/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/061122.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, November 22, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 232
Headlines
51JOB INC: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
AMERICAN FAMILY: Probe Launched into Settlement Fund Allocation
APPLERA CORP: D.C. Court Certifies Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Annuls $296M Overdraft Suit Award
BUTLER INT'L: Shareholder Group Files Amended Complaint in Md.
CALIFORNIA: Judge Mulls Suit Over Riverside County Jail Policy
CHINA: Chemical Factory Ordered to Pay $85T for Polluting River
CLEAR CHANNEL: Shareholders File Suits Over Plan To Go Private
COLORADO: Drivers File Colo. Suit Over Traffic Violation Tickets
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Securities Suit Hearing Set Jan. 26, 2007
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Hearing Before Securities Regulator Suspended
EL PASO: Settles Shallow Wells Lawsuits in Okla. for $30M
ENERGY PARTNERS: Faces Investor's Suit in Del. Over Stone Merger
EXXON-MOBIL: Processors Accused of Taking Awards in Fla. Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Fla. Woman Objects to Paxil Case Settlement
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Williams v. Blagojevich"
JACKSON HEWITT: Sued in N.Y. for Allegedly Charging Hidden Fees
LEHIGH VALLEY: Student Loans Suit in Penn. Sent to Arbitration
LOUDEYE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 4, 2006
MERCK & CO: Canadian Court Grants Class Status to Vioxx Lawsuit
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Col. Suit Counterclaims Trial Set Jan.
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Antitrust Suit Hearing to Begin this Week
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Revenue-Sharing Payments
NEW YORK: Jury Verdict Coming in Utica Avenue Oil Spill Lawsuit
NORTHERN BEEF: S.D. Residents File Suit Over Planned Beef Plant
PHILIPPINES: Journalists Prepare Suit Against First Gentleman
QUIZNOS SUB: Wis. Franchisees File Suit Over Business Practices
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Stock Suit Due March
ROGERS WIRELESS: Seeks Supreme Court OK For Arbitration Process
TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs in Fla. Stock Suit Seeks Final Judgment
TENNESSEE GAS: Third Hurricane-Related Lawsuit Filed in La.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: La. Court Junks Hurricane-Related Suits
WAL-MART STORES: SC Judge Decertifies Labor Lawsuit in Mass.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
BODISEN BIOTECH: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Sets Plaintiff Cut-Off
TVIA INC: Kahn Gauthier Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
XETHANOL CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
*********
51JOB INC: Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class
action complaint filed against China's 51job, Inc. certain of
its directors and senior executive officers.
On Sept. 28, 2006, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, with
leave to amend on or before Oct. 30, 2006. No amended complaint
was filed.
In 2005, 51job, Inc. and certain of its officers were named
defendants in several securities class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of all securities purchasers of 51job, Inc. (Class Action
Reporter, Jan. 31, 2005).
The complaints charge 51job and certain of its officers with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, the complaints allege the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
-- that the company improperly recognized recruitment
advertising revenue in the third quarter;
-- that the company, a purported expert in Chinese labor
markets, failed to realize that the drop in late-
December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms
have adopted a more Western schedule for hiring;
-- that as a result of this market shift, the company was
forced to sharply lower its profit outlook; and
-- that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
about the company's growth and progress.
Further, on or around Jan. 18, 2005, before the market opened,
51job announced softness in sales for the latter part of the
month of December 2004, the exit of the peripheral stationery
and office supplies business and updated guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2004.
The company expected fourth quarter total revenues to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million ($14.79 million to $15.296 million),
compared with RMB140 million ($17.698 million), the low-end of
its previous forecasted range.
The news shocked the market. As a result, shares of 51job fell
$15.49 per share, or 35.37 percent, on Jan. 18, 2005, to close
at $28.32 per share, on unusually high volume.
Between Jan. 21, 2005 and March 10, 2005, seven putative class
actions alleging securities fraud were filed against the
defendants.
On July 26, 2005, the court consolidated these actions and
appointed Floyd W. Webster, Keith Webster, Kent Webster, Amil
Dipadova, and Robert Wistrand (collectively, the 'Webster
Group') as Lead Plaintiffs.
On Aug. 25, 2005, the Webster Group filed its complaint.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to satisfy the
heightened pleading requirements for securities fraud under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and
9(b) is granted.
The court granted plaintiffs leave, if so advised, to file and
serve an amended complaint on or before Oct. 30, 2006, if
plaintiffs are able to so in a manner consistent with the
provisions of FRCP 11. No amended complaint was filed.
The suit is "Goplen v. 51JOB, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00769-CSH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Charles S. Haight.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Mario Alba, Jr. 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: malba@lerachlaw.com;
(2) Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-935-
7400, Fax: 212 753-3630, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com;
(3) Darren T. Kaplan of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 11
Grace Avenue, Suite 3, Great Neck, NY 11021, Phone: 212
755 0022, Fax: 212 755 0005, E-mail:
dkaplan@chitwoodlaw.com; and
(4) January Leigh Kerr of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: 212-946-9431, Fax: 212-868-1229, E-mail:
jlkerr@milbergweiss.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Glenn Charles Colton and Meredith Eve Kotler both of
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (NYC), 12 East 49th
Street, 30th Flr., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-637-
2200 or 212-999-5803, Fax: 212-637-2390 or 212-999-
5899, E-mail: gcolton@wsgr.com or mkotler@wsgr.com; and
(ii) David L. Lansky of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
(CA), 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
(650)-320-4776, Fax: (650)-493-6811, E-mail:
dlansky@wsgr.com.
AMERICAN FAMILY: Probe Launched into Settlement Fund Allocation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. attorney in Milwaukee, Wisconsin has launched an
investigation into the improper distribution of $300,000 worth
of settlement money in a discrimination suit against American
Family, the Journal Sentinel reports.
In 1990, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People and seven African-American homeowners sued the insurance
company for allegedly denying insurance policies to blacks or
selling them inferior policies. The case was later expanded
into a class action.
American Family did not admit wrongdoing but agreed to pay a
$16.5 million settlement.
Under the settlement, $9.5 million was allotted to help African-
Americans buy or repair their homes, $2 million for attorney
fees and costs, and $5 million for black Milwaukee-area
homeowners who were allegedly discriminated against. Original
plaintiffs are to receive $10,000 each. Harold B. Jackson was
appointed trustee in 1995 for the money that was left unclaimed
from the settlement. The trust fund was supposed to be
distributed to a list of 20 approved community groups whose
missions support the African-American community.
In recent months, James H. Hall Jr. and William H. Lynch, who
represented the NAACP and the other plaintiffs in the case,
reportedly found out that Mr. Jackson issued unauthorized
checks.
Among those who received checks were former Acting Mayor Marvin
Pratt, one of the original plaintiffs in the case, and NAACP
President Felmers Chaney. Each was paid $60,000 earlier this
year.
APPLERA CORP: D.C. Court Certifies Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia certified
as class action a suit filed against Applera Corp. and Hoffmann-
La Roche, Inc. by Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories over
alleged anticompetitive practices.
Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against on Sept. 23,
2004. It filed an amended complaint on July 5, 2006.
The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in
connection with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The
anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the prosecution
and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818.
The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom the
company has a commercial relationship covering, among other
things, this patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses,
injunctive relief, and other relief, as the court deems proper.
On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class action.
The suit is "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed in the
U.S, District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge
Henry H. Kennedy.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Paul Thomas Gallagher, Michael Hausfeld and Brian A.
Ratner of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C,
1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005-3934, Phone: (202) 408-4600, Fax:
(202) 408-4699, E-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com,
mhausfeld@cmht.com and bratner@cmht.com; and
(2) Scott E. Gant and William A. Isaacson of Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, 5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite
800, Washington, DC 20015, Phone: (202) 237-2727, E-
mail: sgant@bsfllp.com or wisaacson@bsfllp.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Joanne M. Guerrera, David J. Lender, John E. Scribner
and David Nelson Southard of Weil, Gotshal & Manges,
L.L.P., 1501 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005, Phone:
(202) 682-7153, Fax: 202-857-0939, E-mail:
david.southard@weil.com; and
(ii) Heather Holden Brooks, Cathy Hoffman, Hadrian R. Katz,
Amy Elizabeth Ralph-Mudge, Joseph M. Ruggiero and Asim
Varma of Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206, Phone: (202) 942-6309, Fax:
(202) 942-5999, E-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com,
cathy_hoffman@aporter.com, katzha@aporter.com,
amy_mudge@aporter.com and asim_varma@aporter.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Appeals Court Annuls $296M Overdraft Suit Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco overturned a
ruling ordering Bank of America Corp. to pay senior citizens
improperly charged overdraft fees, Euro2day reports.
The ruling came in a class action that accuses Bank of America
of breaching California banking laws affecting seniors by
collecting some check overdraft and other fees from direct
deposit accounts set up to receive Social Security benefits.
In 2004, Bank of America customers got $296 million in award for
damages to the class. Those who have proven that the bank's
actions caused substantial emotional or economic harm got an
additional $1,000. The bank spent more than $1.5 billion to end
the suit, the report said.
The company appealed. In recent developments, the appeals court
ruled that the earlier order misapplied a 1974 California
Supreme Court decision outlawing banks from using deposited
public benefits to pay the account holder's separate credit card
account.
It said that the bank was within the law in applying "Social
Security benefits and other public benefit payments directly
deposited to its customers' checking accounts to cover debits
for overdrafts and overdraft fees."
BUTLER INT'L: Shareholder Group Files Amended Complaint in Md.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Special Committee of shareholders of Butler International,
Inc., amended the class action complaint it filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, Maryland (Case No. 03C06 008836).
The complaint alleges, in part, that the company's Management
and the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the shareholders, disenfranchised shareholders rights to vote
and diluted shareholder value.
The complaint addresses various actions by the company and the
Board including granting egregiously discounted warrants to the
CEO, Edward Kopko, entering into dilutive financing transactions
containing entrenchment provisions benefiting Kopko and
restricting the Board from evaluating alternative financing
arrangements, and by rejecting alternative proposals that would
have been more beneficial to the company in order to further
entrench management and avoid additional Board oversight.
For more details, contact Lawrence J. Quinn of Tydings &
Rosenberg, LLP, 100 East Pratt Street, 26th Floor, Baltimore,
Maryland 21202, Phone: 410-752-9700, Fax: 410-727-5460.
CALIFORNIA: Judge Mulls Suit Over Riverside County Jail Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
is set to decide soon whether to let a purported class action
over a jail policy that allegedly involves recording
conversations between inmates and their lawyers should go
forward, The San Diego Union Tribune reports.
Judge Audrey B. Collins in Los Angeles will hear the case,
"Medina v. Riverside County," and is expected to hand out a
ruling by next week.
Filed on June 29, 2006, the suit was brought on behalf of
defense attorney Amador Corona and his client Jaime Medina. It
seeks to force Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle to change a
jailhouse policy that allegedly permits deputies to record
conversations between attorneys and their clients.
According to Mr. Corona, he learned while preparing for trial in
a murder case back in 2005 that several conversations he had had
with his client was recorded and supplied to the Riverside
County District Attorney's office. Mr. Corona alleges that the
conversations were one of about 700 calls Mr. Medina made in
2003 and 2004 and recorded on a CD.
Riverside County's jail taping policy started three years ago,
and inmates are routinely notified by voice prompt that
conversations may be recorded, a report by The Daily Journal
revealed.
In the suit, Mr. Corona alleges violations of state wiretapping
statutes, invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of
mandatory duty. Thus, Mr. Corona is calling for the county to
meet three conditions:
-- Stop taping calls,
-- Inform all attorneys what procedure they need to follow
to make sure calls are not recorded, and
-- Sanctions awarded to all members of the class for these
violations.
The county for its part has sought to have the case dismissed in
a summary judgment motion it filed previously.
The suit is "Jaime Medina et al v. Riverside County of, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-04144-ABC-E," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge Audrey B.
Collins with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.
Representing the plaintiffs are Lee Wei Chen and Scott E.
Schutzman of Scott E. Schutzman Law Offices, 3700 South Susan
Street, Suite 120, Santa Ana, CA 92704, Phone: 714-543-3638,
Fax: 714-245-2449.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Arthur K. Cunningham of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith, Tri-City Corp Center, 650 East Hospitality Lane,
Ste. 600, San Bernardino, CA 92408-3508, Phone: 909-
387-1130, E-mail: akcatty@lbbslaw.com; and
(2) Christopher D. Lockwood of Arias and Lockwood, 225 West
Hospitality Lane, Suite 314, San Bernardino, CA 92408,
Phone: 951-890-0125, Fax: 909-890-0185.
CHINA: Chemical Factory Ordered to Pay $85T for Polluting River
---------------------------------------------------------------
A provincial court in China earlier this year ordered a chemical
factory that villagers in Xiping, in the southern Chinese
province of Fujian, accuse of polluting the local river to pay
about $85,000 in property damages to vegetable farmers, it
emerged in a report by the Newsweek International.
The Legal Center for Pollution Victims, a nongovernmental
organization in Beijing, filed the U.S.-style class-action
lawsuit against the chemical factory.
Plaintiffs number more than 1,7000 -- the largest environmental
class-action lawsuit in China's history, according to the
report.
Under a 1991 Chinese law, people with environmental grievances
may file these types of suits as long as they did not sue the
government.
According to the report, these suits are not the same as
American class actions partly because people who are not named
as original plaintiffs cannot claim compensation, or join the
"class" after the lawsuit is adjudicated, but they are similar.
CLEAR CHANNEL: Shareholders File Suits Over Plan To Go Private
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clear Channel Communications, Inc. was named a defendant several
lawsuits over the company's plan to go private with an equity
group, FMQB.com reports.
One the suits were filed by Lou Ann Murphy in Bexar County,
Texas late last week. It is claiming that owners of the company
are "acting contrary to their fiduciary duty to maximize value
on a change in control of the company."
According to a Reuters report, the lawsuit claims that the
buyout is an unfair deal "because it will take Clear Channel
private at a wholly inadequate price. The proposed transaction
will, for inadequate consideration, deny [the] plaintiff and
other members of the class the opportunity to share
proportionately in the future success of the company and its
valuable assets."
New York-based law firm Wechsler Harwood, LLP, filed the other
lawsuit as a purported class action seeking an injunction to
stop the deal. It was also commenced in a Texas state court on
behalf of all shareholders of Clear Channel.
The complaint charges Clear Channel and its directors with
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with taking Clear
Channel private to the detriment of its shareholders and the
benefit of insiders, especially members of the Mays family, its
dominant shareholders and board members (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 21, 2006).
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against the going private
transaction, or, should the transaction be completed, damages on
behalf of Clear Channel's shareholders.
For more details, contact Robert I. Harwood of Wechsler Harwood
LLP, 488 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Phone: 877-
935-7400, E-mail: rharwood@whesq.com, Web site:
http://www.whesq.com.
COLORADO: Drivers File Colo. Suit Over Traffic Violation Tickets
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Mountain View Police Department (MVPD) faces a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado, accusing the department of taking in thousands of
dollars for violations outside its jurisdiction.
Seven drivers ticketed by MVPD while driving north on Sheridan
Boulevard filed the suit on Nov. 13, 2006. These drivers are:
-- Shiloh Frazier,
-- P. Christopher Swanson,
-- Deborah Mestas,
-- Geraldine Schmidt,
-- Joanne Roe,
-- Trisha Dishman, and
-- Kathleen Firor.
In addition to MVPD, other defendants in the suit are:
-- The Town Of Mountain View, Colorado,
-- Police Chief Eric Gomez,
-- Police Officer David Groff,
-- Police Officer Hernandez and
-- Police Officer Perez.
The lawsuit accuses defendants of misleading drivers and
generating "untold amounts of revenue" for the town of about
600, which comprises about 12 blocks between 41st and 44th
avenues just west of Sheridan Boulevard. It contends that the
traffic tickets were unconstitutional.
According to the complaint there are four claims for relief,
these are:
-- 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 - Fourth Amendment Violations;
-- 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 - Fourteenth Amendment
Violations;
-- 18 U.S.C., Section 1961, et seq. - Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act; and
-- 42 U.S.C., Section 1983 - Failure to Train and
Supervise.
Plaintiffs, which allegedly received tickets with fines ranging
from $95 to $300, are seeking damages, the amount of which would
be determined by a judge or jury.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?157b
The suit is "Frazier et al v. Town of Mountain View, Colorado,
The, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-02272-REB-MJW," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Robert
E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Michael J. Watanabe.
Representing the plaintiffs is David Arthur Lane of Killmer,
Lane & Newman, LLP, 1543 Champa Street #400, Denver, CO 80202,
Phone: 303-571-1000, Fax: 303-571-1001, E-mail:
dlane@killmerlane.com.
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Securities Suit Hearing Set Jan. 26, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
will hold on Jan. 26, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. a hearing for the $1.5
million settlement of the class action "Underwood, et al v.
Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA."
The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Concord Camera Corp., during the period between Jan. 18, 2001
through and including June 22, 2001.
The hearing will be at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in the courtroom of the Honorable
Cecilia M. Altonaga.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is January 12,
2007. Deadline to file claims is February 20, 2007.
In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
company filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its officers.
On Aug. 20, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and in December 2002, the court granted the company's
motion and the complaint was dismissed.
In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed
adding certain of the company's current and former directors as
defendants.
Lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint sought to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock issued pursuant to the
company's Sept. 26, 2000 secondary offering or from Sept. 26,
2000 to June 22, 2001, inclusive.
On April 18, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Aug. 27, 2004, the court dismissed all
claims against the defendants related to the secondary offering.
On Sept. 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who
purchased the common stock between Jan. 18, 2001 and June 22,
2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
The allegations remaining in the amended complaint are centered
on claims:
-- that the company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and in press releases it made to the public
during the class period regarding its operations and
financial results;
-- that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance
due from then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc.; and
-- that a material portion of its inventory consisted of
customized components that had no alternative usage.
The amended complaint claims that such failures artificially
inflated the price of the common stock. It seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and
unspecified other and further relief from the court.
Pursuant to a scheduling order of the court, trial in this
matter is scheduled to commence on Nov. 13, 2006.
The company has reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs on the settlement of this lawsuit, according to the
company's Sept. 13, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
July 1, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006).
The suit is "Underwood, et al v. Concord Camera Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga.
