/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070215.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 15, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 33
Headlines
ASARCO LLC: Objects to Branin Classes' Request to Lift Stay
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit
BASIX USA: Recalls Sweatshirts, Windbreakers with Drawstrings
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Federal Trial Over Defibrillators Set March
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeking to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Feb. 23
CHATTEM INC: Files Responses to Calif. Bullfrog Suncare Suit
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Ky. Residents Sue for Gas Well Royalties
CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Apr. 27
COMCAST CORP: Appeals Court Refuses to Combine Landowners' Suits
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Ala. Pharmacies' Antitrust Suit Moved to Pa.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Face "Beeman" Litigation in Calif.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Dismissal of "Bradley" Suit Still Under Appeal
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Pharmacies' Suit in Ala.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Pharmacies' Suit in Okla.
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Wehr Hears Suit Over Settlement Fund
GUIDANT CORP: Faces Suit by Third-Party Insurance Providers
JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls Batteries Used for Charging Toy Vehicles
MBIA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
MICROSOFT CORP: N.C. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement
MICROSOFT CORP: Reaches Settlement in Ia. Antitrust Litigation
NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Az. Consumer Fraud Suit
PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge Modifies Injunction for Grant Thornton
SAMARA BROTHERS: Recalls Jackets on Snap Closures' Lead Content
SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Circuit Court
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $24.5M Settlement
TYSON FOODS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit
WET SEAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Credit Rules Violations
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
GLOBALSTAR INC: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: The Pomerantz Firm Files Calif. Securities Suit
NUVELO: Goldman Scarlato Announces Securities Suit Filing
QUANTA CAPITAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
SUNRISE SENIOR: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ASARCO LLC: Objects to Branin Classes' Request to Lift Stay
-----------------------------------------------------------
ASARCO LLC and its debtor-affiliates ask the Hon. Richard S.
Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of Texas to deny the Branin Classes' request to lift the
automatic stay to permit them to foreclose their security
interests in the escrow accounts in ASARCO LLC's bankruptcy
case.
In March 1993, numerous entities commenced an environmental
class action "Donald Branin, et al., v. ASARCO, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The
Branin Class members sought claims for injuries caused by
pollutants discharged from ASARCO's smelter located in Ruston,
Washington. The Branin Action was settled in 1995.
As of Aug. 9, 2005, ASARCO owes $1,174,481 to the Branin
Classes.
Bruce J. Borrus, Esq., at Riddell Williams, P.S., in Seattle,
Washington, asserted that the Branin Claim is secured by
perfected security interests in two escrow accounts established
in 1995 and held by Key Bank as escrow agent:
1. ASARCO Medical Reimbursement Account, having a balance of
$280,257, as of December 2006; and
2. ASARCO Property Value Account, having a balance of
$761,190, as of December 2006.
ASARCO Responds
Nathaniel Peter Holzer, Esq., at Jordan, Hyden, Womble &
Culbreth Holzer, P.C., in Corpus Christi, Texas, points out that
the Branin Classes has admitted that there are no longer any
unpaid medical monitoring claims or property damages claims.
As a result, the terms of the documents creating the Medical
Reimbursement and Property Value Accounts require that the
remaining funds be paid over to ASARCO LLC, Mr. Holzer contends.
The Accounts are necessary to ASARCO's effective reorganization,
Mr. Holzer asserts. Mr. Borrus had contended that ASARCO lacked
equity in the Escrow Accounts and the Accounts are not necessary
for the company's effective reorganization.
Branin Classes Talk Back
Bruce J. Borrus, Esq., at Riddell Williams, P.S., Seattle,
Washington, asserts that ASARCO's objection is not supported by
any declarations or documentary evidence. It offers neither
evidence nor argument to rebut the validity and perfection of
the Branin Classes' security interest and contains merely
conclusory allegations.
About ASARCO LLC
Based in Tucson, Arizona, ASARCO LLC -- http://www.asarco.com/-
- is an integrated copper mining, smelting and refining company.
Grupo Mexico S.A. de C.V. is ASARCO's ultimate parent. The
company filed for chapter 11 protection on Aug. 9, 2005 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Case No. 05-21207).
The Honorable Richard S. Schmidt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Texas in Corpus Christi had
extended the Debtors' exclusive period to file a plan of
reorganization until April 6, 2007, and their exclusive period
to solicit acceptances of that plan until June 6, 2007. (ASARCO
Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 37; Bankruptcy Creditors'Service,
Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Authentidate Holding Corp. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors are seeking to dismiss the second amended
complaint filed in the consolidated securities fraud class
action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
actions were filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the company and certain of current
and former officers and directors.
Plaintiffs in these actions allege that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.
The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)
could cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did
not meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in
2005 that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company
had not met those performance metrics, the market price of its
stock declined. The class action complaints seek unspecified
monetary damages.
Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders have filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed as
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.
On Oct. 5, 2005 the court consolidated the class actions as, "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.
The plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint on Jan. 3,
2006, which asserted the same claims as the prior complaints and
also alleged that the company violated the federal securities
laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain patentable
technology.
On July 14, 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in
its entirety; certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and
plaintiff was given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.
In August 2006, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.
The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2006, 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: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-05323-LTS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Laura Taylor Swain.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Richard William Gonnello, Andrew J. Entwistle and
Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr. of Entwistle &
Cappucci, LLP, 280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West, New
York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 894-7200, Fax: (212) 894-
7272, E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com and
jwhitman@entwistle-law.com; and
(2) Samuel Howard Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia,
Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road,
Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax:
631-367-1173, E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the defendants is Irwin Howard Warren of Weil,
Gotshal & Manges, LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10153,
Phone: (212) 310-8000, Fax: (212) 833-3148, E-mail:
irwin.warren@weil.com.
BASIX USA: Recalls Sweatshirts, Windbreakers with Drawstrings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vacation Clothing, doing business as Basix U.S.A., of Lauderdale
Lakes, Florida, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 20,000 children's hooded
sweatshirts and windbreakers with drawstrings.
The company said the garments have a drawstring through the
hood, posing a strangulation hazard to children. In February
1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by
drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.
No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves children's hooded sweatshirts and
windbreakers sizes S to XL. Hooded sweatshirts included in the
recall were sold in pink, white, light blue, yellow, navy and
gray. The nylon windbreakers were sold in royal blue, olive,
pink, light blue and navy. A tag sewn inside of the garment
reads, "Basix USA." Style number PK215, PK218, KPF265, KPF275,
or KH185 is printed on the garment's hang tag.
These recalled children's hooded sweatshirts and windbreakers
with drawstrings were manufactured in China and are being sold
at discount department stores nationwide from May 2003 through
December 2006 for between $20 and $50.
Pictures of recalled children's hooded sweatshirts and
windbreakers with drawstrings:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07103a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07103b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07103c.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately remove the drawstrings from
the sweatshirts to eliminate the hazard.
For additional information, contact Basix U.S.A. at (800) 236-
8150 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T. Monday through Friday.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Federal Trial Over Defibrillators Set March
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp., which acquired heart-rhythm device
manufacturer Guidant Corp. in 2006, is facing six putative class
actions in Canada in relation to defects in the devices.
According to Boston Scientific's regulatory filing for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006, approximately 74 product liability
class actions and approximately 768 individual lawsuits are
pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against
Guidant alleging personal injuries associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers involved in the 2005 product
communications.
The majority of the cases in the U.S. are pending in federal
court but approximately 85 cases are currently pending in state
courts. On June 13, 2006, the Minnesota Supreme Court appointed
a single judge to preside over all state court lawsuits
involving cases arising from the product communications in 2005.
On Nov. 7, 2005, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
established MDL-1708 in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota and appointed a single judge to preside over all
the cases in the MDL.
On Jan. 31, 2006, the MDL scheduled the first federal court
trial for March 15, 2007. An additional nine lawsuits are
pending in Canada. Of these nine suits in Canada, six are
putative class actions and three are individual lawsuits.
In April 2006, the personal injury plaintiffs and certain third
party payors served a Master Complaint in the MDL asserting
claims for class action certification, alleging claims of strict
liability, negligence, fraud, breach of warranty and other
common law and/or statutory claims and seeking punitive damages.
The majority of claimants allege no physical injury, but are
suing for medical monitoring and anxiety. Pursuant to an
agreement between the parties, the cases originally scheduled to
be tried in Texas state court in September 2006 are no longer
set for trial.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
Office of Criminal Investigations has issued a subpoena to the
plaintiffs' attorneys involved in this trial asking plaintiffs'
counsel to turn over documents they have received from Guidant
as part of the civil litigation discovery process. To date,
Guidant has also been informed of over 3,500 claims of
individuals that may or may not mature into filed suits.
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Seeking to Dismiss Mass. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corp. and certain of its officers and
directors filed a motion to dismiss an amended complaint in a
consolidated securities class action pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
On Sept. 23, 2005, Srinivasan Shankar, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, filed a purported securities
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise
acquired the company's securities during the period March 31,
2003 through Aug. 23, 2005, alleging that the company and
certain of its officers violated certain sections of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Sept. 28, 2005, Oct. 27, 2005, Nov. 2, 2005 and Nov. 3, 2005,
Jack Yopp, Robert L. Garber, Betty C. Meyer and John Ryan,
respectively, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, filed additional purported securities class actions in
the same Court on behalf of the same purported class.
On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered that the five class actions
be consolidated and appointed the Mississippi Public Employee
Retirement System Group as lead plaintiff. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2006.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the company made
material misstatements and omissions by failing to disclose the
supposed merit of the Medinol litigation and Department of
Justice investigation relating to the 1998 NIR ON Ranger with
Sox stent recall, problems with the TAXUS drug-eluting coronary
stent systems that led to product recalls, and the company's
ability to satisfy U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations
concerning medical device quality.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on June 8, 2006.
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 "Shankar v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-11934-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Carolyn G. Anderson of Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Suite 501,
651 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN 55402, US, Phone:
612-341-0400, Fax: 612-341-0844, E-mail:
cga@zimmreed.com; and
(2) Gregg M. Fishbein of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South, Minneapolis,
MN 55401, US, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax: 612-339-0981,
E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Miranda Hooker, William H. Paine and Monika A. Wirtz of
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP, 60 State
Street, Boston, MA 02115, Phone: 617-526-6000 and 617-
526-6896, Fax: 617-526-5000 and 617-526-5000, E-mail:
monika.wirtz@wilmerhale.com,
miranda.hooker@wilmerhale.com and
william.paine@wilmerhale.com; and
(2) Timothy J. Perla of U.S. District Court, 1 Courthouse
Way, Boston, MA 02210, Phone: 617-526-6696, Fax: 617-
526-6000, E-mail: timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com.
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Feb. 23
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 23, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. for a
proposed $2.6 million settlement in the class action, "In re
Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-
177."
The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, Waco Division, in the courtroom of the
Honorable Walter S. Smith, Jr.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection was Feb. 4, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is April 15, 2007.
The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the common stock of Central Freight Lines,
Inc. pursuant to Central Freight's Dec. 12, 2003 initial public
offering or from Dec. 12, 2003 through and including March 16,
2005.
Case Background
In June and July 2004, three stockholder class actions were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against the company and certain of its officers and
directors, alleging that false and misleading statements were
made in the initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to the press release dated June 16, 2004.
The suits were subsequently consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Texas as, "In re: Central
Freight Lines Securities Litigation."
The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System was
named lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and a
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint was filed on May 9,
2005.
The consolidated amended class action complaint generally
alleges that false and misleading statements were made in the
company's initial public offering registration statement and
prospectus, during the period surrounding the initial public
offering and up to March 17, 2005.
The agreements are subject to the completion of the usual and
customary documentation for such settlements, and are subject
to, and conditioned upon, final court approval.
The settlements will be funded from the proceeds of Central's
directors' and officers' liability insurance policy. It is a
condition to the consummation of the merger that this litigation
be settled within Central Freight's limits of coverage under the
applicable insurance policies.
Further information may be obtained by directing inquiries in
writing to:
Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
Claims Administrator
P.O. Box 9000 #6450
Merrick, NY 11566-9000
(866) 825-7954
http://www.gardencitygroup.com
The suit is, "In re Central Freight Lines Securities Litigation,
Case No. 04-CV-177," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (Waco) under Judge Walter S. Smith.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Michael Klein of Smith Robertson Elliott Glen Klein &
Bell, LLP, 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100, Austin, TX
78701, Phone: (512) 225-5808; and
(2) Michelle N. Peterson and Michael K. Yarnoff of
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 280 King of Prussia Road,
Radnor, PA 19087, Phone: (610) 667-7706.
Representing the company are:
(1) John L. Malesovas of Malesovas & Martin, L.L.P., P.O.
Box 1709, Waco, TX 76703-1709, Phone: (254) 753-1777;
and
(2) Nicole M. Healy, Kent W. Easter, Randolph Gaw and Lloyd
Winawer of Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill
Road, Palo Alto, CA 84306, Phone: (415) 493-9300.
CHATTEM INC: Files Responses to Calif. Bullfrog Suncare Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. has answered allegations in a coordinated class
action filed in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles in relation to the labeling,
advertising, promotion and sale of its Bullfrog suncare
products, according to the company's Oct. 10, 2006 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Aug. 31, 2006.
Initially, a putative class action was filed against the company
on Feb. 11, 2004, to which the company filed an answer on June
28, 2004.
An amended complaint was filed March 29, 2006, pursuant to a
court order formally consolidating the lawsuit with eight
existing lawsuits involving other manufacturers of sunscreen
products into a coordinated proceeding in California state
court.
The amended lawsuit seeks class certification of all persons who
purchased the company's Bullfrog sun care products in California
during a four-year period prior to Feb. 11, 2004.
It seeks restitution and/or disgorgement of profits, actual
damages, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys fees
and costs arising out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading
advertising and breach of warranty, fraudulent or negligent
misrepresentations, in connection with the manufacturing,
labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of Bullfrog products
in California. The company filed an answer to the lawsuit in
April 2006.
Aside from the company, other defendants in the coordinated suit
are:
-- Schering-Plough (Coppertone);
-- Sun Pharmaceuticals and Playtex Products (Banana Boat);
-- Tanning Research Laboratories (Hawaiian Tropic); and
-- Neutrogena Corp. and Johnson & Johnson (Neutrogena).
The coordinated lawsuit alleges false claims about the
effectiveness of their products in blocking sunrays and
preventing skin diseases.
Sun Protection Factor designations, the suits says, apply only
to protection from Ultraviolet light, type B (UVB) rays, but
manufacturers use it to imply a similar level of ultraviolet
radiation (UVA) protection, which it does not in fact provide.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration accepts SPF standards for
UVB but there is no standard to measure UVA protection, law
firms bringing the complaint said. Both UVA and UVB pose health
threats.
The suits also note that the "waterproof" designation is
deceptive because all sunscreen products lose efficacy when
immersed in water and there is no standard for measuring their
efficacy against UVA rays (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 3, 2006).
The company filed an answer to the coordinated cases on April
2006. The cases are now before Judge Carl J. West in Superior
Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Feb. 12, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Nov. 30, 2006.
The amended complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d9a
For more details, contact:
(1) Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, One Penn Plaza Suite
2805 New York, NY 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 and
(800) 440-8986, Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
info@aftlaw.com; and
(2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP,
Phone: 1-800-449-4900, Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Ky. Residents Sue for Gas Well Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, faces a purported class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
over gas well royalties.
The suit was filed on Feb. 6 by John Thacker, a local man who
has been leasing and drilling natural gas wells in Pike, Floyd,
Knott, Martin and other counties for the past 15 years.
Mr. Thacker, represented by Lexington attorney Thomas E. Meng,
brought the suit on behalf of more than 100 local residents and
is seeking more than $5 million in compensation and punitive
damages.
He claims that plaintiffs living in Pike, Floyd, Knott and
Martin counties are entitled to royalty payments that should
have been paid by the company.
The suit cites the company for breach of contract, claiming that
the company used a different payment method for royalties than
originally agreed upon in the lease agreement negotiated by Mr.
Thacker, according to a report by The Appalachian News-Express.
It also claims that the company is guilty of common law fraud
since the company allegedly concealed, suppressed or omitted
information reported to area residents who entered natural gas
leases.
The suit is "Thacker v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Case No.
7:07-cv-00026-GFVT," filed in the U.S. District Court of the
Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge Gregory F. Van
Tatenhove.
Representing the plaintiff is Thomas E. Meng of Stites &
Harbison PLLC - Lexington, 250 W. Main Street, 2300 Lexington
Financial Center, Lexington, KY 40507, Phone: 859-226-2300, Fax:
859-425-7902, E-mail: tmeng@stites.com.
CIGNA CORP: $93M Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Apr. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
will hold on April 27, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. a hearing in the $93
million settlement of the class action "In Re: Cigna Corp.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:02-cv-08088-MMB."
