/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060725.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 146 Headlines AMCOR LTD: Files Cross Claim Against Visy in Price-Fixing Suit BARCLAYS PLC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Newby" Litigation BERLEX INC: Initiates Nationwide Recall of Ultravist Injection BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Recalled Tires BROKERAGE FIRMS: Former SEC Counsel Testifies in Fraud Inquiry CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Choco Recall CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Latinos Fight Calif. Price Gouging Deal CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Blocks Price Gouging Agreement CHINA TONG: Suit Filed Over Effects of Longdan Xieganwan Herb COLORADO: Garfield Sheriff Denies Allegations of Prisoner Abuses DOMINO'S PIZZA: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suits EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Investors' Attorney Claims Massive Abuses GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Mulls Objections to "Click Fraud" Deal HO'S TRADING: Recalls Supreme Apricot Due to Undeclared Sulfites ILLINOIS: Motion to Drop Deceased Defendant in Bond Suit Filed ITALY: Consumers Welcome Bill Offering Punitive Damages Award LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit LOUISIANA: Ind. RV Makers, Govt. Sued Over Contaminated Trailers MASTERCARD INT'L: Testimonies Heard in Interchange Fees Lawsuit OHIO: Attorney Requests for Release of Traffic Fines in Escrow RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Amended Stock Compliant in Calif. ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Securities Fraud Settlement Faces Opposition SAVE MART: Sued for Asking Phone Data from Credit Card Holders SPRINT NEXTEL: Asks Kans. Court to Junk Stock Recombination Suit UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of N.Y. Antitrust Suit Appealed New Securities Fraud Cases JUNIPER NETWORKS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Calif. NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in N.J. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.J. RAMBUS INC: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif. ZALE CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit ********* AMCOR LTD: Files Cross Claim Against Visy in Price-Fixing Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Packaging company Amcor Ltd., which is facing a purported class action over alleged anti-competitive practices, has filed a cross claim against Visy Industries, according to The Age. The Abbotsford, Australia-based company is facing a CA$300 million class action filed in April in federal court in Sydney on behalf of about 1,700 businesses (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006). Plaintiffs in the suit claim to have been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005. Ben Slade at law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman estimated that businesses incurred damages at between $2 million and $3 million as a result of anti-competitive practices in the industry. According to a previous report by The Sydney Morning Herald, the main industries involved in the action include fruit and vegetable growers, and people in the meat, milk, beer and wine market. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated the matter. Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted immunity by the commission in return for information about the practice. Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/. BARCLAYS PLC: Tex. Court Dismisses Claims in "Newby" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Barclays plc said it received an order from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division regarding the dismissal of claims against it, Barclays Bank plc and Barclays Capital Inc. in the Enron class action, "Newby" litigation. This order, unless successfully challenged by the plaintiffs, ends the Newby litigation for Barclays, according to the company. Barclays didn't give the court's reason for the dismissal of the case. The suit "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al.," was filed Oct. 22, 2001. The complaint alleges, among others, that several companies helped Enron misrepresent, its earnings and revenues in the fourth quarter of 1999. Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Enron Corporation filed for chapter 11 protection on Dec. 2, 2001 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 01-16033) following controversy over accounting procedures, which caused Enron's stock price and credit rating to drop sharply. Judge Gonzalez confirmed the Company's Modified Fifth Amended Plan on July 15, 2004, and numerous appeals followed. The Debtors' confirmed chapter 11 Plan took effect on Nov. 17, 2004. Martin J. Bienenstock, Esq., and Brian S. Rosen, Esq., at Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, represent the Debtors in their restructuring efforts. Luc A. Despins, Esq., Matthew Scott Barr, Esq., and Paul D. Malek, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, represent the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors. BERLEX INC: Initiates Nationwide Recall of Ultravist Injection -------------------------------------------------------------- Berlex, Inc., in cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drugs Agency, initiated a nationwide recall of a single lot (No. 41500A) of its intravenous X-ray contrast agent, Ultravist Injection 370 mgI/mL, 125 mL (iopromide injection) NDC 50419- 246-12, EXP 01/2007, due to the presence of particulate matter in conjunction with crystallization. Berlex said it is undertaking this recall in consideration of the potential for serious safety problems if the product is administered to patients, including thrombosis of blood vessels, thromboembolism, and injury or infarction of end organs such as heart, kidney, and brain. Hospitals, imaging centers and other healthcare facilities are warned against using any of the affected lot number 41500A of Ultravist Injection 370mgI/mL, 125 mL for patient care and are advised to immediately quarantine any product for return. Berlex is working closely with the FDA to communicate and coordinate this recall. Berlex, Inc. is voluntarily recalling this lot after an investigation of two customer complaints of vials that exhibited crystallization. Berlex, Inc. immediately placed remaining inventory of Ultravist 370 mgI/125 mL, lot number 41500A on hold to prevent further distribution of product from this lot. The investigation is ongoing regarding this matter to determine whether any other lots of this product might be affected. As is standard practice and per the Ultravist package insert, all parenteral drug products should be inspected visually for particulate matter and discoloration prior to administration, and should not be used if particulates are observed or marked discoloration has occurred. Berlex will credit accounts for all returned products from lot number 41500A and shipping costs. Berlex is working with Capital Returns, Inc. to facilitate the return process. Healthcare providers, imaging centers, wholesalers or patients with questions may contact the company at 1-866-BERLEX-5 or 1- 866-237-5395. BRIDGESTONE FIRESTONE: Faces Suits in Calif. Over Recalled Tires ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC is a defendant in two class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California over its defective tires made for the Ford Explorer and other sports utility vehicles in the late 1990s. The suits were filed by Linda Featherstone of Northridge and Francis A. O'Brien of Bakersfield, respectively. In 2000, Bridgestone recalled 6.5 million tires from the Wilderness and ATX series, in light of tire separations problems linked to rollover accidents and deaths. Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the new lawsuits said they waited until six years after the recall to file suit, because "enough time had to elapse to record a sufficient number of tread separations." The lawsuits call for a criminal investigation into the tire maker's actions related to tires from its Wilderness, ATX and Firehawk series. BROKERAGE FIRMS: Former SEC Counsel Testifies in Fraud Inquiry -------------------------------------------------------------- Former U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission Senior Counsel Gary Aguirre testified in a June senate hearing in relation to two class actions alleging fraud in securities lending practices by several leading brokers. In June, The Electronic Trading Group, LLC accused brokerage units of: -- Bank of America Corp., -- Bear Stearns Cos., -- Citigroup Inc., -- Merrill Lynch, and others with charging unearned fees, commissions and interest on short sales when the broker-dealers failed to borrow or deliver the stock to back a short position (Class Action Reporter, April 19, 2006). Others defendants in the suit, include: -- Credit Suisse Group, -- Deutsche Bank, -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc., -- Lehman Brothers Inc., -- Morgan Stanley, -- Bank of New York, and -- UBS AG "Defendants collusively condone and engage in these practices to their individual and collective enrichment, routinely alternating among themselves in the roles of prime broker who fails to deliver and third-party broker-dealer who permits the (failure to deliver) to persist," according to the filings. According to Dow Jones, the complaint says that Electronic Trading Group isn't challenging the practice of naked short selling per se, but rather is suing the broker-dealers for anticompetitive actions "by which they have arrogated to themselves illicit and anticompetitive profits at the expense and without the participation of their clients." The lawsuit alleges the broker-dealers charged Electronic Trading Group and other legitimate short sellers for "covering" short positions that the broker-dealers actually didn't cover and then concealing that fact. Electronic Trading Group said in the complaint it was charged improper fees, commissions and interest by the broker-dealers from April 2000 to present. "In effect, plaintiff and other members of the class were charged and paid costs and fees, but did not receive the bargained-for value in return," the lawsuit claims. On a June 28 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the hedge fund relations with independent research firms, Mr. Aguirre said that the SEC's investigation of hedge fund Pequot Capital Management began after 18 reports of suspected insider trading from self regulating organizations, such as the National Association of Securities Dealers or New York Stock Exchange. According to him, his superiors allowed him to subpoena the central target of insider trading cases after interviewing with dozens of witnesses. However, the effort was derailed after he revealed that the primary suspect is John Mack, who was then being recruited as the chief executive of Morgan Stanley. Mr. Mack was later hired as CEO of Morgan Stanley. According to the report, Mr. Aguirre said his "superiors told him Mr. Mack's political connections were so powerful he should not be subpoenaed." Mr. Aguirre was later fired after he persisted in contacting SEC's higher officials. Meanwhile, the Senate Banking Committee has delivered a letter to the Judiciary Committee asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the SEC, according to the report. The SEC voted at a public hearing on July 12 to consider minor changes in its regulation to eliminate or punish failures-to- deliver shares sold short. CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Choco Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cadbury Schweppes PLC, in cooperation with the Food Standards Agency, is recalling seven brands of chocolates after detecting salmonella contamination in products from its plant in Marlbrook, Herefordshire in the United Kingdom in January 2006. The Cadbury Brand chocolates in the recall are: -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Turkish 250 g., -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Caramel 250 g., -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Mint 250 g., -- Cadbury Dairy Milk 8 chunk, -- Cadbury Dairy Milk 1 kg., -- Cadbury Dairy Milk Button Easter Egg 105 g., -- Cadbury Freddo 10p The Cadbury Freddo 10p being recalled is the one where '10p' is printed onto the foil that each product is wrapped in. Some boxes have '10p' printed on the box and not on the individual foil; these are not being recalled. In addition, the Cadbury Dairy Milk Mint 250 g. bar, which has been recalled, is also available, with 33% extra free, printed onto the foil. These are also being recalled. Salmonella can cause sickness and diarrhea and the agency is advising people not to eat any of the affected products listed below. As part of its investigation into salmonella contamination that led to Cadbury Schweppes' recall of some of its chocolates, the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) concluded that: -- the presence of salmonella in ready-to-eat foods such as chocolate is unacceptable at any level; -- end-product testing is not a suitable instrument for guaranteeing the safety of the food and a robust Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point needs to be in place. -- in order to give assurance about the absence of salmonella or any other pathogen in food a prohibitively large amount of product would need to be tested. However, even this would not guarantee absence of the micro-organism; -- Cadbury's risk assessment assumes that a threshold for infection can be estimated from previous outbreak data on levels of micro-organisms in chocolate. Such a threshold is not the same as the minimum infectious dose for salmonella in chocolate; no minimum infectious dose can be defined and infections may occur in consumers exposed to significantly lower levels than that seen in previous outbreaks; -- Cadbury's risk assessment does not address the risk of salmonella in chocolate in a way which the ACMSF would regard as a modern approach to risk assessment; -- based on the information provided, Cadbury appears to have used methods for product testing which the committee considered would underestimate the level and likelihood of salmonella contamination. Sample heterogeneity including clumping of bacteria will influence the Most Probable Number (MPN) estimate and therefore the approach cannot be relied upon in foods such as chocolate. -- in the ACMSF's view, using the MPN approach to assess the risk of small levels of salmonella contamination in a product like chocolate is unreliable; and -- the committee also commented that where contaminated chocolate crumb was used in the manufacture of products other than those recalled, there could also be a cause for concern. However, the committee acknowledged that it was difficult to quantify the risk. However, the Agency and local authorities are continuing to investigate the incident. The food safety requirements of European Commission Regulation 178/2002 require that food shall not be placed on the market if it is considered injurious to health or unfit for human consumption. Cadbury has agreed to take remedial action to address issues identified at the plant, including comprehensive cleaning of the production lines. Cadbury has told the Agency it is now operating a positive release system, with product only being released for onward distribution and use after it has tested negative for salmonella. Cadbury said it will increase its sampling and testing to levels that will provide a higher degree of reassurance that contamination would be picked up. The FSA, local authorities and public health agencies are continuing their investigations into the contamination of Cadbury chocolate products with salmonella. Consumers are advised to return products to: Cadbury Recall, Freepost MID20061, Birmingham B30 2QZ for a voucher. For more details, contact the Cadbury Schweppes helpline number on 0800 818181. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Latinos Fight Calif. Price Gouging Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Catholic Healthcare West's proposed settlement of a California class action over hospital price gouging has triggered protests by Latinos. Security officers at CHW's California Hospital Medical Center in Los Angeles blocked access to the main entrance of the hospital last week as dozens of Latino protesters marched in front of the embattled hospital, accusing CHW of price gouging uninsured patients. CHW's proposed settlement designs a discount program for the uninsured that would exclude anyone who had had or could have qualified for health insurance 24 months prior to when emergency hospital services were rendered. CHW's discount program would also exclude residents who do not live in California, Arizona, and Nevada. "CHW has a ridiculous discount plan for the uninsured that excludes 99 percent of the uninsured," said protest organizer Lourdes Galvez-Galvan, Deputy Director of the Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a national non-profit advocacy group that educates and assists the uninsured. "CHW will continue to price gouge thousands of uninsured patients with their insidiously designed plan." Routinely, hospitals charge the uninsured three or four times more than what a hospital would accept as payment in full from an insurance company. The aggressive practices by hospitals like those owned by CHW impacts Latinos more greatly because one in three Latinos is uninsured. Protesters, who held signs that read, "99% of Uninsureds Excluded" and "CHW is Anti-Catholic," marched in front of the CHW's flagship hospital in Los Angeles for over 20 minutes as cars and trucks honked horns in support. The protest came on the eve of a court hearing to approve the settlement on July 24 in San Francisco. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE: Calif. Court Blocks Price Gouging Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The San Francisco Superior Court denied preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action against Catholic Healthcare West in relation to hospital price gouging. Advocates of the uninsured had attacked the settlement, describing it as being grossly unfair and nothing more than a price gouging protection act. CHW's proposed settlement designed a discount program for the uninsured that would exclude anyone who had had or could have qualified for health insurance 24 months prior to when emergency hospital services were rendered. CHW's discount program originally excluded residents who did not live in 478 specific Zip Codes in California, Arizona, and Nevada. The Zip Code provision was changed in an Amended Settlement Proposal after a public outcry led by the Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a national advocacy group that educates and assists the uninsured. The Consejo believes CHW should charge all uninsured patients, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income, a fair and reasonable price, like a health maintenance organization. Currently, hospitals charge the uninsured four or five times more than what they would accept as payment in full from an insurance company. The Settlement The settlement resolves the plaintiffs' and class members' claims against CHW and its affiliated hospitals (Class Action Reporter, June 15, 2006). As part of the agreement, class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds or deductions from their prior hospital bills pursuant to discounted pricing and collections policies benefiting uninsured patients during the class period. In addition, Catholic Healthcare has agreed to maintain its uninsured pricing and collections policies going forward for at least four years, among other things. The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Adrienne Dancer and Amber T. Howell on behalf of themselves and hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients at Catholic Healthcare hospitals in California, Nevada and Arizona, alleging that Defendant Catholic Healthcare charged uninsured patients excessive and unfair prices for medical treatment and services given at Catholic Healthcare-affiliated hospitals, and engaged in aggressive and unfair collections practices. Defendant denies wrongdoing and liability in the case. Proposed Class The proposed class includes all persons who: -- received hospital services from a Catholic Healthcare West hospital between July 1, 2001 and the date of preliminary settlement approval; -- were uninsured at the time of treatment; and -- earned less than $250,000 in gross annual household income in the calendar year in which they received hospital services. The suit is "Dancer v. Catholic Healthcare West." Counsel for named plaintiffs and class members are Kelly M. Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Sid Backstrom of the Scruggs Law Firm. More information about the settlement can be found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/chw.htm. For more information, contact Lulu Galvez-Galvan of Consejo de Latinos Unidos, Phone: +1-323-401-0503. CHINA TONG: Suit Filed Over Effects of Longdan Xieganwan Herb ------------------------------------------------------------- More than 100 Chinese patients who are suffering ailments in the kidney launched a class action against the maker of the herb Longdan Xieganwan, according to the Press Association. The suit emerged in reports about a 30-year-old Chinese patient who suffered bladder cancer and kidney failure as a result of long-term use of the herb. According to Press Association, the man took Longdan Xieganwan, manufactured by China Tong Ren Tang, to "enhance" his liver for at least five years. Later, a team at the Whittington Hospital in London found that he had a bladder tumor, which was surgically removed. He eventually suffered kidney failure, and was preparing for dialysis last month. Longdan Xieganwan contains a plant ingredient, aristolochic acid, which has been linked to bladder cancer and kidney damage, according to the report. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, previously issued warning about aristolochic acid. COLORADO: Garfield Sheriff Denies Allegations of Prisoner Abuses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario denied all allegations in the lawsuit filed against him and Jail Commander Scott Dawson in U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Glenwood Springs Post Independent reports. According to Mr. Vallario, the allegations were baseless, unjustified and frivolous. He pointed out that they do not abuse and torture people, since certain policies govern them. Mr. Vallario explains that on Jan. 1, 2004, the Sheriff's Office adopted a policy governing the use of force demanding deputies to follow state law in using force against a person, and authorizes use of "intermediate weapons," such as chemical irritants, electronic restraining devices and "other non-lethal weapons as defined by the Sheriff's office and consistent with individual/team training." All uses of force must be documented, and deputies' use of excessive force must be reported. Previously, the ACLU of Colorado filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of prisoners in the Garfield County Jail who were [allegedly] subjected to widespread excessive force by deputies' misuse and abuse of pepperball guns, restraint chairs, Tasers, pepper spray, and electroshock belts (Class Action Reporter, July 21, 2006). The suit alleges that the jail's use of the devices violates widely accepted standards of law enforcement and corrections professionals, as well as the manufacturers' and vendors' training and recommendations for safe and appropriate use. It claims that prisoners shot with pepperballs or drenched with pepper spray are regularly strapped into the restraint chair- sometimes for hours-without being provided any opportunity to decontaminate. The lawsuit seeks a court order stopping jailers' alleged abusive practices. It claims that the jail lacks adequate written policies governing restraint devices, pepper spray, pepper guns and electric shock belts. Mr. Vallario, however, has not seen the case yet. He said that if the case proceeds, it could drag on for a long time and could potentially cost the county hundreds of thousands of dollars. The complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e1b Defendants in the suit are Garfield County Sheriff Lou Vallario and Jail Commander Scott Dawson. Plaintiffs representing the class of current and future prisoners are Clarence Vandehey, William Langley, Samuel Lincoln, and Jared Hogue. The suit is "Vandehey, et al. v. Vallario, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01405-PSF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Phillip S. Figa. Representing the plaintiffs are Taylor Scott Pendergrass and Mark Silverstein of American Civil Liberties Union - Colorado, 400 Corona Street, Denver, CO 80218, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-5482, Fax: 303-777-1773, E-mail: tpendergrass@aclu-co.org and msilver2@att.net. DOMINO'S PIZZA: Continues to Face Calif. Labor Violations Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Domino's Pizza, Inc. remains a defendant in two class actions brought by former employees in California court. The suits are: -- "Vega v. Domino's Pizza," and -- "Jimenez v. Domino's Pizza" The "Vega" case was filed on June 10, 2003 in Orange County Superior Court over allegations that the company failed to provide meal and rest breaks to its employees. The case is in the discovery/deposition stage and no determination with respect to class certification has been made. A former general manager, alleging that the company misclassified the position of general manager, filed the "Jimenez" case on Aug. 19, 2004 also in Orange County Superior Court. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Sept. 17, 2004 and the motion for class certification was heard on June 5, 2006. The company classifies the general manager of a Domino's Pizza store as an exempt employee. The case involves the issue of whether employees and former employees in the general manager position who worked in the company's 60 California stores during specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay and meal and rest periods. The company is awaiting the court's decision on the motion for class certification. The federal suit is "Wilber Jimenez v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-01107-JVS-RC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Matthew Roland Bainer and Scott Edward Cole of Scott Cole and Associates, World Savings Tower, 1970 Broadway, Suite 950, Oakland, CA 94612, US, Phone: 510- 891-9800, E-mail: mrbainer@scalaw.com and scole@scalaw.com; (2) Timothy D. Cohelan, Isam C. Khoury, Kimberly Dawn Neilson and Michael D Singer of Coheland and Khoury, 605 C. Street, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-595-3001, Fax: 619-595-3000, E-mail: kneilson@ck-lawfirm.com and msinger@californiaclassactions.com; and (3) Jose R. Garay of Jose Garay Law Office, 2030 Main St., Ste. 1300, Irvine, CA 92614, Phone: 949-260-9193. Representing the defendants are: (i) Timothy M. Freudenberger, Ursula R. Kubal and Jehan N Jayakumar of Carlton DiSante and Freudenberger, 2600 Michelson Dr., Suite 800, Irvine, CA 92612, Phone: 949- 622-1661, Fax: 949-622-1669; and (ii) Jennifer White-Sperling of Morgan Lewis and Bockius, 300 South Grand Ave., 22nd Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213-612-7205, E-mail: jwhite-sperling@morganlewis.com. EUROPEAN AERONAUTIC: Investors' Attorney Claims Massive Abuses -------------------------------------------------------------- Frederik-Karel Canoy, the French lawyer bringing a class action against the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., said he has a list of 150 EADS and Airbus executives allegedly involved in trading abuses, according to The Times. Mr. Canoy, who heads the Association of Active Shareholders, has confirmed the filing of a class suit in a Haarlem, Netherlands court against EADS over the recent drop in the company's share price (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2006). Shareholders are alleging that due to the company's announcement earlier this month of new delays to the Airbus A380 superjumbo aircraf, together with a profits warning, its market value was down more than a quarter. The delays plunged EADS' shares 26%. It is expected that production hitches would erase US$2.5 billion of its profits over four years (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2006). The suit follows a decision by the French financial regulator to investigate dealings in EADS shares just before the A380 announcement. Press contact for Mr. Canoy: Phone: 06 13 80 22 21, Fax: 01 43 98 23 18, E-mail: frederik-karel.canoy@wanadoo.fr. GOOGLE INC: Ark. Judge Mulls Objections to "Click Fraud" Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- At least 51 objections have been lodged over the $90 million class action settlement between Google, Inc. and advertisers who say they were victims of "click fraud," according to Associated Press. Judge Joe Griffin of the Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas is now weighing objections after giving preliminary approval to the settlement in the case, which alleges that the company improperly charged advertisers for fraudulent Web site clicks, droving up advertising bills. The two-day hearing for the objections began on July 24. Under the $90 million settlement, a third of which will be awarded to lawyers, thousands of advertisers worldwide will have a $60 million fund against which they can file a claim. No one will receive cash. Instead, the advertisers will receive advertising credits for future use with Google. Case Background Initially, Lane's Gifts and Collectibles of Texarkana filed the case against Google. Subsequently, in a suit filed on Feb. 4, 2005 by John C. Goodson and Dallas lawyer Joel Fineberg, other defendants were named, including: -- Yahoo! Inc., -- Overture Services Inc., -- America Online Inc., -- Ask Jeeves Inc., -- Looksmart Ltd., -- Lycos Inc., -- Netscape Communication Corp., -- Buena Vista Internet Group, -- Findwhat.Com Inc., and -- Time Warner Inc., The suit specifically alleged that defendants overcharged thousands of advertisers for bogus sales referrals through the "click fraud" strategy. The scheme involves sending fraudulent clicks to advertisers, effectively increasing their accounts. According to the suit, defendants worked with one another in a conspiracy to create an online environment that harms advertisers. The search engine companies are being blamed for growing Internet pay-per-click advertising market, while failing to disclose they had routinely and systematically overcharged for PPC advertising revenue from their customers. For more details, contact: (1) [Settlement Facilitator] George L. McWilliams of Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, LLP, 2900 St., Michael Drive, Fourth Floor Texarkana, TX 75503, Phone: 903-334-7000, Fax: 903-334-7007, E-mail: gmcwilliams@pattonroberts.com; and (2) [Settlement Facilitator] Daralyn J. Durie of Keker & Van Nest, LLP, 710 Sansome Street San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-391-5400. HO'S TRADING: Recalls Supreme Apricot Due to Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ho's Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York is recalling Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot because it contains undeclared sulfites. The company said people who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life-threatening reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot is packed in a 6 oz., un-coded plastic container. The product was sold nationwide. The New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot, which did not declare sulfites on the label. The recall was initiated after routine sampling. The consumption of 10 mg. or more of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 mg. or more of sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Master Chao Brand Supreme Apricot should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact Alvin Ho at 1-718-622-2288. ILLINOIS: Motion to Drop Deceased Defendant in Bond Suit Filed -------------------------------------------------------------- The attorney of a man who died still facing a class action in Madison County moved on July 3 to dismiss his client as defendant in the suit, according to The Madison St. Clair Record. Attorney Joe McDonnell of Belleville asked Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that Robert Mitchell of Chicago be dismissed from the suit because plaintiffs had not filed a motion to substitute a personal representative for him within the required 90 days. Mr. Mitchell was sued in 2001 as attorney of a Chicago non- profit group that bought nursing homes in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The nursing homes backed municipal bonds that defaulted. Plaintiffs Al Kellerman of Monroe County, Lillard Hedden of Peoria, and Franck Crabtree of Ada, Oklahoma charged fraud against the nonprofit group, brokers, bankers, attorneys, accountants, and contractors. McDonnell said the case had nothing to do with Madison County, according to the report. Judge Stack set an Aug. 23 hearing on the motion. Mr. McDonnell is member of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C. at 12 Wolf Creek Drive, Suite 100 (Swansea), Belleville, Illinois 62226 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-257-7308, Fax: 618-257-7353. ITALY: Consumers Welcome Bill Offering Punitive Damages Award ------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers have approved en-masse the bill on the class action law presented by the government, according to Italy's Agenzia Giornalistica Italia. According to a briefing entitled Class Action Litigation in Europe by international law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Italy has no class action legislation governing the filing of claims for damages or sums of money; however, consumer associations can file claims on behalf of groups of consumers enabling them to obtain judicial orders against corporations that cause injury or damage to consumers. "It's what we've been always asking for," said Federconsumatori President Rosario Trefiletti. "Unlike before, intervention possibilities have been broadened, because they also extend to the telecommunications sector," according to him. Consumer claims "are increasing and courts have recently allowed them against banks that continue to apply compound interest on retail clients' current account overdrafts," Freshfields Bruckhaus stated. The current bill, according to Freshfields Bruckhaus, focused on claims triggered by the retail placement of financial services/products and also provided for the introduction of punitive damages. LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Fla. Consolidated Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Liquidmetal Technologies reached agreements in principle to settle the consolidated securities class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The company and certain of its present and former officers and directors were named as defendants in nine purported class action complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and the Central District of California, Southern Division. The suit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In August 2004, four complaints were consolidated in the Middle District of Florida as, "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:04-CV-919-T-23EAJ." John Lee, Chris Cowley, Dwight Mamanteo, Scott Purcell and Mark Rabold were appointed co-lead plaintiffs, but Mr. Mamanteo later withdrew. In September 2004, the five complaints filed in the Central District of California were transferred to the Middle District of Florida for consolidation with the Primavera Investors action. The lead plaintiffs served their consolidated amended class action complaint on Jan. 12, 2005. The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public offering in May 2002 contained material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the company's historical financial condition and regarding a personal stock transaction by the company's former chief executive officer. The lead plaintiffs further allege that during the proposed class period of May 21, 2002 through May 13, 2004, the defendants engaged in improper revenue recognition with respect to certain of the company's business transactions, failed to maintain adequate internal controls, and knowingly disclosed unrealistic but favorable information about market demand for and commercial viability of the company's products to artificially inflate the value of the company's stock. The amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The company, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint in March 2005. The motion to dismiss was denied in December 2005, and the defendants served their Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the consolidated amended class action complaint on Dec. 16, 2005. The lead plaintiffs motion for class certification was presently due on April 2006, but the company reached agreements in principle to settle the case on that same month. As part of the agreements, the company's directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers will contribute a total of $7.5 million including $475,000 for two derivative actions) to settle all of the actions (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2006). The funds paid to settle the consolidated class action will be principally paid into an escrow account within a specified period of time after the federal court grants preliminary approval to the settlement. The funds will be disbursed to certain purchasers of the company's securities according to a distribution plan to be devised and approved by the federal court. The suit is "Primavera Investors v. Liquidmetal Tech., et al., Case No. 8:04-cv-00919-SDM-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday with referral to Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (2) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com; (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (D.C.), 1100 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 730, Washington, DC, 20036, Phone: 202.822.6762, Fax: 202.828.8528, E- mail: info@lerachlaw.com; (4) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999, Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com; (5) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton, FL) 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400; (6) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; (7) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (8) The Brualdi Law Firm, 29 Broadway - Suite 1515, New York, NY, 10006, Phone: 212.952.0602, Fax: 212.952.0608; (9) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, e-mail: newyork@whafh.com; and (10) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax: 888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Michael L. Chapman and Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight, LLP, 100 N. Tampa St., Suite 4100, P.O. Box 1288, Tampa, FL 33601-1288, Phone: 813/227-8500, Fax: 813/229-0134, E-mail: michael.chapman@hklaw.com and tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and (ii) Tiffani G. Lee, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131- 5441, Phone: 305/374-8500 ext: 7725, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail: tiffani.lee@hklaw.com. LOUISIANA: Ind. RV Makers, Govt. Sued Over Contaminated Trailers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Sean Trundy initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over dangerous levels of formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers provided to Hurricane Katrina victims, the South Bend Tribune reports. The suit alleges that high concentrations of formaldehyde, emitted from products in the Indiana-made trailers, caused "a clear and present danger to the health and well-being" of the people who live in the trailers. Mr. Trundy claimed the trailers caused his clients to experience allergy or flu like symptoms including headaches and stuffed noses. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region, the federal government bought thousands of trailers to house victims of the storm, according to the report. Named defendants in the suit are: -- United States of America, -- Federal Emergency Management Agency, -- Gulf Stream Coach of Nappanee, -- Pilgrim International Inc. of Middlebury, -- KZRV LP of Shipshewana, -- Starcraft RV of Topeka, -- Monaco Coach of Oregon with plants in northern Indiana, -- Fleetwood Enterprises of California with operations south of Fort Wayne The suit seeks a court order that will require the government to fix the problem rather than offer a monetary award. The suit stemmed from tests conducted by the Sierra Club on 31 FEMA trailers and found out that 29 trailers were above the 1 part per million-formaldehyde safety limit recommended by the federal government and the American Lung Association. The suit is "Hillard et al. v. United States of America et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02576-MVL-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon with referral to Judge Karen Wells Roby. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Sean K. Trundy of The Law Office of Sean K. Trundy, LLC, P. O. Box 41343, North Charleston, SC 29423, Phone: 843-747-4424; (2) J. Michael Veron of Bice Palermo & Veron, 723 Kirby St., P. O. Box 2125, Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125, Phone: 337-310-1600, E-mail: mike@bpvlaw.com; (3) Paul A. Dominick of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard & Robinson, LLP, P. O. Box 486, Charleston, SC 29402, Phone: 843-577-9440; (4) J. Rock Palermo, III of Bice & Palermo, 723 Kirby St., P. O. Box 2125, Lake Charles, LA 70602-2125, Phone: 337-310-1600; and (5) Richard L. Tapp, Jr. of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard & Robinson, LLP, P. O. Box 486, Charleston, SC 29402. MASTERCARD INT'L: Testimonies Heard in Interchange Fees Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee heard on July 19 testimonies in a suit filed by merchants against Visa International and MasterCard Inc. over interchange fees collected by the companies for processing credit-card transactions. On Jun. 22, 2005, a purported class action was filed by a group of merchants in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut against MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Services Association and a number of member banks alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and Visa's purported setting of interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition, the complaint alleges MasterCard's and Visa's purported tying and bundling of transaction fees also constitutes a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Since the filing of this complaint, there have been approximately 40 similar complaints filed on behalf of merchants against MasterCard and Visa (and in some cases, certain member banks) in federal courts in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky and Connecticut. Majority of the 40 suits are styled as class actions although six complaints are on behalf of individual plaintiffs. On Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring these cases to Judge Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings. The suits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for coordination of pre-trial proceedings under the caption, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:05- md-01720-JG-CLP." On Apr. 24, 2006, the group of purported class plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint. Taken together, the claims in the first amended class action complaint and in the six complaints brought on behalf of individual merchants are generally brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Specifically, the complaints contain some or all of these claims: -- that MasterCard's and Visa's setting of interchange fees (for both credit and offline debit transactions) violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; -- that MasterCard and Visa have enacted and enforced various rules, including the no surcharge rule and purported anti-steering rules, in violation of Section 1 or 2 of the Sherman Act; -- that MasterCard's and Visa's purported bundling of the acceptance of premium credit cards to standard credit cards constitutes an unlawful tying arrangement; and -- that MasterCard and Visa have unlawfully tied and bundled transaction fees. In addition to the claims brought under federal antitrust law, some of these complaints contain certain state unfair competition law claims based upon the same conduct described above. These interchange-related litigations also seek treble damages in an unspecified amount as well as attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. Several of the complaints allege that the plaintiffs expect that damages will range in the tens of billions of dollars. MasterCard's responses to the first amended class action complaint and the individual merchant complaints were due on Jun. 6, 2006. The court has ordered that new fact discovery may proceed, and such fact discovery is to be completed by Nov. 30, 2007 with expert discovery scheduled to be completed by Jul. 18, 2008. Summary judgment and other pretrial motions are to be completed by Nov. 24, 2008. During the Senate Judiciary hearing, the merchants proposed to Congress that lawmakers pass legislation that would guide a court settlement to break up Visa and MasterCard's dominance of credit transaction processing. According to the report, one issue of contention between the merchants and card companies is the amount of information Visa and Mastercard share with merchants. Plaintiffs in Lakeshore Interiors v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv- 5081JG JO are represented by Darla Jo Boggs and W. Joseph Bruckner at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneappolis, MN 55401, U.S., Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981, E-mail: djboggs@locklaw.com, wjbruckner@locklaw.com. Plaintiffs in civil action NuCity Publications, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. 05-cv-5075 JG-JO are represented by Bonny E. Sweeney at Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, U.S., Phone: 619-231- 1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail: bsweeney@lerachlaw.com. Defendant Fifth Third Bancorp is represented by Patrick F. Fischer at Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL, One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6457, E-mail: pfischer@kmklaw.com. Defendant Capital One Bank is represented by Andrew J. Frackman at O'Melveny & Myers LLP, 7 Times Square, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 212-326-2017, Fax: 212-326-2061, E-mail: afrackman@omm.com. OHIO: Attorney Requests for Release of Traffic Fines in Escrow -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney James Denney, who won a class action against the use of traffic cameras by Girard city, filed a motion seeking the release by the city of speeding fines that is currently held in escrow, The Youngstown Vindicator reports. Trumbull County Common Pleas Judge John M. Stuard ruled in favor of more than 1,500 car owners who argued that use of speed cameras by the city of Girard, Ohio to nab traffic violators was unconstitutional and in violation of due process laws (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2006). With the ruling, Judge Stuard ordered the city to stop using its cameras and to stop collecting fines claimed under its civil ordinance against speeding. The camera, furnished to the city by Traffipax, a Maryland-based firm, was used primarily on U.S. Route 422, for eight hours a day, six days a week. Back in January, Judge Stuard certified a class in the suit that includes anyone who received a ticket from the camera and didn't pay it, who are contesting citations or who have yet to receive one in the mail. He also ordered that all fines collected from citations be put into an interest-bearing escrow account. The ruling against use of the camera did not specify what would be done with the funds being held in escrow. Since then, more than $172,000 in camera-related fines are in escrow, the report said. In his motion, Mr. Denney asked Judge Stuard to order the city to release the money, and pay attorney's fees of 15% for him and his co-counsel. He said the motion also asks that some expenses incurred by the city be taken out of the funds. TraffiPax has until Aug. 5 to appeal the judge's decision that determined the use of the camera to be unconstitutional. For more details, contact James A. Denney, 1631 S. State St., Girard, OH 44420-3370, Phone: (330) 545-4250, Fax: (330) 545- 4255. RAMBUS INC: Stull, Stull Files Amended Stock Compliant in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody filed an amended class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of plaintiffs and a proposed class of purchasers of securities of Rambus, Inc. from Dec. 12, 2001 to July 18, 2006. The amended complaint was filed in order to extend the class period contained in the original complaint to include the period up to the time the company announced that it would restate its financial results going back to 2003 because of its practice of backdating options given to various executives of the company. The amended complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Rambus' improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options conferred on certain executives which made it appear that such options were issued on dates when the market price of Rambus stock was higher than actual market price on the actual grant dates. This improper backdating masked the virtually instant profits the option recipients obtained. Under generally accepted accounting principles, these profits were required to be recognized as an expense in the company's financial statements for the appropriate period, but were not. This backdating of options also violated provisions of the Internal Revenue Code relating to deduction of option payments. Thus, the company's financial statements in Form 10-K filings for the years 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 were materially false and misleading. In addition, the company's Proxy Statements for annual shareholder meetings held in years 2002 to 2005 were materially false and misleading because they contained statements concealing Rambus' practice of backdating stock options. Interested parties may, not later than sixty days from July 19, 2006, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff. The suit is docketed as Case No. C06-04346. For more details, contact Howard T. Longman, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983 or 845-371-4788, E-mail: tsvi@aol.com. ROYAL AHOLD: Md. Securities Fraud Settlement Faces Opposition ------------------------------------------------------------- Drs. W.C.M. Oud has filed a notice of appeal against the final order and judgment of Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, approving Royal Ahold's agreement with the lead plaintiffs to settle the suit, "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities & ERISA Litigation." Previously, Judge Blake rejected Mr. Oud's objection. Both Ahold and the Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado (COPERA) believe his appeal has no merit and intend to oppose it. Case Background The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years. Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia. It alleged that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate financial picture of the Company to stockholders and inflating the price of its common stock. It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24, 2003 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005). The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland entered a final order and judgment approving Royal Ahold's settlement of the suit for US$1.1 billion (EUR937 million) in June. The settlement covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters. It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities. The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 30, 2005). The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying shares. The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to court documents. Claims are to be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006). The Company though denies any wrongdoing in the settlement. The suit is "In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:03-md-01539-CCB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland under Judge Catherine C. Blake. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Andrew J. Entwistle of Entwistle and Cappucci, 299 Park Ave., New York, NY 1171, Phone: 12128947200, Fax: 12128947251, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com; (2) Daniel L. Berger of Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossmann, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 12125541406, Fax: 12125541444, E-mail: dan@blbglaw.com; (3) Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament and Rubenstein PC, 191 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 13125212725, Fax: 13125212100, E-mail: ccrowley@muchshelist.com; (4) Seth D. Goldberg of Seth D. Goldberg PC, 5335 Wisconsin Ave. NW Ste. 440, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: 12022430594, Fax: 12026865517; (5) Robert Ira Harwood of Wechsler Harwood, LLP, 488 Madison Ave., Suite 801, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 12129357400, Fax: 12127533630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com; (6) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10016, Phone: 12125454600, Fax: 12125454653; (7) Andrew J. Levander of Dechert, LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plz., New York, NY 10112, Phone: 12126983500, Fax: 12126983599, E-mail: andrew.levander@dechert.com; (8) Lester Levy of Wolf, Popper, Ross, Wolf & Jones, 845 Third Ave., New York, NY 10022 (9) Christopher Lometti and Frank R Schirripa of Schoengold and Sporn, PC, 19 Fulton St., Ste. 406, New York, NY 10038, Phone: 12129640046, Fax: 12122678137; (10) Charles J. Piven of Charles J. Piven, PA, The World Trade Center, 401 E. Pratt St., Ste. 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 14103320030, Fax: 14106851300, E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com; (11) Jonathan M. Plasse of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff and Sucharow, LLP, 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017-5563, Phone: 12129070863, Fax: 12128837063; (12) Ronald B. Rubin of Rubin and Rubin Chtd, One Church St., Ste. 301, Rockville, MD 20850, Phone: 13016109700, Fax: 13016109716, E-mail: rrubin@rrubin.com; (13) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd., Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 16313677100, Fax: 16313671173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com; (14) Robert S. Schachter of Zwerling Schachter and Zwerling, LLP, 41 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10010, Phone: 12122233900, Fax: 12123715969, E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com; (15) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad and Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., 49th Fl., New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone: 12125945300, Fax: 12128681229, E- mail: sschulman@milbergweiss.com; (16) Steven Donald Silverman of Silverman and Thompson, 201 N. Charles St., 26th Fl., Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 14103852225, Fax: 14105472432, E-mail: ssilverman@mdattorney.com; (17) Ralph M. Stone of Shalov Stone and Bonner, LLP, 485 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10018, Phone: 12122394340; and (18) Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein Hausfeld and Toll, PLLC, 1100 New York Ave., NW West Tower, Ste. 500, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 12024084600, Fax: 12024084699, E-mail: stoll@cmht.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) John Arak Freedman of Arnold and Porter, 555 12th St., NW Washington, DC 20004-1202, Phone: 12029425000, Fax: 12029425999, E-mail: john_freedman@aporter.com; (2) Gerard J Gaeng of Rosenberg Martin Funk and Greenberg, LLP, 25 S. Charles St., Ste. 2115, Baltimore, MD 21201- 3305, Phone: 14107276600, Fax: 14107271115, E-mail: ggaeng@rosenbergmartin.com; (3) Glenn M. Kurtz of White and Case, LLP, 1155 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036, Phone: 12128198200, Fax: 12123548113, E-mail: gkurtz@whitecase.com; (4) Richard A. McGuirk and Carolyn G. Nussbaum of Nixon Peabody, LLP, Clinton Sq., P.O. Box 31051, Rochester, NY 14603, Phone: 15852631000, Fax: 15852631600, E-mail: rmcguirk@nixonpeabody.com and cnussbaum@nixonpeabody.com; (5) Charles P. Scheeler of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP, 6225 Smith Ave., Baltimore, MD 21209-3600, Phone: 14105803000, Fax: 14105803001, E-mail: charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com; and (6) Alexandre de Gramont of Crowell and Moring, LLP, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595, Phone: 12026242500, Fax: 12026285116, E-mail: adegramont@crowell.com. SAVE MART: Sued for Asking Phone Data from Credit Card Holders -------------------------------------------------------------- Attorney James Lindsay of Lindsay & Stonebarger filed a class action against supermarket Save Mart Supermarkets over alleged violation of California law by requiring customers to provide phone numbers on credit card payment slips, the Modesto Bee reports. According to Mr. Lindsay, 96 Save Mart-owned stores used such slips before a plaintiff, who he did not identify, filed the lawsuit. The company then stopped requesting phone numbers on its slips, but has not yet been willing to settle the lawsuit. California law prohibits merchants from requesting and recording personal identification information from customers, or using forms with blank spaces for that information, in credit card transactions, according to Mr. Lindsay (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2006). The law stipulates that addresses and phone numbers fall under the definition of personal information. It calls for a $250 fine for the first penalty and $1,000 fines for subsequent penalties, Mr. Lindsay said. Miles Bristow, a spokesman for the California Department of Consumer Affairs said the law is intended to prevent identity theft. Mr. Lindsay said there is no indication the information collected by Save Mart has been used for identity theft. For more details, contact James M. Lindsay of Lindsay & Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020, Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916) 446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com. SPRINT NEXTEL: Asks Kans. Court to Junk Stock Recombination Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp. has asked a state court in a motion for judgment on pleadings to dismiss a suit filed against it over the recombination of its FON and PCS tracking stocks, according to the Kansas City Star. In March 2004, eight purported class actions were filed in Johnson County District Court in Kansas over the recombination of Sprint's FON and PCS tracking stocks. Sprint split its common stock into the two tracking stocks in November 1998 when FON Group was designed to track its wireline business, and PCS Group was designed to track its wireless business. Later, Sprint recombined them saying it was changing its focus to sell all of its services on a bundled basis. Seven of the lawsuits were consolidated in the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. The eighth, pending in New York, was voluntarily stayed (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 12, 2005). The consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of fiduciary duty in the recombination. The lawsuit seeks to rescind the recombination and is asking for monetary damages. The suit also alleges that company officers and directors, including Messrs. Esrey and LeMay, had an incentive to favor FON stock over PCS stock because they owned far more FON shares than PCS shares. It contends as well that both men had an additional incentive to favor FON shares, since they were threatened with personal financial ruin at the time after the IRS challenged their participation in tax shelters it deemed questionable. The company has insisted that the recombination was necessary since it was changing its focus to sell all of its services on a bundled basis. Previously, the company was organized in divisions, selling wireless, local, business and long-distance services separately. According to the company, merging the tracking stocks eliminated accounting and other issues that made it more difficult for it to jointly market its services. In early 2005, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint In the recent motion to dismiss, Sprint argue that the claims asserted in the lawsuit are barred by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, which prohibits class actions based on state law claims alleging the manipulation of stock. The act, it said, requires the securities class actions to be based exclusively on federal law. The case is scheduled to go to trial in April 2007. Meanwhile, Judge Kevin P. Moriarty has recently found that plaintiffs attorneys in the suit violated a protective order covering documents in the case by providing The Kansas City Star with depositions taken in the case. One of the plaintiffs' attorney is Jay Eisenhofer at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Chase Manhattan Centre, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (New Castle Co.), Phone: 302- 622-7000, Fax: 302-622-7100. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Dismissal of N.Y. Antitrust Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of the consolidated class action against United Technologies Corp., Otis Elevator Co. and other elevator and escalator manufacturers. The suit alleges a worldwide agreement among elevator and escalator manufacturers to fix prices in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The lawsuit did not specify the amount of damages claimed. On June 6, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss without leave to re-plead. On June 30, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The suit is "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:04- cv-01178-TPG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Thomas P. Griesa. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com, isquith@whafh.com; (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone: 619-231-7423; and (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E- mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com and avozzolo@faruqilaw.com. Representing the defendants is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006, Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail: maofiling@cgsh.com. New Securities Fraud Cases JUNIPER NETWORKS: Stull, Stull Files Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Juniper Networks, Inc. stock during a class period of Sept. 1, 2003 and May 22, 2006. The complaint charges Juniper Networks and its top executive officers violated the federal securities laws by failing to account properly for stock options made to Juniper Networks employees. The complaint charges that Juniper Networks improperly expensed stock options, thereby falsely inflating the company's reported financial performance. Interested parties may request that the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than Sept. 15, 2006. For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, Phone: 1-800-337-4983, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com, Web site: http://www.ssbny.com. NPS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division on behalf of all securities purchasers of NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NPSP) from Aug. 10, 2005 to May 2, 2006. The Complaint charges NPS and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. 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 PaTH study, released on August 10, 2005 and touted by the company, did not show that PREOS was superior to Fosamax in treating postmenopausal osteoporotic women; -- that problems existed regarding the risks associated with PREOS; -- that patients taking PREOS were at risk of developing hypercalcemia; -- that the injection device used to deliver PREOS to the patient was unreliable; -- that such issues, as described above, would result in a significant delay in PREOS' approval because further clinical trials would be needed to gain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval; and -- that, as a result of the above, the company's statements concerning PREOS and its sales figures were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 2, 2006, after the market closed, NPS announced the results of the company's meeting with officials from the FDA regarding the FDA's March 2006 approvable letter concerning the company's parathyroid hormone PREOS. NPS reported that the FDA had proposed that NPS generate additional clinical data in the form of a new clinical trial in order to address the hypercalcemia issue raised in the March approvable letter. On this news, shares of NPS plummeted $3.22, or 39.2 percent, to close, on May 3, 2006, at $4.99 per share, on heavy trading volume. Interested parties may no later than Sept. 11, 2006, move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more detaisl, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. and Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com, Web site: http://www.sbclasslaw.com. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Ann D. White Files Securities Suit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ann D. White Law Offices filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. between April 29, 2006 and July 5, 2006. Defendants include Par and certain of its top officers and directors. The action alleges violations of the federal securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants reported financial results that were materially inflated as a result of accounting errors. These errors included the understatement of accounts and as a result, it overpaid certain of its business partners with whom the company had various profit sharing arrangements. Additionally, Par has announced that it will write-off approximately $15 million in inventory due to flawed physical inventory procedures. As a result of its internal review, Par has announced it will be restating its previously reported financial results for the fiscal years 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. On this news, on July 6, 2006, shares of Par fell $4.78 per share, losing approximately 26% of its value to close at $13.47 per share. All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with the Court by Sept. 15, 2006. For more details, contact Ann White, Mandy Roth or Ronald Lopit of Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1-866-389-0274, E- mail: awhite@awhitelaw.com. PAR PHARMACEUTICAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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 New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements concerning the company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants reported financial results that were materially inflated as a result of accounting errors. These errors included the understatement of accounts receivable reserves. Additionally, the company has admitted that its revenues were overstated and as a result, it has overpaid certain of its business partners with whom the company had various profit sharing arrangements. Lastly, Par has announced that it will write-off approximately $15 million in inventory due to flawed physical inventory procedures. As a result of its internal review, Par has decided to restate its previously reported financial results for the fiscal years 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. On this news, shares of Par fell $4.78 to $13.47 per share on July 6, 2006. Interested parties may no later than Sept. 15, 2006, request the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff of the class. For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail: sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net. RAMBUS INC: Paskowitz & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Rambus Inc. (RMBS) from Jan. 14, 2004 through July 18, 2006. Defendants include Rambus and certain of its top officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Rambus and certain officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Rambus' improper and undisclosed practice of backdating options given to Rambus executives. Such a scheme improperly provides the executive with an unearned benefit -- instead of the option being priced at the market price of the shares, it is priced at a lower price. The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here resulted in the overstatement of Rambus' earning between 2003 and 2005. Under accounting rules, backdating the option is deemed the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for as an expense, but Rambus did not properly account for the options granted. As a result, Rambus has been forced to restate its previously issued financial statements for the fiscal years 2003-2005. In addition, the company has stated that the Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q filed with respect to each of these fiscal years, and the financial statements included in the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the first quarter of fiscal year 2006, should no longer be relied upon, and will be restated. All motions for appointment as Lead Plaintiff must be filed with the Court by Sept. 18, 2006. For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz of Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: (800) 705-9529, E-mail: lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com. ZALE CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces Filing of N.Y. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C announces that a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006. The lawsuit was filed against Zale and Mary L. Forte, Mark R. Lenz, Cynthia T. Gordon and Sue E. Gove. The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of material misrepresentations to the market, which had the impact of artificially inflating the market price of Zale securities. Unbeknownst to investors, the representations in the company's reported results of operations materially overstated Zale's net cash flows and free operating cash flows, which are important measures of the Company's cash generating abilities. In addition, the company improperly accounted for extended service agreements, leases and accrued payroll. On April 10, 2006, before the open of regular trading, Zale announced that the SEC had initiated a broad investigation into many aspects of the company's accounting, operations and disclosure practices, including Zale's accounting for extended service agreements, leases and accrued payroll, executive compensation and severance, earnings guidance, stock trading and the timing of vendor payments. In reaction to this announcement, the price of Zale stock fell from $27.80 per share on April 7, 2006 to $25.16 per share on April 10, 2006, the following trading day for a one-day loss of 11.5% on unusually heavy volume. Then on Friday, May 5, 2006, after the market closed, Zale announced that it had replaced its Chief Financial Officer, Defendant Lenz, after discovering that the Company improperly inflated its reported net cash flows and free cash flows. For more details, contact The Law Firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Brian Penny, Esq., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk- law.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 * * *