/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070108.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, January 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 5
Headlines
CMS ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Stock Suit in Mich.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Certifies Payday Loans Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA: Faces Katrina-Related Litigation in Miss.
DUKE ENERGY OHIO: Court Yet to Certify Air Pollution Lawsuit
DUKE ENERGY OHIO: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
FEDEX GROUND: Continues to Face Owner-Operators' Suit in Ind.
FIRST BANKS: Lakin Firm Appeals Check Cashing Fee Suit Dismissal
FORD MOTOR: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suits in Mich.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faulty Refs Suit Claims Deadline Set Jan. 12
HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Fortifies Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel
HANSEN NATURAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Jan. 29
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Seeks to Decertify Okla. Consumer Lawsuit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Schultz"
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Intel Appeals Ruling in P4 Processor Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over "Smart Chips"
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Labor Complaints in Idaho
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: N.Y. Court Yet to Rule on "Digwamaje" Appeal
HOOSIER LOTTERY: Faces Suit Over Scratch-Off Tickets in Ind.
KRISPY KREME: Motion to Dismiss N.C. Securities Lawsuit Pending
LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Adjourned Until 2007
LORAL SPACE: "Christ" Securities Suit Adjourned Until 2007
LORAL SPACE: Objectors to Globalstar Settlement Withdraw Appeals
METABANK: Sued for Funding "Fraudulent" Vehicle Sales in S.D.
NATIONAL BEEF: S.D. Jury Favors Firm in "Schumacher" Litigation
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Decertifies IPO Suits in N.Y.
OPLINK COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Suit Settlement
PETROLEUM RETAILERS: Faces Kan., Mo. Lawsuits Over "Hot Fuel"
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Dismissal of Tower Securities Suit Affirmed
SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit
SENDTEC INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in Calif.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Faces Suit Seeking Proposal 2 Compliance
WILLIAMS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Mulls Appeal for SCDC Suit in S.C.
WOODFIN SUITES: Enjoined from Firing Hotel Workers Until Jan. 23
WR GRACE: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Insulation Product
New Securities Fraud Cases
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Suit in Fla.
TOP TANKERS: Cohen, Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
*********
CMS ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Stock Suit in Mich.
-------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy Corp. has reached a preliminary agreement to settle
shareholder class actions linked to round-trip energy trading
that took place at its former Texas-based subsidiary between
2000 and 2002.
It also announced an arbitration panel decision in a dispute
with Duke/Fluor Daniel over the construction of its Dearborn
Industrial Generation facility.
In the shareholder class actions, CMS Energy and lawyers for the
shareholders have signed a memorandum of understanding that is
expected to lead to a detailed stipulation of settlement that
will be presented to the assigned federal judge and the affected
class in the first quarter of 2007.
James Brunner, CMS Energy's general counsel, said the memorandum
of understanding moves the company a step closer to eliminating
a major legal and business uncertainty.
"We now have the legal framework for a settlement and our focus
in the coming weeks will be on moving forward to finalize the
details of an agreement and presenting that to the court," Mr.
Brunner said. "This memorandum of understanding and the
settlement it represents, if approved by the court, along with
the arbitration result in the Dearborn Industrial Generation
matter, will go a long way toward resolving the outstanding
major litigation issues facing the company and its affiliates."
On June 3, 2002 a shareholder sued CMS Energy Corp. and three
top officers, claiming they used "round-trip" energy trading
practices to artificially inflate reported revenues.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. It seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
CMS common stock from Aug. 3, 2000 through and including May 10,
2002.
According to the lawsuit, CMS and three of its top executives
engaged in "round trip" energy trading to artificially boost
earnings.
"Round-trip" trading refers to the practice whereby two
companies buy and sell the same amount of power at the same
price and at the same time, resulting in a financial "wash" for
both companies.
The complaint says these trading practices lacked any economic
substance and were used by CMS to improperly record
approximately $4.4 billion in revenue and to manipulate the
market into thinking CMS was a significant player in the power
marketing industry.
On May 9, 2002, the truth about CMS trading practices began to
emerge when a news report revealed that CMS had engaged in
"round-trip" trading with Dynegy, Inc.
The news for shareholders grew worse on May 10, when CMS
announced that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had
begun an informal inquiry into CMS "round-trip" trading
activities.
Then, on May 13, Reliant Resources, Inc. stated that it had also
conducted "round-trip" trading with CMS. CMS has confirmed such
trading with both companies.
On May 15, CMS disclosed that its energy-marketing unit had
"entered into 'round trip' electricity trades...from May 2000
through mid-January 2002. Thirteen of the trades accounted for
about 98 percent of the volume."
The complaint says a former partner at the accounting firm
Deloitte & Touche told Reuters: "Recording revenues from round-
trip trades would be a species of fraud because they're
overstating revenues." On May 24, CMS announced the resignation
of its chairman and chief executive.
The market reaction to the news was swift and severe. CMS stock
fell from a high of $20 per share on May 10, 2002 to a low of
$15.72 on May 13, 2002, a one-day decline of more than 21% and a
fall of more than 45% from the Class Period high.
Consolidated Complaint
On Sept. 24, 2002 the court consolidated all related cases into
one class action, "In re CMS Energy Securities Litigation." On
Nov. 14, 2002 Judge George Steeh issued a Memorandum Opinion and
Order appointing lead plaintiffs and co-lead counsel.
On May 1, 2003 lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint. On July 2, 2003, defendants filed their motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties briefed the
issues and on Sept. 8, 2003 a hearing on defendants' motions was
held, which Judge Steeh took under advisement.
On Feb. 12, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their consolidated complaint, specifically seeking to add
additional support for their allegations. On March 1, 2004,
defendants filed their opposition to this motion.
Second Amended Complaint
On March 31, 2004, Judge Steeh issued an Opinion and Order that,
among other things, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss and required lead plaintiffs' to
file a proposed amended complaint under seal, which was filed on
April 21, 2004.
On May 26, 2004, lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of all persons and
entities who acquired the securities of CMS from May 1, 2000
through and including March 31, 2003.
On June 21, 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint. On Jan. 7, 2005 the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendant's motion to dismiss. On
Feb. 23, 2005 a scheduling hearing was held setting a discovery
deadline for Feb. 20, 2006 and a trial date for Sept. 19, 2006.
Third Amended Complaint
On March 16, 2005 plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint.
Beginning on April 6, 2005 the individual defendants began
filing their answers to the third amended complaint. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on April 15, 2005.
On Sept. 20, 2005 the defendants filed a Motion for a Judgment
on the Pleadings which Judge Steeh denied on Dec. 7, 2005.
On March 24, 2006 Judge Steeh issued an order granting in part
and denying in part the motion for class certification. On June
21, the Judge denied plaintiffs request for a reconsideration of
the class certification ruling.
On June 21, new deadlines were set including, Dispositive Motion
cut-off date set for Dec. 8, 2006, final Pretrial Conference set
for March 13, 2007 and a trial date of March 27, 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2006).
The suit is "In re CMS Energy Securities Litigation, Case No.
02-72004," filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Michigan under Judge George Caram Steeh.
Case Contact: Julie A. Richmond, Phone: 800-516-9926.
DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Ontario Court Certifies Payday Loans Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Justice Hoy of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
granted class certification to a $515 million lawsuit against
Money Mart and Dollar Financial Group.
The judge certified the proceedings as a class proceeding,
noting that "certification will achieve the objective of access
to justice" for the class members who are Money Mart's
customers.
"I am delighted with this result. Our focus will now be to
bring this class action to trial as quickly as possible in the
best interests of the class members," said Harvey Strosberg,
lead lawyer for the plaintiffs.
Windsor pensioner Margaret Smith originally filed the suit in
December 2003, alleging fees and interest combined on the
company's short-term payday loans exceeds the legal rate of
interest set out in the Criminal Code (Class Action Reporter,
Mar. 16, 2006). The Code provides a maximum charge of 60% per
annum.
The proposed class action was filed against National Money Mart
Co. and its parent company, Dollar Financial Group, Inc.
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who, in the period
Aug. 19, 1997 to the date of the publication of the
certification order, received a "Fast Cash Advance" from Money
Mart or its Franchisees in Ontario.
The action alleges that these companies violate section 347 of
the Criminal Code of Canada by charging and collecting fees and
interest at an effective annual interest rate in excess of 60%
on "Fast Cash Advance" loans, which are repaid by personal
checks dated on the borrower's next payday or pension checks
deposit date.
The class action also alleges that Dollar Financial Group, Inc.,
and Money Mart "conspired, among other things, to unlawfully
cause the plaintiffs to pay interest at a criminal rate."
The suit asserts that all of the interest and fees charged and
collected by Money Mart and its franchisees on "Fast Cash
Advance" loans repaid by cheque on the borrower's next payday
are legally "interest" notwithstanding that Money Mart calls
them "fees". If the charges are all interest, then the
effective annual interest rate on these loans substantially
exceeds 60% and sometimes can be 329% or 578% or even more than
1000%.
The class seeks damages, including punitive damages, in the sum
of $555 million on behalf of all persons in Ontario, who
obtained "Fast Cash Advance" loans from Money Mart and its
Franchisees and who repaid them by personal checks on their next
payday.
Money Mart brought a motion to dismiss or stop the action
against it on the basis that an arbitration clause in the
standard form "Fast Cash Advance" agreements required that every
dispute be settled by arbitration, not by a class action.
Dollar Financial, a New York corporation, brought a motion to
dismiss the action against it on the basis that the Ontario
court did not have jurisdiction over it.