Representing defendants are:
(1) Richard Eugene Brodsky, Alvin Bruce Davis and Wendy
Susan Leavitt all of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP,
Wachovia Financial Center, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard,
40th Floor, Miami, FL 33131-2398, Phone: 305-577-7000
or 305-577-2835, Fax: 577-7001, E-mail:
rbrodsky@ssd.com or adavis@ssd.com or wleavitt@ssd.com;
(2) Catherine Whitfield of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP,
1900 Phillips Point West, 777 S Flagler Drive, Suite
1900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198, Phone: 561-650-
7200, Fax: 655-1509, E-mail: CWhitfield@ssd.com;
(3) Claudia A. Costa and John J. Rizzo both of Stryker Tams
& Dill, 2 Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ 07105, Phone:
973-491-3851;
(4) Alan Graham Greer of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh
Mirabito & Christensen, 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite
1000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-373-4000, Fax: 373-
4099, E-mail: agreer@richmangreer.com; and
(5) David J. Onorato of King & Spalding, 1180 Peachtree
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309-3521, Phone: 404-572-4600,
Fax: 572-5100.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Jack Reise and Robert Jeffrey Robbins both of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 120 East
Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432,
Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 750-3364, E-mail:
jreise@lerachlaw.com or rrobbins@lerachlaw.com; and
(2) Maya Susan Saxena of Saxena White PA, 2424 N Federal
Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-
394-3399, Fax: 394-3382, E-mail:
msaxena@saxenawhite.com.
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Hearing Before Securities Regulator Suspended
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Richard Scot of the Manitoba Court of Appeal
agreed to temporarily block the provincial Securities Commission
from hearing a class action against Crocus Investment Fund,
Canoe Money reports.
Shareholders in the fund initially filed a $200 million lawsuit
against the fund, the Manitoba Securities Commission and 17
individuals, including former senior officers of the fund and
former members of Crocus's board of directors. Later, the
province of Manitoba was added as defendant.
The suit alleges, among others, that the province "did not
properly enforce the Crocus Act," and that provincial officials
"deliberately ignored multiple warning signs regarding the
management of the Crocus Fund." Crocus Investment stopped
trading in December 2004 amid allegations of over-inflated share
value.
Former board members of the Fund asked the Manitoba Court of
Appeal to postpone hearings by the securities regulator until
after the lawsuit is settled. The appeals court agreed that the
commission could be seen as biased in its ability to impartially
assess the allegations put before it.
GrowthWorks Canadian Fund Ltd. and Bernie Bellan, representative
plaintiffs in the Crocus Investment Fund class action, have
proposed a $1 million settlement for the suit (Class Action
Reporter, June 2, 2006).
Representing the investors are David Klein (lead lawyer) of
David Klein, Klein Lyons, Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1, Phone: (604) 874-7171; Jay Prober; and
Norman Boudreau.
EL PASO: Settles Shallow Wells Lawsuits in Okla. for $30M
---------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Corp. along with Burlington Resources, Inc., settled
several class actions filed against it in Oklahoma state courts
for $30 million.
The company was named defendant, along with Burlington
Resources, Inc., in two class actions:
-- "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
Co., et al.," and
-- "Deane W. Moore, et al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc.,
et al."
Each was filed in 1997 in the District Court of Washita County,
Oklahoma and subsequently consolidated by the court. The
consolidated class action has been settled.
The company's settlement contribution was approximately $30
million plus interest, which was fully accrued and paid on
August 1, 2006.
A third action, "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural Gas
and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas Company, L.P.," was filed
in October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma
asserting similar claims as to specified shallow wells in
Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.
All the claims in this action have also been settled subject to
court approval, after a fairness hearing scheduled for March
2007.
The company filed an action "El Paso Natural Gas Co. v.
Burlington Resources, Inc. and Burlington Resources Oil and Gas
Company, L.P." against Burlington in state court in Harris
County, Texas relating to the indemnity issues between
Burlington and the company.
That action was stayed by agreement of the parties and settled
in November 2005, subject to all the underlying class
settlements being finalized and approved by the court.
ENERGY PARTNERS: Faces Investor's Suit in Del. Over Stone Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Partners Ltd. is facing a putative securities class
action in Delaware in relation to the company's terminated
merger agreement with Stone Energy Corp.
On June 22, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and plan
of merger with Stone Energy, pursuant to which EPL Acquisition
Corp. LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, would
acquire all of the shares of Stone for a combination of cash and
stock valued at approximately $2.1 billion.
Prior to entering into the Merger Agreement, Stone terminated
its then existing merger agreement with Plains Exploration and
Production Company on the same day.
As required under the terms of the terminated merger agreement
between Stone and Plains, Plains was entitled to a termination
fee of $43.5 million, which was advanced by the company to
Plains and was included in other assets in the Consolidated
Balance Sheet.
On Aug. 28, 2006, Woodside Petroleum, Ltd. announced its
intention to commence a tender offer, through its U.S.
subsidiary ATS Inc., for all of the company's outstanding shares
of common stock for $23.00 per share subject to, among other
conditions, the company's stockholders voting down the proposed
Stone acquisition.
The tender offer was commenced on Aug. 31, 2006 and was
effective until Sept. 28, 2006. On Sept. 14, 2006, the company
announced that, on Sept. 13, 2006, the Company's board of
directors rejected as inadequate the unsolicited conditional
offer by Woodside and recommended that its stockholders not
tender their shares.
Woodside extended its offer three times and announced on October
26, 2006 that it was extending its offer for the final time
until Nov. 17, 2006.
On Oct. 12, 2006, the company announced that it had terminated
the Merger Agreement with Stone and that the Board had directed
the company, assisted by its financial advisors, to explore
strategic alternatives to maximize stockholder value, including
the possible sale of the company.
In conjunction with the termination of the Merger Agreement, the
company paid to Stone $8.0 million, which will be included in
general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of
2006.
In addition, the $43.5 million termination fee that was advanced
to Plains in June 2006 on behalf of Stone was expensed in the
third quarter of 2006 along with $3.0 million of other Stone
merger related costs.
The Woodside Lawsuit
On Aug. 28, 2006, Woodside Petroleum commenced an action against
the Company, the Company's directors, and Stone Energy in the
Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County. The suit is
"ATS, Inc. v. Bachmann et al., C.A. No. 2374-N."
As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the Woodside complaint alleged that
the termination fee provisions in the Merger Agreement were
invalid under Delaware law.
"Woodside" also alleged that the fee the company paid Stone in
connection with the termination of the Merger Agreement and
Stone's termination of its merger agreement with Plains
constituted an invalid penalty under Delaware law.
Woodside asserted that, absent the invalidation of the
termination fee payments, the company's shareholders would be
unable to make a fully informed choice as to whether to accept
the Tender Offer. Woodside sought declaratory and injunctive
relief.
The Farrington Class Action
On Sept. 12, 2006, Thomas Farrington, a purported stockholder of
the company, filed a putative class action in the Delaware Court
against:
-- the company,
-- all of the company's directors,
-- EPL Acquisition Corp. LLC, and
-- Stone
As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington
Action alleges that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties by:
-- agreeing to the termination fee provisions in the
Merger Agreement,
-- adopting the sixth-month stockholders rights agreement,
-- amending and extending coverage to all full time
employees of its change of control severance
arrangements, and paying a fee to Stone in connection
with the termination of the Merger Agreement.
"Farrington" also alleges that the company's directors have
failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to
the Company stockholders' decision whether to accept the Tender
Offer. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
unspecified damages.
On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court denied motions filed by
"Woodside" and "Farrington" seeking expedited consideration of
these claims.
The company and the individual defendants believe the claims are
without merit and intend to defend vigorously against those
claims.
On Oct. 26, 2006, "Woodside" dismissed its legal action without
prejudice.
EXXON-MOBIL: Processors Accused of Taking Awards in Fla. Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class members and their legal counsel in the $1.1 billion class
action against Exxon-Mobil are complaining that companies
specializing in processing class action claims are illegally
taking a large part of their winnings, according to Carl Jones
of The Miami Daily Business Review.
Eugene Stearns of Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff &
Sitterson, which won the lengthy case against the oil giant for
breaching its contract with gas station operators around the
country, argues that the recovery companies are engaging in the
unlicensed practice of law.
He also contends that they deceived members into signing up for
services they didn't need and are duplicating work already done
by his law firm.
Under contracts that some class members signed, the companies
receive 20 percent to 40 percent of the claimant's net award.
That money would be deducted from the claimant's award after
Stearns Weaver and the other plaintiff law firms in the case
take their 31.3 percent cut.
In essence, some claimants would receive only about one-third of
their total award. About 1,000 of the 11,000 class members may
have contracts with these class action processing companies.
In October 2006, Judge Alan S. Gold of the U.S. District for the
Southern District of Florida voided class members' contracts
with one processing company, Philadelphia-based Claims
Compensation Bureau (CBB), because the company engaged in the
unlicensed practice of law. However, he ruled, that CCB did not
misrepresent itself in letters to class members.
Despite that ruling, Stearns Weaver is also challenging
contracts held by other claims processors on similar grounds.
After the firm sent a notice to class members last month telling
them they do not have to pay the processing companies, the
special master assigned to oversee the dispute received more
than a dozen letters from class members alleging that the
companies deceived them.
Other processing companies though countered that class members
knowingly entered into contracts with them, and that they
provide a valuable service by tracking down class members and
helping them fill out, send in and keep tabs on their claims.
Without their help, the companies claim, undiscovered or less
proactive class members wouldn't be collecting anything.
Case Background
In 2001, a federal jury in Miami awarded a class of 11,000 Exxon
gas station owners $500 million plus prejudgment interest in a
complex breach of contract case. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld
the verdict in 2005. Exxon merged with Mobil in 1999.
The class action arose from Exxon's creation of a discount
program in 1982 in which cash customers paid a few cents per
gallon less than those who paid with credit cards.
Exxon promised its dealers that they would receive a discount in
the wholesale price they paid for fuel in return for
participating in the program.
Station owners alleged that the company later raised the
wholesale price and lied to the dealers by telling them that the
price break was built into the rate.
In July 2006, Judge Gold awarded Stearns Weaver $249 million in
fees for its successful representation of the gas station
owners.
For more details, contact Eugene E. Stearns of Stearns Weaver
Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A., Suite 2200 Museum
Tower, 150 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33130, (Miami-
Dade Co.), Phone: 305-789-3200, Fax: 305-789-3395, Web Site:
http://stearnsweaver.com.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Fla. Woman Objects to Paxil Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn allowed a
Florida woman to intervene in a recently settled Paxil class
action, but denied her motion to vacate an anti-suit injunction,
Steve Gonsalez of the St. Clair County Record reports.
On Oct. 6, Judge Mendelsohn stopped competing suits against
GlaxoSmithKline finding that the prosecution of other actions
concerning the claims released by the settlement would result in
"fraud, gross wrong, or oppression." He said that competing
class actions would jeopardize his ability to rule on the
settlement and would substantially increase the cost of
litigation.
Barbara Jane Rose of Florida, who is a class member in the the
Madison County suit as well as an earlier class action filed in
Orange County, California, filed a motion to intervene saying
Judge Mendelsohn's order prohibits her from pursuing her claims
in the second case.
Her attorney, Patricia Murphy of Energy, Illinois, said in a
hearing on Nov. 8 said that the anti-suit injunction was issued
without notice to adverse parties, including her client, and
without allegations of fact sufficient to warrant obviating the
necessity of such notice, according to the report.
Ms. Murphy said Judge Mendelsohn also failed to note in his
preliminary approval the existence of other pending Paxil refund
class actions. Four uncertified class actions were pending
elsewhere when the Madison County case was settled, she said.
Plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery argued that the case Rose was
to join in Orange County has been stayed by that court's case
management authority until the final fairness hearing in the
Madison County case has been concluded. He also pointed out
that the judges in the other three cases also have stayed their
cases until his case has been resolved.
According to Ms. Murphy, her client wants to join the Orange
County case because the claims in that case are broader than Mr.
Tillery's case.
Judge Mendelsohn approved on Oct. 6 and unsealed on Oct. 27 a
$63.8 million settlement of a suit over GlaxoSmithKline plc's
anti-depressant drug Paxil (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 7,
2006).
The suit accuses GlaxoSmithKline of promoting the drug for use
by children and adolescents while withholding negative
information about the medication's safety and effectiveness.
The class consists of all U.S. residents who bought Paxil and
Paxil CR, a controlled-release version of the drug. Claimants
are required to present records of purchases to get a full
refund. Those without a proof of purchase can get $15.
Judge Mendelsohn ordered plaintiff attorney Stephen Tillery to
hire Rust Consulting of Minneapolis to supervise and administer
the providing of the notice to class.
Rust Consulting is to begin sending legal notice of the class by
Dec. 31. Deadline to file claims is Aug. 31, 2007. Filing of
objections and request for exclusion is until Feb. 23, 2007.
The fairness hearing is set March 9, 2007 at 10 a.m.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Teri Hoormann, Mary Kopsie, and
Bonita and Mark Helfer.
Attorneys fee is estimated at $16.6 million.
Contact information for Mr. Tillery: Korein Tillery LLC --
http://www.carrkorein.com/-- Belleville, Illinois (St. Clair
Co.). GlaxoSmithKline's lead attorney is Dwight Davis.
ILLINOIS: Court Certifies Class in "Williams v. Blagojevich"
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted class-action status to a lawsuit, brought by four
individuals, charging that the state is in violation of federal
laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that
entitle people with disabilities to choose community living.
The ruling came in "Williams v. Blagojevich," which was
originally filed in August 2005 by two individuals forced into
nursing homes in the Chicago area.
In the case, residents of Illinois nursing homes charged that
they and many others with mental illnesses are "needlessly
segregated and inappropriately warehoused" in violation of
federal laws including ADA (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2006).
Thus, the are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois to order state agencies to develop suitable
community-living alternatives for them.
In recently filed amended complaint, plaintiffs asks the court
to grant class action status to obtain relief for adults who are
unnecessarily confined in for-profit nursing homes classified by
state officials as "institutions for mental diseases" (IMDs).
More than 5,000 people are housed in such facilities in
Illinois.
The complaint details the highly regimented nature of many of
the institutions where the plaintiffs are confined. These
facilities offer no privacy and many provide little more than
shelter and board.
Most residents get federal disability benefits, but must sign
over their monthly checks to the facility and receive an
allowance of only $30 a month.
Judge William Hart's latest ruling, issued on Nov. 13, 2006,
allows the case to move forward on behalf of all people with
mental illnesses who are confined in IMDs.
The suit is "Williams v. Blagojevich, Case No. 05-4673," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Benjamin S. Wolf of the ACLU of Illinois, 180 North
Michigan Ave., Suite 2300, Chicago, Illinois 60601,
Phone: (312) 201-9740 ext. 320, Fax: (312) 201-9760, E-
mail: bwolf@aclu-il.org;
(2) Barry C. Taylor of Equip for Equality, 20 N. Michigan,
#300, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: (312) 341-0022, Fax:
(312) 341-0295, E-mail: Barryt@equipforequality.org;
(3) Max Lapertosa of Access Living, Phone: 312-253-7000
ext. 131, Fax: (312) 253-7001, E-mail:
Mlapertosa@accessliving.org; and
(4) Lee Carty of Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, Phone: 202-467-5730 ext. 121, Fax: (202)
223-0409, E-mail: Leec@bazelon.org.
(5) Ann Chen of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, 200 East Randolph
Drive, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone; (312) 861-2000, Fax:
(312) 861-2200.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Thomas A. Ioppolo, AAG, Office of the Illinois Attorney
General, 100 W. Randolph, 13th Floor, Chicago, IL
60601, Fax: (312) 814-4425; and
(ii) Kerry R. Peck Esq. and ray K. Koenig, III, Esq. of
Peck, Bloom, Austriaco & Mitchell, LLC, 105 W. Adams
St., 31st Floor, Chicago, IL 60603, Fax: (312) 201-
0803.
JACKSON HEWITT: Sued in N.Y. for Allegedly Charging Hidden Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The owners of Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., outlets face a
class action for allegedly charging hidden fees for its tax
preparation services, the ConsumerAffairs.com reports.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on Nov. 9, 2006, claims that Jackson Hewitt
franchises owned by Mandeep Sobti and his wife, Anjeet charges
clients an extra 15% of their total bill.
The suit also alleges that customers who sought "refund
anticipation loans" were charged an undisclosed extra fee $25 to
$50.
Customers were routinely billed $49 for long state tax returns,
when they qualified to file short forms for a $40 fee, the suit
says, according to the report.
Attorney Alan Ripka filed the suit on behalf of plaintiffs
Yadira Mosquera and Dana Watts. Both are seeking millions of
dollars in restitution for thousands of customers allegedly
overcharged by the Sobtis.
Also named, as a defendant in the suit is the parent firm
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc., the second largest tax-
preparation company after H&R Block.
The suit is "Watts et al v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:06-cv-06042-DLI-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Dora
Lizette Irizarry with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.
Representing the plaintiffs is Chet Barry Waldman of Wolf
Popper, L.L.P., 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
(212) 759-4600, Fax: (212) 486-2093, E-mail:
cwaldman@wolfpopper.com.
LEHIGH VALLEY: Student Loans Suit in Penn. Sent to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge John P. Lavelle in Carbon County in Pennsylvania
ordered a suit filed against Lehigh Valley School by former
students to go into arbitration, The Morning Call reports.
However, before the suit could proceed into arbitration, a judge
must decide whether to allow the case to move forward as a class
action, or to require plaintiffs' cases to be heard
individually, according to the report.
The arbitrator will later decide whether Pennsylvania's consumer
protection law applies. If it does, the plaintiffs could be
eligible for triple damages.
The lawsuit accuses Lehigh Valley College in Pennsylvania of
misleading students about high-interest loans. Palmer Township
law firm Cohen & Feeley, in collaboration with a Lansdale firm
filed the suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County in
September 2005.
It was filed on behalf of all former students of Allentown, now
known as Lehigh Valley College, who received allegedly "high
interest private loans" to fund their tuition requirements. It
names as plaintiff Lisa Baran McCarten and I-iesha Leon, both of
Bethlehem.
The complaint alleges that the college violated Pennsylvania's
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and engaged
in intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation,
and negligence by allegedly rushing students through a loan
application process, through which such students applied for and
accepted "private, non-federal, non-state loans" at times when
such students were allegedly eligible for low interest federal
or state guaranteed education loans.
It also claims that actual interest rates were not disclosed on
the loan application. Both students, according to the suit,
'were deliberately 'rushed through' the financial aid
application process and were not afforded the necessary time to
carefully read and understand any or all clauses."
The plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, seek
compensatory and punitive damages.
The suit is "McCarten et al. v. Allentown Business School, Ltd.
t/a Lehigh Valley College." Representing Leigh Valley College
is attorney Mark Budoff at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, MetLife
Building, 200 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10166 (New York
Co.), Phone: 212-801-3162, Fax: 212-801-6400.
Plaintiff attorney Richard Gorski may be reached at Cohen &
Feeley, P.C., 2851 Baglyos Circle, Suite 200, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania 18020 (Lehigh & Northampton Cos.).
LOUDEYE CORP: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Dec. 4, 2006
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott + Scott, LLP, encourages persons who
purchased the common stock of Loudeye Corp. between May 19, 2003
and Nov. 9, 2005 to contact Scott + Scott, LLP, at (800) 404-
7770 or (860) 537-5537 or scottlaw@scott-scott.com, concerning
their rights and interests as potential class members in the
shareholder class action recently filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington.
The complaint alleges that Loudeye made false and misleading
statements that deceived the investing public regarding its
business, operations, management and the intrinsic value of
Loudeye common stock.
Contrary to the representations made by the company during the
class period, the complaint states that Loudeye actually was
operating well-below guidance, was not successfully integrating
its acquisitions and was suffering from severe financial and
operational control deficiencies.
Following each disclosure of these adverse facts, the company's
share price declined precipitously -- falling from a Class
Period high of almost $30.00 per share in late 2004 (adjusted to
reflect May 2006 1:10 reverse split), to less than $2.00 per
share by the time that defendants announced that the remaining
assets of the company would be sold to Nokia. Nokia's
acquisition of Loudeye was completed Oct. 16, 2006.
Interested parties have until Dec. 4, 2006 to move for lead
plaintiff status in the case.
For more details, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800) 404-
7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.
MERCK & CO: Canadian Court Grants Class Status to Vioxx Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec Superior Court of Justice authorized on Nov. 9 a class
action against pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., Inc., based in
New Jersey, and two Canadian subsidiaries of Merck.
The class action is brought on behalf of all Quebec residents
who consumed VIOXX between October 1999 and September 2004, and
who were damaged as a result.
While other suits in Canada and the United States have been
pending since Merck removed the product under consumer and
government pressure, this is the first certified action on
behalf of VIOXX consumers in North America.
In the Quebec action, plaintiffs allege that VIOXX was causing
significant cardiovascular events even as the defendants (Merck)
aggressively marketed the brand to consumers and their medical
professionals without full and fair disclosure of the
cardiovascular risks.
"Evidently there was a serious problem with the product and its
testing or Merck would not have removed it", Claude Desmeules,
counsel to the plaintiffs in Quebec, said shortly after the
announcement. "We can now deal with the merits of the claims
and put forward long-overdue evidence in support of those
claims."
"Merck has set aside a massive war chest to defend each and
every one of these actions," says Dimitri Lascaris, class action
expert counsel, with Siskinds in Ontario. "Now we have the
collective ability to seek compensation under Quebec law,
without which, many injured parties would simply have been
unable to pursue compensation."
For VIOXX Class Action details, contact: Claude Desmeules, (418)
694-2009; Dimitri Lascaris, (519) 660-7844. Siskinds Desmeules
on the Net: http://www.classaction.ca/.
Andrao J. Payeur of McCarthy Taotrault LLP is national counsel
for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc.
METRETEK TECHNOLOGIES: Col. Suit Counterclaims Trial Set Jan.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for all remaining counterclaims filed by Other Parties in
a securities suit filed in Colorado federal court against
Metretek Technologies Inc. is set August 2007.
In January 2001, a class action was filed in the District Court
for the City and County of Denver, Colorado against the Company
and certain affiliates and parties unrelated to the Company.
The class action alleged that the defendants violated certain
provisions of the Colorado Securities Act in connection with the
sale of interests in an energy program of which Marcum Gas
Transmission, Inc., a majority-owned subsidiary, was the
managing trustee.
A settlement to fully resolve all claims by the class against
the Company and its affiliates was submitted and granted final
approval by the district court on June 11, 2004.
The company recorded the loss that occurred as a result of the
class action and settlement in the fourth quarter of 2002. All
obligations of the company under the settlement were
extinguished during the second quarter of 2006.
The company is vigorously pursuing cross-claims and third party
claims, including claims against the prior owners of the assets
and against attorneys, consultants and a brokerage firm involved
in the transactions underlying the claims in the class action,
seeking recovery of damages and contribution, among other
things, from the other parties.
Some of the other parties have asserted counterclaims against
the company, which it is aggressively defending and believes are
without merit.
A trial on all remaining claims is currently set for August
2007.
The company cannot provide any assurance that it will be
successful on any of the other party claims or that it will
prevail on the counterclaims brought against it by the other
parties.
However, should the company realize any recovery (net of
litigation expenses) from the resolution of such claims and/or
counterclaims, 50% of such net recovery would be allocated to
the company, and the remaining 50% would be allocated as
additional settlement funds payable to the class.
MICROSOFT CORP: Iowa Antitrust Suit Hearing to Begin this Week
--------------------------------------------------------------
Opening arguments in a suit filed against Microsoft Corp. for
alleged violation of Iowa's competition laws is expected to
begin after Nov. 23 and could last for as long as six months,
attorneys said, according to AP Worldstream.
Judge Scott Rosenberg of Polk County District Court has already
ordered Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Chief Executive Steve
Ballmer to testify in person at a trial. The earliest they
likely will be called is January or February, the report said.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:
-- personal computer operating system software; and
-- applications software, including word processing,
spreadsheet and office-suite software.
The plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:
-- illegally overcharging for its software;
-- denying class members free choice in software products
and the benefits of software innovation; and
-- making computers increasingly susceptible to security
breaches.
Plaintiffs also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.
Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.
However, Microsoft denies the claims and maintains that it
developed and sold high quality software products at fair and
reasonable prices.
Specifically, Microsoft contends that it did not overcharge for
its software and that consumers benefited from being able to
purchase high quality software products.
Microsoft also contends that consumers benefited from being able
to purchase high quality products that were continually improved
and enhanced through Microsoft's research and development
efforts.
Further, Microsoft contends that it developed products that
responded to consumer desires and that were more attractive to
consumers than the products offered by its competitors.
Roxanne Conlin, who is representing the plaintiffs, said her
experts have estimated that individuals and businesses were
overcharged as much as $453 million for Microsoft products in
the past 12 years as a result of the anti-competitive practice.
In Iowa, about 5.1 million licenses for Microsoft Windows have
been issued, 1.8 million for Office, 446,373 for Word and about
21,349 for Excel.
Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.
The counsels representing the Class Members are:
(1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,
Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: (515) 283-
1111, Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and
(2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN
55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, Email:
mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Faces Ohio Suit Over Revenue-Sharing Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Co. and two of its affiliates were
named as defendants in a purported class action that accuses
them of allegedly taking kickbacks on mutual funds offered in
retirement plans, which cover police officers, firefighters,
teachers, and other government employees across the country.
Filed on Nov. 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, the suit was brought against
Nationwide Life and two of its affiliates:
-- Nationwide Financial Services, and
-- Nationwide Retirement Solutions.
The suit was filed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office,
Orlando, Fla., on behalf of its $50 million 457(b) deferred
compensation plan, seeking restitution of revenue-sharing
payments collected from mutual funds and other investment
advisers.
Orange County Sheriff Kevin Beary, who oversees the sheriff's
office plan, brought it on behalf of all U.S. 457(b) plans that
have had variable annuity contracts with Nationwide.
Basically, the suit alleges that in the early 1990s and
continuing to present day, Nationwide devised a plan to
essentially take a percentage from fees paid to mutual fund
families.
Thus, plaintiffs are seeking restitution of revenue-sharing
payments collected from mutual funds and other investment
advisers as well as accounting of those payments.
According to the suit, Nationwide has been requiring mutual
funds to make revenue-sharing payments since 1996, based on a
percentage of participants' assets invested in the mutual funds
through Nationwide, ranging from about 25 basis points to more
than 58 basis points annually on total assets.
The suit calls Nationwide's revenue-sharing payments a breach of
its fiduciary duty, since ass a fiduciary, Nationwide is
prohibited from receiving benefits in connection with them not
specifically agreed to by class members in their annuity
contracts with Nationwide.
It further states that the revenue sharing payments themselves
constitute plan assets in Nationwide's hands since it received
the payments as a result of its fiduciary status. In other
words, the suit pointed out that the revenue-sharing payments
effectively constitute the proceeds of participants'
investments.
Nationwide Life provided investments to the plan through
variable annuity contracts, whose underlying investments were in
mutual funds, many owned or operated by Nationwide or its units,
according to the suit.
Edward Siedle, an attorney and president of Benchmark Financial
Services, Ocean Ridge, Fla., who is helping to represent the
sheriff, said that Nationwide provides annuities for about $20
million of the sheriff's office plan. The other annuity
providers aren't part of the suit, he adds.
The suit is "Beary v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-00967-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A.
Sargus with referral to Judge Norah McCann King.
Representing the plaintiffs is Scott E. Smith of Smith Phillips
& Associates, 1225 Dublin Road, Columbus, OH 43215, Phone: 614-
846-1700, Fax: 614-486-4987, E-mail: ses@smithphillipslaw.com.
NEW YORK: Jury Verdict Coming in Utica Avenue Oil Spill Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A jury in New York is set to deliberate, and could render a
decision in a class action over an oil spill in and around the
Flatbush Bus Depot, according to Gary Buiso of The Kings
Courier.
Filed in July 1999, the suit seeking millions of dollars in
property damages done to local homes near the depot, located on
Fillmore Avenue between East 49th Street and Utica Avenue. Lead
plaintiff in the case is Utica Avenue resident James Turnball.
It has been estimated that 120,000 gallons of oil leaked from
leaky tanks owned by Metropolitan Transportation Authority-New
York City Transit at the depot.
Plaintiffs' attorney Dunewood Truglia, has said that their case
relies on the New York State Navigation Law, which assesses a
strict liability-regardless of fault-on anyone who discharges
petroleum into the ground, land, or navigable water. Under
state law, groundwater is classified as navigable water.
For more details, contact The Law Offices of Dunewood Truglia,
First Street, P.O. Box 222, New Suffolk, NY 11956-0222, Phone:
(516) 734-6450, Fax: (516) 734-5152.
NORTHERN BEEF: S.D. Residents File Suit Over Planned Beef Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Aberdeen, South Dakota filed a purported class
action Northern Beef Packers, H&S Land & Livestock, and Hub City
Livestock, who are involved in the construction of a beef
processing plant south of town, The Associated Press reports.
Represented by local attorney David J. Fransen, Aaron Johnson,
Roger Blum, and Evelyn Blum, each of whom lives on Eisenhower
Circle in southern Aberdeen, are suing the three over plans to
build the plant about a mile south of town, near the city's
wastewater treatment plant.
Northern Beef plans to build the plant on property owned by H&S
Land. Norg Sanderson and Dennis Hellwig are partners in
Northern Beef Packers and H&S Land. Mr. Hellwig also owns Hub
City Livestock.
Essentially, the suit claims that the defendants have decreased
the property values of and disrupted the lives of the
plaintiffs.
It also claims that the defendants "annoy, injure and endanger
the comfort, repose, health or safety of the plaintiffs and
other members of the neighborhood and the community at large."
According to the suit, which also claims that defendants have
violated zoning ordinances, the beef plant, will cause:
-- loud noises,
-- glare from lights,
-- fumes and noxious odors, and
-- an unsightly nature.
Additionally, the suit also targets that Hub City Livestock,
whose present operation, according to the suit, results in
offensive, unpleasant, obnoxious, unbearable and foul noises and
odors from cattle (and) other livestock, as well as from the
general operation of the sale barn. That amounts to trespass,
the suit alleges.
Plaintiffs are each asking for at least $75,000, according to
the lawsuit. They also ask that the case be granted class-
action status since other homeowners have also been negatively
impacted.
Also, Evelyn Blum asks that the defendants "cease and desist in
their actions and to abate their nuisance and anticipated
nuisance."
For more details, contact David J. Fransen, 422 5th Avenue
Southeast, Suite 101, Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401, Phone: (605)
226-8234.
PHILIPPINES: Journalists Prepare Suit Against First Gentleman
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits filed
by first gentleman Mike Arroyo is preparing a class action for
alleged civil rights violation, reports say.
The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged
election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo. The
journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom
of the press.
University of the Philippines law professor Harry Roque is
preparing the petition. He said all but one of the 43
journalists being sued for libel by Mr. Arroyo had agreed to
sign up to the lawsuit. Mr. Roque said his group plans to file
the suit next week.
QUIZNOS SUB: Wis. Franchisees File Suit Over Business Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franchisees of Quiznos Sub filed a class action in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that the
company systematically defrauded its franchisees in a scheme
designed to build the brand at the expense of its operators in
the field.
The lawsuit contends that the company forces franchisees to buy
food and supplies from Quiznos or its affiliates at inflated
prices while concurrently setting artificially low retail prices
for its products, making the stores unprofitable for the
franchisees.
In addition, franchisees allege that Quiznos unlawfully
participates in a scheme to sell the franchises by omitting or
otherwise misrepresenting key facts about Quiznos' business
operations in an effort to induce potential franchisees to buy a
franchise.
Specifically, the suit, which is seeking damages for lost
investments as well as injunctive relief, alleges:
-- statutory and common law fraud,
-- violations of federal and state antitrust laws,
-- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) Act,
-- breach of contract, and
-- violations of the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law.
The 28 plaintiffs in the class action are all operators of
Quiznos franchises in Wisconsin. Defendants in the case
include:
-- The Quiznos Franchise Company, LLC,
-- Quiznos Franchising LLC,
-- various affiliates of the company;
-- Richard E. Schaden,
-- Richard F. Schaden, and
-- Cervantes Capital, LLC.
The class action in Wisconsin is the second significant lawsuit
on behalf of Quiznos franchisees in less than a year, according
to Justin M. Klein, Esq., a partner in the Red Bank, N.J. law
firm of Marks & Klein, LLP.
Mr. Klein represents a similar group of franchisees that filed a
class action against Quiznos in New Jersey earlier this year. He
also represents the plaintiffs in the Wisconsin lawsuit, along
with Mark M. Leitner and Joseph S. Goode of the Milwaukee-based
law firm of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C.
"Quiznos has been taking advantage of its franchisees for years
through practices that we contend are illegal and in violation
of the franchise agreement," said Chris Bray, president of the
Toasted Subs Franchisees Association, Inc. (TSFA), a trade group
representing Quiznos franchisees that helped organize the class-
action suit.
Mr. Bray, who owns two locations in Texas and has been a
franchisee for nine years, said Quiznos "has slowly,
methodically and deliberatively modified the business model,
year over year, to make it economically favorable to them, to
the detriment of the franchisees. It is time to put a stop to
this."
Mr. Klein added, "Quiznos has a one-sided relationship with its
franchisees in which the company makes money and the franchisees
go out of business in short order, lose everything, and are
replaced with another franchise."
For more details, contact Justin M. Klein, Esq., of Marks &
Klein, LLP, Phone: (732) 747-7100, Fax: (732) 219-0625, Web
site: http://www.markslaw.net.
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Stock Suit Due March
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated shareholders complaint filed against
Riviera Holdings Corp. agreed to extend the deadline to file a
motion to dismiss the suit to March 1, 2007.
On June 19, 2006, a complaint "In Re Riviera Holdings Corp.
Shareholders' Litigation, Case No. A520100," was filed against
Riviera Holdings and its directors in the District Court of
Clark County, Nevada. It is a consolidation of four class
action complaints previously filed.
The consolidated complaint was filed pursuant to a Stipulation
and Pretrial Order entered by the court, and was substantially
similar to the prior complaints.
Plaintiffs requested the court to, among other things:
-- declare that the case is maintainable as a
class action;
-- declare that the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated
April 5, 2006, among Riv Acquisition Holdings Inc., Riv
Acquisition Inc. and RHC is unlawful;
-- enjoin consummation of the merger contemplated by the
Merger Agreement "unless and until ...[RHC] adopts and
implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest
possible price for shareholders";
-- direct the defendants to disclose all material
information before seeking shareholder approval of "any
acquisition;" and
-- impose a constructive trust, in favor of the plaintiffs,
on any benefits improperly received by the defendants.
On Aug. 29, 2006, company stockholders disapproved the merger
agreement and the company terminated it. As a result, the
parties to the consolidated complaint agreed to extend the
deadline to file a motion to dismiss from Sept. 1, 2006 to March
1, 2007.
The parties further agreed that any opposition to the motion to
dismiss is to be filed within 45 days of the filing of any
motion to dismiss, with any reply to be filed within 20 days of
the filing of the opposition.
ROGERS WIRELESS: Seeks Supreme Court OK For Arbitration Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Wireless, a subsidiary of Rogers Communications Inc., is
to go before the Supreme Court of Canada next month in a bid to
have the arbitration process validated in a purported class
action mover abusive roaming charges, Sue Montgomery of The
Montreal Gazette reports.
Frederick Muroff, a Montreal dentist, filed a motion back in
2004 for permission to launch a class action against the
company. He is fighting being unexpectedly billed $4 a minute
for phone calls while in Maine, U.S.A.
Rogers contracts contain a mandatory arbitration clause, meaning
if anyone has a complaint about their cell phone, bill or
service, they have to take the company to arbitration - a
process that can be prohibitively time consuming and expensive.
Mr. Muroff's attorneys contend that the average consumer buys
their cell phone in a rush, signing a contract after believing
they received the best package deal.
However, what most consumers don't realize is they also sign
away their right to other forms of dispute resolution such as
small claims court, a lawsuit, or a class action.
Albert Greenspoon, of law firm Kaufman Laram,e, says that Rogers
Wireless' practices are abusive and unfair. He described it as
only having one purpose: to keep consumers from taking action
against the company.
In June 2005, Mr. Muroff's attorneys wanted to question Rogers
Wireless representatives about mandatory arbitration in Quebec
Superior Court, but Justice Sylviane Borenstein referred the
case to arbitration before giving them a chance. The Quebec
Court of Appeal in January 2006 bounced it back to Superior
Court.
Mr. Muroff's case has the potential to become a groundbreaking
battle over mandatory arbitration clauses, which are touted as a
shield for companies looking to protect themselves from class
actions, especially in Quebec, which has the reputation as a
leader such litigation.
For more details, contact Albert A. Greenspoon of Kaufman
Laram,e, S.E.N.C., 800 Rene-Levesque Boulevard West, Suite 2220,
Montreal Quebec, Canada, Phone: 514-875-7550, Fax: 514-875-7147,
Web site: http://www.kaufmanlaramee.com/.
TECO ENERGY: Plaintiffs in Fla. Stock Suit Seeks Final Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action filed
against TECO Energy, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida filed a motion asking the court to enter a final
judgment on the claims that the court dismissed in October.
Purchasers of company securities filed a number of securities
class actions in August, September and October 2004. These
suits, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, allege disclosure violations under
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Feb. 1, 2005, the court entered its order appointing the
"TECO Lead Plaintiff Group," as the lead plaintiff for the
class, which is comprised of:
-- NECA-IBEW Pension Fund (The Decatur Plan),
-- Monroe County Employees Retirement System,
-- John Marder, and
-- Charles Korpak.
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins,
LLP, was appointed as lead counsel by the court as well.
The plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint
for securities fraud on May 3, 2005. The consolidated complaint
maintains the same class period, Oct. 30, 2001 to Feb. 4, 2003,
and the same parties as those contained in the original
complaint.
The nature of the claims, which relate to the adequacy of the
company's disclosures and financial reporting, also remains the
same.
The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on July 25, 2005.
The plaintiffs have been granted an extension to file their
response through Dec. 31, 2005, since the parties have agreed to
mediate the claims in mid-December 2005, in order to eliminate
uncertainty and ongoing expense associated with the litigation.
In March 2006, the court partially dismissed the consolidated
case. According to Judge James Whittemore's ruling, the
plaintiffs relied on analysts' reports that they alleged
revealed the company's fraud.
However those reports, while pessimistic about the company's
future, did not identify any improprieties, the judge wrote.
In addition, the judge pointed out that the plaintiffs did not
sufficiently establish a connection between the specific
fraudulent activity alleged and a drop in stock prices.
Thus in dismissing part of the plaintiff's complaint and the
request for class action, Judge Whittemore wrote, "In sum,
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that defendant's fraud,
as opposed to poor market conditions, was the proximate cause of
TECO's stock price decline."
The judge, however, did not grant the company's motion to
dismiss the entire case. His reason for not granting that
motion was because he found that the plaintiffs did set forth
allegations of deception and manipulation that were sufficient
to support a fraud claim.
The plaintiffs filed their further amended complaint to which
the company and the defendants filed their motion to dismiss on
Jul. 7, 2006, based on failure to plead loss causation as raised
in the prior motion. Plaintiffs filed their response to the
motion to dismiss on July 21, 2006.
On Oct. 10, 2006, the court granted defendant's motion to
dismiss in part, leaving only one remaining issue dealing with
public statements relating to the status of the contracting plan
for the approximately 6,000 MWs of merchant power then under
construction in several states outside of Florida.
On Oct. 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Rule 54(b) motion
asking the court to enter a final judgment on the matters that
were dismissed by its Oct. 10 Order.
If the motion were granted, the plaintiffs would be free to
appeal that portion of the Judge's order immediately, while
maintaining the balance of the action in the district Court.
The suit is "In Re: TECO Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 8:04-cv-01948-JDW-EAJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge James D.
Whittemore.
Representing the plaintiffs are David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H.
Rudman, William S. Lerach, Darren J. Robbins, Stephen Richard
Astley, David D. George and Jack Reise of Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, Phone: 561/750-3077, 619/231-1058
and 631/367-7100, Fax: 561/750-3364 and 631/367-1173, E-mail:
sastley@lerachlaw.com, dgeorge@lerachlaw.com,
jreise@lerachlaw.com and drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the company are:
(1) Diane Knox, Richard A. Rosen of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
New York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000;
(2) Tracy A. Nichols, Holland & Knight LLP, 701 Brickell
Ave., Suite 3000, P.O. Box 015441, Miami, FL 33131-
5441, Phone: 305/374-8500, Fax: 305/789-7799, E-mail:
tracy.nichols@hklaw.com; and
(3) Steven B. Rosenfeld, 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, NY 10019-6064, Phone: 212/373-3000, Fax: 212-757-
3990.
TENNESSEE GAS: Third Hurricane-Related Lawsuit Filed in La.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. is named in a third class action
petitions for damages filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana against all oil and natural gas
pipeline and production companies that dredged pipeline canals,
installed transmission lines or drilled for oil and natural gas
in the marshes of coastal Louisiana.
The companies are named in the suit, "Henry and Hattie Bands et
al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co. et al.," filed in August
2006.
They are also facing the suits:
-- "George Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
Co., et al.," and
-- "Charles Villa Jr., et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
Co., et al., (filed in 2005)."
The suits assert that the defendants caused erosion and land
loss, which destroyed critical protection against hurricane
surges and winds and was a substantial cause of the loss of life
and destruction of property.
The Barasich and Bands lawsuits allege damages associated with
Hurricane Katrina. The Villa lawsuit alleges damages associated
with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
The court consolidated the Villa and Barasich cases and issued
an order dismissing the cases for failure to state a claim on
which relief could be granted.
The Bands case was not consolidated at the time the Barasich and
Villa dismissal order was issued; the defendants are seeking to
have it dismissed on the same grounds.
The consolidated suit is "Barasich et al v. Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge
Daniel E. Knowles, III.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Conrad S.P. Williams, III of St. Martin & Williams,
4084 Highway 311, P.O. Box 2017, Houma, LA 70361-2017,
Phone: 985-876-3891, E-mail: duke525@msn.com; and
(2) Douglas R. Kraus of Brent Coon & Associates - N.O. 1515
Poydras Street, Suite 800, New Orleans, LA 70112,
Phone: 504-566-1704, E-mail:
douglas.kraus@bcoonlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Thomas R. Blum of Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn,
LLP, Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras St., 30th Floor, New
Orleans, LA 70163-3000, Phone: (504) 569-2030, E-mail:
trblum@spsr-law.com; and
(ii) Joseph E. LeBlanc, Jr. of King, LeBlanc & Bland, PLLC,
(Houston), 6363 Woodway, Suite 750, Houston, TX 77057,
Phone: 713-334-5644, E-mail: jleblanc@klb-law.com.
TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS: La. Court Junks Hurricane-Related Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted a motion to dismiss two class action petitions filed
against Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. in relation to
hurricane damages in 2005.
We were named as a defendant in two class action petitions for
damages filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana in September and October 2005 arising from
hurricanes that struck Louisiana in 2005.
The class plaintiffs, purporting to represent persons,
businesses and entities in the State of Louisiana who have
suffered damage as a result of the winds and storm surge from
the hurricanes, allege that the operating activities of the two
sub-classes of defendants, which include:
-- all oil and gas pipelines that dredged pipeline canals
or installed pipelines in the marshes of south Louisiana
(including the company), and
-- all oil and gas exploration and production companies
which drilled for oil and gas or dredged canals in the
marshes of south Louisiana,
have altered marshland ecology and caused marshland destruction
which otherwise would have averted all or almost all of the
destruction and loss of life caused by the hurricanes.
The suits are:
-- "Barasich, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission
Company, et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04161-SSV-DEK," filed
on September 13, 2005;
-- "Villa, et al. v. Columbia Gulf Transmission Co., et
al., Case No. 2:05-cv-04569-SSV-DEK," filed on October
5, 2005.
Plaintiffs request that the court allow the lawsuits to proceed
as class actions and seek legal and equitable relief in an
unspecified amount. On April 17, 2006, all defendants,
including the company, filed a joint motion to dismiss the class
action petitions on various grounds.
This motion was granted on Sept. 28, 2006, and the cases were
dismissed. An additional class action case containing
substantially identical allegations was filed against the same
defendant class, including the company, in August 2006.
On October 20, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
this case on the same basis as the motion filed in the other
cases.
The "Barasich" plaintiffs' attorneys are Richard Paul Bullock of
Early, Ludwick & Sweeney, One Century Tower, 11th Floor, 265
Church Street, P.O. Box 1866, New Haven, CT 06508, US, Phone:
203-777-7799, E-mail: rbullock829@aol.com.
The "Villa" plaintiffs attorneys are Mary S. Johnson of Johnson,
Gray, McNamara, LLC, 69150 Highway 190 East Service Road,
Covington, LA 70433, Phone: 985-246-6544, E-mail:
msj@jgmclaw.com.
Defendant's attorney is Linda Sarradet Akchin of Kean, Miller,
Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, LL, One American Place,
P.O. Box 3513, 22nd Floor, Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513, Phone:
225-387-0999, E-mail: linda.akchin@keanmiller.com.
WAL-MART STORES: SC Judge Decertifies Labor Lawsuit in Mass.
------------------------------------------------------------
Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Thomas Murtagh unsealed
the full text of his Nov. 7 decision granting Wal-Mart's motion
to decertify the class in a class action suit alleging missed
breaks that was brought against Wal-Mart (WMT) by Elaine Polion
and Crystal Salvas.
The judge also entered an order striking the plaintiffs' expert
testimony of Dr. Martin Shapiro, on the basis that it is
unreliable and based on faulty methodology.
Wal-Mart recently filed a motion to decertify the class on the
basis that each associate's situation is different in
significant respects, making cases such as this inherently
"uncertifiable" for class treatment.
In addition, Wal- Mart moved to exclude the plaintiffs' expert
testimony on the basis that his data was flawed and defective
and unreliable for the purpose of proving violation of wage and
hour law.
"We think the judge made the right decision," said Neal Manne of
the law firm Susman Godfrey LLP, which represented Wal-Mart in
the case. "Other courts around the country also have concluded
that wage and hour lawsuits such as this simply cannot be
handled fairly as class actions and, we believe, more courts
will agree on this point."
Earlier, an Oct. 25 trial in a purported class action filed by
workers against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in Massachusetts was
postponed so the judge can reconsider which claims will be heard
(Class Action Reporter, Nov. 3, 2006). The report did not
specify a new date for the hearing.
In September, Middlesex Superior Judge Thomas Murtagh allowed to
go to trial allegations that the retailer violated state law by
shortchanging workers, but threw out claims that the employees
are not given enough meal breaks (Class Action Reporter, Sept.
29).
The judge ruled that the workers could not pursue their meal
break claims because "there is no compensable law for missed,
interrupted, or shortened meal periods," invoked by their
lawyers.
The judge noted that under a separate section of the law, the
workers could have filed complaints with the Massachusetts
attorney general's office within 90 days after the violations
occurred, or filed a civil claim for damages within three years.
Boston attorney Robert Bonsignore filed the suit in July,
alleging that the Arkansas company violated an implied contract
when it did not honor its own corporate policies saying workers
were entitled to meal breaks based on the total number of hours
worked (Class Action Reporter, July 4, 2006). The workers
allege they were routinely denied time to eat during their
shifts.
According to Mr. Bonsignore, there was secret manipulation of
electronic pay records and at times, managers inserted unpaid
meal breaks or clocked people out a minute after they clocked
in, without any overtime paid at all.
Bay State employees are represented by Robert J. Bonsignore of
Bonsignore & Brewer, 23 Forest Street, Medford, MA 02155, Phone:
781-391-9400, Fax: 781-391-9496, E-mail: rbonsignore@aol.com,
Web site: http://www.bandblaw.net/contact.shtml.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 7-8, 2006
SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Hotel Silicon Valley, East Palo Alto, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 8, 2006
NITA'S COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT: ARGUING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Mealeys Seminars
The Argent Hotel, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-12, 2006
CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-12, 2006
VIOXX LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Key Biscayne, FL
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 13-15, 2006
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
January 22-23, 2007
MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP
10 ISSUES
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
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
------------------------
November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2006
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 1-30, 2006
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
November 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
November 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
November 1-30, 2006
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.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 - SSRI's
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 5, 2006
AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 6, 2006
CLIENT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES
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 13, 2006
ELIMINATION OF BIAS IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 14, 2006
DETERMINING WHAT EXPENSES MAY BE CHARGED TO A CONTINGENT FEE
CLIENT
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
BODISEN BIOTECH: Schatz Nobel Announces N.Y. Stock Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C., announces that a
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. between Aug. 26, 2005 and Nov.
14, 2006.
The complaint alleges that Bodisen and certain of its officers
and directors, and Benjamin Wey a/k/a Benjamin Wei and his
company New York Global Group, Inc. (NYGG), violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
statements.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants issued materially
false and misleading information about the company's performance
and failed to disclose material relationships the company had
with Benjamin Wey and his related companies.
On November 12, Bodisen issued a press release stating that it
had received a letter from the American Stock Exchange warning
that it is out of compliance with certain listing standards.
The exchange said it believes Bodisen made insufficient or
inaccurate disclosure in public filings on its relationship
with, and payments to, NYGG and its affiliates both prior to and
subsequent to its listing on the exchange.
The AMEX also expressed concern that Bodisen has internal
control issues related to its accounting and financial reporting
obligations in the context of its relationship with the company.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Jan. 15,
2007, for appointment lead plaintiff of the class.
For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton and Nancy A. Kulesa
of Schatz Nobel Izard, Phone: (800) 797-5499, E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com, Web site: http://www.snlaw.net.
ENCYSIVE PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Sets Plaintiff Cut-Off
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, representing shareholders of
Encysive Pharmaceuticals Inc., announces interested parties have
until Nov. 27, 2006 to move to be a lead plaintiff in the
shareholder lawsuit.
The suit covers all persons and institutions that purchased
securities of Encysive Pharmaceuticals, Inc., between Feb. 19,
2004 and March 24, 2006.
The complaint charges Encysive and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Encysive's business and prospects caused
the company's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors.
Encysive is a biopharmaceutical company, which engages in the
discovery, development and commercialization of novel, synthetic
and small molecule compounds.
The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made false and misleading statements to the investing public
concerning Encysive's lead product candidate, Thelin
(sitaxsentan), a drug being developed to treat Pulmonary
Arterial Hypertension (PAH), and that the company's shares were
valued based upon the apparent success of Thelin.
Plaintiff claims that during the class period Encysive claimed
it had completed Phase III development of Thelin, causing
Encysive's share price to reach new highs.
After the company completed two successful public offerings,
investors learned that defendants had been misrepresenting the
actual prospects for Thelin.
On March 27, 2006, Encysive shares fell 49% after U.S.
regulators delayed approving Thelin until they could get more
data.
The Food and Drug Administration sent the company a letter
asking for information and possibly more studies to determine if
Thelin is safe and effective for use in treating PAH.
Prior to the March 27, 2006 revelations, defendants had led
shareholders and analysts to believe that FDA approval was
imminent and that such approval would make Thelin a competitor
to Bosentan, another treatment for PAH.
On July 24, 2006, the company revealed that material issues
raised in the March 2006 FDA statements remained "unresolved,"
rendering FDA approval uncertain -- contrary to defendants'
previous claims.
In response, the company's shares plummeted again, this time by
40%, trading as low as $3.90 per share in after-hours trading.
Interested parties move the court, not later than Nov. 27, 2006,
to serve as lead plaintiff.
For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.
TVIA INC: Kahn Gauthier Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announces that shareholders of TVIA
Inc. who purchased, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of TVIA between Aug. 8, 2006 through and including Sept.
27, 2006, including purchasers in the company's Private
Placement that was fully funded on Aug. 25, 2006 may now move
for appointment as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class
action currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. No class has yet been
certified in this action.
The complaint alleges that TVIA and certain of its officers and
directors violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements.
In particular, TVIA failed to disclose that the company was
operating well below expectations. Rather than disclose the
true financial condition of the company to investors, on Aug.
15, 2006, the company sold almost $12 million of TVIA stock in a
private placement, including stock sales by certain insiders of
the company.
It was only on Sept. 28, 2006, however, that investors learned
the truth about TVIA after defendants belatedly disclosed that
the Company was operating well below guidance.
As a result of these adverse disclosures, the company's stock
lost nearly 59% of its value that day on extremely heavy volume.
These adverse disclosures also led to an analyst downgrade,
which caused further declines.
For more details, contact Lewis Kahn of KGS, Phone: 1-866-467-
1400, ext. 100 and (cell phone) 504-301-7900, E-mail:
lewis.kahn@kglg.com.
XETHANOL CORP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, has filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Xethanol
Corp. between Jan. 31, 2006 and Aug. 8, 2006.
The complaint charges Xethanol and certain of the company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Xethanol's operations and financial
performance caused the company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
Xethanol engages in the production and marketing of ethanol and
its co products in the U.S. The complaint alleges that during
the Class Period defendants made material misrepresentations to
the investing public, including, among other things:
-- defendants had misrepresented that the company's
Hopkinton, Iowa plant was being refurbished;
-- defendants failed to disclose a host of related-party
transactions, as well as associations with several
early stage investors who had records of stock fraud
and market manipulation, among other things;
-- defendants had materially overstated the company's
profitability by underreporting Xethanol's true cost of
completing a biomass-to-ethanol production facility;
-- throughout the class period the company's internal
controls were inadequate, such that Xethanol's
operational and financial reports were unreliable; and
-- the company's financial statements and reports were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles and SEC rules.
As a result of the aforementioned adverse conditions which
defendants failed to disclose, defendants lacked any reasonable
basis to claim that the company was operating according to plan,
or that Xethanol could achieve the near term commercialization
of biomass ethanol production, or achieve the guidance sponsored
and/or endorsed by defendants.
It was only at the end of the class period that investors
ultimately learned the company's true condition, when shares of
Xethanol declined precipitously after investors were shocked by
the publication of a highly critical report about Xethanol
published by ShareSleuth.com, a forensic securities
investigations website.
As a direct result of the publication of the ShareSleuth.com
report on August 8, 2006, Xethanol's stock price collapsed --
falling almost 50% within the three trading days following the
report's publication.
Interested parties may move the court, not later than Dec. 26,
2006, to serve as lead plaintiff in the case.
For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq., and Lionel Z.
Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310)
201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com, Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.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 * * *