plaintiffs are represented by Stewart L. Cohen and William D. Marvin, of Cohen, Placitella & Roth, P.C., Suite 1705, Two Penn Center Plaza, Philadelphia, PA 19102-1865, Phone: 1-888-375- 7600; along with attorneys from Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP; Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, and Miller Faucher and Cafferty LLP. CEQUENT ELECTRICAL: Recalls Breakaway Switches for Crash Hazards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cequent Electrical Products, in cooperation with the National Highway Safety Administration, is recalling about 17,534 units of Tekonsha brand breakaway switches. The company said certain Tekonsha brand breakaway switches -- Model 2010 (with various model number suffixes) 2010-23, 2010- ATK, 2010-B-PRIME, 2010-B125, 2010-B125-B, 2010-B125-BG, 2010- NAPA-S, 2010-P, AND 2010-S-BSI -- have electrical switching components that may cause the breakaway devise to fail or to operate improperly. In the case of a separation of the trailer from the towing vehicle, a failure of the breakaway switch may prevent the trailer brakes from activating, possibly resulting in a vehicle crash. Model affected in the recall is TEKONSHA/2010 with Model/Build Years 9999. The breakaway switches were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold both as individual units and as components in breakaway kits by Cequent as original equipment and in the aftermarket for trailer applications. Consumers are advised to call Cequent at 517-767-4142 for replacement of switches, free of charge. DEJA VU: Shreveport, La. Residents Appeal Dismissal of Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action against Deja Vu International are continuing their bid to reverse the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal to deny class status to their suit in September. Recently, the Citizens for Community Values organized a picnic at Cross Lake home in Shreveport, Louisiana to raise funds to continue a suit against the operator of a strip club in the 200 block of Commerce Street, according to The Shreveporttimes.com. A group of Shreveport residents filed the suit in 2002 to remove the club saying it is illegal because it goes against city zoning. In relation, they accused city officials of not moving quickly enough in the development of a public park on Cross Bayou in downtown Shreveport, which they say led to the zoning approval for Deja Vu. A strip club conflicts with the planned park zoning, petitioners said. The suit calls for Deja Vu to be shut down and for taxpayers to get a refund (Class Action Reporter, June 29, 2005). Representing the plaintiffs is John Milkovich of 656 Jordan St. Shreveport, Louisiana (Caddo Parish). Representing the city is Neil Erwin of Jeansonne & Remondet, L.L.C., American Tower, 401 Market Street, Suite 1250, Shreveport, Louisiana 71101 (Caddo Parish), Phone: 318-671-8102, Fax: 318-671-8103. DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Sept. Trial Set for $24M Securities Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Sept. 12, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. for the proposed $24 million settlement in the matter, "The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System et al. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Case No. 2:04-cv-00621-LDW-AKT." On Feb. 12, 2004, lead plaintiffs, filed the securities suit on behalf of themselves and other persons and entities who purchased Symbol Technologies, Inc. common stock between March 2, 2000, and Oct. 17, 2002. In the complaint, lead plaintiffs allege violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, they allege that during the class period, Deloitte & Touche, acting as Symbol's auditor, made materially false statements and/or omissions regarding Symbol's financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 1999, 2000, and 2001. The suit was designated as a "Related Case" with the consolidated class action commenced in March 2002 against Symbol and certain of its officers and directors, captioned, "In re Symbol Technologies Litigation, Master File Docket No. 02-CV- 1383 (LDW)." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Leonard D. Wexler at the Long Island Courthouse, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722 For more details, contact: (1) Jeffrey C. Block of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco, Burt, et al., One Liberty Square, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: (617) 542-8300, Fax: (617) 542-8300, E- mail: jblock@bermanesq.com; and (2) Daniel Lawrence Berger, Victoria Odette Wilheim of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212- 554-1406 and 212-554-1400, Fax: 212-554-1444, E-mail: dan@blbglaw.com and victoria@blbglaw.com. EAST COOPER: Aug. Fairness Hearing Set for Patients' Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Common Pleas for Charleston County will hold a fairness hearing on Aug. 29, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Singletary, et al. v. East Cooper Community Hospital, Inc., et al., Civil Action Nos. 04- CP-10-4211 & 04-CP-10-4212." Plaintiffs Robert A. Singletary, Sr. and R. Allen Singletary, Jr. brought the actions on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons who were patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont Healthcare System. The two actions were consolidated for the purposes of administering the settlement. The suit claims that the hospitals did not provide plaintiffs and other patients with a statutory discount to which they were allegedly entitled under South Carolina Code Section 38-71-120. It was brought on behalf