Both motions were argued in Toronto, Ontario on Feb. 1 and 2,
2005 before Madam Justice E. Macdonald.
On June 22, 2005, Madam Justice Macdonald dismissed Money Mart's
arbitration motion. She also dismissed Dollar Financial's
jurisdiction motion.
Both Money Mart and Dollar Financial appealed Justice
Macdonald's decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.
On Oct. 7, 2005, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for
Ontario quashed Money Mart's appeal from Madam Justice
Macdonald's refusal to dismiss or stop the class action against
Money Mart on the basis of the arbitration clause.
Money Mart sought an order from the Supreme Court of Canada
granting it leave to appeal to that court from the decision if
the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding the arbitration
clause. On March 2, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed
Money Mart's application.
Dollar Financial's appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario was
heard on Dec. 2, 2005. The court reserved its decision. On May
8, 2006, the Court of Appeal dismissed Dollar Financial's
appeal.
In late March 2006, Madam Justice Hoy was appointed to the
Ontario Money Mart action.
On Oct. 12, 2006, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed Dollar
Financial's application for leave to appeal from the
jurisdiction decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The certification motion was argued on Oct. 25, 26 and 27, 2006
before Madam Justice Hoy.
For further information, contact Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., of
Sutts, Strosberg LLP, Phone: (519) 561-6228, Fax: (519) 561-
6203, E-mail: harvey@strosbergco.com; Website:
http://www.strosbergco.com
DUKE ENERGY INDIANA: Faces Katrina-Related Litigation in Miss.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., formerly PSI Energy, Inc., is a
defendant in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," according to the company's
Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
On April 19, 2006, the company was named in the third amended
complaint of the purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Ohio, along with numerous
other utilities, oil companies, coal companies and chemical
companies, is liable for damages relating to losses suffered by
victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Ohio's, and others',
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and
intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.
The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;
(2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
smwiles@smithfawer.com; and
(3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.
DUKE ENERGY OHIO: Court Yet to Certify Air Pollution Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to rule on plaintiffs' request for class certification of a
lawsuit alleging violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) against
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., formerly the Cincinnati Gas & Electric
Co.
A citizen of the Village of Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to
the company's Zimmer Station filed the suit in November 2004.
The case seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the company for alleged violations of the CAA, the Ohio State
Implementation Plan, and Ohio laws against nuisance and common
law nuisance.
The plaintiffs have filed a number of additional notices of
intent to sue and two lawsuits raising claims similar to those
in the original claim. One lawsuit was dismissed on procedural
grounds, and the remaining two have been consolidated.
The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which is
fully briefed and pending decision, according to the company's
Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric company, Case
No. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio under Judge Susan J. Dlott.
Representing the plaintiffs are Paul Alley and John Charles
Greiner of Graydon Head & Ritchey - 1, 2500 Chamber Center
Drive, PO Box 17070, Suite 300, Ft Mitchell, KY 41017, Phone:
859-282-8800, E-mail: palley@graydon.com and
jgreiner@graydon.com.
Representing the company are:
(1) Louis Francis Gilligan, Keating Muething & Klekamp - 1,
One E Fourth Street, Suite 1400, Cincinnati, OH 45202,
Phone: 513-579-6400, Fax: 513-579-6523, E-mail:
lgilligan@kmklaw.com; and
(2) Ariane Johnson, Cinergy Services, Inc., 1000 East Main
Street, Plainfield, IN 46168.
DUKE ENERGY OHIO: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Suit in Miss.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., formerly Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.,
is a defendant in the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.," according to the company's
Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
On April 19, 2006, the company was named in the third amended
complaint of the purported class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Ohio, along with numerous
other utilities, oil companies, coal companies and chemical
companies, is liable for damages relating to losses suffered by
victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy Ohio's, and others',
greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the frequency and
intensity of storms such as Hurricane Katrina.
The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) F. Gerald Maples and Meredith A. Mayberry of F. Gerald
Maples, PA, 902 Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113,
Phone: 504/569-8732, E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
and mmayberry@geraldmaples.com;
(2) Randall Allan Smith and Stephen M. Wiles - PHV, Smith &
Fawer, 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702, New Orleans,
LA 70170, Phone: 504/525-2200, Fax: 504/525-2205, E-
mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net and
smwiles@smithfawer.com; and
(3) Carlos A. Zelaya - PHV, II, Maples & Kirwan, LLC, 902
Julia Street, New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: 504-569-
8732, Fax: 504/525-6932.
FEDEX GROUND: Continues to Face Owner-Operators' Suit in Ind.
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a unit of FedEx Corp.,
remains a defendant in "In re FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.,
Employment Practices Litigation, MDL-1700," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
The company was initially involved in numerous purported class
actions and other proceedings that claim the company's owner-
operators should be treated as employees, rather than
independent contractors.
These matters include "Estrada v. FedEx Ground," a class action
involving single work area contractors that is pending in
California state court. Although the trial court has granted
some of the plaintiffs' claims for relief in Estrada -- $18
million, inclusive of attorney's fees, plus equitable relief --
the company expect to prevail on appeal.
Adverse determinations in these matters could, among other
things, entitle certain of the company's contractors to the
reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-
and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax
liability for FedEx Ground.
On Aug. 10, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation granted the company's motion to transfer and
consolidate the majority of the class actions for administration
of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court.
The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 22
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30.
That consolidated litigation is known as "In re FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation, MDL-
1700," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Indiana under Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
For more details, visit http://www.fedexdriverslawsuit.com.
FIRST BANKS: Lakin Firm Appeals Check Cashing Fee Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Gail Renshaw of the Lakin Law Firm filed to the Fifth
District in Mt. Vernon on Dec. 6 a notice of an appeal of the
Madison County Circuit Court's dismissal of a check cashing fee
class action complaint filed against First Banks, the Madison
County Record reports.
The Lakin Law Firm filed the suit on March 9, 2004, on behalf of
Darryl Johnson of Collinsville in the court of Circuit Judge
Phillip Kardis. It alleges that Mr. Johnson paid $5 each time
he cashed a check drawn on First Banks because he had no account
there.
Ms. Renshaw claimed that by charging the fee the bank wrongfully
dishonored the check. She moved to certify a class action with
Mr. Johnson representing thousands who had paid the fee in the
U.S.
First Banks attorney Troy Bozarth moved to dismiss the suit in
2004. In July 2004, Paul Marks of the Lakin Firm proposed an
amended complaint and was granted leave by Judge Kardis to file
it.
The new complaint added a claim that the fee did not relate to
any cost at the bank, and thus amounts to a penalty. It also
revised the complaint to state that the plaintiff was forced to
pay so that the defendant would honor the check, and that the
fee was regularly charged to persons not just those who were
without an account.
Dismissal of the Case
Mr. Bozarth moved to dismiss the suit in March 2005 arguing that
Mr. Johnson lacked standing to sue, because he was not a
customer. The next month, he asked for a hearing on the motion
to dismiss. The hearing was set Sept. 29, but Judge Kardis
retired before then and his cases passed to Judge Weber.
The Lakin attorneys tried to remove Judge Weber from the cases
it had brought before Judge Kardis, accusing him of bias. Chief
Judge Edward Ferguson denied the motion in March, and retained
Judge Weber.
Later on, Mr. Bozarth Bozarth wrote in seeking for the dismissal
of the case that Mr. Johnson had no claim because he paid
voluntarily.
But, Judge Weber ruled that the voluntary payment doctrine does
not apply since the act to refuse to honor a check drawn on the
bank under these circumstances is coercive. He pointed out that
a reasonable consumer should be able to cash a check drawn on
First Bank at First Bank without a fee.
As to whether Mr. Johnson was a "customer," Judge Weber relied
on the appellate court case, "Kronemeyer v. U.S. Bank," a case
in which Mr. Johnson was also a named plaintiff and which the
justices unanimously ruled the word "customer" has two opposite
meanings in this context.
In the other case, Kenneth Kronemeyer of New Memphis and Mr.
Johnson, also represented by the Lakin Law Firm, sought to
establish a nationwide class of individuals who paid U.S. Bank a
fee when presenting for payment a check drawn on a U.S. Bank
account.
They claimed that U.S. Bank charged $10 to cash checks drawn by
the bank's depositors and payable to them. They charged
consumer fraud, wrongful dishonor and unjust enrichment.
The Illinois Appellate Court reversed a decision by Judge
Nicholas Byron of the Madison County Circuit Court that denied
U.S. Bank's motion to dismiss the 2003 class action. The July 7
decision, which effectively dissolves the case, asserted the
plaintiffs "do not have standing."
Judge Weber pointed out that the Kronemeyer case held that the
payee of a check lacks standing to bring a claim for wrongful
dishonor when a bank charges a fee and also points out federal
regulations authorize the fee and therefore federal preemption
precludes this suit based on the check cashing fee
In Nov. 2006, Judge Weber dismissed the case, stating that it
seems to be unwise policy to allow a bank to charge a fee to
cash a check drawn on the bank, however, unwise this policy
seems, it appears to be the law (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20,
2006).
In his decision, Judge Weber wrote, "A reasonable consumer
should be able to cash a check drawn on First Bank at First Bank
without a fee."
He further wrote, "...if the payee of a $4 check were to present
it to First Bank he would, theoretically, have to pay First Bank
$1 to cash the check. This absurd result would be coercive."
"Although the Court is of the opinion that there should be a
cause of action when a bank charges a fee for cashing a check
drawn on the bank, that is apparently not the law," the judge's
opinion concluded.
