/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070214.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 32
Headlines
ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Faces Investors Suit in Del. Over ABI Merger
AKZO NOBEL: 14.9M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 2
ATMEL CORP: Recalls Microcontrollers to Upgrade Software
AUTOMAKERS: Face $100M Suit Over Vehicles' Front Seat Design
BOOKHAM INC: Circuit Court Overturns Certification of IPO Suit
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. IPO Suit Certification Reversed
CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Yet to Certify ERISA Litigation
CARDINAL HEALTH: Discovery Continues in Ohio Stock Fraud Suit
CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Pilkington"
DOLE FOOD: Faces Antitrust Law Violations Lawsuit in Florida
ELKCORP: Faces Del. Stockholder Suit Over Carlyle Group Deal
FLORIDA: Fort Lauderdale Settles Suit Over City Code Crackdown
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Files RICO Lawsuit Against Wash. Farm Workers
GOODYEAR TIRE: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit for $925T
LANTRONIX INC: Calif. Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
MCY MUSIC: Ill. Court Dismisses Claims Over "'N Sync" Concert
METLIFE INC: Tag-Along Order Issued in Fla. Racketeering Suit
METLIFE INC: Certification Sought in Employee Insurance Lawsuit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Sales Practices Claims in Canada
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Several Demutualization Litigations
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Several Property, Casualty Actions
NETWORK ENGINES: N.Y. Court Defers Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Consumer Fraud Suits
QUANTUM CORP: Settles Litigation in Wash. Over ADIC Acquisition
STATE FARM: Feb. 28 Fairness Hearing Set for Katrina Suit Deal
STATE FARM: Hearing on Certification of "Guice" Set Feb. 28
SYNCOR INT'L: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal on Appeal
T. ROWE: "Dabit" Ruling Could Affect Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
VERMONT: Motorcycle Club's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status
WARNER MUSIC: Continues to Face Suit Over Music Download Pricing
WHITE ELECTRONIC: May Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Suit Deal
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Shareholder Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Yourman Alexander Announces Calif. Securities Suit
CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
LG. PHILIPS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
NEW CENTURY: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
QUANTA CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit
*********
ABRAXIS BIOSCIENCE: Faces Investors Suit in Del. Over ABI Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraxis BioScience, formerly American Pharmaceutical Partners
Inc., is facing several stockholder derivative and class actions
in relation to the company's merger with American BioScience,
Inc.
On or about Dec. 7, 2005, several stockholder derivative and
class actions were filed against the company, its directors and
ABI in the Delaware Court of Chancery relating to the merger.
The company is a nominal defendant in the stockholder derivative
actions.
The lawsuits allege that the company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by causing the company to enter
into the merger agreement and for not providing full and fair
disclosure to stockholders regarding the recently completed
merger, which it is alleged caused the value of the shares held
by the company's public stockholders to be significantly
diminished. The lawsuits seek, among other things, an
unspecified amount of damages and the recession of the merger.
On April 18, 2006, Abraxis BioScience completed the merger with
American BioScience, Inc., pursuant to the terms of an Agreement
and Plan of Merger dated Nov. 27, 2005.
AKZO NOBEL: 14.9M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold a fairness hearing on April 2, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $14,900,000 settlement by Akcros Chemicals America,
now known as Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc., and Akzo Nobel, Inc. in
the matter: "In Re Plastic Additives Antitrust Litigation,
Master Docket No. 03-CV2038 and MDL Docket No. 1684."
The case is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of
purchasers of plastics additives (including, but not limited to,
impact modifiers, heat stabilizers, and processing aids) between
Jan. 1, 1990 and Jan. 31, 2003.
Plastics additives are added to plastic resins in order to
enhance the quality of those resins. Among the principal
plastics additives are heat stabilizers, impact modifiers, and
processing aids.
Heat stabilizers are used to protect resins from thermal
degradation and to enhance the flexibility and stability of the
end product.
Impact modifiers are used to improve the resistance of the
finished plastics products to stress and improve the strength of
plastics.
Impact modifiers also reduce the weathering, chemical
resistance, tensile strength, and stress rupture of plastic
compounds.
Processing aids are chemicals that enable plastics to be
processed at lower temperatures thereby eliminating heat
degradation and ensuring quality, as well as providing greater
control over the flow of melted plastic.
Plaintiff alleges a nationwide and worldwide conspiracy among 16
companies to fix prices of plastics additives in order to raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices for plastics additives above the
level where they otherwise would have been in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The named defendants are:
-- Baerlocher USA, LLC,
-- Rohm & Haas Co.,
-- Akzo Nobel, Inc.,
-- Akcros Chemicals America,
-- Kreha Corp. of America,
-- Kaneka Texas Corp.,
-- Crompton Corp.,
-- Union Carbide Corp.,
-- The Dow Chemical Co.,
-- Arkerra, Inc., f/k/a AtoFina Chemicals, Inc., f/k/a Elf
Atochem North America, Inc.,
-- Ferro Corp., and
-- Mitsubishi Rayon America, Inc.
Crompton Corp., Baerlocher USA, LLC, and Kreha Corp. have
settled.
Plaintiff alleges that the conspiracy began in or around Jan. 1,
1990 and ended around Jan. 31, 2003 when it was announced that
these companies were being investigated by U.S., European, and
Japanese law enforcement and antitrust investigators for
participating in an international cartel to fix the prices of
plastics additives.
Plaintiffs seek to recover, among other things, treble damages
on behalf of itself and others who purchased plastics additives
from the defendants and others during the class period.
For more details, contact:
(1) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, 805 Third Avenue, NY, NY
10022, Phone: 1-800-290-1952 or 212-687-1980, Web site:
http://www.kaplanfox.com/;
(2) Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C., One South Broad Street, Suite
2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107, Phone: 215-238-1700, Fax:
215-238-1968, E-Mail: info@kohnswift.com, Web site:
http://www.kohnswift.com/;
(3) Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Phone: 800-778-1822,
E-mail: info@gbcslaw.com, Web site: http://gbcslaw.com;
and
(4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., 150 East
52nd Street, Thirtieth Floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 838-7797, Fax: (212) 838-7745, Web site:
http://www.cmht.com.
ATMEL CORP: Recalls Microcontrollers to Upgrade Software
--------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corp., of San Jose, California, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
4,000 microcontrollers of Honeywell digital cellular
communicators.
The company said the microcontroller in the communicator can
enter an unrecoverable lock-up state due to a programming issue.
The lock-up could result in a service interruption, and fail to
transmit an alarm signal in the event of a fire or property
invasion.
The security business of Honeywell Int'l., located in Syosset,
New York, has received 39 reports of problems with the
microcontroller where it reportedly entered an unrecoverable
lock-up state.
There have been no reports of failure to report an emergency and
no reports of injury or property damage.
The digital cellular communicator can be used as a primary means
of security communications for a residence or business. The
recall involves the Atmel microcontroller AT91SAM7S256 installed
in Honeywell digital cellular communicator, Model 7845GSM.
The microprocessor was assembled in Taiwan while the
communicator was manufactured in Mexico. Distributors
nationwide sold the recalled communicators to commercial
installers from July 2006 through October 2006 for about $250.
Picture of the recalled microcontroller:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07529.jpg
Customers who have not been contacted directly are advised to
immediately contact the firm for information on how to receive a
free replacement communicator with updated software. Installers
that purchased the communicators have been contacted directly.
For additional information, contact Honeywell at (800) 573-0154,
between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit:
http://www.security.honeywell.com
AUTOMAKERS: Face $100M Suit Over Vehicles' Front Seat Design
------------------------------------------------------------
Several big automakers are facing a class-action complaint filed
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland over
allegations that the autos they made since 1990 have front seats
that cannot withstand a moderate rear-impact collision, causing
substantial risk of injury or death to passengers, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named in the suit are:
-- General Motors Corp.,
-- Ford Motor Co.,
-- DaimlerChrysler Corp., and
-- Saturn Corp.
The suit is filed on behalf of all persons, including natural
persons and corporate entities, in the U.S., its protected
territories, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, who own a Class Vehicle, excluding:
(i) all persons or entities who have already commenced a
civil action based on the product defects alleged in
this suit;
ii) all persons who have suffered personal injury as a
result of the rearward collapse of a seat;
iii) the officers, directors, agents, controlled persons,
servants or employees of defendants, and of all entities
which are a parent, subsidiary or affiliate of any of
Defendants; and
iv) members of the immediate families of all persons
covered.
The suit alleges that seats at issue have a single recliner
mechanism, manually controlled on the outboard side, that sets
the angle of the seat's backrest, leaving the inside of the seat
unsupported.
Plaintiffs say the seats need dual recliner mechanisms. They
say 23 percent of crashes are rear-impact collisions, and the
defective seats have caused paraplegia, quadriplegia and death.
Common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions
affecting only individual class members. Common questions of
fact include the following:
(a) whether the defect creates a substantial risk of
personal injury or death to Class Members;
(b) whether the seats are defective in design;
(c) whether and when defendants knew or should have known
of any defect;
(d) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
design of the seats created an unreasonable risk that
the backrest would collapse following a rear impact to
the vehicle;
(e) whether it has been shown by crash tests and research
that the design of the seats creates an unreasonable
risk that the backrest will collapse following a rear
impact to the vehicle;
(f) whether defendants knew or should have known that the
design of the Seats creates an unreasonable risk that
occupants of the vehicle in the front or back seats
would be injured as a result of foreseeable collapse of
the front seat backrest following a rear-impact
collision to the vehicle;
(g) whether Defendants knew or should have known that the
inclusion of a properly designed recliner mechanism on
both the inboard and outboard sides of the front seats
of the class vehicles would greatly increase backrest
resistance to collapse upon rear-end impact to the
vehicle, and would minimize injury to the occupants;
(h) whether the inclusion of a properly designed recliner
mechanism on both the inboard and outboard sides of the
front seats of the class vehicles is feasible and
reasonably inexpensive in relation to the additional
occupant protection that would result;
(i) whether the feasibility and effectiveness of a seat
design that includes a properly designed recliner
mechanism on both the inboard and outboard sides of the
front seats of motor vehicles has been demonstrated by
any automobile manufacturers;
(j) whether the number and type of reported and estimated
instances of backrest collapses suggests that the Seat
design creates an unreasonable risk of collapse; and
(k) whether defendants have concealed from consumers a
known risk of injury from the collapse of Seat
backrests in class vehicles.