of a class that consists of two sub- classes: -- The Uninsured Class consisting of all persons who were patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006, and were uninsured at the time of treatment; and -- The Insured Class consisting of all persons who were patients of East Cooper Regional Medical Center, Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, and Piedmont Healthcare System from Oct. 7, 2001 to May 22, 2006, and were insured at the time of treatment. The court will hold the hearing to consider the fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement and to consider class counsel's petition for fees and costs at the Chester County Courthouse, 140 Main Street, Chester, South Carolina. Deadline for any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement is on July 31, 2006. Claims form must be submitted on or before Sept. 15, 2006. For more details, contact: (1) Singletary v. E. Cooper Community Hospital, Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 91126, Seattle, WA 98111-9226, Phone: 1-800-280-8427, Web site: http://www.tenetclassaction.com/tes/;and (2) A. Camden Lewis, Esquire of Lewis & Babcock, L.L.P., 1513 Hampton Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803- 771-8000, Fax: 803-733-3534, Web site: http://www.lewisbabcock.com/. EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Discovery Remained Stayed in N.J. Stock Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is stayed in the consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Exide Technologies, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers. In June 2005, the company received notice that two former stockholders, Aviva Partners LLC and Robert Jarman, had separately filed purported class actions against the company and certain of its current and former officers, alleging violations of certain federal securities laws. The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey purportedly on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between Nov. 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005. The complaints allege that the named officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading public statements made during this period by the company and its officers. The complaints did not specify an amount of damages sought. On Aug. 29, 2005, Judge Mary L. Cooper consolidated the Aviva Partners and Jarman cases under, "Aviva Partners v. Exide Technologies, Inc. Case No. 05-3098 (MLC)." On March 24, 2006 Judge Cooper appointed the Alaska Hotel & Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund and Lakeway Capital Management co-Lead Plaintiffs for the putative class of former Exide stockholders and appointed the law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoja Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schatz & Nobel, P.C. as Co-Lead Counsel for the putative class. On May 8, 2006 co-lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint in which they reiterated the claims described above but purported to state a claim on behalf of those who purchased the company's stock between May 5, 2004 and May 17, 2005. Discovery is currently stayed pursuant to the discovery-stay provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, according to the company's June 29, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period March 29, 2006. The suit is "Aviva Partners LLC v. Exide Technologies, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-03098-MLC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under presiding judge, Mary L. Cooper, with referral to Judge John J. Hughes. Representing the plaintiffs is Patrick Louis Rocco of Shalov Stone & Bonner, LLP, 163 Madison Avenue, P.O. Box 1277, Morristown, NJ 07962-1277, Phone: (973) 775-8997, E-mail: procco@lawssb.com. Representing the defendants is Edward T. KOLE of Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Esqs., 90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900 - Box 10, Woodbridge, NJ 07095-0958, Phone: (732) 636-8000, E- mail: ekole@wilentz.com. FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Nixing of Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Faro Technologies, Inc. has until the end of the month to file its response to the amended securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. On Dec. 6, 2005, the first of four essentially identical securities fraud suits were filed against the company and of its certain officers. On April 19, 2006, the four lawsuits were consolidated, and Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. was appointed as the lead plaintiff. On May 16, 2006, Kornitzer filed its consolidated amended class action complaint against the company and the individual defendants. The amended complaint also names Grant Thornton LLP, the company's independent registered public accounting firm, as an additional defendant. In the amended complaint, Kornitzer seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's publicly traded securities between April 15, 2004 and March 15, 2006. On behalf of the alleged class, Kornitzer seeks an unspecified amount of damages, premised on allegations that each defendant made misrepresentations and omissions of material fact during the class period in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Kornitzer suit alleges: -- that the company's reported gross margins and net income were knowingly overstated as a result of manipulation of the company's inventory levels; -- that the company failed to disclose deficiencies associated with the company's implementation and use of its enterprise resource planning system and material