The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased
Cigna Corp. common stock between Nov. 2, 2001 and Oct. 24, 2002,
inclusive.
The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in the courtroom of Judge Michael M.
Baylson.
Deadline to file for exclusion is April 9, 2007. Deadline to
file claims is May 29, 2007.
In 2002, CIGNA and some of its officers and directors faced
numerous securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The complaints charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially
false and misleading statements to the market.
According to the complaint, the company issued numerous press
releases, and filed financial reports with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, regarding its performance during the
class period which represented that the company was experiencing
strong growth, that its operating income for 2002 is expected to
be $1.1 billion and that its liabilities on its discontinued
reinsurance operations were not expected to be material to its
liquidity.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
CIGNA had been under-reserving for its reinsurance obligations,
particularly for its reinsurance of guaranteed minimum death
benefits, by (at least) hundreds of millions of dollars.
In addition, according to the complaint, the statements were
materially false and misleading because CIGNA was experiencing
declining demand for its offerings, particularly in its Employee
Health Care, Life and Disability segment, and its income
guidance for 2002 was lacking in any reasonable basis when made.
The complaint also alleges the defendants failed to disclose
computer integration problems and customer service problems
within the company's Health Care, Life and Disability segments
that forced CIGNA to grant substantial margin concessions in
order to retain aggrieved customers causing the company to
revise third quarter and full year 2002 earnings estimates.
The suit further alleges that defendants engaged in the conduct
alleged therein because CIGNA was planning to, and on Oct. 16,
2002 did issue $250 million of 6-3/8% notes and that the
offering would have been negatively affected if the truth
regarding CIGNA's business and financial condition was known.
In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Employees' Retirement System,
Attorney General Tom Corbett, and governor's general counsel,
Barbara Adams, announced a $93 million settlement on behalf of a
class of all purchasers of the common stock of CIGNA Corp. from
Nov. 2, 2001 through Oct. 24, 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Dec.
12, 2006).
SERS served as lead plaintiff in the suit and vigorously
prosecuted this case for the benefit of the class during the
past four years.
The suit is "In Re: Cigna Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:02-cv-08088-MMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Michael M. Baylson.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Sherrie R. Savett, Carole A. Broderick and Barbara A.
Podell all of Berger & Montague, PC, 1622 Locust
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-875-3000 or
215-875-4690, Fax: 215-875-5715 or 215-875-5804 or 215-
875-4673, E-mail: ssavett@bm.net or bpodell@bm.net;
(2) Stephanie M. Beige, Michael S. Bigin, Brian S. Cohen,
Jeffrey M. Haber and Timothy J. Macfall all of
Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-779-1414, E-
mail: beige@bernlieb.com or bigin@bernlieb.com or
haber@bernlieb.com; and
(3) Keith M. Fleischman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York,
NY 10119.
Representing defendants are:
(1) John G. Harkins, Jr. and Eleanor Morris Illoway both of
Harkins Cunningham, 2800 One Commerce Square, 2005
Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19103-7042, Phone: 215-
851-6700, Fax: 215-851-6710, E-mail:
jharkins@harkinscunningham.com or
emi@harkinscunningham.com; and
(2) David M. Morris and Alexander R. Sussman both of Fried
Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, One New York Plaza,
New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212-859-8204 or 212-859-
8005, Fax: 212-859-4000, E-mail: sussmal@ffhsj.com.
COMCAST CORP: Appeals Court Refuses to Combine Landowners' Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed a decision not to combine
lawsuits by two families that sought to sue Comcast Corp. for
running cable lines on their private property, The Daily Record
reports.
The Chaplinskis are located in Baltimore City and the Pivens are
in Baltimore County. Both had hoped to certify their combined
lawsuit as a class action.
In affirming an earlier decision, the state's highest court said
that since the families' properties are not contiguous or
otherwise connected, they cannot combine their claims under a
single trespass suit filed in Baltimore County.
The now-retired Judge Alan M. Wilner wrote, "The issue was
governed by CPJ Section 6-203(b)(1)(iv), which requires that an
action for trespass to land be brought in the county where all
or any portion of the land is located." He adds, "An action for
trespass to land in Baltimore City simply could not be brought
in Baltimore County."
The court would ordinarily transfer the Chaplinskis' portion of
the suit to Baltimore City and permit the Pivens' action to
continue in Baltimore County, but didn't since that option was
already offered to the petitioners by the circuit court and was
rejected.
CONCORD CAMERA: Fla. Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
granted final approval to a $1.5 million settlement of the class
action "Underwood, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case
No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA."
The class consists of all persons who purchased the common stock
of Concord Camera Corp., during the period between Jan. 18, 2001
through and including June 22, 2001.
In July 2002, individuals purporting to be shareholders of the
company filed a class action complaint against the company and
certain of its officers.
On Aug. 20, 2002, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and in December 2002, the court granted the company's
motion and the complaint was dismissed.
In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed
adding certain of the company's current and former directors as
defendants.
Lead plaintiffs in the amended complaint sought to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the company's common stock issued pursuant to the
company's Sept. 26, 2000 secondary offering or from Sept. 26,
2000 to June 22, 2001, inclusive.
On April 18, 2003, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint and on Aug. 27, 2004, the court dismissed all
claims against the defendants related to the secondary offering.
On Sept. 8, 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and certified as plaintiffs all persons who
purchased the common stock between Jan. 18, 2001 and June 22,
2001, inclusive, and who were allegedly damaged thereby.
The allegations remaining in the amended complaint are centered
on claims:
-- that the company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and in press releases it made to the public
during the class period regarding its operations and
financial results;
-- that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance
due from then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc.; and
-- that a material portion of its inventory consisted of
customized components that had no alternative usage.
The amended complaint claims that such failures artificially
inflated the price of the common stock. It seeks unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and
unspecified other and further relief from the court.
In 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs on the settlement of the lawsuit (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 22, 2006).
On Jan. 26, 2007, the court issued a final judgment and order of
dismissal approving the settlement set forth in the stipulation
of settlement and dismissing with prejudice the lawsuit based on
a class action complaint that was filed against the company in
July 2002, 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. 30, 2006.
The suit is "Underwood, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:02-cv-21154-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M.
Altonaga.
Representing defendants are:
(1) Richard Eugene Brodsky, Alvin Bruce Davis and Wendy
Susan Leavitt all of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP,
Wachovia Financial Center, 200 S Biscayne Boulevard,
40th Floor, Miami, FL 33131-2398, Phone: 305-577-7000
or 305-577-2835, Fax: 577-7001, E-mail:
rbrodsky@ssd.com or adavis@ssd.com or wleavitt@ssd.com;
(2) Catherine Whitfield of Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP,
1900 Phillips Point West, 777 S Flagler Drive, Suite
1900, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6198, Phone: 561-650-
7200, Fax: 655-1509, E-mail: CWhitfield@ssd.com;
(3) Claudia A. Costa and John J. Rizzo both of Stryker Tams
& Dill, 2 Penn Plaza East, Newark, NJ 07105, Phone:
973-491-3851;
(4) Alan Graham Greer of Richman Greer Weil Brumbaugh
Mirabito & Christensen, 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite
1000, Miami, FL 33131, Phone: 305-373-4000, Fax: 373-
4099, E-mail: agreer@richmangreer.com; and
(5) David J. Onorato of King & Spalding, 1180 Peachtree
Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309-3521, Phone: 404-572-4600,
Fax: 572-5100.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Jack Reise and Robert Jeffrey Robbins both of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, 120 East
Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500, Boca Raton, FL 33432,
Phone: 561-750-3000, Fax: 750-3364, E-mail:
jreise@lerachlaw.com or rrobbins@lerachlaw.com; and
(2) Maya Susan Saxena of Saxena White PA, 2424 N Federal
Highway, Suite 257, Boca Raton, FL 33431, Phone: 561-
394-3399, Fax: 394-3382, E-mail:
msaxena@saxenawhite.com.
CONCORD CAMERA: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corp. and certain of its officers remain
defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against the company in 2004 at the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.
In August 2005, plaintiffs who purport to be shareholders of the
company amended their complaint to add a former officer of the
company as a defendant. The lead plaintiff in the amended
complaint seeks to act as a representative of a class consisting
of all persons who purchased the company's common stock from
Aug. 14, 2003 to Aug. 31, 2004, inclusive, and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.
Allegations in the amended complaint are centered around claims
that the company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and in
press releases it made to the public during the class period
regarding its operations and financial results:
-- the full extent of the company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory;
-- the departure of a former officer from the company
until several months after his departure; and
-- that Kodak would cancel its design and manufacturing
services contracts with the company due to the
company's alleged infringement of Eastman Kodak Co.'s
patents.
