/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061025.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October 25, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 212
Headlines
BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces N.C. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Line Items
BIOPURE CORP: Objects to Mass. Securities Suit Certification
BUCA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Minn. Stock Lawsuit
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Nov. Hearing Set to Hear N.Y. Stock Suit Motion
CMS ENERGY: Consolidated Mich. Stock Suit Trial Set March 2007
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Ky. Judge Orders Transfer of $20M Fund
HOMESTORE.COM INC: Former CEO, VP Continues to Face Fraud Claims
IMPERIAL METALS: Plans Lawsuit Over BcMetals Corp.'s Poison Pill
JACUZZI BRANDS: Discloses More Apollo Merger Info Amidst Lawsuit
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Motion to Consolidate Stock Grants Suits Filed
LOUISIANA: Energy Firms Prepare For Katrina Litigation Onslaught
MERCK & CO: German Court Rejects Damages Claim Over Vioxx Drug
MERRILL LYNCH: Nov. 28 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Agreement
MICROSOFT CORP: Mar. 6, 2007 Hearing Set for Ark. Antitrust Deal
MICROSOFT CORP: Mar. 30 Hearing Set for Wis. Antitrust Agreement
MOTOROLA INC: Faces Another Suit in Fla. Over Bluetooth Headsets
MULTIPLEX GROUP: May Face Investors Suit Over Wembley Project
NEW JERSEY: Suit Planned Over Education For Special Children
NEW YORK: Court Allows 9/11 Cleanup Workers' Suit to Proceed
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls North American Sedans for Ignition Glitch
OCA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Suit
RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Fraud Suit to End in 2007
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Class Certification Sought
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Nassau County Plans Lawsuit Over Tax Remits
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz Law Firm Files Calif. Stock Suit
LEGG MASON: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
XETHANOL CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
*********
BELLSOUTH CORP: Faces N.C. Consumer Fraud Suit Over Line Items
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Forman Rossabi Black of North Carolina filed a
federal class action against BellSouth Corp. claiming that the
company misleads its customers about line items on its bills,
according to The Business Journal of the Greater Triad Area.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of plaintiffs William Lee
and Tina Chilton-Lee.
It claims that the telecom company formats its bills and uses
descriptions that lead people to believe that the "Federal
Universal Service Charge" and "cost recovery fees" on Digital
subscriber line (DSL) service are federally mandated, or
essentially a tax.
The suit is "Lee, et al. v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00881-UA-PTS," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Amiel J. Rossabi of Forman Rossabi Black, P.A., Post
Office Box 41027, Greensboro, NC 27404-1027, Phone:
336-378-1899, Fax: 336-378-1850, E-mail:
arossabi@frb-law.com; and
(2) Michael G. Wimer of Wimer & Jobe, 349 Haywood Rd.,
Asheville, NC 28806, Phone: 828-350-9799, Fax: 828-350-
9894, E-mail: mwimer001@aol.com.
Representing the defendants is Richard Samuel Gottlieb of
Kilpatrick Stockton, L.L.P., 1001 W. FOURTH ST., Winston-Salem,
NC 27101-2400, Phone: 336-607-7484, Fax: 336-734-2643, E-mail:
RGottlieb@KilpatrickStockton.com.
BIOPURE CORP: Objects to Mass. Securities Suit Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in a consolidated securities class action pending in
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
Biopure Corp. filed an opposition to plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
Following the announcement in December 2003 that Biopure was
being investigated by the U.S Securities and Exchange
Commission, the company, two directors (one a former director),
its former chief executive officer, former chief technology
officer and former chief financial officer were named as
defendants in a number of similar, purported class action
complaints, filed between Dec. 30, 2003 and Jan. 28, 2004 by
alleged purchasers of the company's common stock.
According to the complaint, Biopure artificially inflated its
stock price by misrepresenting the prospects for U.S. Food and
Drug Administration approval of the marketing of the Company's
main product, Hemopure.
The lawsuit says that the company knew by virtue of its ongoing
communications with the FDA that regulators had strong
reservations about Hemopure's safety but continued to publicly
hype the product throughout the Class Period.
Hemopure is an investigational product for the treatment of
acutely anemic surgical patients and for the elimination, delay
or reduction of red blood cell transfusions in these patients.
It is a human blood substitute derived from cow's blood, which
acts like red blood cells to deliver oxygen to the body. Unlike
donated blood, Hemopure does not have to be matched to a
patient's blood type.
The truth about Hemopure began to emerge on December 24, 2003.
After the close of the markets on Christmas Eve, Biopure
announced a potential SEC inquiry for securities fraud and, for
the first time, disclosed substantial problems with its Hemopure
product and the FDA approval process.
Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action
as, "Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation."
On July 23, 2004, Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
complaint on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who acquired the common stock of Biopure during the
period of March 17, 2003 through Dec. 24, 2003 and names as
additional defendants Ronald F. Richards, Howard P. Richman,
Charles A. Sanders and J. Richard Crout.
On Oct. 6, 2004, defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Dec. 7, 2004 lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to defendants' motions. Defendants filed their
replies in further support of their motions on Jan. 24, 2005.
On Feb. 2, 2006 the Judge heard oral arguments on all
outstanding motions. On March 28, 2006 Judge Nancy Gertner
issued an order denying the motions to dismiss and on the same
date the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which
the defendants filed answers to on April 28.
On May 5, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. Defendants filed their opposition to plaintiff's
motion for class certification on July 25, 2006.
The suit is "In Re Biopure Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:03-cv-12628-NG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Nancy Gertner.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 212-687-7230;
(2) Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53 State Street, Boston, MA
02108, Phone: 617-439-3939, Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail:
ted@shulaw.com; and
(3) Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Suite 500, Stonehill Corporate
Center, 999 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906, Phone: 781-231-
7850, Fax: 781-231-7840 (fax) E-mail:
palagorio@gilmanpastor.com or dpastor@gilmanpastor.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Bingham McCutchen LLP, 150 Federal Street, Boston, MA
02110, Phone: 617-951-8717, Fax: 617-951-8736, E-mail:
robert.buhlman@bingham.com, eunice.lee@bingham.com and
raquel.webster@bingham.com; and
(ii) Mary P. Cormier of Edwards & Angell, LLP, 101 Federal
BUCA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Minn. Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
rule on a motion by BUCA, Inc. to dismiss a consolidated
securities class action filed against it and three of its former
officers.
Between Aug. 7, 2005 and Sept. 7, 2005, three identical civil
actions were commenced against the company. The three actions
were later consolidated.
On Jan. 11, 2006, the four lead plaintiffs filed and served a
consolidated amended complaint. The complaint is brought on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons who purchased the
company's common stock in the market during the time period from
Feb. 6, 2001 through March 11, 2005.
The lead plaintiffs allege that in press releases and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings issued during the
class period, defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about the company's income, revenues, and internal
controls, which allegedly had the result of artificially
inflating the market price for the company's stock.
They assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seek compensatory damages
in an unspecified amount, plus an award of attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation.
On March 13, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim and that
it fails to plead fraud with the particularity required under
the law.
On Aug. 4, 2006, a hearing on defendants' motions was held and
the motions were taken under advisement. The parties wait for
the court to issue its ruling.
The suit is "West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, et al. v.
Buca, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-1762," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Donovan
W. Frank with referral under Judge Arthur Boylan.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Bryan L. Crawford, Muria J. Kruger and Stacey L. Mills
of Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, 80 S. 8th St., Ste. 3550,
Mpls., MN 55402, Phone: 612-338-4605, Fax: 612-338-
4692, E-mail: bcrawford@heinsmills.com,
mkruger@heinsmills.com and smills@heinsmills.com;
(2) Jay W. Eng and Michael J. Pucillo of Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Ave., Ste.
900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Phone: 561-835-9400,
Fax: 561-835-0322, E-mail: jeng@bermanesq.com and
mpucillo@bermanesq.com; and
(3) Daniel S. Sommers and Steven J. Toll of Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC - DC, 1100 New York Ave., NW Ste.
500, Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: 202-408-4609 and
202-408-4646, E-mail: dsommers@cmht.com and
stoll@cmht.com.
Representing the defendants are Michael M. Krauss and Wendy J.
Wildung of Faegre & Benson, LLP, 90 S. 7th St., Ste. 2200,
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901, Phone: 612-766-8514, Fax: 612-766-
1600, E-mail: mkrauss@faegre.com; and wwildung@faegre.com.
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Nov. Hearing Set to Hear N.Y. Stock Suit Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hear on Nov. 7, 2006 oral arguments on defendants' motions
to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. and its officers.
The suit, "Welmon v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. NV, et al., Case
No 06 CV 1283," was filed on Feb. 17, 2006 against the company,
Gerald M. Glenn, Robert B. Jordan, and Richard E. Goodrich.
It was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all
those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's
securities from March 9, 2005 through Feb. 3, 2006 and were
damaged thereby.