requirements planning system; -- made false and misleading statements regarding the company's internal controls; -- failed to disclose the fact that the company was accruing commissions and bonuses which would have a material, adverse effect upon the company's profitability; and -- improperly reported sales and net income based, in part, on sales and new orders obtained in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company's deadline for filing its response to the amended complaint is July 31, 2006. The company intends to file a motion to dismiss. The suit is "Goldberger v. Faro Technologies, Inc. et al, Case No. 6:05-cv-01810-ACC-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida under Judge Anne C. Conway and with referral to Judge David A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) John F. Edgar and John M. Edgar of Edgar Law Firm, LLC, 4520 Main St., Suite 1650, Kansas City, MO 64111, US, Phone: 816/531-0033, Fax: 816/531-3322, E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com and jme@edgarlawfirm.com. (2) Patrick A. Klingman, Karen M. Leser, James E. Miller, James C. Shah, Nathan Zipperian and Scott R. Shepherd of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Phone: 860- 526-1100, 610-891-9880 and 954-943-9191, Fax: 860-526- 1120, 610-891-9883 and 954-943-9173, E-mail: pklingman@sfmslaw.com, kleser@sfmslaw.com, jmiller@sfmslaw.com, jshah@classactioncounsel.com, nzipperian@classactioncounsel.com and sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Richard S. Davis and Robert A. Scher of Foley & Lardner, LLP, Phone: (407) 244-3260 and (212) 682-7474, Fax: (407) 648-1743 and (212) 687-2329, E-mail: rdavis@foley.com; and (ii) Daniel A. Casey and Jeffrey T. Kucera of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2000, Miami, FL 33131-2399, Phone: 305-539-3324 and 305-539-3322, Fax: 305-358-7095, E-mail: dcasey@klng.com and jkucera@kl.com. FIRST AMERICAN: Faces N.H. Suit Over Refinanced Property Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manchester lawyer Edward O'Brien filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against First American Title Insurance Co. on behalf of a Hudson couple, The Nashua Telegraph reports. The suit, which was brought on behalf of Katherine and Richard Kashulines, alleges that the company routinely overcharges New Hampshire customers $150 on refinanced properties. Mr. O'Brien claimed the company charged the Kashulines $375 when they refinanced their home in 2005. In New Hampshire, the company charges a rate of $225 when people are refinancing a loan that's less than 10 years old. The suit is "Kashulines et al v. First American Title Insurance Company, Case No. 1:06-cv-00235-JM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge James R. Muirhead. Representing the plaintiffs is Edward K. O'Brien of O'Brien Law Firm, P.C., One Sundial Avenue, 5th Floor, Manchester, NH 03103, Phone: 672-3800, E-mail: eobrien@star.net. GENERAL MOTORS: High Court Refuses to Review Dex-Cool Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear General Motors Corp.'s appeal on the class certification by Jackson County Circuit Judge Michael Manner of a case involving the Dex-Cool coolant, The Kansas City Star reports. Initially filed April 2003, the suit alleges that General Motors vehicles with the "extended life" coolant known developed rusty sludge in their cooling systems, clogging radiators and heater cores, damaging water pumps and destroying gaskets. The suit stems from the company's use of Dex-Cool, a coolant it first introduced in its vehicles in 1995 and sold in more than 35 million cars and trucks between 1995 and 2004. Customers have complained of problems ranging from small coolant leaks to complete radiator and engine failure (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2006). The suit seeks unspecified damages for breach of warranty under the federal Magnuson-Moss Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. On Jan. 9, 2006, Judge Manner certified the class, which comprises "all consumers who purchased or leased a GM vehicle in Missouri that was factory-equipped with Dex-Cool." The coolant is included as original equipment in General Motor vehicles manufactured since 1995 (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006). On March 6, 2006, the Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District declined to hear the company's appeal of the class certifications, and the company's petition to transfer the matter to the Missouri Supreme Court for further review is pending (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006). The company maintains that the product was an improvement over traditional coolants. It has alerted mechanics though that vehicles operated for 15,000 to 20,000 miles with low coolant levels "may be susceptible to the formation of a rustlike material in the cooling system." In addition to the Missouri case, the company is also facing 14 federal and state lawsuits seeking class action status over a variety of engine problems linked to Dex-Cool. Six of the federal lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, which have about 100 named plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2006). For more details, contact: (1) Richard M. Paul III of Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, PC, Twelve Wyandotte Plaza, 120 West 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64105, (Cass, Clay, Jackson & Platte Cos.), Phone: 816-421-3355, Fax: 816-374-0509, Web site: http://www.stklaw.com;and (2) Norm Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson Woody, 330 West, 47th St., Suite 