For more details, contact The Lakin Law Firm, 300 Evans Ave.,
P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095, Phone: (618) 254-1127,
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/.
FORD MOTOR: Continues to Face ERISA Violation Suits in Mich.
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. and several of its current or former employees
and officers remain defendants in two purported class actions
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, according to the company's Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-Q/A
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended March 31, 2006.
These suits are:
-- "Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., et al.;" and
-- "Lennie, et al v. Ford Motor Co., et al."
The lawsuits allege that the defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by failing to prudently and
loyally manage funds held in employee savings plans sponsored by
Ford.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege, among other claims that the
defendants violated their fiduciary duties to plan participants
by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option
in the savings plans.
Defendants in the suit are:
-- Ford Motor Co.,
-- David G. Leitch,
-- Donat R. Leclair,
-- Joseph W. Laymon,
-- Mickey Poli-Bartlett,
-- Roman J. Krygier,
-- William Clay Ford, Jr.
The suit is "Nowak et al. v. Ford Motor Co. et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-11718-PVG-SDP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with
referral to Judge Steven D. Pepe.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Jayson E. Blake of The Miller Law Firm (Rochester), 950
W. University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307,
Phone: 248-841-2200, E-mail: jeb@millershea.com;
(2) David H. Fink of The Miller Law Firm (Rochester), 950
W. University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200, Fax: 248-652-2852, E-mail:
dhf@millershea.com; and
(3) E. Powell Miller of The Miller Law Firm (Rochester)
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: 248-841-2200, E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com.
Representing the defendant is Kathleen A. Lang of Dickinson
Wright (Detroit), 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000, Detroit, MI
48226-3425, Phone: 313-223-3500, Fax: 313-223-3771, E-mail:
klang@dickinsonwright.com.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faulty Refs Suit Claims Deadline Set Jan. 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric Co. consumers across the nation who purchased
any of the specified models of General Electric refrigerators,
have until the midnight of Jan. 12 to sign up for a replacement
refrigerator, according to NBC 2 Fort Myers.
On April 29, 2005, plaintiff filed his complaint on behalf of
himself and a putative class consisting of all persons in the
state of Florida who purchased any of nine specific models of
General Electric refrigerators.
Among other things, the complaint alleged that the "GE" and
"Hotpoint" side-by-side refrigerators sizes 20, 22, and 25 cubic
feet, manufactured between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2002 did
not perform in accordance with the advertisements, marketing
materials and warranties disseminated by General Electric nor
with the reasonable expectations of ordinary consumers because
of alleged moisture problems. The complaint asserted causes of
action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligence,
and unjust enrichment.
List of model and serial numbers of affected refrigerators:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff7
A settlement, preliminarily approved Dec. 9, 2005, includes:
-- Additional Warranty Protection: GE shall provide
settlement class members with additional warranty
protection for moisture-related problems in the
refrigerators. The Additional Warranty Protection shall
be for one year following the Notice Date;
-- Refrigerator Exchange: For any settlement class member
whose refrigerator has required three or more
unsuccessful moisture-related service calls and still
has a moisture-related problem, GE shall provide, in
exchange for the settlement class member's refrigerator,
a new GE refrigerator of like grade and quality with
comparable features; and
-- Reimbursement: GE shall reimburse settlement class
members for the reasonable cost of moisture-related
service calls (including parts and labor) charged to the
settlement class members by a GE factory service
technician, an authorized GE customer care servicer, or
a firm or technician that holds a business license, or
is otherwise demonstrably qualified to perform major
appliance service and repair work. The costs to be
reimbursed must have been incurred and paid by the
settlement class members between the date of purchase of
their Refrigerators and the notice date.
General Electric has agreed to pay attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to class counsel in the total amount of $1,325,000.
In Sept. 2006, Judge John Steele of the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Florida approved the agreement proposed
in December 2005 to settle a nationwide class action filed
against General Electric Co. in Fort Myers in April 2005
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2006).
The judge also awarded more than $1.3 million in attorneys' fees
plus an additional $1,500 to lead plaintiff Bill Turner.
A copy of the settlement agreement is available at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?ff6
A copy of the Judgment in a Civil Case is available at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?11ae
Plaintiffs' class counsels are Scott Wm. Weinstein, Weinstein
avly & Moon, P.A., Gary E. Mason and Alexander E. Barnett of the
ason Law Firm, P.C., Jonathan W. Cuneo and Charles J. LaDuca of
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, L.L.P.; and William M. Audet of
Alexander Hawes & Audet, L.L.
HALLIBURTON CO: AMSF Fortifies Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF), the lead
plaintiff in the securities fraud lawsuit against Halliburton
Co., filed its Reply Brief on its Motion to Substitute Counsel.
AMS Fund cites numerous reasons for its request to remove the
firms of:
* Scott + Scott, and
* Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins
as lead counsel in the class action "The Archdiocese of
Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc., et al. v. Halliburton Co., et
al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.
Truth in Corporate Justice LLC's founder, Neil Rothstein (a
former Scott + Scott partner), Special Counsel to the AMS Fund,
stated that this is an unfortunate but necessary change that was
unexpected at the time Mr. Lerach's firm first intervened in
this case.
Some of the most important reasons for the change in counsel
request, as stated in the Reply Brief filed on Dec. 27, 2006,
are the failure of lead counsel to keep AMS Fund fully informed
about the status of the case in violation of Pre-trial Order
Number Two.
Next, according to the Reply Brief, there exists a potentially
negative impact on the litigation as a result of the
proliferation of media attention surrounding William S. Lerach,
which could possibly shift the focus from the merits of the case
and turn it into a convoluted battle between Lerach and the
government.
The conflict: an attorney under federal investigation is
representing a lead plaintiff who has brought a lawsuit against
a sitting vice president's former company where he was chief
executive officer. The vice president is not a defendant in
this action.
The Reply Brief also states that the Department of Justice's
ongoing criminal investigation of Lerach and his former firm,
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, which has led to the
indictment of two of Lerach's former partners and his
predecessor firm, has brought to light facts not disclosed to
the court or lead plaintiff.
The AMS Fund is requesting the court to substitute the firm of
Boies, Schiller & Flexner as lead counsel. The Court has not
yet ruled on the motion.
Neil Rothstein, founder of TCJ, says that it is unfortunate that
another change in counsel is necessary at this time; however,
the amount of information that the current lead counsel hid from
the Lead Plaintiff clearly does not comport with what is in the
best interest of the client or the class.
"While the Lead Plaintiff sought to have this transition occur
with the dignities of those involved remaining intact, the
realities amount to far more than the loss of dignity," stated
Mr. Rothstein. "This is not about guilt or innocence; it is
about the appearance of impropriety, conflicts of interest, and
ethical behavior."
Case Background
In June 2002, a class action was filed against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002.
Defendants in the suit are Halliburton Co., David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.
The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the accounting change and disclosures involved
in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection.
In the weeks that followed, approximately 20 similar class
actions were filed against the company. Several of those
lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP, the
company's independent accountants for the period covered by the
lawsuits, and several of the company's present or former
officers and directors.
The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint was named, "Richard Moore,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al.," which was filed and served
upon the company in April 2003.
In early May 2003, the company announced that it entered into a
written memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms upon
which the Moore class action would be settled.
In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the Moore class action
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended consolidated
complaint, which was granted by the court.
In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint includes
claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (Dresser claims).
The Dresser claims were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
were among the claims the parties intended to have resolved by
the terms of the proposed settlement of the consolidated Moore
class action and the derivative action. The memorandum of
understanding called for Halliburton Co. to pay $6 million,
which would be funded by insurance proceeds.
In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of the
settlement, the court entered an order in September 2004 holding
that evidence of the settlement's fairness was inadequate,
denying the motion for final approval of the settlement in the
Moore class action, and ordering the parties, among others, to
mediate.
After the court's denial of the motion to approve the
settlement, the company withdrew from the settlement, as it
believes that it is entitled to do by its terms. The mediation
was held in January 2005, but was declared by the mediator to be
at an impasse with no settlement having been reached.
In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and a new
lead plaintiff, directed that they file a third consolidated
amended complaint, and that the company file motion to dismiss.
The court held oral arguments on that motion in August 2005, at
which time the court took the motion under advisement.
On Mar. 14, 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting the plaintiffs to re-plead those claims
to correct deficiencies in their earlier complaint.
With respect to those issues regarding which the court denied
the motion, the company requested that the court certify its
order for interlocutory appeal.
On Apr. 4, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their fourth amended
consolidated complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss
those portions of the complaint that have been repled.
A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss in July 2006.
Mr. Lerach's Involvement
Mr. Lerach got involved in the case in 2005 after three other
law firms withdrew amid fierce criticism of the $6 million
settlement they negotiated without consulting AMSF, which was
supposedly in control of the litigation.
The law firms would have received more than half the proceeds in
fees, while an investor with 100 shares would have received as
little as 62 cents.
As late as June 2006, Mr. Lerach still had the support of the
AMSF. At that time, Judge Barbara Lynn asked the firm to
explain why Mr. Lerach sought to add pension funds affiliated
with the laborers and plumbers and pipefitters unions, as well
as the City of Dearborn Heights, Michigan -- all frequent Lerach
Coughlin clients -- as "non-Lead plaintiffs."