Common questions of law include the following:
(a) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
constitutes breach of warranty;
(b) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
constitutes tortious concealment, failure to warn, or
misrepresentation;
(c) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
constitutes fraud;
(d) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
constituted, or was part of, a civil conspiracy;
(e) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CL '13-
101et seq.);
(f) whether defendants' conduct as described herein
constitutes negligence;
(g) whether defendants' conduct as described herein renders
them liable in strict liability;
(h) whether retro-fitting the seats with safer seats or
replacement of the Seats is the most appropriate method
to correct the defect; and
(i) The amount of compensatory damages to which each class
member is entitled.
Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,
seek judgment against defendants for compensatory damages in
excess of $100,000,000, remediation of the defect, attorney's
fees, costs and interest, and such other and further relief as
the court deems appropriate.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19c4
The suit is "Segars et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-00361-BEL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland under Judge Benson Everett Legg.
Representing plaintiffs is Stephen Howard Ring of Stephen H Ring
PC, OBA Federal Savings Bank Building, 20300 Seneca Meadows
Pkwy, Ste 200, Germantown, MD 20876, Phone: 13015408180, Fax:
13015408195, E-mail: shring@usa.net.
BOOKHAM INC: Circuit Court Overturns Certification of IPO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York indicated
that it would defer consideration of final approval of the
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against two subsidiaries of Bookham, Inc., according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.
On June 26, 2001, a putative securities class action, "Lanter v.
New Focus, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5822," was filed
against New Focus, Inc. and several of its officers and
directors (Individual Defendants), in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.
Also named as defendants were:
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.;
* Chase Securities, Inc.;
* U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.; and
* CIBC World Markets Corp. (Underwriter Defendants),
the underwriters in New Focus's initial public offering.
Three subsequent lawsuits were filed containing substantially
similar allegations. These complaints have been consolidated.
On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, described below, naming as defendants the individual
defendants and the underwriter defendants.
On Nov. 7, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against
Bookham Technology plc and others in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint names as defendants:
* Bookham Technology plc;
* Goldman, Sachs & Co., and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,
Inc., two of the underwriters of Bookham Technology plc's
initial public offering in April 2000; and
* Andrew G. Rickman;
* Stephen J. Cockrell; and
* David Simpson,
each of whom was an officer and/or director at the time of the
initial public offering.
The amended complaint asserts claims under certain provisions of
the securities laws of the U.S. It alleges, among other things,
that the prospectuses for Bookham Technology plc's and New
Focus's initial public offerings were materially false and
misleading in describing the compensation to be earned by the
underwriters in connection with the offerings, and in not
disclosing certain alleged arrangements among the underwriters
and initial purchasers of ordinary shares, in the case of
Bookham Technology plc, or common stock, in the case of New
Focus, from the underwriters.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages (or in the
alternative rescission for those class members who no longer
hold shares, of the company or New Focus), costs, attorneys'
fees, experts' fees, interest and other expenses.
In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed,
without prejudice, from the action. In July 2002, all
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The
motion was denied as to Bookham Technology plc and New Focus in
February 2003.
Special committees of the board of directors authorized the
companies to negotiate a settlement of pending claims
substantially consistent with a memorandum of understanding
negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer defendants and
their insurers.
Plaintiffs and most of the issuer defendants and their insurers
have entered into a stipulation of settlement for the claims
against the issuer defendants, including the company.
Under the stipulation of settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against participating defendants in
exchange for a payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the related
cases, and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of
certain claims the issuer defendants may have against the
underwriters.
On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an opinion and order
preliminarily approving the settlement provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.
The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the scope of
the bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.
On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
overturned the court's certification of the class of plaintiffs
who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in the
settlement against the underwriter defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the 2nd Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the Second
Circuit's decision and have informed the court that they would
like to be heard as to whether the settlement may still be
approved even if the decision of the Court of Appeals is not
reversed.
The court indicated that it would defer consideration of final
approval of the settlement pending plaintiffs' request for
further appellate review.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
BOTTOMLINE TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. IPO Suit Certification Reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York indicated
that it would defer consideration of final approval of the
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against two subsidiaries of Bottomline Technologies, Inc.,
according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
On Aug. 10, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the
company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The suit was brought in behalf of Paul Cyrek against:
* Bottomline Technologies, Inc.;
* Daniel M. McGurl;
* Robert A. Eberle;
* FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.;
* Deutsche Banc Alex Brown Inc.;
* CIBC World Markets; and
* J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
A consolidated amended class action complaint, "In re Bottomline
Technologies Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation," was filed on April 20, 2002.
The amended complaint supersedes the class action complaint
filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Aug. 10, 2001.
The amended complaint filed in the action asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The amended complaint asserts, among other things, that the
description in the company's prospectus for its initial public
offering was materially false and misleading in describing the
compensation to be earned by the underwriters of the offering,
and in not describing certain alleged arrangements among
underwriters and initial purchasers of the company's common
stock from the underwriters.
The amended complaint seeks damages costs, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees and other expenses; or, in the alternative, tender
of the plaintiffs' and the class's Bottomline common stock and
rescission of their purchases of the company's common stock
purchased in the initial public offering.
In July 2002, Bottomline, Daniel M. McGurl and Robert A. Eberle
joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss, which challenged the
legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.
The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs
opposed the motion, and the court heard oral argument on the
motion in early November 2002.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the motion
to dismiss as to Bottomline. In addition, in early October
2002, Daniel M. McGurl and Robert A. Eberle were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.
A special litigation committee of the board of directors of
Bottomline authorized Bottomline to negotiate a settlement of
the pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers.
The parties have negotiated a settlement, which is subject to
approval by the court. On Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an
Opinion and Order preliminarily approving the settlement,
provided that the defendants and plaintiffs agree to a
modification narrowing the scope of the bar order set forth in
the original settlement agreement.
The parties agreed to the modification narrowing the scope of
the bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement.
On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned the court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the
Second Circuit's decision and have informed the court that they
would like to be heard as to whether the settlement might still
be approved even if the decision of the Court of Appeals is not
reversed.
The court indicated that it would defer consideration of final
approval of the settlement pending plaintiffs' request for
further appellate review.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Ohio Court Yet to Certify ERISA Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has
yet to grant class-action status to a consolidated Employee
Retirement Income Security Act violations suit against Cardinal
Health, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors,
according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Beginning July 2, 2004, 15 purported class action complaints
have been filed by purported participants in the Cardinal Health
Profit Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan, collectively
referred to as the Cardinal Health ERISA actions. These cases
include:
-- "David McKeehan and James Syracuse v. Cardinal Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 643,"
-- "Timothy Ferguson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 668,"
-- "James DeCarlo v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 684,"
-- "Margaret Johnson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 722,"
-- "Harry Anderson v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 725,"
-- "Charles Heitholt v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 736,"
-- "Dan Salinas and Andrew Jones v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 04 CV 745,"
-- "Daniel Kelley v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 746,"
-- "Vincent Palyan v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 778,"
-- "Saul Cohen v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
04 CV 789,"
-- "Travis Black v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 790,"
-- "Wendy Erwin v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
04 CV 803,"
-- "Susan Alston v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 815,"
-- "Jennifer Brister v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. (04 CV 828), and"
-- "Gint Baukus v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
05 C2 101."
The Cardinal Health ERISA actions purport to be brought on
behalf of participants in the 401(k) Plan and the Syncor
Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan, and also on behalf
of the Plans themselves.
The complaints allege that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA, generally asserting that the
defendants failed to make full disclosure of the risks to the
Plans' participants of investing in the company's stock, to the
detriment of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries, and that
company stock should not have been made available as an
investment alternative for the Plans' participants.
The misstatements alleged in the Cardinal Health ERISA actions
significantly overlap with the misstatements alleged in the
Cardinal Health federal securities actions.
The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health ERISA actions were
consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal Health,
Inc. ERISA Litigation."
On Jan. 14, 2005, the court appointed lead counsel and liaison
counsel for the consolidated Cardinal Health ERISA action.
On April 29, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended ERISA complaint naming the company, certain current and
former directors, officers and employees, the company's Employee
Benefits Policy Committee and Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. as
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.
On Dec. 1, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. The parties agreed to leave the motion for class
certification pending while the court considered a motion to
dismiss.
On March 31, 2006, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
respect to Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. and with respect to
plaintiffs' claim for equitable relief. The court denied the
remainder of the motion to dismiss filed by the company and
certain defendants. Discovery is now proceeding (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006).
The parties are conducting discovery and briefing with respect
to the class certification motion. It was expected that the
court will hold a hearing on the class certification motion in
January or February 2007.