250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: (800) 714-0360 and (816) 714-7100, Fax: (816) 714-7101, Web site: http://www.sshwlaw.com/. GTECH HOLDINGS: Settles R.I. Lawsuits Over Lottomatica Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- GTECH Holdings Corp. reached a settlement in two class actions filed in Rhode Island Superior Court of Kent County over the merger agreement between the company and Lottomatica S.p.A. On June 2, 2006, the company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement with the plaintiffs in the class actions arising from an agreement to sell the company to Lottomatica. The suits that were settled are: -- "Ralph Sellite, et al. v. GTECH Holdings Corporation, W. Bruce Turner, Robert M. Dewey, Paget L. Alves, Christine M. Cournoyer, James F. McCann, The Rt. Hon. Sir Jeremy Hanley KCMG, Philip R. Lochner, Jr., Anthony Ruys and Burnett W. Donoho," and -- "Claire Partners, et al. v. W. Bruce Turner, Robert M. Dewey, Jr., Paget L. Alves, Christine M. Cournoyer, Burnett W. Donoho, The Rt. Hon. Sir Jeremy Hanley KCMG, Philip R. Lochner, Jr., James F. McCann, Anthony Ruys, GTECH Holdings Corporation, and Lottomatica S.p.A." As consideration for the Stipulation of Settlement, the company made additional disclosures in its definitive proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2006 and agreed to pay plaintiffs' claim for reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $700,000. The settlement, which is subject to court approval and completion of the proposed merger, will result in the dismissal of both lawsuits and releases by the plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the shareholder class they represent of all claims against the company and the individual directors arising out of or relating to the proposed merger. H&R BLOCK: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Suits in Miss., N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. continues to face several purported securities fraud class actions in various federal courts in New York and Missouri, according to the company's June 30, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. Beginning in March 2006, multiple suits were filed against the company, alleging violations of certain securities laws. Two of the suits were subsequently dismissed by the plaintiffs. These actions allege deceptive, material and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's operations. All are seeking unspecified damages and equitable relief. The cases that remain pending are: -- "Nettie v. H&R Block, Inc. and Mark A. Ernst, Case No. 06-0235-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri (filed March 17, 2006); -- "Winters v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 04:06-CV- 00243-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri (filed March 20, 2006); -- "New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-2204-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (filed March 21, 2006); and -- "Kadagian v. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV- 2306-KMK," filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York (filed March 24, 2006). KANSAS: U.S. Files $10T 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. LIBERTY WASTE: Suit Filed Over Pollution Caused by Dumpsite ----------------------------------------------------------- A group of residents and property owners near the Cox Road Dump site in Dayton, Liberty County, Texas has filed a class action against several entities who used the site, as well as the investment firm that sold real properties nearby without disclosing its existence, according to The Baytown Sun. The suit, filed by Donald Maiersonm, attorney for about 350 residents and property owners, alleges negligence, nuisance and trespassing. Several residents living near the dumpsite, also known as Liberty Waste Disposal Company, are worried that contaminants may have migrated to their properties during flooding. They are concerned that the waste has polluted their soil and endangered their health. The site, which was abandoned in 1993, is about 83 acres of exposed industrial waste, according to an investigation by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Cox Road Group has voluntarily offered to clean up the area. LONG ISLAND: N.Y. Utility Regulator Says Firm Exempt from Review ---------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Public Service Commission refused to review Long Island Power Authority's fuel and purchased power surcharge and executive compensation packages, according to the Long Island Business News. The utility regulator denied LIPA's May 3 request citing a lack of jurisdiction over the company's billing practices. It said LIPA is generally exempt from the commission's oversight, and instead monitored by the Public Authorities Control Board and State Comptroller Alan Hevesi. The company is facing a class action filed on behalf of all residential and business customers of LIPA since 2001 seeking to recover monies paid to LIPA as a result of an alleged improper rate increases (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 27, 2006). The plaintiff is a resident of Suffolk County. In March, three businesses were added as plaintiff in the suit. The new plaintiffs include Pindar Vineyards in Peconic, and Doxsee Sea Clam Co. in Point Lookout, according to Newsday.com (Class Action Reporter, March 30, 2006). The lawsuit alleged that LIPA used "fuel-price adjustment" surcharges to increase the effective rate paid for power by Long Island residents and businesses in order to avoid the conditions of the Public Authority Control Board that bar the company from implementing a rate increase of more than 2.5% without the approval of the Public Service Commission. According to Long Island Business News, in 1997, when the Public Authorities Control Board issued a resolution authorizing LIPA to assume LILCO's assets, one of the conditions was that LIPA seek the Public Service Commission approval for any rate increase greater than 2.5 percent over a 12-month period. State legislature did not amend that condition. Yet, LIPA said it was exempt from Public Service Commission review. The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices in violation of New York General Business Law 349. It sought compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The suit is "Carol Patti v. Long Island Power Authority, Index No. 06-3149," filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d23 Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Max W. Berger, Gerald H. Silk and Avi Josefson of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019, Phone: 212- 554-1400; and (2) Michael E. White of Jaspan Schlesinger Hoffman, LLP, 300 Garden City Plaza, Garden City, New York 11530, Phone: 516-746-8000, Web site: http://www.jshllp.com. MARSH SUPERMARKETS: Faces Ind. Suit Over MSH Supermarkets Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. is defendant in a purported shareholder class and derivative action in the Marion Superior Court, Marion County, Indiana over a May 2, 2006 agreement and plan of merger with MSH Supermarkets Holding Corp., an affiliate of Sun Capital Partners Group IV, Inc., a private investment firm. Filed on June 27, 2006, the suit also names as defendants the company's directors, the company's former president and Sun Capital Partners, Inc. The suit is filed by Irene Kasmer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. against: -- Don E. Marsh, -- William L. Marsh, -- David A. Marsh, -- P. Lawrence Butt, -- Charles R. Clark, -- James K. Risk, III, -- Stephen M. Huse, -- J. Michael Blakley, -- K. Clay Smith, -- Catherine A. Langham, -- John J. Heidt, -- Sun Capital Partners, Inc. and -- Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. The complaint, purportedly filed on behalf of both the company and a putative class of its shareholders, alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the company and its shareholders, abused their ability to control and influence the company, grossly mismanaged the company and were unjustly enriched, each of which caused the company and its shareholders to suffer damages. Plaintiff alleges that Sun aided and abetted the foregoing acts and transactions. The complaint seeks: -- a declaration that the lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class action and certification of the plaintiff as a class representative; -- a declaration that the individual defendants have breached and are breaching their fiduciary and other duties to plaintiff and the other members of the putative class of shareholders; -- a declaration that the proposed transaction with MSH Supermarkets is null and void; -- an injunction prohibiting the company and its directors from proceeding with, consummating or closing the proposed transaction with MSH Supermarkets; -- an injunction requiring the individual defendants to explore third-party interest from other potential acquirors and obtain the highest offer to acquire the company; -- an order rescinding and setting aside the proposed transaction with MSH Supermarkets in the event that it is consummated; -- undisclosed compensatory damages and interest; -- an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Although the derivative claims in the lawsuit are brought nominally on behalf of the company, the company expects to incur defense costs and other expenses in connection with the lawsuit. In addition, the company is obligated to indemnify its directors and officers who are named as individual defendants, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Recalls Regulator Prone to Fail at High Temp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, in cooperation with the National Highway Safety Administration, is recalling about 433 units of alternator/generator/regulator. The company said under hard operating conditions on certain passenger vehicles, the engine compartment temperature can increase to a level, which exceeds the design parameters for the alternator to malfunction and it will become damaged. This will create the potential for an engine compartment fire. Model affected in this recall is Mercedes/SLR Mclaren built between 2005 and 2006. Consumers are advised to call Mercedes-Benz at 1-800-367-6372 for installation of a modified control unit and a new alternator for replacement, free of charge. MONSANTO CO: Continues to Face Suit in W.V. Over Dioxin Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Co. remains a defendant in a class action filed by 15 plaintiffs in Putnam County, West Virginia state court over dioxins/furans contamination, according to the company's June 30, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. The suit, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," also names as defendants Pharmacia Corp. and seven others. The company is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but Solutia is not, due to it's pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property clean up costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human contamination and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of defendants tendered their cases to the company for indemnification and defense. The company