The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas under Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin & Barroway - Radnor,
280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: 610-
667-7706, Fax: 610/667-7056;
(2) Marc R. Stanley, Stanley Mandel & Iola, 3100 Monticello
Ave, Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205, Phone: 214/443-4301,
Fax: 214/443-0358, E-mail: mstanley@smi-law.com; and
(3) Thomas Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270
Madison Ave, Ninth Floor, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212/545-4600.
Representing the company is Thomas E Bilek of Hoeffner & Bilek,
1000 Louisiana St, Suite 1302, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713/227-7720, Fax: 713/227-9404, E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com.
For more details, contact David Boies of Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, 333 Main Street, Armonk, New York 10504,
(Westchester Co.), Phone: 914-749-8200, Fax: 914-749-8300, Web
site: http://www.bsfllp.com.
HANSEN NATURAL: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set Jan. 29
----------------------------------------------------------
Parties interested to become lead plaintiff in a class action
pending against Hansen Natural Corp. in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California have until Jan. 29, 2007
to file for appointment, according to the law firm of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, LLP.
The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the
common stock of Hansen Natural (NASDAQ:HANS) between Nov. 12,
2001 and Nov. 9, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2006).
The complaint charges Hansen and certain of the company's
executive officers and directors with violations of federal
securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material
omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading
statements concerning Hansen's business and financial
performance caused the company's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
Hansen, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development,
marketing, sale, and distribution of beverages in the U.S. and
Canada.
The complaint alleges that during the class period defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to the investing
public and misrepresented or failed to disclose adverse facts,
including that:
-- defendants engaged in the backdating of stock option
grants for certain key executives of the company;
-- the company's internal controls were inadequate and,
therefore, the company was unable to ascertain its true
financial condition; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants issued false
and misleading financial statements which, among other
things, violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles.
On Oct. 31, 2006, Hansen shocked the market when it disclosed
that the company had received a letter from the Staff of the
Pacific Regional Office of the Securities and Exchange
Commission requesting that the company voluntarily produce
certain documents and information relating to the filing of SEC
Forms 4 and the company's stock option grant practices from Jan.
1, 1996 to the present.
Then, on Nov. 9, 2006, the company issued a press release
announcing a delay in the filing of its quarterly report for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
As a result of this news, shares of the company's common stock
fell more than 14%, to close at $24.88 on unusually heavy
trading volume of more than 19 million shares traded.
For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los
Angeles, California 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-
9224, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Seeks to Decertify Okla. Consumer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Co. is seeking to reverse a decision by the
District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma to certify a
nationwide class in the product liability suit "Grider v.
Compaq." Compaq Computer Corp. is a company HP acquired in
2002.
In February 2000, a suit similar to "Alvis v. HP" -- a defective
product consumer class action filed in the District Court of
Jefferson County, Texas in April 2001 -- was filed against the
company in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.
The basic allegation of the second suit, "LaPray v. Compaq" is
that HP and Compaq sold computers containing floppy disk
controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk
controller errors. That failure is alleged to result in data
loss or data corruption.
The complaints in Alvis and LaPray seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In
July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case,
which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded
to the trial court in May 2004. On March 29, 2005, the Alvis
trial court certified a Texas-wide class action for injunctive
relief only, which HP appealed on April 15, 2005. HP's appeal
in the Alvis case is still pending, according..
On June 4, 2003, each of "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider v. Compaq"
was filed in the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma,
with factual allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray.
The complaints in Barrett and Grider seek, among other things,
specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees. On Dec. 22, 2003, the District Court
entered an order staying the Barrett case until the conclusion
of Alvis.
On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the Grider
plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class action, which
the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006.
On Nov. 5, 2006, HP filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with
the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts'
decisions.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Schultz"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state court in San Joaquin County, California granted a
motion for class certification by plaintiff in the suit "Schultz
v. HP," and certified the Schultz case as a California-only
class.
On Nov. 5, 2004, "Batiste v. HP," formerly "Scott v. HP," and on
Jan. 27, 2005, "Schultz v. HP," formerly "Jurado v. HP," were
filed in state court in San Joaquin County, California, with
factual allegations similar to those in LaPray and Alvis filed
in Texas courts. The suits state that HP and Compaq sold
computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert
the user to certain floppy disk controller errors. That failure
is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption.
The suits seek certification of a California-only class,
injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including punitive
damages), restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees.
On Nov. 27, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification and certified the Schultz case as a
California-only class.
HP intends to file a Petition for Writ of Mandate with the
California Court of Appeal seeking reversal of the trial court's
class certification decision, according to the company's Dec. 22
form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Intel Appeals Ruling in P4 Processor Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court allowed Intel Corp. to appeal a
District Appellate Court's ruling regarding the certification of
the suits:
* "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corp., Hewlett-
Packard Co., et al.," and
* "Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp."
The cases are separate lawsuits filed on June 3, 2002 in the
Circuit Court, Third Judicial District, Madison County,
Illinois.
The suit alleges that HP and Compaq, along with Intel, misled
the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged material
fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4 processor are
less powerful and slower than systems using the Intel Pentium
III processor and processors made by a competitor of Intel.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certification of a nationwide class. The
trial court in the HP action certified an Illinois class as to
Intel but denied a nationwide class. Both parties appealed the
trial court's decision.
On July 25, 2006, the Fifth District Appellate Court ruled that
the trial court erred in applying Illinois law in deciding to
certify the Illinois class and to deny certification of the
nationwide class and directed the trial court to reconsider
those decisions applying California law instead.
On Aug. 28, 2006, Intel appealed the Fifth District's decision
to the Illinois Supreme Court, and the Illinois Supreme Court
granted Intel's petition for appeal on Nov. 29, 2006.
Proceedings against HP have been stayed pending resolution of
the parties' appeal of this decision. The class action
certification against Compaq has been stayed pending resolution
of the parties' appeal in the HP action.
Skold Lawsuit
"Skold, et al. v. Intel Corp. and Hewlett-Packard Co." is a
lawsuit to which HP was joined on June 14, 2004. It was
initially filed in state court in Alameda County, California,
based upon factual allegations similar to those in the Illinois
cases.
The plaintiffs in the Skold matter seek unspecified damages,
restitution, attorneys' fees and costs, and certification of a
nationwide class. The Skold case has since been transferred to
state court in Santa Clara County, California.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Suits Over "Smart Chips"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several purported class
actions over "smart chips" in certain of its inkjet printing
products.
"Feder v. HP," formerly "Tyler v. HP" is a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
June 16, 2005. It asserts breach of express and implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act and deceptive advertising and unfair business
practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that HP employed a "smart
chip" in certain inkjet printing products in order to register
ink depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable
through a built-in expiration date that is hidden, not
documented in marketing materials to consumers, or both.
Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink
depletion warnings and that the smart chip limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose
competitive products.
On Sept. 6, 2005, a lawsuit "Ciolino v. HP" was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
The allegations in the Ciolino case are substantively identical
to those in Feder, and the two cases have been formally
consolidated in a single proceeding in the District Court for
the Northern District of California as "In Re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation."
The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest,
costs, and attorneys' fees.
Dismissed Lawsuit
Plaintiffs have dismissed these related lawsuits filed in
California state court without prejudice:
* "Tyler v. HP" (filed in Santa Clara County on Feb. 17,
2005),
* "Obi v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on Feb. 17,
2005), and
* "Weingart v. HP" (filed in Los Angeles County on March
18, 2005)
In addition, two related lawsuits filed in federal court have
been dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiffs. The suits
are:
* "Grabell v. HP" (filed in the District of New Jersey on
March 18, 2005), and
* "Just v. HP" (filed in the Eastern District of New York
on April 20, 2005)
Canadian Litigation
Substantially similar allegations have been made against HP and
its subsidiary, Hewlett-Packard (Canada) Co., in four Canadian
class actions:
-- one commenced in British Columbia in February 2006;
-- two commenced in Quebec in April 2006 and May 2006,
respectively; and
-- one commenced in Ontario in June 2006
all seeking class certification, restitution, declaratory
relief, injunctive relief and unspecified statutory,
compensatory and punitive damages.
The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 22
form 10-k filing for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006.
The consolidated federal suit is "In re: HP Inkjet Printer
Litigation, Case No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull.
Representing the plaintiffs is Bruce Lee Simon of Cotchett Pitre
& Simon, San Francisco Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road,
Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010, Phone: 650.697.6000, Fax:
650.692.3606, E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Sally J. Berens of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, 1881 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.,
Phone: 650-849-5300, Fax: 650-849-5333, E-mail:
sberens@gibsondunn.com.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Continues to Face Labor Complaints in Idaho
---------------------------------------------------------------
Claims of breach of employment contract remain against Hewlett-
Packard Co. after the dismissal of two major labor complaints
pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Idaho.
The suit, "Miller et al. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.," filed on Mar.
21, 2005, was brought on behalf of a putative class of persons
who were employed by third-party temporary service agencies and
who performed work at the company's facilities in the U.S.
It claims that plaintiffs were incorrectly classified as
contractors or contingent workers and, as a result, were
wrongfully denied employee benefits covered by the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and benefits not covered
by ERISA.
It also claims that plaintiffs were denied participation in HP's
Share Ownership Plan, service award program, adoption assistance
program, credit union, dependent care reimbursement program,
educational assistance program, time off programs, flexible work
arrangements, and the 401(k) plan.
On May 22, 2005, plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint,
which added a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
claim and defined the class to include those persons who have
been, or now are, hired by the company through agencies to work
at HP facilities in the U.S. from March 21, 2000 through the
present who have been deprived of the full benefit of employee
status by being misclassified as contractors, contingent workers
or temporary workers or were otherwise misclassified.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, an injunction, retroactive
and prospective benefits and compensation, unspecified damages
and enhanced damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
HP successfully moved to dismiss the ERISA and WARN claims. The
sole remaining claim being advanced by the remaining plaintiffs
in this case is a breach of contract claim.
The company reported no development in the case at its Dec. 22
form 10-k filing for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Miller v. Hewlett Packard Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-
00111-BLW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho under Judge B. Lynn Winmill.
Representing the plaintiffs are Christopher F. Huntley, Robert
C. Huntley, Steven L. Olsen, William H. Thomas, Daniel E.
Williams of Huntley Park, P.O.B. 2188, Boise, ID 83701-2188,
Phone: 208-388-1230 and (208) 345-7800, Fax: 208-388-0234 and 1-
208-345-7894, E-mail: chuntley@huntleypark.com,
rhuntley@huntleypark.com, solsen@huntleypark.com,
wmthomas@huntleypark.com and danw@huntleypark.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) D. Ward Kallstrom of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, One
Market, Spear Street Tower, San Francisco, CA 94105,
Phone: (415) 984-8200, Fax: (415) 984-8200, E-mail:
dwkallstrom@morganlewis.com;
(2) Patricia M. Olsson of Moffatt Thomas Barrett Rock &
Fields, P.O. Box 829, Boise, ID 83701, Phone: (208)
345-2000, Fax: 1-208-385-5384, E-mail: pmo@moffatt.com;
and
(3) Kimberly R Sayers-Fay of Stevens O'Connell, LLP, 400
Capitol Mall, Ste. 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4498,
Phone: 916-329-9111, Fax: 916-329-9110, E-mail:
ksf@stevensandoconnell.com.
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: N.Y. Court Yet to Rule on "Digwamaje" Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal
regarding the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York of the purported class action,
"Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al.," which names Hewlett-Packard
Co. and numerous other multinational corporations as
defendants.
The case was filed on Sept. 27, 2002 in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of current and
former South African citizens and their survivors who suffered
violence and oppression under the apartheid regime.
The lawsuit alleges that HP and other companies helped
perpetuate, profited from, and otherwise aided and abetted the
apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by selling
products and services to agencies of the South African
government.
Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Torture
Victims Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.
The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.
On Nov. 29, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
plaintiffs' complaint. In May 2005, the plaintiffs filed an
amended notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
On Jan. 24, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
argument on the plaintiffs' appeal but has not yet issued a
decision, according to the company's Dec. 22 form 10-k filing
for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Digwamaje, et al. v. IBM Corp., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-06218-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Kweku J. Hanson, 487 Main Street, Harford, CT 06106,
Phone: (860) 728-5454, Fax: (860) 548-9660;
(2) Medi Moira Mokuena, 268 Jubilee Avenue, Halfway House
1685, Extension 12, Republic of South Africa; and
(3) Paul M. Ngobeni, 914 Main Street, Suite 206, East
Hartford, CT 06108, Phone: (860) 289-3155 and (508)
620-4798.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Kristin M. Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, 500
Campus Drive, Florham Park, NJ 07932-1047, Phone: (973)
549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, Web site:
http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/;and
(ii) Kristin Michele Heine of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP,
140 Broadway, 39th Flr., New York, NY 10005, Phone:
(973) 549-7338, Fax: (973) 360-9831, E-mail:
kristin.heine@dbr.com.
HOOSIER LOTTERY: Faces Suit Over Scratch-Off Tickets in Ind.
------------------------------------------------------------
The State Lottery Commission of Indiana, dba The Hoosier
Lottery, is named defendant in a suit filed in Marion County
Circuit Court over alleged misleading promotions, the WTHR
reports.
Indiana residents Jeff Koehlinger and Jeff Frazer filed the suit
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons
who purchased nonwinning tickets in the Hoosier Lottery's Cash
Blast game (Instant Game No. 743) from May 2005 up until July 7,
2006 when the lottery was publicly misrepresenting the number
and amount of prizes available in that game.
At $10 a ticket, it promised seven grand prizes of a quarter of
a million dollars in addition to winnings up to $10,000. But in
July of last year, after selling five million tickets, the
Lottery abruptly reduced the amount of prizes in the course of
two weeks.
According to the lawsuit the Lottery overstated the number and
amount of prizes in the Cash Blast game by $8 million. In a
release last year the lottery said it had a problem with its
printing company and recalled 2.5 million tickets. After
reprinting them the lottery said the odds of the game were not
compromised.
Plaintiffs claim the Lottery's misrepresentations constitute
intentional or negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach
of contract, fraud, money had and received, restitution, unjust
enrichment, and deceptive sales practices actionable pursuant to
Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code 24-5-0.5-2.
Mr. Waples maintains the $20 million in damages now sought
equals the money spent by consumers on non-winning Cash Blast
tickets between the period in question.
The plaintiffs and the class respectfully request all available
remedies under the law, including common law and statutory
damages, and a common fund from which all class members can
claim their damages, and from which attorney fees and costs can
be paid.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?181e
The suit is "Jeff Koehlinger and Jeff Frazer et al v. The State
Lottery Commission dba The Hoosier Lottery, Case No. 49C 0107 CT
730," filed in the State of Indiana, Marion County Circuit
Court.
Representing plaintiffs is Richard A. Waples, of Waples &
Hanger, 410 N. Audubon Road, Indianapolis, IN 46219, Phone: 317-
357-0903, Fax: 317-357-0275, E-mail: richwaples@aol.com.
KRISPY KREME: Motion to Dismiss N.C. Securities Lawsuit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion by Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. to dismiss a second
amended securities fraud complaint against it remains pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, according to a company regulatory filing for the
quarter ended April 2006.
On May 12, 2004, a purported securities class action was filed
on behalf of persons who purchased the company's publicly traded
securities between Aug. 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004 against the
company and certain of its current and former officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Plaintiff alleged that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with various public statements made by
the company. Plaintiff sought damages in an unspecified amount.
Thereafter, 14 substantially identical purported class actions
were filed in the same court.
On Nov. 8, 2004, all of these cases were consolidated into one
action. The court appointed lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
action, who filed a second amended complaint on May 23, 2005,
alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act on behalf of persons who purchased the company's publicly-
traded securities between March 8, 2001 and April 18, 2005.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint on Oct. 14, 2005 that is currently pending, according
to the company's Dec. 22 form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April
30, 2006.
LORAL SPACE: "Beleson" Securities Suit Adjourned Until 2007
-----------------------------------------------------------
A conference to discuss the status of a class action filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Bernard L. Schwartz, former chairman of the board and
chief executive officer of Loral Space & Communications Inc.
(New Loral), has now been adjourned until the first quarter of
2007.
In August 2003, plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky
filed a purported class action complaint against the company in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses. It alleges:
-- that Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about
the company's financial condition relating to the sale
of assets to Intelsat and its Chapter 11 filing; and
-- that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person"
of Loral Space & Communications Ltd. (Old Loral).
The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding
the defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with
him.
In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into
the Beleson case.
In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court. Defendant filed an answer in
March 2004.
In January 2006, the case was stayed, and a conference to
discuss the status of the case has now been adjourned until the
first quarter of 2007, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against one of its officers, the company believes, although no
assurance can be given, that, to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendant.
The suit is "Beleson, et al. v. Schwartz, Case No. 1:03-cv-
06051-JES," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge John E. Sprizzo.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jules Brody of Stull Stull &
Brody, 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
(212) 687-7230, Fax: (212) 490-2022; and Joseph H. Weiss, Weiss
& Yourman, The French Building 551 Fifth Avenue 1600 New York,
NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025.
Representing Mr. Schwartz are Jeanne Marie Luboja and Francis
James Menton, Jr., Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787
Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax:
(212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com.
LORAL SPACE: "Christ" Securities Suit Adjourned Until 2007
----------------------------------------------------------
A conference to discuss the status of the securities class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against certain officers of Loral Space &
Communications Inc. (New Loral) has now been adjourned until the
first quarter of 2007.
In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed a purported class action
complaint against Bernard L. Schwartz and Richard J. Townsend in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount and reimbursement of plaintiffs' reasonable
costs and expenses. It alleges:
-- that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
material misstatements or failing to state material
facts about Loral Space & Communications Ltd.'s (Old
Loral) financial condition relating to the restatement
in 2003 of the financial statements for the second and
third quarters of 2002 to correct accounting for
certain general and administrative expenses and the
alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction
with APT Satellite Co. Ltd.; and
-- that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
person" of Old Loral.
The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Old Loral common stock during
the period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding
the defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.
In October 2004, a motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety was denied by the court. The defendants filed an
answer to the complaint in December 2004.
In January 2006, the case was stayed, and a conference to
discuss the status of the case has now been adjourned until the
first quarter of 2007, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
Since this case was not brought against Old Loral, but only
against certain of its officers, the company believe, although
no assurance can be given, that to the extent that any award is
ultimately granted to the plaintiffs in this action, the
liability of New Loral, if any, with respect thereto is limited
solely to claims for indemnification against Old Loral by the
defendants.
For more details, contact:
(1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz at 10 East 40th Street,
New York, New York 10016, Phone: (877) 779-1414;
(2) Chitwood & Harley at 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree
Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30309, Phone: (888) 873-
3999;
(3) Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP at 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212)
545-4600.
