/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070131.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 31, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 22 Headlines AIMCO PROPERTIES: FLSA Litigation in Md., Calif. Courts Stayed AMERICAN FAMILY: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by Deceased Client ARIZONA: Judge Collins Finishes English-Learning Program Hearing ASURION CORP: Court Okays Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement BARAC CO: Settles D.C. Tenants' Suit Over Court-Cost Surcharge CALIFORNIA: Immigrants in "Kiniti" Suit Singled Out, ACLU Fears CANADA: Ragweed Allergy Sufferers Lose CAD$2B Litigation v. MUC CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Attorney Seeks to Void Hospital's Lien CATERPILLAR INC: Mich. Court Okays Class in Diesel Engine Suit CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' EPDM Suit for $21M COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dissenting Investors Plan to File Suit CONNECTICUT: Cities to Get $14.8M Refund from CRRA-Enron Deal EGAIN COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving IPO Suit Settlement ENRON CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Vinson & Elkins from "Newby" FLORIDA: Seminole County Settles 2004 Strip Search Litigation GENERAL ELECTRIC: Ill. Court Okays Confidential Suit Settlement H.A. BERKHEIMER: Settles Pa. Taxpayer's Suit Over Illegal Fees HOME DECORATORS: Recalls Storage Trunks for Entrapment Hazards INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Trash Collection Fee to Proceed MURPHY OIL: La. Court Okays $330M Settlement in Oil Spill Suit NEVADA: Reno Police Faces Lawsuit Over Warrantless Searches OCA INC: Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Fraud Suit Rejected PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $56M Stock Suit Deal PMA CAPITAL: Objects to Class Certification in Penn. Stock Suit PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Orders $925T Allocation for Deloitte Deal QUINTUS CORP: Calif. Court OKs $10.1M Securities Suit Settlement SALLY FOSTER: Recalls Tea Lights Candles Due to Fire Hazards SEITEL INC: Motion for Stock Suit Class Certification Due Feb. 1 SEQUENOM INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval TENNESSEE GAS: Class Status Sought in Kans. Gas Measurement Case TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Mulls Class Status for Labor Suit WASHINGTON: Jury Issues Mixed Verdict in WTO Protesters' Lawsuit WESTLAND DEV'T: Motions to Dismiss Sedora Merger Suit Granted Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences New Securities Fraud Cases HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in La. SUNRISE SENIOR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Mager & Goldstein Announces Stock Suit Filing TOP TANKERS: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit ********* AIMCO PROPERTIES: FLSA Litigation in Md., Calif. Courts Stayed -------------------------------------------------------------- Cases alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by AIMCO Properties, L.P. and its subsidiary NHP Management Co. (NHPMN) in California and Maryland have been stayed pending the resolution of a decertification motion in a District of Columbia case. AIMCO Properties and NHPMN are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that the company and NHPMN willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, attempts to bring a collective action under the FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that the company and NHPMN failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call." Additionally, the complaint alleges that the company and NHPMN failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. In June 2005, the court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. About 1,049 individuals opted-in to the class. NHPMN moved to decertify the collective action on both issues and the plaintiffs have responded. Because the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify state subclasses, on Sept. 26, 2005, plaintiffs filed a class action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra Costa County), and on Nov. 5, 2005, in Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court. The California and Maryland cases have been stayed pending the resolution of the decertification motion in the District of Columbia case. The suit is "Chase, et al. V. AIMCO Properties, L.P., Case No. 1:03-cv-01683-JR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Representing the plaintiffs is Richard N. Appel of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036-1511, Phone: (202) 887-4076, Fax: (202) 887-4288, E-mail: rappel@akingump.com. Representing the defendants is Joseph Marc Sellers of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 500, West Tower, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 408- 4600, Fax: (202) 408-4699, E-mail: jsellers@cmht.com. AMERICAN FAMILY: Files Motion to Dismiss Suit by Deceased Client ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Family Insurance attorney filed a motion on Jan. 19 to dismiss a suit originally filed against the company by Manuel Hernandez, but is now being pursued by the deceased plaintiff's wife, the Madison St. Clair Record reports. Plaintiff Manuel Hernandez filed a suit against American Family Insurance in 2000, claiming the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident. In 2005, he was certified as a representative of the class. However, earlier this year, the company discovered that he has already been dead since January 2004. The company's attorney attached a copy of Mr. Hernandez's death certificate in a filing in March. According to the report, American Family attorney Anthony Martin of St. Louis asked Circuit Judge Daniel Stack to dismiss the suit on these grounds, among others: -- that the Lakin Law Firm attorneys, who represented Mr. Hernandez, violated an Illinois Supreme Court rule by failing to disclose the death of the only class representative in the case; and -- that the Lakin firm violated a duty under Rules 213 and 214 to supplement discovery responses seasonably. In addition, he argued that: -- Mrs. Hernandez does not belong to the class, as she has exhausted the $5,000 policy limit for the treatment of the injuries she suffered in the same car crash as her husband; -- the class included all who were paid or tendered an amount less than the policy limits; -- that the Lakin firm did not sent notice to class members; -- that the complaint of Nora Hernandez was not timely; -- plaintiff claimed breach of contract, but the complaint asserted claims of statutory fraud, and as such need to have to file two separate motions, which is not permissible after the 2005 decision in "Avery v. State Farm;" and that -- the complaint is cumbersome, confusing, unwieldy and inconsistent. Judge Stack set a hearing Feb. 28. He has not yet ruled on Mrs. Hernandez's adequacy as class representative. Representing the plaintiff is Mr. Millar, associate at The Lakin Law Firm, P.C., 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229, Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.), Phone: 618-254-1127, Telecopier: 618-254-0193. Representing the defendant are Anthony Martin and Timothy Sansone at Sandberg, Phoenix & von Gontard, 23 South 1st Street, Belleville, Illinois 62220 (St. Clair Co.), Phone: 618-397-2721; 800-225-5529, Web site: http://www.spvg.com. ARIZONA: Judge Collins Finishes English-Learning Program Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins finished on Jan. 25 a hearing to determine whether the state has already improved its program for students learning the English language, according to KVOA.com. According to the report, Judge Collins did not hear closing arguments. Instead, he ordered attorneys to file legal briefs on March 12. A ruling is expected on that month. The hearing is a review of his previous rulings on the issue after the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth vacated his orders that found the state in contempt for missing a deadline to improve the program. Case Background The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The order was part of a ruling in the class action, which was originally filed in 1992 on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents. The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education. The state was fined $500,000 on Jan. 25 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March. In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still doesn't adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and doesn't explain the basis for funding that it does provide. The Ninth Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July 25, 2006. In August, it vacated orders by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the general fund. The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes in education funding and related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling. The August ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law regarding the program. The suit is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the plaintiffs is Timothy Michael Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153, Phoenix, AZ 85004, Phone: 602-258-8850, Fax: 602-258-8757, E-mail: thogan@aclpi.org. Representing the defendants are Lynne Christensen Adams and Jose A. Cardenas of Lewis & Roca, LLP, 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004-4429, Phone: 602-262-5372 and 602-262-5790, Fax: 602- 734-4015 and 602-734-3852, E-mail: ladams@lrlaw.com and jcardenas@lrlaw.com. ASURION CORP: Court Okays Cell Phone Insurance Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has given preliminary approval to a proposed settlement by certain defendants in the class action, "Prohias, et al v. Signal & Signal Hold, et al.," which accuses cell phone equipment insurers of promoting cell phone insurance in a "deceptive and outrageous" manner, The MSNBC.com reports. Case Background According to the suit, which was filed on behalf of a Dade County, Florida resident, the insurance usually costs $4 or $5 per month and covers a lost, damaged or stolen phone with a deductible of $35 to $100, (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 7, 2005). The suit names three major cell phone insurance companies, namely: Signal Holdings of Wayne, Pa., and the settling defendants, Asurion Corp. of Nashville, Tenn., and Lock\line LLC of Kansas City, Mo. Signal Holdings did not settle and is still in the lawsuit. No trial date has been set for the case, which will now continue against Signal Holdings alone. Generally, the suit alleges that a consumer could easily pay up to $120 over two years for insurance and have purchased only $20 in actual coverage when the $100 deductible is subtracted. In many cases, according to the suit, the insurance actually costs more than the purchase price of a new phone. In addition, the suit also alleges that replacement telephones are often cheap, used, or refurbished models which further decrease the value of the insurance and monthly premiums are misleading since they don't really insure the phone in the event of a loss. Plaintiffs claim unfair trade practices and other violations against the company for falsely representing that the purchase of wireless phone protection provides a benefit (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2006). They also accused insurers of imposing unlawful and unfair conditions for filing a claim, including requiring a police report even if a phone is lost instead of stolen. Damages sought include refunds for monthly premiums and reimbursement of any deductibles paid that exceed the actual cost of replacement phones, plus interest, costs and attorney fees. Asurion & Lock\line Settlement The settlement between the plaintiffs, Asurion, and Lock\line, will affect as many as 13 million cell phone customers. Under its terms, all Asurion brochures, advertisements and marketing materials will state that claims may be fulfilled with "new and/or refurbished equipment" and that each replacement is subject to a non-refundable deductible per loss. Asurion has also agreed that if the value of the replacement phone is less than the deductible, customers will be told so they can decide whether to pay the deductible and proceed with the claim. The nationwide class consists of all former and current Asurion or Lock\line customers who made premium payments, filed a claim, and received a refurbished phone between Jan. 20, 2004 and Jan. 26, 2007. They will get a phone card worth at least $5. This will cost Asurion at least $1.5 million and potentially as much as $60 million. The 15,000 or so customers who submitted a claim during this time period and got a refurbished phone - generally worth $3 to $6 less than the deductible - will get a voucher for a new phone worth $75 to $100. No other purchase is required to use this voucher, which is fully transferable. Letters will soon go out to all 13 million members of the class, giving them details of the settlement and explaining their rights to remain in the class or opt out. The court has scheduled a final hearing in May to approve the settlement. The suit is "Prohias, et al v. Signal & Signal Hold, et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Patricia A. Seitz with referral toi Judge Chris M. McAliley. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Lance August Harke of Harke & Clasby, 155 S Miami Avenue, Suite 600, Miami, FL 33130, Phone: 305-536- 8222, Fax: 536-8229, E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com; and (2) Frank J. Janecek, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 655 W Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 231-7423. Representing the defendants are: (i) Brett Alan Barfield of Holland & Knight, 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-789- 7661, Fax: 789-7799, E-mail: brett.barfield@hklaw.com. (ii) Hilarie Bass of Greenberg Traurig, 1221 Brickell Avenue, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-579-0745, Fax: 579- 0717, E-mail: bassh@gtlaw.com. BARAC CO: Settles D.C. Tenants' Suit Over Court-Cost Surcharge -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the District of Columbia gave preliminary approval to a proposed settlement in a class action against Barac Co. for imposing a surcharge of $33 or more for the costs of going to court to begin eviction procedures for tardy tenants, The Washington Post reports. Linda Campbell with help from the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia filed the suit in 2004. She alleges that tardy tenants did not realize that the charges being imposed by the property manager weren't late fees, which under most of the leases would have been $10. According to a suit, in many instances since 2001, Barac, never followed through in court, dropping the complaint once the tenant paid up, but keeping the court-cost fees the tenants had paid to the company. The property manager contends that the practice is legal and justified. Tenants and their advocates say otherwise. Lawyers presented the proposed settlement to Judge Melvin R. Wright last week. Under the proposal, Barac would no longer impose court-cost fees unless a judgment has been entered against a tenant, and would pay more than a half-million dollars to tenants and former tenants who incurred such charges over the past several years. Though it agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement, Barac did not concede any wrongdoing. Instead, one of the company's attorneys pointed out it opted to settle to avoid litigating a case that could span years. Jonathan Smith, Legal Aid's executive director, said that between 2,500 and 3,000 tenants are covered by the proposed agreement, but roughly half of those have moved out of Barac buildings and would be harder to track down. Judge Wright gave preliminary approval to the settlement terms and will make a final decision after a March 16 hearing in the case. With the agreement, current tenants covered by the settlement would receive rent credits equal to almost two times what they paid, and former tenants would receive the same compensation by check. In some cases, tenants would be likely to receive as much as $1,500 -- equivalent to roughly three months rent for many of them, according to Mr. Smith. For more details, contact Jonathan M. Smith of the Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia, Phone: (202) 628-1161, Fax: (202) 727-2132, E-mail: jsmith@legalaiddc.org. CALIFORNIA: Immigrants in "Kiniti" Suit Singled Out, ACLU Fears --------------------------------------------------------------- The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) fears that the immigrant-plaintiffs in the class action, "Kiniti v. Wagner, et al.," were singled out for their involvement in the case, which alleges severe overcrowding at a privately operated federal immigration detention center, The San Diego Union-Tribune. According to a lawyer for the ACLU in San Diego, about 230 detainees housed at the San Diego Correctional Facility (SCDF) were moved over the weekend to new spots in downtown San Diego and Arizona. David Blair-Loy, the legal director for the ACLU in San Diego, pointed out that among those moved was the lead plaintiff in the case, detainee Isaac Kigondu Kiniti, who was transferred to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Florence, Ariz. Mr. Blair-Loy states that it is very troubling, since it creates the appearance of retaliation against their clients and the detainees. However, Lauren Mack, an ICE spokeswoman, clarified that the transfers were not punitive. She said, "No one was singled out." Ms. Mack maintains that the moving of the detainees was not in response to the lawsuit. She pointed out that it is not uncommon for the agency to move detainees to other facilities when there is a need for bed space. Some detainees with upcoming court dates were sent to a facility in downtown San Diego, according to Ms. Mack. Others who are longer-term detainees whose cases will probably not be resolved by courts soon were sent out of state. Mr. Blair-Loy though was not convinced saying that the facility had been "triple-celling" inmates since at least June, and there was no mass transfer of detainees in that time. Moving Mr. Kinite, according to him, was suspicious, because to the ACLU it appeared as if ICE and other defendants were trying to interfere with access to ACLU clients, and the pursuit of the litigation. Moving the detainees, and easing the overcrowding will not derail the lawsuit, since the proposed class action seeks improvements for all current and future detainees at the facility. Additionally, Mr. Blair-Loy states that the detainees were moved with virtually no notice. He explains that they were awakened at 2 a.m. Saturday and placed in holding cells until 10 that night. Case Background Previously, ACLU sought class-action status for the lawsuit against the detention center -- located near the U.S.-Mexico border -- on behalf detainees who claim they are being held in overcrowded and inhumane conditions (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2006). In legal papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the ACLU is seeking to amend a complaint filed Mr. Kiniti, who has been representing himself in a case he filed in May 2005 that challenges overcrowded conditions at SCDF. Mr. Kiniti was taken into ICE custody in May 2004 and sent to the facility in November 2004. Since then he has been awaiting proceedings to determine whether he will have to return to Kenya, where he fears he will be subjected to persecution and torture. Living conditions have worsened since Mr. Kiniti's case was filed in May 9, 2005, and the ACLU hopes its involvement will help improve conditions at SDCF so that they meet constitutional standards. The original suit generally contends that people being held for immigration violations, which are violations of civil and not criminal laws, are constitutionally entitled to better conditions than criminal defendants. In its proposed class-action complaint, which aims to broaden the case, "Kiniti v. Wagner," the ACLU charges that the 1,232- bed SDCF is "chronically and dangerously overcrowded," which leads to an increase in violence among inmates, poor sanitation and hygiene, diminished access to medical attention, and "a loss of personal dignity." The complaint names Julie Myers, the assistant secretary of ICE, John Torres, the director of detention operations for ICE, and ICE officials in San Diego with supervisory responsibility for the facility operated by the private Corrections Corporation of America, a private company that operates prisons for governments around the country. The company, based in Nashville, Tenn., is also named in the complaint. Inmates at the facility include illegal immigrants caught at the border, asylum seekers, or people who are challenging deportation orders. They can be held for periods ranging from months to years. The complaint alleges that 675 detainees are subject to "triple- celling," in which three people share cells that measure 6 feet by 12 feet. Plaintiffs claim they had to sleep on plastic mats on the floor and were close enough to the cell toilets that they were "sprayed" by cellmates using the toilet or sink. The ACLU's National Prison Project, and Immigrants' Rights Project, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the law firm of Cooley Godward Kronish LLP filed the proposed class- action complaint. In seeking class-action status, the case would in effect be one of the first in the country that demands better treatment for a large group of immigration violators based on their status as civil detainees. The proposed second amended complaint is available at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1912 The suit is "Kiniti v. Wagner, et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-01013- DMS-PCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Dana M. Sabraw with referral to Judge Peter C. Lewis. Representing the plaintiffs is John David Blair-Loy of ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, P.O. Box 87131, San Diego, CA 92138, Phone: (619) 232-2121, Fax: (619) 232-0036, E-mail: dblairloy@aclusandiego.org. Representing the defendants is David B. Monks of Klinedinst, PC, 501 West Broadway, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92101-3544, Phone: (619) 239-8131, Fax: (619) 238-8707 E-mail: dmonks@klinedinstlaw.com. CANADA: Ragweed Allergy Sufferers Lose CAD$2B Litigation v. MUC --------------------------------------------------------------- Ragweed allergy sufferers lost a CAD$2 billion class action filed against the city of Montreal and 22 other island municipalities in the former Montreal Urban Community (MUC) over their alleged failure to eradicate the plant, especially on municipal land, The Montreal Gazette reports. The plant releases pollen in late summer that triggers fits of sneezing, nasal congestion, watery eyes and allergic asthma in some people. In ruling against the allergic plaintiffs, Superior Court Justice William Frailberg pointed out that they failed to prove the offending pollen came from properties belonging to the municipalities. The lawsuit, launched more than a decade ago, claimed the municipalities did not do enough to eradicate ragweed within their borders. Francoise Nadon launched the suit in 1992. Opposing attorneys started arguments in the suit in Quebec Superior Court in September 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 9, 2005). The suit alleges that city authorities did not do enough to eradicate ragweed, especially on municipal land. It is seeking up to CAD$2,000 for each of an estimated 200,000 allergy sufferers for every summer they lived on the island from 1991 to 1995. Ragweed releases pollen in late summer that triggers fits of sneezing, nasal congestion, watery eyes and allergic asthma in some people (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2006). CARDINAL GLENNON: Ill. Attorney Seeks to Void Hospital's Lien ------------------------------------------------------------- Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr is asking the Madison County Circuit Court in Illinois to declare a lien of Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital null and void so he could proceed with a class action claim against the hospital, The Madison County Record reports. In a Dec. 18, 2006 motion, Mr. Darr wrote, "It is well settled that a care provider has no right of recovery against the proceeds of a minor's personal injury claim." In November Judge Daniel Stack, told Mr. Darr that he would not consider the class claim until he adjudicated the lien. When attorneys on both sides said they had nothing on file about the lien, Judge Stack said somebody should do something about it. Mr. Darr filed a purported class action against Cardinal Glennon in 2004 on behalf of Jacqueline Johnson individually and as the mother of Anna and Michelle Johnson. Plaintiffs claim that the hospital imposed higher charges on patients without insurance. Mrs. Johnson, an Illinois resident, met an auto accident in 2003 that injured her children. Mr. Darr negotiated a personal injury payout for the accident and obtained a settlement. But, she did not pay the hospital, which in turn asserted a lien against her settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 19, 2006). Judge Stack already dismissed the class action, but allowed Mr. Darr to amend it. Mr. Darr filed an amended complaint removing all references to a lien in July and proposed to certify Mrs. Johnson as representative of all Cardinal Glennon patients who lacked insurance or other third party benefits and received unreasonable bills. It stated that Cardinal Glennon charged $82,542.30 for their treatment. Mr. Darr asked Judge Stack to impose a trust upon all monies Cardinal Glennon received as a result of unlawful and unjust conduct. At a Nov. 29 hearing he stayed the class action pending adjudication of a lien on the settlement of an auto accident involving the plaintiff in the class action. For more details, contact Lanny H. Darr II of Schrempf, Blaine, Kelly & Darr, L.T.D., Suite 415, 307 Henry Street, Alton, IL 62002-6326, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-2318, Web site: http://sbkdlaw.com/. CATERPILLAR INC: Mich. Court Okays Class in Diesel Engine Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan certified a national class action brought by a Detroit businessman against Illinois-based Caterpillar, Inc. over diesel engines the company makes for large yachts, The Detroit News reports. The suit, which was filed by James Jaikins on Sept. 1, 2004, could potentially affect more than 7,000 Caterpillar marine engines produced since 1996. Damages could exceed $100 million, according to Nathan Resnick, a Bloomfield Hills attorney representing Mr. Jaikins in the case. He pointed out that since the boat industry and boat safety is not regulated in the same way automotive safety is, "this is a major consumer protection case." Generally, the suit alleges certain Caterpillar engines contain defective aftercoolers -- components that cool air inside the engine. It alleges that the defect allows water to enter the engines and mix with fumes, resulting in severe corrosion and engine failure, sometimes involving the engine exploding. The company though denies the allegations and through in a prepared statement through its spokeswoman Anne Leanos, said, "We have requested an appeal of the certification decision. We will continue to defend the case vigorously." The main focus of the suit is the Caterpillar 3196, which the company has described as the ideal engine for yachts 40 to 60 feet long. The suit is "Jaikins v. Caterpillar, Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-73404-AJT-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Arthur J. Tarnow with referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Andrew R. Dranchak of The Miller Law Firm (Rochester), 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300, Rochester, MI 48307, Phone: 248-841-2200, Fax: 248-652-2852, E-mail: ssr@millerlawpc.com; and (2) H. Nathan Resnick of Resnick & Moss (Bloomfield Hills), 40900 Woodward Avenue, Suite 111, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304-5116, Phone: 248-642-5400, E-mail: dallen@resnicklaw.net. Representing the defendants are: (i) James N. Martin of Martin, Bacon, 44 First Street, P.O. Box 2301, Mount Clemens, MI 48046, Phone: 586-979-6500, E-mail: jnm@martinbacon.com; and (ii) Christopher B. Parkerson of Campbell, Campbell, (Boston), One Constitution Plaza, Suite 300, Boston, MA 02129, Phone: 617-241-3075, E-mail: cparkerson@campbell-trial-lawyers.com. CHEMTURA CORP: Settles Direct Purchasers' EPDM Suit for $21M ------------------------------------------------------------ Chemtura Corp. entered into an agreement with class counsel in the federal Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) case to pay $21 million to resolve the class claims. On Jan. 11, 2005, the company and plaintiff class representatives entered into a Settlement Agreement (the Global Settlement Agreement) that was intended to resolve, with respect to the company, the three consolidated direct purchaser class actions. The suits were filed against the company, its subsidiary Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc., now known as Chemtura USA Corp., and other companies, by plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and classes consisting of all persons or entities who purchased EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals, respectively, in the U.S. directly from one or more of the defendants or any predecessor, parent, subsidiary or affiliates thereof, at any time during various periods, with the earliest commencing on Jan. 1, 1995. The complaints in the consolidated actions principally alleged that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices for EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals, as applicable, sold in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that this caused injury to the plaintiffs who paid artificially inflated prices for such products as a result of such alleged anticompetitive activities. The Global Settlement Agreement provided that the company would pay a total of $97.0 million, consisting of $62.0 million with respect to rubber chemicals, $30.0 million with respect to EPDM and $5.0 million with respect to nitrile rubber, in exchange for the final dismissal with prejudice of the foregoing three lawsuits as to the company and a complete release of all claims against the company set forth in the lawsuits. In accordance with its rights under the Global Settlement Agreement, the Company terminated those parts of the settlement covering rubber chemicals and EPDM following the exercise of opt out rights by certain potential members of the applicable classes. As a result of the company's partial termination of the Global Settlement Agreement, the consolidated direct purchaser class actions relating to rubber chemicals and EPDM continue to proceed in their respective federal district courts. The company negotiated settlements directly with a number of the larger potential claimants in those actions. In 2006, Chemtura reached a partial settlement for three consolidated direct purchaser class actions that were filed in the U.S. District Courts in the District of Connecticut, Western District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of California, over the sale of EPDM, nitrile rubber and rubber chemicals (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2006). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania approved the nitrile rubber portion of the Global Settlement Agreement. On Jan. 22, 2007, resolved the federal class action litigation involving EPDM for $21 million settlement, which is subject to court approval. "We are continuing to put legacy issues behind us, while continuing to focus on building a portfolio of high-performance businesses for sustainable growth and improved earnings," said Robert Wood, chairman and chief executive officer. The $21 million settlement was paid in the first quarter and will be reflected in the fourth quarter 2006 financials. COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: Dissenting Investors Plan to File Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A group of Competitive Technologies Inc. shareholders is planning to file a class action to recover funds for shareholders. It also said it will file a separate lawsuit against management for insider trading and "other violations of law," according to Associated Press. The group claims it has voted former president and chief executive, John B. Nano, to replace the current management. They had tried to gain entry to the company's headquarters, according to the report. But the company said there was no quorum as only 39.9 percent of outstanding shares were represented during the election at a shareholders meeting. The shareholder meeting was adjourned until Feb. 2. Competitive Technologies, Inc. on the Net: http://www.competitivetech.net. CONNECTICUT: Cities to Get $14.8M Refund from CRRA-Enron Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The Connecticut Resources Recovery Authority (CRRA) board agreed to allocate $14.8 million of a $23.8 million fund as payment to 70 municipalities suing to recover alleged overcharges resulting from a failed deal with Enron, The New Haven Register reports. The $21 million part of the money is from a settlement in December with Hawkins, Delafield & Wood LLP. Other firms that represented Enron or Enron-related properties have paid $2.8 million. Under the plan, Hartford would collect about $1.9 million and approximately $1.2 million would be returned to Waterbury, according to courant.com. Payments authorized to area towns include Clinton, $188,481; Guilford, $180,575; Madison, $150,649; North Branford, $141,511; Old Saybrook, $316,101; and Westbrook, $99,463, according to The New Haven Register. According to David Golub, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the municipalities have lost a total of $63 million. Case Background The suit was filed in Waterbury Superior Court and was originally brought by the cities of New Hartford and Barkhamsted. Trial for the case started on Nov. 13, 2006. CRRA entered into an agreement to loan Enron $220 million in exchange for some $28.5 million a year payment from Enron between 2001 to 2012 for operating a Hartford trash-to-energy plant, the power produced from which will be sold by Enron. But Enron filed for bankruptcy in 2001. The authority only recovered $111 million after the collapse. In a ruling on March 22, Judge Dennis G. Eveleigh allowed the case to proceed. The court finds that several of the statements made by CRRA have been misleading. The judge cited letters written in 2004 and 2005 by CRRA President Thomas Kirk to the 70 municipalities in central Connecticut (Class Action Reporter, March 27, 2006). The judge said that CRRA misled the public by: -- saying the towns would have to shoulder costs of the lawsuit through increased disposal fees; -- it has substantial legal fees in defending itself in the lawsuit, without disclosing that insurance carriers had paid for most of those costs; and -- not telling them that costs incurred in making the failed $220 million loan to Enron potentially could be recouped through various indemnification agreements made with law firms advising the authority on the transaction. Overhauled by the state legislature in 2002, after Enron collapsed, CRRA argues that state law protects it from paying financial damages to its municipal members. Nearly all towns in Greater Waterbury and Northwestern Connecticut are parties to the suit, which is now in mediation. For more details, contact David S. Golub of Silver Golub & Teitell, LLP, 184 Atlantic Street, P.O. Box 389, Stamford, Connecticut 06904, (Fairfield Co.), Phone: 203-325-4491, Fax: 203-325-3769. EGAIN COMMS: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving IPO Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against eGain Communications Corp. Beginning on Oct. 25, 2001, a number of securities class action complaints were filed against the company, and certain of the company's former officers and directors and underwriters connected with the company's initial public offering of common stock in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits were consolidated into "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The complaints alleged generally that the prospectus under which such securities were sold contained false and misleading statements with respect to discounts and excess commissions received by the underwriters. It also claims allegations of "laddering" whereby underwriters required their customers to purchase additional shares in the aftermarket in exchange for an allocation of IPO shares. The complaints sought an unspecified amount in damages on behalf of persons who purchased the common stock between Sept. 23, 1999 and Dec. 6, 2000. Similar complaints were filed against 55 underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other individuals. The over 1,000 complaints were consolidated into a single action. The company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve the cases as to the company's liability and that of the company's officers and directors. The settlement involved no monetary payment or other consideration by the company or its officers and directors and no admission of liability. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public hearing on its fairness for April 24, 2006. A January 2006 hearing was postponed to April 2006 because of difficulties in mailing the required notice to class members. On Oct. 27, 2005, the court issued an order making some minor changes to the form of notice to be sent to class members. On Jan. 17, 2006, the court issued an order modifying the preliminary settlement approval order to extend the time within, which notice must be given to the class, at which time had expired on Jan. 15, 2006. The underwriter defendants filed further objections to the settlement on March 20, 2006 and asked that the April 24, 2006 final settlement approval hearing be postponed until after the Second Circuit rules on the underwriters' appeal from the court's class certification order (which appeal is briefed and awaiting oral argument). On March 29, 2006, the court denied the request, stating that it would address the underwriters' points at the April 24, 2006 hearing. On April 24, 2006, the court held a public hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement. The court took the matter under submission. The company did not report any development to the case in its Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In Re Egain Communications Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case no. 01 Civ. 9414 (Sas)," related " In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com; (5) 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; and (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com. For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. ENRON CORP: Tex. Court Dismisses Vinson & Elkins from "Newby" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Melinda Harmon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted a motion by the lead plaintiff in the case, "Mark Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp.," to dismiss Vinson & Elkins from the case, The Houston Business Journal reports. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, which represents the Regents of the University of California, the lead plaintiffs in the securities litigation against Enron Corp., filed a motion to dismiss Vinson & Elkins from the suit (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 13, 2006). Vinson & Elkins is accused of helping Enron defraud investors by structuring "phony" transactions that would inflate revenue and hide debt at the energy company. The report cited Trey Davis, a spokesman for the lead plaintiffs, saying that the motion was filed considering that it was unlikely the law firm would be able to pay an amount that would materially increase the recovery, and they wanted to streamline the case to eliminate complicating legal issues. On Dec. 2, 2001, Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. On July 5, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon in Houston granted class- action status to a suit by shareholders. The University of California Board of Regents, lead plaintiff in a securities suit, has reached settlements with Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, the Outside Directors, Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase and CIBC totaling over $7 billion for investors. Non-settling Defendants The non-settling defendants include Merrill Lynch & Co., Barclays PLC, Toronto-Dominion Bank, Royal Bank of Canada, Deutsche Bank AG and the Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. The suit against Enron is "In Re: Enron Corp Securities, et al. (4:02-md-01446)" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon. Representing the defendants is J. Mark Brewer of Brewer and Pritchard, Three Riverway, Ste. 1800, Houston, TX 77056, Phone: 713-209-2950, Fax: 713-659-5302; E-mail: brewer@bplaw.com. Contact for William S. Lerach of Lerach Coughlin: 655 West Broadway, Ste 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058. Representing Vinson & Elkins is John Villa, a partner in Williams & Connolly -- http://www.wc.com/-- in Washington, D.C. FLORIDA: Seminole County Settles 2004 Strip Search Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory Presnell of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida approved a settlement of a strip search lawsuit filed against the Seminole County, according to The Orlando Sentinel. The suit was filed in 2004 by eight people who were jailed and strip-searched after they were mistakenly sent to the wrong Seminole County courtroom, and thus failed to show up at the designated courtroom. Named defendants in the suit are the Seminole County and the Sheriff's Office. Under the settlement, the eight named plaintiffs will receive $40,000 each. Another $54,000 will be divided among as many as 30 others who were similarly strip-searched. The settlement totals $620,000 including attorney's fees. The class includes those people who were sent to jail without first seeing a judge, and then were strip-searched. The deadline to be certified as part of the class is May 4. A final hearing is set for May 24, according to the report. The suit is "Parilla et al. v. Eslinger et al., Case No. 6:05- cv-00850-GAP-KRS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Gregory A. Presnell with referral to Judge Karla R. Spaulding. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Randall Challen Berg, Jr., Cullin Avram O'Brien and Peter Michael Siegel of Florida Justice Institute, Inc., 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2870, Miami, FL 33131-2309, Phone: 305/358-2081, Fax: 305/358-0910, E- mail: rcberg@bellsouth.net, cullinobrien@bellsouth.net, and pmsiegel@bellsouth.net; and (2) J. Larry Hanks of Larry Hanks, P.A., 6500 S. Highway 17-92, Fern Park, FL 32819, Phone: 407/423-1231, Fax: 407/423-3066, E-mail: larrylaw@bellsouth.net. Representing the defendants are: (1) D. Andrew DeBevoise and Thomas W. Poulton of DeBevoise & Poulton, P.A., Lakeview Office Park, Suite 1010, 1035 S. Semoran Blvd., Winter Park, FL 32792, Phone: 407/673-5000 ext:231, Fax: 407/673-5059, E-mail: debevoise@debevoisepoulton.com, and poulton@debevoisepoulton.com; and (2) Henry W. Jewett, II David T. White, III of Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., 201 E. Pine St., 15th Floor, P.O. Box 4940, Orlando, FL 32802- 4940, Phone: 407/839-0120, Fax: 407-841-9726, E-mail: skip.jewett@rissman.com, and trey.white@rissman.com. GENERAL ELECTRIC: Ill. Court Okays Confidential Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Barbara Crowder of Madison County Circuit Court approved on Jan. 11, a settlement of a purported class action filed against General Electric Capital Assurance Company, renamed Genworth Life, according to The Madison County Record. Paul Marks of the Lakin Law Firm settled the lawsuit after failing to organize enough numbers of plaintiffs for a class, according to the report. The suit was filed in 2005 on behalf of Wilma Kern and Judith Chapman. They claimed breach of contract, consumer fraud and unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs moved for class certification Feb. 16, 2005. Mrs. Kern has since substituted in the case by her son, Mark. Mr. Marks signed a settlement approval motion on Jan. 8, in which they said that the defendant did not respond to the class certification motion. They stated that after Genworth moved to dismiss, they agreed that the plaintiffs would not respond to that motion, according to the report. Both sides agreed to keep the settlement confidential. H.A. BERKHEIMER: Settles Pa. Taxpayer's Suit Over Illegal Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- H.A. Berkheimer, Inc. recently agreed to pay up to $2 million to settle a purported class action over alleged illegal fees charged to delinquent taxpayers, The Morning Call reports. An estimated 115,000 taxpayers stand to receive a share of the proposed settlement awaiting approval by a Bucks County, Pennsylvania court. Under the proposed settlement, Eligible taxpayers could collect up to $48.50 for any year they had to pay fees for delinquent earned income tax bills between 1995 and 2001. They have until April 13 to file a refund claim for bills paid to H.A. Berkheimer, but also may contest the proposal. Previously, Judge Robert Mellon of Bucks County rejected an earlier proposed settlement of a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer Inc., over the collection of earned income taxes for 1,100 school districts and municipalities in Pennsylvania (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2006). In a May 4, 2006, hearing transcript, Judge Mellon found that the taxpayers would get less than a quarter of that amount and that a big part would go to the attorneys who sued H.A. Berkheimer as well as H.A. Berkheimer itself. On May 22, 2006, Judge Mellon decertified the class and then recused himself. Case Background In 2002, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer after being slapped with two bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to be unfair (Class Action Reporter, June 21, 2005). A Bucks County judge certified the suit as a class action in 2005 after ruling the company's fees for "collection costs" were illegal and served no purpose other than to add to the company's profits. After H.A. Berkheimer admitted that its costs are improper, Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs to H.A. Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the class. Under the settlement, inked by both sides in October and advertised in area newspapers, H.A. Berkheimer admits no wrongdoing. As part of the settlement, the Cheesemans agree to drop their complaint. Judge Theodore Fritsch of Bucks County Court is scheduled to rule on the proposed settlement May 22. The settlement calls for H.A. Berkheimer to pay up to $250,000 to cover administrative costs related to the settlement, according to court records. The company also would have to put $1.75 million into an interest-bearing bank account that would be used to repay the taxpayers. Those eligible for some of that cash, according to court papers, are: -- Taxpayers who could receive up to $48.50, without interest, for any given tax year that they paid the collection costs. If they can prove a claim in excess of that amount, they may be able to recoup more. -- The Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which filed the suit, could seek up to 26.25 percent of the settlement amount, or $525,000, and legal costs up to $15,000. -- The Cheesemans, as class representatives, who could receive up to $7,500. If any money is left unclaimed, 75 percent would be returned to H.A. Berkheimer and 25 percent would go to a charity determined by Judge Fritsch and the attorneys in the case. If the total allowable claims exceed $2 million, the taxpayers would receive a prorated share. The settlement does not preclude H.A. Berkheimer from pursuing back taxes still owed. For more details, contact Bernard M. Gross, Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building, Juniper and Market Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600, Fax: (215) 561- 3000. HOME DECORATORS: Recalls Storage Trunks for Entrapment Hazards -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Decorators Collection, of St. Louis, Missouri, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 500 units of Home Decorators Collection Leather Suitcase Trunks. The company said the trunk has an exterior clasp that can lock unexpectedly when the trunk lid closes. If a child climbs inside the trunk, he/she may not be able to open the trunk from the inside. This poses an entrapment and suffocation hazard to children. No injuries have been reported. The recalled trunks are leather bound and have a handle on each side, and a clasp on the front. The trunks are burgundy or brown and are sold in three sizes: small, medium and large. The following catalog numbers were used to identify the product: Product Name Sizes Catalog Number Large 24"H x 36"W x 20"D 3755910150 Medium 20"H x 30"W x 16"D 3755905150 Small 16"H x 23.5"W x 12"D 3755900150 These recalled storage trunks were manufactured in China and are being sold at Home Decorators Collection retail stores nationwide, catalogs, and online at www.homedecorators.com from January 2006 through November 2006 for between $60 and $190. Picture of recalled storage trunks: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07088.jpg Customers are advised to stop using the trunk immediately and keep it out of the reach of children. Consumers should contact the firm for information on receiving a replacement product or a full refund. For additional information, contact Home Decorators Collection at 800 464-0164 between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. CT Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday. INDIANA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Inadequate School Funding --------------------------------------------------------------- The Marion Superior Court dismisses a purported class action, accusing the state of Indiana of violating its constitution by failing to provide enough money for all children to have a fair chance to learn, according to a report by The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. In her dismissal order, Judge Cale Bradford said that the case was improperly filed against the governor and the superintendent of public instruction, who are not responsible for the state formula that determines school aid. The formula is determined by the General Assembly. Judge Bradford though also dismissed the portion of the lawsuit that named the Indiana State Board of Education, which also carries out the formula. The judge write in her opinion that a closer examination of plaintiffs' claim seems to be, in reality, dissatisfaction with how the formula is weighed and implemented by the state Board of Education, not the formula itself. The Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA) initiated the lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of nine children and their families from eight school districts in April 2006. The suit claims that the state is not adequately funding schools so they can meet academic standards and performance mandates placed on them. The families involved were willing to be original plaintiffs in the case (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2006). In addition, it also claims that the constitution "imposes a duty on the state to provide an education that prepares all of Indiana's children -- rich or poor, white, black or Hispanic, with or without special needs and with or without English proficiency -- to function in a complex and rapidly changing society" and compete successfully for productive employment and advancement through higher education. The suit seeks to represent tens of thousands of students in public schools, including those living in poverty, minority students, those with disabilities and those just beginning to learn English. Mr. Weisman previously told The Associated Press that the lawsuit was not aimed at funding disparities between districts, but enforcement of the constitution on behalf of all public school children. For more details, contact Michael D. Weisman of Weisman & McIntyre, A Professional Corporation, 99 Summer Street, 20th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02110, (Suffolk Co.), Phone: 617- 720-2727, Fax: 617-720-0330, Web site: http://www.wmtrial.com. MICHIGAN: Court Allows Suit Over Trash Collection Fee to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Wayne County Circuit Court granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed against the City of Detroit and its mayor for the imposition last year of a $300 annual garbage collection fee, Freep.com reports. Judge John O'Hair certified the class action to include any person or entity in the city that suffered the imposition of the fee. The suit was filed about 800 homeowners on Oct. 10, 2006. It alleges that the fee amounts to a hidden tax that should have been voted on by residents (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006). The City Council and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick approved the trash collection fee in July. It was intended to replace a 3-mill tax levy and as an alternative to laying-off 600 city workers. According to the suit, which was filed by Detroit resident Valerie Weems, the fee provides a budgetary increase to the city, flouting state law requiring that a fee only cost as much as the service provided. In their suit, the residents seek the abolishment of the fee and the $300 payment refunded. In addition, they also want the city barred from further collecting the fee. Plaintiffs allege that the 3-mill tax levy for trash collection is still on the books, a claim the city denies. City officials are insisting that it did a lot of research on state law and various other considerations made in the suit before proceeding with the plan. For more details, contact: (1) [Plaintiff] Macuga & Liddle, P.C, 975 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 48207-3101 Phone: 313-392- 0015, Fax: 313-392-0025, E-mail: info@mlclassaction.com, Web site: http://www.mlclassaction.com;and (2) [Defendant] John Johnson Esq., 645 Griswold, Suite 1312, Detroit, MI 48226, Phone: (313) 962-2501. MURPHY OIL: La. Court Okays $330M Settlement in Oil Spill Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana approved a $330 million settlement between the Murphy Oil Corp. and about 6,000 St. Bernard Parish homeowners for damages caused by an oil spill during Hurricane Katrina, The AP WorldStream reports. In a three-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon called the $330 million settlement "fair, reasonable and adequate." He also approved more than $36 million in attorney fees and costs to be paid by Murphy. The settlement spells out four levels of compensation from a flat $15,000 for damages to homes farthest from the tank to buyouts of the closest houses: $40 per square foot (0.09 square meters) of living space, plus $19.25 per square foot in damages, plus $3,375 per occupant. Settlement Terms The settlement affects residents who live in the area of the Murphy Oil spill in Saint Bernard Parish. Objections to the settlement must be made to the court by Dec. 15, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006). The suit, "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.," stems from the spill of about 1 million gallons of oil from a storage tank that was moved off its base by massive flooding during Hurricane Katrina. In October 2006, Judge Fallon gave preliminary approval to the proposed $330 million settlement (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 12, 2006). Under the settlement, all residential and commercial properties in the class area will receive a cash payment pursuant to a fair and equitable allocation subject to court approval following recommendations by a court-appointed Special Master. The entire class area will have the benefit of a comprehensive remediation program as approved by the court and regulatory bodies and to be overseen by regulatory authorities. About $80 million would go to settle roughly 2,700 household and business claims, according to Sidney Torres, the court-appointed liaison for the committee that would help disburse the settlement. Another $160 million would go toward property buyouts and paying property owners in the area, while the remaining $90 million would be for cleanup, Mr. Torres said. Additionally, the company has agreed to make bona fide offers to purchase, at fair market value, all residential and business properties located on the first four streets west of the refinery and north of St. Bernard Highway up to the Twenty Arpent Canal. The settlement spells out four levels of compensation, depending on how bad the pollution was. Compensation ranges from $15,000 in damages to homes farthest from the spill's epicenter to buyouts of homes at a rate of $40 a square foot of living space, plus $19 a square foot in damages. The settlement puts to rest the vast majority of lawsuits filed after a huge oil-storage tank at Murphy's flooded refinery near New Orleans floated off its foundation and broke in 2005, unleashing about 25,000 barrels of oil in the surrounding neighborhoods. Case Background The class action was filed on Sept. 9, 2005 on behalf of residents of St. Bernard Parish who were claiming compensation for damages caused by a release of crude oil at the company's wholly-owned subsidiary, a refinery of Murphy Oil USA in Meraux, Louisiana. Crude oil leaked from the plant's storage tank that was damaged by Hurricane Katrina (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 17, 2006). Property owner Patrick Joseph Turner on behalf of at approximately 500 property owners in St. Bernard Parish filed the suit. Additional class actions have been consolidated with the first suit into a single action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The court certified the class on Jan. 30, 2006. The suit is "Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv- 04206-EEF-JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Eldon E. Fallon with referral to Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Mickey P. Landry of Landry & Swarr, LLC, 1010 Common St., Suite 2050, New Orleans, LA 70112, Phone: 504-299- 1214, E-mail: mlandry@landryswarr.com; (2) N. Madro Bandaries of Amato & Creely, 901 Derbigny St., P.O. Box 441, Gretna, LA 70054, Phone: (504) 367-8181, E-mail: madro@att.net; and (3) Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. of Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., 106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H. Reserve, LA 70084, Phone: 985-536-1186, E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com. Representing the defendants are, George A. Frilot, III and Patrick J. McShane of Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, Phone: 337-988-5422 and (504) 599-8000, E-mail: gfrilot@fpkc.com and pmcshane@fpkc.com. NEVADA: Reno Police Faces Lawsuit Over Warrantless Searches ------------------------------------------------------------ Dancers at the Wild Orchid filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against the City of Reno and its police force for unlawful warrantless searches after citations were issued in a sting, The Associated Press reports. The suit alleges that on Jan. 25, 2007, approximately 20 police officers barged into the Virginia Street location of the Wild Orchid and conducted a retaliatory raid and unlawful search of female dressing rooms and other non-public areas of the Wild Orchid. The suit further contends defendants and each of them, entered the Wild Orchid and rudely and obnoxiously conducted: -- a warrantless search of the premises, -- unconstitutional custodial interrogations of plaintiffs, and plaintiff class members, -- disrupted their work, placing working as well as non- working plaintiffs into custody (simply because the non- working plaintiff was female), -- falsely imprisoned plaintiffs while taking over an hour to perform a simple identification check which should take less than three minutes, -- refusing to have male officers leave the locker rooms while females changed their most private toiletries, -- announcing that based upon City of Reno Municipal Code Section 4.04.190, the Police would continue to make such raids in the future irrespective of plaintiffs' fourth amendment rights, and -- insultingly and abusively soliciting and requesting unlawful sexual favors from female class members, who rebuffed the police for asking for such and issuing citations for being unlicensed to those who are clearly licensed to. Plaintiffs pray for the court to issue an order: -- declaring that RMC 4.04.190 and RMC Section 5.07.020 are unconstitutional, void and unenforceable, and -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with them, from entering the premises of any business within the city of Reno for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation without a warrant issued upon probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution made applicable to the defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and Section 18 of Article I of the Nevada State Constitution; -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with them, from detaining unnecessarily and/or engaging in custodial interrogation of any plaintiff class members; -- enjoining any male defendants, and each of them, their employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with them, from entering any locker room or other private female area while occupied by females; -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigned, and all those acting in concert with them, from enforcing any licensing laws for dancers unless until the City of Reno resumes the practice of issuing temporary licenses; -- enjoining defendants, and each of them, their employees, subordinates, agents, successors and assigns, and all those acting in concert with them, from falsely imprisoning and or arresting plaintiffs; -- attorneys' fees and costs; and -- such further relief as the court deems just. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?192c The suit is "Moore et al v. Evans et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-38 HDM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Representing plaintiffs is Mark Russel Thierman of the Thierman Law Firm, 7287 Lakeside Drive, Reno, NV 89511, Phone: 775-284- 1500, Fax: 775-703-5027, E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net. OCA INC: Motion to Dismiss La. Securities Fraud Suit Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud suit filed against OCA, Inc. On June 17, 2005 an investor sued OCA, Inc. claiming that the company issued materially false and misleading financial statements to the investing public. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased OCA common stock between May 18, 2004 and June 7, 2005. An additional class action complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers of OCA common stock during the period Nov. 12, 2003 through and including June 7, 2005. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. OCA, a provider of business services to orthodontic and pediatric dentists, issued numerous positive statements throughout the class period touting the company's financial performance, the complaint says. Then on June 7, 2005, OCA shocked the market when it announced that it was further delaying the filing of its annual report, that it intended to restate its quarterly financial statements for 2004 and that it had placed the company's chief operating officer on administrative leave. Specifically, the company admitted that, among other things, it had materially overstated its patient receivables and patient revenue for the first three quarters of 2004. On this news, shares of the OCA stock fell $1.53 per share or almost 38% to close at $2.50 per share on June 7, 2005. On July 1, 2005, the court issued an order consolidating all related securities and derivative actions into one class action. On Aug. 3, 2005, the court held an initial conference and on Aug. 4, 2005, signed Pretrial Order No. 1 ordering, among other things: -- the consolidated action be entitled "In re OCA, Inc. Securities and Derivative Litigation, No. 05-2165; -- motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the securities action be filed no later than Aug. 12, 2005; and -- responses to lead plaintiff motions be filed no later than Aug. 19, 2005; and -- setting a status conference for Sept. 21, 2005. On Aug. 12, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. Further briefing with regard to the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel was filed. On Nov. 18, 2005, Judge Sarah S. Vance issued an Order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On Feb. 1, 2006, Lead Plaintiff filed his consolidated class action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased OCA common stock or sold OCA put options during the period May 18, 2004 through and including June 6, 2005. Beginning March 3, 2006, defendants filed their motions to dismiss this complaint. Lead plaintiff filed his opposition to defendants' motions on April 3, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court heard arguments on defendants' motions. On Dec. 14, 2006 the Judge granted the Motion to Dismiss against one named individual Defendant and denied the Motion to Dismiss against the Company and remaining named Defendants. The first identified complaint in the litigation is "Bruce Simon, et al. v. OCA, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Allan Kanner & Associates, P.L.L.C., 701 Camp Street, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: (504) 524-5777, Fax: (504) 524-5763, E-mail: info@kanner-law.com; (2) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (FL), 515 North Flagler Drive - Suite 1701, West Palm Beach, FL, 33401, Phone: 561.835.9400; (3) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax: 610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com; (4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com; (5) Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP, 2300 Promenade II; 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone: (888) 873-3999, Fax: (404) 876-4476, E-mail: attorney@chitwoodlaw.com; (6) Dyer & Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80218-1417, Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 800-711-6483, e- mail: info@dyershuman.com; (7) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com; (8) Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA, 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400; (9) Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Esquire at 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA, 19046, Phone: 215-886-1900, E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net; (10) Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen P.L.L.P., Suite 301, 660 Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC, 20003- 4335, Phone: 202-544-9840, Fax; 202-544-9850; (11) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), The Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone: 561-361-5000, Fax: 561-367-8400, E- mail: info@milbergweiss.com; (12) Pomerantz,Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY, 10017-5516, Phone: 212-661-1100; and (13) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT, 06106, Phone: 800-797-5499, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com. PEREGRINE SYSTEMS: Calif. Court Approves $56M Stock Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted final approval to a $56 million settlement of the Peregrine Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation. On May 8, 2002, an investor sued Peregrine Systems in federal court claiming that the company inflated its stock price by misleading the public. The class-action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Peregrine common stock from July 19, 2000 through May 3, 2002. The class period was later extended. The complaint accuses Peregrine, a San Diego-based software firm, of misleading investors about its business and finances by improperly recording revenue it later wrote off. The complaint states that news of the problems came to light May 6, 2002 when Peregrine disclosed an internal investigation into potential accounting inaccuracies in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 -- revenue recognition irregularities that could total up to $100 million. In the same statement, Peregrine announced the resignations of Stephen Gardner, the company's chief executive officer, and Matthew Gless, its executive vice president of finance. The complaint names Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gless as individual defendants. Following the May 6 announcement, Peregrine's stock plummeted 65% to a 52-week low of $0.89. Beginning on July 3, 2002, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate all related actions were filed with the Court. On July 23, 2002, Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. issued an order consolidating all related cases into one class action as, "In re Peregrine Systems Inc. Securities Litigation." On Jan. 30, 2003, Judge Jones, Jr. issued an order appointing Lead Plaintiffs and their selection of Lead Counsel. The operative complaint in this action is lead plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class action complaint filed on April 5, 2004. Defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint beginning June 18, 2004. Both parties filed further briefings, and on March 4, 2005, the court held a hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss. On March 30, 2005, Judge Benitez issued an Order granting certain Defendants' motions, granting in part and denying in part certain other Defendants' motions and granting Lead Plaintiffs sixty days to amend their complaint. On May 6, 2005, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Intention not to amend their complaint and filed a Motion for entry of a Judgment. The Court took Lead Plaintiffs' motion under submission. On July 8, defendant Arthur Andersen LLP and certain other defendants filed motions to dismiss certain claims alleged in Lead Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint not previously dismissed in the court's March 30 Order. On Oct. 17, 2005, Arthur Andersen withdrew its motion. On Jan. 17, 2006, Judge Roger T. Benitez issued an Order Granting Final Judgment Under Rule 54(b) and certified these claims for appeal: -- Lead Plaintiffs' U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b) and the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission's Rule 10(b)-5 claims against the KPMG defendants; and -- Lead Plaintiffs' 34 Act Section 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10(b)-5 claims against certain other defendants. Pursuant to the same Order, Judge Benitez stayed the entire case pending resolution of these claims on appeal. On Feb. 6, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs filed their Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from Judge Benitez's Jan. 17, 2006 Final Judgment. On July 12, 2006, Plaintiffs/Appellants filed their opening brief. Defendants/Appellees filed their briefs beginning Aug. 25, 2006. The appeal is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. Partial Settlements After arms-length negotiations, lead plaintiffs and defendants Arthur Andersen, Douglas Powanda, William Savoy and Thomas Watrous (Settling Defendants) agreed to settle the claims against these defendants and entered into stipulations and agreements of settlement. The proposed settlements are on behalf of all those who purchased or acquired Peregrine securities from July 22, 1999 through and including May 3, 2002, including all persons who owned Harbinger Corp. or Remedy Corp. stock and exchanged those shares for shares of Peregrine. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlements, as outlined more fully in the Stipulations: -- Arthur Andersen has paid into escrow $30,000,000; -- Mr. Powanda has paid into escrow $4,675,000; -- Mr. Savoy is required to pay into escrow $5,100,000; and -- Mr. Watrous is required to pay into escrow $500,000. The settlement fund will also consist of approximately $16,017,922 generated from the sale of 800,000 shares of Peregrine common stock obtained on behalf of class members from the settlement agreement between lead plaintiffs and Peregrine, and other parties in interest, in Peregrine's Bankruptcy action, bringing the total value of the settlement fund to $56,292,922. The court preliminarily approved these proposed settlements on July 31, 2006 and set a settlement fairness hearing, to be held before Judge Benitez, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for Nov. 8, 2006. The settlement fairness hearing was held and on Nov. 15, 2006, orders approving the settlements and plan of allocation were issued. For more details, contact In re Peregrine Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 8040, San Raphael, CA 94912-8040, Phone: (800) 654-5763. PMA CAPITAL: Objects to Class Certification in Penn. Stock Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Oral arguments for a motion by defendants opposing certification as a class action of a securities suit filed against PMA Capital Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were heard on Dec. 1, 2006. Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported purchasers of the company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50% Monthly Income Senior Notes. The complaint names as defendants the company, former chairman, Frederick W. Anton, and former chief executive officer, John W. Smithson, and two other individuals who were top officers at the company during the class period. On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the cases under "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and Death Benefits as lead plaintiff. On Sept. 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the company's securities between May 5, 1999 and Feb. 11, 2004. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making materially false and misleading public statements and material omissions during the class period regarding the company's underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls. It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act by making materially false and misleading statements in registration statements and prospectuses about the company's financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to rescind the purchases of securities in the public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. By order dated July 27, 2005, the court partially granted the company's previously filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all allegations with respect to The PMA Insurance Group, and otherwise denying the motion to dismiss. By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was reduced to Nov. 6, 2003. On Aug. 31, 2005 defendants filed their answers to lead plaintiffs' amended complaint. On Nov. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On Nov. 30, 2005, defendant's motion for partial dismissal was denied. On April 28, 2006, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion for class certification. Oral arguments for the motion were heard on Dec. 1, 2006. The suit is "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 03-6121," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B. Tucker. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Robert A. Kauffman, Arthur Stock and Sherri Savett of Berger and Montague, 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000, Fax: 215-875-4636, E- mail: astock@bm.net; and (2) Salvatore J. Graziano of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York NY 10119, Phone: 212-594-5300. Representing the company are David M. Howard, Michael L. Kichline and Joseph A. Tate of Dechert, LLP, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch Street, Philadelphia PA 19103-2973, Phone: 215- 994-2218, E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com, david.howard@dechert.com, and joseph.tate@dechert.com. PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Orders $925T Allocation for Deloitte Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma issued an order directing distribution of a $925,000 payout to settle claims against Deloitte & Touche, LLP, in a securities fraud suit filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. Originally, the company and several of its executive officers were named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in early 2001. The suit is seeking unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the company issued false and misleading financial information, primarily related to the method it used to account for commission advance receivables from sales associates. On March 5, 2002, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying their motion to reconsider the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. In August 2002 the lead institutional plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two-individual plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class. As of Dec. 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been completed. On Jan. 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the appeal. On July 14, 2006 the Tenth Circuit entered an order and judgment, affirming the trial court's dismissal with prejudice. On July 28, 2006, Lead Plaintiffs/Appellants filed a petition for rehearing, which the Ninth Circuit denied. Settlement with Deloitte & Touche LLP The parties participated in an extensive mediation process through the Tenth Circuit's mandatory mediation program, which resulted in a settlement of the action with Deloitte & Touche. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement with Deloitte & Touche, as described more fully in the stipulation and agreement of settlement, a settlement fund in the amount of $925,000, plus interest that accrues on the Fund prior to distribution, will be created for the benefit of the class. On Aug. 6, 2004, the court granted preliminary approval of this settlement, and certified, for settlement purposes, a settlement class consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Pre-Paid Legal common stock from March 18, 1999 through and including May 15, 2001. The court also set a hearing, to determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement with Deloitte & Touche is fair, reasonable and adequate for Dec. 10, 2004. On Dec. 10, 2004 the settlement hearing was held and Judge Robin Cauthron signed a final order approving the class settlement with Deloitte & Touche. On Nov. 13, 2006, the court issued an order directing distribution of the net settlement fund. The claims administrator will be distributing the fund to those shareholders who filed a valid claim. The suit is "In Re: Pre-Paid Securities, et al. v., Case No. 5:01-cv-00182," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Robin J. Cauthron. Claims Administrator is c/o Heffler Radetich & Saitta L.L.P. P.O. Box 190, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0190, Phone: (215) 665- 1124. QUINTUS CORP: Calif. Court OKs $10.1M Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval to a $10,100,000 million settlement of a securities fraud lawsuit filed against Quintus Corp. On Nov. 16, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against Quintus Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The action seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Quintus common stock between Jan. 19, 2000 and Nov. 14, 2000. The class period was later extended. The action charges that Quintus and some of its top officers misled investors about the company's revenues and earnings and that the Company did not prepare its financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. On Nov. 15, 2000, the company announced it was investigating "certain financial reporting matters" and had delayed filing its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2000, "pending completion of the investigation of revenue and accounts receivable" for that and previous periods. As a result of the announcement, Quintus shares fell 50% from its closing price of $6 on Nov. 14 to $3 at midday the following day before trading in the stock was halted on the Nasdaq Stock Market. On Jan. 16, 2001, motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate all related actions were filed with the court. The court consolidated all related cases on April 12, 2001. Thereafter, lead counsel and lead plaintiff were appointed. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint on July 30, 2001. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on Oct. 29, 2001, which plaintiffs opposed. On Sept. 3, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss and gave lead plaintiffs an opportunity to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. On Feb. 10, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint and on March 28, 2003, defendants filed their motions to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on May 23, 2003. A hearing on defendants' motions was set and rescheduled numerous times. On Dec. 7, 2004, prior to a ruling on defendants' motions to dismiss, Quintus announced that it reached a settlement in connection with this securities action as well as actions pending in state court in California and Texas and the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The terms of the proposed settlement create a settlement fund in the amount of $10,100,000 to settle all claims against the defendants. On July 7, 2006, Judge Vaughn Walker issued an Order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement and certifying a Class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Quintus common stock from Nov. 15, 1999 to Nov. 15, 2000, inclusive. On July 25, 2006, Judge Walker approved the amended notice of pendency and proposed settlement of class action to be disseminated to class members. On Dec. 5, 2006 a hearing was held and that same day Judge Walker signed a judgment granting final approval of the proposed settlement and the plan of allocation. Headquartered in Dublin, California, Quintus Corp., develops and provides comprehensive electronic customer relationship management software, applications and services. The company and its affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection on Feb. 22, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 01-00501 through 01-00503). Counsel for the Lead Plaintiff and the Settlement Class are Jordan L. Lurie and Leigh A. Parker at Weiss & Lurie, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone: (310) 208-2800. Claims Administrator: Berdon Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 9014, Jericho, NY 11753-8914, Fax: (516) 931-0810, Web site: http://www.berdonllp.com/claims. SALLY FOSTER: Recalls Tea Lights Candles Due to Fire Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------ Sally Foster, Inc., of Troy, Michigan, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 46,800 sets of tea lights sold with votive candleholders. The company said the tea light candles have a clear, plastic shell that can melt or ignite, posing a fire or burn hazard to consumers. Sally Foster has received two reports of the plastic shells of these tea light candles igniting, causing minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. The recalled tea lights were sold as part of the three-piece Glass Candle Holders with Tea Lights Set, item number S106 in the Sally Foster catalog and Web site. The product's packaging was marked "Votive Holders with Tealights-Set of 3" and "Item Number 2006 157." Only the white tea light candles with clear plastic shells are affected. Products delivered after Dec. 8, 2006 included tea lights with metal shells and are not included in this recall. The glass candleholders sold with these tea lights are not subject to the recall and consumers may continue to use them. These tea light candles were manufactured in China, and are being imported by Innovage Distribution, Inc., of Los Angeles, California are sold through Sally Foster's Web site from July 2006 through December 2006 and in Sally Foster catalogs from August 2006 through December 2006 for about $15. Picture of the recalled tea light candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07090.jpg Consumers should immediately stop using the tea light candles and contact Sally Foster for a set of six free replacement tea light candles with metal shells. Consumers who purchased the item online will be directly notified by Sally Foster and will receive the free set of six replacement tea light candles. For more information, call Sally Foster toll-free at (866) 723- 0925 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, and between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Saturday through Sunday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sallyfoster.com.Or contact Sally Foster's media contact, Tamara Oliverio at (248) 404-2142. SEITEL INC: Motion for Stock Suit Class Certification Due Feb. 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lead plaintiff in a securities fraud lawsuit pending against Sietel, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has until Feb. 1, 2007 to file a motion for class certification. On May 9, 2002, a class action was filed against Seitel, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. It seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought Seitel common stock from May 5, 2000 through May 3, 2002. The complaint names as defendants: -- Seitel; -- Paul A. Frame president, chief executive officer, and, as of February 2002, chairman of the board; -- Debra D. Valice, chief financial officer, executive vice president of finance, treasurer and corporate secretary; -- Marcia H. Kendrick, chief accounting officer and assistant corporate secretary; and -- Herbert M. Pearlman, founder and chairman of the board of directors until his resignation in February of 2002. According to the complaint, Houston-based Seitel and the individual defendants materially misrepresented the company's financial results for 2000 and 2001 by improperly recognizing revenues. Most of the improper revenue, the complaint says, was attributable to Seitel's undisclosed practice of recording revenue for the licensing of its seismic data and other geophysical information before delivering data to customers. The practice ran afoul of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and artificially inflated Seitel's stock price during the class period, the complaint says. The complaint alleges that the defendants were motivated to commit the accounting fraud in order to earn commissions and bonuses, which were tied to the company's revenues and earnings. It claims the defendants had nearly $10 million of insider stock sales during the class period. On April 1, Seitel announced that it was restating its financial results for the year 2000 and the first three quarters of 2001. The restatement reduced reported revenue by 15% in 2000 and 30% during the first three quarters of 2001. It also turned what had purportedly been profits during those periods into losses, the lawsuit states. By the time Seitel further detailed the restatements on May 3, 2002, the company's stock price had plunged to $5.65 per share, more than 75% below the class period high of $22.72 per share, the complaint says. On July 22, 2002, competing motions for consolidation of all related cases and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with the court. On Aug. 3, 2002, the court issued an order consolidating all related actions into one class action, "In re Seitel, Inc. Securities Litigation." The court held a hearing on the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel on Aug. 30, 2002 and continued the hearing on Sept. 5, 2002. On Sept. 11, 2002, Judge Werlein, Jr. issued an order appointing a lead plaintiff and his selection of lead and liaison counsel. On Dec. 6, 2002, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated amended class action complaint naming Ernst & Young and the company's auditor, as an additional defendant. In response, beginning on Feb. 4, 2003, defendants filed their motions to dismiss this complaint. On March 26, 2003 plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motions. Bankruptcy Proceedings On June 11, 2003, Seitel filed a notice with the court regarding the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. On July 2, 2003, the court administratively closed the case, granted the parties leave to move to reinstate the case on the court's active docket in the future, and denied, without prejudice to re-filing, all outstanding motions. 1st Partial Settlement Following the expiration of the automatic stay of the action due to Seitel's bankruptcy filing, lead plaintiff and defendants Seitel, Mr. Frame, Ms. Valice, Ms. Kendrick and the Estate of Herbert Pearlman entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated Oct. 28, 2004 to settle the claims against these defendants. Pursuant to the terms of this proposed settlement, a settlement fund in the amount of $5,250,000, plus interest that accrues on the fund, will be established for the benefit of the class. On May 6, 2005, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order granting preliminary approval of this proposed settlement; certifying, for settlement purposes only, the action as a class action "on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Seitel common stock in the open market during the period from May 5, 2000 through and including May 3, 2002; and setting a settlement fairness hearing to determine, among other things, whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests for the class, for July 29, 2005. The settlement fairness hearing was held, and the court issued an order and final judgment that same day granting final approval of this settlement. On Sept. 14, 2006, a motion for distribution of the settlement fund was filed with the court. On Nov. 16, 2006, the court issued an order approving distribution of the settlement fund. On Dec. 15, 2006, the claims administrator distributed the fund to those shareholders who filed a valid claim. The case is continuing against Ernst & Young (E&Y). On July 27, 2005 lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint against E&Y and on Sept. 27, 2005, E&Y filed a motion to dismiss this complaint, which lead plaintiff opposed on Nov. 14, 2005. On Aug. 29, 2006, Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore signed an order denying E&Y's motion. E&Y filed their answer to the second amended complaint on Sept. 13, 2006. The case against E&Y is continuing into the discovery phase of the litigation. Additionally, pursuant to a Nov. 17, 2006 Order, lead plaintiff has until Feb. 1, 2007 to file his motion for class certification. SEQUENOM INC: IPO Suit Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to issue an order with respect to the final approval of the settlement of a consolidated securities class action against Sequenom, Inc. In November 2001, the company and certain of its current or former officers and directors were named as defendants in a class action shareholder complaint filed by Collegeware USA in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is now captioned, "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10831." Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds of other public companies that conducted initial public offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s and 2000. In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the company's underwriters, certain of the company's officers and directors and the company violated the federal securities laws because its registration statement and prospectus contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding the compensation to be received by and the stock allocation practices of the underwriters. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief. In October 2002, the company's officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a stipulated dismissal and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs. In February 2003, the court dismissed the claim against the company brought under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, without giving the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint with respect to that claim. The court declined to dismiss the claim against the company brought under Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933. In June 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special litigation committee of the company's board of directors, the company approved in principle a settlement offer by the plaintiffs. In June 2004, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued a decision certifying a class action for settlement purposes and granting preliminary approval of the settlement subject to modification of certain bar orders contemplated by the settlement. On Aug. 31, 2005, the court reaffirmed class certification and preliminary approval of the modified settlement. On Feb. 24, 2006, the court dismissed litigation filed against certain underwriters in connection with the claims to be assigned to the plaintiffs under the settlement. On April 24, 2006, the court held a final fairness hearing to determine whether to grant final approval for the settlement. It is still subject to statutory notice requirements as well as final judicial approval. The court's decision on final approval of the settlement remains pending, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. The suit is "In re Sequenom, Inc. IPO Securities Litigation Case No. 01-CV-10831" related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com; (5) 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; and (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail: newyork@whafh.com; For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/. TENNESSEE GAS: Class Status Sought in Kans. Gas Measurement Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the suit, "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al.," are seeking class certification for the suit pending in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and/or its subsidiaries are named defendants in actions that generally allege mismeasurement of natural gas volumes and/or heating content resulting in the underpayment of royalties. The first set of cases was filed in 1997 by an individual under the False Claims Act, which has been consolidated for pretrial purposes in "In re: Natural Gas Royalties Qui Tam Litigation," before the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. These complaints allege an industry-wide conspiracy to underreport the heating value as well as the volumes of the natural gas produced from federal and Native American lands. In May 2005, a representative appointed by the court issued a recommendation to dismiss most of the actions. In October 2006, the U.S. District Judge issued an order dismissing all measurement claims against all defendants. Similar allegations were filed in a second action in 1999 in "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al.," in the District Court of Stevens County, Kansas. The plaintiffs currently seek certification of a class of royalty owners in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado. Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court's ruling. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages in the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest, expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard to future gas measurement practices. TRANSMETA CORP: N.Y. Court Yet to Approve IPO Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Transmeta Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated class action, "In re Transmeta Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation." The suit was filed against Transmeta Corp., certain of its directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for its initial public offering, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection with the company's initial public offering on Nov. 7, 2000 failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters for that offering, and alleges claims against the company and several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other companies that issued stock in connection with other initial public offerings during 1999-2000. Those cases have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)." In July 2002, the company joined in a coordinated motion to dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other defendants. In February 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an order regarding the pleading of amended complaints. Plaintiffs subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a certain amount from underwriter defendants. 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 "In re Transmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are: (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com; (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York, NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065, Phone: 212.594.5300; (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E- mail: info@sbclasslaw.com; (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax: 212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com; (5) 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; and (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.545.4600, Fax; 212.686.0114, e-mail: newyork@whafh.com. VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Discovery Proceeds in N.Y. Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Veeco Instruments Inc. and certain of its officers. The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc business unit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act. In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the company's securities from Apr. 26, 2004 through Feb. 10, 2005. The parties are currently involved in the discovery process. 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 "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Colleen McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Phyllis Maza Parker of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365, US, Phone: (215) 875-4647, Fax: (215) 875-4674, E-mail: pparker@bm.net; (2) Eric James Belfi of Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com; and (3) Sherrie Raiken Savett of Berg & Androphy (Houston), 3704 Travis Street, Houston, TX 77002, Phone: (215) 875-3071, Fax: (215)-875-5715. Representing the company is Robert F. Serio of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP (NYC), 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor, New York, NY 10166, Phone: 212-351-3917, Fax: 212-351-5246, E-mail: rserio@gibsondunn.com. WAL-MART STORES: Ill. Court Mulls Class Status for Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark VandeWiele of the Rock Island County Circuit in Illinois said he'll soon rule on whether a local lawsuit filed by employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that alleges non-payment to workers of hours worked through breaks, the Quad-Cities Online reports. In 2001, group of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. employees asking for conditional class certification, filed a lawsuit against the retail giant alleging the company required hourly employees to work "off the clock" without compensation (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 25, 2002). The suit charges the company of engaging in a "systematic scheme of wage abuse" against its hourly paid employees from Aug. 15, 1996. Hourly workers allegedly were not paid for missed and/or interrupted meal and rest breaks and were asked to alter time records. Last week, attorneys representing three local plaintiffs argued that about 223,000 employees for Wal-Mart and Sam's Club employed in Illinois since 1996 are owed compensation for working off the clock and through their rest breaks. New York attorney Judith L. Spanier -- representing local plaintiffs Lisa Brown, Cynthia Camp and Joseph Stanfield -- listed numerous documents and statistics to show problems chain- wide and inside Illinois with Wal-Mart employees not getting scheduled breaks and forced to work off the clock. Ms. Spanier, further argued that Wal-Mart's own internal audit in 1992 showed 32 percent of required breaks were not taken, despite executive policy and federal law dictating every break must be taken. According to the report, an Oct. 9, 2000 letter from a corporate lawyer to Wal-Mart executives listed Illinois in the top 10 states with the highest possible liabilities due to "chronic problems" in meal- and rest-break violations. The letter, which was part of Ms. Spanier's presentation, listed possible liability to the company at $80 million to $100 million. However, Wal-Mart attorneys maintained that not every person who worked at Wal-Mart even claims to be wronged and granting class- action status would be assumptive. Wal-Mart attorney Matthew Pappas objected to Ms. Spanier's showing of the document, arguing it was protected under attorney-client privilege. Judge VandeWiele put the document under seal. The judge told Wal-Mart attorneys that if the plaintiffs could prove all of this at trial, it would seem like the company was taking advantage of its employees in Illinois. Judge VandeWiele said he would issue his ruling on the class- action status soon. When he does, he said he wouldn't see the case again "for a few years" while the losing party takes his decision to the appellate courts. Representing Wal-Mart is Matthew P. Pappas of Pappas & Schnell, P.C., The Paddock Building, 1617 Second Avenue, Suite 300, Post Box 5408, Rock Island, IL 61204-5408, Phone: (309) 788-7110, Fax: (309) 788-2773. Plaintiffs are represented by Judith L. Spanier of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, Fax: (212) 684-5191. WASHINGTON: Jury Issues Mixed Verdict in WTO Protesters' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- After three days of deliberation, a federal court jury issued a mixed verdict in the purported class action, "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al.," which was in relation to the arrests of about 200 protesters during a 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in the city, The Seattle Times reports. The jury found that the city violated the Fourth Amendment rights of roughly 200 protesters arrested at Westlake Park during the WTO upheaval on Dec. 1, 1999, but determined the city was not guilty of violating the plaintiffs' free-speech rights. Shortly after the ruling was announced, Seattle City Council President Nick Licata said the city could have done a better job in handling the protests. However, Mr. Licata was quick to point out that there clearly were people who wanted to provoke an overreaction, and they succeeded in giving Seattle a black eye. "We have the right to assemble and protest, but it comes at a cost," he adds. Previously, in testimony before the U.S. District Court for the District Court of Washington, former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper said that the city did not establish a policy on Dec. 1, 1999, to arrest people protesters. In addition, the former police chief said that he would have resigned rather than enforce such a directive (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007). The case centers on an emergency ordinance that took effect on Dec. 1, 1999, imposing downtown as off-limits to ensure public safety amidst protests while the conference is ongoing. Eight people arrested on Dec. 1, 1999 are serving as lead plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 12, 2007). Plaintiffs contend that the city violated their First Amendment right to free speech by arresting them because they were espousing anti-WTO sentiments. They also say the city violated their Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Previously, Judge Barbara Rothstein, who presided over the case back then, threw out protesters claims, saying the city had imposed a proper "time, place or manner" restriction to ensure public safety (Class Action Reporter, June 6, 2005). The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth upheld the ordinance, it pointed out, however, that the city might have gone too far in targeting only anti-WTO protesters within the restricted zone, raising questions about discrimination. In his opening statement, plaintiffs' attorney Michael Withey told jurors that his clients were arrested merely for speaking out against WTO. The matter to be decided now is whether police singled out people because of their views and illegally arrested them as part of a city policy to go after protesters. To prevail, the plaintiffs must demonstrate that such unconstitutional acts were made in accordance with official city policy, or that city leaders such as Mr. Stamper were aware of and authorized the improper behavior. Ted Buck, an attorney representing the city, asked Mr. Stamper if then-Mayor Paul Schell instructed the police to seek out and arrest protesters. Mr. Stamper denied that the former mayor issued such a directive. He adds that if the mayor had given him such orders, "I would have fought it. If I had lost that battle, I would have offered my resignation." Mr. Withey had sought to establish that then-Assistant Chief Ed Joiner, acting with Mr. Stamper's authority, declared a "no- protest zone" in the downtown area near the Seattle Convention Center, where WTO meetings were taking place. During a 7 a.m. news conference Dec. 1, 1999, Mr. Joiner declared that "anyone that goes into that area to protest will be arrested immediately," according to a transcript Mr. Withey introduced into evidence. Mr. Stamper explains that he delegated Mr. Joiner to plan the department's tactics and strategy ahead of the WTO meetings and gave him operational command during the meetings. However, Mr. Stamper added that Mr. Joiner never had authority to set policy for the department. On Nov. 30, 1999, Seattle erupted in chaos as some 50,000 people arrived to protest the policies of the WTO. In a bid to avoid a second day of unrest, Mayor Schell in the early hours of Dec. 1, 1999, issued "Emergency Order No. 3," which declared parts of downtown Seattle off-limits to all but a handful of people. Among the exempt groups: WTO delegates and workers; residents of the area; business owners and employees; and safety personnel. The order said nothing about banning protesters from the area. Case Background On Oct. 2, 2000, the Trial Lawyers for Public Justice filed the original suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The class action was brought on behalf of anyone detained during mass arrests at Westlake Park between 6 a.m. and noon on Dec. 1, 1999. Specifically, plaintiffs' lawyers alleged that the city engaged in a policy of suppressing First Amendment rights by arresting protesters without being ordered to disperse and jailing them using an incorrect arrest record. The complaint, thus seeks damages from the city, Mayor Schell, and former Police Chief Norman Stamper on behalf of more than 600 protesters and others arrested and imprisoned on Dec. 1 and 2, 1999, pursuant to the city's "no-protest zone" policy. The suit is "Hankin et al. v. Seattle City of, et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-01672-MJP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiffs is Michael E. Withey of Law Office Of Mike Withey, Two Union Square, 601 Union St., Ste. 4200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-405-1800, E-mail: mike@witheylaw.com. Representing the defendants is Theron A. Buck of Stafford Frey Cooper, 601 Union St., 3100 Two Union Sq., Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-9900, Fax: 624-6885, E-mail: tbuck@staffordfrey.com. WESTLAND DEV'T: Motions to Dismiss Sedora Merger Suit Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Judicial District in the County of Bernalillo, New Mexico granted the motions to dismiss all claims in the purported class action filed against Westland Development Co., Inc. over it's then-proposed merger with Sedora Holdings of New Mexico (SHNM), according to the company's Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2006. Westland was named a defendant in the purported class action filed by Maria Elena A. Rael on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Westland Development, Inc., against company directors: -- Barbara Page, -- Sosimo S. Padilla, -- Jose S. Chavez, -- Josie Castillo, -- Charles V. Pena, Georgia Baca, -- Troy K. Benavidez, -- Ray Mares, Jr., -- Randolph M. Sanchez, and -- Doe Defendants 1-100, and -- Westland Development Co., Inc., nominal defendant The case, "CV-2006-01756," was filed on March 2, 2006 in the state of New Mexico, County of Bernalillo, Second Judicial District. It purports to be a shareholder class and derivative action on behalf of all shareholders of Westland and Westland. The action seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages arising out of Westland's then-proposed merger with Sedora Holdings of New Mexico (SHNM). The individual defendants are all directors of Westland. The complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief against certain individual director defendants including: -- that they breached their fiduciary duty by entering into the merger agreement with SHNM; -- that they acquired Westland common stock while in possession of inside information; -- that they misappropriated information relating to Westland's financial condition; -- that they conspired with one another to perform the wrongful acts listed in the complaint; and -- that they engaged in corporate waste by awarding some director defendants lucrative severance contracts, enhanced indemnification provisions, obtaining additional director's and officer's liability insurance by removing restrictions on the transferability of certain shares of Westland stock and agreeing to severance payments. In addition, plaintiff sought an order requiring Westland to hold its annual meeting of shareholders and seeks an order in the complaint to inspect certain corporate records under the New Mexico Business Corporation Act. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief including: -- declaring that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties when they entered into the merger agreements with ANM Holdings, Inc. and later with SHNM and that the agreements are "unlawful and unenforceable"; -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the then- proposed merger with SHNM, "unless and until Westland adopts and implements a fair sale procedure or process"; -- imposing a constructive trust in favor of Westland's shareholders over all oil and gas rights owned by Westland; -- ordering defendants to create and fund a permanent cultural heritage committee to oversee the creation and operation of a museum of Atrisco history as well as publishing certain information about Atrisco history; -- ordering the defendants to ensure the perpetual operation of the cemeteries; -- ordering the publication of all documents associated with the then-proposed merger with SHNM in Spanish as well as English; -- ordering defendants to hold an annual shareholder meeting; -- awarding an unspecified amount of compensatory damages; -- awarding an unspecified amount of punitive damages; and -- awarding plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. The court stayed discovery on July 17, 2006, and until the publication of the proxy statement relating to the current merger agreement. Since the proxy has been published, discovery is again underway, and depositions are expected to occur in October 2006. The parties have agreed upon a scheduling order. Westland and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint. Shortly before the hearings scheduled to address the motions, plaintiff decided to file an amended complaint, which is expected to assert claims similar to the claims raised by the original complaint. The amended complaint purports to allege ten claims for relief against certain individual director defendants including: -- that they breached their fiduciary duty by entering into the merger agreements with ANM, SHNM and SunCal; -- that they misappropriated information relating to Westland's financial condition; -- that they aided and abetted one another to perform the wrongful acts listed in the complaint; and -- that they engaged in corporate waste, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by allegedly performing the acts described in the amended complaint. Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief including: -- declaring that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties when they entered into the merger agreements with ANM and later with SHNM and later with SunCal, and that the agreements are "unlawful and unenforceable"; -- enjoining the defendants from proceeding with the proposed merger with SunCal, "unless or until they comply with their fiduciary duties"; -- enjoining the defendants from consummating the proposed merger with SunCal "until the company adopts and implements a fair sales procedure or process"; -- awarding an unspecified amount of compensatory damages; -- ordering certain changes to the composition of the Atrisco Heritage Trust's Board of Trustees; -- ordering certain changes to the composition of Atrisco Oil & Gas LLC's Board of Directors; -- ordering the company to engage in specified procedures with respect to the proxy solicitation process for the proposed SunCal merger; -- awarding an unspecified amount of punitive damages; -- declaring Westland's Class B shares to be illegal and/or imposing a constructive trust in favor of Westland's shareholders over the Class B shares; and -- awarding plaintiffs' costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. By letter dated Sept. 27, 2006, the court directed the parties to address the impact, if any, of the amended complaint on the issues raised by the motions to dismiss filed with respect to the original complaint. The court also asked specific questions about three legal issues relating to the motions. Both sides as directed by the court filed supplemental briefs. On Oct. 19, 2006, the court heard oral argument on the defense motions to dismiss. By letter ruling on Nov. 1, 2006, the court announced it would grant the motions to dismiss all claims in the case. A formal order has been circulated among counsel and was to be entered by the court not later than Nov. 13, 2006. Westland Development Co., Inc. on the Net: http://www.westlandnm.com/. Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- 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 HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Abbey Spanier Files Securities Suit in La. ------------------------------------------------------------- Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and other securities of Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. who purchased during the period from November 1, 2006 through January 10, 2007, inclusive. The complaint alleges that Hornbeck and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the company's operations and expected earnings for the 4th Quarter 2006, and for fiscal 2007. On Nov. 1, 2006, the company reaffirmed its guidance for fiscal 2007 and specifically reaffirmed earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range of between $39.0 million and $41.0 million and earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and $0.74. On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced an offering of $200.0 million in convertible senior notes with an over-allotment of $30.0 million in principal amount of additional notes. On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the note offering and received the offering proceeds. These aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of the note offering, but have the effect of artificially inflating the price of the stock. On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing that that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006, materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0 million to $41.0 million. The company announced it now expected that per share earnings for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63, down from $0.72 to $0.77. It also expected to reduce 2007 guidance by 15 to 20 percent. The company was forced to admit that it had knowledge over the previous several months that operating issues had negatively impacted the company's financial performance, including volatility in the offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the shipyard delivery schedules for new-builds and increased turnaround time for regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and maintenance, as well as increased costs for personnel and insurance. As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares slumped to a 52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007 and the stock was down $7.11, or 21.2%, on markedly increased volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired Hornbeck securities during the class period. Interested parties may move the court not later than March 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. or Susan Lee, both of Abbey Spanier Rodd Abrams & Paradis, LLP 212 East 39th Street New York, New York 10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free), E-mail: slee@abbeyspanier.com. SUNRISE SENIOR: Charles Johnson Announces Securities Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles H. Johnson & Associates announces the filing of a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period Aug. 4, 2005 through June 15, 2006. The complaint charges Sunrise and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, because, during the class period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, its stock option plans, its compensation practices and its financial results. As a result of these false statements, Sunrise's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a high of $39.68 per share on March 29, 2006. The individual defendants took advantage of Sunrise's falsified financial results, the artificial inflation of Sunrise's stock and its stock option plans by selling shares of their Sunrise stock for proceeds of over $34 million. The complaint also alleges that defendants manipulated the company's stock option plans so as to enrich themselves by "backdating" the stock options they were granted. On May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed a delay in reporting its first quarter 2006 results to allow a review of its financial statements, and on July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed it would be forced to restate its financial statements going back several years - at least to 1999 - and that its prior financial statements could no longer be relied upon. Sunrise also admitted it could not file current period financial statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2006 and that when it restated its financial results, at least $100 million of previously reported profits would be eliminated. As these revelations unfolded, Sunrise's stock fell from $39.62 on May 8, 2006 to as low as $24.40 on July 31, 2006. Interested parties may move the court not later than March 16, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Neil Eisenbraun, Esq. of Charles H. Johnson & Associates, 2599 Mississippi Street, New Brighton, MN 55112, Phone: (651) 633-5685, E-mail: cjohnsonlaw@gmail.com. TECHNICAL OLYMPIC: Mager & Goldstein Announces Stock Suit Filing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Mager & Goldstein LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Technical Olympic USA, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of securities during the period between Aug. 1, 2005, and Nov. 6, 2006. The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning its business and prospects causing the artificial inflation of the stock price. When the truth of the company's true financial condition became known, the stock price plummeted. Interested parties may move the court no later than Feb. 12, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Jayne Arnold Goldstein or Jonathan Pignoli both of Mager & Goldstein LLP, 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, Florida 33326, Phone: 866-849-7545 or 954-515- 0123, Fax: 954-515-0124, E-mail: jgoldstein@magergoldstein.com or jpignoli@magergoldstein.com. TOP TANKERS: Labaton Sucharow Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against TOP Tankers, Evangelos J. Pistolis and Stamatios N. Tsantanis, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of TOP Tankers Inc. between June 28, 2005 and November 28, 2006. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants allegedly knowingly or recklessly issued false and misleading statements that materially misrepresented TOP Tankers' financial results and internal controls, causing the company's stock price to be artificially inflated. According to the complaint, on Nov. 29, 2006, before the market opened, TOP Tankers disclosed that its outside auditors, Ernst & Young, had resigned. The company also announced that it would restate its financial statements for the first and second quarters of 2006. Subsequently, TOP Tankers admitted that it recognized $55 million in revenue from certain sale and leaseback transactions that closed in March and April of 2006, prior to the revenue from these transactions being due from the purchaser of the vessels. As a result, TOP Tankers will need to restate its financial results and reduce net income by $0.01 and $0.07 for the first and second quarter of 2006 respectively. Net income in all subsequent quarters until Dec. 31, 2010 will be reduced by approximately $0.07. Interested parties can move the court not later than Feb. 9, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Phone: (800) 321-0476. ********* 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, Ma. Cristina Canson, Janice Mendoza, and Guada Fe Fernandez, 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 * * *