rejected the tender by Akzo Nobel, but agreed to indemnify and defend the Flexsys defendant group. For more details, contact: (1) W. Stuart Calwell and Alex McLaughlin of The Calwell Practice, P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223, Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240; and (2) James F. Humphreys, J. David Cecil and Thomas G. Wilson of James F. Humphreys & Associates, United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street, East Charleston, WV 25301, Phone: 304-347-5050, Fax: 304-347-5055. MONSANTO CO: June 2007 Trial Set for Ill. ERISA Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2007 trial is slated for the purported class action pending against the Monsanto Co. Pension Plan in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. On June 23, 2004, two former employees of company and Pharmacia Corp. filed the suit against the plan, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The suit specifically claims that the plan violated the age discrimination and benefit accrual rules under ERISA from Jan. 1, 1997 -- when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as Monsanto Co. -- and until the present, and has failed to pay required interest on delayed or deferred lump sum distributions. On July 13, 2004, the company tendered defense of its portion of this suit to Pharmacia pursuant to the terms of the Separation Agreement and demanded that Pharmacia: -- defend the company or pay its costs of defense for Pharmacia's liabilities; and -- indemnify the company for any of Pharmacia's liabilities that it incurred as a result of the lawsuit. Pharmacia has rejected the company's tender. The court stayed the proceedings while plaintiffs exhausted their administrative remedies before the Monsanto Employee Benefits Plan Committee (EBPC). The EBPC denied the plaintiffs' claims, and the litigation resumed. Trial is now set for June 2007, according to the company's June 30, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2006. The suit is "Walker et al. v. Monsanto Company Pension Plan, The et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00436-DRH-CJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge David R. Herndon with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Eric L. Dirks of Stueve, Siegel, et al., Generally Admitted, 330 West 47th Street, Suite #250, Kansas City, MO 64112, Phone: 816-714-7100, Fax: 816-714-7101, E-mail: dirks@sshwlaw.com; and (2) Michael B. Marker of Rex Carr Law Firm, Generally Admitted, 412 Missouri Avenue, East St. Louis, IL 62201-3016, Phone: 618-274-0434, Fax: 618-274-8369, E- mail: mmarker@rexcarr.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Gretchen Dixon, Caroline T. English and Carol C. Flowe of Arent Fox, 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-775-5772 and 202-857- 6000, E-mail: dixon.gretchen@arentfox.com, english.caroline@arentfox.com and flowe.carol@arentfox.com; and (ii) Michael J. Nester of Donovan, Rose, et al., Generally Admitted, 8 East Washington Street, Belleville, IL 62220, Phone: 618-235-2020, E-mail: mnester@ilmoattorneys.com. NIGERIA: PDP Faction Files Suit to Nullify Officers' Election ------------------------------------------------------------- The splinter group of the People's Democratic Party has filed a motion to stop the executive committee led by national PDP Chairman Dr. Ahmadu Ali from preparing for the 2007 presidential election. The PDP National Interim Management Committee filed a motion at the registry of an Abuja High Court wanting to block the Ali-led executive committee from organizing any convention or congress ahead of the 2007 elections and to stop it from receiving any statutory subvention from the Independent National Electoral Commission, according to the Vanguard. The motion is an offshoot of a class action filed at the same court. The lawsuit wants an order restraining the members of the Ali-led PDP leadership from representing the party, alleging their election into power was moot. It alleges violation of the Abuja High Court order of Oct. 10, 2005 in suit number FHC/HC/CV/735/2005 that annulled the congresses and conventions that brought the Ali-led executive of the party into power, according to the report. Defendants in the suit are Dr. Ali, his deputy, the party's secretary and all the other officers who purportedly emerged through the said "convention by affirmation." Plaintiffs are: -- Solomon Lar, the leader of the rival faction; -- Alhaji Ibrahim Safana, Deputy National Chairman, North; -- Chief Shuaibu Oyedokun, Deputy National Chairman, South; and -- Prince Orji Nwafor Orizu, National Secretary. The suit was filed on behalf of the party and NIMC. Plaintiffs had filed two separate affidavits supporting the motion. They claim that Mr. Ali his group contravened section 223 (1) and (2) of the constitution as well as articles 10 (b) and (j) and 18 of the PDP constitution. They are seeking for a declaration that the non-elective convention should be declared null and void. PENTAIR INC: Celebrity Receives $193M Award in M/V Horizon Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A New York federal court jury has awarded Celebrity Cruise Lines, Inc. $193 million in damages in a suit over a 1994 outbreak of Legionnaires' disease on Pentair Inc.'s cruise ship, according to the Cruise Ship Report. According to a Dec. 21, 2005 Class Action Reporter story, Pentair Inc. was last year continuing to work for the resolution of all litigation filed against Essef Corp., which it acquired in August 1999, and certain of Essef's subsidiaries, relating to the Legionnaire's disease infections on