LORAL SPACE: Objectors to Globalstar Settlement Withdraw Appeals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Objectors to a settlement of a consolidated securities class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Loral Space & Communications Ltd.
and Globalstar Telecommunications Limited (GTL) have withdrawn
their appeals.
The settlement was made by Loral Space chief executive officer
and chairman of the board of directors Bernard Schwartz.
On Sept. 26, 2001, 19 separate purported class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
various holders of securities of GTL and Globalstar L.P.
(Globalstar) were consolidated.
In November 2001, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, alleging:
-- that all defendants (except Loral) violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about
Globalstar's business and prospects;
-- that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as alleged
"controlling persons" of Globalstar;
-- that defendants GTL and Mr. Schwartz are liable under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for untrue
statements of material facts in or omissions of
material facts from a registration statement relating
to the sale of shares of GTL common stock in January
2000;
-- that defendant GTL is liable under Section 12(2)(a) of
the Securities Act for untrue statements of material
facts in or omissions of material facts from a
prospectus and prospectus supplement relating to the
sale of shares of GTL common stock in January 2000; and
-- that defendants Loral and Mr. Schwartz are secondarily
liable under Section 15 of the Securities Act for GTL's
primary violations of Sections 11 and 12(2)(a) of the
Securities Act as alleged "controlling persons" of GTL.
The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of securities of Globalstar,
Globalstar Capital and GTL during the period from Dec. 6, 1999
through Oct. 27, 2000, excluding the defendants and certain
persons related to or affiliated with them.
Mr. Schwartz preliminarily settled this case in July 2005 for
$20 million with final approval of the settlement in December
2005.
In September 2006, two objectors to the settlement who had filed
appeals concerning the attorneys' fees awarded to the plaintiffs
withdrew their appeals with prejudice, according to the
company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept.
30, 2006.
The suit is "In re Globalstar Securities Litigation, Case No.
01-CV-1748 (SHS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Representing the plaintiffs is Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank
& Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com.
Representing the company and Bernard Schwartz are Jeanne Marie
Luboja, Francis James Menton of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
(NY), 787 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-
8000, Fax: (212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com.
METABANK: Sued for Funding "Fraudulent" Vehicle Sales in S.D.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetaBank, a wholly owned subsidiary of Meta Financial Group,
Inc., is named defendant in a suit alleging fraud by purchasers
of vehicles in South Dakota.
On or about March 10, 2006, plaintiffs filed five class action
on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of vehicles
from Prairie Auto Group, Inc., Dan Nelson Automotive Group,
Inc.'s Rapid City, South Dakota location, and other not-yet-
identified auto sales entities owned or operated by defendants.
The complaints are:
-- "Ronald Archulleta, et al. v. Prairie Auto Group, Inc.,
et al." in the Tribal Court for the Oglala Sioux Tribe,
Pine Ridge Indian Reservation;
-- "Cedar Around Him, et al. v. Prairie Auto Group, Inc.,
et al." in the Tribal Court for the Rosebud Sioux
Tribe, Rosebud Indian Reservation;
-- "Chris Dengler, et al. v. Prairie Auto Group, Inc." in
Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, Minnehaha
County, South Dakota;
-- "Lucinda Janis, et al. v. Prairie Auto Group, Inc., et
al., File No. C-157-04" in the Tribal Court for the
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation, Eagle Butte,
South Dakota; and
-- "Kali Treetop, et al. v. Prairie Auto Group, Inc., et
al., File No. 01-970" in Circuit Court for the Seventh
Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, South Dakota.
Except for the named plaintiffs, each of the complaints is
essentially identical to the others. The nature of the
allegations are the same, and the same 14 legal claims are
sought to be pled in each.
Each complaint states that it is a "companion" to the other four
and names the same defendants (approximately 25) including the
Registrant and affiliates thereof (the "MetaBank Defendants").
None of these complaints has yet been served on any of the
MetaBank Defendants. The thrust of the complaints is that
plaintiffs allegedly suffered damages as a result of a scheme by
defendants to use fraudulent statements, misrepresentations and
omissions to sell vehicles and extended warranties to
plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs claim that they and other similarly situated
purchasers paid too much for their vehicles and were induced to
buy warranties that were not honored and otherwise proved
worthless. Plaintiffs allege that defendants reaped
considerable profits through fraudulent sales methods; by
refusing to make warranted repairs; and by engaging in usurious
repossession and resale practices.
Plaintiffs allege that these practices were part of a business
plan that originated with the franchisor-defendants and was
purchased and employed by the franchisee-defendants. It appears
that the principal basis for naming the MetaBank Defendants is
that they loaned money to finance some of the defendants'
business operations, purportedly with some degree of knowledge
about the defendants' allegedly abusive consumer practices.
The complaints allege that the described transactions are
typical of defendants' business and were part of a deliberate
scheme directed primarily at Native American customers.
The complaints allege that the franchisee-defendants engaged in
coercive, fraudulent and other illegal activities in connection
with the automobile sales, and each seeks to state claims for:
* breach of express warranty;
* 2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability;
* deceit/fraud;
* violation of applicable deceptive trade laws;
* breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing;
* conversion;
* civil conspiracy under tribal and state common law;
* negligent hiring, training and supervision of employees;
* violation of the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act;
* invasion of privacy;
* violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act;
* violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act;
* violation of the Federal Truth and Lending Act's (TILA)
Three Day Rescission Period; and
* violation of TILA's Disclosure of Finance Cost
Requirement.
In addition to seeking certification as a class, plaintiffs seek
cancellation of the automobile purchase contracts; monetary
damages including the initial purchase price warranty charges,
finance costs and related repossession and other charges; costs
of allegedly warranted repairs that were not made by defendants;
consequential damages relating to the alleged wrongful
repossession of vehicles and deficiency judgments associated
therewith; damages for emotional and mental suffering; punitive
and treble damages; and attorneys' fees. The amount of the
alleged damages is not specified in the complaints.
NATIONAL BEEF: S.D. Jury Favors Firm in "Schumacher" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury's verdict in the class action, "Schumacher v.
Tyson Foods, et al.," favored the National Beef Packing Co., LLC
(NBP), but not the other defendants in the case, according to
the company's Nov. 17, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Aug. 26, 2006.
On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against Farmland National
Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the predecessor to NBP),
ConAgra Beef Co., Tyson Foods, Inc. and Excel Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking
certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the
defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price
for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through May 11,
2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter.
Three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class
filed the case. The complaint alleged that the defendants, in
violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly
used, without correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading
boxed beef price information generated by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by
the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period.
Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a
theory of unjust enrichment.
The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of
approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and court costs. The claim is subject to reduction in an
unknown amount by the number of class members who have opted out
of the class.
Trial began March 31, 2006. On April 13, 2006, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but not against the other
defendants.
The defendants found liable filed post-trial motions for
judgment as a matter of law, which were denied. The plaintiffs
did not file a post-trial motion seeking to set aside the jury's
verdict for FNBPC.
The court has not yet entered a final judgment or appealable
order and, until it does, the time for an appeal does not begin
to run.
The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-01027-CBK," filed in the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann.
Representing the plaintiffs are Elizabeth J. Anderson and David
F. Herr of Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand, 3300 Wells Fargo
Center, 90 S. 7th St., Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140, Phone: (612)
672-8200, Fax: 672-8397.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) William H. Baumgartner, Jr. of Sidley Austin LLP, One
South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: (312)
853-7000, Fax: (312) 853-7036, E-mail:
wbaumgartner@sidley.com; and
(2) Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr. of McGrath North Mullin &
Kratz, PC LLO, 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl.
Tower, Omaha, NE 68102-1627, Phone: (402) 341-3070,
Fax: 341-0216, E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com.
For more details, visit: http://www.packerclassaction.com.
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Appeals Court Decertifies IPO Suits in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's ruling certifying Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigations against Openwave Systems Inc. as class actions.
On Nov. 5, 2001, a purported securities fraud class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York:
* "In re Openwave Systems, Inc. (sic) Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.),"
related to
* "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21
MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."
It is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
the company's common stock from June 11, 1999 through Dec. 6,
2000. The defendants are Openwave and five of the company's
former officers, and several investment banking firms that
served as underwriters of the company's initial public offering
and secondary public offering.
Three of the individual defendants were dismissed without
prejudice, subject to an agreement extending the statute of
limitations, through Dec. 31, 2003.
The complaint alleges liability as under Sections 11 and 15 of
the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:
-- the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and
-- the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
predetermined prices.
The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific damages are claimed. Similar
allegations were made in over 300 lawsuits challenging public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.
The company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants. Under such settlement proposal, plaintiffs
will dismiss and release all claims against the Openwave
Defendants in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance
companies responsible for insuring the issuers and for the
assignment or surrender of control of certain claims the company
may have against the underwriters.
The Openwave Defendants will not be required to make any cash
payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by
the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of insurance
coverage, a circumstance which the company does not believe will
occur. The settlement will require approval of the Court, which
cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity
to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.
The Court held a hearing on April 24, 2006 to consider whether
final approval should be granted and the company is awaiting a
ruling.
On Dec. 5, 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's ruling certifying the cases as class
actions. It is unclear what effect the Second Circuit reversal
will have on the settlement or the Court ruling.
In essence, the Court has stayed all proceedings, including
consideration of the proposed settlement, pending a decision
from the Second Circuit on whether it will hear further
arguments on the class certification issue.
OPLINK COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Final OK for IPO Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of
a settlement in a consolidated securities class action against
Oplink Communications, Inc., according to the company's Sept.
Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the period ended Oct. 1, 2006.
In November 2001, the company and certain of its officers and
directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder
complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned "In re Oplink
Communications, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904."
In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
company, certain of the company's officers and directors and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering violated
Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 based on
allegations that the company's registration statement and
prospectus failed to disclose material facts regarding the
compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.
The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of
other public companies that went public in the late 1990s and
early 2000s (the IPO Lawsuits).
On Aug. 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District
of New York.
On July 15, 2002, the company joined in a global motion filed by
all of the issuers, among others, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.
On Oct. 9, 2002, the court entered an order dismissing the
company's named officers and directors from the IPO Lawsuits
without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling the statute
of limitations with respect to these officers and directors
until Sept. 30, 2003.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the company and almost
all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claim against the company without leave to amend.
In June 2003, the issuers and plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding, providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the issuers and their
officers and directors from all liability resulting from
plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the issuers may have against the
underwriters.
In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in
settlement or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the
IPO Lawsuits, the plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiff's guaranteed recovery.
In such event, the company's obligation would be limited to the
amount remaining under the deductible of $1.0 million of the
company's insurance policy.
In September 2003, in connection with the tentative settlement,
the company's officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the plaintiffs, agreed to extend those
agreements so that they would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.
In June 2004, the company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs. On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a
decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and
granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to
modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the
settlement.
On April 24, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider whether
the settlement should finally be approved, and took the matter
of final approval under submission.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
PETROLEUM RETAILERS: Faces Kan., Mo. Lawsuits Over "Hot Fuel"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum retailers are facing lawsuits in Kansas and Missouri
federal courts over an alleged failure to adjust prices for the
expansion of fuel sold at temperatures above industry standard,
according to The Kansas City Star.
The suits are:
* "Zachary Wilson v. Ampride et al.,"
* "James Vanderbilt v. BP Corp. et al.,"
* "Victor Vandyne v. Murphy Oil et al."
The suits claim that consumers have been overcharged because
retailers, unlike wholesalers, don't account for expansion of
gasoline as it warms beyond the industry measurement standard,
resulting in lesser energy for the same amount of fuel at lower
temperatures.
They seek class-action status and claims of at least $5 million.
They also seek court injunctions to require companies to
"retrofit and install temperature-correction devices to avoid
future damages."
The Kansas suit names a group of four plaintiffs, including a
carnival company and a trucking company, according to Land Line
Magazine. It was filed Dec. 29, 2006, in U.S. District Court in
Kansas against 20 fuel retailers and oil companies including:
-- Ampride,
-- BP Corp. North America,
-- Citgo Petroleum Corp.,
-- Valero Marketing and Supply Co., and
-- Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
One of the plaintiffs in the suit is Robert Soetaert, member of
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association and owner of Bob
Soetaert Trucking of Shawnee. OOIDA is not part of the
lawsuits.
One Missouri suit was filed Dec. 30 in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Missouri by James Vanderbilt. It names
a similar but different list of defendant companies that
includes Casey's General Stores and Sinclair Oil Corp.
Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, has filed a similar
purported class action in California and six other states
against 17 petroleum retailers (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28,
2006).
The third suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Jefferson
City, Missouri by Victor VanDyne. It claims that retailers
collect more in taxes than they paid to state and federal
authorities by paying taxes at the wholesale level, where
transactions are adjusted to the standard 60-degree temperature
standard, while charging customers taxes at the expanded "hot
fuel" level.
The tax suit names eight fuel retailers, but does not seek
action against large oil companies named in the other suits.
QUICKLOGIC CORP: Dismissal of Tower Securities Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
A court of appeals has affirmed the dismissal of a securities
fraud suit filed in federal court in New York naming Tower
Semiconductor Ltd. and QuickLogic Corp. as defendants.
On July 3, 2003, a putative securities class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
shareholders of Tower Semiconductor against Tower, several of
its directors, and several of its investors, including
QuickLogic.
The lawsuit alleges that Tower Semiconductor and certain of its
directors made false and misleading statements in a proxy
solicitation to its shareholders regarding a proposed amendment
to a contract between the company and certain of its
shareholders (Class Action Reporter, June 9, 2006).
QuickLogic was named solely as an alleged control person. On
Aug. 19, 2004, the court dismissed the claims against all
defendants, including QuickLogic, with prejudice. On Sept. 29,
2004, one of the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment. On June 1, 2006, the court of appeals affirmed the
dismissal.
SELECT MEDICAL: Discovery Still Ongoing in Pa. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action pending against Select Medical Corp.
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania remains in the discovery and class certification
phase, according to the company's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period
ended Sept. 30, 3006.
On Aug. 24, 2004, Clifford C. Marsden and Ming Xu filed a
purported class action complaint on behalf of the public
stockholders of the company against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A.
Ortenzio, Rocco A. Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice and the company.
In February 2005, the court appointed James Shaver, Frank C.
Bagatta and Capital Invest, die Kapitalanlagegesellschaft der
Bank Austria Creditanstalt Gruppe GmbH as lead plaintiffs.
On April 19, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders of Select,
against Martin F. Jackson, Robert A. Ortenzio, Rocco A.
Ortenzio, Patricia A. Rice, and the company as defendants.
The amended complaint continues to allege, among other things,
failure to disclose adverse information regarding a potential
regulatory change affecting reimbursement for the company's
services applicable to long-term acute care hospitals operated
as hospitals within hospitals, and the issuance of false and
misleading statements about the financial outlook of the
company.
The amended complaint seeks, among other things, damages in an
unspecified amount, interest and attorneys' fees. The company
believes that the allegations in the amended complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this
action.
In April 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the
company and the individual officers' preliminary motion to
dismiss the amended complaint.
The company and the individual officers have answered the
amended complaint and the case has moved to the discovery and
class certification phase.
The suit is "Marsden, et al. v. Select Medical Corp., et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-04020-JCJ," filed in the U.S. District for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge J. Curtis Joyner.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Sanford P. Dumain, Lori G. Feldman, Shannon L. Hopkins
and Peter E. Seidman of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
10119, Phone: 212-594-5300, E-mail:
sdumain@milbergweiss.com, lfeldman@milbergweiss.com and
shopkins@milbergweiss.com; and
(2) Eric L. Young of Kenney Lennon & Egan, 3031 Walton
Road, Building C, Suite 202, Plymouth, PA 19462, Phone:
215-260-5493, E-mail: eyoung@kle-law.com.
Representing the defendants are, David M. Howard, Michael L.
Kichline and Stuart T. Steinberg of Dechert, LLP, Phone: 215-
994-4000, 215-994-2749 and 215-994-2521, E-mail:
david.howard@dechert.com, michael.kichline@dechert.com and
stuart.steinberg@dechert.com.
SENDTEC INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
SendTec, Inc., formerly RelationServe Media, Inc., remains a
defendant in a purported securities fraud class action filed in
a Florida federal court, according to the company's Nov. 17,
2006 Form 10QSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006.
On or about Aug. 31, 2006, an action was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No.
06-61327) by Richard F. Thompson as putative class
representatives against the company and certain former officers
and directors of the company alleging securities laws violations
in connection with the purchase of company stock during the
period May 24, 2005 to the present.
The proposed class is defined in the complaint as all persons
who purchased RelationServe shares between May 24, 2005 and Aug.
28, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 11, 2006).
On July 27, 2006, RelationServe Media, Inc. announced that it
had completed the change of its name and symbol to SendTec,
Inc., (SNDN). For purposes of the complaint, RelationServe
Media, Inc. and SendTec, Inc. are now one and the same entity.
The company provides direct marketing services, including
Internet customer and lead acquisition, DRTV advertising, and
offline marketing.
The complaint alleges that RelationServe and the individual
Defendants violated U.S. securities laws, and the securities
laws of the states of Florida and Indiana, causing an artificial
inflation of RelationServe's stock process.
According to the complaint, RelationServe made false and
misleading statements by failing to disclose that it was selling
its securities through unregistered and commissioned agents and
broker/dealers in violation of state and federal law, thereby
creating a substantial risk of civil liability for damages
and/or the rescission of stock purchases.
The suit is "Thompson v. Relationserve Media, et al., Case No.
0:06-cv-61327-PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck with
referral to Judge Andrea M. Simonton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Cohen & Malad, LLP, 1 Indiana Square, Suite 1400,
Indianapolis, IN 46204, Phone: 317-636-6481; and
(2) Friedman Rosenwasser & Goldbaum, 5355 Town Center Road,
Suite 801, Boca Raton, FL 33486-1092, Phone: 561-395-
5511, Fax: 368-9274, E-mail: kgoldbaum@frglaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Genovese Joblove & Battista, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite
4400, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-349-2300, Fax: 349-
2310, Web site: http://www.gjb-law.com;and
(ii) Haynes & Boone, LLP, 153 E. 53rd Street, Suite 4900,
New York, NY 10022, US, Phone: 212-659-4980, Web site:
http://www.haynesboone.com.
TAG-IT PACIFIC: Continues to Face Shareholder Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tag-It Pacific, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported
shareholder class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint,
"Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352,"
was filed against the company and certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California alleging claims
under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov.
14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005.
On Jan. 23, 2006 the court heard competing motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth
Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff thereafter filed
an amended complaint on March 13, 2006.
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and
misleading statements about the company's financial situation
and its relationship with certain of its large customers during
a purported class period between Nov. 13, 2003 and Aug. 12,
2005.
It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and
Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006.
The suit is "Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et
al., Case No. 05-CV-7352," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real
with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Patricia I Avery of Wolf Popper, 845 3rd Ave., 12th
Fl., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-759-4600;
(2) Peter A. Binkow of Glancy Binkow and Goldberg, 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail: info@glancylaw.com; and
(3) Jules Brody of Stull Stull & Brody, 6 E. 45th St., 4th
Fl., New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-687-7230.
Representing the defendants is Panteha Abdollahi of Paul
Hastings Janofsky and Walker, 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626, US, Phone: 714-668-6200, E-mail:
pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Faces Suit Seeking Proposal 2 Compliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Michigan faces a purported class action in
Washtenaw County Circuit Court that seeks to stop it from
considering race in admissions and financial aid.
The suit was filed by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) on
behalf of Eric Russell, a current applicant for admissions and
financial aid to the University of Michigan and Wayne State Law
Schools.
In addition to Mr. Russell, the suit seeks to certify a class
consisting of him and all other similarly situated applicants to
Michigan colleges and universities.
CIR named as defendants in the suit, the university's eight
regents, UM President Mary Sue Coleman and Gov. Jennifer
Granholm.
Court papers filed last week by CIR, specifically asked the
state court to issue a preliminary injunction immediately
enforcing newly enacted Article I, Section 26 of the Michigan
Constitution, which bars the use of race in any decision
relating to admissions or financial aid by Michigan public
educational institutions.
CIR's papers note that during the campaign for Proposition 2, UM
officials had no doubt what Section 26 required. Once it was
passed, however, university officials suddenly decided they were
"uncertain" about the meaning of Section 26 and that they
couldn't implement it without "clarifications" to be provided by
the courts.
As CIR notes in its papers, the UM's shifting statements about
what Section 26 requires are part of "a strategic campaign to
'do whatever it takes' to resist Section 26's pellucid meaning."
Specifically, according to CIR's papers, the lawsuit seeks an
order that will put an end to these efforts to delay
implementation.
The suit came in the wake of a Dec. 29, 2006 ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifting a lower federal
court order prohibiting enforcement of the amendment through
June 30, 2007.
The state court action asks seeks to force the enforcement of
the amendment, as now allowed by the federal appeals court
decision.
WILLIAMS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Mulls Appeal for SCDC Suit in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Dorchester County, South Carolina has yet
to rule on plaintiffs appeal with regards to decertifying a
class in the lawsuit against Williams Technologies, Inc., a
former subsidiary of REMY International, Inc.
In January 2004, a class action on behalf of all prisoners who
worked in a South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC)
Services Training Program at Lieber Correctional Institute was
brought against the SCDC and Williams, which was sold to
Caterpillar, Inc., in September 2004.
In the suit, plaintiffs claim:
-- they should have been paid industry prevailing wages
under a South Carolina prison industries authorization
statute;
-- the SCDC and Williams violated the Payment of Wages
Act; and
-- the SCDC and Williams committed a tort under the South
Carolina Tort Claims Act.
Under the terms of the sale, the company retained liability and
responsibility for this claim. The Circuit Court for Dorchester
County granted summary judgment to the company on April 21,
2005, and decertified the plaintiff class.
On Jan. 24, 2006, plaintiff filed an appellate brief and
Williams responded to this brief in March 2006, according to
REMY International's Nov. 13, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended
Sept. 30, 3006.
WOODFIN SUITES: Enjoined from Firing Hotel Workers Until Jan. 23
----------------------------------------------------------------
Woodfin Suites Hotel is facing a class action filed by employees
seeking back pay and a temporary restraining order prohibiting
the hotel from terminating them.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Ronald Sabraw issued a
temporary restraining order in December preventing the hotel
from firing workers. The order is in effect until Jan. 23.
The suit was filed Oct. 18 by 24 Woodfin employees, according to
the Web site of Party for Socialism and Liberation. It follows
the hotel's issuance of 30 "no-match" letters informing workers
that they do not have a valid Social Security number.
Earlier, workers publicly claimed that the hotel had not
complied with Measure C, a living-wage law for hotel employees
approved by Emeryville voters in November 2005. The measure
guarantees workers $9.00 an hour living wage and job security
when hotels change management. It also regulates workload.
The Emeryville City Council voted in December to intervene in
support of the class action.
WR GRACE: No Ruling Yet in Lawsuit Over Insulation Product
----------------------------------------------------------
The court overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings of WR Grace &
Co. has yet to issue a decision on motions filed by parties to
address a number of important legal and factual issues regarding
claims pertaining to the company's attic insulation product
Zonolite Attic Insulation (ZAI).
Approximately 4,300 property damage claims were filed against WR
Grace & Co. in addition to 380 asbestos property damage cases
filed against it prior to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date
established in the company's bankruptcy proceedings.
The bar date did not apply to claims against ZAI, a former Grace
attic insulation product. As of Oct. 31, 2006, following the
reclassification, withdrawal or expungement of claims,
approximately 640 property damage claims remain outstanding.
Eight of the ZAI were filed as purported class actions in 2000
and 2001. In addition, 10 lawsuits were filed as purported
class actions in 2004 and 2005 with respect to persons and homes
in Canada. These cases seek damages and equitable relief,
including the removal, replacement and/or disposal of all such
insulation.
The plaintiffs assert that this product is in millions of homes
and that the cost of removal could be several thousand dollars
per home. As a result of the filing, the eight U.S. cases have
been transferred to the Bankruptcy Court.
Based on Grace's investigation of the claims described in these
lawsuits, and testing and analysis of this product by Grace and
others, Grace believes that the product was and continues to be
safe for its intended purpose and poses little or no threat to
human health.
The plaintiffs in the ZAI lawsuits dispute Grace's position on
the safety of ZAI. In July 2002, the Bankruptcy Court approved
special counsel to represent, at the Debtors' expense, the ZAI
claimants in a proceeding to determine certain threshold
scientific issues regarding ZAI.
On Oct. 18, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on motions
filed by the parties to address a number of important legal and
factual issues regarding the ZAI claims, and has taken the
motions under advisement. No decision has yet been rendered,
according to the company's Nov. 8 form 10-Q filing for the
quarter ended Sept. 30.
Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA)
-- http://www.grace.com/-- supplies catalysts and silica
products, especially construction chemicals and building
materials, and container products globally. The company and its
debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on April 2,
2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).
New Securities Fraud Cases
TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Berman DeValerio Files Stock Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
commenced a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against Technical Olympic, Inc.
over alleged securities law violations.
The lawsuit, filed as Case No. 06-cv-61938-civ-Graham, claims
that Technical Olympic and a number of individual defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j (b) and 78t(a) and Rules 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities Exchange Commission, 17
C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5.
According to the complaint, Technical Olympic misrepresented the
extent to which it was liable as a guarantor of debt incurred by
a joint venture to which the company was a party, thereby
inflating the price of Technical Olympic's common stock.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that on Aug. 1, 2005
Technical Olympic entered into a joint venture to purchase and
operate the homebuilding businesses of Transeastern Properties,
Inc. (the "Transeastern Joint Venture").
At the time, the complaint alleges, Technical Olympic
represented that the Transeastern Joint Venture would add
considerably to future profits without any recourse against the
company should the Transeastern Joint Venture default on its
considerable debt.
According to the complaint, this statement was false. Technical
Olympic was later forced to admit its potential liability as a
guarantor of the joint venture debt, as well as a severe decline
in sales in the Florida market in which the Transeastern Joint
Venture operated, resulting in substantial declines in the
shares of Technical Olympic stock.
The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Technical Olympic
securities from Aug. 1, 2005 through and including Nov. 6, 2006.
Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12,
2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff.
For more information, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. and Jay
W. Eng, Esq. both of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt &
Pucillo, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, FL
33401, Phone: (561) 835-9400, E-mail: Lawfla@bermanesq.com.
TOP TANKERS: Cohen, Milstein Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
filed a class action against TOP Tankers, Inc. and certain
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
The action is on behalf of TOP Tankers securities purchasers
during the period June 28, 2005, through Nov. 28, 2006, for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Named defendants:
-- TOP Tankers,
-- Evangelos J. Pistiolis, the company's Chief Executive
Officer and President, and
-- Stamatios N. Tsantanis, the company's Chief Financial
Officer.
According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly knowingly
or recklessly issued false and misleading statements that
materially misrepresented TOP Tankers' financial results and
internal controls, causing the company's stock price to be
artificially inflated.
According to the Complaint, on Nov. 29, 2006, before the market
opened, TOP Tankers disclosed that its outside auditors, Ernst &
Young ("E&Y"), had resigned.
The company also announced that it would restate its financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2006.
The company stated that, "this resignation occurred as the
company and E&Y were in ongoing discussions to finalize their
review of the third quarter 2006 results," and that "the
discussions related to a disagreement over the accounting
treatment of certain aspects of the sale and leaseback of
thirteen vessels that closed in March and April 2006."
TOP Tankers subsequently admitted that it recognized $55 million
in revenue from these sale and leaseback transactions prior to
the revenue being due from the purchaser of the vessels, and
restated its financial results.
The effect of the restatement will, according to the company,
"reduce net income per share by $0.01 and $0.07 for the first
and second quarter of 2006, respectively. The net income per
share in all subsequent quarters until Dec. 31, 2010 will be
reduced by approximately $0.07."
Interested parties may request for appointment as lead plaintiff
in the class no later than Feb. 9, 2007.
For more information, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. and Robert
Smits both of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100
New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20005, Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600, E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.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 2007. 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 * * *