The action asserts claims under the U.S. securities laws and
alleges, among other things, that the company materially
overstated the company's financial results during the class
period by misapplying percentage-of-completion accounting and
did not follow the company's publicly stated revenue recognition
policies.
Since the initial lawsuit, other suits containing substantially
similar allegations and with similar, but not exactly the same,
class periods were filed.
On April 18, 2006, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On May
10, 2006, Judge John E. Sprizzo, issued an order consolidating
all related cases into one class action lawsuit and appointed
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On June 20, 2006, Judge
Sprizzo issued Order appointing co-lead counsel to oversee the
litigation.
On July 5, 2006 lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended
class action complaint and on Aug. 16, 2006, defendants filed
their motions to dismiss lead plaintiffs' complaint. Lead
plaintiffs will be filing their opposition to defendants'
motions. The court will hear oral arguments on defendants'
motions on Nov. 7, 2006.
The suit is "Wayne Welmon, et al. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co.
NV, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01283-JES," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Catherine A. Torell of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East 52nd Street, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-mail:
ctorell@cmht.com;
(2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, (LIs), 58 South Service
Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-
7100, Fax: 631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com;
(3) Arthur N. Abbey of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis,
LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, US,
Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191, E-mail:
aabbey@abbeygardy.com; and
(4) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-907-0878, Fax: 212-818-0477, E-mail:
ebelfi@labaton.com.
CMS ENERGY: Consolidated Mich. Stock Suit Trial Set March 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan set
a March 27, 2007 trial date for a consolidated securities fraud
lawsuit filed against CMS Energy Corp.
On June 3, 2002 a shareholder sued CMS Energy Corp. and three
top officers, claiming they used "round-trip" energy trading
practices to artificially inflate reported revenues.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. It seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
CMS common stock from Aug. 3, 2000 through and including May 10,
2002.
According to the lawsuit, CMS and three of its top executives
engaged in "round trip" energy trading to artificially boost
earnings.
"Round-trip" trading refers to the practice whereby two
companies buy and sell the same amount of power at the same
price and at the same time, resulting in a financial "wash" for
both companies.
The complaint says these trading practices lacked any economic
substance and were used by CMS to improperly record
approximately $4.4 billion in revenue and to manipulate the
market into thinking CMS was a significant player in the power
marketing industry.
On May 9, 2002, the truth about CMS trading practices began to
emerge when a news report revealed that CMS had engaged in
"round-trip" trading with Dynegy, Inc.
The news for shareholders grew worse on May 10, when CMS
announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had
begun an informal inquiry into CMS "round-trip" trading
activities.
Then, on May 13, Reliant Resources, Inc. stated that it had also
conducted "round-trip" trading with CMS. CMS has confirmed such
trading with both companies.
On May 15, CMS disclosed that its energy-marketing unit had
"entered into 'round trip' electricity trades...from May 2000
through mid-January 2002. Thirteen of the trades accounted for
about 98 percent of the volume."
The complaint says a former partner at the accounting firm
Deloitte & Touche told Reuters: "Recording revenues from round-
trip trades would be a species of fraud because they're
overstating revenues." On May 24, CMS announced the resignation
of its chairman and chief executive.
The market reaction to the news was swift and severe. CMS stock
fell from a high of $20 per share on May 10, 2002 to a low of
$15.72 on May 13, 2002, a one-day decline of more than 21% and a
fall of more than 45% from the Class Period high.
Consolidated Complaint
On Sept. 24, 2002 the court consolidated all related cases into
one class action, "In re CMS Energy Securities Litigation." On
Nov. 14, 2002 Judge George Steeh issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order appointing lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.
On May 1, 2003 lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On July 2, 2003, defendants filed their motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties briefed the
issues and on Sept. 8, 2003 a hearing on defendants' motions was
held, which Judge Steeh took under advisement.
On Feb. 12, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their consolidated complaint, specifically seeking to add
additional support for their allegations. On March 1, 2004,
defendants filed their opposition to this motion.
Second Amended Complaint
On March 31, 2004, Judge Steeh issued an Opinion and Order that,
among other things, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss and required lead plaintiffs' to
file a proposed amended complaint under seal, which was filed on
April 21, 2004.
On May 26, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of all persons and
entities who acquired the securities of CMS from May 1, 2000
through and including March 31, 2003.
On June 21, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On Jan. 7, 2005 the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. On
Feb. 23, 2005 a scheduling hearing was held setting a discovery
deadline for Feb. 20, 2006 and a trial date for Sept. 19, 2006.
Third Amended Complaint
On March 16, 2005 plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
Beginning on April 6, 2005 the individual defendants began
filing their answers to the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on April 15, 2005.
On Sept. 20, 2005 the defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment
on the Pleadings which Judge Steeh denied on December 7, 2005.
On March 24, 2006 Judge Steeh issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the motion for class certification. On June
21, the Judge denied plaintiffs request for a reconsideration of
the class certification ruling.
On June 21, new deadlines were set including, Dispositive Motion
cut-off date set for Dec. 8, 2006, final Pretrial Conference set
for March 13, 2007 and a trial date of March 27, 2007.
The suit is "In re CMS Energy Securities Litigation, Case No.
02-72004," filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge George Caram Steeh.
Case Contact: Julie A. Richmond, Phone: 800-516-9926.
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Ky. Judge Orders Transfer of $20M Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Special Judge William Wehr ordered that the nearly $20 million
that had been placed in Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, a
controversial fund controlled by Lexington attorneys, should
instead be held for 400 of their former clients, The Lexington
Herald-Leader reports.
The money was set up using money from a $200 million fen-phen
lawsuit settlement in Boone Circuit Court. Judge Wehr ordered
that it be placed in a trust for the lawsuits' plaintiffs, who
all claim that they suffered medical problems due to the diet
drug.
Those plaintiffs are now suing their former attorneys:
-- William Gallion,
-- Melbourne Mills, and
-- Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and
-- Cincinnati lawyer Stanley Chesley.
According to the 400 former clients, their lawyers took more
money from the settlement than what they agreed to give them in
attorney fees.
Previously, the attorneys had sued American Home Products, maker
of the diet drug fen-phen, and won the $200 million settlement
in 2001.
Earlier this year, Judge Wehr ruled that Messrs. Gallion, Mills
and Cunningham violated their fiduciary duty to their clients by
taking more than half the proceeds from the settlement. They
and others involved in the case received about $105 million,
while the clients only received $74 million.
Part of the $200 million settlement was placed in the Kentucky
Fund for Healthy Living, a non-profit that paid Messrs. Gallion,
Mills and Ms. Cunningham more than $60,000 a year for serving as
its directors.
The fund gave about $1.5 million to hospitals and other non-
profits for various health-care related projects. However,
according to court records, much of that money was given after
questions were raised about the legitimacy of the fund.
Attorney Angela Ford, who is representing the former fen-phen
clients, said the money would not be disbursed to the clients
until all claims against the lawyers are settled.
Ms. Ford sued the lawyers on behalf of their former clients in
2004, arguing that they took about $64 million more from their
clients than they should have received.
Despite the suit, Judge Wehr has not ordered that the attorneys'
other assets -- bank accounts and other investments -- be
frozen.
In August, the state Supreme Court temporarily suspended the law
licenses of Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Cunningham until the
Kentucky Bar Association could complete an investigation into
possible misconduct in the case.
Former Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger, who presided
over the original fen-phen settlement in 2001, resigned after
being publicly reprimanded by the state judicial conduct
commission.
That reprimand was a result of his role in approving the
lawyer's fees and for receiving payment as a board member of the
Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living.
Judge Wehr though has not ruled on whether Mr. Chesley, who has
argued in court documents that he had no contracts with
individual clients and was not a board member of the fund,
committed any wrongdoing in the handling of the case.
For more details, contact Angela M. Ford, Chevy Chase Plaza, 836
Euclid Avenue, Suite 311, Lexington, Kentucky 40502, (Fayette
County), Phone: 859-268-2923, Fax: 859-268-9141, Web site:
http://www.angelafordlaw.com.
HOMESTORE.COM INC: Former CEO, VP Continues to Face Fraud Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial against the remaining defendants in the Homestore.com,
Inc. Securities Litigation had been vacated and re-set at an
indefinite time, according to an update posted by at the Web
site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.
Stuart Wolff, the former chief executive officer and chairman of
the board of Homestore.com, and Peter Tafeen, the company's
former executive vice president of business development,
continue to face a lawsuit filed by investors over the company's
accounting of its revenue in 2001.
On Feb. 6, 2002, a class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court of the Central District of California against
Homestore.com, Inc. on behalf of all investors who purchased
Homestore stock from May 4, 2000 through Dec. 21, 2001.
The lawsuit charges Homestore and certain of its top officers
with artificially inflating its revenue and earnings through
improper accounting.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company purportedly
recorded revenue on advertising sales when, as alleged, the
company was not receiving cash for ad space.