the M/V Horizon from December 1993 through July 1994. The company faced 28 separate lawsuits involving 29 primary plaintiffs, a class action, and claims for indemnity by Celebrity Cruise Lines, alleging that Celebrity sustained economic damages due to loss of use of the M/V Horizon while it was dry-docked (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). The claims against the company and its subsidiaries were based upon the allegation that the company designed, manufactured, and marketed two sand swimming pool filters that were installed as a part of the spa system on the Horizon, and allegations that the spa and filters contained Legionnaire's disease bacteria that infected certain passengers on cruises from December 1993 through July 1994. The individual and class claims by passengers were tried and resulted in an adverse jury verdict finding liability on the part of the Essef defendants (70%) and Celebrity and its sister company, Fantasia (together 30%). After exhaustion of post- trial appeals, the company paid all outstanding punitive damage awards of $7.0 million in the Horizon cases, plus interest of approximately $1.6 million in January 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 21, 2005). Personal injury cases have earlier been resolved through either settlement or trial. Celebrity filed an amended complaint seeking attorney fees and costs for prior litigation as well as out-of-pocket losses, lost profits, and loss of business enterprise value. Discovery commenced late in 2004, and was completed in August 2005. Celebrity's claims for damages then exceeded $185 million. Dispositive motions in this matter were filed in August 2005. R-VISION: Recalls Motor Homes Built with Chevrolet Chassis ---------------------------------------------------------- R-Vision, in cooperation with the National Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 1,182 units of Trail-Lite motor homes. Model affected is R-VISION/TRAIL-LITE built in 2000. The company said certain motor homes built on Chevrolet chassis have safety belt buckles that may not latch or unlatch. In the event of a crash, a seat occupant may not be properly restrained, increasing the risk of personal injury or death. Owners are advised to contact R-Vision at 574-268-2111 or Chevrolet at 1-800-630-2438 for inspection of buckles. If the buckles are found to be inoperative, the entire buckle assembly will be replaced. For buckles found to be operative, dealers will only replace the upper buckle cover. SHERNOFF'S SALADS: Listeria Contamination Prompts Salad Recall -------------------------------------------------------------- Shernoff's Salads, Inc. of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is recalling Shernoff's brand Potato Salad because Listeria monocytogenes Poly O, type 1 was discovered in both environmental and product samples. During an inspection, the U.S, Food and Drugs Administration reviewed the firm's environmental testing results and observed a positive result for Listeria in the manufacturing room. Finished product was sampled and analytical results were positive for Listeria. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in babies, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeriosis infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Persons who have consumed this product and experience any of these symptoms should seek the advice of a health care provider. No illnesses have been reported to date. The potato salad was sold in 5-, 10- and 30-lb. plastic containers which were date coded "Use by 6/15/06." The product was distributed to processors in Pennsylvania and New Jersey who redistributed it in smaller containers to delis and restaurants. The labeling on the smaller containers is unknown therefore the company recommends the immediate consumption of potato salad bought from a deli in either Pennsylvania or New Jersey between May 18, 2006 and June 15, 2006. Shernoff's Salads, Inc. was informed that Listeria monocytogenes was found in the manufacturing environment and product as a result of routine testing procedures. Shernoff's voluntarily recalled product from consignees and informed them by telephone of the analytical results. They were urged to destroy any of the product remaining in inventory. For further information on what consumers should do with the product or for any additional information, contact the company at 215-467-7880. UFI FILTERS: Recalls Purolator Filters with Defective Connector --------------------------------------------------------------- UFI Filters, USA, in cooperation with the National Traffic Safety Administration, is recalling about 58,640 units of Purolator Brand filters. The company said certain aftermarket fuel filters sold under the Purolator brand name, P/N F65277, shipped from Jan. 16 through June 2, 2006 have incorrect designs. The quick connectors may not full seat with the tube interface, even though the person making the connection may believe that the quick connector is fully attached. Failure of this connection could lead to fuel spillage and, in the presence of an ignition source, a fire could occur. Owners are advised to contact UFI Filters, USA at 770-331-5535 for replacement of filters, free of charge. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over "Roadside Assistance" Charge -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed by a Michigan man against Verizon Communications Inc. over a "roadside assistance" fee was transferred from Oakland Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court in Detroit on June 26 at Verizon's request, according to The Detroit News. Michael Gellis filed the suit on June 23 after discovering two months ago that he has been charged a $2 monthly fee in his cellular telephone bill for a "roadside assistance," that he said he never sought. According to him, the billing dates back to January 2004. His suit alleges violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The suit is "Gellis v. Verizon Communications, Inc.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Nancy G. Edmunds with referral to Steven D. Pepe. Representing the plaintiff is Peter W. Macuga, II of Macuga & Liddle 975 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48207-3101, Phone: 313-392-0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail: pmacuga@mlclassaction.com. Representing the defendant is Lisa A. Brown of Dykema Gossett, 400 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48243-1668, Phone: 313-568- 6800, Fax: 313-568-6701, E-mail: lbrown@dykema.com. New Securities Fraud Cases ESCALA GROUP: July 10 Deadline Set to File as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, reminds interested parties that they may move the court not later than July 10, 2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit filed on behalf of all persons and institutions who purchased securities of Escala Group, Inc. between September 5, 2003 and May 8, 2006. The complaint charges Escala and certain of the company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among others, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning Escala's business and financial performance caused the Company's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Escala, formerly, Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., operates through various subsidiaries as a global collectibles merchant and auction house network specializing in auctions, merchant/dealer operations and trading in various collectibles and precious metals. The complaint alleges that the company represented throughout the class period that it was achieving record results -- particularly as a result of agreements entered into with its majority shareholder, Afinsa Bienes Tangibles, S.A. -- without disclosing that these results were actually achieved from questionable and potentially illegal activities. Defendants also stated that they had complied with the reporting requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and had voluntarily complied with the reporting requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The complaint alleges that representations Escala made about its financial condition, business prospects, and operations were false and misleading and the individuals in charge of managing the company had a duty to disclose the company's true condition to the investing public. Throughout the class period, Escala suffered a range of problems affecting its bottom line that remained undisclosed to investors. When investors finally learned that Escala's majority shareholder, from whom Escala derived substantial revenue, was engaged in a pyramid scheme, the market reacted negatively. Shares of the company declined approximately 85% in heavy trading volume in the days following the company's disclosures. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting shareholder lawsuits, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy and Michael Goldberg of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. VONAGE HOLDINGS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed a class action against Vonage Holdings Corp. on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock pursuant or traceable to the company's May 23, 2006 initial public offering. This claim is also being brought on behalf of Vonage customers who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through the Vonage Directed Share Program. The action, entitled, "Goldman v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al, Case No. 3:33-av-001, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey." It names as defendants, the company, certain senior officers and members of Vonage's board of directors, as well as underwriter defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Thomas Weisel Partners LLC who served as joint managers of Vonage's IPO. Vonage is a leading provider of broadband telephone services with over 1.6 million subscriber lines as of April 1, 2006. The complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO, defendants failed to disclose that: -- Vonage's technology platform experienced problems carrying telephone data over the networks of certain internet service providers; -- Vonage's voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology did not properly allow facsimile transmissions; -- the Company's management team's problematic history, including the fact that Tyco's ADT Security division took $600 million in charges for accounting improprieties while defendant Michael Snyder was President of the division; and -- with respect to customers that opened brokerage accounts and participated in Vonage's Directed Share Program, such individuals were not adequately informed regarding their obligations to purchase allocated shares, specifically, that they were obligated to purchase allocated shares before they received notice that their conditional offers had been accepted, and were led to believe that the IPO would take place later than May 23, 2006. Interested have no later than August 1, 2006 to move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286), E-mail: jmn@whesq.com, Web site: http://www.whesq.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 2006. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *