/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/060830.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 30, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 172 Headlines ADVANCED MARKETING: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal AMERCO SECURITIES: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Deal ARIZONA: Appeals Court Orders Review of English Program Rulings BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls Lawnmower Blades that Could Possibly Break COOPER COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Lake Granada Denied Certification DRAM LITIGATION: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on Diet Pill FANNIE MAE: Goldman, KPMG Named Defendants in D.C. Stock Suit FANNIE MAE: Defense Attorney Asks OFHEO Documents in Stock Suit HANAMINT CORP: Recalls Herrington Swivel Rockers for Fall Hazard INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Sewage Flooding in Michigan INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in "Poulos" INTERNATIONAL GAME: "Miller" Remanded Back to Nev. State Court KATUN CORP: Workers Who Paid Firm's Criminal Fines Seek Refund LANDS' END: Recalls Kid's Backpacks with Lights, Reflective Trim LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Scheduled for Suit Over Lottery Machines LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Says Decision Forthcoming in Bias Suit MERCURY INSURANCE: Former Field Adjusters File FLSA Suit in Fla. MERCURY INSURANCE: May 2006 Trial Date for "Goodman" Vacated MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Sides with Female Students in MHSAA Suit MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get More than $4M Compensation MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification NEW JERSEY: Riverside Sued Over Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinance NEW YORK: County Jail Enters $2M Settlement in Strip Search Suit ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch POLYCHLOROPRENE RUBBER: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal PRECISION BRAND: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ill. Muniz Suit QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. RESPA Violations Suit RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court to Hear Motions in Cal. Consumer Suit SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey" WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Named Counsel in Stock Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California IMAX CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing JUNIPER NETWORKS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing WITNESS SYSTEMS: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Ga. Suit Filing ********* ADVANCED MARKETING: Oct. 16 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California will hold a fairness hearing on Oct. 16, 2006 at 10: 30 a.m. for the proposed $6,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00121 RTB (AJB)." The hearing will be held before the Judge Roger T. Benitez at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, Courtroom 3, 4th Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 940 Front Street, San Diego, California 92101. Claim forms must be submitted by Dec. 19, 2006. Objections must be made until Sept. 20, 2006. The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of AMS common stock from Jan. 16, 1999 to Jan. 13, 2004, inclusive. Based in San Diego, California AMS describes itself as a leading global provider of customized wholesaling services to book retailers, a major contract distribution service for select publishers, and a custom publishing source for its book publishing partners. It was founded in 1982 and went public in July 1987. AMS primarily serves the membership warehouse club industry and other specialty retailers. The company ships more than 100 million books worldwide each year. It also provides a variety of advertising and marketing services to book publishers and its retail clients. The lawsuit arose out of AMS's announcement on Jan. 14, 2004 that it would restate its previously filed financial statements for the prior five fiscal years. The planned restatement resulted from the company's ongoing review of its cooperative advertising practices and related accounting, and relates primarily to the timing and quantification of recognition of revenue and reversal of accrued liabilities. Following the announcement of the restatement, the price of AMS's stock fell 15.2% from $11.97 to $10.15 per share. Following the announcement of the restatement, AMS and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in these federal securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California: -- "Eastside Investors, LLP v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-00121 JM (AJB);" -- "Bowen v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-00139 H (JMA);" and -- "Anderson v. Advanced Marketing Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-00324 WQH (AJB)." The lawsuits alleged that AMS and the individual defendants either knowingly or recklessly made misstatements concerning the company's reported financial results to artificially inflate the price of AMS common stock. On Feb. 24, 2004, the court consolidated the federal securities actions into a single case. On May 4, 2004, the court appointed Detroit P&F, a public pension fund organized for the benefit of current and retired police and fire personnel from the city of Detroit, as lead plaintiff, and approved Detroit P&F's selection of Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel. In August 2005, the parties participated in a settlement mediation session with the assistance of retired California Court of Appeal Justice Charles S. Vogel. Following this mediation session, counsel for the parties continued to discuss settlement. In February 2006, the parties reached agreement on the terms of settlement and executed a Memorandum of Understanding. For more details, contact: (1) Advanced Marketing Services, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6443, Merrick, New York 11566-9000, Phone: 1(866) 590-0973, Web site: http://www.amssettlement.com;and (2) Blair A. Nicholas or Benjamin Galdston of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California 92130, Phone: 1 (888) 924-1888, Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com. AMERCO SECURITIES: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for $7M Stock Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed $7,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In re AMERCO Securities Litigation." The court will hold the hearing at 130 Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, 401 W. Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made by Oct. 9, 2006. Claim forms must be submitted by Nov. 20, 2006. The case includes alls persons who purchased or acquired any securities of AMERCO, including but not limited to common stock, preferred stock and AMERCO 8.8% senior notes due 2005, between Feb. 12, 1998 and Sept. 26, 2002. AMERCO is a holding company for U-Haul International, Inc., AMERCO Real Estate Co., Republic Western Insurance Co. and Oxford Life Insurance Co. In February 2000, AMERCO issued $200 million of publicly traded 8.8% Senior Notes due 2005. Plaintiffs brought this case as a class action alleging that these Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Notes offering misrepresented and omitted material facts that, inter alia, the financial statements incorporated therein were materially false and misleading in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The financial statements contained in the offering plaintiffs also allege defendants made material misrepresentations and/or omitted to disclose material information during the class period concerning, inter alia AMERCO's: -- financial position, -- insurance policy loss reserves and earnings, -- failure to report on its debt covenants, -- use of other manipulative accounting practices, -- equity investments, and -- compliance with GAAP Plaintiffs alleged that investors purchased AMERCO securities, including common stock, preferred stock and notes, during the Class Period at prices artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and omissions, in violation of the federal securities laws. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations or that they did anything wrong. Defendants also deny that the plaintiffs or the class suffered damages or that the prices of AMERCO securities were artificially inflated by reasons of alleged misrepresentations, non-disclosures or otherwise. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, which motions have not been ruled on by the Court in light of the settlement. For more details, contact: (1) AMERCO Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990, http://www.gilardi.com; (2) Rick Nelson, Shareholder Relations of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900, Fax: (619) 231-7423, Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/;and (3) Laurence D. King of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980, Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com/. ARIZONA: Appeals Court Orders Review of English Program Rulings --------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated orders by U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins regarding the state's program for students learning the English language. The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The order was part of a ruling in a class action that was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified School District students and parents. The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education. The state was fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March. In April, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for funding that it does provide. The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July 25. Recently, the court vacated the orders finding the state in contempt for missing a deadline to improve the program. One of the vacated orders prohibited the state from requiring that English-learning students pass the AIMS test to graduate from high school this year. The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state's programs are adequate to consider changes in education funding and related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling. The appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law regarding the program. It sent the case back to Judge Collins. The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org. Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602-734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and jcardenas@lrlaw.com. BLOUNT INT'L: Recalls Lawnmower Blades that Could Possibly Break ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blount International Inc., of Kansas City, Missouri, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 94,000 units of Oregon and Silver Streak Replacement Snapper lawnmower blades. The company said when the lawnmower is operated, the replacement blade can crack and pieces can break away, posing a serious laceration hazard to consumers and bystanders. Blount has received six reports of replacement blades either cracking or breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recalled replacement lawnmower blades are intended for use on Snapper riding lawnmowers. The recalled blades are sold for use as replacement parts under the Oregon and Silver Streak brands only. Original equipment blades on Snapper lawnmowers and "Snapper" brand replacement blades are not included in this recall. The recalled blades are red and marked "MADE IN USA," "GRASS SIDE CX", "Oregon" or "SILVER STREAK." The part number and date code are engraved on one side of the blade. The recalled blades are part numbers: 99-111, 99-112, 99-113, 99-114, 99-117, 99- 118, 99-926, 99-930 and date codes: BL, BM, BN, BP, BQ, BR, BS, BT, BU, BV, BW, BX, BY, BZ, CA, CB, CC, CD, CE, CF, CG, CH, CJ, CK, CL, CM, CN, CP. These replacement lawnmower blades were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold at power or yard equipment dealers and hardware stores nationwide from November 2002 through August 2006 for between $16 and $28. Picture of the recalled replacement lawnmower blades: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06242.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the replacement blades and return them to the store where purchased or any other retailer that carries the Snapper Riding Lawnmowers for a free replacement. For more information, contact Blount at (866) 685-5449 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit: http://www.blount.comor http://www.Oregonchain.com COOPER COMMUNITIES: Suit Over Lake Granada Denied Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- A judge refused to certify a lawsuit filed by a Lake Grenada, Arkansas homeowner against Cooper Communities, Inc., and the Hot Springs Village Property Owners' Association, according to the Hot Springs Village Voice. In February, Hot Springs Village property owners Jim and Phylis Armogida asked the Saline County Circuit Court in Arkansas to expand a suit they filed against developer Cooper Communities into a class action (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 24, 2006). The suit, which the Armogida's filed with another couple, could include some 90 other property owners. It is seeking guaranteed water supply to the man-made lake near the couple's property. According to the report, the lawsuit accuses Cooper of deceit and fraud in creating a 55-acre lake and selling lots and shoreline homes around it in the late 1990s and early 2000s even though it could not guarantee it would always be full of water. It doesn't ask for damages but wants Cooper ordered to come up with a permanent solution to keeping the lake filled. Lake water could drop by seven feet in a dry year, and not two as forecasted. The Property Owners' Association was dragged to the lawsuit after Cooper conveyed ownership of Lake Granada to the POA. DRAM LITIGATION: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a fairness hearing Nov. 1, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master File No: M-02-1486- PJH (JCS), MDL No. 1486." The hearing will be held before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, in Courtroom 3, on the 16th Floor of the U.S. District Courthouse, at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Any exclusion from the settlement must be made by Oct. 3, 2006. Case Background The case is on behalf of all persons or entities that directly purchased DRAM in the U.S. from April 1, 1999 to June 30, 2002 from the manufacturers listed below, or their subsidiaries: -- Micron Technology, Inc., -- Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., -- Crucial Technology, Inc., -- Infineon Technologies AG, -- Infineon Technologies North America Corp., -- Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., -- Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., -- Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., -- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., -- Mosel-Vitelic Technology Corp., -- Mosel-Vitelic Corp. (USA), -- Nanya Technology Corp., -- Nanya Technology Corp. USA, -- Winbond Electronics Corp., -- Winbond Electronics Corp. America, -- Elpida Memory, Inc., -- Elpida Memory (USA) Inc., and -- NEC Electronics America, Inc. The plaintiffs are: Onshore, Inc., Internet Integration, Inc., Kevin Irwin d/b/a as Kevin's Computer and Photo, PC Doctor, Inc., Advanced Technology, Inc., Network Business Solutions, Inc., JEM Electronics Distributors, Inc., Daniel Clement, Web Ideals, LLC, and 5207, Inc. The lawsuit alleges that, beginning at least as early as April 1, 1999 and continuing to June 30, 2002, the defendants engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of DRAM in the U.S. and/or to allocate among themselves, major customers and accounts in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, Title 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy, they and other members of the Class paid more for DRAM than they would have paid absent the alleged conspiracy. The defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted numerous affirmative defenses. Defendants Infineon Technologies AG, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., and certain of their employees have pleaded guilty to criminal violations of the federal antitrust laws. Settlements The three settlements represent compromises of disputed claims. They do not mean that liability or damages would have been found against any of the Settling Defendants. The settling defendants continue to deny any and all wrongdoing or liability. Each settlement is separate and independent from the other. The settlement with Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. requires the payment of $20,750,000 in cash. In addition, the settlement requires that the Infineon defendants pay 10.53% of the amount, if any, by which the sales of Infineon DRAM to settlement class members exceeds $208,100,000. Sales to settlement class members who opt-out or who have previously settled or released their claims are not included in this amount. The settlement with Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. requires the payment of $67,000,000 in cash. The settlement with Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc. requires the payment of $73,000,000 in cash in two installments of $36,500,000 on May 22, 2006 and July 3, 2006. Both payments have been made. Pursuant to the settlements, settling defendants have deposited $160,750,000 into interest bearing accounts for the benefit of settlement class members. For more details, contact: (1) DRAM Antitrust Litigation c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 24657, West Palm Beach, FL 33416, Phone: 866- 483-9938, Web site: http://www.DramAntitrustSettlement.com; (2) Guido Saveri and R. Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri, Inc., 111 Pine Street, Suite 1700, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 217-6810, Fax: (415) 217-6813; (3) Steve W. Berman and Anthony D. Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: (206) 623-7292, Fax: (206) 623-0594; and (4) Fred Taylor Isquith of Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600, Fax: (212) 545-4653. EPHEDRA LITIGATION: Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on Diet Pill ------------------------------------------------------------- The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver granted an appeal from the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration to reinstate the ban it placed on Ephedra diet pills, which was overturned by a Utah judge, The Salt Lake Tribune reports. In a ruling, the three-judge panel said the FDA correctly followed a mandate from congress to conduct a risk-benefit analysis to determine if a product presents an "unreasonable risk of illness or injury," and according to the FDA, no dosage of ephedra is safe to sell to consumers. But Loren Israelsen, executive director of the Utah Natural Products Alliance, said the ruling could give the FDA broader power to more easily yank products in cases where it believes the risks outweigh the benefits. A ban is proposed for these ephedra dietary products: -- Metabolife, -- MetaboLift, -- Hydroxycut, -- Herbalife, -- Herbalite, -- Stackers,, -- Ripped Fuel, -- Extreme Ripped Force, -- Diet Fuel, -- GH Fuel, -- Herba Fuel, -- ThermiCare, -- ETA Stack, -- Xenadrine RFA-1, -- Ultimate Orange, -- Thermogenic Power, and -- BetaLean Diet pills containing herbal ephedra and mahuang are legally available again, but the FDA still wants the effective weight loss herb removed from diet supplements. Prescription weight loss drugs cannot compete on a level playing field with ephedra weight loss products. Numerous medical reports, studies, articles, and government agencies have indicated that ephedra dietary products can cause sudden cardiac complications, strokes and seizures, which could be fatal. Several organizations have already banned ephedra such as the NCAA, the Olympic Committee and the National Football League (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2003). Ephedra Lawsuit On Jan. 9, 2002, Canada banned all sales of ephedra. On March 5, 2003, Suffolk County in New York was the first county to ban ephedra. On April 21, 2003, Public Citizen, one of the nation's leading consumer advocacy groups, asked the FDA to ban the sale of dietary supplements containing the herbal stimulant ephedra. In May 2003, manufacturers of ephedra dietary products faced a nationwide class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Class Action Reporter, May 14, 2003). Named defendants in the suit are: * Metabolife International, * Cytodyne Technologies, * MuscleTech, * NVE Pharmaceuticals, * Twin Laboratories, and * EAS, Inc. The primary objectives of the suit were to: (i) obtain a court order forcing defendants to cease and desist from the manufacture and sale of ephedra dietary products and issue a recall; (ii) inform the public that consumers taking ephedra dietary products are at an increased risk of sudden cardiac complications, strokes, and seizures; (iii) provide compensation to all victims for death and personal injuries; (iv) provide a fund for all users of ephedra dietary products for medical monitoring; and (v) reimburse monies paid for the ephedra dietary products Citing that the FDA needed proof that the herb was harmful if taken as directed, a Utah judge overturned the FDA's ban on April 2005. FANNIE MAE: Goldman, KPMG Named Defendants in D.C. Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro added Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and KPMG LLP as defendants in an amended securities class action complaint filed against Fannie Mae, according to Dow Jones Newswires. Mr. Petro's office received court permission on Aug. 11 to add the new defendants, said Stanley Chesley, senior partner at Waite, Schneider, Bayless, & Chesley, who is working with Mr. Petro on the case. Earlier, the attorney general and Fannie Mae's top regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, separately discovered evidences to justify adding the two in the suit. In the amended complaint filed Aug. 14, Goldman Sachs, as underwriter, is accused of directly participating in financial manipulations at the company. KPMG, as auditor, is accused of knowing or recklessly disregarding that its 2001, 2002 and 2003 audit opinions on Fannie were materially false and misleading. A May report by the OFHEO charges Fannie Mae executives of manipulating accounting in order to trigger millions of dollars in bonuses. The amended complaint stated that several Fannie Mae real estate mortgage investment conduit transactions -- wherein Goldman acted as dealer and underwriter -- were designed solely for the purpose of shifting $107 million of the company's earnings into future years and was part of the overall scheme to defraud investors. The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon. Mr. Downey is member at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20005-5901, Phone: 202-434-5000, Fax: 202-434-5029. Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are: (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail: info@bermanesq.com; (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com; and (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax: 513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com. FANNIE MAE: Defense Attorney Asks OFHEO Documents in Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- An attorney for former top executives at Fannie Mae filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to produce documents related to a securities class action, Damian Paletta of Dow Jones Newswires reports. Fannie Mae shareholders, led by Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, is suing the company and former chief executive Franklin Raines as well as former chief financial officer J. Timothy Howard. Both were forced out from the company in December 2004. In May the OFHEO released a broad examination of the company, finding that the former top officials improperly manipulated accounting for years. Kevin M. Downey, attorney for Mr. Raines, is believed likely to use in its defense the fact that the OFHEO continually overlooked flaws on Fannie Mae's accounting systems from 1998 through 2003. The company is accused of misstating its results by $10.6 billion. The defendants want copies of any records related to the performance of Fannie Mae officers or directors from 1998 through Jan. 31, 2005, and all documents from 1995 through 2005 concerning OFHEO's evaluation of Fannie Mae's accounting, according to the report. The suit against Fannie Mae alleges that the company and certain former officers and directors made false and misleading statements in violation of the federal securities laws in connection with certain accounting policies and practices. Discovery was commenced in the consolidated shareholder class action following the denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss. In addition the company is also a defendant in two related opt- out cases that were filed by institutional investors seeking to proceed independently of the putative class of shareholders in the consolidated shareholder class action. The court has consolidated the opt-out cases as part of the consolidated shareholder class action, but the opt-out plaintiffs have filed motions objecting to the consolidation of the lawsuits. On Apr. 17, 2006, the plaintiffs in the consolidated class action filed an amended complaint that adds purchasers of publicly traded call options and sellers of publicly traded put options to the putative class, and extends the end of the putative class period from Sept. 21, 2004 to Sept. 27, 2005. The suit is "In Re: Fannie Mae Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01639," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge Richard J. Leon. Mr. Downey is member at Williams & Connolly LLP, 725 Twelfth Street, N.W., Washington, District of Columbia 20005-5901, Phone: 202-434-5000, Fax: 202-434-5029. Plaintiff firms named in the complaint are: (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, (MA), One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone: 617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail: info@bermanesq.com; (2) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., (Washington, DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax: 202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com; and (3) Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A., 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH, 45202, Phone: 513.621.026, Fax: 513.381.2375, E-mail: wsbclaw@aol.com. HANAMINT CORP: Recalls Herrington Swivel Rockers for Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hanamint Corp. (Jiaxing), Inc., of China, in cooperation with LG Sourcing Inc., of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 units of Herrington Swivel Rockers. The company said the recalled swivel rockers can be assembled incorrectly, causing them to break at the base or tip over backward easily. This poses a fall hazard to consumers. LG Sourcing received nine reports of injuries including bruises and abrasions when the rocker broke or tipped over. One individual reported having a slight concussion. All of the reported injuries involved display models at Lowe's stores. The rocker is part of the Herrington collection of patio furniture. The rocker is dark brown with a brown cloth seat, has a swivel base and a cut out pattern on the metal backrest. The item number, 119178, is printed on the rocker's packaging and on the assembly instructions. The rocker came in two sections, a base and a seat, and customers were required to bolt the seat to the base. These rockers were manufactured in China and are being sold exclusively at Lowe's stores nationwide from October 2005 through February 2006 for about $420 for a set of two rockers. Picture of the recalled rockers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06187.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled rockers immediately and return them to any Lowe's store for a full refund. For more information, contact Lowe's stores toll-free at (866) 259-8170 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Sewage Flooding in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------- Insituform Technologies Inc. and the city of Pontiac in Oakland County, Michigan face class action complaints filed on behalf of residents whose homes were flooded with untreated sewage in May, according to a report by Delores Patterson of The Detroit News. The suit alleges that Insituform -- which was hired by the city to repair sewers when the flood occurred -- improperly relined a portion of the sewer line, resulting in the overflow of sewage in as many as 80 homes. A report by Diana Dillaber Murray of The Oakland Press in May stated that some homeowners in the city have contacted Geoffrey Fieger's law firm, which is joining with Macuga and Liddle, a legal firm that specializes in class actions and has previous experience with sewage backups. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Awaits Appeals Court's Decision in "Poulos" --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action, "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's World, Inc., et al.," which names International Game Technology, Inc. as one of the defendants, stipulated to dismiss with prejudice the appeal for the case that is pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Along with a number of other public gaming corporations, the company was named as a defendant in three class action that were later consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play video poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constituted violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, giving rise to claims for common law fraud and unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, incidental and punitive damages of several billion dollars. In December 1997, the court denied the motions that would have dismissed the consolidated amended complaint or that would have stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action. In June 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. An appeal of that denial was filed timely with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The class plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and proceeded with only their individual claims. Prior to the scheduled trial date on Sept. 7, 2005, the U.S. District Court of Nevada granted the defendants' pending motions for summary judgment. The plaintiffs timely filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court. In June 2006, all parties stipulated to dismiss, with prejudice, this appeal. The suit is "William H. Poulos vs. Caesar's World, Inc, et al., Case No. 2:94-cv-01126-RLH-RJJ," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Roger L. Hunt with referral to Judge Robert J. Johnston. Representing the Plaintiffs are: (1) Caryl Boies, Mary Boies and Karen C. Dyer of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301, US, Phone: 954-356-0011, (914) 234-3700 and 407-425-7118, Fax: 954-356-0022, (914) 234-0929 and 407-425-7047; and (2) Michael Straus of Strauss & Boies, 1130 22nd Street South, Suite 4400, Birmingham, AL 35205, US, Phone: 205-324-3800. Representing the defendants are: (i) William E. Cooper of Cooper Law Offices, 601 E. Bridger, Las Vegas, NV 89101, E-mail: wecooper@lvcm.com and (ii) Dennis L. Kennedy of Bailey Merrill, 8691 West Sahara Ave., Suite 200, Las Vegas, NV 89117-5830, Phone: 702- 562-8820, Fax: 702-562-8821, E-mail: dkennedy@baileymerrill.com. INTERNATIONAL GAME: "Miller" Remanded Back to Nev. State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action, "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming Inc., et al.," which names as defendant International Game Technology, Inc. and Acres Gaming Inc., was remanded back to the Clark County, Nevada District Court after being removed earlier to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger transaction between Acres and the company and sought to enjoin and/or void the merger agreement among other forms of relief. The other defendants named in the suit are: -- Floyd W. Glisson, -- Todd L. Bice, -- Roger B. Hammock, -- Richard Furash, -- David R. Willensky, -- Robert W. Brown, -- Ronald G. Bennett On Sept. 19, 2003, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent Acres stockholders from voting on the merger. On Sept. 24, 2003, plaintiff petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the merger. The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on Sept. 25, 2003. The plaintiff's action also seeks damages. On Dec. 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. On April 29, 2004, the court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On May 12, 2004 the court issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties on Aug. 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On April 7, 2006 defendant filed a Notice of Removal to U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Plaintiff sought to remand this action to state court, which was granted in July 2006. The suit is "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming, Inc., et al, Case no. P03-A-470016-C," filed in Clark County Nevada District Court under Judge Michelle Leavitt. Representing the lead plaintiff Paul Miller is Ike L. Epstein, while lawyer for the defendants is Paul R. Hejmanowski. KATUN CORP: Workers Who Paid Firm's Criminal Fines Seek Refund -------------------------------------------------------------- Former and current employees of Katun Corp. are suing the company to recover what they contributed to the company to help it pay criminal fines in a mail and wire fraud scheme, David Phelps of Star Tribune reports. The suit came after a federal court ruling that released former Katun chief executive Terence Michael Clarke from the responsibility of contributing $1.7 million to pay $11 million in criminal fines for the scheme as part of an indemnification agreement. The employees say the company should not have coerced them into contributing pro-rated portions of the fines that the U.S. government imposed on the company. The suit was filed in Hennepin County District Court in Minnesota by 10 current and former Katun employees. It seeks to represent as many as 250 in a class action that could recoup as much as $15 million. It said plaintiffs paid the company amounts ranging from $92,000 to $1,350. One of the attorneys representing the employees is Greg McEwen. LANDS' END: Recalls Kid's Backpacks with Lights, Reflective Trim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lands' End, of Dodgeville, Wisconsin, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer and Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 400 units of Cool Blue Light-Up Backpacks. The company said the backpack's battery pack can overheat causing the battery case to melt, presenting a burn hazard if touched. Lands' End has not received any reports of injuries or incidents. The hazard was discovered during internal product review. This recall involves children's Cool Blue backpacks with lights and reflective trim. The backpacks were sold in seven colors: dark blue, light blue, orange, red, green, maroon and purple. Style number 175732 is printed on a label attached to the left side of the main compartment. Backpacks sold after July 19, 2006 are not included in this recall. Picture of recalled backpacks: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml06/06576.jpg These backpacks were manufactured in China and are being sold through Lands' End catalog and Web site: http://www.landsend.com during July 2006 for about $80. Consumers are advised to stop using these backpacks immediately. Consumers with the affected backpacks are being sent a replacement backpack and battery pack with instructions to return the original product. For more information, consumers can contact Lands' End at (800) 200-6212 anytime. LOTO QUEBEC: 2007 Trial Scheduled for Suit Over Lottery Machines ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Quebec has scheduled trial of the entire action against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007. Loto Quebec commenced an action in warranty against VLC, Inc. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of International Game Technology, Inc. -- and another manufacturer of video lottery machines in October 2003 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec, District of Quebec, seeking indemnification for any damages that may be awarded against Loto Quebec in a class action, also filed in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec. The class action against Loto Quebec, to which neither International Game nor any of its affiliates are parties, was filed by Jean Brochu on behalf of himself and a class of other persons who allegedly developed pathological behaviors through the play of video lottery machines made available by Loto Quebec in taverns and other public locations. In this action, plaintiff seeks to recover on behalf of the class damages of approximately CAD$578.7 million, representing CAD$4,863 per class member, and CAD$119.0 million in punitive damages. Loto Quebec's Plea in Defense in the main action was due in February. VLC's Plea in Defense in the warranty action was due April. The court has scheduled trial of the entire action against Loto Quebec to commence in early 2007. LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Court Says Decision Forthcoming in Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit informed all parties that a decision is expected before the end of 2006 in the federal race discrimination suit "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries." An employee and a former employee of the company filed the class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 7, 1997, alleging race discrimination. Certification hearings were conducted in Beaumont, Texas in February 1998 and in Lufkin, Texas in August 1998. In April 1999, the District Court issued a decision that certified a class for this case, which included all black employees employed by the company from March 6, 1994, to the present. The case was closed from 2001 to 2003 while the parties unsuccessfully attempted mediation. Trial for this case began in December 2003, but was postponed by the District Court and was completed in October 2004. The only claims made at trial were those of discrimination in initial assignments and promotions. On Jan. 13, 2005, the District Court entered its decision finding that the company discriminated against African-American employees in initial assignments and promotions. The District Court also concluded that the discrimination resulted in a shortfall in income for those employees and ordered that the company pay those employees back pay to remedy such shortfall, together with pre-judgment interest in the amount of 5%. On Aug. 29, 2005, the District Court determined that the backpay award for the class of affected employees would be $3.4 million -- including interest to Jan. 1, 2005 -- and provided a formula for attorney fees that the company estimates will result in a total not to exceed $2.5 million. In addition to back pay with interest, the District Court enjoined and ordered the company to cease and desist all racially biased assignment and promotion practices and ordered the company to pay court costs and expenses. The company reviewed this decision with its outside counsel and on Sept. 19, 2005, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On Jan. 26, 2006, the Court of Appeals notified the parties that the case had been docketed and a decision is expected before the end of 2006. The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC," on appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Howell Cobb. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Morris J. Baller, Teresa Demchak, Meetali Jain, Nina Rabin, Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800, Fax: 15108351417 E-mail: mjb@gdblegal.com, dem@gdblegal.com, mjain@gdblegal.com, nrabin@gdblegal.com; (2) Timothy Borne Garrigan, Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter 2803 North Street PO Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963- 1902 Phone: 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 E-mail: tbgstugar@cox-internet.com; and (3) Darci E. Burrell, Linda M. Dardarian, Joshua G. Konecky, Saperstein Goldstein Demchak & Baller 300 Lakeside Dr Ste 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510/763- 9800 Fax: 15108351417 E-mail: deb@gdblegal.com and jgk@gdblegal.com. Representing the company are Christopher V. Bacon, Douglas Edward Hamel and John H. Smither of Vinson & Elkins, 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77002-6760, Phone: 713/758-2222, Fax: 17136155014, E-mail: cbacon@velaw.com and dhamel@velaw.com. MERCURY INSURANCE: Former Field Adjusters File FLSA Suit in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Mercury General Corp. is a defendant in a collective action, "Robert Dolan, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co., et al.," which was filed in April 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiffs, former field adjusters, claim they and the members of the class they seek to represent were denied overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class of field adjusters for a period of three years preceding the filing of the action, and the recovery of overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Los Angeles, California-based Mercury General Corp. (NYSE: MCY) -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in California. MERCURY INSURANCE: May 2006 Trial Date for "Goodman" Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------ The Los Angeles Superior Court in California vacated the May 2006 trial for the class action, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co.," which was filed against Mercury Insurance Co., a subsidiary of Mercury General Corp. The suit was filed on June 16, 2002. It is challenging the company's use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments. The suit's plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. The hearing on this motion, previously set for June 2, 2006, was continued until Aug. 17, 2006. The suit alleges that these automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds. It thus seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other insurance carriers in the industry. The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to total loss claims. The court denied the company's Motion for Summary Judgment holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a result of the company's handling of her medical payments claim. The original trial date of May 2006 has been vacated by the court and not rescheduled. Los Angeles, California-based Mercury General Corp. (NYSE: MCY) -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com/-- and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in California. MICHIGAN: Appeals Court Sides with Female Students in MHSAA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed a ruling in favor of female high school athletes in a class alleging discrimination by the Michigan High School Athletic Association, the Niles Daily Star reports. Communities for Equity sued MHSAA in 1998 for alleged discrimination between boys in girls in scheduling sports events. The group claimed the association narrowed the girls' opportunities to be seen by college recruiters and to compete for athletic scholarships, as well as garner awards and recognition by holding only their sports in nontraditional and less advantageous seasons. It claims the act violated the girl athletes' U.S. Constitution and Title IX rights. The district court ruled in 2001 that MHSAA's scheduling of girls' seasons violated Title IX, the U.S. Constitution, and Michigan state law. In 2004, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court on the constitutional claim. In 2005, the Supreme Court asked the Sixth Circuit to determine whether the girls can sue under the constitution in addition to Title IX. The Sixth Circuit said that plaintiffs may sue for violation of their constitutional rights, and that MHSAA's conduct violated both federal and state statutes and the Constitution. MICROSOFT CORP: Neb. Schools to Get More than $4M Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Omaha Public Schools in Nebraska received notice that it is to get $4,052,000.88 worth of computer hardware and software vouchers in the settlement of a class action against Microsoft Corp. over antitrust violations, the Omaha World-Herald reports. In April 2005, Nebraska settled a class action that Microsoft said could compensate consumers and businesses in the state up to $22.6 million. Under the settlement, Microsoft agreed to give half of unclaimed vouchers to Nebraska's poorest schools. To qualify, schools should have at least 50 percent of students eligible to receive free or reduced price school meals. The Millard Public Schools already received a voucher for $95,982 in June. MILGARD MANUFACTURING: Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- A California state court ruled that a lawsuit filed against Milgard Manufacturing Inc. could not proceed as a class action, lawyersandsettlements.com reports. The court said common questions did not predominate as to any of plaintiffs' claims. The court also expressed concern that piecemeal resolution of isolated manufacturing component issues through class actions would further complicate traditional construction defect litigation. Seven homeowners tried to file a class action against Milgard, a manufacturer of aluminum, vinyl, fiberglass and wood windows and doors. The lawsuit claimed that millions of aluminum windows manufactured by Milgard and installed in tens of thousands of California properties were defectively designed. NEW JERSEY: Riverside Sued Over Anti-Illegal Immigrant Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------- A Washington, District of Columbia-based coalition filed a class action against the Burlington County town of Riverside over an ordinance aimed at persecuting illegal immigrants. The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey on behalf of undocumented immigrants. Riverside has an ordinance banning hiring or renting to illegal immigrants. Employers and landlords face a fine of $1,000 for each violation. It also denies business permits and municipal contracts and grants to employers of illegal immigrants, according to the Inquirer. As such, the suit said the ordinance gives rise to "national origin discrimination." The suit names as defendants the Township of Riverside and Mayor Charles F. Hilton Jr. Also named as plaintiffs are a Riverside resident, and the Assembly of God Church. A separate suit filed in U.S. District Court in Scranton, Pennsylvania seeks to block the Sept. 11 implementation of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act in Hazleton, Luzerne County. The suit is "Assembly Of God Church Riverside, New Jersey et al. v. Township of Riverside et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-03842-RMB- AMD," filed in the U.S. District of New Jersey under Judge Renee Marie Bumb with referral to Judge Ann Marie Donio. NEW YORK: County Jail Enters $2M Settlement in Strip Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Montgomery County jail officials reached a $2 million agreement to settle a class action filed by people strip searched in jail while facing minor charges. In April, U.S. District Judge David Hurd found that Montgomery County Jail's routine of requiring inmates charged with minor crimes to strip and shower in front of a guard was "tantamount to a strip search" and unconstitutional. He issued a permanent injunction barring the jail's "change out" procedure. Under the settlement, county officials admitted no wrongdoing. The county's insurance company will cover the settlement. The county will also have to issue a new jail admissions policy by Sept. 15 reflecting the judge's April order. Attorney E. Robert Keach of Albany filed the suit on behalf of Barbara Davis, Paul Marriott and Andy Rivera in 2003. It is expected that Ms. Davis will receive $15,000; Mr. Marriott $12,500; and Mr. Rivera, $7,500. Attorneys are to receive $600,000. Eligible claimants are people strip searched between April 29, 2000 and March 25, 2005 for charges of misdemeanors, violations, traffic infractions, probation or parole violations or other minor crimes and civil matters. Mr. Keach's contact information: 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, New York 12010 (Montgomery Co.), Phone: 518- 434-1718, Telecopier: 518-770-1558. The suit is "Marriott v. County of Montgomery, et al. (5:03-cv- 00531-DNH-DEP)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge David N. Hurd with referral to Judge David E. Peebles. Representing the defendants are: (1) Thomas W. Hyland at Wilson, Elser Law Firm - NY Office, 150 East 42nd St., New York, NY 10017-5639, Phone: 212- 490-3000 Fax: 212-490-3038, E-mail: hylandt@wemed.com; and (2) Theresa B. Marangas, Wilson, Elser Law Firm - Albany Office, 677 Broadway - 9th Floor, Albany, NY 12207-2996 Phone: 518-449-8893, Fax: 518-465-2548, E-mail: marangast@wemed.com. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Elmer R. Keach, III at the Office of Elmer R. Keach, III, 1040 Riverfront Center, P.O. Box 70, Amsterdam, NY 12010, Phone: 518-434-1718, Fax: 518-770-1558, E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com; (2) Gary E. Mason and Charles A. Schneider at Mason Law Firm, 1225 19th St., N.W. Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: 202-429-2290, Fax: 202-429-2294, E-mail: gmason@masonlawdc.com and cschneider@masonlawdc.com; and (3) Bruce E. Menken and Jason J. Rozger at Beranbaum, Menken Law Firm, 3 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-509-1616, Fax: 212-509-8088, E-mail: bmenken@bmbblaw.com, jrozger@bmbblaw.com. ORTHO-MCNEIL: Continues to Face Suit Over Contraceptive Patch ------------------------------------------------------------- Parker & Waichman, LLP filed a suit against Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc., a division of Johnson & Johnson, on behalf of a 34-year-old woman who was diagnosed with a severe pulmonary embolism after using the Ortho Evra Birth Control Patch for less than two years. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. According to Parker & Waichman, on Aug. 24, 2004, the injured victim was taken to the emergency room at Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center after experiencing headaches, shortness of breath and right anterior pleuritic chest pain. Diagnostic tests taken at the hospital revealed large pulmonary embolus in right upper lobe involving a secondary order vessel that extended into two third order vessels. The woman was hospitalized for six days to receive anticoagulant therapy. It is likely that the injured woman will need anticoagulant medication for a protracted period of time, potentially for the remainder of her life. On Nov. 10, 2005, Ortho McNeil, in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, issued a warning about the increased risks of blood clots associated with Ortho Evra. In the new warning, Ortho-McNeil admitted for the first time that women who use the patch will be exposed to up to 60% more estrogen than they would be exposed to if they were taking a birth control pill with 35 micrograms of estrogen. The patch is only intended to deliver 20 micrograms of estrogen. For more information on Ortho Evra lawsuits, visit: http://www.orthopatchlawsuit.com The suit is "Sipiran v. Johnson & Johnson et al., Case No. 2:06- cv-03925-KSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden, with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiffs are Jason Mark, Esq. and Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq. both of Parker & Waichman, LLP, 111 Great Neck, NY 11201-5402, Phone: 516-466-6500, E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com or jparker@yourlawyer.com, Website: http://www.yourlawyer.com POLYCHLOROPRENE RUBBER: Nov. Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 7, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. for the proposed $15,000,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re: Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation Docket No. 3:05 MD 1642 (PCD)." The court will hold a hearing at the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, Courtroom No. 1, 141 Church Street, New Haven, Connecticut. Any exclusions form the settlement should be made by Sept. 22, 2006. Deadline for submitting a proof of claim is on Nov. 30, 2006. The case involves all persons and entities in the U.S. and its territories, excluding government entities, who directly purchased polychloroprene rubber or "CR" from any of the following companies at any time from Jan. 1, 1999 through Dec. 31, 2003: -- Bayer AG, -- Bayer Corp., -- Bayer MaterialScience, LLC (f/k/a Bayer Polymers LLC), -- DuPont Dow Elastomers, LLC, -- LANXESS AG, -- LANXESS Corp., -- Polimeri Europa S.p.A. (f/k/a Polimeri Europa Srl), -- Polimeri Europa Americas, Inc. (f/k/a EniChem Americas, Inc.), and -- Syndial S.p.A. (f/k/a Enichem S.p.A.) In April 2004, a class action complaint was filed against the defendants in the U.S. Court for the District of Columbia alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws by the defendants with respect to the sale of CR. A settlement was reached between plaintiffs and DuPont. Judge Henry Kennedy granted final approval of that settlement with on Nov. 22, 2004. Shortly after the initial complaint was filed against DuPont, other class action complaints alleging violations of the federal antitrust laws by major manufacturers of CR were filed in multiple federal District Courts. A motion was made to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to centralize the cases in a single court to promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. On Feb. 4, 2005, the JPML entered a Transfer Order centralizing the cases, other than the settled DuPont action, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut and recommending that they be assigned to the Judge Peter C. Dorsey for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. In a May 20, 2005 order, Judge Dorsey appointed class counsel to conduct the litigation on behalf of the class. Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in this action, on April 7, 2005. The complaint alleges that Bayer and other defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in an unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the price of, and/or allocate markets and customers for CR in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1. Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the unlawful conspiracy, they and other purchasers of CR have paid more for CR than they would have paid absent the conspiracy. On Sept. 21, 2005, the court approved the plaintiffs' settlement with Syndial and its predecessors for up to $5,290,000. Under the Syndial Settlement, Syndial has cooperated with class counsel in their prosecution of claims against the remaining defendants. The Action has been vigorously litigated. Class Counsel have analyzed hundreds of thousands of documents produced by the defendants and DuPont. They have also conducted an independent investigation of the facts and analyzed the sales and pricing data produced by the defendants and DuPont. They have obtained cooperation from both DuPont and Syndial pursuant to plaintiffs' settlement agreements with these respective defendants. The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on or about Nov. 18, 2005. In connection with that filing, plaintiffs submitted a detailed expert report as to why, from an economic point of view, the class certification motion should be granted. That motion was pending when a settlement with Bayer, in principal, was reached. While the plaintiffs believe they have meritorious claims against the Bayer Defendants, the Bayer Defendants have asserted that they have meritorious defenses, which would serve to undercut their liability and economic exposure to the Class. The parties entered into the settlement to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation. The class counsel has determined that settling the claim against the Bayer Defendants is in the best interest of the class. The settlement provides an immediate and substantial cash benefit to the class members and avoids the risk of a trial relating to liability and damages. For more details, contact: (1) In re CR Antitrust Litigation (Bayer) c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 1110, Corte Madera, CA 94976-1110, Web site: http://www.crantitrustlitigation.com/; (2) Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3964, Phone: (202) 408-4600 and (888) 347-4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, Web site: http://www.cmht.com/;and (3) Paul F. Bennett, Esq. of Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, 595 Market Street, Suite 2300, San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 800-778-1822, E-mail: pbennett@gbcslaw.com. PRECISION BRAND: Tentative Settlement Reached in Ill. Muniz Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Precision Brand Products, Inc. along with other defendants and plaintiffs in the class action "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp.," reached a tentative agreement to resolve the suit. Filed on April 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the suit is alleging that the company and the other defendants caused diminution in property values of nearby homes and put the residents at an increased risk of contracting cancer. It was brought by and on behalf of area residents. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class on liability issues, but not on damages. The parties are engaged in mediation, as a group, and have recently reached a tentative agreement on conceptual terms, subject to finalization by the parties and court approval. Notwithstanding any settlement that may be reached with the plaintiffs by the defendants as a group, the cost ultimately to be borne by each defendant is subject to allocation among the defendants based on their relative responsibilities for the contamination, to be determined by future sampling and analysis of the soils and groundwater. The suit is "Muniz, et al. v. Rexnord Corp., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02405," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge John W. Darrah. Representing the plaintiffs is Myron Milton Cherry of Myron M. Cherry & Associates, 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: (312) 372-2100, E-mail: mcherry@cherry-law.com. Representing the defendants is Alan Bruce White of Karaganis, White & Magel, Ltd., 414 North Orleans, Suite 810, Chicago, IL 60610, Phone: (312) 836-1177. QC HOLDINGS: N.C. Court Stays Ruling on Arbitration Motion ---------------------------------------------------------- A ruling on QC Holdings, Inc.'s motion to enforce arbitration in a putative consumer fraud class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, will be put on hold pending the outcome of the appeal in the three other similar cases in the state. On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline. The two were customers of a Delaware state- chartered bank for whom the company provided certain services in connection with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail locations in North Carolina. It also alleged that the company made the payday loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified North Carolina statutes. They have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. This case is in the preliminary stages. There are three similar purported class actions filed in North Carolina against Advance America and two other companies unrelated to the company. In December 2005, the judge in those cases: -- granted the defendants' motions to stay the purported class actions and to compel arbitration in accordance with the terms of the arbitration provisions contained in the consumer loan contracts; -- ruled that the class action waivers in those consumer loan contracts are valid; and -- denied plaintiffs' motions for class certifications. The plaintiffs in those three cases, who are represented by the same law firms as the plaintiffs in the case filed against the company' have appealed that ruling. The judge handling the lawsuit against the company in North Carolina is the same judge who issued these three orders in December. The company has not had a ruling on the similar pending motions by the plaintiffs and the company in its North Carolina case. There is a stay in the North Carolina lawsuit, pending the outcome of the appeal in the other three North Carolina cases concerning the enforceability of the arbitration provision in the consumer contracts. Accordingly, there will be no ruling on the company's motion to enforce arbitration in North Carolina during the pendency of that appeal. Overland Park, Kansas-based QC Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: QCCO) -- http://www.qcholdings.com/-- provides short-term consumer loans, known as payday loans. As of Dec. 31, 2005, the company operated 532 branches in the U.S. It also provides other consumer financial products and services, such as check cashing services, title loans, credit services, money transfers and money orders. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Continues to Face Pa. RESPA Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Residential Capital Corp. remains a defendant in a purported class action filed on June 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Specifically, plaintiffs assert violations of Section 8(b) of RESPA based on the alleged collection of "unearned fees for settlement services" comprised of an $85 tax service fee, a $20 flood certification fee, and a $250 funding fee. The putative nationwide class consists of "all persons who, on or after Jan. 1, 1995 . . . paid fees for tax service, flood certification, and/ or underwriting." In September 2003, the district court dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action under RESPA as to all three fees for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal as to an alleged overcharge concerning the funding fee, but reversed the district court's dismissal as to alleged additional charges associated with the flood certificate and tax service fees. The court of appeals remanded plaintiffs' remaining claims to the district court to determine whether the subsidiary provided sufficient ancillary services to justify any such additional charges and for further proceedings, including discovery and motions, on both of these RESPA issues and ancillary state law claims. No class has yet been certified. The subsidiary has filed an answer to the claims denying the allegations and has provided some preliminary discovery in conjunction with court-supervised mediation. Residential Capital Corp. -- https://www.rescapholdings.com -- is a leading real estate finance company, focused primarily on the residential real estate market in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Latin America. Its diversified businesses cover the spectrum of the U.S. residential finance industry, from origination and servicing of mortgage loans through their securitization in the secondary market. It also provides capital to other originators of mortgage loans, residential real estate developers, resort and timeshare developers and healthcare companies. The company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Acceptance Corp. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: Court to Hear Motions in Cal. Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California in San Diego County, California is set to hear the motions for summary judgment in a putative class action against a subsidiary of Residential Capital Corp. The case was filed in December 2004, alleging misleading and wrongful conduct in connection with the company's servicing of residential mortgage loans. This complaint reflects numerous similar actions filed against other industry participants. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the company's subsidiary imposed unwarranted and improper fees, intentionally or recklessly failed to credit payments in a timely fashion, misapplied payments in order to improperly benefit itself, referred accounts prematurely to collections and foreclosure, wrongfully force placed insurance, and failed to provide borrowers with timely or clear information about the timing and amount of payments owed. Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class consisting of all borrowers serviced by the company's subsidiary from December 2000 to present, demanding declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. The subsidiary has filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations and discovery is proceeding. The court recently granted its motions for summary judgment against two of the six named plaintiffs. Motions for summary judgment against two additional named plaintiffs are to be heard by the court in September, according to the company's Aug. 7, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended June 30, 2006. Residential Capital Corp. -- https://www.rescapholdings.com -- is a leading real estate finance company, focused primarily on the residential real estate market in the U.S., Canada, Europe and Latin America. Its diversified businesses cover the spectrum of the U.S. residential finance industry, from origination and servicing of mortgage loans through their securitization in the secondary market. It also provides capital to other originators of mortgage loans, residential real estate developers, resort and timeshare developers and healthcare companies. The company is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Acceptance Corp. SEI INVESTMENTS: Md. Court Yet to Rule on Dismissal in "Carey" -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has not yet ruled on a proposal to dismiss SEI Investments Distribution Co., or SIDCO, a subsidiary of SEI Investments Co., in the consolidated class action, "Stephen Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd., et al." The PBHG Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons who purchased or held PBHG mutual funds from Nov. 1, 1998 to Nov. 13, 2003 and relates generally to various market timing practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG Funds. The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and entities, including various persons and entities affiliated with Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd., various PBHG Funds, various alleged market timers, various alleged facilitating brokers, various clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly financed the market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters and others. The PBHG Complaint alleges that the company was the named distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for various PBHG funds in which market timing allegedly occurred during that period. It generally alleges that the prospectus for certain PBHG funds made misstatements and omissions concerning market-timing practices in PBHG funds. The PBHG Complaint also alleges that the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and that the company breached its fiduciary duties, engaged in constructive fraud and aided and abetted the breach by others of their fiduciary duties. It does not name the company or any of its affiliates as a market timer, facilitating or clearing broker or financier of market timers. The PBHG Complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution. In 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed form of order dismissing SIDCO from the action, but the court has not yet acted on the proposed order. The company had not made any provision relating to this legal proceeding. The suit is "Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01151-JFM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge J. Frederick Motz. Representing the plaintiffs is Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin and Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Rd., Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 16106677706, Fax: 16106677056, E-mail: mtopaz@sbclasslaw.com. Representing the defendants are: (1) Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes and Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plz., New York, NY 10119- 0165, Phone: 12125945300; (2) Stephanie Glaser Wheeler of Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, 125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004, Phone: 12125587384, Fax: 12125583354, E-mail: wheelers@sullcrom.com; and (3) Susan R. Gross of Law Offices of Bernard Gross, PC, 1515 Locust St., Second Fl., Philadelphia, PA 19102, Phone: 12155613600, Fax: 12155613000. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Susman Godfrey Named Counsel in Stock Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted plaintiffs' motion for the appointment of the law firm of Susman Godfrey L.L.P. as additional co-lead counsel and class counsel to the case, "In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02-CV-72-SPF-FHM." The suit is being brought on behalf of those who purchased Williams Communications Group securities from July 24, 2000 through April 22, 2002. In April 2006, defendants filed motions for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the lawsuit. Plaintiffs have filed their opposition to the motions, and the court has not yet ruled on the motions. The court has scheduled a hearing on Oct. 31, 2006 for oral argument on the summary judgment motions. Trial of the lawsuit is currently scheduled to begin on Jan. 16, 2007. There has been no expression of opinion by the court concerning the merits of the action. There has not been a settlement of the class's claims in the action. Case Background On and after Jan. 29, 2002, securities holders of WilTel Communications, previously an owned subsidiary known as Williams Communications, filed multiple securities fraud class actions were filed against the company and co-defendants, WilTel and certain corporate officers. The defendants were accused of acting jointly and separately to inflate the stock price of both companies. Other suits allege similar causes of action related to a public offering in early January 2002 known as the FELINE PACS offering. These cases were also filed in 2002 against the company, certain corporate officers, all members of its board of directors and all of the offerings' underwriters. WilTel is no longer a defendant as a result of its bankruptcy. These cases were all consolidated and an order was issued requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders. The underwriter defendants have requested indemnification and defense from these cases. The company said that if it grants the requested indemnifications to the underwriters, any related settlement costs will not be covered by its insurance policies. The company is currently covering the cost of defending the underwriters. The suit is "In re Williams Securities Litigation, Case No. 02- CV-72-SPF-FHM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot with referral to Judge Frank H. McCarthy. On the net: http://www.wcgsecuritieslitigation.com/index.html Representing the plaintiffs is Jonathan Bridges, Esq. of Susman Godfrey L.L.P., 901 Main Street, Suite 5100, Dallas, TX 75202. Representing the defendants are: (1) Burck Bailey and Warren Franklin Bickford both of Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens (OKC), 100 N Braodway Ste., 1700, Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820, Phone: 405-232-0621, Fax: 405-232-9659, E-mail: bbailey@fellerssnider.com or wbickford@fellerssnider.com; (2) Vance L. Beagles, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (Dallas), 200 Crescent Ct, Ste 300, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214- 746-7700, Fax: 214-746-7777, E-mail: vance.beagles@weil.com; (3) Sally J. Berens of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Palo Alto), 1881 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone: 650-849-6300, Fax: 650-849-5333, E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com; (4) Timothy James Bomhoff of Ryan Whaley Coldiron and Shandy PC, 119 N Robinson, Rm 900, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405-239-6040, Fax: 918-239-6766, E-mail: tbomhoff@ryanwhaley.com; and (5) Ethan J. Brown of Latham & Watkins, 633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone: 213- 485-1234, Fax: 213-891-8763, E-mail: ethan.brown@lw.com. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- September 18-19, 2006 NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20, 2006 ASBESTOS INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Arlington St.), Boston Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 20, 2006 INSURANCE CONTRACT WORDING CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21-22, 2006 BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 21-22, 2006 EMINENT DOMAIN CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, Marina del Rey, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 26-27, 2006 REINSURANCE ARBITRATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 27-28, 2006 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS & LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 27-28, 2006 CLINICAL TRIALS American Conference Institute Boston Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 September 28-30, 2006 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 September 28-29, 2006 INSURANCE & REINSURANCE CORPORATE COUNSEL CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 12-13, 2006 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas, Nevada Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 October 4-5, 2006 CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION American Conference Institute Chicago Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 5-7, 2006 LEXISNEXIS PRACTICE MANAGEMENT CIC CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Ballantyne Resort, Charlotte, NC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 11, 2006 CORPORATE E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 16-17, 2006 WATER CONTAMINATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 19-20, 2006 INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Mealeys Seminars Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 25-26, 2006 WAGE & HOUR CLAIMS & CLASS ACTIONS American Conference Institute San Francisco Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 25-26, 2006 DERIVATIVES BOOT CAMP American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 October 26-27, 2006 EMERGING DRUGS & PREEMPTION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Hyatt Regency, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 31-November 1, 2006 EXIT STRATEGIES FOR THE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 1-2, 2006 INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Jurys Great Russell Street Hotel, London, UK Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com November 2-3, 2006 LONG TERM CARE LITIGATION American Conference Institute Miami Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 November 9-10, 2006 BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES American Conference Institute Miami Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 November 16-17, 2006 CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES ALI-ABA Washington, D.C. Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 November 30-December 1, 2006 ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY ALI-ABA New Orleans Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 December 4-5, 2006 BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com December 13-15, 2006 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 2007 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ September 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 1-30, 2006 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com September 13, 2006 PROPOSITION 64/17200 Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com September 15, 2006 HOW TO GET ON AN MDL COMMITTEE Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 17, 2006 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WOMEN IN THE LAW Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 24, 2006 NANOTECHNOLOGY Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com October 26, 2006 CURRENT CLAIMS ISSUES FOR UNDERWRITERS AND SENIOR CLAIMS PEOPLE Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases APPLE COMPUTER: Facing Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman announces that a class action was filed on Aug. 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities and/or sold put options of Apple Computer, Inc. between Dec. 1, 2005 and Aug. 11, 2006. The complaint charges that Apple and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10-b(5) and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. The action alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning Apple's 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 Apple 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. Thus, the company's financial statements in its Form 10-K filing for the fiscal year 2005 and interim financial statements for 2005 and 2006 were materially false and misleading. In addition, the company's Proxy Statement for its annual shareholder meeting held in 2006 was materially false and misleading because it contained statements concealing Apple's practice of backdating stock options. The complaint further alleges that as a result of defendants' actions, plaintiffs and the class were damaged. Interested parties have until Oct. 24, 2006 to move for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman, Esq., at Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, Phone: 800-660-7843 and 845-356-2570, E- mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com. IMAX CORP: Goldman Scarlato Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------ Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announces that a lawsuit has been 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 IMAX Corp. between Feb. 17, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006. The lawsuit was filed against IMAX and certain officers and directors. The complaint alleges that Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements and omissions concerning IMAX's financial health and future business prospects. During February and March 2006, IMAX issued a series or press releases describing its financial successes as well as its intention to explore strategic alternatives. On Aug. 9, 2006, IMAX announced that it was being investigated by the SEC with respect to its accounting, in particular, revenue recognition issues. Shares reacted negatively to the news, falling from $9.63 per share to $5.73 per share, a decline of 40.5%. Interested parties may move the Court no later than Oct. 10, 2006 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. For more details, contact Brian Penny, Esq. of The Law Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796, E-mail: info@gsk-law.com. JUNIPER NETWORKS: Howard G. Smith Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased securities of Juniper Networks, Inc. and is seeking to represent investors who purchased Juniper between April 10, 2003 and Aug. 10, 2006, inclusive. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period concerning the company's financial performance and practices in connection with stock option grants, thereby artificially inflating the price of Juniper securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties have until Sept. 15, 2006, in which to move for lead plaintiff status. For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 and (888) 638-4847, E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com, Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. WITNESS SYSTEMS: Finkelstein, Thompson Announces Ga. Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran announces that a lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Georgia against Witness Systems Inc. and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of Witness Systems' securities between April 23, 2004, and Aug. 11, 2006. The lawsuit alleges that Witness Systems violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements regarding its financial results for the period between February 2000 through August 2002, that the company omitted to disclose that it was engaging in the backdating of stock option grants to executives and other employees, and that its financial statements violated generally accepted accounting principles. The complaint further alleges that various executives and officers engaged in suspicious insider trading activity. On July 27, 2006, the company announced that it was reviewing its stock option grants. On Aug. 9, 2006, the company issued a press release announcing that it had formed a special committee to investigate its stock option grants because it had "identified a number of different deficiencies in the company's practices, procedures and documentation." Witness Systems estimated that it would take a non-cash charge of approximately $10 million and disclosed that its financial statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission should no longer be relied upon. The market reacted sharply to this news with Witness Systems' share price dropping from a close of $18.19 on July 27, 2006 to a close of $13.48 on Aug. 10, 2006. Interested parties may move the court no later than Oct. 16, 2006 to request for appointment as lead plaintiff. For more details, contact Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran, Phone: (877) 337-1050, E-mail: bjw@ftllaw.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 * * *