The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-cv-00643-ALM-NMK," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Algenon L. Marbley.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) James Edward Arnold, Clark Perdue Arnold & Scott - 2,
471 East Broad Street, Suite 1400, Columbus, OH 43215,
Phone: 614-469-1400, E-mail: jarnold@cpaslaw.com; and
(2) George E. Barrett of Barrett Johnston & Parsley - 1,
217 Second Avenue, N. Nashville, TN 37201, Phone: 615-
244-2202, E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) J. Kevin Cogan, Jones Day, 325 John H. McConnell Blvd.,
PO Box 165017, Columbus, OH 43216-5017, Phone: 614-469-
3939, Fax: 614-461-4198, Email: jcogan@jonesday.com;
and
(ii) Roger Philip Sugarman of Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter -
2, 65 E. State Street, Suite 1800, Columbus, OH 43215-
4294, Phone: 614-462-5400, Fax: 614-462-5422, E-mail:
rsugarman@keglerbrown.com.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Discovery Continues in Ohio Stock Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in a consolidated securities class
action filed against Cardinal Health, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.
Since July 2, 2004, purported purchasers of the company's
securities have filed 10 purported class action complaints.
They named the company and certain of its officers and
directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws.
These cases include:
-- "Gerald Burger v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 575,"
-- "Todd Fener v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case No.
04 CV 579,"
-- "E. Miles Senn v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 597,"
-- "David Kim v. Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 04 CV
598,"
-- "Arace Brothers v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 604,"
-- "John Hessian v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., Case
No. 04 CV 635,"
-- "Constance Matthews Living Trust v. Cardinal Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 636,"
-- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04 CV 849,"
-- "The State of New Jersey v. Cardinal Health, Inc., et
al., Case No. 04 CV 831,"
-- "First New York Securities, LLC v. Cardinal Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 911"
The Cardinal Health federal securities actions purport to be
brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities
during various periods beginning as early as Oct. 24, 2000 and
ending as late as July 26, 2004.
The suits allege, among others, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a)
of the U.S. Exchange Act by issuing a series of false and/or
misleading statements concerning the company's financial
results, prospects and condition.
Certain of the complaints also allege violations of Section 11
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, claiming
material misstatements or omissions in prospectuses issued by
the company in connection with its acquisition of Bindley
Western Industries, Inc. in 2001 and Syncor in 2003.
The alleged misstatements relate to the company's accounting for
recoveries relating to antitrust litigation against vitamin
manufacturers, and to classification of revenue in the company's
Pharmaceutical Distribution business as either operating revenue
or revenue from bulk deliveries to customer warehouses, and
other accounting and business model transition issues, including
reserve accounting.
The alleged misstatements are claimed to have caused an
artificial inflation in the company's stock price during the
proposed class period.
The complaints sought unspecified money damages and equitable
relief against the defendants and an award of attorney's fees.
On Dec. 15, 2004, the Cardinal Health federal securities actions
were consolidated into one action captioned, "In re Cardinal
Health, Inc. Federal Securities Litigation." On Jan. 26, 2005,
the court appointed the Pension Fund Group as lead plaintiff in
this consolidated action.
On Apr. 22, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended complaint naming the company, certain current and former
officers and employees and the company's external auditors as
defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants.
On Mar. 27, 2006, the court granted a motion to dismiss with
respect to the company's external auditors and a former officer
and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the company and
the other individual defendants.
On Dec. 12, 2006, the parties stipulated that the case could
proceed as a class action with a class comprised of all persons
other than company officers or directors who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's stock during the class period.
Discovery is proceeding, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "In re Cardinal Health, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-575," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio.
Representing the plaintiffs 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, (San
Diego, CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza,
San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
support@milberg.com; and
(3) John R. Climaco, Climaco Lefkowitz Peca Wilcox &
Garofoli LPA - 1, 1228 Euclid Avenue, Suite 900,
Cleveland, OH 44115-1891, Phone: 216-621-8484, Fax:
216-771-1632, E-mail: jrclim@climacolaw.com.
Representing the company are John M. Newman, Jr., Geoffrey J.
Ritts of Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue, North Point, 901 Lakeside
Ave, Cleveland, OH 44114-1190, Phone: 216-586-3939, E-mail:
jmnewman@jonesday.com or gjritts@jonesday.com.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Plaintiff Appeals Dismissal of "Pilkington"
------------------------------------------------------------
Lead plaintiff in a class action alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against Cardinal Health,
Inc., Syncor International Corp. and certain officers and
employees of the company, is appealing the dismissal of the case
by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
A purported class action complaint, "Pilkington v. Cardinal
Health, et al.," was filed on April 8, 2003, against the
company, Syncor and certain officers and employees of the
company by a purported participant in the Syncor Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan.
A related purported class action complaint, "Donna Brown, et al.
v. Syncor International Corp., et al.," was filed on Sept. 11,
2003, against the company, Syncor and certain individual
defendants.
Another related purported class action complaint, "Thompson v.
Syncor International Corp., et al.," was filed on Jan. 14, 2004,
against the company, Syncor and certain individual defendants.
Each of these actions was brought in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.
A consolidated complaint was filed on Feb. 24, 2004 against
Syncor and certain former Syncor officers, directors and/or
employees alleging that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA based on the same underlying
allegations of improper and unlawful conduct alleged in the
federal securities litigation.
The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified money damages and
other unspecified relief against the defendants. On April 26,
2004, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On Aug. 24, 2004, the court granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to Dismiss.
The court dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against
defendants Ed Burgos and Sheila Coop, all claims alleging co-
fiduciary liability against all defendants, and all claims
alleging that the individual defendants had conflicts of
interest precluding them from properly exercising their
fiduciary duties under ERISA.
A claim for breach of the duty to prudently manage plan assets
was upheld against Syncor, and a claim for breach of the alleged
duty to "monitor" the performance of Syncor's Plan
Administrative Committee was upheld against defendants Monty Fu
and Robert Funari.
On Jan. 10, 2006, the court entered summary judgment in favor of
all defendants on all remaining claims. Consistent with that
ruling, on Jan. 11, 2006, the court entered a final order
dismissing this case.
The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31,
2006.
The suit is "Carol Pilkington v. Cardinal Health Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-02446-RGK-RC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge R. Gary
Klausner.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Christopher Kim, Lisa J. Yang, Lim Ruger & Kim, 1055 W
7th St, Ste 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017, Phone: 213-
955-9500 Email: christopher.kim@lrklawyers.com or
lisa.yang@lrklawyers.com;
(2) Edward Chang, Joseph H. Meltzer, Schiffrin and
Barroway, 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087,
Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail: echang@sbclasslaw.com or
jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com;
(3) Edward W Ciolko, Richard S. Schiffrin, Schiffrin &
Barroway, 3 Bala Plaza E, Ste 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA
19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Email:
eciolko@sbclasslaw.com;
(4) Elizabeth A Leland, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, T. David
Copley, Tobias Kammer, Keller Rohrback, 1201 3rd Ave,
Ste 3200 Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-1900, Email:
bleland@kellerrohrback.com, lsarko@kellerrohrback.com,
dcopley@kellerrohrback.com;
(5) Gary A Gotto, Dalton Gotto Samson & Kilgard, National
Bank Plz, 3101 N Central Ave, Ste 900, Phoenix, AZ
85012-2600, Phone: 602-248-0088, Fax: 602-230-6360; and
(6) Ron Kilgard, Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central
Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 602-248-
0088, Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com.
Representing the defendants is Ted Allan Gehring, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S. Grand Ave., 45th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3197, Phone: 213-229-7000.
DOLE FOOD: Faces Antitrust Law Violations Lawsuit in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Co. Inc. is facing European Union antitrust inquiry
and U.S. class actions filed by direct and indirect banana
buyers.
The European Commission is investigating alleged violations of
European Union competition (antitrust) laws by banana and
pineapple importers and distributors operating within the
European Economic Area.
On June 2 and 3, 2005, the Commission conducted a search of
certain of the company's offices in Europe. During this same
period, the Commission also conducted similar unannounced
searches of other companies' offices located in the European
Union. The company is cooperating with the Commission and has
responded to its information requests. Although no assurances
can be given concerning the course or outcome of that
investigation, the company believes that it has not violated the
European Union competition laws.
Following the public announcement of the Commission searches, a
number of class actions were filed against the company and three
competitors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida.
The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now
been consolidated into two separate class actions:
-- one by direct purchasers (customers); and
-- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
bananas from customers).
Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants
conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
or restrict output of bananas.
ELKCORP: Faces Del. Stockholder Suit Over Carlyle Group Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
ElkCorp. is a defendant in a purported class action filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County
over a merger agreement with The Carlyle Group.
On Dec. 18, 2006, the company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger with CGEA Investor, Inc. and CGEA Holdings, Inc., both
Delaware corporations wholly owned directly or indirectly by
Carlyle Partners IV, L.P., an affiliate of The Carlyle Group.
On Dec. 19, 2006, Call4U, Ltd. filed the complaint, captioned,
"Call4U, Ltd. v. ElkCorp., et al., C.A. No. 2623-N." The Call4U
complaint alleges that the plaintiff has brought the action on
his own behalf and as a class action on behalf of all owners of
the company's common stock and their successors in interest,
except defendants and their affiliates, and names as defendants
the company, its directors, and Carlyle.
The Call4U Complaint alleges that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the company's
entry into the Carlyle Agreement, and that Carlyle aided and
abetted those breaches of duty, and seeks relief including,
among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctions
prohibiting consummation of the merger contemplated by the
Carlyle Agreement and an accounting for damages and profits.
ElkCorp. On the Net: http://www.elkcorp.com.
FLORIDA: Fort Lauderdale Settles Suit Over City Code Crackdown
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Fort Lauderdale is poised to settle a purported
class action that claims its city code enforcement practices are
illegal, racially motivated and "mean spirited," The South
Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.
The suit was filed on behalf of homeowners targeted in a late
2004 code enforcement sweep in northwest Fort Lauderdale and
four homeowners cited in previous years.
Legal Aid attorney Sharon Bourassa filed the suit in Broward
Circuit Court, contending that the city's Code Enforcement
Department uses selective enforcement and its notices are a
violation of residents' due process (Class Action Reporter, June
1, 2006).
According to the suit, the city conducted the code sweep in a
mostly black, low-income area, sending inspectors door to door
with instructions to cite homeowners for all violations, from
bare patches on lawns to missing address numerals to chipped
paint.
The nonprofit legal provider sought class-action status for the
lawsuit in order to also represent all the homeowners cited
under the code sweep dubbed NEAT for Neighborhood Enhancement
Action Team.
Legal Aid alleges that the city's motive for the code crackdown
was gentrification, to "move African-Americans out of this
longtime African-American neighborhood" by depressing home
prices with code liens, to produce a buyer's market for
investors.
It also criticized code violation notices, saying that the
city's practices led to astronomical fines before property
owners were aware.
The city though opted to settle the case and has denied the
allegations and admitted no guilt. Though both Legal Aid and
the city had come to terms on an agreement, the City Commission
must still vote on the deal.
Under the proposed settlement agreement:
-- code notices must clearly tell homeowners that they
can't lose their home to foreclosure from a code lien,
if it's a person's homestead or full-time residence;
-- threats of arrest and criminal charges must be deleted
from the violation notice;
-- a hearing date must be added to the notice in "bold
type and an enlarged font," warning that if the
violation isn't corrected by that date, the case will
head to a special master hearing;
-- An outside attorney must represent the city at code
enforcement board hearings;
-- if the owner doesn't pick up his or her certified mail
concerning the violation, the city will mail it via
regular mail and also post notice of the violation.
For more details, contact Sharon Bourassa, Phone: (561) 393-
5660, E-mail: sbourassa@legalaid.org.
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Files RICO Lawsuit Against Wash. Farm Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles-based labor contractor, Global Horizons, filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington against migrant farm workers under federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges, the
CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named defendants in the suit are farm workers:
-- Ricardo Bettancourt
-- Jose Guadalupe Perez-Farias
-- Jesus Gonzalez
-- Celestino Mendiola-Romero
-- Enrique Granado
-- Perfecto Esquivel
-- Jose De Jesus Magana and
-- Jose E. Ramirez.
Defendants are Yakima Valley farm workers who are part of a 2005
lawsuit against Global Horizons, alleging that the firm violated
state and federal law when it displaced them with workers from
Thailand (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2005).
The current suit is a defendant class action brought by Global
Horizons against certain persons who have applied for employment
with the company as farm workers using stolen or phony
citizenship documents, then quit, costing plaintiff Global
Horizons the cost of training and injury to its reputation.
Global claims the defendants have each applied for two or more
jobs using the phony documents, constituting a continuing
criminal enterprise.
Global Horizons seeks a judgment against the defendants for
three times the damages each has caused it through their
violations of the Statute and RICO plus reasonable attorney's
fees. Global Horizons also seeks to have this case certified as
a defendant class action.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19c7
The suit is "Global Horizons Inc. v. Bettancourt et al., Case
No. 2:07-cv-03010-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington under Judge Robert H. Whaley.
Representing plaintiff is Gregg Randall Smith of the Gregg Smith
Law Office, 905 West Riverside, Suite 409, Spokane, WA 99201,
Phone: 509-456-0883, Fax: 15098383955, E-mail:
gregg@greggsmithlaw.com.
GOODYEAR TIRE: Settles Gender Discrimination Suit for $925T
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. agreed to pay $925,000 to settle
a sexual discrimination class action at its Danville, Virginia
plant, The Beacon Journal report.
The lawsuit alleged that from January 1998 to June 1999,
Goodyear followed "a hiring process and selection procedures
that discriminated against hundreds of female applicants for
entry-level positions on the basis of gender."
The settlement will benefit an estimated 800 women who were
allegedly denied tire-building jobs at the plant. It will only
affect that plant.
Goodyear denies discrimination or wrongdoing but agreed to
annual training for managers on equal-employment opportunity and
affirmative action.
LANTRONIX INC: Calif. Securities Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
gave final approval to a $15.2 million settlement in the class
action, "In re Lantronix, Inc. (LTRX) Securities Litigation,
Master File No.: CV-02-3899 GPS (JTLx)."
The company earlier said that $13.9 million in insurance would
pay most of the settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 29,
2006).
Beginning on May 15, 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The cases were consolidated into a
single action, "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. CV 02-3899 GPS."
After the court appointed a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff filed
amended complaints, and the defendants filed various motions to
dismiss directed at particular allegations. Through that
process, the court dismissed certain of the allegations.
On Oct. 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which was the operative complaint in the action. The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S.
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
The Securities Act claims are brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to
the company's Aug. 4, 2000 initial public offering.
The Exchange Act claims are based on alleged misstatements
related to the company's financial results that were contained
in the Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO.
The claims brought under the Exchange Act are brought on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix
securities from Nov. 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002.
The complaint alleges that defendants issued false and
misleading statements concerning the business and financial
condition in order to allegedly inflate the value of the
company's securities during the class period.
The complaint further alleges that during the class period,
Lantronix overstated financial results through improper revenue
recognition and failure to comply with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.
While the complaint did not specify the damages plaintiff may
seek on behalf of the purported classes of stockholders, a
recovery by the plaintiff and the plaintiff classes could have a
material adverse impact on the company.
Recently, the company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
settle the lawsuit. The company has also reached agreements
with its relevant insurance carriers with respect to the funding
of the cash portions of the settlement with plaintiffs (Class
Action Reporter, Oct. 3, 2006).
Under the terms of the agreement with the plaintiffs, the
company will not be required to contribute any cash to the
settlement, as all cash contributed would be from the company's
insurance carriers.
However, as part of the agreement with the plaintiffs in the
lawsuit, the company has agreed to issue certain Lantronix
securities to the plaintiffs.
On Aug. 29, 2006, the court held a hearing to consider a motion
for preliminary approval of the settlement. It granted
preliminary approval on Sept. 8, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
Sept. 18, 2006).
On Dec. 11, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California gave its final approval to the settlement
and issued a final order and judgment in the matter.
The company expects to issue the Lantronix securities with a
fair value of $1.1 million to the class plaintiffs as final
consideration for the settlement by Feb. 9, 2007, according to
the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge George P.
Schiavelli.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd.
- 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone: 310-725-
6400 and 310.208.2800, Fax; 310.209.2348, E-mail:
valexander@yaplaw.com;
(2) Andrew J. Brown of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
and Robbins, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego,
CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, E-mail:
andrewb@lerachlaw.com; and
(3) Karnit Daniel of Weiss and Lurie, 10940 Wilshire,
Boulevard, 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90024, Phone:
310-208-2800, E-mail: service@wyca.com.
Representing the defendants are, Keith E. Eggleton, Boris
Feldman, Kelley E. Moohr and Daniel W. Turbow of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100.
MCY MUSIC: Ill. Court Dismisses Claims Over "'N Sync" Concert
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois appeals court rejected claims of a parent who sued
organizers and sponsors of an 'N Sync" concert after a huge
traffic jam forced her and her family to miss the event, The
Chicago Sun-Times reports.
Pierre Petrich, her daughter, a niece and another guest made it,
to the concert at the Route 66 Raceway in Joliet in 2000, but
only to catch the last 10 minutes or so of the concert. She
argues that the event organizers and sponsors weren't adequately
prepared for the huge crowds.
Attorneys for the facility and one of the sponsors countered
that Mrs. Petrich simply didn't allow enough time to get to the
concert.
Jack Crowe, a Chicago attorney representing MCY Music World, an
event sponsor, pointed out that more than 45,000 people managed
to get in on time, and for some reason this plaintiff didn't.
Mrs. Petrich had sought to have the appeals court grant the case
class-action status, claiming that "hundreds" of other ticket
holders were similarly shut out of the concert because of poor
planning.
However, in a recently issued ruling, Justice Calvin Campbell,
found that Mrs. Petrich hadn't provided adequate proof that the
other concertgoers all arrived late for the same reason.
After the ruling was handed down, Ken Goldstein, Mrs. Petrich's
attorney, said that a decision to appeal hadn't been made by his
client.
For more details, contact Kenneth T. Goldstein of Krislov &
Associates, LTD., 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1350, Chicago, IL
6060, Phone: (312) 606-0500, Fax: (312) 606-0207, Web site:
http://www.krislovlaw.com.
METLIFE INC: Tag-Along Order Issued in Fla. Racketeering Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
issued a tag-along order that will indefinitely stay a purported
class action brought by the American Dental Association against
MetLife Inc.
In May 2003, the American Dental Association and three
individual providers filed a purported class action against
MetLife Inc. and Cigna Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of in-
network providers who allege that their claims are being
wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use
and programming of software. The complaint alleges federal
racketeering and various state law theories of liability.
The district court has granted in part and denied in part
MetLife's motion to dismiss. MetLife has filed another motion
to dismiss. The court has issued a tag-along order, related to
a medical managed care trial, which will stay the lawsuit
indefinitely, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "American Dental Asso, et al. v. Cigna Corp., et
al., Case No. 1:03-cv-21266-FAM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Federico A.
Moreno.
METLIFE INC: Certification Sought in Employee Insurance Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife Inc. is facing a consolidated complaint in U.S. District
Court in New Jersey alleging that the company violated federal
laws in the context of providing insurance to employee benefit
plans.
Approximately 16 broker-related lawsuits in which MetLife Inc.
was named as a defendant were filed. Voluntary dismissals and
consolidations have reduced the number of pending actions to
four. In one of these, the California Insurance Commissioner
filed a suit in 2004 in California state court in San Diego
County against Metropolitan Life and other companies, alleging
that the defendants violated certain provisions of the
California Insurance Code.
Another of these actions is pending in a multi-district
proceeding established in the federal district court in the
District of New Jersey. In this proceeding, plaintiffs have
filed an amended class action complaint consolidating the claims
from separate actions that had been filed in or transferred to
the District of New Jersey in 2004 and 2005.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Holding Co.,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., several other insurance
companies and several insurance brokers violated the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, and antitrust laws and committed
other misconduct in the context of providing insurance to
employee benefit plans and to persons who participate in such
employee benefit plans.
Plaintiffs seek to represent classes of employers that
established employee benefit plans and persons who participated
in such employee benefit plans. A motion for class
certification has been filed. A motion to dismiss has not been
fully decided and additional briefing will take place, according
to the company's 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
Plaintiffs in several other actions have voluntarily dismissed
their claims.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Sales Practices Claims in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. continues to face two
putative class actions alleging improper marketing and sales of
individual life insurance policies or annuities in Canada.
Over the past several years, Metropolitan Life, New England
Mutual Life Insurance Co., with which Metropolitan Life merged
in 1996 (New England Mutual), and General American Life
Insurance Co., which was acquired in 2000, have faced numerous
claims, including class actions, alleging improper marketing and
sales of individual life insurance policies or annuities. These
lawsuits generally are referred to as "sales practices claims."
In December 1999, a federal court approved a settlement
resolving sales practices claims on behalf of a class of owners
of permanent life insurance policies and annuity contracts or
certificates issued pursuant to individual sales in the U.S. by
Metropolitan Life, Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Co. or
Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Co. between Jan. 1, 1982 and
Dec. 31, 1997.
Similar sales practices class actions against New England Mutual
and General American have been settled.
In October 2000, a federal court approved a settlement resolving
sales practices claims on behalf of a class of owners of
permanent life insurance policies issued by New England Mutual
between Jan. 1, 1983 through Aug. 31, 1996. A federal court has
approved a settlement resolving sales practices claims on behalf
of a class of owners of permanent life insurance policies issued
by General American between Jan. 1, 1982 through Dec. 31, 1996.
An appellate court has affirmed the order approving the
settlement.
Certain class members have opted out of the class action
settlements noted above and have brought or continued non-class
action sales practices lawsuits. In addition, other sales
practices lawsuits, including lawsuits or other proceedings
relating to the sale of mutual funds and other products, have
been brought.
As of Sept. 30, 2006, there are approximately:
* 311 sales practices litigation matters pending against
Metropolitan Life;
* approximately 41 sales practices litigation matters
pending against New England Mutual, New England Life
Insurance Co., and New England Securities Corp.
(collectively, New England);
* approximately 45 sales practices litigation matters
pending against General American; and
* approximately 24 sales practices litigation matters
pending against Walnut Street Securities, Inc.
In addition, similar litigation matters are pending against
MetLife Securities, Inc.
Metropolitan Life, New England, General American, MSI and Walnut
Street continue to defend themselves vigorously against these
litigation matters.
Some individual sales practices claims have been resolved
through settlement, won by dispositive motions, or have gone to
trial. The outcomes of trials have varied, and appeals are
pending in several matters. Most of the current cases seek
substantial damages, including in some cases punitive and treble
damages and attorneys' fees. Additional litigation relating to
the company's marketing and sales of individual life insurance,
mutual funds and other products may be commenced in the future.
The Metropolitan Life class action settlement did not resolve
two putative class actions involving sales practices claims
filed against Metropolitan Life in Canada, and these actions
remain pending, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Sept. 30, 2006.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces Several Demutualization Litigations
------------------------------------------------------------
A trial court issued a decision granting plaintiffs' motion to
certify a litigation class with respect to a claim that
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. and other defendants violated
section 7312 of the New York Insurance Law.
Several lawsuits were brought in 2000 challenging the fairness
of Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.'s plan of reorganization, as
amended and the adequacy and accuracy of Metropolitan Life's
disclosure to policyholders regarding the plan.
These actions named as defendants some or all of Metropolitan
Life, the Holding Company, the individual directors, the New
York Superintendent of Insurance and the underwriters for
MetLife, Inc.'s initial public offering, Goldman Sachs & Co. and
Credit Suisse First Boston.
In 2003, a trial court within the commercial part of the New
York State Supreme Court, New York County, granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss two purported class actions. In
2004, the appellate court modified the trial court's order by
reinstating certain claims against Metropolitan Life, the
Holding Company and the individual directors. Plaintiffs in
these actions have filed a consolidated amended complaint.
On May 2, 2006, the trial court issued a decision granting
plaintiffs' motion to certify a litigation class with respect to
their claim that defendants violated section 7312 of the New
York Insurance Law, but finding that plaintiffs had not met the
requirements for certifying a class with respect to a fraud
claim. Defendants have a right to appeal this decision.
Another purported class action filed in New York State court in
Kings County has been consolidated with this action. The
plaintiffs in the state court class action seek compensatory
relief and punitive damages. Five persons brought a proceeding
under Article 78 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules
challenging the Opinion and Decision of the Superintendent who
approved the plan.
In this proceeding, petitioners sought to vacate the
Superintendent's Opinion and Decision and enjoin him from
granting final approval of the plan. On Nov. 10, 2005, the
trial court granted respondents' motions to dismiss this
proceeding. Petitioners have filed a notice of appeal.
In a class action against Metropolitan Life and the Holding
Company pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, plaintiffs served a second consolidated
amended complaint in 2004. In this action, plaintiffs assert
violations of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the plan,
claiming that the Policyholder Information Booklets failed to
disclose certain material facts and contained certain material
misstatements. They seek rescission and compensatory damages.
On June 22, 2004, the court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim of violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The court had previously denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the claim for violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
In 2004, the court reaffirmed its earlier decision denying
defendants' motion for summary judgment as premature. On July
19, 2005, this federal trial court certified a class action
against Metropolitan Life and the Holding Company.
In 2001, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Justice,
Ontario, Canada on behalf of a proposed class of certain former
Canadian policyholders against the Holding Company, Metropolitan
Life, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. of Canada.
Plaintiffs' allegations concern the way that their policies were
treated in connection with the demutualization of Metropolitan
Life; they seek damages, declarations, and other non-pecuniary
relief.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Ruling in D.C. Pension Fund Lawsuit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed by former employees of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. are appealing the decision by
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to grant
the company summary judgment.
A putative class action, which commenced in October 2000,
accuses the company of denying certain ad hoc pension increases
awarded to retirees under the Metropolitan Life retirement plan.
The ad hoc pension increases were awarded only to retirees
(i.e., individuals who were entitled to an immediate retirement
benefit upon their termination of employment) and not available
to individuals like these plaintiffs whose employment, or whose
spouses' employment, had terminated before they became eligible
for an immediate retirement benefit.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of former
Metropolitan Life employees, or their surviving spouses, who are
receiving deferred vested annuity payments under the retirement
plan and who were allegedly eligible to receive the ad hoc
pension increases. In September 2005, Metropolitan Life's
motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs moved for
reconsideration. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was
denied. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The company reported no development in the case at its 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Brubaker, et al. v. Metropolitan Life, et al., case
no. 1:00-cv-02511-EGS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, under Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
Representing the plaintiffs is Tas Coroneos, 5801 Highland
Drive, Chevy Chase, MD 20815-5531, Phone: (301) 656-1124, Fax:
(301) 656-1460.
Representing the company are Emmett Boaz Lewis, Mark J. Rochon
and Anthony F. Shelley of Miller & Chevalier, 655 Fifteenth
Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: (202) 626-
6090, Fax: (202) 628-0858, E-mail: elewis@milchev.com,
mrochon@milchev.com and ashelley@milchev.com.
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces Several Property, Casualty Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action has been filed against Metropolitan
Property and Casualty Insurance Co.'s subsidiary, Metropolitan
Casualty Insurance Co., in Florida over allegations of breach of
contract and unfair trade practices.
Discovery is ongoing and a motion for class certification is
pending, according to the company's 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2006.
Two purported nationwide class actions were filed against
Metropolitan Property and Casualty in Illinois. One suit claims
breach of contract and fraud due to the alleged underpayment of
medical claims arising from the use of a purportedly biased
provider fee pricing system. A motion for class certification
has been filed and briefed.
The second suit claims breach of contract and fraud arising from
the alleged use of preferred provider organizations to reduce
medical provider fees covered by the medical claims portion of
the insurance policy. The court recently granted Metropolitan
Property and Casualty's motion to dismiss the fraud claim in the
second suit. A motion for class certification has been filed
and briefed.
A purported class action has been filed against Metropolitan
Property and Casualty in Montana. This suit alleges breach of
contract and bad faith for not aggregating medical payment and
uninsured coverages provided in connection with the several
vehicles identified in insureds' motor vehicle policies.
A recent decision by the Montana Supreme Court in a suit
involving another insurer determined that aggregation is
required. The court has approved a settlement of this action
and the administration of claims has been substantially
concluded.
Certain plaintiffs' lawyers in another action have alleged that
the use of certain automated databases to provide total loss
vehicle valuation methods was improper. The court has approved
a settlement of this action.
A number of lawsuits are pending against Metropolitan Property
and Casualty (in Louisiana and in Mississippi) relating to
Hurricane Katrina, including purported class actions. It is
reasonably possible other actions will be filed.
NETWORK ENGINES: N.Y. Court Defers Ruling on IPO Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New York indicated
that it would defer consideration of final approval of the
settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action
against Network Engines, Inc.
On or about Dec. 3, 2001, a putative class action was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against:
-- the company;
-- Lawrence A. Genovesi, former chairman and chief
executive officer;
-- Douglas G. Bryant, chief financial officer and vice
president of finance and administration; and
-- underwriters of the company's initial public offering:
* FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.,
* Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,
* Goldman Sachs & Co.,
* Lehman Brothers Inc., and
* Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
An amended class action complaint, captioned, "In re Network
Engines, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01
Civ. 10894 (SAS)," was filed on April 20, 2002.
The suit alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing and selling securities pursuant to
company's initial public offering in July 2000 without
disclosing to investors that the Underwriter Defendants had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.
It also alleges that the Underwriter Defendants entered into
agreements with certain customers whereby the Underwriter
Defendants agreed to allocate to those customers shares of the
company's common stock in the offering, in exchange for which
the customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the
company common stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.
The suit alleges that such tie-in arrangements were designed to
and did maintain, distort and/or inflate the price of the
company's common stock in the aftermarket.
The suit further alleges that the Underwriter Defendants
received undisclosed and excessive brokerage commissions and
that, as a consequence, the Underwriter Defendants successfully
increased investor interest in the manipulated IPO securities
and increased the Underwriter Defendants' individual and
collective underwritings, compensation and revenues.
The suit seeks damages and certification of a plaintiff class
consisting of all persons who acquired shares of company common
stock between July 13, 2000 and Dec. 6, 2000.
In July 2002, the company, Lawrence A. Genovesi, and Douglas G.
Bryant joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss the suit
challenging the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.
The motion was filed on behalf of hundreds of issuer and
individual defendants named in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs
opposed the motion, and the court heard oral argument on the
motion in November 2002.
On Feb. 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion as to the company. However, in October 2002,
Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.
On July 9, 2003, a Special Committee of the company's Board of
Directors authorized the company to negotiate a settlement of
the pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers.
The parties have negotiated the settlement, which provides,
among other things, for a release of the company and the
Individual Defendants for the conduct alleged in the amended
complaint to be wrongful.
The company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the settlement, including agreeing to assign, or not
assert, certain potential claims that the company may have
against the underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the company
insurers.
Any such settlement would be subject to various contingencies,
including approval by the court overseeing the litigation. On
Feb. 15, 2005, the court issued an Opinion and Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, provided that the
defendants and plaintiffs agree to a modification narrowing the
scope of the bar order set forth in the original settlement
agreement.
The parties agreed to a modification narrowing the scope of the
bar order, and on Aug. 31, 2005, the court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and setting a public
hearing on its fairness, which took place on April 24, 2006.
On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit overturned the court's certification of the class of
plaintiffs who are pursuing the claims that would be settled in
the settlement against the underwriter defendants.
Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc
with the Second Circuit on Jan. 5, 2007 in response to the
Second Circuit's decision and have informed the court that they
would like to be heard as to whether the settlement might still
be approved even if the decision of the Court of Appeals is not
reversed.
The court indicated that it would defer consideration of final
approval of the settlement pending plaintiffs' request for
further appellate review, according to the company's Feb. 8,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Several makers of "fat burner" formula are facing class-action
complaints in Tucson, Baltimore and Pittsburgh Federal Courts
and Clark County Court, Nevada, the CourtHouse News Service.
Named defendants in the suit are:
-- NX Care, Inc.
-- NXLABS, Inc.
-- WellNX Life Sciences, Inc.
-- Derek Woodgate
-- Brad Woodgate and
-- Scott Welch.
The company defendants are makers of Remarkable! "Slimquick -
the Female Fat Burner," advertised as "the world's first
advanced fat burner designed specifically for women," and "NV"
"the first weight-loss formula with beauty enhancing
properties."
Plaintiffs claim defendants are selling bogus goods under false
pretenses. And they claim the defendants use bogus
"testimonials" from women who claim to have lost 34 lbs. through
the "fat burners," but who happen to be the wife of the
defendants' marketing director, and the girlfriend of defendant
Mr. Welch.
Plaintiffs seek more than $10 million for fraud, consumer fraud
and defective products.
The Pennsylvania suit is Catanzaro et al. v. NX Care, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00171-DSC," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge David
S. Cercone.
Representing plaintiffs is Robert J. Behling of Dapper,
Baldasare, Benson & Kane, 444 Liberty Avenue, Four Gateway
Center, 10th Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Phone: (412) 456-5555,
E-mail: rbehling@dbbk.com.
QUANTUM CORP: Settles Litigation in Wash. Over ADIC Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corp. settled a purported class action filed in King
County Superior Court, Seattle, Washington over its acquisition
of Advanced Digital Information Corp., according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
On May 18, 2006, a lawsuit was filed in King County Superior
Court, Seattle, Washington, naming ADIC and its directors as
defendants.
The lawsuit is a purported class action filed by Richard
Carrigan on behalf of an alleged class of ADIC's shareholders.
Plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the director
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the
proposed acquisition of ADIC by Quantum that was publicly
announced on May 2, 2006.
The suit sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed acquisition and other relief.
On Aug. 22, 2006, the company completed its acquisition of ADIC.
Though the acquisition has since been consummated, the lawsuit
remained pending and the company has continued discussions with
the plaintiff to reach a resolution.
In January 2007, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the litigation. The parties intend to
negotiate a final settlement agreement and submit it to the
court for approval, which is expected to occur in subsequent
quarters.
Quantum Corp. on the Net: http://www.quantum.com.
STATE FARM: Feb. 28 Fairness Hearing Set for Katrina Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L.T. Senter of the U.S. District Court of Southern
Mississippi has delayed a hearing on the final approval of a
settlement of a class action concerning State Farm's handling of
Hurricane Katrina claims, according to reports.
Judge Senter requested additional evidence and recommended the
broadening of the settlement in order to accommodate individuals
who might have already filed their respective lawsuits, the
report said. Judge Senter set a hearing for Feb. 28 at 1:30
p.m.
The suit was filed by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood on
Sept. 15, 2005 against defendants:
-- Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance,
-- State Farm Fire and Casualty Co.,
-- Allstate Property and Casualty,
-- Insurance Co., United Services,
-- Automobile Association, Nationwide Mutual,
-- Insurance Co., and "A" through "Z" Entities
The case is Civil Action No. G2005-1642 R1.
The lawsuit seeks to make the insurance industry honor their
contracts to pay for losses caused by Katrina, particularly
their attempt to exclude damage caused directly or indirectly by
water, whether or not driven by wind.
The complaint asks the court to declare that certain insurance
contract provisions are void and unenforceable as the same are
contrary to public policy, are unconscionable, and are
ambiguous.
The provisions at issue attempt to exclude from coverage loss or
damage caused directly or indirectly by water, whether or not
driven by wind.
The complaint states that these provisions should be strictly
construed against the insurance companies who drafted the
insurance policies and their exclusions. The complaint also
states that the issuance of such insurance policies violates the
Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint also asks the court, among other things, to enter
a Temporary Restraining Order to immediately stop insurance
companies from asking property owners to sign documents stating
that their loss was caused by flood or water as opposed to wind,
and to stop using water exclusions to deny or reduce coverage
for hurricane damage or loss. The court is also being asked to
enter a preliminary and permanent injunction with regard to
these same matters.
The case contends that the defendants' refusal to meet their
contractual obligations to their policyholders will impose
unnecessary and excessive costs upon the state and local
governments and ultimately the taxpayers of the state of
Mississippi.
The attorney general estimated that the settlement would be
between $50 million and $500 million. The accord included
reimbursement for about 35 percent of the value of a destroyed
home and 6 percent for its contents. It involves an estimated
35,000 State Farm homeowners, renters and commercial
policyholders in the coastal Mississippi counties of Jackson,
Harrison, and Hancock most of whom had not, to date, filed suit
against State Farm.
Plaintiff Scruggs Katrina Group is asking a maximum of $20
million in legal fees under the settlement.
A copy of the complaint and motion for temporary restraining
order is at available for free at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?d87
Lead attorneys for the class action settlement are:
(1) Don Barrett and Marshall Smith of the Barrett Law
Office, 404 Court Square North, P.O. Box 987,
Lexington, Mississippi 39095, E-mail:
info@barrettlawoffice.com;
(2) Johnny Jones, Steve Funderburg, and Stewart Lee of
Jones, Funderburg, Peterson, Sessums, and Lee, 901
North State Street, Jackson, MS 39236, Phone: (601)
355-5200, Fax: (601) 355-5400;
(3) Dewitt Lovelace of the Lovelace Law Firm, 36474 Emerald
Coast Parkway, Suite 4202, Destin, FL 32541, Phone:
(850) 837-6020, Fax: (850) 837-4093;
(4) David Nutt, Meg McAllister, and Derek Wyatt of Nutt &
McAllister, PLLC, Ridgeland, Mississippi; and
(5) Richard Scruggs, Sid Backstrom and Zach Scruggs all of
the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A., 120A Courthouse Square,
P.O. Box 1136, Oxford, Mississippi 38655, Phone: 662-
281-1212, Fax: 662-281-1312.
STATE FARM: Hearing on Certification of "Guice" Set Feb. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court of Southern Mississippi Judge L.T. Senter
set a hearing on Feb. 28 at 10 a.m. for the proposed class
action "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al."
In 2006, Judge Senter denied class status to the suit filed by
State Farm policyholders claiming full compensation for
Hurricane Katrina damages (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 18,
2006).
Attorney Richard Phillips is pursuing the case on behalf of
policyholder Judy Guice of Ocean Springs, Mississippi. His suit
seeks to represent those policyholders with "slab" or
"foundation only" claims in Harrison, Hancock and Jackson
counties.
It further seeks to represent homeowners in cases in which a
State Farm adjuster requested an engineering report that the
company subsequently cancelled.
The point in contention in the case is whether water damage is
covered by the insurance policy offered by State Farm. State
Farm maintains that the water damage exclusion, as well as the
weather conditions provision, unambiguously bar coverage caused
by a combination of wind and water. Plaintiff argues that since
she suffered a total loss to her home, caused in part by wind,
then State Farm is liable for the full policy limits
notwithstanding the fact that water damage is excluded from
coverage.
Plaintiff is asking more than $1 million over the loss of her
home.
The suit is "Guice v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-00001-LTS-RHW," filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Robert H. Walker.
Representing the defendant are:
(1) Robert C. Galloway at Butler, Snow, O'mara, Stevens &
Canada, PLLC, P.O. Drawer 4248, Gulfport, MS 39502-
4248, Phone: 228864-1170, E-mail:
bob.galloway@butlersnow.com; and
(2) William N. Reed at Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, PC, P.O. Box 14167, Jackson, MS 39236-4167,
Phone: (601) 351-2400.
Representing the plaintiff is Richard Taylor Phillips at Smith,
Phillips, Mitchell & Scott, P.O. Drawer 1586, Batesville, MS
38606, Phone: 662/563-4613, E-mail: flip@smithphillips.com.
SYNCOR INT'L: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Dismissal on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
A ruling has yet to be made in an appeal regarding the dismissal
of the third amended complaint in a consolidated securities
fraud class action against Syncor International Corp.
Purported class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under
the federal securities laws.
All of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. These cases include:
-- "Richard Bowe v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
8560 LGB (RCx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Alan Kaplan v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
8575 CBM (MANx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Franklin Embon, Jr. v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al.,
No. CV 02-8687 DDP (AJWx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Jonathan Alk v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-
8841 GHK (RZx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Joyce Oldham v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-8972
FMC (RCx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund v. Syncor
Int'l Corp., et al., No. CV 02-9076 NM (RNBx) (C.D.
Cal.),"
-- "Brad Lookingbill v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV
02-9248 RSWL (Ex) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Them Luu v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9583 RGK
(JwJx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "David Hall v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-9621
CAS (CWx) (C.D. Cal.),"
-- "Phyllis Walzer v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 02-
9640 RMT (AJWx) (C.D. Cal.)," and
-- "Larry Hahn v. Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., CV 03-52 LGB
(RCx) (C.D. Cal.)."
The Syncor federal securities actions purport to be brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Syncor shares during various
periods, beginning as early as March 30, 2000 and ending as late
as Nov. 5, 2002.
The actions allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange
Act by issuing a series of press releases and public filings
disclosing significant sales growth in Syncor's international
business, but omitting mention of certain allegedly improper
payments to Syncor's foreign customers, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Syncor shares.
The lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint
on Dec. 29, 2004. Syncor filed a motion to dismiss the third
amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 31, 2005.
On April 15, 2005, the court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice. The lead plaintiff has appealed this decision,
according to Cardinal Health, Inc.'s Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The first identified complaint is "Richard Bowe, et al. v.
Syncor Int'l Corp., et al., Case No. 2:02-cv-08560-LGB-RC,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California under Judge Lourdes G. Baird with referral to Judge
Rosalyn M. Chapman.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Willie C. Briscoe of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, 3232
McKinney Ave, Ste. 700, Dallas, TX 75204, Phone: 214-
744-3000;
(2) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan of Shapiro Grace Haber & Urmy,
75 State St., Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-439-3939;
and
(3) Frank J. Johnson of Frank J. Johnson Law Offices, 402
West Broadway, 27th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-230-0063.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Daniel S. Floyd of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, 333 S. Grand
Ave., 45th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197, Phone: 213-
229-7000, E-mail: dfloyd@gibsondunn.com;
(ii) Robert F. LeMoine of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
300 S. Grand Ave, Ste. 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3144, Phone: 213-687-5000, E-mail: lacefax@skadden.com;
(iii) Gail Jeanne Standish of Winston and Strawn, 333 South
Grand Avenue, 39th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071, Phone:
213-615-1731, E-mail: gstandish@winston.com.
T. ROWE: "Dabit" Ruling Could Affect Ill. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. said that the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in the Dabit case could apply to a suit against the
company that is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.
In September 2003, a purported class action, "T.K.
Parthasarathy, et al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc., et al.," was filed in the Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, against
T. Rowe Price International and the T. Rowe Price International
Funds with respect to the T. Rowe Price International Stock
Fund.
The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price
defendants did not make appropriate price adjustments to the
foreign securities owned by the T. Rowe Price International
Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund's daily share prices,
thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund's shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term
investors. The plaintiffs sought monetary damages.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, which dismissed the case in May 2005. The
plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which stayed the appeal pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's certiorari decision in a similar case, "Kircher," from
the Seventh Circuit.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a significant and
favorable ruling in the appeal of an identical issue, "Dabit,"
from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the
Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 precludes
holders of securities from bringing covered securities fraud
class action claims under state law.
The Seventh Circuit asked for, and on April 4, 2006, the company
provided, a briefing on the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling
in "Dabit" on the case against the T. Rowe Price defendants.
On June 15, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in "Kircher" that
an order of remand by a federal judge to a state court is not
appealable.
Because the T. Rowe Price defendants did not appeal the remand
order, it is not clear whether the U.S. Supreme court's ruling
in "Kircher" will affect the May 2005 dismissal of the case
against the T. Rowe Price defendants or the plaintiffs' pending
appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court.
The Supreme Court's favorable order in "Dabit" should apply to
the case if it is remanded to the state court, the company said
at its Nov. 14, 2006 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the period ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Parthasarathy, et al. v. T Rowe Price International
Funds Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00302-DRH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under
Judge David R. Herndon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Klint L. Bruno, Ellison, Nielsen et al., Generally
Admitted, 100 West Monroe Street, 18th Floor, Chicago,
IL 60603, Phone: 312-855-8391;
(2) Robert L. King, Swedlow & King - Chicago, 70 West
Madison Street, Suite 660, Three First National Plaza,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 314-621-4002, Fax: 314-621-
2586, E-mail: robertlking@charter.net;
(3) Stephen M. Tillery, Korein Tillery - Swansea, 10
Executive Woods Court, Swansea, IL 62226-2030, Phone:
618-277-1180, E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com;
(4) George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery - Chicago, 70 West
Madison Street, Suite 660, 3 First National Plaza,
Chicago, IL 60602, Phone: 312-641-9750, Fax: 312-641-
9751, E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com;
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Glenn E. Davis, Frank N. Gundlach and Lisa M. Wood of
Armstrong Teasdale - St. Louis, One Metropolitan
Square, 211 North Broadway, Suite 2600, St. Louis, MO
63102-2740, by Phone: 314-621-5070 or by E-mail:
gdavis@armstrongteasdale.com,
fgundlach@armstrongteasdale.com and
lwood@armstrongteasdale.com; and
(ii) Martin I. Kaminsky, Edward T. Mcdermott, Daniel A.
Pollack and Anthony Zaccaria of Pollack & Kaminsky, 114
West 47th Street, Suite 1900, New York, NY 10036-8295,
Phone: 212-575-4700, E-mail:
mikaminsky@pollacklawfirm.com,
etmcdermott@pollacklawfirm.com,
dapollack@pollacklawfirm.com and
azaccaria@pollacklawfirm.com.
VERMONT: Motorcycle Club's Civil Rights Suit Denied Class Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont denied
class-action status to a civil rights lawsuit filed by a
motorcycle club against the town Jamaica officials and the
Windham County Sheriff's Department, The Brattleboro Reformer
reports.
On Dec. 22, 2005, The Pathfinder Motorcycle Club filed a suit
against former Sheriff Sheila Prue, several of the deputies, and
the town of Jamaica and its Select board.
The suit alleged that the club's civil rights were violated when
the town of Jamaica asked the sheriff's department to stop the
club's annual rally in August 2004 because the participants
lacked state-approved tires, goggles, helmets, directional
signals and license plates. The suit claims that the bikers
were lied to about those Vermont requirements.
In ruling against class certification, Judge J. Garvan Murtha
noted that there was no record of the club's lawyer handling
these types of cases.
Specifically, the judge wrote in his ruling, "The record
contains no information suggesting plaintiffs' counsel is
knowledgeable or experienced, either with civil rights
litigation or class-action practice," according to the report.
Judge Murtha stated in his ruling that other conditions for a
class action were met by the off-road motorcycle organization
with the exception of representation.
After the ruling, William S. Palmieri, the club's attorney,
filed a motion for the judge to reconsider, arguing that he was
"qualified, experienced and able to conduct" the case.
The suit is "Pathfinders Motorcycle Club et al. v. Prue et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00330-jgm," filed in the U.S. District Court of
the District of Vermont under Judge J. Garvan Murtha.
Representing the plaintiffs is William S. Palmieri, The Law
Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C., 205 Church Street, Suite
311, New Haven, CT 06510, Phone: (203) 562-3100, Fax: (203) 498-
6076, E-mail: wpalmieri@hotmail.com.
Representing the defendants is James F. Carroll of English,
Carroll, Ritter & Boe, P.C., 64 Court Street, Middlebury, VT
05753, Phone: (802) 388-6711, Fax: (802) 388-2111, E-mail:
jcarroll@ecrlaw.com.
WARNER MUSIC: Continues to Face Suit Over Music Download Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has consolidated class actions filed against Warner Music Group
Corp. over the pricing of digital music downloads.
On Dec. 20, 2005 and Feb. 3, 2006, the Attorney General of the
State of New York served the company with requests for
information in the form of a subpoena duces tecum and subpoena
ad testificandum in connection with an industry-wide
investigation as to whether the practices of industry
participants concerning the pricing of digital music downloads
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act, New York State General
Business Law Section 340 et seq., New York Executive Law Section
63(12), and related statutes.
On Feb. 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served the company with a request for information in
the form of a Civil Investigative Demand as to whether its
activities relating to the pricing of digitally downloaded music
violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The company has provided documents in response to these requests
and intends to continue to fully cooperate with the Attorney
General's, and Department of Justice's industry-wide inquiries.
Subsequent to the announcements of the above governmental
investigations, a total of thirty putative class actions
concerning the pricing of digital music downloads have been
filed.
On Aug. 15, 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these actions for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The lawsuits are all based on the same general subject matter as
the Attorney General's request for information alleging
conspiracy among record companies to fix prices for downloads
and, according to some of the complaints, protect allegedly
inflated prices for compact discs.
The complaints seek unspecified compensatory, statutory and
treble damages. The company reported no development in the case
at its Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
WHITE ELECTRONIC: May Hearing Set for Ariz. Securities Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 7, 2007 hearing is set for a $5.7 million settlement of
the consolidated securities fraud suit filed against White
Electronic Designs Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona.
On July 22, 2004, July 29, 2004, Aug. 6, 2004 and Aug. 20, 2004,
shareholder class actions were filed against the company and
certain of its current and former officers. The suits are:
-- "McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et
al. Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB;"
-- "Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et
al., Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS;"
-- "Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et
al., Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT;" and
-- "Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corp., et
al., Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC.
The actions were consolidated and the Wayne County Employees'
Retirement System was appointed as lead plaintiff. A
consolidated complaint was filed on or about Feb. 14, 2005.
The defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint
were granted on Feb. 14, 2006. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on April 17, 2006.
Like the dismissed complaint, the new complaint alleged, among
other things, that between Jan. 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the
company made false and misleading statements concerning its
financial results and business, and issued a misleading
registration statement and prospectus in connection with the
company's July 2003 secondary offering. The complaint sought
unspecified monetary damages.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the new complaint in June
2006. While defendants' motions were pending, the parties
reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit.
Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, the company's insurance
carrier will pay the entire $5.7 million settlement amount. The
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement
on Dec. 16, 2006.
The members of the settlement class will be notified of the
settlement, and allowed an opportunity to object before the
court grants final approval of the agreement.
The court has scheduled a hearing on May 7, 2007, at which time
it will consider whether the agreement should receive final
approval.
The suit is "McJimsey, et al. v. White Electronic Des, et al.,
Case No. 2:04-cv-01499-SRB," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Arizona under Judge Susan R. Bolton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Ramzi Abadou, Russell J. Gunyan and Samuel H. Rudman of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
B. St., Ste. 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
(619) 231-1058; and
(2) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew S. Friedman, Patrick
James Van Zanen of Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint
PC, 2901 N Central Ave, Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012-
3311, Phone: 602-274-1100, Fax: 602-274-1199, E-mail:
fbalint@bffb.com, afriedman@bffb.com and
pvanzanen@bffb.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Joseph G. Adams and Joel Philip Hoxie of Snell & Wilmer
LLP, 1 Arizona Ctr., 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix, AZ
85004-2202, Phone: 602-382-6207, Fax: 602-382-6070, E-
mail: jgadams@swlaw.com and jhoxie@swlaw.com; and
(ii) Boris Feldman, Sherry Hartel Haus, Nicole Healy and
Rodney G. Strickland Jr. of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &
Rosati, 650 Page Mill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650-496-4334, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
nhealy@wsgr.com.
WITNESS SYSTEMS: Shareholder Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Witness Systems, Inc. faces a purported securities class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
according to the company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Sept. 30, 2006.
An individual claiming to be a stockholder of the company filed
the suit on Aug. 14, 2006, naming the company and certain of its
directors and officers as defendants in connection with certain
stock option grants made by the company.
The suit, "Rosenberg v. Gould, et al., Civil Action No. 1:06-CV-
1894," generally alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
seeks unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other costs and
expenses, unspecified extraordinary, equitable and injunctive
relief, and other relief as determined by the court.
Neither a lead plaintiff nor lead counsel has been appointed,
nor has any response to the complaint yet been required.
The suit is "Rosenberg v. Gould et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-01894-
CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Lauren S. Antonino of Motley Rice, LLC, One Georgia
Center, Suite 800, 600 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta,
GA 30308, US, Phone: 404-201-6908, E-mail:
lantonino@motleyrice.com; and
(2) Lewis Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Suite 2150, 650
Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, US, Phone: 504-
455-1400, Fax: 504-455-1498.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr, 399 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-
937-7262; and
(ii) John H. Williamson of Morris Manning & Martin, 3343
Peachtree Road, N.E. 1600 Atlanta Financial Center,
Atlanta, GA 30326-1044, Phone: 404-233-7000, E-mail:
jwilliamson@mmmlaw.com.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------
February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 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
February 1-28, 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
February 1-28, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.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
ALVARION LTD: Yourman Alexander Announces Calif. Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP announced that a
lawsuit seeking class-action status has been filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Alvarion Ltd. during the period Nov. 3, 2004
through May 12, 2006, inclusive.
The action alleges, in part, that the company and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose, in certain public statements, information
concerning Alvarion's business dealings with its Latin American
customer, Telmex.
It is further alleged that by late 2004, Alvarion knew that
revenues from existing Telmex orders were fully realized and
that the company could not sustain the growth of revenue it
experienced in 2004.
However, it is alleged that Alvarion continued to issue
materially false and misleading statements that concealed the
true state of Telmex's business with Alvarion.
Finally, on May 12, 2006, Alvarion issued its Form 20-F for 2005
confirming the lack of purchases from Telmex. Shares of Alvarion
dramatically declined on this news.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Vahn Alexander or Behram Parekh of
Yourman Alexander & Parekh LLP, 3601 Aviation Blvd., Suite 3000,
Manhattan Beach, California 90266, Phone: (800) 725- 6020 (toll-
free), E-mail: parekhb@yaplaw.com, Website:
http://www.yaplaw.com.
CELESTICA INC: Goldman Scarlato Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. announced that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Celestica, Inc. (NYSE:CLS) between July 27, 2006 and Dec. 12,
2006, inclusive.
The lawsuit charges Celestica and certain officers and directors
of violating Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed to
disclose and misrepresented that:
(1) demand for products produced by its Information
Technology and Communications Divisions was declining
due to a drop off in orders placed by its key
customers;
(2) inventory at the company's Monterrey, Mexico facility
built up to the level where much of it had to be
written off;
(3) that the company lacked adequate internal controls; and
(4) as a result, the company' s statements about its
financial health and future business prospects were
lacking any reasonable basis.
On Dec. 12, 2006, in contrast to its prior statements, the
company announced that it was drastically lowering its financial
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006.
In reaction to this news, Celestica shares fell $1.14 per share,
or 12% to close on Dec. 12, 2006 at $8.23 per share.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 13,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law
Firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-753-2796.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders of Globalstar, Inc. common stock who purchased in
the initial public offering or on the open market during the
period beginning on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007.
The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the federal securities laws.
On or about Nov. 2, 2006, the company sold at least 7.5 million
shares of Globalstar's common stock to the public in an initial
public offering ("IPO"), raising more than $127 million.
The Prospectus on the offering failed to disclose that
Globalstar's satellite system was degrading at an increasingly
fast rate and markedly shortening the term of its commercial
viability.
Then, on Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar revealed that the problems
with the satellite system were increasing. In response, on Feb.
6, 2007, the price of Globalstar stock declined sharply falling
from $14.48 per share to $10.40 per share -- approximately 39%
below the IPO price -- on extremely heavy trading volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than by April 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Roy Jacobs, of Roy Jacobs &
Associates, Phone: 1-888-884-4490 (toll-free), E-mail:
jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com, Website:
http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com.
LG. PHILIPS: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a
securities class action has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities
of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. between July 16, 2004 and Dec. 11,
2006, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of LG.Philips.
For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire, both of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll
free), E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.
NEW CENTURY: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C announced that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
New Century Financial Corp. between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 7,
2007, inclusive.
The lawsuit charges New Century and certain officers and
directors of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants knew but
failed to reveal that the company was being forced to buy-back
substantially more loans than originally expected. Despite its
awareness of the surge in forced loan repurchases, the company
failed to properly account for them.
Moreover, the company failed to write-down the value of the
loans that were reacquired, even though these troubled loans had
materially declined in value.
According to the complaint, on Feb. 7, 2007, New Century
indicated that it would restate its financial results for the
first three quarters of 2006 because it had failed to account
for all of the repurchased loans, and had failed to reduce the
value of the repurchased loans.
In reaction to the news, shares of New Century dropped $10.92
per share, a one-day decline of over 36%.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Brian Penny, Esq., of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130.
QUANTA CAPITAL: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announced that a
securities class action has been filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders who purchased the common stock and other securities
of Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. between Dec. 14, 2005 and March
2, 2006, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Quanta.
For more information, contact Evan J. Smith, Esquire or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esquire, both of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 (toll
free), E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., announced that a
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc. (NYSE:SRZ) between Aug. 4, 2005 and June 15, 2006,
inclusive.
The lawsuit charges Sunrise and certain officers and directors
of violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Defendants issued a series of false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business, its stock option
plans, its compensation practices and its financial results.
On May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed that it would delay reporting
its first quarter 2006 results to conduct a review of its
financial results.
On July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed that it would be forced to
restate its financial statements dating back to at least 1999.
The company also indicated that it could not file its current
period financial results 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.
In reaction to these developments, SunriseA' 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 no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Brian Penny Esq., of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., Phone: 888-668-4130, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.
*********
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, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *