/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 10, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 7 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Jan. Hearing Set for $6.05M Stock Suit Deal ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees" BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif. BOYKIN LODGING: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Investor Suit Settlement CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Special Dividend Offer CENTENNIAL COMMS: New Judge Assigned to Fraud Litigation in La. CINTAS CORP: Arbitration Still Ongoing in "Houston" Litigation CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit CONAGRA FOODS: Neb. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Foresees Labor Settlement Approval in 2007 DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Portable Generators for Shock Hazard ELI LILLY: Pharma Rep. Files N.Y. Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages EQUITY OFFICE: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Group Buyout Offer FORTUNE BRANDS: N.Y. Suit Over Alcoholic Drinks Marketing Junked GUAM: $90 Million Earned Income Tax Credit Settlement Approved IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Continues in Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit INDIAN TRUST: Tribes File Trust Funds Mismanagement Suit in D.C. KRAFT FOODS: Faces Fraud Suit Over "All Natural" Capri Sun Drink KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal MCLEODUSA INC: Ia. Judge Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement MERIX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Graniteville Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed PENTAIR WATER: Recalls Gas Pool Heaters for Poisoning Hazard PFIZER INC: N.Y. Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Revised PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Affirmative Defenses Hearing PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Tex. Judge Refuses Transfer of "Antee" to Ark. PRG-SCHULTZ: Settles Ga. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75M QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Drug-Testing Machines RENT-A-CENTER INC: High Court Nixes Appeal on N.J. Consumer Suit ROYAL CANADIAN: Sea Cadets to Receive Sexual Abuse Compensation SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Back Wages Claims in La. District Court SANDISK CORP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Flash Memory Products SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Calif. Reps' Unpaid Overtime Wages SAVE MART: Customers' Suit Over Info Solicitation Certified TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Awaits Approval of $15M Stock Suit Deal TEXAS: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Kids' Healthcare Program TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles La. Litigation Over Sludge-Clogged Engines TRUMP ORGANIZATION: "The Apprentice" Faces Mass. Age Bias Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Jan. Hearing Set for $6.05M Stock Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 30, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. for the proposed $6,050,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re Abercrombie & Fitch Co. Securities Litigation, Master File No. M-21-83 (TPG)." The hearing will be held in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007. Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due Jan. 2, 2007. Claim forms must be submitted by Feb. 26, 2007. The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased shares of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. common stock between Oct. 8, 1999, at a price on that date at or below $39.50, and including Oct. 13, 1999, at a price on that date at or above $32.50. Case Background The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that defendants made material misrepresentations and omitted material information concerning the truth of rumors circulating regarding A&F's ability to meet Wall Street expectations for its same- store sales growth for the third quarter of 1999. The complaint further alleges that, as a result all defendants are liable under section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under; and Michael Jeffries, Seth Johnson and Lawrence Fogel are also liable under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the complaint, sometime during the afternoon of Oct. 8, 1999, A&F's Director of Investor Relations called Todd Slater, an analyst at Lazard Freres & Co., and left a voice mail message explicitly warning him that A&F's same-store sales growth would fall short of the 15%-17% number that Wall Street was expecting the company to achieve for the third quarter of 1999. Plaintiffs further allege that during the afternoon of Oct. 8, 1999, trading volume in A&F shares on the New York Stock Exchange vastly increased, the stock price dropped precipitously and market rumors began circulating concerning a slowing of A&F's same-store sales growth. In response, according to the complaint, investors and analysts who regularly followed A&F called defendants to inquire about the reasons for the unusual trading and steep decline in A&F's stock price and the truth about the rumors. According to plaintiffs' allegations, beginning that afternoon and continuing until Wednesday morning, A&F falsely assured the market (through statements to analysts) that there was no truth to the rumors. At the time A&F senior management made these statements, however, the Complaint alleges that they were aware that same- store sales growth was indeed coming in substantially below Wall Street expectations. Plaintiffs allege the company's false reassurances to the market stabilized A&F's stock price during the class period. According to the complaint, on Oct. 13, 1999, at about 9:55 a.m., the company issued a press release disclosing that A&F's same-store sales growth for the third quarter-to-date was only 12%-- substantially below the market's alleged 15%-17% expectation for the quarter. Following this announcement, A&F's stock price declined almost 20% on enormous trading volume. Plaintiffs allege that the decline in the price of A&F stock on Oct. 13, 1999 was due to A&F's announcement that it would not meet the market's expectations. Defendants deny that the company disclosed material non-public information. They dispute plaintiffs' characterization of the voice mail left for Mr. Slater and the market rumors that allegedly began circulating on Oct. 8, 1999. Also, defendants deny that the company's responses to analyst and investor inquiries were false or misleading and that the market expectation for same-store-sales was 15-17%. They further contend that any decline in the price of A&F's stock was attributable to other market information and events. Moreover, defendants deny that the evidence supports the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint. In that regard, defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in the complaint and have asserted numerous defenses to plaintiffs' allegations. For more details, contact: (1) Abercrombie & Fitch Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc., Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 9000 #6478, Merrick, NY 11566-9000, Phone: 1 (866) 487- 1709, Web site: http://www.gardencitygroup.com;and (2) Robert J. Berg, Esq. of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, Phone: 212-779-1414 and 877-779-1414, Fax: 212- 779-3218, E-mail: berg@bernlieb.com, Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com/. ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Stock Suit Settlement Hearing Set Jan. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed $3,000,000 settlement in the matter, "PLA, LLC, et al. v. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:05-CV-00078." The hearing will be held at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Plano Division, 660 North Central Expressway, Suite 300, Plano, Texas 75074. (Please not that this courthouse is located in the City of Plano, not the City of Sherman, Texas.) Objections or exclusions to and from the settlement were due Jan. 2, 2007. Claim forms must be submitted by March 19, 2007. The settlement covers all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. (ANSI) between April 24, 2003 and Feb. 16, 2005. Case Background The consolidated class action complaint filed on Sept. 19, 2005, generally alleges, among other things that between April 24, 2003 and Feb. 16, 2005 defendants issued false and misleading statements to the public by: -- not disclosing that ANSI had made payments to physicians that the complaint alleges were in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law; and -- stating that ANSI complied with its Code of Conduct and the code of ethics adopted by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), that ANSI had a good relationship with its customers, that ANSI's internal controls were sufficient to ensure disclosure to the public of all required information, and that ANSI's financial statements were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The complaint alleges that, on Feb. 17, 2005, ANSI announced that it had received a subpoena from federal authorities investigating ANSI's practices relating to sales and marketing, reimbursement, and Medicare and Medicaid billing, among other things. It also alleges that, following that announcement, that same day, the ANSI stock price plummeted from $37.60 per share to slightly over $29 per share, a drop of 22% on unusually heavy trading volume of over 7.9 million shares, far greater than the average trading volumes of approximately 400,000 shares. The lawsuit seeks money damages against defendants for violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants deny all allegations of misconduct contained in the complaint, and deny having engaged in any wrongdoing whatsoever. For more details, contact: (1) Claims Administrator, ANSI Settlement, c/o RSM McGladrey, Inc., P.O. Box 1387, Blue Bell, PA 19422, Phone: 1-800-222-2760, Web site: http://www.claimsinformation.com/ANSI;and (2) Maya Saxena, Esq. of Saxena White, P.A., 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton, Florida 33431, Phone: (800) 361-5096, E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com, Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/;and (3) Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. of Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West, New York, New York 10017, Phone: 212-894-7200, Fax: 212-894-7272, E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com, Web site: http://www.entwistle-law.com. AT&T INC: Faces New Ill. Lawsuit Over "Hidden Connection Fees" -------------------------------------------------------------- Belleville lawyer Christopher Cueto initiated a new class action in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois against AT&T (Illinois Bell) in St. Clair County Circuit Court over "hidden fees" charged for connecting local calls from its directory assistance service, the CourthouseNews Service reports. The suit, filed on behalf of Linda Cassin, claims the phone company violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. It asserts the extra charge is not included in the $1.25 fee charged to obtain a number from directory assistance. Ms. Cassin claims the phone company charged 12 cents per minute for phone calls to local toll numbers when those calls had been connected by a directory assistance operator. According to the complaint, "Illinois Bell Telephone Co. customers using Directory Assistance to obtain local toll numbers are specifically informed that he or she would be connected 'at no charge' when offered the option to immediately connect to the recently obtained local toll number." The suit also claims the company did not distinguish local toll calls from other types of calls when offering to connect customers using directory assistance. "Despite offering directly conflicting information to the customer, Illinois Bell Telephone Co....charges customers using Directory Assistance a fee for connecting to a local toll number," the complaint states. The suit seeks to discover whether the company: -- Omitted, suppressed and/or concealed material facts concerning fees and charges; -- Engaged in marketing and promotional activities which were likely designed to conceal the fact that connecting to a local call cost 12 cents per minute; -- Knowingly or intentionally engaged in deceitful or misleading practices; -- Received authorization from customers when the policy of connecting to phone numbers "at no charge" changed to connecting toll calls at 12 cents per minute; -- Would have availed themselves to the connection service had they been informed individually about the 12 cents per minute charge before connecting to local toll calls; and -- By charging for connecting customers to numbers obtained from directory assistance, engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff requests: -- that this action be certified as a class action, -- that the acts and practices of defendant be adjudged unfair and -- that the court award them damages, attorney's fees, their cost of suit, and pre-judgment interest, in an amount less than $74,999.00 per plaintiff or class member. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1844 The suit is "Cassin et at v. Illinois Bell Telephone d/b/a AT&T Illinois, Case No. 06-L-743," filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois. Representing plaintiffs is Christopher F. Cueto, 7110 W. Main Street Belleville, IL 62223-3022, Phone: (618) 277-1554, Fax: (618) 277-0962. BEST BUY: Still Faces Race, Sex Discrimination Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Best Buy Co., Inc. remains a defendant in a purported sex and race discrimination class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On Dec. 8, 2005, the suit, "Jasmen Holloway, et al. v Best Buy Co., Inc.," was filed, alleging that the company discriminates against women and minority individuals on the basis of gender, race, color and/or national origin with respect to the company's employment policies and practices. The action seeks an end to discriminatory policies and practices, an award of back and front pay, punitive damages and injunctive relief, including rightful place relief for all class members. The company reported no development in the case at its Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2006. The suit is "Holloway et al. v. Best Buy Co., Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-05056-MEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Maria-Elena James. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Joshua Konecky, Clint J. Brayton, Todd M. Schneider and W.H. Hank Willson, IV of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery St., Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 421-7100, Fax: (415) 421-7105, E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com, cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com, tschneider@schneiderwallace.com and wwillson@schneiderwallace.com; and (2) Eve H. Cervantez, James M. Finberg, Bill Lann Lee, Daniel M. Hutchinson and Gena E. Wiltsek of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery St., 30th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/956-1000, Fax: 415-956-1008, E- mail: ecervantez@lchb.com, JFinberg@lchb.com and blee@lchb.com. BOYKIN LODGING: Jan. 17 Hearing Set for Investor Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 17, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Delduco v. Adams, et al., Case No. CV 06 593403," which was filed against Boykin Lodging Co. n/k/n BH Lodging Corp. and its directors as a purported shareholder class action. The hearing will be held before Judge Michael J. Russo in Courtroom 17-C of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 1200 Ontario St., Cleveland, Ohio. Any objections to the settlement must be filed by Dec. 20, 2006. The settlement covers all persons who owned any interest in the capital stock of Boykin Lodging wither if record or beneficially, between June 3, 2005 and Sept. 21, 2006. The shareholder complaint was filed on June 6, 2006 against the company and each of its directors in connection with the transactions contemplated by the agreement and plan of merger, dated May 19, 2006, among: -- Braveheart Investors LP, -- Braveheart II Realty (Ohio) Corp., -- Braveheart II Properties Holding LLC, -- Braveheart II Properties Co. LLC, -- the company, and -- Boykin Hotel Properties, L.P. That deal include sales of the Pink Shell Beach Resort and Banana Bay Resort to entities controlled by Robert W. Boykin, the company's chairman of the board and chief executive officer. For more details, contact Richard S. Wayne of Strauss & Troy, The Federal Reserve Building, 150 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018, Phone: (513) 621-2120, Fax: (513) 241-8259, Web site: http://www.strausstroy.com/. CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Settles Suit Over Special Dividend Offer ------------------------------------------------------------- The New York Supreme Court for Nassau County has yet to rule on a proposed settlement of a suit filed against Cablevision Systems Corp. relating to a special dividend proposed by the Dolan Family Group. In June and July 2005, a number of shareholder class actions were filed against Cablevision Corp. and its individual directors in: -- the Delaware Chancery Court, -- the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County, and -- the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, relating to the Dolan Family Group proposal to acquire the outstanding, publicly held interests in Cablevision following a pro rata distribution of Rainbow Media Holdings. On October 24, 2005, Cablevision received a letter from the Dolan Family Group withdrawing its June 19, 2005 proposal and recommending the consideration of a special dividend. On November 17, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the New York Supreme Court action to relate to the special dividend proposed by the Dolan Family Group. On February 9, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint adding allegations related to the December 19, 2005 announcement that the Board had decided not to proceed with the proposed special dividend, and the January 31, 2006 announcement that the Board was expected to begin reconsideration of a possible special dividend at its regularly scheduled meeting in March 2006. The amended complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the payment of the special dividend proposed by the Dolan Family Group. On December 28, 2005, a purported shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that certain events during 2005, including those relating to the proposed special dividend, constitute breaches of fiduciary duty. The action was brought derivatively on behalf of Cablevision and names as defendants each member of the Board of Directors. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and contribution and indemnification by the defendants for any claims asserted against Cablevision as a result of the alleged breaches. On March 27, 2006, Cablevision entered into a memorandum of understanding with respect to the settlement of the actions pending in the New York Supreme Court for Nassau County relating to a proposed special dividend. On April 7, 2006, Cablevision's Board of Directors declared a special cash dividend of $10.00 per share which was paid on April 24, 2006 to holders of record at the close of business on April 18, 2006. The proposed settlement of these actions is subject to court approval. An objection to the proposed settlement has been filed by one shareholder, the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana. On August 21, 2006, TRSL submitted a letter to the court stating that, in light of the company's disclosure on August 8, 2006 of its expectation of the need to restate previously issued financial statements in connection with grants of stock options and stock appreciation rights, it is unclear whether the company had sufficient surplus or net profits to pay the special dividend and that TRSL objected to the proposed settlement on that ground. A hearing on the proposed settlement was held on September 25, 2006. The court has not yet issued its ruling on the settlement, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. CENTENNIAL COMMS: New Judge Assigned to Fraud Litigation in La. --------------------------------------------------------------- A new judge was assigned in a purported class action pending in Louisiana state court against Centennial Communications Corp. In one of several lawsuits against the company, plaintiffs have alleged, depending on the case, breach of contract, misrepresentation or unfair practice claims relating to its billing practices, including rounding up of partial minutes of use to full-minute increments, billing send to end, and billing for unanswered and dropped calls. The plaintiffs in these cases have not alleged any specific monetary damages and are seeking certification as a class action. A hearing on class certification in one of these cases was held on Sept. 2, 2003 in a state court in Louisiana. Subsequent to such hearing, a new judge was assigned to the case and the plaintiffs renewed their motion seeking class-action status in December 2004. The decision of the court with respect to class certification is still pending. In 2006, a new judge was assigned to the case, according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. CINTAS CORP: Arbitration Still Ongoing in "Houston" Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The racial discrimination class action, "Larry Houston, et al., v. Cintas Corp." remains in arbitration. The suit was filed on Aug. 3, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of African- American managers. On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order requiring the named plaintiffs in the "Houston" lawsuit to arbitrate all of their claims for monetary damages. The suit is "Houston et al v. Cintas Corp., Case No. 3:05-cv- 03145-JSW,"filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Jeffrey S. White. Representing the plaintiff is Roberta L. Steele of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian, 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000, Oakland, CA 94612, Phone: (510) 763-9800, Fax: 510 835- 1417, E-mail: RLS@gdblegal.com. Representing the defendant is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, LLP, 555 South Flower St., 25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162, Fax: (213) 627- 0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com. CINTAS CORP: Court, Arbitrator Mull Class Status for ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Neither the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California nor an arbitrator has yet made a decision regarding class certification for the case "Paul Veliz, et al., v. Cintas Corp." The suit, filed on March 19, 2003, alleges that the company violated certain federal and state wage and hour laws applicable to its service sales representatives, whom the company considers exempt employees. It also asserts related Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. On Aug. 23, 2005, an amended complaint was filed alleging additional wage and hour claims under the state laws of Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief or both. The company denies these claims and is defending the plaintiffs' allegations. On Feb. 14, 2006, the court ordered a majority of the opt-in plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims in accordance with the terms of their company employment agreement. Also on Feb. 14, 2006, the court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint alleging state law claims in the 15 states only with respect to the putative class members that may litigate their claims in court. The court or an arbitrator has made no determination regarding class certification, according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. The suit is "Veliz et et al. v. Cintas Corp.et al., (4:03-cv- 01180-SBA)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong with referral to Judge Maria-Elena James. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Scott A. Kronland of Altshuler, Berzon et al., 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94108, Phone: 415- 421-7151, Fax: 415-362-8064, E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com; and (2) Helen I. Zeldes, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423. Representing the company is Cheryl A. Hipp of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP, 4900 Key Tower, 127 Public Square, Cleveland, OH 44114, Phone: 516-479-8365. CONAGRA FOODS: Neb. Court Dismisses Stock Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for District of Nebraska issued an order of dismissal with prejudice for the consolidated securities fraud lawsuits filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc., according to company's Jan. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 26, 2006. Three purported class actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska: -- "Berlien v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No. 805CV292," filed on June 21, 2005, -- "Calvacca v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No. 805CV00318," filed on June 30, 2005, and -- "Woods v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al. Case No. 805CV493," filed on July 26, 2005. Each lawsuit is against the company and its former chief executive officer. The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the events resulting in the company's April 2005 restatement of its financial statements and related matters. Each complaint seeks a declaration that the action is maintainable as a class action and that the plaintiff is a proper class representative, unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and any other relief deemed proper by the court. On Sept. 19, 2006, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss these lawsuits with leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs did not amend and the court entered an order of dismissal with prejudice on Nov. 7, 2006. The first identified complaint is "David P. Berlien, et al. v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et al." filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Nebraska. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: (1) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (2) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303.861.3003, Fax: 800.711.6483, E- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (3) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: 215.886.1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net; (4) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., 34th Flr., New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax: 212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com; (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com; and (6) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax: 310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Foresees Labor Settlement Approval in 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------- Darden Restaurants Inc. expects final court approval and payment of the settlement in several class actions pending against it in California State courts to occur before the end of fiscal 2007. Beginning in 2002, a total of five purported class actions were filed against the company in Superior Courts of California, two each in Los Angeles County and Orange County, and one in Sacramento County. Plaintiffs allege that they and other current and former service managers, beverage and hospitality managers and culinary managers were improperly classified as exempt employees under California labor laws. The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages and penalties. Two of the cases were removed to arbitration under its mandatory arbitration program, one was stayed to allow consideration of judicial coordination with the other cases, one is proceeding as an individual claim, and one remains a purported class action. Although the company believes it correctly classified these employees, to avoid potentially costly and protracted litigation, the company agreed in fiscal 2006 to a settlement. Without admitting any liability, the company agreed to pay up to a maximum total of $11,000 to settle all five cases, which was fully accrued as of May 28, 2006 and is included in other current liabilities at Nov. 26, 2006. The settlement agreement has received preliminary court approval and the company expects final court approval and payment of the settlement proceeds to occur before the end of fiscal 2007, according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 26, 2006. DEWALT INDUSTRIAL: Recalls Portable Generators for Shock Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- DEWALT Industrial Tool Co., of Towson, Maryland, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,000 units of DEWALT DG2900 portable generators. The company said a ground fault circuit interrupter installed on the generator could fail to operate properly, posing a risk of electric shock to consumers. No incidents or injuries have been reported. The recall involves DEWALT DG2900 2900 watt gasoline-powered generators with date codes 200150 through 200635. The generators are black and yellow. "DEWALT" and "DG2900" are printed on the generator. The date code is stamped on the right side of the unit on the black plastic covering the rear of the control panel. Units with an "R" stamped on the name plate are not affected by this recall. These recalled portable generators were manufactured in Japan and are being sold by major home center and hardware stores nationwide from December 2001 through November 2006 for between $900 and $1,000. Picture of recalled portable generators: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07072.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the generators immediately and contact DEWALT to arrange for a free inspection and, if necessary, free repair. For more information, contact DEWALT toll-free at (888) 742-9108 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.DEWALT.com. ELI LILLY: Pharma Rep. Files N.Y. Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eli Lilly & Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, filed by one of its former employees seeking back pay as far back as six years. The suit, filed by Susan Schaefer LaRose, alleges violation of federal and state wage and hour laws. It is filed on behalf of "Covered Employees" who have been, are, or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or was referred to by any of the following titles: -- sales representative, -- senior sales representative, -- executive sales representative, and -- senior executive sales representative and employees who performed substantial the same work as employees with those titles above and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been tolled or suspended. The suit alleges that defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout New York and the U.S., in the following respects: -- inaccurately classifying employees as exempt from overtime pay even though defendants were aware that the Covered Employees were non-exempt and were entitled to overtime pay; -- failing to pay employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week; and -- failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time. According to Mrs. Schaefer LaRose, a 50-year-old mother of two from Chittenango, N.Y., she was told when she started with Eli Lilly that she was exempt from overtime and she never thought to question it (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006). Her lawsuit, part of a series of class action claims filed in November against nine major drug companies, seeks tens of millions of dollars in back pay for the thousands of drug company salespeople across the country. There are questions of law and fact common to class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, including: -- whether defendants employed or jointly employed the plaintiff and the class within the meaning of the New York law; -- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants failed in their duty to maintain overtime records; -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of overtime wages; -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of wages for all hours worked; -- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the plaintiff and the class premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek within the meaning of New York law; -- what are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which defendants did not pay the class members at all; -- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay the class members for their work; -- what are the common conditions of employment and in the workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect whether the class was paid at overtime rates for overtime work; and -- whether defendants compensated the class the premium required under New York law when class members "spread of hours" in a workday exceeded ten hours. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other covered employees, pray for relief as follows: -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained are unlawful under FLSA; -- certification of this action as a collective action brought pursuant to the FLSA Section 216(b); -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the FLSA Collective plaintiffs; -- certification of this action as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23; -- designation of plaintiff as representative of the New York class; -- an award of damages, according to proof, including liquidated damages, to be paid by defendant; -- penalties available under applicable law; -- costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees; -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and other applicable statutes; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the court deems necessary, just and proper. Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?183d The suit is "Schaefer-Larose v. Eli Lilly and Co., Case No. 5:06-cv-01379-NAM-GHL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York under Judge Norman A. Mordue, with referral to Judge George H. Lowe. Representing plaintiffs is Charles Joseph of Joseph, Herzfeld Law Firm, 757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-688-5640, Fax: 212-688-2548, E-mail: charles@jhllp.com. Representing defendant is Michael J. Sciotti of Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm, 1500 MONY Tower I, Syracuse, NY 13221, Phone: 315-425-3502, Fax: 315-233-4376, E-mail: msciotti@hancocklaw.com. EQUITY OFFICE: Faces Suits Over Blackstone Group Buyout Offer ------------------------------------------------------------- Equity Office Properties Trust is a defendant in several purported class actions filed in various states from shareholders accusing it of not getting the best deal possible in regards to the buyout offer from Blackstone Group, LP, GlobeSt.Com reports. One of these suits is "Beck v. Dombrowski, Case No. 06-6411," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006). That suit names as defendants Chairman Sam Zell, nine other director-trustees, and New York-based Blackstone Group. In the 29-page complaint, plaintiffs' attorney Norman Rifkind wrote that Equity Office is being sold for "the grossly inadequate and unfair price of $48.50 per share." The suit accuses the director-trustees of receiving preferential treatment in the sale at shareholders' expense. Thus, it seeks class-action status and a court order canceling the deal. According to the complaint, defendants would be given the opportunity to participate in the proposed acquisition, unlike plaintiff and members of the class who will not only be prohibited from participating in the company post-acquisition, but will be stripped of their shares for only a fraction of their shares' value. FORTUNE BRANDS: N.Y. Suit Over Alcoholic Drinks Marketing Junked ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in purported class actions filed against Fortune Brands, Inc. in New York over the company's marketing of alcoholic beverage to minors have voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. The company, its Spirits and Wine business and numerous other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine were named as defendants in a purported class action in Michigan seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and negligent marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for alcohol. The company was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice from this matter and the Court later dismissed with prejudice all claims against the remaining defendants, including the Spirits and Wine business. Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. This action has been consolidated on appeal with another case against the company, its Spirits and Wine business and numerous other manufacturers of beer, spirits and wine in Ohio seeking similar damages, which was also dismissed by the District Court. The Spirits and Wine business, and numerous other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine, are named as defendants in a purported class action in West Virginia seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and negligent marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for alcohol. The company was previously dismissed as a defendant from this matter, and the court later dismissed with prejudice all claims against the remaining defendants, including the Spirits and Wine business. Plaintiffs have appealed this dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Spirits and Wine business and numerous other manufacturers and importers of beer, spirits and wine were named as defendants in purported class actions in New York seeking damages and injunctive relief regarding alleged deceptive and negligent marketing of beverage alcohol to people under the legal purchase age for alcohol. The company was previously named as a defendant but was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice prior to being served with the complaint. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice on October 24, 2006. The suits are: -- "Alston v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," which was filed March 30, 2005 in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Michigan; -- "Sciocchetti v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," which was filed Feb. 16, 2005 in the Supreme Court, Albany County, New York; -- "Bertovich v. Advanced Brands & Importing Co., et al.," which was filed Feb. 17, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Hancock County, West Virginia, and was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia on May 22, 2005; and -- "Eisenberg et al. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01081-DCN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge Donald C. Nugent. GUAM: $90 Million Earned Income Tax Credit Settlement Approved -------------------------------------------------------------- District Court Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood granted preliminary approval on Jan. 9 to the $90 million Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) settlement entered by the government with taxpayers, KUAM News reports. The initial payment of $10 million will be paid within 60 days to 1997 and 1998 class members once the government provides the proper notices, the report said. The remainder of the $80 million will be paid out annually, as the settlement specifically states that 15% of all funds used to pay tax returns every year will be used to pay EITC arrears, according to the report. In June 2006, Gov. Felix Camacho signed a $90 million agreement to settle a suit against the government over tax refunds it owes taxpayers under the EITC (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2006). Settlement talks that ensued after class actions were filed against the government by Julie Babauta Santos, Charmaine Torres, and Mary Grace Simpao with Christina Naputi in 2004 originally contemplated a $60 million payment of the $120 million owed to taxpayers in EITC refunds dating back to 1998. The Simpao class is currently opposing the payment. The settlement was entered into by Attorney General Douglas Moylan and then-acting Gov. Kaleo Moylan. But Gov. Felix Camacho did not approve of the settlement. He increased the settlement to $90 million, specifying this will come from 15% of the money set aside for tax refunds each year. Earlier that year, District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez granted Gov. Camacho's request for global mediation. Negotiations resulted to a deal with lawyers representing Ms. Santos and Ms. Torres. But lawyers representing Ms. Naputi and Ms. Simpao disagreed, and have asked the court to move forward with the lawsuit and select a lead counsel. Attorney Rawlen Mantanona represented the Department of Administration and the Rev and Tax director during the hearing. The plaintiffs are represented by lawyers Peter Perez, Mike Philips, and James Canto. IMMUCOR INC: Discovery Continues in Ga. Securities Fraud Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is still on going in a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Immucor, Inc. Between Aug. 31 and Oct. 19, 2005, a series of 10 class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers alleging violations of the securities laws. The court has consolidated these cases for disposition as, "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276- WSD," designated lead plaintiffs, permitted the filing of an amended consolidated complaint, and established a schedule for briefing the company's motion to dismiss the claims. The consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of a putative class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Aug. 16, 2004 and Aug. 29, 2005, alleges that company stock prices during that period were inflated as a result of material misrepresentations or omissions in the company's financial statements and other public announcements regarding its business. On March 7, 2006, the company timely moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Oct. 4, 2006, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss. The company has answered the consolidated complaint denying liability and the case is proceeding through the discovery phase under an order contemplating completion of all discovery by July 15, 2007. The court has made no determination whether any of the plaintiffs' claims have merit or should be allowed to proceed as a class action, according to company's Jan. 5, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 30, 2006. The suit is "In re Immucor, Inc. Securities Litigation, File No. 1:05-CV-2276-WSD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Georgia under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Martin D. Chitwood of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, Fax: 404-876-4476, e-mail: mdc@classlaw.com; (2) Michael Ira Fistel, Jr. of Holzer & Holzer, LLC, 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107, Atlanta, GA 30338, Phone: 770-392-0090, e-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com; (3) Jack Landskroner of Landskroner Grieco, 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-522- 9000, e-mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com. Representing the defendants are Emmet J. Bondurant, II and Jeffrey O. Bramlett of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W., 3900 One Atlantic Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4126 and 404-881-4100, E-mail: bondurant@bmelaw.com and bramlett@bmelaw.com. INDIAN TRUST: Tribes File Trust Funds Mismanagement Suit in D.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Native American Rights Fund (NARF) filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of more than 250 Indian Tribes for the alleged mismanagement of tribal trust funds. The suit, "Nez Perce Tribe, et al., v. Dirk Kempthorne, et al., Case 1:06-cv-02239-CKK," was filed on Dec. 28, 2006. It seeks full and complete accountings from the federal government for hundreds of tribal accounts worth an estimated $200 billion, which are currently held in trust. Eleven Tribes are the named as plaintiffs in the suit, which are composed of: -- the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho, -- the Mescalero Apache Tribe, -- the Tule River Indian Tribe, -- the Hualapai Tribe, -- the Yakama Nation, -- the Klamath Tribes, -- the Yurok Tribe, -- the Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribe, -- the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, -- the Sac and Fox Nation, and -- the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. Named as defendants in the suit are Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior; and Henry M. Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury. According to the complaint, "the action is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and for judicial review of final administrative agency action regarding accountings of funds of American Indian and Alaska Native tribes that were or are held in trust by the federal government as trustee for the tribes as beneficiaries." It goes on to state, "the suit arises out of defendants continuing breaches of inherent and statutory fiduciary accounting and management duties owed to plaintiffs, including, but not limited to the duty to provide full and complete accountings of plaintiffs trust funds and the duty to correct trust fund accounts improperly accounted for and/or improperly managed and make those accounts whole." The federal government long ago assumed the role of trustee for tribal trust funds, and created the accounts at issue. The funds come from revenues from tribal natural resources such as timber, minerals, oil and gas; court judgments entered against the U.S. for the unlawful appropriation of Indian land and property; and, income from the investments of money held in the accounts. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?183b For more details, contact Mark C. Tilden, DC Bar No. 459438, Native American Rights Fund, 1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, Phone: (303) 447-8760, Fax: (303) 443-7776, E-mail: mctilden@narf.org. KRAFT FOODS: Faces Fraud Suit Over "All Natural" Capri Sun Drink ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Florida law firm of Varnell & Warwick initiated a class action on behalf of a Florida woman against Kraft Foods, for deceptively marketing the product as "All Natural," Food Consumer reports. The suit, filed in state court in Palm Beach County alleges that the "All Natural" claims are in direct violation of that state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and asks the court to order Kraft to drop the false statements. The suit contends that deceptive marketing used by Kraft -- the maker of Capri Sun-foil pouches filled with a solution of water, high-fructose corn syrup, and small amounts of juice -- tricks consumers into thinking the product is healthier than it actually is, perhaps encouraging some people to confuse the almost juice-less drink with real fruit juice. CSPI said that though high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is no more harmful than other sugars, it is a plainly man-made ingredient. Linda Rex -- a Boynton Beach, Florida, grandmother and the plaintiff in the suit-- claimed she purchased Capri Sun for a young relative visiting from Ireland because "All Natural" on the label sounded healthier than soda. "But when I got home and got out my glasses, I threw it in the garbage when I realized it contained high-fructose corn syrup and was nearly identical to soda," Ms. Rex said. It may sound like it comes from corn in the same way sugar comes from sugar cane or sugar beets, but HFCS is created by a complex industrial process performed in refineries using centrifuges, hydroclones, ion-exchange columns, backed-bed reactors and other high-tech equipment, the report said. Starch is extracted from corn and then converted by acids or enzymes to glucose. Then some of the glucose is further converted by enzymes into fructose. HFCS has only been widely used in food since the 1980s. CSPI says that while the glucose and fructose in HFCS are identical to naturally occurring glucose and fructose, the fact that chemical bonds are broken and rearranged in their production disqualifies them from being called natural. For instance, while a scientist might be able to produce sugar by rearranging the molecules of any number of things that contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, it clearly wouldn't be "natural" sugar. CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, said that though Capri Sun claims to be "All Natural," its main flavoring would more accurately be called "Fresh from the Factory." "Let's put it this way: Unless you and your chemist friends are prepared to undertake a little Manhattan Project in your kitchen, you won't be brewing any high-fructose corn syrup from scratch anytime soon. How typical of a tobacco company, though, to call something like HFCS 'All Natural,'" Mr. Jacobson said. Capri Sun is typically sold in boxes of 10 foil pouches. Both the boxes and the pouches use the words "All Natural," but only the boxes disclose the presence of high-fructose corn syrup in the fine print of the ingredients list. Kraft also makes Capri Sun "All Natural Fruit Rolls," which similarly contain HFCS. Plaintiff's counsel is Varnell & Warwick, P.A., 20 LaGrande Blvd., The Villages, FL 32159, Phone: (352) 753-8600. KSL RECREATION: Jan. 16 Hearing Set for Calif. Resort Fee Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Riverside will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 16, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, "Gray v. KSL Recreation Group, Inc., KSL Desert Resorts, Inc., and KSL Recreation Corp., Case No. INC040908." The hearing will take place in the courtroom of the Honorable H. Morgan Dougherty, Judge of the Superior Court of California, Dept. 2H, Riverside County, Indio Larson Justice, 46-200 Oasis Street, Indio, California 92201. The class action alleges that defendants failed to inform guests sufficiently about the resort fee that certain Resorts imposed. The amount of the resort fee varied by hotel and over time, and the services and facilities covered by the fee also varied by hotel; and, for purposes of the proposed settlement, the amount of the resort fee has ranged on average from $7.50 to $20.00. It specifically alleges that defendants breached the contract with guests and engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices by not providing adequate notice of and information about the resort fee. Defendants deny each and every allegation and believe that they have strong factual and legal defenses to the claims. Lead class counsel recently informed the court that, after a thorough investigation and analysis of the facts and the law and after consideration of the substantial and certain benefits provided by the settlement and the risks and delays of class action litigation, the class representative and lead class counsel have reached a settlement with hotel companies that they believe is fair, reasonable, and adequate, is in the best interests of the Class, and fairly resolves the claims alleged. Defined as a class members in the case are: -- those that stayed at one of the resorts listed below between class period for each hotel; -- those who paid to that hotel a resort fee in addition to the nightly room rate and any governmentally imposed fees or taxes; and -- believe in good faith that: he or she did not receive notice of the resort fee at the time the reservation was made, or, if no advance reservation was made, at the time of check-in at the hotel, and/or; he or she believes in good faith that they were misinformed or misled about the nature, purpose, scope, amount, or ultimate recipient of the resort fee due to information received at or about the time of reservation, check-in and/or check-out. The Resorts and the applicable class period for each is May 9, 1999, through Jan. 31, 2005, for La Quinta Resort & Club, Grand Wailea Resort Hotel & Spa, Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa, La Costa Resort & Spa, Hotel del Coronado, Claremont Resort & Spa and Emerald Pointe Resort & Conference Center; May 9, 1999, through Aug. 18, 2004, for the Doral Golf Resort & Spa; and May 9, 1999, through March 4, 2003, for the Grand Traverse Resort and Spa. For more details, contact: (1) Peter D. Morgenstern, Esq., of Morgenstern Jacobs & Blue, LLC, 885 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10022, Phone: (212) 750-6776; and (2) Rust Consulting, Inc., Phone: 866-722-3520, Web site: http://www.kslsettlement.com. MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Court Yet to Rule on "Siracusano" Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal of the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona of the consolidated securities fraud class action, "Siracusano, et al. v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al." In April and May 2004, two class actions were filed against the company, its president and chief executive officer, Carl J. Johnson, and its executive vice president and chief financial officer, William J. Hemelt, alleging violations of federal securities laws. On Jan. 18, 2005, the cases were consolidated and the court appointed James V. Sircusano as lead plaintiff. The amended complaint also includes the company's vice president of research and development, Timothy L. Clarot, as a defendant and was filed March 4, 2005. The consolidated case is "Sircusano, et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., Case No. CV04-0886 PHX DKD," and was filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Arizona. The lawsuit alleges that between October 2003 and February 2004, the company made materially false and misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product, including failing to adequately disclose to the public the details of allegations that the company's products caused damage to the sense of smell and of certain of the product liability lawsuits in faces. The company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit and, on March 8, 2006, the company received an order dated Dec. 15, 2005 granting the motion to dismiss the case without prejudice. On April 3, 2006, the plaintiff appealed the Order to the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is before Judge Mary H. Murguia. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Ramzi Abadou, Lukas F. Ohltz and Scott M. Saham of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B St., Ste 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619) 231- 1058, E-mail: LukeO@Lerachlaw.com and ScottS@Lerachlaw.com; and (2) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. and Andrew S. Friedman of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste. 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-3311, Phone: 602-274- 1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com and afriedman@bffb.com. Representing the company are: (i) Maureen Beyers and David Rosenbaum of Osborn Maledon, P.A., 2929 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012- 2794, Phone: 602-640-9305, Fax: 602-664-2053, E-mail: mbeyers@omlaw.com and drosenbaum@omlaw.com; and (ii) Amy J. Longo, Molly J. Magnuson, David B. Rosenbaum and Michael Yoder of O'Melveny & Myers, 610 Newport Center Dr., 17th Floor, Newport Beach, CA 92660, Phone: 949- 823-7175, Fax: 949-823-6994, E-mail: alongo@omm.com, mmagnuson@omm.com and myoder@omm.com. MCLEODUSA INC: Ia. Judge Okays $30M Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Mark Bennett of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa approved the $30 million offer to settle a shareholder class action against four former McLeodUSA Inc. officers, The Gazette reports. Judge Bennett granted the plaintiffs' attorneys, who handled the case on contingency, 30 percent of the $30 million instead of the 33.3 percent they had been seeking. He also awarded them $900,000 for actual expenses in handling the case. A hearing on the settlement was held Nov. 29 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2006). The settlement covers: -- all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock during the period from and including January 3, 2001 through and including Dec. 3, 2001, and were damaged thereby; and -- all persons who acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with McLeodUSA's June 1, 2001 stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc., and were damaged thereby. Case Background The lawsuit asserted that defendants intentionally or recklessly misled investors regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial condition. Specifically, the lawsuit asserted that the defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading statements and omissions including, among other things: -- that McLeodUSA failed to timely and properly recognize hundreds of millions of dollars in impairment losses in connection with certain acquisitions; -- that McLeodUSA did not have the funds necessary to complete its national network and would soon have to abandon its plans; -- that McLeodUSA was unable to service its substantial debt and lacked the financial flexibility necessary to avoid bankruptcy; and -- that McLeodUSA was unable to successfully integrate the Splitrock and CapRock acquisitions. The lawsuit further alleged that defendants' misrepresentations caused the price of McLeodUSA securities to be artificially inflated, causing damage to the class members when McLeodUSA began to disclose its true financial condition. It seeks money damages against the defendants for violations of the federal securities laws. The defendants deny lead Plaintiffs' allegations. On and after Jan. 11, 2002, 13 class action complaints were filed against McLeodUSA and/or certain of McLeodUSA's present or former officers and directors -- Clark E. McLeod, Stephen C. Gray, J. Lyle Patrick and Chris A. Davis -- on behalf of a class of public investors who either: -- purchased or otherwise acquired McLeodUSA common stock (between Jan. 3, 2001 and Dec. 3, 2001 inclusive); or -- acquired McLeodUSA common stock pursuant to the Registration and Prospectus issued in connection with McLeodUSA's stock for stock acquisition of Intelispan, Inc. By order dated April 16, 2002, the court consolidated all thirteen cases, selected lead plaintiffs, and approved lead plaintiffs' choice of counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on June 17, 2002. McLeodUSA was not named as a defendant in the Complaint due to its filing for bankruptcy in January 2002. As stated above, the complaint alleged that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding McLeodUSA's business, operations and financial condition including, among other things, McLeodUSA's plan to build a national network, the purported successful integration of Splitrock Services, Inc. and CapRock Communications Corp., McLeodUSA's financial forecasts and results, whether McLeodUSA's financial statements had been prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and whether or not McLeodUSA expected to file for bankruptcy. The complaint also alleged that defendants' misrepresentations artificially inflated the value of McLeodUSA securities, injuring McLeodUSA shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock at inflated prices during the class period when the true state of affairs became known. On Aug. 30, 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition memorandum on Nov. 4, 2002, and Defendants filed their reply memorandum on Nov. 22, 2002. The court issued a report and recommendation denying defendants' motion to dismiss on April 30, 2003. Both Parties submitted responses to the report, and on March 31, 2004 the court accepted the findings of the report and denied defendants' motion in full. On May 3, 2004, defendants filed their answers to the complaint. Thereafter, in the spring of 2004, lead plaintiffs initiated merits discovery. The lead plaintiffs conducted extensive written discovery, serving multiple sets of formal document requests and interrogatories, and many subpoenas on third-parties. As a result of the wide-ranging discovery efforts, Lead Plaintiffs obtained and analyzed over 2.4 million pages of documents produced by McLeodUSA, the Defendants and third parties. The parties also deposed ten witnesses in locations throughout the U.S. As discovery was ongoing, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, and the Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to loss causation, based on the Supreme Court's decision in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005). Each of these motions was fully briefed by the parties. In the interim, on Oct. 28, 2005, McLeodUSA filed its second voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, and the Action was stayed pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. The court lifted the stay on March 16, 2006 pursuant to a motion filed with the court. Lead plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, and defendants filed a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. These motions were fully briefed and pending at the time the parties reached the tentative agreement to resolve the action. The Parties first discussed the possibility of settling the Action in June 2002. However, it was obvious at that time that they were too far apart to reach agreement, and it was not until Nov. 17, 2003 that the Parties again met to discuss a resolution. Thereafter, the parties participated in three formal mediation sessions -- on July 28, 2004 and Sept. 22, 2005 with the assistance of the Honorable Nicholas H. Politan (Ret.) and on May 3, 2006 with the assistance of the Honorable Herbert Stettin. It was shortly after this third mediation session that the parties reached the basic terms of the settlement. In September, the judge set the fairness hearing in the matter, "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities Litigation, Case No. C02-0001-MWB," on Nov. 29 (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 20, 2006). Deadline for objections and exclusions to and from the settlement was on Nov. 15, 2006. Deadline for submission of claims is on Jan. 16, 2007. For more details, contact: (1) Sanford P. Dumain, Esq. of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Penn Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Telephone: (212) 594-5300, Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com; (2) David Kessler, Esq., and Kay E. Sickles, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087, Phone (610) 667-7706, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (3) Joseph H. Weiss, Esq., and Joseph D. Cohen, Esq., Weiss & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025, Web site: http://www.infony@weisslurie;and (4) McLeodUSA Securities Litigation Exclusions c/o Analytics, Inc., Claims AdministratorP.O. Box 2006 Chanhassen, MN 55317-2006, Phone: 1-888-212-3057, Web site: http://www.mcleodusasecuritieslitigation.com/. MERIX CORP: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Complaint Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit the dismissal with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon of the amended complaint in the consolidated securities class action against Merix Corp. On June 17, 2004, the company and certain of its executive officers and directors were named as defendants in the first of four purported class actions alleging violations of federal securities laws. These four cases, which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, have now been consolidated in a single action entitled "In re Merix Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 04-826-MO." A lead plaintiff was appointed, who filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint on Nov. 15, 2004. On March 3, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint for failure to identify with sufficient specificity the statements that plaintiffs allege to have been false and why the statements were either false when made or material. On Sept. 15, 2005, the court dismissed the complaint, without prejudice, and gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On Nov. 18, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making certain alleged inaccurate and misleading statements in the prospectus used in connection with the January 2004 public offering. On Jan. 26, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On Sept. 28, 2006, the U.S. District Court of Oregon dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice. On Oct. 31, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, according to company's Jan. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 25, 2006. The suit is "Central Laborers Pension Fund v. Merix Corp. et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00826-MO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Michael W. Mosman. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Gregory M. Castaldo, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check, Sean M. Handler and Andrew L. Zivitz of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706, Fax: (610) 667-7056, E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com, dcheck@sbclasslaw.com, shandler@sbclasslaw.com and azivitz@sbclasslaw.com; and (2) Lori G. Feldman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, 1001 Fourth Ave., Suite 2550, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: (206) 839-0730, Fax: (206) 839-0728, E-mail: lfeldman@milbergweiss.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Richard L. Baum of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1120 NW Couch St., 10th Floor, Portland, OR 97209-4128, Phone: (503) 727-2021, Fax: (503) 727-2222, E-mail: baumr@perkinscoie.com; and (ii) Joseph E. Bringman, Ronald L. Berenstain and Douglas W. Greene, III of Perkins Coie, LLP, 1201 Third Ave., Suite 4800, Seattle, WA 98101-3099, Phone: (206) 359- 8501, (206) 359-8477 and (206) 359-8613, Fax: (206) 359-9000, (206) 359-9477 and (206) 359-9613, E-mail: jbringman@perkinscoie.com, RBerenstain@perkinscoie.com and DGreene@perkinscoie.com. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Graniteville Derailment Suit Settlement Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Margaret B. Seymour of the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern Carolina approved a class settlement for personal injury claims resulting from the Jan. 6, 2005 derailment of Norfolk Southern Corp. train in Graniteville, South Carolina, WDBJ7.com reports. Named defendants in the suit: -- Norfolk Southern Railway Co., -- Norfolk Southern Corp., -- Olin Corp., -- Union Tank Car Co., -- Benjimin Aiken, -- Mike Ford, -- James Thornton, and -- Jimmy Ray Thornton. The settlement would provide varying levels of compensation for people who were injured and who received medical treatment or were hospitalized as a result of the derailment and subsequent release of chlorine. Earlier, Norfolk Southern asked the court to approve an agreement reached by railroad owner Norfolk Southern and plaintiffs' attorneys (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 27, 2006). The settlement agreement is for claims that were not part of a previous class settlement approved last year covering property damage, evacuation expenses and losses, and minor personal injuries. Robin Chapman, a spokesman for the Norfolk, Virginia-based company, says Norfolk Southern has paid claims to roughly 37- hundred people and expects about 760 more to qualify for this class action. There are still more than 100 lawsuits pending. He added the railroad has paid roughly $41 million dollars in claims and other expenses. Norfolk, Virginia-based Norfolk Southern s Norfolk Southern Railway subsidiary operates around 21,200 route miles in 22 states, the District of Columbia and Ontario, Canada. The company operates the most extensive intermodal network in the East and is North America's largest rail carrier of metals and automotive products. The suit is "In Re Graniteville Cases, Case No. 1:06-mn-06000- MBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina under Judge Margaret B. Seymour. Representing defendants are: (1) Mark G. Arnold of Husch and Eppenberger, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441, Phone: 314- 480-1500, E-mail: mark.arnold@husch.com; (2) W. Howard Boyd, Jr. of Gallivan White and Boyd, PO Box 10589, Greenville, SC 29603, Phone: 864-271-9580, Fax: 864-271-7502, E-mail: hboyd@gwblawfirm.com; (3) Karen Aldridge Crawford of Nelson Mullins Riley and Scarborough, PO Box 11070, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-799-2000, Fax: 803-256-7500, E-mail: karen.crawford@nelsonmullins.com; (4) Gray Thomas Culbreath of Collins and Lacy, PO Box 12487 Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-256-2660, Fax: 803-771- 4484, E-mail: gculbreath@collinsandlacy.com; (5) John Arthur Davison of Fulcher Hagler Reed Hanks and Harper, PO Box 1477, Augusta, GA 30903-1477, Phone: 706-724-0171, Fax: 706-724-4573, E-mail: adavison@fulcherlaw.com; (6) Paul A. Dominick of Nexsen Pruet Jacobs Pollard and Robinson, PO Box 486, Charleston, SC 29401, Phone: 843- 577-9440, Fax: 843-720-1777, E-mail: pdominick@nexsenpruet.com; (7) John Carson Duffey of Stuart and Branigin, PO Box 1010, Lafayette, IN 47902, Phone: 765-423-1561, E-mail: jcd@stuartlaw.com; and (8) Alan B. Hoffman of Husch and Eppenberger, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441, Phone: 314-480-1500, E-mail: alan.hoffman@husch.com. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) Charles H. Baumberger of Rossman Baumberger Reboso and Spier, Courthouse Tower, 44 W Flager Street, Suite 2300, Miami, FL 33130-1808, Phone: 1-800-775-6511; (2) DeAndrea Gist Benjamin and Donald Gist both of The Gist Law Firm, 4400 N Main Street, Columbia, SC 29201, Phone: 803-771-8007, Fax: 803-771-0063, E-mail: federalfiling@gistlawfirm.com; (3) Ziva P. Bruckner of Capers Dunbar Sanders and Bruckner, 1500 Wachovia Bank Building, 669 Broad St., Augusta, GA 30901-1454, Phone: 706-722-7542, Fax: 706-724-7776, E- mail: bziva@hotmail.com; (4) James David Butler of Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone: 803- 259-9900, Fax: 803-541-9625, E-mail: dbutler@rpwb.com; (5) Mary Theresa Campbell, 149 Chesterfield Street, South Aiken, SC 29801, Phone: 803-642-4450, Fax: 803-642- 4459, E-mail: mcampbellpa@bellsouth.net; (6) Mark Dale Chappell of Chappell and Smith, PO Box 12330, Columbia, SC 29211, Phone: 803-929-3600, Fax: 803-929- 3604, E-mail: mchappell@chappellsmitharden.com; (7) Ben F. Easterlin, IV of King and Spalding, 1180 Peachtree Street, Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-572- 2430, E-mail: beasterlin@kslaw.com; (8) Daniel S. Haltiwanger of Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, PO Box 1368, Barnwell, SC 29812, Phone: 803-259-9900, Fax: 678-731-1532, E-mail: dhaltiwanger@rpwb.com; and (9) John W. Harte, Jr., of The John W Harte Law Offices, PO Drawer 586, Aiken, SC 29802, Phone: 803-648-3900, Fax: 803-642-2778, E-mail: harteaiken@aol.com. PENTAIR WATER: Recalls Gas Pool Heaters for Poisoning Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Pentair Water Pool and Spa Inc., of Moorpark, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 105,000 units of MiniMax NT STD gas pool heaters. The company said these pool heaters can emit excessive carbon monoxide, posing a risk of poisoning in the event of a vent leak in an indoor installation. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Pentair MiniMax NT STD Gas Pool Heaters installed indoors. They have BTU ratings between 200,000 and 400,000, and use either natural gas or propane. The model number is located on the rating plate on the inner front panel of the heater. The following model numbers are included: -- 460427 through 460430 -- 460439 through 460450 -- 460531 through 460538 -- 460543 through 460566 The heater identification number is located on the rating plate on the inner panel of the heater, which will show "NT" and "STD" in the third and fourth blocks of the number. The recall includes units with serial numbers 0606002 and lower. The recall also includes units without serial numbers. If the unit has a serial number, it is written on the data plate on the heater, which is located on the inner front door of the heater. Units with serial number 0606003 and higher are not included in this recall. MiniMax NT Low NOx and MiniMax NT TSI model pool heaters are not included in this recall. These recalled gas pool heaters were manufactured in the U.S. and are being sold through pool heater distributors and pool service equipment dealers nationwide from April 2002 through May 2006 for between $2,000 and $3,850 depending on the model number. Picture of the recalled gas pool heaters: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07073.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using these gas pool heaters installed indoors immediately, and contact the firm to determine if their heater is included in the recall. If it is, Pentair will provide a free inspection, and repair of the heater if necessary. For more information, contact Pentair toll-free at (866)-761- 5272 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or go to their Web site: http://www.pentairpool.com. PFIZER INC: N.Y. Lawsuit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Revised ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the class action "Coultrip et al. v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-09952-AKH," filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Under the amended complaint, the term "Covered Employees" means all persons who have been, are, or in the future will be employed by any of the defendants in any job whose title is or was referred to by any of these titles: -- sales representative, -- senior sales representative, -- executive sales representative, and -- senior executive sales representative and employees who performed substantial the same work as employees with those titles above and who were employed during the statute of limitations period for the particular claim for relief in which the term Covered Employees is used, including time during which the statute of limitation was or may have been tolled or suspended. Filed in October 2006, former and current employees of Pfizer, Inc. allege violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. Pursuant to a decision, policy and plan, the Covered Employees were and continue to be unlawfully classified by the company as exempt from laws requiring overtime pay, but in actuality, the employees were/are non-exempt and entitled to overtime pay. Specifically, plaintiffs claim that defendants' managers, with the knowledge and consent of corporate management, systematically violated the law throughout Illinois, Pennsylvania, California, Wisconsin and the U.S., in the following respects: -- failing to pay employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week; -- failing to maintain accurate records of employees' time; and -- failing to pay class members overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of eight hours per day. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members, including; -- whether defendants employed jointly the plaintiffs and the class within the meaning of state laws; -- what proof of hours is sufficient where defendants failed in their duty to maintain records; -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols, and plans of defendants regarding payment of overtime wages; -- what were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding payment of wages for all hours worked; -- whether defendants failed and/or refused to pay the plaintiffs and the class premium pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek or eight hours per workday within the meaning of state laws; -- what are and were the policies, practices, programs, procedures, protocols and plans of defendants regarding the types of work and labor for which defendants did not pay the class members at all; -- at what common rate, or rates subject to common methods of calculation, was and is defendants required to pay the class members for their work; -- what are the common conditions of employment and in the workplace, such as record keeping, breaks, and policies and practices regarding labor budgeting, that affect whether the class was paid at overtime rates for overtime work; -- whether defendants compensated class members that terminated their employment all wages owed them immediately upon the termination of their employment as required by state laws; and -- whether defendants provided plaintiffs with rest period and meal breaks as required by state laws. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Covered Employees, pray for relief as follows: -- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of are unlawful under FLSA and/or state laws; -- certification of this action as a collective action brought pursuant to the FLSA and/or state laws; -- designation of plaintiffs as representatives of the FLSA Collective Action; -- certification of the California State law claims as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23; -- designation of the California plaintiff as a representative of the California class; -- certification of the Illinois State law claims as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23; -- designation of plaintiff Coultrip as representative of the Illinois class; -- certification of the Pennsylvania State law claims as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23; -- designation of plaintiffs Higgs an Hadley as representatives of the Pennsylvania class; -- certification of the Wisconsin State law claims as a class action brought pursuant to FRCP Rule 23; -- designation of plaintiff Chenault as representative of the Wisconsin class; -- award of damages and/or restitution, according to proof, including liquidated damages, to be paid by defendants; -- penalties available under applicable law; -- costs of action incurred herein, including expert fees; -- attorneys' fees, including fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216 and other applicable state statutes; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and -- such other and further legal and equitable relief as the court deems necessary, just and proper. Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com A copy of the amended complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1840 The suit is "Coultrip et al v. Pfizer, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 09952-AKH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein. Representing plaintiffs is Charles Edward Joseph of Joseph and Herzfeld, L.L.P., 757 Third Avenue, 25th Floor, NY, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 688-5640, Fax: (212) 688-2548, E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com. Representing defendant is A. Michael Weber of Littler Mendelson, P.C., 885 Third Avenue, 16th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)-583-2660, Fax: (212)-832-2719, E-mail: mweber@littler.com. PHILIPPINES: First Gentleman Seeks Affirmative Defenses Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- The Philippines' First Gentleman, Jose Miguel Arroyo, filed a counterclaim against dozens of Filipino journalists who filed a class suit against him last month, ABS-CBN News reports. Mr. Arroyo's lawyer, Ruy Rondain, said the class suit, was defective, claiming that other plaintiffs did not sign the class suit while those who joined had nothing to do with the case as they are not facing libel charges filed by Mr. Arroyo. However, Harry Roque, an international law professor at the University of the Philippines in Diliman and the journalists' legal counsel, argued that those who are not facing libel charges are also entitled to join the class suit. Mr. Rondain, said the President's husband has cited 20 points to have the class suit dismissed by the court. Mr. Arroyo's counterclaim involved a motion to set a hearing for affirmative defenses. He also wants the Makati Regional Trial to dismiss the class suit. Mr. Rondain said the complainants failed to pay the right amount of docket fees that is estimated to be over PHP9 million. He said the plaintiffs were asking a collective of amount of PHP500 million in damages. The court is scheduled to conduct a hearing regarding Mr. Arroyo's motion on Thursday. On Dec. 28, 2006, dozens of Filipino journalists who are facing libel suits filed by Mr. Arroyo, filed a civil class action against the presidential spouse at the Makati Regional Trial Court (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29, 2006). Plaintiffs most of whom are charged by Mr. Arroyo with libel are backed by other journalists, media, and journalists' organizations. Such groups include the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility. They are contesting the First Gentleman's claim that he has been maligned as a private citizen, for which he is seeking at least $2,872,275.41 (P141 million) in damages. The libel cases were in connection with reports of alleged election fraud and corruption involving Mr. Arroyo. The journalists are accusing Mr. Arroyo of trying to stifle freedom of the press (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2006). Retaliating against the charges filed against them, the journalists are in turn suing Mr. Arroyo for abuse of power and for seeking to undermine civil liberties. The suit is asking for about $305,561.21 (PHP15 million) in damages for the anxiety, loss of income and other inconveniences Mr. Arroyo's libel suits have allegedly caused. However, it also argues that the suits have not only caused the respondents sleepless nights. The suits also have a chilling effect on press freedom, according to plaintiffs. Should the case prosper, the sought amount will go into a press freedom fund. Arguing that the reports are fair commentaries on matters of public interest, the journalists assert that the "sheer number of libel suits Mr. Arroyo has filed suggests that these are primarily intended to intimidate the press and silence criticism." PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Tex. Judge Refuses Transfer of "Antee" to Ark. --------------------------------------------------------------- Federal Magistrate Caroline Craven denied a request by attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class action "Antee, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp.," to grant a transfer of venue for the case from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to one in El Dorado, Arkansas, the Texarkana Gazette reports. In Judge Craven's ruling, she notes a transfer might "... create an undesirable precedent where a plaintiff might be tempted to 'shop among forums.'" In Nov. 2006, Kelly Tidwell, an attorney for the plaintiffs in the "Antee" suit asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to grant a transfer of venue from that court to one in Arkansas (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 27, 2006). When a transfer of venue is requested in a civil case, it is almost always done by the defense, explains local attorney Jim Cook of the law firm Dunn, Nutter & Morgan. A request of this type from a plaintiff is rare, according to him. The case, which involves a growing number of Pilgrim's Pride employees in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and eight other states, alleges that the employees were intentionally not paid for time spent "donning and doffing" gear worn while performing factory work. It also alleges that employees were not paid time and a half for hours worked in excess of 40 during a work week, were not paid their correct hourly rate, and that wages were improperly calculated. In requesting for the transfer, Mr. Tidwell told Judge Craven that the simple argument is for judicial economy, as they will be seeking a national collective action. A second suit was filed in El Dorado, Arkansas, after the one in Judge Craven's court. Mr. Tidwell is asking for both cases to be heard there. The 1,300 plaintiffs in the El Dorado case outnumber the 85 in the Texas case, according to Mr. Tidwell. A suit also exists in Louisiana and Mr. Tidwell says those plaintiffs are willing to join the El Dorado case, but not the one in Texas. However, defendants want Judge Craven to deny the motion to transfer the Texas case. Attorney John Brown, representing Pilgrim's Pride, pointed out that such a move would create bad precedent if months into the case the plaintiff gets a change of venue because they've decided there's a better place. The suit is "Antee et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., Case No. 5:06-cv-00089-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral to Judge Caroline Craven. Representing the plaintiffs is Kelly B. Tidwell of Patton & Tidwell, 4605 Texas Blvd., P.O. Box 5398, Texarkana, TX 75505- 5398, Phone: 903/792-5859, Fax: 19037928233, E-mail: kbt@texarkanalaw.com. Representing the defendants is John Bridges Brown of Gardere Wynne Sewell, 1601 Elm St., 3000 Thanksgiving Tower, Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214/999-3000, Fax: 12149993969, E-mail: jbrown@gardere.com. PRG-SCHULTZ: Settles Ga. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75M --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division approved a $6.75 million settlement of a securities fraud suit filed against PRG-Schultz International, Inc. Beginning on June 6, 2000, three putative class actions were filed against the company and certain of its present and former officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. These cases were subsequently consolidated into one proceeding as "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Sec. Litigation, Civil Action File No. 1:00-CV-1416-CC. On February 8, 2005, the company entered into a Stipulation of Settlement of the Securities Class Action Litigation. On February 10, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division preliminarily approved the terms of the Settlement. On May 26, 2005, the Court approved the Stipulation of Settlement entered into by the company with the Plaintiff's counsel, on behalf of all putative class members, pursuant to which it agreed to settle the consolidated class action for $6.75 million, which payment was made by the insurance carrier for the company, according to the company's form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces Suit Over Faulty Drug-Testing Machines --------------------------------------------------------------- Fifteen medical professionals, including two physicians, three doctors of pharmacy and nine nurses, have filed a lawsuit against several companies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for: -- negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, -- products liability, -- ordinary and professional negligence, -- breach of fiduciary duty, and -- violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act related to the promotion, marketing and sale of EtG drug testing systems, alcohol testing and screening services, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Quest Diagnostics, Inc.; -- National Medical Services Inc.; -- LabCorp, a subsidiary of Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings; -- DTS a/k/a Drug Test Systems; -- FirstLab, a subsidiary of FHC Health Systems, Inc. -- Compass Vision, Inc.; -- First Advantage, a division of The First American Corp.; and -- "John Doe" Corporations. Class Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action in their own behalf and on behalf of a Class to include all licensed individuals, engaged in the health care professions, throughout the U.S., who have been required to submit to EtG testing that were performed, interpreted and/or reported by Defendants to their respective licensing boards. All such class members have been disciplined, had their licenses suspended or under threat of suspension, on probation and/or subjected to ongoing EtG screening as a result of their "positive"test results. This Class only includes those Class Members who have denied any consumption of alcoholic beverages in connection with such "positive"results. This Class does not include any individual who has or will institute an individual action against these Defendants, unless he or she opts into the Class in the future. EtG "stands for ethylglucuronide, a metabolite of alcohol, and was reported by Gregory Skipper, M.D. and Friedrich Wurst, M.D., in November 2002 at an international meeting of the American Medical Society, to provide proof of alcohol consumption as much as five days after drinking an alcoholic beverage, well after the alcohol itself had been eliminated from the body. Plaintiffs claim they have suffered disciplinary actions because defendants' testing machines falsely reported that the plaintiffs were under the influence of alcohol. Plaintiffs further allege the "EtG drug testing systems, alcohol testing and screening services" produce false positives. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class, which are substantially similar and predominate over the questions affecting the individual Class members. Among these common questions of law and fact are: (a) Whether the EtG test would unequivocally establish that a positive result indicated that the subject individual had consumed alcoholic beverages; (b) Whether the cutoff or reporting limit, above which a "positive" result would occur was scientifically established by Defendants after valid and reliable research; (c) Whether the EtG test was the "gold standard" in ferreting out former users of alcoholic beverages and/or controlled substances, who were found to have repeated prohibited use in occupations requiring "zero tolerance;" (d) Whether employees who voluntarily agreed to random testing could rely on the accuracy of the EtG test in protecting them against false positives; (e) Whether Defendants breached their duty to Class Plaintiffs and the other class members to provide reliable screening and reporting services; (f) Whether Defendants breached their duty to Class Plaintiffs and the other class members to provide accurate information about their testing services; (g) Whether ordinary products that contain ethanol, such as Purell sanitizer, can cause Defendants' testing to result in positive results; (h) Whether other factors such as age, sex or medical conditions (e.g., urinary tract infections or bypass gastric surgery), were known to the Defendants as triggers for alleged "positive" results; (i) Whether other causes for "positive" results were not explored, reported, ignored or dismissed because of profit motives in the continued use of the EtG test by the applicable licensing boards; and (j) Whether Defendants misrepresented material facts about their testing and/or TPA services. Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants as follows: 1. Determining that this action is a proper class action maintainable under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; certifying the Class; certifying Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and appointing Plaintiff's counsel as counsel for the Class; 2. That Defendants be required to make restitution to each Class Plaintiff and Class member similarly situated of any and all money or property paid or owing by that Plaintiff and Class member related to undergoing and opposing the consequences of EtG testing; 3. Awarding compensatory damages for economic losses in the form of lost earnings and diminution of earning capacity for each Class Plaintiff and Class member; 4. Awarding compensatory damages for any non-economic damages suffered by each Class Plaintiff and Class member; 5. Awarding compensatory damages, trebled, for violations of the NJCFA; 6. Awarding Plaintiff and the Class punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; 7. For a determination by the Court of the most suitable mode by which Class members are to come forward, identify themselves, and prove their entitlement to share in the total sum awarded by the Court for compensatory and punitive damages; 8. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable attorney's fees; 9. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members similarly situated pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; 10. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members similarly situated their costs of suit herein incurred; and 11. Awarding Class Plaintiffs and the class members similarly situated such other and further relief as may be just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1836 The suit is "Garlick et al. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh with referral to Judge Mark Falk. Representing plaintiffs is Norman Perlberger of Pomerantz, Perlberger & Lewis LLP, 7th Floor, Stephen Gerard Bldg., 21 South 12th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3603, Phone: (215) 569-8866, E-mail: np@pomerantzperlberger.com. RENT-A-CENTER INC: High Court Nixes Appeal on N.J. Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge in relation to the Supreme Court of New Jersey's reinstatement of certain claims made by a plaintiff against Rent-A-Center, Inc. in the putative class action, "Hilda Perez v. Rent-A-Center, Inc," the Daily Record reports. The suit was filed in the Superior Court, Law Division, Camden County, New Jersey on March 21, 2003. It arose out of several rent-to-own contracts Ms. Perez entered into with the company. The requested class period is April 23, 1999 to the present. In her amended complaint, Ms. Perez alleges on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals that the rent-to- own contracts she entered into with the company violated New Jersey's Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) and, as a result, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act because such contracts imposed a time price differential in excess of the 30% per annum interest rate permitted under New Jersey's criminal usury statute. Ms. Perez alleges that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate limit, limiting time price differentials to 30% per annum. Ms. Perez seeks reimbursement of the excess fees and/or interest contracted for, charged and collected, together with treble damages, and an injunction compelling the company to cease the alleged violations. She seeks pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, together with attorneys' fees and costs and disbursements. Following the filing of her amended complaint, the company filed a counterclaim to recover the merchandise retained by Ms. Perez after she ceased making rental payments. Ms. Perez answered the counterclaim, denying liability and claiming entitlement to the items she rented from the company. In August 2003, Ms. Perez moved for partial summary judgment and the company cross-moved for summary judgment. In January 2004, the trial court held that rent-to-own transactions are not covered by RISA nor subject to the interest rate limit in New Jersey's criminal usury statute. The court granted the company's cross-motion, dismissing Ms. Perez's claims under RISA and the CFA. Ms. Perez then appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. Oral argument before the Appellate Division occurred in December 2004, and in February 2005 the Appellate Division rejected Ms. Perez's arguments and ruled in the company's favor on all of her claims. Ms. Perez subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, who heard oral arguments in November 2005. On March 15, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the trial court and the Appellate Division and remanded the case to the trial court for reinstatement of Ms. Perez's complaint and for further proceedings. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that rent-to-own contracts in New Jersey are "retail installment contracts" under RISA, and that RISA incorporates the 30% interest rate cap in New Jersey's criminal usury statute. The court rejected the company's legal arguments and reinstated Ms. Perez's claims under RISA and the CFA. The company then filed a motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and in response, the court issued an order on July 10, 2006 stating that the March 15, 2006 decision is prospective, except that it applies to plaintiff and, if the trial court certifies a class, to the members of the class. Rent-A-Center says that it has done business in New Jersey for 20 years on the basis that the state's retail installment sales act does not apply to rent-to-own transactions. Rent-A-Center, Inc., (NASDAQ/NNM: RCII), headquartered in Plano, Texas, operates 2,762 company-owned stores nationwide and in Canada and Puerto Rico. The company rents household goods to consumers typically without a down payment or credit check and with an option to purchase the goods. The case is "Rent-A-Center v. Perez, 06-657." For more information, contact David E. Carpenter, Phone: 972- 801-1214, E-mail: dcarpenter@racenter.com. ROYAL CANADIAN: Sea Cadets to Receive Sexual Abuse Compensation --------------------------------------------------------------- Former sea cadets who suffered sexual abuse while serving in HMCS Discovery's youth program will soon receive their portion of a CAD$10 million compensation package, The Globe and Mail reports. In 2004, 35 victims who were all former members of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corp., which operated out of HMCS Discovery in Stanley Park, were approved to be part of a class action. The victims were generally between 13 and 17 years old when they were abused. Defendants of the class action included the Attorney-General of Canada and the Navy League of Canada, as well as three officers. The suit alleged that as many as 63 boys may have been abused by reserve officers who preyed on cadets from HMCS Discovery between 1967 and 1977. One investigator estimates that four former officers might have abused as many as 200 cadets between 1964 and 1980 (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2006). Several former officers of HMCS Discovery, which was stationed in Vancouver's Stanley Park, were named as third-party defendants to the suit. This included Conrad Sundman and Ralph Bremner, both of whom were convicted of sexually assaulting several sea cadets, who were between the ages of 13 and 17 when they were abused. The suit alleges that the federal government might have been liable for what was alleged to have occurred on HMCS Discovery, based on the fact that the sea cadets program was set up under the National Defense Act. It was alleged that the attorney general failed to take reasonable measures in the operation or management of the program to protect the cadets from conduct of a sexual nature by employees, agents, and other cadets at HMCS Discovery. Lorne Lachance, counsel for the Attorney-General of Canada, said 80 victims from throughout Canada and one from Germany have been approved to have claims for a portion of the CAD$10 million settlement. Under the settlement, which was reached more than two years after the attorney general was named as a defendant and was approved by the B.C. Supreme Court last spring, each of the 35 victims is eligible for an average payout of CAD$227,867. However, the actual amount each victim will receive depends on the outcome of psychological tests to determine the severity of abuse. "Some will get more and some will get less," Robert Gibbens, the lawyer retained by the former cadets told The Globe and Mail. The maximum payout has been set as high as $500,000. Some victims though could still receive as little as $30,000 if they elect to take the money without undergoing a psychological test. The settlement stipulates that anonymity is afforded the members of the class action and they are no longer obliged to give evidence in court or be cross-examined on the issue of liability or on the issue of damages. The $10-million deal will compensate as many as 200 cadets who were victimized in the 1960s and 70s. So far, there are 35 known victims, about a third of them from Surrey and Delta, according to Mr. Gibbens (Class Action Reporter, April 21, 2006). For more details, contact Robert Gibbens, Phone: 604-682-3871, E-mail rgibbens@laxtonco.com; or The Department of National Defense Media Liaison Office, Phone: (613) 996-2353/2354. SANDERSON FARMS: Faces Back Wages Claims in La. District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A processing division subsidiary of Sanderson Farms, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by a former hourly employee claiming back wages for time spent on donning protective and sanitary uniform. On June 6, 2006, Annie Collins, a former employee of the processing division subsidiary, on behalf of herself and as representative of "a class of individuals who are similarly situated and who have suffered the same or similar damages" filed a complaint against the company's processing and production subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Since the filing of the complaint, at least 2,930 individuals purportedly have given their consent to be a party plaintiff to this action. Plaintiffs allege that the company's subsidiaries violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay plaintiffs and other hourly employees for the time spent donning and doffing protective and sanitary clothing and performing other alleged compensable activities, and that "Sanderson automatically deducted thirty minutes from each worker's workday for a meal break regardless of the actual time spent on break." Plaintiffs also allege that they were not paid overtime wages at the legal rate. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, liquidated damages and injunctive relief. On July 24, 2006, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Protective Order, Sanctions and a Corrective Notice related to a letter the company sent to all employees concerning the donning and doffing issue. The letter informed employees that, among other things, the company was in negotiations with the Department of Labor about any adjustment to its pay practices and its calculations of any back pay obligations. The company responded to the plaintiffs' motion and filed a Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Conciliation Efforts with the Department of Labor. On July 25, 2006, plaintiffs responded to the company's motion, which is still pending. On July 31, 2006, the company filed its Answer to the plaintiffs' Complaint. SANDISK CORP: Settles Calif. Suit Over Flash Memory Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandisk Corp. has agreed to settle a suit filed against it in California alleging the company misrepresented the memory storage of its flash memory products. On February 20, 2004, the company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products were sued in the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco in a purported consumer class action: * "Willem Vroegh et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al., Civil Case No. GCG 04 428953," alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act. The lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory products and claims that the defendants overstated the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products. The lawsuit seeks restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount. The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which is pending final court approval. SANOFI-AVENTIS: Sued for Calif. Reps' Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi-Aventis U.S. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California brought by employees alleging violation of state and federal overtime laws. The suit charges that the company -- like others in the industry -- unlawfully characterizes pharmaceutical representatives as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and various state labor laws in order to deprive them of overtime pay. The complaint against Sanofi-Aventis along with earlier cases filed in recent weeks against: -- AstraZeneca, -- Pfizer, -- Johnson & Johnson, -- Amgen, -- Eli Lilly, -- Hoffman LaRoche, -- GlaxoSmithKline, -- Bayer, and -- Boehringer-Ingelheim are being litigated by the Los Angeles based-firm of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC and the New York firm of Joseph and Herzfeld LLP. The plaintiffs' lawyers have now been joined by the law firm of Spiro, Moss in Los Angeles. "We will seek to prove that thousands of employees from the major drug companies are being denied their overtime pay," charged Eric Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley. "They work very long hours, 55-60 hours a week and often well more than that." "Many employees in all industries are under the mistaken impression that being salaried means that they are not protected under the overtime laws. This is not correct," explained Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld. "Our lawsuits allege that, although the drug companies deprived representatives of overtime by classifying them as exempt, they are in fact not exempt under federal and state laws. The companies have claimed that the representatives are 'salespersons' and therefore not protected by the overtime laws, but drug reps' work is promotional - they actually don't sell anything. " "Since the first lawsuits were filed, hundreds of pharmaceutical reps from all over the country have contacted us," said Mr. Kingsley. "Over and over we hear similar stories about the reps being forced to work nights and weekends on a regular basis, and the companies' failure to pay overtime." Plaintiffs who call the hotline (888-500-8469) describe how their jobs have changed dramatically over the years. In the past, the representatives had the freedom to use their own educated judgment and creativity in marketing the drugs. In the last several years, perhaps because of lawsuits over drug marketing and increasing FDA scrutiny, companies have insisted that the representatives use carefully memorized scripts or stick to regimented guidelines as to what they may and may not say. "The complete loss of autonomy in making decisions and scheduling their working and family life is a great source of frustration" said Mr. Kingsley. "Many reps feel that what was once a desirable job has turned into rote performance under intense scrutiny at the virtually total beck and call of their management, a requirement sometimes exercised capriciously without time even to reschedule child care." The multibillion dollar drug companies operate in all fifty states and employ more than half a million workers; the proposed classes in the combined lawsuits include tens of thousands of pharmaceutical representatives throughout the United States. The plaintiffs are asking federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California to order the drug companies to provide overtime pay to eligible employees as well as compensation and damages to current and former employees who were denied overtime. Pharmaceutical Reps on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com For more information, contact Eric Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley, APC, Phone: 818-990-8300; or Charles Joseph and Elaine Elinson, both of Joseph & Herzfeld LLP, Phone: 866-348-7394 or 415-203-4378. SAVE MART: Customers' Suit Over Info Solicitation Certified ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lauren Thomasson of the San Joaquin Superior Court ordered class-action certification for the lawsuit accusing Save Mart Supermarkets of violating state law and potentially putting customers at risk of identity theft, the Fresno Bee reports. According to the law firm Lindsay & Stonebarger the suit accuses Modesto-based Save Mart of providing customers with sales slips that they sign when making credit card transactions at the company's supermarkets, which included spaces for customers to fill in their phone numbers. Providing a space for customers to fill in personal information on credit card forms is illegal under California law, according to Lindsay & Stonebarger lawyer, James Lindsay. A state law passed in 1990 makes it illegal for retailers that accept credit cards to ask for or provide forms with spaces designated for customers to fill in personal information, even if the information is not obtained, Mr. Lindsay said. He also claimed the practice could expose customers to identity theft, but said there's no evidence that happened. The suit was first filed on behalf of a handful of clients in July 2004. Save Mart attorney Steve Boutin said the lawsuit had failed to show that any customers had ever been harmed by the company's practices. Mr. Lindsay asserted that based on his law firm's estimates, that class-action certification could allow the suit to include up to 300,000 people who may have given their phone numbers on the credit card transaction forms, as well as up to 6 million customers who were illegally asked to fill out the forms but didn't. Representing plaintiffs is James M. Lindsay of Lindsay & Stonebarger, Forum Building, 1107 9th Street, Suite 1020, Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: (916) 446-0032, Fax: (916) 446-0034, E-mail: jlindsay@lindstonelaw.com. Representing Save Mart is Stephen F. Boutin of Boutin Dentino Gibson Di Giusto Hodell Inc., 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500, Sacramento, California 95814, Phone: 916-321-4444, Telecopier: 916-441-7597. TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. is facing a putative class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by I.B.L. Investments Ltd. purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the company's common stock between October 28, 2004 and March 1, 2006. Zaki Rakib, Jerry D. Chase, Mark Richman and Edward Lopez are named as individual defendants. The lawsuit focuses on the company's March 1, 2006 announcement of the restatement of the company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004, and for the four quarters of 2004 and the first two quarters of 2005. The plaintiffs are seeking damages, interest, costs and any other relief deemed proper by the court. The suit is "I.B.I. Investments LTD v. Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-03936-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing the plaintiffs is Lionel Z. Glancy of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of The Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160, E- mail: info@glancylaw.com. TERAYON COMMUNICATION: Awaits Approval of $15M Stock Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has yet to rule on a $15 million settlement of a securities fraud suit filed against Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Beginning in April 2000, several plaintiffs filed class actions in federal court against the company and certain of the company's officers and directors. Later that year, the cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re Terayon Communication Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation." The Court then appointed lead plaintiffs who filed an amended complaint. In 2001, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, and plaintiffs filed a new complaint. In 2002, the Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint, which, like the earlier complaints, alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material information regarding the company's technology. On February 24, 2003, the Court certified a plaintiff class consisting of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities between November 15, 1999 and April 11, 2000. On September 8, 2003, the Court heard defendants' motion to disqualify two of the lead plaintiffs and to modify the definition of the plaintiff class. On September 10, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date for the parties' summary judgment motions, and, on September 22, 2003, the Court issued another order staying all discovery until further notice and vacating the trial date, which had been scheduled for November 4, 2003. On February 23, 2004, the Court issued an order disqualifying two of the lead plaintiffs and ordered discovery, which was conducted. In February 2006, the company mediated the case with plaintiffs' counsel. As part of the mediation, the company reached a settlement of $15.0 million. After this mediation, the company's insurance carriers agreed to tender their remaining limits of coverage, and the company contributed approximately $2.2 million to the settlement. On March 17, 2006, the company, along with plaintiffs' counsel, submitted the settlement to the Court and the shareholder class for approval. The Court held a hearing to review the settlement of the shareholder litigation on September 25, 2006. The court has not approved the settlement, according to the company's recent form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. TEXAS: Court Refuses to Hear Appeal on Kids' Healthcare Program --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a case in which Texas officials want to regain control of a healthcare program that's been the focus of a protracted class action, KXAN 36 Austin reports. Court documents revealed that the suit, which was first filed 12 years ago by San Antonio attorney Susan F. Zinn, alleges that Texas violates federal law by failing to provide adequate health care access to its 2.7 million children on Medicaid (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2005). It is seeking to force the state to abide by a nearly decade-old agreement or consent decree, in which it promised to carry out specific measures to improve access. The state had sought to dissolve the consent decree governing its Medicaid program of preventative health care for children, contending that it's fully complying with federal requirements. The state promised in the 1996 decree to improve the program, but in 2005, Judge William Wayne Justice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas rejected the state's argument that the courts were using a legal standard for dissolving consent decrees that was too strict. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling. After those rulings, Attorney General Greg Abbott appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the appeal with regards to an 11-year-old agreement that could expand health are under Medicaid to thousands of low-income children. In defending the state's appeal, Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the attorney general commented that plaintiffs have maintained the litigation against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission for more than a decade, with no end in sight. He pointed out that despite the fact that Texas spends more money than any other state in the union on Medicaid screening outreach and despite the fact that the evidence in this case has clearly demonstrated every eligible child in the state of Texas who requested treatment has received medical treatment, the litigation still continues. However, plaintiffs' attorneys countered that the number of children represented by the lawsuit who received no medical checkups actually increased from 941,000 in 1993, when the suit was filed, to almost 1.5 million in 2005. The number of children who received no preventive dental services increased from 1 million to more than 1.7 million during the same period, the attorneys said. TOYOTA MOTOR: Settles La. Litigation Over Sludge-Clogged Engines ---------------------------------------------------------------- Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. settled a purported class action over oil sludge-clogged engines in certain of its vehicles, ConsumerAffairs.Com reports. The suit, "Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. et al.," was filed in the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana. It is about whether certain Toyota and Lexus vehicles are predisposed to develop oil sludge. An engine gummed up with oil sludge otherwise known as oil gel can cost thousands of dollars to repair and in many cases must be replaced. The settlement, which could receive final approval by the mid- February, covers roughly 3.5 million Toyota and Lexus vehicles damaged by engine oil sludge. It will allow consumers whose claims have been denied by the company to submit those claims to a third-party mediator at no cost for binding arbitration. Currently, details of the settlement are being mailed to 7.5 million current and previous Toyota and Lexus owners. The agreement provides owners of sludge-damaged Toyotas eight years plus 120 days from the original purchase date to file a complaint. Toyota consumers who have repaired their sludge-damaged engines may be able to recover their costs. The car only needs to show evidence of oil sludge damage. The terms of the settlement are transferable to future vehicle owners. Vehicles covered by the Louisiana settlement include the: -- Camry 4 cylinder from 1997-2001, -- Camry 6 cylinder from 1997-2002, -- Camry Solara 4 cylinder from 1999-2001, -- Camry Solara 6 cylinder 1999-2002, -- Sienna 6 cylinder from 1998-2002, -- Avalon 6 cylinder from 1997-2002, -- Celica 4 cylinder from 1997-1999, -- Highlander 6 cylinder from 2001-2002, -- Lexus ES 300 from 1997-2002, and -- Lexus RX 300 from 1999-2002. In 2002 Toyota admitted receiving 3,400 complaints about sludged engines and the automaker extended its vehicle warranty to eight years along with unlimited mileage to owners of 1997-2002 Toyota and Lexus vehicles equipped with 3.0-liter V-6 or 2.2-liter four-cylinder engines. For more details, contact: (1) The Settlement Administrator, Phone: 1-888-279-4405, Web site: http://www.oilgelsettlement.com/; (2) Gary J. Gambel of Murphy, Rogers, Sloss, & Gambel, Suite 400, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70139, Phone: (504) 274-3874, Fax: (504) 274-3875; (3) S. Ault Hootsell of Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Canal Place 365, Canal Street, Suite 2000, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: (504) 566-1311; and (4) Joseph M. Bruno of Bruno & Bruno, LLP, 855 Baronne St., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone: (504) 525-1335. TRUMP ORGANIZATION: "The Apprentice" Faces Mass. Age Bias Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Trump is facing yet another discrimination suit over The Apprentice reality show for not considering candidates over the age of 40, E! Online reports. The suit names these Trump companies as defendants: -- Trump Organization, Inc.; -- Trump Productions LLC; -- Donald Trump; -- Mark Burnett, Apprentice creator and executive; -- Jean Worldwide Inc.; -- Archie Worldwide Inc.; -- CJ Worldwide, Inc.; and -- Does 1-10. Joseph Hewett, a 49-year-old technology manager from New Hampshire, filed the age discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts claiming to be denied to participate in a reality show for his age. Mr. Hewett claims he was given the casting brush-off after a preliminary interview in 2005 simply because he was out of the show's demographic range. He is also seeking to get his complaint class-action status, allowing thousands of fellow forty-something applicants who have been passed over for the reality show. In February 2005, aspiring Apprentice contestant James Schottel, a quadriplegic lawyer, filed a federal lawsuit claiming Trump & Co. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against him and other disabled individuals who wanted to try out for the show. He alleged that wording in the show's application, cautioning would-be contestants to be "in excellent physical and mental health," effectively ruled out disabled applicants. The suit was settled the following month with no payout and no admission of wrongdoing, simply with a reworded application. According to Zap2it.com, the show has become a target for litigation since it classifies its audition process as a job interview. The age discrimination suit is "Hewett v. Trump Organization et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10007-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay. Meetings, Con ferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 13, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Grand Hyatt on Union Square, San Francisco Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 13, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Anaheim, Anaheim CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 16, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California PLI California Center, San Francisco CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 16, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California PLI California Center, San Francisco CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 18-19, 2007 Opinion and Expert Testimony in Federal and State Courts CM060 ALI-ABA Coral Gables, Florida Tuition Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Pasadena Hilton, Pasadena CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Pasadena Hilton, Pasadena CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sacramento Convention Center, Sacramento CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 20, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California San Diego County Bar Association, San Diego, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 22-23, 2007 MEALEY'S 5TH ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP 10 ISSUES Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 22-23, 2007 LEXISNEXIS ATTORNEY MARKETING & CLIENT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 24-25, 2007 EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 25-26, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL INSURANCE CLAIMS AND LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 27, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Santa Monica Room 711 South Hope Street Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Sheraton Los Angeles Downtown Santa Monica Room 711 South Hope Street Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 27, 2007 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS Continuing Education of the Bar - California Santa Clara Convention Center, Sta. Clara, CA Contact: 800-232-3444; customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu January 29-30, 2007 MEALEY'S THE ART OF NEGOTIATION CONFERENCE: SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATING MASS TORT & CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES FOR MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS Mealeys Seminars Hyatt Century Plaza, Los Angeles Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 6-7, 2007 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY? Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, San Francisco, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 8-9, 2007 MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF INSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Westin Grand, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 8-9, 2007 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS CONFERENCE: THE NEW FACE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Hotel, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 15-16, 2007 LEXISNEXIS SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE: STOCK OPTION BACKDATING AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION Mealeys Seminars The Four Seasons Palo Alto, CA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 27-28, 2007 CLINICAL TRIALS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 E-DISCOVERY & LITIGATION READINESS FOR LIFE SCIENCES American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING BARIATRIC SURGERY American Conference Institute Philadephia Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 27-28, 2007 PREVENTING AND DEFENDING CLAIMS OF BREAST CANCER American Conference Institute Philadephia Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 2007 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Loews Hotel, Miami, Florida Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-916-1678 March 7-9, 2007 Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts CM090 ALI-ABA St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S SOLVENT SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Battery Park, New York City Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S CALIFORNIA BAD FAITH CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton Marina del Rey Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 14-15, 2007 LIFE SCIENCES MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 15-16, 2007 MEALEY'S FUNDAMENTALS OF REINSURANCE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Ritz-Carlton, New Orleans Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 19-20, 2007 MEALEY'S MASS TORT INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 20-21, 2007 MANAGING & SETTLING CORPORATE PATENT LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 21-22, 2007 ANTI-COUNTERFEITING & BRAND INTEGRITY PROTECTION American Conference Institute Las Vegas Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 22-23, 2007 Trial Evidence in the Federal Courts: Problems and Solutions CM078 ALI-ABA New York Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 March 28-29, 2007 GENERAL COUNSEL FORUM American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 28-29, 2007 RESOLVING MASS TORT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CLAIMS American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 April 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Hyatt Regency, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 12-13, 2007 MEALEY'S WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Intercontinental Buckhead, Atlanta Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2007 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS MEDICINE CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars The Westin Philadelphia Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 19-20, 2007 MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE Mealeys Seminars Intercontinental, Chicago Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 25-28, 2007 MEALEY'S 14TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE Mealeys Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Phoenix, AZ, USA Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com May 3-4, 2007 Accountants' Liability CM076 ALI-ABA Boston Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 17-19, 2007 Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success CM098 ALI-ABA San Francisco Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 11-13, 2007 Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts CN009 ALI-ABA Santa Fe, New Mexico Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 18-19, 2007 DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ January 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS: CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY? CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE -- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND TORT CASES IN TEXAS" CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 1-31, 2007 CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT LIABILITY CLEOnline.Com Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com January 25, 2007 NANOTECHNOLOGY Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 31, 2007 WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WINNING NEGOTIATING TECHNIQUES Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com January 31, 2007 AMERICA'S HEALTH CARE CRISIS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 1, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR PARALEGALS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: TRAYSYLOL LITIGATION Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2007 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CULTIVATING AND MAINTAINING DIVERSITY IN YOUR FIRM Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com March 6, 2007 MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CARDIOLOGY FOR PHARMA LAWYERS Mealeys Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Online Streaming Video Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com PAXIL LITIGATION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com RECOVERIES Big Class Action Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION? LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION Online Streaming Video LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE LawCommerce.Com Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND ADVERSTISING American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. New Securities Fraud Cases WHITNEY INFORMATION: Brower Piven Announces Stock Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Brower Piven announced that a securities class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Whitney Information Network, Inc. between Nov. 18, 2003 and Dec. 15, 2006. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against defendant Whitney and one or more of its officers. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the class period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action. Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 27, 2007 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the proposed class. For more details contact Brower Piven, The World Trade Center- Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Phone: 410/986-0036, E-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com. ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Maria Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *