/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060727.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, July 27, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 148 Headlines AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks Answers to Undisclosed Death of Plaintiff AT&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Wiretapping Suit Filed by Chicagoans CANADA: Confirms $1B Payout to Uncompensated Hepatitis C Victims CANADA: Claims Filing to Settle Suit Against AISH Continuing FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Lawsuit Over Cremation Fees FREDDIE MAC: Settles N.Y. Stock, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M GOOGLE INC: Court Report Analyzes "Click Fraud" Defense Efforts HOLD EVERYTHING: Recalls Furniture with Detachable Lock Covers INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Royal Philips Deal LAFAYETTE PHILIPPINES: Faces Suit Over Albay Mining Operations MASSEY ENERGY: Public Hearing Held on Plans to Build Coal Silo METRORAIL: South African High Court Allows Consolidated Trial NEW YORK: World Trade Center "First Responder" Claims Increasing PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.J., N.Y. PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates Sue City Over Alleged Overcrowding in Jail PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Files Overtime, Benefits Lawsuit SONY MUSIC: Dr. Elmo Joins N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties STYLE TRONICS: Recalls Hair Dryers Lacking Electric Shock Guard SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit TRAVEL COMPANIES: Orange City of Texas Sues Online Travel Firms UNITED STATES: Del. Supreme Court Inquires into Milberg Lawsuits UNITED STATES: Ind. Judge Orders Milberg to Disclose Finances UNITED STATES: Chaplains File Discrimination Suit in N.D. Fla. WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Workers' Suit Over Union Dues New Securities Fraud Cases IONATRON INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ariz. JOS A BANK: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Md. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Filing of Suit RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif. VONAGE HOLDINGS Glancy Binkow Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit ZALE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of N.Y. Securities Suit ********* AMERICAN FAMILY: Seeks Answers to Undisclosed Death of Plaintiff ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Family Insurance is asking Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to overrule objections to questions it posed about the knowledge of the plaintiff's attorney regarding the previously undisclosed death of his client, The Madison St. Clair Record reports. The company discovered several months ago that Manuel Hernandez of Granite City, whom the judge certified last year as a representative in a class action filed against it, has already been dead since January 2004. The company's attorney attached a copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing in March. Attorney Jeffrey Millar of the Lakin Law firm confirmed the death of Mr. Hernandez, but has not answered questions that American Family Insurance submitted about his knowledge of it. Mr. Millar objected to the questions, arguing to Judge Stack that American Family Insurance should submit them not to Mr. Hernandez's attorney but to Mr. Hernandez himself, according to the report. Mr. Hernandez filed a suit against American Family Insurance in 2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident. He was certified in 2002 by Judge Stack as class representative of everyone who received improper payouts in the 17 states where American Family Insurance did business back to 1990. After the company filed motions to decertify him, he was certified as plaintiffs' representative in 12 states only in July 2005. Mr. Millar intends to keep the suit going with a plaintiff from Ohio. He moved on May 19 to amend the complaint for the fifth time in order to substitute Helen Nemeth as class representative. Ms. Nemeth's claim arose from an auto accident in 2004, according to Mr. Millar. Judge Stack has not yet set hearings on Mr. Millar's motions for a new plaintiff, a new complaint and a management conference, or on defense motions to stay and dismiss. Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street, Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721; 800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com. Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193. AT&T CORP: Judge Dismisses Wiretapping Suit Filed by Chicagoans --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Illinois granted a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss a suit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois on behalf of Chicago author Studs Terkel and other prominent Chicagoans challenging the actions of telephone giant AT&T Corp. in divulging the telephone records of its customers to the federal government without lawful authorization. The court agreed with the government's argument that the need to protect "state secrets" necessitated dismissing the lawsuit. The district court said "requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government's intelligence activities." The judge also said the reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over, according to Associated Press. According to him, Mr. Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit had not shown that their records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue. Mr. Terkel and prominent leaders in the medical, legal, political and faith communities filed a the suit in May claiming that AT&T violated their privacy by secretly sharing the telephone records of millions of Americans with the National Security Agency. The secret program was revealed in a May 11, 2006 article in USA Today. The prominent Chicago area professionals who filed the lawsuit noted their special concerns with the government's gathering of the phone records of Americans. In addition to Mr. Terkel, the other plaintiffs in the case filed in federal district court in Chicago on May 22 included: -- Barbara Flynn Currie, Majority Leader of the Illinois House of Representatives; -- Rabbi Gary Gerson of Oak Park Temple; -- Professor Diane Geraghty, Director of the Civitas ChildLaw Center at Loyola University School of Law, Chicago; -- James Montgomery, former Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago; and -- Dr. Quinten Young, a physician and advocate for health care reform. The group of plaintiffs contends that AT&T violated their individual right to engage in telephone conversations without government monitoring under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That law, according to the complaint, prohibits any entity providing "an electronic communication service" from divulging the records of customers to governmental agencies. Without consent of customers or other lawful certification authorized by a court order, according to published reports, the National Security Agency sought the records of tens of millions of telephone customers in the U.S. The national ACLU is co-counsel in the lawsuit. Chicago attorneys William Hooks of the Hooks Law Offices and Marc Beem and Zachary Freeman of the law firm Miller, Shakman & Beem are assisting the ACLU of Illinois in the case. For more information contact Edwin C. Yohnka of American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, Phone: 312-201-9740, ext. 305; Pager: 312-851-2832; Mobile: 847-687-1129; E-mail: eyohnka@aclu- il.org. The suit is "Schwarz et al. v. AT&T Corp. et al., Case No. 1:06- cv-02680" filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Representing the plaintiffs is Steven E. Schwarz, 2461 W. Foster Avenue, #1W Chicago, IL 60629, Phone: (773) 837-6134. CANADA: Confirms $1B Payout to Uncompensated Hepatitis C Victims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Canada is granting approximately $1 billion in compensation to about 5,500 "forgotten victims" of the country's contaminated blood supply. Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the details of the payout to hepatitis C victims at a news conference in Cambridge, Ontario on July 25, according to CanWest News Service. In April 1998, the Ontario Hemophilia Plaintiffs commenced Action No. 98-CV-146405 in the Ontario Court (General Division), at Toronto, against the Canadian Red Cross Society (CRCS) and Canada over the spread of hepatitis C through the government's blood system. In May 1998, the British Columbia Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced Action No. A981187 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the CRCS and Canada. In the same month, the Quebec Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced Action No. 500-06-000068-987 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec for the District of Montreal against the CRCS, Canada and Quebec. In 1998, the government granted $1.1 billion payout to hepatitis C victims between 1986 and 1990. It then limited the compensation, saying there was no reliable test in place before 1986 to screen out potentially deadly virus. On March 9, 2000, the courts appointed Crawford Adjusters Canada -- http://www.hepc8690.com/-- to act as Administrator of the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement. In recent years, evidence emerged that Canada could have conducted testing earlier. On Nov. 22, 2004, the Federal Minister of Health announced Canada's intention to "enter into discussions on options for financial compensation to people who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system before Jan. 1, 1986 and after July 1, 1990." In April 2005, the government decided to extend financial help to victims who became ill before 1986 and after 1990. CANADA: Claims Filing to Settle Suit Against AISH Continuing ------------------------------------------------------------ Alberta has so far paid out $1.7 million to settle a class action filed against the province over allegations its system of arbitrarily docking social services clients who were claiming overpayments was unfair. City attorney Philip Tinkler said that 415 of the 2,662 claims filed have been paid out. About $2.66 million has been recommended to be paid out to claimants, according to Alberta Human Resources spokesman Gwen Vanderdeen-Paschke. On Sept. 21, 2004, Curtis Roth and Donald Fifield filed a proposed class action in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta against the government of Alberta on their own behalf and as representatives on behalf of all members of the class. The lawsuit alleges that the government wrongfully withheld benefits that the Overpayment Recovery Class members were entitled to receive under Alberta's Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Act, the Social Development Act and the Widows' Pension Act, and in the manner that it recovered overpayments from them. The lawsuit further alleges that the Government wrongfully withheld benefits from the Underpayment Class members under a policy that limited the correction of underpayments identified in the administration of their benefits to six months. In December an agreement was reached awarding $5,000 to each plaintiff as compensation for initiating the lawsuit. The classes are: -- the Overpayment Recovery Class: persons residents in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada whom the government of Alberta: * required between Dec. 1, 1979 and May 1, 1983 to repay income support overpayments exceeding a total of $500; or * between May 1, 1983 and April 29, 2004 to repay income support overpayments exceeding a total of $1,000, in a manner other than that provided in an Income Support Repayment Agreement of Income Support Recovery Agreement or a court order; and -- Underpayment Class: persons residents in Alberta and elsewhere in Canada who, between Dec. 1, 1979 an March 1, 2005, were found to have been underpaid the income support to which they were entitled for longer than six months and those retroactive correction payment was limited to only six months' time. The settlement entitles Overpayment Recovery Class members to $2,323 for recipients under the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Act, $1,105 for recipients under the Social Development Act, and $698 for recipients under the Widows' Pension Act. Deadline for filing a claim is Jan. 11, 2007. The settlement was agreed without admission of fault or liability by the government. The Crawford Class Action Services has been designated as claims administrator (http://www.incomesupportsettlement.ca/) Representing the plaintiffs is Philip Tinkler of Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP, 2900 Manulife Place, 10180 - 101 St. Edmonto AB T5J3V5, Fax: (780) 427-1230. FLORIDA: Medical Examiners Face Lawsuit Over Cremation Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Medical Examiners Commission and 15 of the state's 23 district medical examiners face a class action in Leon County civil court over allegations that they illegally charge a fee to approve a cremation or a burial at sea, The Tallahassee Democrat reports. Margaret Watts of Watts Funeral Services Inc. and Southern Crematory, Inc., filed the suit on the basis of an attorney general's opinion in 2003 that concluded the fees were "unauthorized and improper." That opinion also stated that medical examiners do not have the statutory or constitutional authority to charge a fee for approval for such a request. The class action, filed by attorney Chad Roberts, alleges that the medical examiners, who were appointed by the governor, charge a fee from $10 to $50 around the state for cremation authorizations. It does not allege any mishandling of the funds (Class Action Reporter, July 20, 2006). Under Florida state law, when a person dies, the family is required to go to their county's medical examiner to get permit for a cremation. Mr. Roberts explains that the authorization is part of the taxpayer's payments to the county government. But for the past few years, according to Mr. Roberts, medical examiners have charged a fee for that permit directly from funeral directors and crematoriums. In his suit, Mr. Roberts contends that the authorizations were already paid for and thus the medical examiner's office is improperly charging for it again. Eight of the 23 medical examiner district offices are not in the lawsuit, since they do not charge those contested fees. For more details, contact Chad S. Roberts of Spohrer, Wilner, Maxwell & Matthews, P.A., 701 West Adams Street, Suite 2, Jacksonville, Florida 32204, (Duval Co.), Phone: 904-354-8310, Fax: 904-358-6889, Web site: http://www.swmmlaw.com. FREDDIE MAC: Settles N.Y. Stock, Derivative Lawsuits for $410M -------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro said U.S. mortgages buyer Freddie Mac will pay $410 million to settle a shareholder lawsuit, affirming an agreement he made in April, Reuters reports. In a statement announcing the preliminary settlement, the attorney general said that payments will be made to investors who purchased Freddie Mac shares between July 15, 1999 and Nov. 20, 2003, and the two Ohio pension funds, the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio and the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, both of which initiated the lawsuit. The suit was filed in 2003 when an internal probe found executives at the company had manipulated accounting rules and caused a $5 billion restatement of earnings. In April 2006, Freddie Mac and Atty. Gen. Petro announced an agreement in principal to settle the case. The cases, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, include a class action and two shareholder derivative suits. The class action is "Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, et al. v. Freddie Mac, et al." It was filed against the company and certain former executive officers. The shareholder derivative lawsuits were styled, "Maureen Henry, et al. v. Brendsel, et al.," and "Esther Sadowsky Testamentary Trust v. Brendsel, et al." Both were filed on behalf of the company against certain former executive officers and current and former members of the company's board of directors. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the two Ohio pension funds, negotiation and execution of final documentation, and preliminary and final court approval. It does not resolve other legal proceedings related to the restatement (Class Action Reporter, April 24, 2006). Final approval of the settlement is set Oct. 26, 2006, according to Atty. Gen. Petro. For more details, contact: (1) Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, State Office Tower, 30 E. Broad Street, 17th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215-3428, Phone: (614) 466-4320; (2) Michael R. Barrett of Barrett & Weber, L.P.A., 105 E. Fourth Street, Suite 500, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: (513) 721-2120; (3) Daniel Lawrence Berger of Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 554-1400; and (4) Joseph J. Braun of Strauss & Troy, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: (513) 621-2120. GOOGLE INC: Court Report Analyzes "Click Fraud" Defense Efforts --------------------------------------------------------------- An independent report filed with Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas indicated that Google, Inc.'s efforts to fight click fraud is performing reasonably well, The South China Morning Post reports. The 47-page analysis of Google's fraud-fighting defenses was complied by Alexander Tuzhilin, an information systems professor at New York University. The report is part of a proposed $90 million class-action settlement that will be considered for final approval in a two-day hearing schedule that began July 24, 2006. The hearing will tackle 51 objections made against the deal between Google and advertisers who claim they were victims of "click fraud." Judge Joe Griffin of the Miller County Circuit Court recently granted preliminary approval to the settlement. The case specifically alleges that the company improperly charged advertisers for fraudulent Web site clicks that drove up advertising bills. 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, however, will receive cash and instead the advertisers will receive advertising credits for future use with Google (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2006). Google maintains that its computer programs and engineers are highly effective at controlling "click fraud," a statement that Mr. Tuzhilin's report generally supported. He, however, criticized some of the defenses that Google adopted since it began to tackle the problem in 2003. According to Mr. Tuzhilin, Google's efforts were not perfect since it missed certain amounts of invalid clicks over these years. Mr. Tuzhilin pointed out though that "click fraud" is a very difficult problem to solve, Google allotted a significant amount of effort to solve it, and thus he finds those efforts to be reasonable. He also pointed out that Google's fraud-fighting efforts improved considerably since March 2005, when the company stopped charging for two rapid clicks on the same ad link. Though other studies by outsiders asserted "click fraud" was far more costly for advertisers than Google was letting on, Mr. Tuzhilin dismissed the findings in his report, since they "would not stand hard scientific scrutiny." However, Mr. Tuzhilin conceded that he did not gather enough hard data in his study of Google's fraud-fighting techniques "to arrive at any definitive conclusions beyond any reasonable doubt." Mr. Tuzhilin's report is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?e68 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. HOLD EVERYTHING: Recalls Furniture with Detachable Lock Covers -------------------------------------------------------------- Hold Everything of San Francisco, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,200 pieces of the Homeroom Bedroom Collection. The company said the small cam lock covers of the furniture can be easily removed, presenting a choking hazard to young children. Hold Everything has received one report of a toddler removing a hardware cover from a dresser. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves plastic cam hardware covers used to cover the hardware on the Homeroom bedroom collection. Sold in a natural stain maple veneer, the collection includes a bed, dresser, nightstand, toy chest and shelving systems. Picture of the recalled hardware cover: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06565.jpg The Homeroom Bedroom Collection were manufactured in Denmark and are being sold at HoldEverything.com and through the Hold Everything catalog nationwide from July 2004 through March 2006 for between $75 and $995. Consumers are advised to immediately remove the hardware covers and dispose of them. For additional information, please contact Hold Everything at (800) 840-2849 between 7 a.m. and midnight ET Monday through Friday. INTERMAGNETICS GENERAL: Faces N.Y. Suits Over Royal Philips Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholders of Intermagnetics General Corp. filed two class actions in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Albany County, challenging the company's acquisition by Royal Philips Electronics of Holland for $1.3 billion, according to The Business Review of Albany. The first suit is "Mohamed Farouk Gani v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3884-06," filed on June 16, 2006, just a day after the deal was announced. The second suit, "Thomas Scionti v. Intermagnetics General Corporation, et al., No. 3946- 06," was filed on June 20, according to the company's PREM14A filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for June 30, 2006. On lawsuit names that company and its directors as defendants, while the other adds Royal Philips as a defendant. Mohamed Farouk Gani and Thomas Scionti filed the suits, both of which are seeking to prevent the acquisition. Generally, the complaints allege that company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to publicly announce an open bidding process or otherwise seek additional officers to acquire Intermagnetics, and by failing to provide full disclosure to certain material financial information. Under the deal, the company's Latham, New York, headquarters would become the global headquarters for the MR division of Royal Philips. The company produces patient monitors through its Medical Devices division and imaging systems components through its MRI division. LAFAYETTE PHILIPPINES: Faces Suit Over Albay Mining Operations -------------------------------------------------------------- Lafayette Philippines, Inc. faces a purported class action seeking a temporary restraining order against its 30-day test runs of polymetallic mining operations on Rapu-Rapu, an island in Albay province in the Bicol region, 350 kilometers southeast of the capital Manila, according to the Environment News Service. People from the provinces of Sorsogon and Albay, 27 residents of Rapu-Rapu, environmental activist groups, fisher folk organizations, church people, militant organizations and television personalities filed the suit on July 20, 2006 in Makati Regional Trial Court after an incident of toxic spill. The class action not only names the company as defendant, but also the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Secretary Angelo Reyes. It seeks a permanent halt to the company's operations, citing threats to people's health and livelihood. According to Bishop Aruturo Bastes, head of the defunct Rapu- Rapu Fact-Finding Commission, "The mining issue in Rapu-Rapu is a matter of public interest in view of the environmental hazards and adverse health impacts that Lafayette mining operation poses. The people of Sorsogon are supporting the class suit, and we hope we can get justice." Howard M. Calleja, one of the attorneys who filed the case, explains that the most compelling reason to restrain company's mining operation is the occurrence of acid mine drainage, which is something that even the DENR admits Lafayette could not control. MASSEY ENERGY: Public Hearing Held on Plans to Build Coal Silo -------------------------------------------------------------- The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection recently heard arguments over plans by a Massey Energy Co. subsidiary over plans to build a second coal silo beside a Raleigh County elementary school, Associated Press reports. An earlier plan by the Goals Coal Co. to build a silo near Marsh Fork Elementary School has spurred a class action against Massey by parents and residents who are claiming that coal dust is causing health problems for the students, the report said. Regulatory filings by the company in May stated that Massey Energy and 12 of its subsidiaries continue to face litigations alleging that defendants illegally transported coal in overloaded trucks, causing damage to state roads, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their properties and their right to use the public roads. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and unquantified compensatory and punitive damages (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2006). An advocacy group representing residents in the Counties of Boone, Raleigh and Kanawha, West Virginia, and other plaintiffs, filed 16 suits in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia in January 2003. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia referred the consolidated lawsuits, and three similar lawsuits against other coal and transportation companies not involving the company's subsidiaries, to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, West Virginia, to be handled by a mass litigation panel. In March 2004, seven residents of Mingo County, West Virginia, filed a similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West Virginia, against the company and three subsidiaries, raising similar claims and seeking similar relief. The Supreme Court of Appeals referred this case to the mass litigation panel also. The plaintiffs in all five trucking cases have requested that the cases be further consolidated, the scope of their claims be expanded statewide, claims be added against land companies, and class-action status be granted. METRORAIL: South African High Court Allows Consolidated Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- Cape High Court Judge Wilfred Thring refused defendants' request for separate trials, while granting plaintiffs' application for consolidated trials in a class action that arose after the death of Juan van Minnen in Western Cape, South Africa's news Web site IOL reports. Juan van Minnen, an engineering student, was stabbed while traveling home by train one day in June 2001. Plaintiffs in the suit that was filed after his death are asking the court to declare that Metrorail and SA Commuter Corp., owner of the trains, did not sufficiently ensure the safety and security of commuters on trains and stations. The suit was filed by Rail Commuters Action Group, the Congress of South African Trade Unions and 49 Wester Cape victims against Transnet, trading as Metrorail. Also named as defendant is Minister of Transport Jeff Radebe. The plaintiffs are asking the court to require the companies to improve safety and security measures, and to put in place, a monitoring system to oversee efforts to correct the alleged shortcoming. They are demanding results within months. Forty- three of the victims are also asking personal injury claims. In June this year, Thabani Masuku, counsel for the defendant, asked the court to separate the 43 damages claims against Metrorail to make the proceedings more manageable. Attorney Francois Theron is representing 35 of the plaintiffs. NEW YORK: World Trade Center "First Responder" Claims Increasing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Legal actions filed against the City of New York in connection with the events of Sept. 11, 2001 have tripled in the past year, The New York Post reports. More than 1,100 notices of claim, which potential plaintiffs are required to file before suing the city, were filed against the city during the fiscal year that ended June 30, according to the report. There is also an increase in the number of lawsuits that were filed. Most of the more than 300 suits are related to toxic substances exposure at the World Trade Center site. Many are joining a class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the city failed to protect responders from hazardous conditions at the site. An attorney in the class action, "Benzman et al. v. Whitman et al.," confirmed to the New York Post that additional claims were filed on behalf of sick police, firefighters and other responders who spent time at the WTC site in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks. The suit is "Benzman et al v. Whitman et al, Case No. 1:04-cv- 01888-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Bert A. Blitz of Shandell, Blitz, Blitz & Bookson, L.L.P, 150 Broadway, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10038- 4498, Phone: (212) 513-1300; and (2) Sherrie R. Savett, Esq. of Berger Montague, P.C., 1622 Locus St., Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: (205) 875- 3000. Representing the defendants are: (i) Glenn Stewart Greene, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Div., P.O. Box 7146, Ben Franklin Station, 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 8002 South Tower, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: 202-616-4143, Fax: 202-616-4314, E-mail: glenn.greene@usdoj.gov; and (ii) Scott Jeffrey Jordan, U.S. Department of Justice (DC), 1331 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Rm. 1150 North Washington, DC 20004, Phone: 202-514-9365, Fax: 202-514-8865, E- mail: scott.jordan@usdoj.gov. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.J., N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Par Pharmaceuticals Co. is the target of several class actions in connection with a July announcement that it will restate financial reports dating to 2004, NorthJersey.com reports. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purchased stock between April 29, 2004 and July 5, 2006 when Par announced it would restate its sales and income for 2004, 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. Generally, the complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaints allege that throughout the class period, defendants reported earnings that were materially inflated as a result of accounting errors including an understatement of accounts receivable reserves. Although most of the complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, a similar, purported class action complaint has also been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to an entry in the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse. For more details, contact: (1) Ann D. White Law Offices, P.C., Phone: 1.866.389.0274, E-mail: awhite@awhitelaw.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, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423; (4) Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone: 212.661.1100, Fax: 212.661.8665, E-mail: info@pomerantzlaw.com; (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (6) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, (Philadelphia), 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 215-496-0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com. PENNSYLVANIA: Inmates Sue City Over Alleged Overcrowding in Jail ---------------------------------------------------------------- The city of Philadelphia faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over jail conditions, The Associated Press reports. Filed on July 24, 2006, the suit comes five years after state and federal courts ended 30 years of supervision prompted by earlier lawsuits over prison conditions. Plaintiffs in the suit are Lee Bowers, Brandon Bucci and Darius McDowell and James Walker. In their suit, filed by civil rights attorney and University of Pennsylvania law professor David Rudovsky, plaintiffs named as defendants: -- the City of Philadelphia; -- Leon A. King, II, Commissioner of Prisons; and -- Sylvester Johnson, City Police Commissioner. According to the suit, Mr. Bowers, one of the plaintiffs, was picked up for missing a family court hearing on June 23 and held for three days. The suit stated that Mr. Bowers was in a holding cell with as many as 30 other inmates that had only a single toilet. It also stated that the cell had no beds, no showers, no toothbrush or other personal hygiene materials, no access to medical care or medical screening, and no access to counsel or to phone calls. During his 72 hours without sleep, according to the suit, Mr. Bowers, curled up under a steel bench, causing him to suffer a blood clot in his leg that sent him to the hospital for three days. The suit called such conditions "dangerous, severely overcrowded, degrading, and cruel." It charges that to house the steady stream of new arrivals, the prison system resorted to three-man cells and lodged inmates in common areas. The suit is, "Bowers v. City Of Philadelphia, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-03229-LDD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Legrome D. Davis. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) David Rudovsky OF Kairys Rudovsky Messing & Feinberg, The Cast Iron Building, Suite 501, South 718 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, Phone: 215-925-4400, Fax: 215- 925-5365, E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com; and (2) Angus R. Love of Institutional Law Project, 718 Arch St., Ste. 304S, Philadelphia, PA 19106, E-mail: alove@pailp.org. Representing the defendants is Lynne A. Sitarski, City Of Philadephia Law Department, Acting Chief Deputy City Solicitor, 1515 Arch Street, 14th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 215-683-5442, E-mail: lynne.sitarski@phila.gov. PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Files Overtime, Benefits Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Protiviti, Inc., a subsidiary of Robert Half International, Inc., was named as defendant in a class action filed in California Superior Court, Reuters reports. The suit was brought by Don Tran, a former salaried consultant, on behalf terminated salaried consultants. The suit alleges that the consultants were misclassified as exempt employees and denied overtime and other benefits. Protiviti provides independent internal auditing and risk consulting services to a variety of corporate clients. The company helps customers identify and manage operational and technology-related risks. Its risk consultants specialize in a number of areas, including manufacturing and energy and utilities. Most of the company's professionals are veterans of major accounting firms. Protiviti operates mainly in the US; it also does business elsewhere in the Americas, in the Asia/Pacific region, and in Europe. Overall, the company maintains about 50 offices. SONY MUSIC: Dr. Elmo Joins N.Y. Lawsuit Over Music Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------ San Francisco veterinarian Elmo "Dr. Elmo" Shropshire was added as a plaintiff to a purported class action filed against Sony Music on behalf of rock bands, The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick, over royalties for downloaded music, the AP WorldStream reports. In April, Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP and Probstein & Weiner filed the suit, alleging Sony Music is not paying its recording artists 50% of the net licensing revenue received by Sony Music in connection with the master recordings licensed to Apple and other third-party providers of digital downloads, as Sony Music is contractually obligated to do (Class Action Reporter, April 30, 2006). Instead of paying its recording artists the approximate 30 cents of the 70 cents it receives for digital downloads, after deducting payments to music publishers, the suit alleges that Sony Music: -- wrongfully treats each download as a sale of a physical phonorecord (i.e. a CD or cassette tape); -- only paying on 85% of such "sales" (due to a fiction that there is breakage of product); -- deducting a 20% fee for container/packaging charges associated with the digital downloads (although there are none); and -- reducing its payments by a further 50% "audiofile" deduction, yielding a payment to the Sony Music recording artist of approximately 4 1/2 cents per digital download. According to the complaint, The Allman Brothers Band and Cheap Trick and other members of the class action were damaged in the amount of millions of dollars through the loss of royalty payments, which Sony Music retained for its own benefit in breach of the applicable contractual record royalty provisions. An amended complaint filed earlier expands the types of downloaded tunes where the musicians say they are being shortchanged to include services like iTunes and Napster and mobile phone ringtones, which the suit claims will be a $20 billion industry by the end of 2006. Plaintiffs are asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to certify the case as a class action covering all Sony artists who signed deals between 1962 and 2002. The suit is "Allman et al v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-03252-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels. Representing the defendant is Jonathan M. Sperling of Covington & Burling LLP, 1330 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212.841.1153, E-mail: jsperling@cov.com. Representing the defendants are Brian D. Caplan and Conor R. Crowley both of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 907-0700 or (212) 907-0883, Fax: (212) 818-0477 or (212) 883-7083, E-mail: bcaplan@labaton.com or ccrowley@labaton.com. STYLE TRONICS: Recalls Hair Dryers Lacking Electric Shock Guard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Style Tronics Inc. of Los Angeles, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 19,300 units of "Monica" and "Turbo 1200" hand-held hair dryers. The company said these electric hair dryers are not equipped with an immersion protection plug to prevent electrocution if the hair dryer falls into water. Such electric shock protection devices are required by industry standards for all electric hand-held hair dryers. No injuries were reported. The recall involves two models of pistol-type hair dryers: -- the Monica hair dryer has its model name and number, SW- 117, written on the handle. It is made of black plastic and chrome, and the handle folds up; and -- the Turbo 1200 model has model number DS-507 written on the back of the handle. The model name is written on the blower nozzle. They are green and white and green. These hair dryers were manufactured in China and are being sold at independent discount stores nationwide from April 2004 through June 2005 for between $3 and $5. Consumers are advised to stop using these hair dryers, and contact Style Tronics Inc. for a full refund. For more information, call Style Tronics Inc. toll-free at (888) 266-9272 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. SUPPORTSOFT INC: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California certified as a class action the case, "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222." The suit was brought on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SupportSoft, Inc. from Jan. 20, 2004 to Oct. 1, 2004. Case Background Between Dec. 9, 2004 and Jan. 21, 2005, several purported securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, the company's chief executive officer, Radha R. Basu, and former chief financial officer, Brian M. Beattie. These actions were consolidated on March 22, 2005 as "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI" (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2006). The consolidated complaint alleges generally violations of certain federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers of the company's common stock between Jan. 20, 2004 and Oct. 1, 2004. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that defendants made false and misleading statements concerning the company's business and guidance for the third quarter 2004, purportedly violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 15, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the Complaint with leave to amend it. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Corrected Amended Complaint on August 19, 2005. On Nov. 21, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the Corrected Amended Complaint. Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint on Dec. 14, 2005 and the case is currently in discovery. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on Feb. 1, 2006 and a hearing on plaintiffs' motion was scheduled for April 21, 2006. The suit is "In re SupportSoft, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-5222 SI," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Susan Illston. Representing the plaintiffs is Peter A. Binkow of Glancy & Binkow, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E-mail: pbinkow@glancylaw.com. Representing the company are Sherry Hartel Haus, David L. Lansky, and Peri Nielsen of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: (650) 493-9300, E-mail: sherry.haus@wilmerhale.com, dlansky@wsgr.com and pnielsen@wsgr.com. TRAVEL COMPANIES: Orange City of Texas Sues Online Travel Firms --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Orange, Texas filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against online travel Web sites, alleging that the firms are underpaying taxes to the city for brokering hotel rooms, The Beaumont Enterprise reports. Orange City is asking for actual damages, penalties and injunctive relief as well as legal and court costs, but did not specify an estimate of what these costs might be. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Hotels.com, L.P., -- Hotels.com GP, LLC, -- Hotwire, Inc., -- Cheap Tickets, Inc., -- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc., -- Expedia, Inc., -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com), -- Lowestfare.com, Inc., -- Maupintour Holding, LLC, -- Orbitz, Inc., -- Orbitz, LLC, -- priceline.com, Inc., -- Site59.com, LLC, -- Travelocity.com, Inc., -- Travelocity.com, L.P., -- Travelweb, LLC, -- Travelnow.com, Inc., -- Onetravel, Inc. (d/b/a onetravel.com), and -- Does 1 through 1000 According to the complaint, these companies are shirking their obligation to pay taxes on the portion of the room rate they collect. The travel companies allegedly access a full amount of hotel and sales taxes and collect them, improperly remitting that money to the local government. The lawsuit cites an Orange municipal law mandating that each entity "owning, operating, managing or controlling any hotel or motel within the City of Orange, Texas, shall collect the tax imposed." But representatives of the online companies counter that their fees for booking rooms are not subject to taxation. Art Sackler, Executive Director for Interactive Travel Services Association, which represents a handful of the defendants, said the trouble is the verbs used in the law cited don't apply, explaining that these Web sites depend on the hotels to include fees into the price they quote online. He said the service is of particular benefit to smaller hotels that don't have the resources to advertise nationwide. Similar suits are filed in 19 counties or cities in the metro area, including Cobb County, Dekalb County, Fulton County, Augusta, Rome, and Alpharetta (Class Action Reporter, July 5, 2006). The suit is "Orange City of Texas v. Hotels.com, LP et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00413-RHC-KFG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Ron Clark, with referral to Judge Keith F. Giblin. Representing the plaintiff is Richard Lyle Coffman of The Coffman Law Firm, 1240 Orleans, Suite 200, Beaumont, TX 77701, Phone: 409/832-4767, Fax: 866/835-8250, E-mail: rc@cofflaw.com. UNITED STATES: Del. Supreme Court Inquires into Milberg Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court is investigating possible misconduct by attorneys involved in litigation brought in the state by the class action law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, according to The News Journal. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman were indicted in May by a federal grand jury for allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20 years. The first superseding indictments against them were for alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture. A copy of the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc. Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T. Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit of Mr. Lazar. The indictment also names as co-conspirators, paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J. Vogel of Aventura, Florida. In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against them. Mr. Lazar and Paul T. Selzer also pleaded not guilty. Milberg Weiss represented plaintiff investors in a 2004 case against The Walt Disney Co. that went to trial in Georgetown. It also brought a suit in Delaware against Travelers Property Casualty and Infinity Broadcasting. In the Travelers Property suit, Mr. Vogel allegedly received a $140,000 kickback in May 2001 for serving as the plaintiff in the Chancery Court case. In the Infinity Broadcasting suit, his wife is accused of receiving a kickback of $86,923. A trial date has not been set for the federal case, according to the report. The investigation in Delaware, which was undertaken at request of Chancellor William B. Chandler III, the chief judge of the Delaware Court of Chancery, is consistent with the Supreme Court's goal of preserving confidence in the legal profession and deterring lawyers from ethical misconduct, according to Andrea L. Rocanelli, chief counsel of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. Lawrence A. Hamermesh, a Widener University School of Law professor, said that the court, which is the nation's premier forum for corporate disputes, has an institutional interest in protecting itself from abuse. UNITED STATES: Ind. Judge Orders Milberg to Disclose Finances ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kim Van Valer Shilts of the Johnson Superior Court No. 3 in Indiana issued orders against Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP that may require the firm to turn over all its financial records since 1998, The New York Times reports. The insurer, American United Life Insurance sought the financial disclosure to know if Milberg Weiss paid, or promised to pay, four plaintiffs who sued the insurer. American United is accused of improperly selling tax-deferred annuities wrapped in retirement accounts that were themselves tax-deferred. Milberg Weiss and partners David J. Bershad and Steven G. Schulman were indicted in May by a federal grand jury for allegedly paying kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits. The indictment alleges that the firm received well over $200 million in attorneys' fees from these lawsuits over the past 20 years. The first superseding indictments against them were for alleged conspiracy, racketeering conspiracy, mail fraud, money laundering conspiracy, money laundering, subscribing to false tax return, obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, and criminal forfeiture. A copy of the indictment is at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?dfc. Also charged in the indictment are Seymour M. Lazar, who is alleged to have served as a paid plaintiff and attorney Paul T. Selzer, who is alleged to have been one of the intermediary lawyers who laundered illegal kickback payments for the benefit of Mr. Lazar. The indictment also names as co-conspirators, paid plaintiff Steven G. Cooperman of Connecticut, and Howard J. Vogel of Aventura, Florida. In July, Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schulman and Mr. Bershad pleaded not guilty to the charges filed against them. Mr. Lazar and Paul T. Selzer also pleaded not guilty. The judge's order, made public on July 20, 2006, would require the four allegedly paid plaintiffs to disclose their financial records since 1998 and then, in a second phase, require that Milberg Weiss disclose its financial records since 1998 unless the judge concluded that there was no reason to pursue the matter, according to the report. Under Indiana court rules, Judge Shilts' order, which makes no mention of confidentiality, cannot be appealed, but she may narrow the discovery order at a future hearing. Attorneys for Milberg Weiss opposed the disclosure of all financial records as overly broad and intrusive. Court papers revealed that Milberg Weiss also asked that any records be sealed. UNITED STATES: Chaplains File Discrimination Suit in N.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Navy faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida that alleges discrimination against some chaplains in the service, The Baptist Press reports. Filed on April 28, 2006 and also naming the Secretary of the Navy as a defendant, the suit claims that the Navy violated the Constitution in its promotion and retention of chaplains. Its claims include: -- unconstitutional composition of chaplain selection boards, -- establishing denominational preferences, -- illegal quotas for promotions and career opportunities, and -- creating a religious patronage system within the Chaplain Corps. The lawsuit, filed by 41 current or former chaplains, also contends that the Navy created a pervasive climate of bias, animosity and deceit and violated non-liturgical chaplains' free speech and religious rights. Currently, according to The Baptist Press, plaintiffs are awaiting a ruling on a motion by the U.S. Department of Justice to move the case to district court in Washington, D.C. However, plaintiffs' attorney Arthur Schulcz is opposing that motion. The suit is "Gibson, et al. v The United States Navy, et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00187-MCR-MD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida under Judge M. Casey Rodgers with referral to Miles Davis. Representing the plaintiffs is Arthur Andrew Schulcz, Sr., Arthur Schulcz, Sr., PA, 2521 Drexel St., Vienna, VA 22180, US, Phone: 703-645-4010, Fax: 703-645-4011, E-mail: arthur.schulcz@verizon.net. Representing the defendants is Daniel Bensing, Department Of Justice, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044, Phone: 202- 305-0693, Fax: 202-616-8460, E-mail: Daniel.Bensing@USDOJ.gov. WASHINGTON: Settlement Reached in Workers' Suit Over Union Dues --------------------------------------------------------------- Washington Federation of State Employees settled a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington by 10 state employees who were fired from their jobs for refusing to pay union dues, The Heartland Institute reports. Under the settlement, which was reached in June, the WFSE agreed to remedy its violations, rehire the fired employees, provide them back pay, and cover nominal damages and attorneys' fees. Commenting on the deal, Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation (NRTW), which provided legal assistance to the fired workers, said that the workers should never have had to file a lawsuit in order for WFSE officials not to trample their basic constitutional rights. Case Background Filed on March 15, 2006 by current and former state workers, the suit alleges that workers' due process rights were violated, since union officials did not say how their dues were being spent (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 20, 2006). Some workers also claimed in the suit that they have been fired, because they refused to pay union dues or the legally required alternative fees. Plaintiffs named in the suit are: -- Andre Opsal, -- Darrel Mollenhour, -- Debbie Koepp, -- James Szpek, -- Joanne Rice, -- Kimberly Johnson, -- Liz Flugel, -- Maxine Dunkelman, -- Patricia Woodward, and -- Stephen Sergi. Backed by the NRTW, the statewide class action sought to stop the Washington Federation of State Employees from forcing 40,000 workers to pay union dues (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 16, 2006). The suit is "Opsal, et al. v. Washington Federation of State Employees, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00079-EFS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington under Judge Edward F. Shea. Representing the plaintiffs is Stephen Ross Matthews of Phillabaum Ledlin Matthews & Sheldon, 421 West Riverside, Suite 900, Spokane, WA 99201-0413, Phone: 509-838-6055, Fax: 15096251909, E-mail: sm@spokelaw.com. New Securities Fraud Cases IONATRON INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in Ariz. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of all securities purchasers of Ionatron, Inc. from June 27, 2005 to May 10, 2006. The complaint charges Ionatron 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 company's JIN counter-IED units were not field-ready; -- specifically, that the company's JIN counter-IED units would require a more rugged platform to meet the U.S. Government's specifications for being field-ready; -- that, as a result of the above, the company would experience delays in developing a field-ready JIN counter-IED unit; and -- that, as a result of the above, the company's statements concerning the JIN counter-IED technology were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On May 10, 2006, after the market closed, Ionatron announced that the U.S. Government had determined that the company's JIN counter-IED technology, which the company previously touted as being field ready, required a more rugged platform. Ionatron reported that it would work with the U.S. Government to "identify more suitable platforms" for the JIN counter-IED units. On this news, shares of Ionatron plummeted more than 39.5 percent over the next four trading days, losing a total of $5.07, to close, on May 16, 2006, at $7.76 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. For more details, contact of 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. JOS A BANK: Bernard M. Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in Md. --------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. between Jan. 5, 2006 and June 7, 2006. The action is pending against defendants Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. and Robert N. Wildrick, President and Chief Executive Officer. The complaint charges Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. and Robert N. Wildrick with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period concerning the company's inventories and their impact on the company's business and finances. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose the following: -- the company had overinvested in inventories of fall clothing, building excessive levels of in-stock inventories of seasonal merchandise, in light of demand, that carried over into the first quarter of 2006; -- these inventories were at such excessive levels that the company resorted to very aggressive promotional pricing in February and March 2006 which deeply discounted the prices of the merchandise, discounts significantly greater than the company's historical practice, in order to move the merchandise and make room for new season merchandise within the financial constraints in which the company operated and financed its inventories and new store openings; -- the company's gross profit margins were substantially reduced in February and March 2006 by reason of the inventory and pricing actions taken by defendants which caused the company's profit margins and profits in February and March 2006 to shrink dramatically even as sales revenues increased, which represented an extreme departure from Jos. A. Bank's historical pattern; and -- Defendant Wildrick, while he was touting the current and future operational and financial strengths of Jos. A. Bank and the 52% appreciation in the company's stock price in 2005 on the NASDAQ was selling large blocks of his personal stock. Then, on June 8, 2006, defendants dropped a bombshell announcing that the company's net income for the first quarter of 2006 had fallen 13% even as sales revenues increased 18%. The market was stunned by defendants' belated disclosures. The company's common stock fell 29%, dropping $10.72 to close at $26.40 per share on June 8, 2006. Interested parties may no later than Sept. 25, 2006, move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case. For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. and Deborah R. Gross, Esq. of Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C., The Wanamaker Bldg., 100 Penn Sq. East, Suite 450, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 866-561-3600 or 215-561-3600, E-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com, Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com. PAR PHARMACEUTICALS: Pomerantz Haudek Announces Filing of Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP said that a class action has been filed by in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, against Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action was filed on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the company during the period from April 29, 2004 to July 5, 2006, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Par, headquartered in New Jersey, develops, manufactures and markets more than 110 generic drugs and innovative branded pharmaceuticals for specialty markets. The Complaint alleges that throughout the class period, defendants reported earnings that were materially inflated as a result of accounting errors including an understatement of accounts receivable reserves. The company has now admitted that the overstatement of its revenues has resulted in Par overpaying its business partners in various profit sharing arrangements. As a result of the company's internal review of its trade accounts receivable balances, the company has decided to restate its previously reported financial statements for fiscal year 2004 and 2005 and the first quarter of 2006. In addition, Par announced it will write-off inventory in an amount up to $15 million due to flawed physical inventory procedures. In response to these revelations, on July 6, 2006, Par stock fell $4.78 per share, losing nearly 26% of its value in one day on extremely high volume of over 9 million shares traded, to close at $13.47 per share. Interested parties have until Sept. 15, 2006, to move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP, Phone: 888-476- 6529, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com and csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com, Web site: http://www.pomlaw.com. RAMBUS INC: Roy Jacobs & Associates Files Stock Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced 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. 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, back-dating 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 Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. of Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: (888) 884-4490, E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com. VONAGE HOLDINGS Glancy Binkow Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Vonage Holdings Corp. pursuant or traceable to the company's May 23, 2006 initial public offering and also on behalf of Vonage customers who purchased or otherwise acquired Vonage common stock through the Vonage Directed Share Program. The complaint charges Vonage, the IPO underwriters and certain of the Company's officers and directors with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts concerning Vonage's business and operations, among other things. Vonage, through its subsidiaries, provides broadband telephone services primarily in the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom. The Complaint alleges that in connection with the company's IPO, defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that: -- Vonage's technology platform experienced problems carrying telephone data over the networks of certain Internet service providers, including Time Warner Inc.'s AOL; -- Vonage's voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) technology did not properly allow facsimile transmissions; -- the company did not adequately inform investors about Vonage's management team; and -- the company did not adequately inform Vonage customers who participated in the company's Directed Share Program concerning the customers' obligations to purchase allocated shares. Immediately following the IPO, concerns about the company's ability to compete in the marketplace caused Vonage shares to plunge from the $17.00 offering price, to close on May 24, 2006 at $14.85 per share -- a loss of $2.15, or 12.6 percent. As a result of investors' concerns, and the news that serious technical and logistical issues plagued the company's Directed Share Program, Vonage shares declined more than 30 percent during the seven days following the IPO. Interested parties may move the Court no later than August 1, 2006, to serve as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150, Fax: (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com. ZALE CORP: Brower Piven Announces Filing of N.Y. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Zale Corp. between Feb. 18, 2005 and May 5, 2006. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties may move the court no later than Sept. 18, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. For more details, contact Brower Piven at The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.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 * * *