Rather, Homestore would buy a product or service from companies
that placed ads on its website. As outlined in the complaint,
such barter transactions should not have been entered as direct
revenue under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
The first whiff of trouble came on Dec. 21, 2001, when the
company admitted that an independent investigator was examining
its accounting practices and that a restatement of earnings was
forthcoming. Less than two weeks later, the complaint says, the
company announced the preliminary results of the inquiry:
Homestore had overstated online advertising revenues by between
$54 million and $95 million over the first three quarters of
2001.
After the December 21 announcement, Nasdaq halted trading of
Homestore stock at $3.60. When trading resumed on January 7,
Homestore stock fell to a low of $1.24 before closing at $2.46,
down 32% from its last close and far below the class period high
of $54.62.
On Feb. 22, 2002 the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action, "In re Homestore.com, Inc.
Securities Litigation."
On March 25, 2002 the court appointed lead plaintiff and on May
30, 2002 approved lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel.
On Nov. 15, 2002 lead plaintiff filed its first amended
consolidated complaint.
On Jan. 10, 2003, defendants Homestore.com and Peter B. Tafeen
filed their answers to the amended complaint. On the same day,
certain other defendants filed their motions to dismiss the
amended complaint, which lead plaintiff opposed. In March 2003,
the court ruled on the defendants' motions granting them in part
and denying them in part.
On March 25, 2003, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which the court denied with leave to amend. Also
on April 4, 2003, defendants PricewaterhouseCoopers and Stuart
H. Wolff filed their answers to the amended complaint.
On Aug. 1, 2003, lead plaintiff filed a supplemental motion for
class certification, which Judge Marsha Pechman granted and
certified a class defined as all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Homestore stock from Jan. 1, 2000 through
Dec. 21, 2001.
On Feb. 9, 2004 defendants PwC and Wolff filed motions for
summary judgment. On May 11, 2004, the court issued orders,
denying Wolff's motion and denying PwC's motions as to primary
liability violations and scienter and granted PwC's motion as to
control person liability claims.
On Sept. 14, 2004, Mr. Tafeen filed a motion for summary
judgment and after a hearing Judge Lew denied this motion.
1st Partial Settlement
On Oct. 14, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
Homestore settlement. The terms of the settlement created a
Settlement Fund consisting of $13,000,000 in cash and 20,000,000
shares of Homestore common stock.
On May 14, 2004, the court issued a final order and judgment
granting final approval of the Homestore settlement. Claims
filing deadline was set May 31, 2004 and Rust Consulting, Inc.
was named claims administrator.
The claims administrator processed the claim forms in connection
with the Homestore Settlement on file with their office and
distributed the cash portion of the Fund for this settlement on
July 11, 2005. The Transfer Agent mailed stock letters to
authorized claimants on Aug. 9, 2005.
2nd Partial Settlements
On April 14, 2005, Judge Ronald Lew preliminarily approved
proposed settlements entered into by lead plaintiff and
defendants Joseph Shew, John Giesecke, Jr., John DeSimone,
Sophia Losh, Jeffrey Kalina and David Rosenblatt to settle the
claims against these defendants. The terms of the proposed
settlements create a Settlement Fund in the amount of
$5,956,215.64.
A final approval hearing was held on Aug. 29, 2005 and on Sept.
16, 2005, Judge Ronald Lew signed final judgment and orders
granting final approval of these settlements. Claim Form filing
deadline was set Aug. 23, 2005.
3rd Partial Settlement
On June 27, 2005, lead plaintiff and defendant PwC entered into
a Stipulation of Settlement to settle the claims against PwC.
The terms of the PwC Settlement: create a Settlement Fund in the
amount of $17,500,000. On Aug. 16, 2005, Judge Ronald Lew
issued an order preliminarily approving the PwC Settlement.
A final approval hearing to determine, among other things,
whether the PwC Settlement should be approved by the court as
fair, reasonable and adequate was held on Jan. 9, 2006 and on
Jan. 11, 2006, Judge Lew signed a final judgment and order
approving the PwC Settlement.
The case is continuing against the two remaining individual
defendants, Mr. Wolff and Mr. Tafeen. Pursuant to a Jan 9, 2006
Order, the trial in this civil action, was rescheduled to
commence on Oct. 24, 2006. Pursuant to a Sept. 6, 2006 Order,
the trial date is vacated and will be re-set at a later date.
The suit is "In re Homestore.com, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 01-CV-11115" filed in U.S. District Court, Central
District of California under Judge Ronald S.W. Lew.
Case Contact: Patrick T. Egan, Phone: 800-516-9926.
IMPERIAL METALS: Plans Lawsuit Over BcMetals Corp.'s Poison Pill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imperial Metals Corp. said that might launch a class action
following BcMetals Corp.'s decision to adopt a shareholder
rights plan, or poison pill, to fend off the proposed takeover,
according to The Canadian Business.
The company is also contemplating a termination of its
unsolicited bid for BcMetals. According to the company,
terminating the offer and potentially launching the lawsuit by
minority shareholders of American Bullion Minerals Ltd. against
BcMetals is one of a number of options that Imperial is
considering.
Imperial added that the poison pill would preclude it from
taking up more than 20 per cent of BcMetals shares. In a press
release, the company said, "In light of these developments,
together with the refusal of BcMetals to establish a special
independent committee to engage in co-operative discussion with
Imperial, Imperial is now evaluating the options available to
it."
Those options also include:
-- Reducing its cash offer below 95 cents per share to
reflect current market conditions, the payment of break
fees to the Chinese company and the mounting expenses
being incurred by BcMetals in response to the Imperial
offer.
-- Entering into agreements with shareholders of BcMetals
which support Imperial's offer.
-- Applying to the securities regulators for a cease-trade
order in respect of the BcMetals shareholder rights
plan.
Imperial announced Sept. 8 that it was offering 95 cents per
share, for a total of $35.6 million cash, to increase its
ownership of BcMetals to 100 per cent. That offer is set to
expire Nov. 2.
At the time, Imperial owned about three per cent of BcMetals'
stock but has since been increasing its holdings. As of Oct. 5,
Imperial said it held three million shares of BcMetals or about
10 per cent.
However, BcMetals' board rejected the offer, recommending that
shareholders instead accept a joint venture with a Hong Kong
company, Global International Jiangxi Copper Mining Co. Ltd.,
which agreed to contribute US$105 million towards developing the
Red Chris copper mine. BcMetals would own 25 per cent of the
project and Global International would own the rest.
JACUZZI BRANDS: Discloses More Apollo Merger Info Amidst Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacuzzi Brands Inc. has disclosed more information about the
financing arrangements made by proposed buyer Apollo Management
LP and its portfolio company Rexnord Corp. in response to
questions from stockholders and other interested parties,
bizjournals.com reports.
Earlier, Jacuzzi Brands and each of its directors have been
named as defendants in two purported stockholder class actions
in the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware alleging Jacuzzi
Brands directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with their actions in agreeing to the company's proposed merger
with a wholly owned subsidiary of Apollo Management L.P. (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).
In a statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
Jacuzzi gave information relating to Jupiter Acquisition L.L.C.,
an affiliate of Apollo Management, the private investment firm
that has said it will purchase Jacuzzi in a $1.25 billion deal.
Upon completion of that transaction, Rexnord Corp., a West
Milwaukee-based subsidiary of Apollo, will buy Jacuzzi's
plumbing fixtures and fittings manufacturing business in Erie,
Pa., for $950 million.
The West Palm Beach, Florida-based bath and plumbing products
firm said Jupiter Acquisition has provided it an equity
commitment letter from Apollo and debt commitment letters from
Credit Suisse, Bank of America and UBS that together provide
about $1.4 billion in cash to finance the purchase.
The company pointed out the acquisition includes $935 million in
funded debt and $455 million in equity investment from Apollo
and its affiliates.
Jacuzzi said Jupiter Acquisition has informed it the financing
is to go toward satisfying legacy liabilities related to
divestitures, Jacuzzi's pre-existing contractual agreements,
subsidiaries that require accelerated cash payments upon a
change of control at Jacuzzi, other customary transaction
expenses both companies will incur in connection with the
transaction.
Apollo's debt financing letters are subject to customary closing
conditions and are not subject to any minimum earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization or similar
condition, Jacuzzi noted.
On Oct. 11, Jacuzzi Brands announced a deal in which private
equity firm Apollo Management LP would buy the company for $990
million, plus $260 million in debt.
Under the terms of the merger agreement, Jacuzzi Brands'
shareholders will receive $12.50 per share in cash (Troubled
Company Reporter, Oct. 16, 2006). The transaction will be
financed through a combination of equity contributed by Apollo
and debt financing.
The Board of Directors of Jacuzzi Brands has approved the merger
agreement and has recommended to Jacuzzi Brands' shareholders
that they vote in favor of the transaction.
In connection with the proposed transaction, Jacuzzi Brands will
make a cash tender offer for all of its outstanding 9.625%
Senior Secured Notes due 2010, which is essentially all of the
debt at JJZ.
The acquisition is subject to certain closing conditions,
including the approval of Jacuzzi Brands' shareholders,
regulatory approval, and the receipt by Apollo of all necessary
debt financing, and is expected to close in the first quarter of
2007.
The company has reviewed the allegations contained in the
complaints and believes that the lawsuits are without merit. The
company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims.
West Palm Beach, Florida-based Jacuzzi Brands, Inc. (NYSE: JJZ),
-- http://www.jacuzzibrands.com/-- through its operating
subsidiaries, is a global producer of branded bath and plumbing
products for the residential, commercial and institutional
markets.
KLA-TENCOR CORP: Motion to Consolidate Stock Grants Suits Filed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Competing motions for the consolidation of all cases related to
KLA-Tencor Corp.'s backdated stock option grants to directors or
executives were filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
On Aug. 3, 2006, two public pension funds sued KLA-Tencor Corp.
in federal court accusing the company of securities law
violations.
The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System
(MPERS) and the City of Detroit Police and Fire Retirement
System (PFRS) filed the class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California and seeks damages for
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors
who acquired KLA-Tencor securities from June, 30, 2001 through
and including May 22, 2006.
Based in San Jose, KLA-Tencor is a supplier of yield management
and process control solutions for semiconductor manufacturing
and related industries.
The lawsuit claims that KLA-Tencor and a number of individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Sections 78j(b), 78n(a) and
78t(a) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 of the U.S. Commerce and Trade
Code promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange
Commission, Section 240.10b-5 and 240.14a-9 of Title 17 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
Further, the lawsuit alleges in substance that the company
backdated stock option grants to the individual defendants
and/or other directors or executives to provide the recipients
with a more profitable exercise price.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements, and/or omitted material facts
necessary to make those statements not misleading.
In particular, the complaint says that:
-- contrary to statements made by the company, the option
grants were not made at the fair market value or the
Nasdaq closing price on the date of the grant;
-- KLA-Tencor improperly understated its expenses and
overstated its earnings as a result of improper option
backdating; and
-- KLA-Tencor failed to prepare its financial statements in
accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.
The lawsuit alleges that the truth about the company's stock
options backdating first emerged publicly in an article
published by The Wall Street Journal on May 22, 2006. The
company then announced the next morning that it was under
investigation by federal prosecutors. The lawsuit alleges that
following this announcement KLA-Tencor's stock price fell as a
result, from a close of $45.24 per share May 19 to a close of
$39.07 per share May 23.
On Aug. 28, 2006, competing motions for the consolidation of all
related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel were filed with the court.
Case Contact: Lesley Ann Hale, Phone: 415-433-3200.
LOUISIANA: Energy Firms Prepare For Katrina Litigation Onslaught
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oil, coal and utility companies in Louisiana are preparing to
defend against a possible onslaught of lawsuits as trial
attorneys begin launching class actions over global warming, The
Lawyer reports.
A New Orleans-based plaintiffs' attorney who had his house
destroyed by Hurricane Katrina has filed a class action in the
federal court of Gulfport, Mississippi on behalf of neighbors
who also had their homes ruined.
Defendants in the case are various oil and gas and power-
generating utility companies including the likes of Chevron,
Exxon Mobil, American Electric Power and others.
Hunton & Williams, Jones Day, and Sidley Austin have all been
recruited to co-ordinate defense efforts for a group of utility
companies.
Mississippi residents and trial attorneys Gerald Maples and
Timothy Porter argue that since Hurricane Katrina was given
devastating strength from unusually warm Gulf water.
The attorneys also argue that global warming could have caused
those warm weather conditions and thus firms that pollute the
atmosphere should be held liable.
Mr. Maples was reported as saying in the U.S. press that to him,
Hurricane Katrina was a clear result of irresponsible behavior
by the carbon-emissions corporate economy.
He also reiterated that the suit is a heartfelt effort, adding,
"I don't want to leave this global warming mess to my children."
MERCK & CO: German Court Rejects Damages Claim Over Vioxx Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
A German court rejected two claims over U.S. drugmaker Merck &
Co.'s withdrawn painkiller Vioxx, including one seeking $100,000
in damages, The Associated Press reports.
According to a civil court in Berlin, it dismissed both claims
last week against the German distributor of the once-blockbuster
drug.
A court statement pointed out that a woman who filed a suit
seeking at least $100,000 in damages failed to show that the
drug could have caused an illness she was suffering from.
It also pointed out that the woman failed to respond adequately
to a suggestion from the distributor that a chronic illness
could have caused her symptoms.
In the second case, the court rejected a man's claim for
information from the company about the effects and possible side
effects of the drug. He too failed to demonstrate a connection
between taking the drug and his symptoms, according to the
court, which pointed out that "expressing a vague suspicion is
not enough."
Despite the decision, the court did not identify either the
German distributor or the two claimants, who both could still
appeal.
Vioxx was prescribed to millions of patients around the world
before Merck pulled it from the market on Sept. 30, 2004 after
studies indicated it increased the risk of heart attacks and
strokes.
Based in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, Merck has already won a
string of court cases in the U.S., where more than 21,000 suits
have been filed. Class actions alone could cost the company
billions if it loses.
Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE: MRK) -- http://www.merck.com-- is a
global pharmaceutical company that discovers, develops,
manufactures and markets a range of products to improve human
and animal health, directly and through its joint ventures. The
company's products include therapeutic and preventive agents,
generally sold by prescription, for the treatment of human
disorders.
These products include Zocor (simvastatin), a atherosclerosis
product; Fosamax (alendronate sodium) and Fosamax Plus D
(alendronate sodium/cholecalciferol), Merck's osteoporosis
products, and Fosamax, for prevention of osteoporosis; Cozaar
(losartan potassium)/Hyzaar (losartan potassium and
hydrochlorothiazide) and Vasotec (enalapril maleate), the
company's hypertension/heart failure products, and Singulair
(montelukast sodium), a leukotriene receptor antagonist
respiratory product for the treatment of chronic asthma and for
the relief of symptoms of allergic rhinitis.
MERRILL LYNCH: Nov. 28 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District Of New York
will hold a fairness hearing On Nov. 28, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., for
the proposed settlement in the matters:
-- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Research Reports
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 MDL 1484 (JFK);"
-- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Internet Strategies
Fund Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 3176 (JFK);"
-- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Global Technology Fund
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 7854 (JFK);" and
-- "In re Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. Focus Twenty Fund
Securities Litigation, Case No. 02 CV 10221 (JFK)."
Objections to the settlement must be made on or before Nov. 13,
2006.
The settlement covers all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the:
-- "Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies Fund, Inc. (ISF)
from March 16, 2000 through and including Oct. 12, 2001
(ISF CLASS);"
-- "Merrill Lynch Global Technology Fund, Inc. (GLOBAL
TECHNOLOGY FUND) From Oct. 2, 1999 through and
including Oct. 1, 2002 (GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY FUND CLASS);
and/or
-- Merrill Lynch Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (FOCUS TWENTY
FUND) from March 3, 2000 through and Including Dec. 23,
2002 (FOCUS TWENTY FUND CLASS).
LITIGATION BACKGROUND
The Global Technology Fund Litigation
On or about Oct. 1, 2002, Michal N. Merritt filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of herself and the Global Technology Fund
Class alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and section 34(b) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (ICA) against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (ML
& Co.), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., (MLPF&S),
Global Technology Fund, Princeton Funds Distributor, Inc., FAM
Distributors, Inc., Princeton Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch
Asset Management, L.P., Merrill Lynch Investment Managers, L.P.
(MLIM) and the Global Technology Fund's officers and directors
Terry K. Glenn, Donald C. Burke, Donald Cecil, Roland M.
Machold, Edward H. Meyer, Charles C. Reilly, Richard D. West,
Arthur Zeikel, Edward D. Zinbarg, Roscoe S. Suddarth, Ronald W.
Forbes, Cynthia A. Montgomery and Kevin A. Ryan (Global
Technology Fund Defendants).
On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Michal N. Merritt as lead
plaintiff for the Global Technology Fund Class (Global
Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP, as lead counsel (Global Technology
Fund Lead Counsel).
On or about March 14, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended class action complaint
(Global Technology Fund Complaint), asserting claims under
sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act, section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and section 34(b) of
the ICA.
She alleged that the Registration Statement/Prospectus for the
Global Technology Fund failed to disclose that:
-- a material percentage of the companies in which Global
Technology Fund invested were companies which defendant
MLPF&S had represented as lead or co-lead underwriter
or investment banker;
-- MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research reports on
many of the securities held in Global Technology Fund's
portfolio;
-- Global Technology Fund invested in companies at prices
allegedly inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order
to enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking
business from those companies;
-- MLPF&S allegedly issued research reports on over 80% of
the companies whose securities were in the Global
Technology Fund; and
-- MLPF&S research analysts allegedly received the
majority of their compensation from generating
investment banking business.
The Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff asserted that the
Global Technology Fund Defendants were liable for the decline in
the trading price of the Global Technology Fund, which allegedly
resulted from the conduct alleged in the Global Technology Fund
Complaint.
On July 2, 2003, the district court granted the Global
Technology Fund Defendants' motions under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and dismissed the Global Technology Fund
Complaint with prejudice on the grounds that:
-- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted
information;
-- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations;
-- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff could not
plead loss causation;
-- the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff lacked
standing to assert a violation of section 12(a)(2) of
the Securities Act;
-- there is no private right of action under section 34(b)
of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be
brought derivatively;
-- the claims under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
failed for the additional reasons that the claims were
insufficiently particularized and no facts supporting
an intent to defraud had been pled.
On July 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff
moved the Court to alter its judgment and allow her to file a
second consolidated amended complaint on the ground that the
claims were not barred by the statute of limitations. That
motion was denied.
On Sept. 17, 2003, the Global Technology Fund Lead Plaintiff
filed her notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit. That appeal was fully briefed and the parties
were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement
was reached.
The ISF Litigation
Beginning on April 24, 2002, at least nine securities class
actions relating to ISF were filed in the district court against
the ISF Defendants alleging violations of sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act.
On June 25, 2002, five motions for the consolidation of all the
related ISF cases, and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were filed.
On Feb. 5, 2003, the court appointed Ruth Manton as Lead
Plaintiff for the ISF class and appointed Abbey Gardy, LLP as
lead counsel. Subsequently, Abbey Gardy, LLP, changed its name
to Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP.
On March 14, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint asserting claims under sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and section 34(b) of
the ICA on behalf of herself and the ISF class against ML & Co.,
MLPF&S, ISF, Master Internet Strategies Trust, Global Technology
Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Services, Inc., FAM
Distributors, Inc., Paul G. Meeks, and the Fund's officers and
directors, Donald C. Burke, Terry K. Glenn, Charles C. Reilly,
Roscoe S. Suddarth, Richard R. West, Edward D. Zinbarg and
Arthur Zeikel.
The ISF Lead Plaintiff alleged, among other things that the
Registration Statement/Prospectus for the ISF failed to disclose
that:
-- the ISF allegedly invested in the securities of
companies with which MLPF&S had or sought investment
banking business;
-- that MLPF&S allegedly issued misleading research
reports on many of the securities held in the ISF's
portfolio; and
-- that the ISF invested in companies at prices allegedly
inflated by MLPF&S' research reports in order to
enhance MLPF&S' ability to obtain investment banking
business from those companies.
The ISF Lead Plaintiff further alleged that the ISF Defendants
were liable for the decline in the trading price of the ISF
shares, which allegedly resulted from the alleged conduct of the
ISF Defendants.
On Oct. 29, 2003, the district court, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissed the ISF Complaint with
prejudice on the grounds that:
-- there was no duty to disclose the allegedly omitted
information;
-- the claims were barred by the statute of limitations;
-- the ISF Lead Plaintiff failed to allege losses
recoverable under sections 11 or 12(a)(2);
-- there is no private right of action under section 34(b)
of the ICA and even if there was, it would have to be
brought derivatively.
On Nov. 24, 2003, the ISF Lead Plaintiff filed her notice of
appeal from the district court's Oct. 29, 2003 decision in the
Second Circuit. That appeal was fully briefed and the parties
were awaiting oral argument at the time this proposed settlement
was reached.
The Focus Twenty Fund Litigation
On Dec. 23, 2002, Cynthia McGinnes filed the first class action
complaint involving the Focus Twenty Fund in the district court,
alleging violations of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act.
By order dated July 22, 2003, the court consolidated the
McGinnes complaint with several other actions alleging
violations of the securities laws in connection with purchases
of Focus Twenty Fund.
On July 22, 2003, the court appointed Archie Lofberg as Lead
Plaintiff for the Focus Twenty Fund class (Focus Twenty Fund
Lead Plaintiff) and appointed Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, LLP, as Lead Counsel (Focus Twenty Fund Lead Counsel).
On or about Aug. 25, 2003, the Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint (Focus
Twenty Fund Complaint), against ML & Co., MLPF&S, Focus Twenty
Fund, Fund Asset Management, L.P., Princeton Funds Distributor,
Inc., FAM Distributors, Inc. and Princeton Services, Inc.
(collectively the Focus Twenty Fund Defendants), making
essentially the same allegations as made in the Global
Technology Fund Complaint by the Global Technology Fund Lead
Plaintiff.
The Focus Twenty Fund Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss
the Focus Twenty Fund Complaint on the basis of the district
court's decisions in the coordinated cases, particularly the
decisions on essentially the same grounds as in the Global
Technology Fund action.
In its Oct. 22, 2003 decision on defendants' motions to dismiss,
the court struck certain allegations as irrelevant and
dismissed, without prejudice, those portions of the Amended
Complaint that were not stricken.
The Focus Twenty Fund Lead Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Complaint on Nov. 5, 2003, which defendants moved to dismiss.
That motion was fully briefed and was awaiting oral argument at
the time the parties reached this proposed settlement.
During the spring and summer of 2006, settlement negotiations
occurred between Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants. On
Sept. 22, 2006, the parties presented to the district court a
proposed Stipulation of Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and
Defendants.
For more details, contact:
(1) Jill S. Abrams, Esq. of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams &
Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York,
10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700;
(2) Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz, LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New
York 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4740; and
(3) Merrill Lynch Funds Securities Litigation, c/o The
Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box
9000 #6449, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1-800-327-
3664 or 631-470-5000, Fax: 631-470-5100, E-mail:
info@gardencitygroup.com, Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/.
MICROSOFT CORP: Mar. 6, 2007 Hearing Set for Ark. Antitrust Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas will hold a
fairness hearing on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 a.m. for the proposed
settlement in the matter, "Peek v. Microsoft Corp., No. CV-06-
2612."
The hearing will be held at the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas, Twelfth Division, 401 W. Markham Street, Little Rock,
Arkansas.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Feb. 17 & 20, 2007, respectively. Proof of claim forms
must be submitted by April 23, 2007.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim that the company violated
Arkansas laws pertaining to anti-trust, consumer protection, and
unfair competition and thereby overcharged consumers for some of
its software.
The settlement will provide up to $37.8 million in vouchers,
which people and businesses can use toward the purchase of
computers, computer products, and software.
It applies to consumers and businesses that, while residing in
Arkansas, "indirectly purchased" certain Microsoft software
between Jan. 1, 1998 and Dec. 31, 2004, for use in Arkansas, and
not for resale.
The software included is: Microsoft's "Windows" and "MS-DOS"
operating system software; Microsoft's "Office" productivity
suite software; Microsoft's "Excel" software; Microsoft's "Word"
word processing software (including "Home Essentials" and "Works
Suite").
The deal will resolve private lawsuits about whether the company
violated Arkansas laws pertaining to anti-trust, consumer
protection, and unfair competition.
For more details, contact:
(1) Microsoft-Arkansas Settlement, P.O. Box 3607, Portland,
OR 97208, Phone: 1-800-572-0455, Web site:
http://www.microsoftARsuit.com.
(2) Mike L. Roberts of Roberts Law Firm, P.A., 20 Rahling
Circle, Little Rock, AR 72223, Phone: (501) 821-5575.
MICROSOFT CORP: Mar. 30 Hearing Set for Wis. Antitrust Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County will hold a
fairness hearing on March 30, 2007 at 11:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matters:
-- "Spence v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 00-CV-003042,"
-- "Capp v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. No. 05-CV-011127,"
and
-- "Bettendorf v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. No. 05-CV-
010927."
The hearing will be held in the Milwaukee County Courthouse,
Room 403, 901 North 9th St., Milwaukee, WI 53233.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made by Feb. 13, 2007, respectively. Proof of claim forms must
be submitted by June 30, 2007.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim that the company violated
Wisconsin's antitrust and unfair competition laws and thereby
overcharged consumers for some of its software.
The settlement was reached on behalf of Wisconsin consumers and
businesses that acquired Microsoft software from Dec. 7, 1993
through April 30, 2003, for use in Wisconsin, and not for
resale.
The software included is: Microsoft's "Windows" and "MS-DOS"
operating system software; Microsoft's "Office" productivity
suite software; Microsoft's "Excel" software; Microsoft's "Word"
word processing software (including "Home Essentials" and "Works
Suite").
The settlement will provide up to $223,896,000, in vouchers,
which people and businesses can use toward the purchase of
computers, computer products, and software.
For more details, contact:
(1) Microsoft-Wisconsin Settlement, P.O. Box 1626,
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1626, Phone: 1-800-598-3050 and
1-866-494-8399, Web site:
http://www.microsoftWIsuit.com;and
(2) Ben Barnow of Barnow and Associates, P.C., One North
LaSalle St., Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-
621-2000, Fax: 312-641-5504.
MOTOROLA INC: Faces Another Suit in Fla. Over Bluetooth Headsets
----------------------------------------------------------------
Motorola, Inc., faces a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida over
allegations that it has put the hearing of consumers at risk,
since its Bluetooth headsets exceed safe decibel levels and it
failed to warn customer of the potential dangers.
According to the suit, the company's headsets have volume
controls, which produce sounds exceeding 85 decibels, with sound
often peaking in excess of 100 decibels.
The case is the third one alleging similar claims that was filed
in October against the company.
Martin Alpert, a California resident, filed one of those suits,
which seeks class-action status, on Oct. 16, 2006. Representing
Mr. Alpert in the case is the Chicago law firm Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19, 2006).
The case is "Alpert v. Motorola, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
05586," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
The other case against Motorola was filed in Cook County Circuit
Court in Illinois. The named plaintiff in the suit is
Aleksandra Spevacek, a Cook County resident (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 20, 2006).
The newer Florida case contends that without resorting to
scientific testing, the consumer cannot determine the decibel
level of the sound being emitted from the headset.
According to the National Institute of Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders' Web site, "prolonged exposure" to a
noise more than 85 decibels can cause gradual hearing loss.
The institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, lists
"heavy traffic" as an example of something that generates about
85 decibels of noise.
The suit also claims that the company made "false
representations, omissions and concealments" in it's packaging
by not highlighting the hazard.
The headsets, according to the suit, can also be used with
phones that play music, putting users at greater risk for
hearing damage.
Anyone who purchased a Bluetooth headset manufactured by the
company in the last four years would be eligible to join the
suit, according to the complaint.
The suit seeks:
-- an order certifying the class and any appropriate sub-
class thereof, and appointing plaintiff, Steve Edwards
and his counsel to represent the class;
-- an award of general damages according to proof;
-- an award of special damages according to proof;
-- an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
deter and make an example of defendant;
-- an award of restitution in an amount according to proof;
-- a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, and their
agents, servants, employees and all persons acting under
or in concert with them, to cease and desist from the
following acts:
(i) selling, marketing or advertising the headsets
without a detailed warning advising the consumer
as to the potential for noise induced hearing loss
and the known risk of harm associated with
exposure, even for brief intervals, to sound at
high decibel levels;
(ii) selling, marketing or advertising the headsets
without a mechanism by which the user can readily
and easily determine the decibel levels being
emitted by the headsets and thereby be made aware
of the safe time, limits (if any) for use of the
headsets at the higher volume settings;
(iii) any other conduct which the court determines
warranted so as to prevent the commission of
unfair competition by defendant.
-- for reasonable attorney's fees;
-- for costs incurred herein;
-- for prejudgment interest; and
-- for all general, special and equitable relief to which
the plaintiff and the members of the class are entitled
by law.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?13df
The suit is "Edwards v. Motorola, Inc., Case No. 8:06-cv-01909-
SDM-MSS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday, with
referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
(1) Michael Jay Fuller, Jr. of McHugh Fuller Law Group, 97
Elias Whiddon Road, Hattiesburg, MS 39402, Phone:
601/261-2220, Fax: 601/261-2481, E-mail:
mike@mchughfuller.com;
(2) Stephen M. Garcia and Sarina M. Hinson both of The
Garcia Law Firm, One World Trade Center, Suite 1950,
Long Beach, CA 39402, Phone: 800/281-8515, Fax:
562/216-5271; and
(3) Melissa Harnett of Wasserman, Comden & Casselman, LLC,
5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste. 330, PO Box 7033, Tarzana, CA
91357-7033, Phone: 818/705-6800, Fax: 818/996-8266.
MULTIPLEX GROUP: May Face Investors Suit Over Wembley Project
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit is being prepared against Sydney Australia-based
Multiplex Group over delays in its disclosure regarding problems
at its Wembley Stadium Project.
In 2006, Maurice Blackburn Cashman has been instructed to
commence a class action against Multiplex Limited on behalf of
security holders who purchased or acquired an interest in
securities between Nov. 7, 2003 and May 30, 2005.
MBC considers that for a period before May 30, 2005 Multiplex
had not properly disclosed to shareholders and potential
shareholders the full story regarding huge cost increases and
delays, or the real risk of huge costs and delays, in the
construction of the Wembley National Stadium.
Multiplex did not tell the market about problems with the
Wembley Stadium Project until Feb. 24, 2005, and did not reveal
the project would make a loss and impact on group profit until
May 27, 2005.
The filing of the suit has been delayed due to litigation
funding issues, information at the Web site of deListed reveals.
Maurice Blackburn on the Net: http://www.mbc.aus.net/
NEW JERSEY: Suit Planned Over Education For Special Children
------------------------------------------------------------
Families and organizations are gearing to file a civil class
action, "Grieco, et al. v. New Jersey Department of Education,
et al.," on behalf of all children with disabilities, such as
Down syndrome (also known as Trisomy 21), who are being denied
access to an inclusive education in the State of New Jersey.
In what amounts to a continued violation of federal law and
statute, the State of New Jersey has refused to allow children
with Down syndrome to fully participate in the public
educational system.
New Jersey has the largest rate of segregation of children with
disabilities in the nation, and more than four times the
national average.
Vincenzo L. Grieco, the lead plaintiff, and other children with
disabilities have been deprived by New Jersey Education
officials of their rights to be educated in regular classrooms
with typically developing classmates, and to be provided with
supplementary aids, support services and accommodations required
to achieve integrated education.
This failure by New Jersey, particularly highlighted as October
is "National Down Syndrome Awareness Month," violates federal
mandates set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans
With Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination.
A press conference to announce the filing of the lawsuit will be
held on October 26, 2006 at 10 a.m. in front of the Department
of Education Building, at 100 Riverview, Trenton, New Jersey.
Presenters will include:
-- Kelly D. Grieco, mother of Vincenzo L. Grieco, a nine-
year-old boy with Down syndrome;
-- Rebecca Boucher, mother of Simone Boucher, a six-year-
old girl with Down syndrome; and
-- lawyer Andrew I. Hamelsky, White and Williams LLP.
For more information, contact Andrew I. Hamelsky of White and
Williams LLP, Phone: 201-368-7200, E-mail:
hamelskya@whiteandwilliams.com; and Barbara E. Ransom of The
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, Phone: 215-627-7100,
E-mail: bransom@pilcop.org.
NEW YORK: Court Allows 9/11 Cleanup Workers' Suit to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
allowed claims brought by 3,000 emergency workers suing New York
City over health damages caused from the cleanup after the Sept.
11, 2001 attacks to move forward.
In 2003, the World Trade Center recovery workers filed a lawsuit
against the city, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
and hundreds of city contractors in 2003.
In the suit, "In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,
Case No. 21 MC 100 (AKH), 03 Civ. 00007 et al. (AKH)," workers
alleged that they should have been provided with better
respiratory equipment throughout the cleanup, and better
instructions on how to use the gear they were provided, and that
as a result, they have suffered permanent lung damage.
Plaintiffs argued that the federal government recognized the
liability of the city and other entities when they authorized a
damage cap on civil claims against the city as part of the Air
Transportation Safety and Air Stabilization Act of 2001, and
again when they distributed $1 billion to the city to fund an
insurance pool for it.
Defendants though contended that state and federal immunity
laws, including the New York State Defense Emergency Act, the
New York Disaster Act, and common law federal immunity
principles, protected their conduct from liability during the
course of a response to an enemy attack.
In essence they argued that they are immune from negligence
suits when responding to terror attacks and, thus filed motions
to have the suit dismissed.
However, in his Oct. 17, 2006 opinion, U.S. District Judge Alvin
Hellerstein disagreed, saying that said while the city and the
agency are immune under certain U.S. state and federal law, the
degree varied "according to date, place and activity" and more
information was needed to determine their level of
responsibility.
Judge Hellerstein, who set a Nov. 3, 2006 case conference, adds
that even if only a few plaintiffs "suffered serious injuries to
their respiratory tracts arising from the acrid air of 9/11,
their claims deserve to be heard when a recovery could make a
difference in their lives."
Essentially, the judge concluded that the motions by the City
and by the Port Authority to dismiss the complaints against
them, and against the contractors engaged by the City are
denied.
Claims against power company Con Edison and developer
Silverstein Properties were dismisses by the judge though. The
two were named as defendants because they were leaseholders on
the Ground Zero site, but who were not present during the
cleanup effort.
In dismissing both companies the judge cited that there was "no
credible evidence" they had access to the site in the weeks
after the attacks and were "barred from re-entry without express
approval by the city."
Despite the opinion, Michael Cardozo, a lawyer for the city,
maintains that the workers' claims were unfounded. He pointed
out, "Complex decisions that were carefully and thoughtfully
made during the months after 9/11 will demonstrate the enormous
good work done by the City and its contractors, and the absence
of any legal liabilities."
The complaint and the Oct. 17 opinion are available free of
charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1150
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?13ed
The suit is "In Re: World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation,
Case No. 1:21-mc-00100-AKH-THK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K.
Hellerstein with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Marc Jay Bern and Paul Joseph Napoli of Napoli Bern
Ripka, LLP, 115 Broadway, 12th Floor, New York, NY
10006, Phone: (212) 267-3700, Fax: (212)-513-7320 and
(212) 587-0031, E-mail: mjbern@napolibern.com and
PNapoli@napolibern.com, Web site:
http://www.877wtchero.com/updates.jsp;and
(2) Rita F. Aronov of Shestack & Young, LLP, 233 Broadway,
50th Floor, New York, NY 10279, Phone: (212) 766-1200,
Fax: (212) 349-4911, E-mail: raronov@yahoo.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Kenneth A. Becker, Corporation Counsel of the City of
New York, Assistant Corporation Counsel, 100 Church
Street--Rm. 4-214, New York, NY 10007, Phone: (212)
788-051; and
(ii) Judith Pearl Falk of Flemming Zulack Williamson
Zauderer, LLP, One Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
Phone: (212) 412-9554, Fax: (212) 964-9200, E-mail:
jfalk@fzw.com.
NISSAN MOTOR: Recalls North American Sedans for Ignition Glitch
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan Motor Co. is recalling about 70,000 Muranos and 10,000
Maxima sedans in North America including 80,000 in the U.S.
because of an ignition key defect, ConsumerAffairs.com reports.
The company said the car sometimes will not start properly and
occasionally the engines start even when the ignition is turned
off and the driver moves the steering wheel.
The recalls involve only models using Nissan's "intelligent key"
system with integrated circuit chip which allows drivers to open
their car doors with their keys still inside their pockets by
just pressing on the handle.
Drivers don't need to insert the intelligent key to get the car
to start and can keep the key anywhere nearby.
Nissan says the problem is not with the key or its chip but with
ignition connections inside the vehicle.
Nissan will replace several parts between the ignition switch
and starter motor.
OCA INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss by defendants in a
consolidated securities fraud suit filed against OCA, Inc.
On June 17, 2005 an investor sued OCA, Inc. claiming that the
company issued materially false and misleading financial
statements to the investing public.
The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who
purchased OCA common stock between May 18, 2004 and June 7,
2005.
An additional class action complaint was filed on behalf of
purchasers of OCA common stock during the period Nov. 12, 2003
through and including June 7, 2005.
The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5.
OCA, a provider of business services to orthodontic and
pediatric dentists, issued numerous positive statements
throughout the class period touting the company's financial
performance, the complaint says.
Then on June 7, 2005, OCA shocked the market when it announced
that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report,
that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements
for 2004 and that it had placed the company's chief operating
officer on administrative leave.
Specifically, the company admitted that, among other things, it
had materially overstated its patient receivables and patient
revenue for the first three quarters of 2004.
On this news, shares of the OCA stock fell $1.53 per share or
almost 38% to close at $2.50 per share on June 7, 2005.
On July 1, 2005, the court issued an order consolidating all
related securities and derivative actions into one class action.
On Aug. 3, 2005, the court held an initial conference and on
Aug. 4, 2005, signed Pretrial Order No. 1 ordering, among other
things:
-- the consolidated action be entitled "In re OCA, Inc.
Securities and Derivative Litigation, No. 05-2165;
-- motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead
counsel in the securities action be filed no later than
Aug. 12, 2005; and
-- responses to lead plaintiff motions be filed no later
than Aug. 19, 2005; and
-- setting a status conference for Sept. 21, 2005.
On Aug. 12, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. Further
briefing with regard to the appointment of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel was filed. On Nov. 18, 2005, Judge Sarah S. Vance
issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On Feb. 1, 2006, Lead Plaintiff filed his consolidated class
action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased OCA
common stock or sold OCA put options during the period May 18,
2004 through and including June 6, 2005.
Beginning March 3, 2006, defendants filed their motions to
dismiss this complaint. Lead plaintiff filed his opposition to
defendants' motions on April 3, 2006.
On May 19, 2006, the court heard arguments on defendants'
motions. The parties wait for the court to issue its ruling.
The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Bruce
Simon, et al. v. OCA, Inc., et al.," filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., 701 Camp Street,
New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 524-5777, Fax:
(504) 524-5763, E-mail: info@kanner-law.com;
(2) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL),
515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach,
FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400;
(3) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;
(4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;
(5) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 2300 Promenade II; 1230
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
(888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail:
attorney@chitwoodlaw.com;
(6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO,
80218-1417, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 800-711-6483, e-
mail: info@dyershuman.com;
(7) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com;
(8) Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite
2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400;
(9) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone:
215-886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net;
(10) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660
Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003-
4335, Phone: 202-544-9840, Fax; 202-544-9850;
(11) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), The
Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,
FL, 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E-
mail: info@milbergweiss.com;
(12) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park
Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone:
212-661-1100; and
(13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com.
RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Fraud Suit to End in 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated securities fraud class action
against Red Hat, Inc. is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21,
2007, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Aug. 31, 2006.
In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the
company and several of its present and former officers on behalf
of investors who purchased the company's securities during
various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.
All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina. In each of the actions,
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the
company's common stock during some or all of the period from
June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004.
All of the claims arise in connection with the company
announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of
its financial statements.
One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and
former officers and the company variously violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial
statements that the company subsequently restated.
One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages,
interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of
certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from
trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the
company's chief executive officer and former chief financial
officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the
company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief.
As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class action lawsuits were
consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR.
Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have now been
designated, and on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated class action complaint.
On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the
individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Also on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), another
defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2006,
the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the
individual defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its
chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer.
The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in
their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss. A
scheduling order has been entered in the matter, and discovery
is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007.
The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Borsellino v. Red Hat, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-CV-473," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt.
Representing the plaintiff are William Webb and Rufus Edmisten
of The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC
27602, Phone: 919-831-8700 by E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com
and rufus@rufusedmisten.com.
Representing the company are Pressly M. Millen and Christopher
Jones of Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PO Box 831 Raleigh
NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 or E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com,
cjones@wcsr.com.
SUPREMA SPECIALTIES: N.J. Stock Suit Class Certification Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against
Suprema Specialties, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for New
Jersey filed a motion to certify a class of investors who bought
Suprema stock from Aug. 8, 2001 through Dec. 21, 2001.
An investor sued Suprema Specialties on Jan. 24, 2002, accusing
the company of misleading the public about its financial
results.
The class action, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for
New Jersey, seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Suprema stock from
Aug. 8, 2001 through Dec. 21, 2001.
The complaint names Suprema and six top officers and directors
as defendants, saying they inflated the company's stock price
during the class period by issuing false and misleading
statements about its finances.
According to the lawsuit, the deception began in August 2001
when the Company announced "record" results for the fourth
quarter and year-end of 2001.
In September 2001, the company filed statements with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission saying it was issuing 3.5
million shares of stock to the public.
The complaint says that two of the individual defendants reaped
more than $4.6 million from sales of their shares at that time.
Then, in November 2001, Suprema again trumpeted its results for
the first quarter of 2002, the complaint alleges.
But just one-month later news of the deception was revealed. In
a Dec. 24, 2001 statement, Suprema announced the resignation of
its chief financial officer and controller and said it had begun
an investigation into its past financial results. Nasdaq halted
trading in Suprema shares the same day.
On Feb. 28, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all
related cases into one class action lawsuit. Beginning on March
15, 2002 competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and lead counsel were filed with the court.
On July 1, 2002, the court appointed a lead plaintiff to
represent the class and lead counsel to oversee the litigation.
The lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated class action
complaint on Sept. 9, 2002.
On Dec. 15, 2002, defendants filed their motions to dismiss lead
plaintiff's amended complaint. The court ruled on these motions
on June 25, 2003, issuing an Order granting defendants' motions
and directing lead plaintiff to amend their complaint within 60
days.
The lead plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint
on Jan. 30, 2004. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
this complaint on March 5, 2004. The lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to defendants' motions on April 2, 2004, to which
defendants filed their reply briefs on April 16, 2004 and April
19, 2004. On Aug. 31, 2004, the court issued an order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended complaint.
On Sept. 17, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On Sept.
14, 2005 the appeals court heard oral arguments.
On Feb. 23, 2006 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
issued an order affirming in part, reversing in part and
remanding for further proceedings the district court's order
dismissing the second amended complaint.
On June 30, 2006, the various defendants began filing their
answers to the second amended complaint. On Sept. 15, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the class.
The suit is "Smith, et al v. Suprema Specialties, et al., Case
No. 2:02-cv-00168-WHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for
District of New Jersey under Judge William H. Walls.
TRAVEL COMPANIES: Nassau County Plans Lawsuit Over Tax Remits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi will announce a federal class
action, adding Nassau County to the roster of counties allegedly
underpaid by travel firms of taxes for brokering hotel rooms,
the Long Island Business News reports.
The lawsuit states those extra tax receipts are due to the
counties and states.
Named defendants in the suit are Travelocity.com, Orbitz.com,
Expedia.com and others that claims the Web-based businesses
pocketed tax revenue that did not belong to them.
According to Chris Munzing, spokesman for Mr. Suozzi, the Web
vendors buy room stays in bulk from local hotels at a discounted
price, while paying the standard tax rate. But when the service
sells that room stay to a customer, for a higher price, it
receives more in sales tax than it initially paid.
In September, a similar suit "Louisville Jefferson County Metro
Government v. Hotels.com, L.P. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-00480-
TBR," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Kentucky under Judge Thomas B. Russell (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 26, 2006).
Named defendants in the Louisville, Kentucky suit are:
-- Cendant Travel,
-- Cheap Tickets, Inc.,
-- Does 1 through 1000, Inclusive,
-- Expedia, Inc.,
-- Hotels.com, L.P.,
-- Hotels.com GP LLC,
-- Hotwire, Inc.,
-- Internetwork Publishing Corp.,
-- Lowest Fare.com, LLC,
-- Maupintour Holding, LLC,
-- Orbitz, LLC,
-- Orbitz, Inc.,
-- Priceline.com, Inc.,
-- Site59.com, LLC,
-- Travelocity.com, Inc.,
-- Travelocity.com, LP,
-- Travelweb, LLC, and
-- Travelnow.com, Inc.
The suit claims the companies paid taxes on wholesale room rates
instead of the higher retail rates consumers are required to
pay.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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 1-2, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT AND MOLD LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel, Scottsdale, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 7, 2006
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9-10, 2006
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
November 13-14, 2006
CORPORATE LIABILITY & COMPLIANCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Coconut Grove, Miami
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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 5, 2006
MTBE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 7-8, 2006
COPYRIGHT - FROM TRADITIONAL CONCEPTS TO THE DIGITAL AGE
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
December 7-8, 2006
SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA
December 11-12, 2006
CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
December 11-12, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL
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
------------------------
October 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 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
October 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
October 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
October 25, 2006
A-Z OF WORKING WITH LITIGATION MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26, 2006
ETHICAL PITFALLS OF THE IN-HOUSE AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL
RELATIONSHIP
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 26, 2006
THE CLAIMS HANDLING IMPLICATIONS OF MASS TORTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 31, 2006
LEGAL ETHICS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 1, 2006
KATRINA - WATER DAMAGE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 2, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 7, 2006
WORLD TRADE CENTER - BUSINESS INTERRUPTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8, 2006
ASBESTOS INSURANCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 9, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 13, 2006
LEAD LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 14, 2006
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 15, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS - THE BIG DIG
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 15, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 16, 2006
PATENT REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERIC DRUGS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 16, 2006
STRESS, DEPRESSION AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 17, 2006
AVIAN FLU - INSURANCE IMPLICATIONS (UK)
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 21, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #1 - HUMAN TISSUE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 28, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #2 - FOSAMAX
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 28, 2006
WHITE COLLAR CRIME
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 29, 2006
RETAIL IN-HOUSE PERSPECTIVES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 4, 2006
IMMIGRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 5, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #3 - KETEK/TEQUIN
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 5, 2006
HEALTH CARE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6, 2006
DYNAMIC TRIAL TECHNIQUES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11, 2006
PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12, 2006
EMERGING DRUGS SERIES #4 - CONTACT LENS SOLUTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12, 2006
E-DISCOVERY - HOW TO CREATE AN E-DISCOVERY PRACTICE TEAM AT YOUR
FIRM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2006
LEGAL ETHICS
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
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz Law Firm Files Calif. Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C. filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. who purchased during the period
from Oct. 3, 2001 through Oct. 3, 2006.
The complaint alleges that Marvell and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the
backdating of the grant of stock options to management.
The company has now said that its financial statements from June
of 2000 to the present cannot be relied upon, and that it will
be restating financial results.
The practice of manipulating stock option dates not only
potentially lines the pockets of the executives, but here
resulted in the overstatement of Marvell's earnings during the
class period, and the under-booking of compensation expenses.
Under accounting rules, back-dating an option grant is deemed
the payment of additional compensation and must be accounted for
as an expense, which Marvell failed to do.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the defendants announced that the Company would
be forced to restate its financial statements to correct for the
backdating of stock options.
From the first time assertions were made in the press that
Marvell's options practices may be questionable to the date of
this announcement, the stock sank from over $28 per share to
roughly $16 per share.
All motions for appointment as lead plaintiff must be filed with
the court by Dec. 5, 2006.
For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of The
Paskowitz Law Firm, P.C. Toll free: 1-800-705-9526, E-
lpaskowitz@pasklaw.com.
LEGG MASON: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., P.C. filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Legg Mason, Inc. common stock during
the period between June 24, 2005 and July 24, 2006.
Interested parties must move the court no later than Dec. 15,
2006 for appointment as lead plaintiff in the case.
The complaint alleges that on 6/24/05, Legg Mason announced that
it would swap its brokerage unit plus $2.1 billion in stock and
cash for Citigroup's $435 billion money-management division and
would buy hedge fund firm The Permal Group.
Defendants stated the acquisition would be immediately accretive
to earnings, have a positive effect on profitability and leave
Legg Mason with a "Conservative Balance Sheet."
According to the complaint, throughout the class period,
defendants continued to paint a picture of continued growth and
success for the future.
In fact, Legg Mason's business was failing miserably, as:
-- Legg Mason was unable to successfully integrate
Citigroup's worldwide asset management business (CAM)
assets because of a lack of compatible corporate
infrastructures;
-- the company's acquisition of the CAM assets was not the
success defendants claimed - Citigroup had undisclosed
pre-existing sales expenses to a third-party brokers,
so there was little or no possibility of achieving the
combined (post-acquisition) projections that defendants
claimed;
-- post-acquisition cost "savings" were unattainable;
-- former Citigroup customers had withdrawn billions of
dollars of assets, further driving down revenues and
profits;
-- the company's ability to achieve earnings growth
(including the company's projections for fiscal 2006
and beyond) was severely strained, due to deteriorating
investment returns on Bill Miller's $18.7 billion Legg
Mason Value Trust, the company's flagship equity fund
which was having its worse year since 1990 and was
trailing the S&P 500 for the first time in 16 years;
and
-- the diminishing returns on Miller's flagship fund were
causing further margin pressure.
As a result, the company's projections for fiscal years 2006 and
2007 were grossly inflated.
On July 25, 2006 the company disclosed that the CAM acquisition
costs were spiraling and customers were withdrawing funds,
putting further pressure on revenues and margins and causing
Legg Mason to miss the earnings targets for 1Q 07. On this news,
stock price fell to below $85 per share.
For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Phone: 1-800-
391-5164 or 412-391-5164, Fax: 412-471-1033, E-mail:
yateslaw@aol.com.
XETHANOL CORP: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, filed a class action the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
shareholders who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Xethanol Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8,
2006.
Xethanol and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the class period, Xethanol repeatedly assured
investors that it could sustain itself on revenue from corn
ethanol production while successfully commercializing biomass
ethanol production.
In fact, however, as investors have now learned, Xethanol was
suffering from a host of undisclosed adverse factors that
negatively impacted its business and it appears that they do not
have the ability to commercialize biomass ethanol in the
foreseeable near term.
As investors learned the truth about Xethanol, shares of the
Company declined precipitously -- falling from a Class Period
high of over $15 per share in April 2006, to less than $4.00 per
share by the end of the Class Period.
While shares of Xethanol were artificially inflated during the
Class Period, certain insiders were able to liquidate millions
of dollars of their personally held Xethanol shares.
Particularly, the complaint alleges that Xethanol:
-- misrepresented management's experience and standard of
ethics;
-- omitted disclosing a series of related party
transactions and association with investors who had
alarming records of stock fraud and related shareholder
abuses;
-- materially overstated the company's profitability by
under-reporting the true costs associated with
completing a biomass to ethanol production facility,
and by failing to make proper adjustments to the
company's financial reports;
-- lacked any reasonable basis to assert that the company
was operating according to plan or could achieve the
near-term commercialization of biomass ethanol
production, or achieve the guidance sponsored and/or
endorsed by the company; and
-- caused plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase
Xethanol common stock at artificially inflated prices.
For more details, contact Partner Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-
866-467-1400, ext., 100, or 504-648-1850, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.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 * * *