The amended complaint also alleges that the company improperly
recognized revenue contrary to accounting principles generally
accepted in the U.S. due to an inability to reasonably estimate
digital camera returns. It claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the common stock.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other and further
relief from the court.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 30,
2006.
The first identified complaint is "Martin Brustein, et al. v.
Concord Camera Corp., et al., Case No. 04-CV-61159," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
under Judge Andrea M. Simonton.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:
(1) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net;
(2) 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;
(3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
sn06106@AOL.com;
(4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;
(5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com; and
(6) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
Center Road, Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
info@vianalelaw.com.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Ala. Pharmacies' Antitrust Suit Moved to Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action, "North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v.
Express Scripts, Inc., Case No. 5:03-cv-02696-VEH," which was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama has been transferred to the U.S. District
Court District for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
This case purports to be a class action against the company on
behalf of independent pharmacies within the U.S. The complaint
alleges that certain of its business practices violate the
Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C 1, et. seq.
The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages (including treble
damages) and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification was granted on March 3, 2006.
A motion filed by the plaintiffs in an antitrust matter against
Medco Health Solutions Inc. and Merck & Co. in the U.S. District
Court District for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before
the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation requesting
transfer of this case and others to the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania for MDL treatment was granted on Aug. 24, 2006.
The suit is "North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. et al. v. Express
Scripts, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:03-cv-02696-VEH," filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under
Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Andrew C Allen, Othni J. Lathram, Joe R. Watley,
WHATLEY DRAKE LLC, 2323 Second Avenue North Post Office
Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: 328-9576,
E-mail: ecf@whatleydrake.com, jwhatley@whatleydrake.com
(2) Chris W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie Lamb, Jr.,
LAW OFFICES OF ARCHIE LAMB LLC, PO Box 2088,
Birmingham, AL 35201, Phone: 324-4644, Fax: 324-4649,
E-mail: ccantrell@archielamb.com,
dfawal@archielamb.com, alamb@archielamb.com
(3) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley Tropin, KOZYAK TROPIN &
THROCKMORTON PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Coral
Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, fax: 305-372-
3508, E-mail: gam@kttlaw.com or hst@kttlaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
(i) A. Kelly Brennan, Gregory C. Cook, BALCH & BINGHAM LLP,
PO Box 306 Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: 251-8100,
Fax: 488-5828, E-mail: kbrennan@balch.com and
gcook@balch.com; and
(ii) Peter E. Kazanoff, Kenneth R. Logan, Jama M. Meyer,
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, 425 Lexington Avenue,
New York, NY 10017-3954, Phone: 212-455-3525, Fax: 212-
455-2502, E-mail: pkazanoff@stblaw.com,
klogan@stblaw.com, jmeyer@stblaw.com.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Continues to Face "Beeman" Litigation in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. and other pharmacy benefit management
companies remain defendants in a purported class action pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action and served to defendants on Dec. 12, 2002,
alleged that the company, and the other defendants, failed to
comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code
Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results of a
bi-annual survey of retail drug prices (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 9, 2004).
On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.
On June 2, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded
the case to the district court.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Jerry Beeman & Pharm, et al. v. Caremark, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:02-cv-01327-VAP-SGL," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, under Judge
Virginia A. Phillips.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Michael A. Bowse, Bonny A. Sweeney, Milberg Weiss
Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 355 S Grand Ave, Ste 4170, Los
Angeles, CA 90071-3172, Phone: 213-617-9007, Fax: 213-
617-9185;
(2) Allan Browne, Browne & Woods, 450 N Roxbury Dr, 7th Fl
Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4231, Phone: 310-274-7100; and
(3) Alan M. Mansfield, Helen D. Rosner, Rosner Law and
Mansfield, 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, First Fl, San
Diego, CA 92131, Phone: 858-348-1005, E-mail:
alan@rosnerandlaw.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Christopher Chorba, Gail E. Lees, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA
90071-3197, Phone: 213-229-7000;
(ii) Thomas M Dee, Angela S. Quinn, Christopher A. Smith,
Christopher J. Valeriote, Husch & Eppenberger, 190
Carondelet Plaza, Ste 600, St Louis, MO 63105-3441
Phone: 314-480-1500; and
(iii) Douglas C Rawles, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, 300 S Grand
Ave, 22nd Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132, Phone: 213-
612-2500.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Dismissal of "Bradley" Suit Still Under Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are appealing the dismissal by the Superior Court for
the State of California, Los Angeles County of a class action,
"Anthony Bradley, et al v. First Health Services Corp., et al.,
Case No. BC319292," which names Express Scripts, Inc. as
defendant.
On July 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a complaint as a putative
class action, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney
general under California law.
The complaint alleges that the company, and the other
defendants, failed to comply with statutory obligations under
California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide its California
clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug
prices.
Plaintiffs request injunctive relief, unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees. The company's motion to dismiss
the complaint was granted and plaintiffs appealed.
The company reported no material development in the case at its
Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Previously, several pending securities class action filed
against the company were consolidated into a single action,
captioned, "In re Express Scripts Securities Litigation, Case
No. 4:04-CV-1009," in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
The shareholder lawsuits that were consolidated, include:
(1) Sylvia Childress, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., (Cause No. 04-CV-01191, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri);
(2) Lidia Garcia, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.,
(Cause No. 04-CV-1009, U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri);
(3) Robert Espriel, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., (Cause No. 04-CV-01084, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri);
(4) Raymond Hoffman, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., (Cause No. 04-CV-01054, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri);
(5) John R. Nicholas, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., (Cause No. 04-CV-1295, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri); and
(6) John Keith Tully, et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
al., (Cause No. 04-CV-01338, U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri).
Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint. The complaint
alleges that the company and certain of its officers violated
federal securities law.
The complaint also alleges that the company failed to disclose
certain alleged improper business practices and issued false and
misleading financial statements and that certain company
officers violated insider trading laws.
The complaint is brought on behalf of purchasers of the company
stock during the period Oct. 29, 2003 to Aug. 3, 2004. The
complaint requests unspecified compensatory damages, equitable
relief and attorney's fees.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "In Re: Express Scripts, Inc., Securities
Litigation, Class Action, Case No. 4:04-cv-01009-SNL," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
under Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh. Representing the plaintiffs
are:
(1) Martin W. Blanchard of Sauerwein and Blanchard, P.C.,
147 N. Meramec, Suite 200, Clayton, MO 63105, Phone:
314-863-9100, Fax: 314-863-9101, E-mail:
mwb@sauerwein.com;
(2) Travis E. Downs, III of Lerach and Coughlin, LLP, 655
West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail:
travisd@lerachlaw.com;
(3) Patrick J. Kaine of Dysart and Taylor, 4420 Madison
Avenue, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64111, Phone: 816-
931-2700, Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail:
pkaine@dysarttaylor.com.
Representing the defendants are Michael J. Chepiga, James G.
Gamble and Robert J. Pfister of Simpson and Thacher, LLP, 425
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-455-2598, Fax:
212-455-2502, E-mail: mchepiga@stblaw.com, jgamble@stblaw.com
and rpfister@stblaw.com.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Pharmacies' Suit in Ala.
------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the purported
class action, "Pearson's Pharmacy, Inc. and Cam Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a Altadena Pharmacy v. Express Scripts, Inc.
On Feb. 15, 2005, a class action on behalf of all pharmacies
reimbursed based upon Average Wholesale Price was filed. The
complaint alleges that the company fails to fully, timely and
properly reimburse pharmacies for filling prescriptions.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.
On March 31, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, according to its Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Pearson's Pharmacy, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc.,
Case No. 3:06-cv-00073-WKW-VPM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge William
Keith Watkins with referral to Judge Vanzetta P. McPherson.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Robert G. Methvin, Jr. and James Michael Terrell of
McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, 2201 Arlington Avenue,
South Birmingham, AL 35205, Phone: (205) 939-0199, Fax:
205-939-0399, E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net and
jterrell@mmlaw.net; and
(2) Kenneth Evan Riley of Farris, Riley & Pitt, LLP, 2025
Third Avenue, North Suite 200, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: (205) 324-1212, Fax: 324-1255, E-mail:
Kriley@frplegal.com.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Seeks Dismissal of Pharmacies' Suit in Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of the purported
class action, "Inola Drug, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., Case
No. 06-CV-117-TCK-SAJ," which was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
On Feb. 22, 2006, a class action was filed alleging that the
company's reimbursement to pharmacies violates the Oklahoma
Third Party Prescriptions Act.
The complaint also alleges that the company fails to properly
reimburse pharmacies for filling prescriptions based on Average
Wholesale Price.
The proposed classes include all pharmacies in the U.S. and in
Oklahoma that entered contracts with the company.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12,
2006, according to its Feb. 8, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Wehr Hears Suit Over Settlement Fund
---------------------------------------------------------------
Special Judge William Wehr heard earlier this month a case filed
by former fen-phen plaintiffs against the lawyers that
represented them in the litigation, Kentucky.com reports.
The hearing in Boone Circuit Court will determine whether more
than 400 former clients of three Lexington lawyers are entitled
to more than what they already received in the settlement of the
case. Judge Wehr also indicated that he could decide within a
month whether Cincinnati-based attorney Stanley Chesley breached
his fiduciary duty to clients.
More than 400 former fen-phen plaintiffs are suing their former
attorneys:
-- William Gallion,
-- Melbourne Mills, and
-- Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and
-- Cincinnati lawyer Stanley Chesley.
accusing them of taking more money from the settlement than what
they agreed to give them.
In the hearing, Mr. Chesley's lawyers argued he did not breach
agreements with any clients because he was hired by Mills,
Gallion and Cunningham and had no contracts with individual
clients, and that he had no role in the distribution of the
funds or determining how these funds were distributed. Court
documents show Mr. Chesley received more than $20 million in
fees to help negotiate the settlement, according to the report.
The attorneys sued American Home Products, maker of the diet
drug fen-phen, and won the $200 million settlement in 2001 for
the former plaintiffs.
Earlier this year, Judge Wehr ruled that Messrs. Gallion, Mills
and Cunningham violated their fiduciary duty to their clients by
taking more than half the proceeds from the settlement. They
and others involved in the case received about $105 million,
while the clients only received $74 million.
Part of the $200 million settlement was placed in the Kentucky
Fund for Healthy Living, a non-profit that paid Messrs. Gallion,
Mills and Ms. Cunningham more than $60,000 a year for serving as
its directors.
The fund gave about $1.5 million to hospitals and other non-
profits for various health-care related projects. However,
according to court records, much of that money was given after
questions were raised about the legitimacy of the fund.
Attorney Angela Ford, who is representing the former fen-phen
clients, said the money would not be disbursed to the clients
until all claims against the lawyers are settled.
Ms. Ford sued the lawyers on behalf of their former clients in
2004, arguing that they took about $64 million more from their
clients than they should have received.
In August, the state Supreme Court temporarily suspended the law
licenses of Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms. Cunningham until the
Kentucky Bar Association could complete an investigation into
possible misconduct in the case.
Former Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger, who presided
over the original fen-phen settlement in 2001, resigned after
being publicly reprimanded by the state judicial conduct
commission.
That reprimand was a result of his role in approving the
lawyer's fees and for receiving payment as a board member of the
Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living.
Last year, Judge Wehr ordered that the nearly $20 million that
had been placed in Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, should
instead be held for the fen-phen plaintiffs (Class Action
Reporter, Oct. 15, 2006). Judge Wehr ordered that it be placed
in a trust for the lawsuits' plaintiffs, who all claim that they
suffered medical problems due to the diet drug.
For more details, contact Angela M. Ford, Chevy Chase Plaza, 836
Euclid Avenue, Suite 311, Lexington, Kentucky 40502, (Fayette
County), Phone: 859-268-2923, Fax: 859-268-9141, Web site:
http://www.angelafordlaw.com.
GUIDANT CORP: Faces Suit by Third-Party Insurance Providers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corp. and its affiliates are defendants in four separate
actions brought by private third-party providers of health
benefits or health insurance (TPPs).
In these cases, plaintiffs allege various theories of recovery,
including derivative tort claims, subrogation, violation of
consumer protection statutes and unjust enrichment, for the cost
of health care benefits they allegedly paid for in connection
with the devices that have been the subject of Guidant's
voluntary field actions.
Two of these actions are pending in the multi-district
litigation in the federal district court in Minnesota (MDL) as
part of a single 'master complaint,' filed on April 24, 2006,
which also includes other types of claims by other plaintiffs.
The two named TPP plaintiffs in the master complaint claim to
represent a putative nationwide class of TPPs. These two TPP
plaintiffs had previously filed separate complaints against
Guidant.
Guidant has moved to dismiss the MDL TPP claims in the master
complaint for failure to state a claim. A hearing on the motion
has not yet been scheduled, according to the company's form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2006.
JAKKS PACIFIC: Recalls Batteries Used for Charging Toy Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific Inc., of Malibu, California, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
245,000 battery packs for toy vehicles.
The company said the lithium-ion polymer batteries used to
charge the toy vehicles can ignite while charging, posing a fire
hazard.
JAKKS Pacific has received 33 reports of the batteries melting
or catching fire while charging, including three reports of
minor burns to fingers and 23 reports of property damage to
flooring, seats or walls.
This recall involves battery packs used with FLY WHEELS XPV toy
vehicles. The battery packs were sold with a charger (item
number 73904) and with the radio-controlled XPV toy (item number
73906). Item numbers are printed on the product's packaging
above the barcode label. The batteries are marked "Fly Wheelz,"
"XPV," and "JAKKS Pacific," "Lithium-ion Polymer battery (LiPo)"
followed by a list of warnings and precautions. The XPV Xtreme
Performance Vehicle is not the subject of this exchange program.
These recalled battery packs for toy vehicles were manufactured
in China and are being sold at toy stores, discount department
stores and Internet retailers nationwide from August 2006
through January 2007 for about $30. Battery packs and toy
vehicles packaged together sold for between $80 and $90.
Pictures of recalled battery packs for toy vehicles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07101a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07101b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07101c.jpg
Consumers should stop using the battery packs immediately and
contact JAKKS Pacific for information on receiving a free
replacement battery pack.
For additional information, contact JAKKS Pacific toll-free at
(877) 875-2557 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday, or send e-mail message to: battery@jakks.net.
MBIA INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against MBIA Inc. and six former or current executives.
In a recently issued ruling, Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed
the consolidated complaint in the case, citing that the claims
were barred by the statute of limitations, according to a report
by The Associated Press.
Case Background
Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against MBIA Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 20, 2005).
The suits were:
-- "Anthony Capone v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
3514) (filed April 4, 2005);
-- "Thomas Cassady v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV
3730; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 7, 2005);
-- "Todd Simon v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No. 05 CV 3636;
S.D.N.Y.) (filed April 8, 2005);
-- "Mariss Partners, LLP v. MBIA Inc., et al." (Case No.
05 CV 3709; S.D.N.Y) (filed April 11, 2005); and
-- "Alan D. Sadowsky and Barbara S. Katvin v. MBIA Inc.,
et al." (Case No. 05 CV 4150; S.D.N.Y.) (filed April
26, 2005).
The suits named as defendants Joseph W. Brown, the company's
chairman and former chief executive officer; Gary C. Dunton, the
company's chief executive officer; Nicholas Ferreri, the
company's chief financial officer; Neil G. Budnick, a vice
president of the company and the company's former chief
financial officer; and Douglas C. Hamilton, the company's
controller.
The plaintiffs in these cases assert claims under Section 10(b)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek to act as representatives for
a putative class consisting of purchasers of the company's stock
during the period from August 5, 2003 to March 30, 2005.
Although the individual lawsuits vary, the allegations include,
among other things, violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of the company's allegedly false and misleading
statements about its financial condition and the defendant's
failure "to disclose or indicate" these alleged facts:
-- that the company, during the class period,
overleveraged itself, deeply under-reserved against
possible credit defaults, and overly exposed to
guaranteeing risky structured financings;
-- that MBIA accelerated its recognition of current income
by classifying many of its upfront guarantee fees as
advisory fees taken at closing, rather than accounted
for over the life of the bonds insured;
-- that MBIA improperly booked a $70 million payment
received from Converium Re (then called Zurich
Reinsurance North America) in 1998, which at the time
was depicted as a loss-reducing reinsurance recovery
for MBIA, but was, in substance, a loan;
-- that as result, MBIA financial statements were
materially overstated by $60 million;
-- that MBIA artificially inflated premium income and
portfolio credit quality by insuring bonds in the
secondary market that were attracting prices lower than
their stale credit ratings would dictate;
-- that MBIA's low loss ratios resulted from the company's
practice to defer recognizing problems rather than
providing layers of excess collateral, other
underwriting protection, and its self-proclaimed
prowess at restructurings;
-- that MBIA set forth an illegal scheme of covering the
loss, from the failed Allegheny Health, Education and
Research Foundation (Aherf) bond issuance, with a
retroactive reinsurance policy, giving it a reinsurance
recovery of $170 million to cover the present value of
the future Aherf interest and principal payments, which
resulted in MBIA showing a better than 40% jump in
pretax income that year - $565 million over what the
income figure would have been without resort to the
reinsurance;
-- that MBIA was dumping on Channel Reinsurance Ltd., a
Bermuda reinsurer where MBIA owns a 17.4% interest,
performing but troubled policies from its existing
portfolio, with the provision that it could make up any
quality problems later so that MBIA could buy time by
getting potential workout loans off its balance sheet
in order to make its financial results appear better;
and
-- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and
was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
condition of the Company.
The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these misleading
statements or omissions, the company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices.
These lawsuits seek unspecified compensatory damages in
connection with purchases by members of the putative class of
the company's stock at such allegedly inflated prices during the
class period.
On July 25, 2005, the presiding judge issued an order
consolidating these five cases into one action under the caption
"In re MBIA Securities Litigation, Case No. 05 CV 3514," and
named:
* the Southwest Carpenters Pension Trust, and
* the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System
as lead plaintiffs in the case.
In seeking for dismissal, the company had argued that the
alleged fraud should have been discovered no later than December
2002, and the claims should be time-barred because the first
complaint in the matter wasn't filed until April 2005.
The suit is "In re MBIA Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
1:05-cv-03514-LLS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Louis L. Stanton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) David Avi Rosenfeld of Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller,
Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406,
Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-
1173, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com; and
(2) Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
Phone: (212) 613-5625, Fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail:
pseidman@milberg.com.
MICROSOFT CORP: N.C. Schools Benefit from Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
School districts across North Carolina, including McDowell, are
set to receive grant money under the settlement of an antitrust
class action against Microsoft Corp., The McDowell News reports.
According to local officials, McDowell will receive about
$127,500 of the $40.9 million being distributed in North
Carolina.
According to a press release from the N.C. Department of Public
Instruction, the funds gained in the settlement have been
earmarked to purchase technology equipment and software for
lower-wealth schools, whose eligibility is based on the
percentage of its students qualifying for free or reduced-cost
lunch.
In compliance with state requirements, the funds will be split
in half with one portion used for any technological need and the
other strictly to purchase software, said Barry Pace, the school
system's technology director.
The funds should be available locally in the form of
reimbursement vouchers within the next 30 days.
MICROSOFT CORP: Reaches Settlement in Ia. Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corp. has agreed to settle a multimillion-dollar
lawsuit filed in Polk County District Court by more than 1,100
individuals and businesses in Iowa claiming that anticompetitive
practices by the company drove up prices for software, the IDG
News Service reports.
According to a Microsoft statement, the terms of the settlement
would not be disclosed until judges approve the agreement during
hearings in April and August.
Microsoft also agreed to pay half of any unclaimed proceeds to
the Iowa Department of Education, to be used for bridging the
digital and technical divide in Iowa schools through the
purchase of computer hardware and software, according to a
statement by Rich Wallis, associate general counsel for
Microsoft.
The class action against Microsoft was filed attorney Roxanne
Conlin of Des Moines on behalf of Iowans who purchased Microsoft
software between 1994 and 2006. In it, plaintiffs generally
claim that Microsoft harmed class members by:
-- illegally overcharging for its software;
-- denying class members free choice in software products
and the benefits of software innovation; and
-- making computers increasingly susceptible to security
breaches.
Class members in the case include all those who bought Microsoft
Windows, MS-DOS, Word, Excel, or Office software, or a personal
computer on which this software was already installed in Iowa
from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006.
Plaintiffs claim Microsoft violated Iowa's antitrust laws by
monopolizing and unreasonably restraining trade in the markets
for Intel-compatible:
(i) personal computer operating system software, and
(ii) applications software, including word processing,
spreadsheet and office-suite software.
The plaintiffs further claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members
by illegally overcharging for its software, by denying Class
Members free choice in software products and the benefits of
software innovation, and by making computers increasingly
susceptible to security breaches.
They also allege that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive
conduct in new and specialized purported software markets for
server operating systems.
Microsoft denies the plaintiffs' claims and maintains that it
developed and sold high quality software products at fair and
reasonable prices.
Specifically, Microsoft contends that it did not overcharge for
its software and that consumers benefited from being able to
purchase high quality software products.
Microsoft also contends that consumers benefited from being able
to purchase high quality products that were continually improved
and enhanced through Microsoft's research and development
efforts.
Further, Microsoft contends that it developed products that
responded to consumer desires and that were more attractive to
consumers than the products offered by its competitors.
Iowa Software Suit on the Net: http://www.iowasoftwaresuit.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Roxanne Conlin & Associates, P.C., 319 Seventh Street,
Suite 600, Des Moines, Iowa 50309, Phone: 515-283-1111,
Fax: (515) 282-0477, E-mail:
rconlin@roxanneconlinlaw.com, Web site:
http://www.roxanneconlinlaw.com;and
(2) Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel, Mason & Gette LLP, 500
Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000, Minneapolis, MN
55415, Phone: 800-899-5291, Fax: 612-336-9100, E-mail:
mfeinber@zelle.com, Website: http://www.zelle.com.
Representing Microsoft is David B. Tulchin of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broad Street, New York, New York 10004-2498,
Phone: +1-212-558-3749, Fax: +1-212-558-3588, E-mail:
tulchind@sullcrom.com.
NX CARE: Makers of 'Fat Burner' Face Az. Consumer Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Several makers of "fat burner" formula are facing class-action
complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.
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."
Plaintiff brings the suit as a class action pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of
a class composed of all Arizona residents who purchased either
of the NxCare products (SLIMQUICK and NV) in the state of
Arizona since the fall of 2004 when the defendants allegedly
began committing the deceptive trade practices and other acts
described in the complaint.
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.
Questions of law and fact common to the class include:
(a) whether defendants knowingly and willfully made false
representations as to the characteristics, ingredients,
uses, and benefits of the SLIMQUICK and NV products;
(b) whether the defendants represented that SLIMQUICK and
NV were of a particular standard, quality, or grade,
when they knew or should have known that they were of
another standard quality or grade;
(c) whether the defendants knowingly and willfully failed
to disclose material facts in connection with the sale
of SLIMQUICK and NV;
(d) whether the defendants made assertions of scientific,
clinical or quantifiable fact in advertisements (the
SLIMQUICK and NV packages and package inserts) which
would cause a reasonable person to believe the
assertion to be true, when the defendants did not have
in their possession at the time of making those
assertions factually objective scientific, clinical, or
quantifiable evidence which substantiated the
assertions made; and
(e) whether the defendants knowingly made other false
representations.
Plaintiff prays for the following relief which relief exceeds,
in the aggregate, the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of
interest and costs:
-- that the court certify this action as a class action
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, appoint
the plaintiff as class representatives and undersigned
counsel as counsel for the class;
-- That the plaintiff class recover damages under the First
Cause of Action against the NxCare Defendants in excess
of $10,000;
-- that the plaintiff class recover all profits made by the
NxCare Defendants from the sale of SLIMQUICK and NV in
Arizona;
-- that the plaintiff class recover damages under its
Second Cause of Action against defendants Derek
Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and Scott Welch, jointly and
severally in excess of $10,000;
-- that the plaintiff class recover all profits distributed
to defendants Derek Woodgate, Brad Woodgate and Scott
Welch which were derived from or are attributable to the
sale of SLIMQUICK and NV in the state of Arizona;
-- that the plaintiff class recover damages against all the
defendants, under its Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of
Action in excess of $10,000, and punitive damages;
-- that pending the trial of this action, the court issue a
preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from
making the above-detailed false statements in connection
with the sale of SLIMQUICK and NV products in the State
of Arizona, and prohibiting the further sale of
SLIMQUICK and NV products containing these false
statements;
-- that following the trial of this matter, the court issue
an injunction permanently enjoining the defendants from
making the above-detailed false statements in connection
with the sale of SLIMQUICK or NV in the state of
Arizona, and prohibiting the further sale of SLIMQUICK
and NV products containing these false statements; and
-- for such other and further relief deemed proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?19d3
The suit is "Johnson v. NxCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-
00069-JMR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona under Judge John M. Roll.
Representing plaintiffs is H. Christian Bode of Bode & Collins
PLC, 7377 E Doubletree Ranch Rd., Ste A210, Scottsdale, AZ
85258, Phone: 480-355-5020, Fax: 480-355-5021, E-mail:
hcbode@webmail.azbar.org.
PARMALAT SPA: N.Y. Judge Modifies Injunction for Grant Thornton
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the behest of Grant Thornton International and Grant Thornton
LLP, District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan modifies the preliminary
injunction previously entered under Section 304 of the
Bankruptcy Code to permit the Grant Thornton Entities to assert
certain claims in a securities fraud action and a recovery
action against Parmalat S.p.A.
Dr. Enrico Bondi, Parmalat's extraordinary commissioner in its
Italian proceedings and the plaintiff in the Recovery Actions,
previously consented to the modification of the 304 Order to
permit the assertion of compulsory counterclaims against
Parmalat.
Grant Thornton seeks to assert:
(1) counterclaims by the Grant Thornton entities in the
Recovery Action for damages for spoliation of evidence;
and
(2) a counterclaim by Grant Thornton International in the
relevant Recovery Action and a third-party complaint in
the Securities Fraud Action for contribution for any
liability that it may be found to owe in that Action.
Grant Thornton also seeks to liquidate the amount of any
liability owed to it in excess of amounts owed to Dr. Bondi.
Grant Thornton agrees that it will seek to enforce any judgment
for that amount only in Italy and that its enforceability would
be a matter for determination of the Italian courts.
Dr. Bondi disputes that Grant Thornton's counterclaims are
compulsory. He argues that the interests of judicial economy do
not compel allowance of the Counterclaims and that impleader of
Parmalat into the Securities Fraud Action would contravene the
principles of Section 304 as it is unnecessary to just treatment
and ignores the importance of comity.
Judge Kaplan relates that Dr. Bondi will not be heard to object
to the assertion of compulsory counterclaims given his previous
consent. In view of the fact that the spoliation issue may be
litigated in the Recovery Actions as it appears to go to Grant
Thornton's alleged liability and would be asserted as a set-off,
the Court can see no reason why the judge should not also
liquidate Parmalat's liability entirely. In light of Grant
Thornton's commitment to leave the enforceability of any
affirmative judgment to the Italian courts, comity does not even
suggest, let alone require, declining to allow the claim.
Indeed, comity supports it, as liquidation of the claim would
spare the Italian courts the burden of doing so, Judge Kaplan
says.
Judge Kaplan clarifies that the issue at hand is whether Grant
Thornton should be permitted to liquidate its claim, if any, in
the Securities Fraud Action, not whether the claim should be
allowed or disallowed as that will be a matter for the Italian
courts.
The Court says that it is well-aware that the involvement of
Dr. Bondi in the Securities Fraud Action would require the
expenditure of assets of the bankrupt estates that otherwise
would not have been made at all. However, Judge Kaplan finds
the consideration outweighed by several concerns including:
-- allowing the third-party complaint to proceed on the
terms proposed would be the more efficient course, would
substantially serve the Italian courts and the overall
interest in the swiftest possible resolution of the
Foreign Debtors' bankruptcies;
-- Dr. Bondi's equitable claim to the protection of the U.S.
courts would have been stronger had he elected to pursue
all of his claims in Italy, the jurisdiction in which the
bankruptcies are pending, rather than resorting to U.S.
litigation when it suits him and seeking protection of
the U.S. courts against his involvement where it does
not; and
-- the likelihood that any of the actions consolidated
before the District Court under the Parmalat multi-
district litigation will go to trial is very limited
given that the exposures are too high.
Furthermore, Judge Kaplan notes that the procedural posturing by
the parties may be viewed as efforts by litigants to better
position themselves for eventual settlement.
Accordingly, Judge Kaplan allows Grant Thornton to pursue its
claims.
"Allowing appropriate claims against Dr. Bondi means that
everyone will have come to the dance, and there is a lot to be
said for starting to play the music and letting the matter go
forward and be resolved in one forum at one time," Judge Kaplan
says.
Parmalat and Deloitte Settlement
Pursuant to the settlement agreement reached between Dr. Enrico
Bondi and Deloitte & Touche S.p.A., Dianthus S.p.A., Deloiite
Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte & Touche LLP and Deloitte & Touche USA
LLP, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Auditores Independentes, the
parties stipulate that any of their prior requests are
withdrawn, without prejudice and with the right to reinstate the
requests in the event that the Agreement fails to be consummated
on their terms.
Dr. Enrico Bondi, as extraordinary commissioner for 25
companies, and Parmalat S.p.A. entered into the settlement
agreement with Deloitte & Touche and Dianthus to release and
dismiss all claims and counterclaims asserted as between them in
the action captioned Dr. Enrico Bondi v. Grant Thornton
International et al.
In connection with the Agreement and as an integral part of the
consideration, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, Deloitte & Touche LLP
and Deloitte & Touche USA LLP, and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Auditores Independentes have executed a side letter under which
they agree to release Parmalat, and Dr. Bondi and Parmalat
agreed to settle and dismiss all claims in the Auditor Action
against DTT, D&T U.S. and D&T Brazil.
According to Richard A. Martin, Esq., at Heller Ehrman LLP, in
New York, the terms of the Agreement and Dr. Bondi's claims in
the Auditor Action are governed by Illinois law. Under the
Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, 740 Ill. Comp. Stat.
100/1 et seq., a settling tortfeasor is shielded from claims of
contribution by non-settling tortfeasors provided a court has
determined that the release of the settling tortfeasor by the
plaintiff was given and received in good faith.
Accordingly, Deloitte & Touche, Dianthus, DTT, D&T U.S. and D&T
Brazil ask the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York for an order to show cause and for a good-faith
determination, bar order and final judgment.
The Agreement also provides Deloitte & Touche and Dianthus an
option to terminate if the requested contribution bar order is
not entered by March 13, 2007, which is 60 days after the Jan.
12 effective date of the Agreement. The releases executed by
DTT, D&T U.S. and D&T Brazil in connection with the Side Letter
become null, void and of no effect if the option is exercised.
Mr. Martin told the District Court that the request should be
granted because:
(1) the Settlements were the products of extensive arm's-
length negotiations, including a mediation before former
California Superior Court Judge Daniel Weinstein;
(2) the Settlements resolve all claims as between Parmalat
and Deloitte & Touche, Dianthus, DTT, D&T U.S. and D&T
Brazil through the exchange of reciprocal releases; and
(3) the Agreement provides for a consideration totaling
$150,000,000, which amount is inconsistent with any
hypothesis of bad faith.
Parmalat Bankruptcy News; Issue No. 85; Bankruptcy Creditors'
Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000.
SAMARA BROTHERS: Recalls Jackets on Snap Closures' Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samara Brothers LLC, of New York, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,000
heavyweight outerwear jackets.
The company said the snap closures on the outerwear jackets
contain excessive amounts of lead, which poses a lead poisoning
hazard. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves boy's outerwear jackets with a Carter's-
brand logo on the front. The jackets were sold in toddler and
boy's sizes. Toddler sizes range from 2T to 4T. Boy's sizes
include S, M and L. The outerwear jackets were sold in
charcoal, navy and red.
These recalled heavyweight outerwear jackets were manufactured
in China and are being sold at major department stores and
discount department stores nationwide from October 2006 through
November 2006 for up to $50.
Pictures of recalled heavyweight outerwear jackets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07102a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07102b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07102c.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the products immediately and
contact Samara Brothers to obtain a full refund.
For additional information, contact Samara Brothers at (800)
985-9975 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday,
visit http://www.samarajacketrecall.comor send e-mail message
to: info@samararecall.com.
SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Faces Lawsuit in Fla. Circuit Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Service Corp. International is named defendant
in a suit filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging that it
improperly handled remains, did not keep adequate records of
interments, and engaged in various other improprieties in
connection with the operation of the cemetery.
The suit was filed Dec. 5, 2005 by Maria Valls, Pedro Valls and
Roberto Valls, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated against SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a
Memorial Plan a/k/a Flagler Memorial Park, John Does and Jane
Does (Case No. 23693CA08).
An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2006. Plaintiffs have
requested that the court certify this matter as a class action.
The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of
persons buried at the cemetery. The plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages and have reserved the right to seek leave from
the Court to claim punitive damages. The plaintiffs are also
seeking injunctive relief.
The action is in its preliminary stages. The defendant has also
been contacted by representatives of other families who may
pursue burial practices claims related to this and other
cemeteries.
SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corp. International continues to face a consolidated
securities class action, "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service
Corp. International, et al; Civil Action 04-MD-1609 (The 2003
Securities Lawsuit)," pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits:
-- "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International,
et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada;
-- "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International,
et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S.
District for the District of Nevada; and
-- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International,
et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its
current and former executive officers or directors. It is a
purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to
disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites
at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach,
Florida.
Since the action is in its preliminary stages, no discovery has
occurred, 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 "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp.
International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Lynn N. Hughes.
Representing the lead plaintiff are:
(1) Thomas E. Bilek, 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302, Houston,
TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720, Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail:
tbilek@hb-legal.com; and
(2) Christopher L. Nelson of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP Three
Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
212-545-4600.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Andrew M. Edison and J. Clifford Gunter III of
Bracewell and Giuliani LLP, 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300,
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-221-1371, Fax: 713-221-
2144; and
(ii) Roger B. Greenberg of Schwartz Junell et al., 909
Fannin, Ste. 2000, Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-752-
0017, Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com.
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Feb. 23 Hearing Set for $24.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska will hold
on Feb. 23, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. a fairness hearing for the $24.5
million settlement of the class action "Desert Orchid Partners
v. Transaction Systems Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-
00553-JFB-TDT."
The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska in the courtroom of the Honorable Joseph F.
Bataillon, Jr.
Deadline to file for exclusion or objection was Feb. 9, 2007.
Deadline to file claims is on April 24, 2007.
The class includes all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of common stock of Transaction Systems between
Jan. 21, 1999 and Nov. 19, 2002, inclusive.
Case Background
In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed against
the company and certain individuals alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as lead plaintiff. The court appointed Labaton
Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as lead counsel.
On March 22, 2005, the court issued an order certifying the
class.
In the litigation, Genesee County generally alleged that
Transaction Systems and certain of its former executives, during
the class period, prematurely recognized millions of dollars of
revenue from certain software licensing arrangements and issued
annual and quarterly financial statements that did not conform
with generally accepted accounting principles, in violation of
the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In November 2006, the court-appointed lead counsel for lead
plaintiff, Genesee County Employees' Retirement System signed a
Stipulation of Settlement, on behalf of its client to settle the
suit for $24.5 million in cash (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 10,
2006).
The proposed settlement will resolve claims brought by Genesee
County, as lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of persons and
entities that purchased the common stock of Transaction Systems
Architects, Inc. between Jan. 21, 1999 and Nov. 19, 2002.
The Genesee County Employees' Retirement System is a multiple-
employer public pension plan that provides retirement and
survivor benefits for general and police, roads, mental health,
sanitation, library and other employees of Genesee County and
its various offices, boards, and department, and employees,
embracing the City of Flint and environs.
The Retirement System is overseen by an elected and appointed
nine-member Board of Retirement Commissioners, and presently
holds more than $473 million in assets on behalf of
approximately 2,800 beneficiaries.
A copy of the Summary Notice is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1739
Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. Securities Class Action on
the net: http://www.completeclaimsolutions.com./tsa/index.html
The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems
Architects, et al., Case No. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed in
the U.S. District Court in Nebraska under Judge Joseph F.
Bataillon.
Representing the lead plaintiff is Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
(http://www.labaton.com\).
TYSON FOODS: Del. Court Dismisses Claims in Shareholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court dismissed certain claims in a
consolidated shareholders complaint filed against Tyson Foods
Inc.
On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two
previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and
"Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re
Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation."
The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited
Partnership and certain present and former directors of the
company. The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with
no relief sought against it.
The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by:
-- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert
Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I);
-- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other
compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to
2003 (Count II);
-- approving certain option grants to certain officers and
directors with alleged knowledge the company was about
to make announcements that would cause the stock price
to increase (Count III);
-- approving and not adequately disclosing various related-
party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs
allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and
-- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree
(Count V).
The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative
claims for:
-- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v.
Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI);
-- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment
in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and
-- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the
defendants through the various transactions challenged
in the consolidated complaint (Count IX).
The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action
claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained
misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation
(Count VIII).
On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8,
2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006.
On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part the
defendants' motion:
-- dismissing Counts I, VII and VIII in their entirety;
-- dismissing Count III against directors who were not
members of the company's compensation committee;
-- dismissing Count IV with respect to plaintiffs' claims
concerning related party transactions that were
disclosed prior to Feb. 16, 2002 and related party
transactions that were reviewed by an independent
committee; and
-- dismissing Count V except for plaintiffs' inadequate
disclosure claims relating to Don Tyson's compensation
addressed by an SEC consent decree.
The court, though, declined to dismiss plaintiffs' remaining
claims.
WET SEAL: Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Credit Rules Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Foothill Ranch retailer, The Wet Seal, Inc., has been served
with class action complaints, over alleged violations of credit
rules, the company said in a Feb. 13, 2007 Form 8-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The complaints allege violations of The Fair Credit Reporting
Act, which provides that expiration dates may not be printed on
credit or debit card receipts given to customers.
Based in Foothill Ranch, California, The Wet Seal, Inc. --
http://www.wetseal.com-- operates as a specialty retailer of
apparel and accessory items designed for female consumers in the
United States.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP has filed a class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Alvarion Ltd. from Nov. 3, 2004 through May
12, 2006, inclusive.
The complaint charges Alvarion and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
As alleged in the complaint, defendants issued materially false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose material
information during the Class Period that caused Alvarion's
securities to trade at artificially inflated prices.
Specifically, it is alleged that defendants did not disclose
that a major customer, which accounted for approximately 30% of
the company's revenues during 2004, was no longer contributing
to Alvarion's revenues at anywhere near that level.
When the true information about this customer's affect on the
company's revenues was subsequently revealed, the price of
Alvarion's stock decreased more than 13% on heavy trading
volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Jack Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence
Levit, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza,
Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or
(800) 440-8986 (toll free), Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Abraham Fruchter Files N.Y. Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of Globalstar, Inc.'s common stock
pursuant and/or traceable to the company's initial public
offering on or about Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007. The
plaintiffs are seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Act of 1933.
This action concerns the initial public offering of Globalstar
common stock, which took place on or about Nov. 2, 2006.
The complaint charges Globalstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act.
As alleged in the complaint, on or about Nov. 2, 2006, the
Prospectus with respect to the IPO became effective and, at
least, 7.5 million shares of Globalstar's common stock were sold
to the public, thereby raising more than $127 million.
The prospectus failed to disclose that Globalstar's
constellation of satellites was degrading at an increasingly
fast rate and the length of their commercial viability was
decreasing.
Then, on Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission disclosing, among other
things, that it has received updated information concerning its
constellation of satellites and that the satellites' rate of
degradation had accelerated.
In response to the announcement about the company's satellites,
on Feb. 6, 2007, the price of Globalstar stock fell 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 April 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Jack Fruchter, Esq. or Larry
Levit, Esq. of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP, One Penn Plaza,
Suite 2805, New York, New York 10119, Phone: (212) 279-5050 or
(800) 440-8986 (toll free), Fax: (212) 279-3655, E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com.
NEW CENTURY: The Pomerantz Firm Files Calif. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California against New Century Financial Corp. and certain
officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of the
company during the period from May 4, 2006 through Feb. 7, 2007,
inclusive.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
there under.
The complaint further alleges that Defendants materially
overstated earnings, understated loan repurchases losses, failed
to establish a sufficient load repurchase loss reserve, and
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principals in various
press releases and quarterly reports filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
In particular, defendants:
(1) failed to include the expected discount upon
disposition of loans when estimating allowances for
loan repurchase losses; and
(2) refused to properly consider the increasing volume of
repurchase requests and thereby failed to apply the
proper methodology for estimating the volume of
anticipated repurchase claims for calculating the
repurchase reserve calculation.
On Feb. 7, 2007 defendants issued a press release admitting that
they had failed to properly apply GAAP, withdrawing reliance on
the previously-filed 10-Q quarterly reports for the first three
quarters of 2006, and conceding that they would have to
materially restate New Century's financials to reflect the
proper accounting for loan repurchase losses.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
New Century is a real estate investment trust and mortgage
finance company with headquarters in Irvine, California. The
company operates nationwide through its mortgage origination
subsidiaries, New Century Finance Corp. and Home123 Corp.
For more information, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek
Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Phone: (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-
POMLAW, E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com.
NUVELO: 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
Southern District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Nuvelo
between Jan. 5, 2006 and Dec. 8, 2006, inclusive.
The suit charges Nuvelo and certain officers and directors of
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Nuvelo misrepresented
its chances of obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration
approval of a purported blood clot dissolver, alfimeprase.
As alleged in the complaint, on Dec. 14, 2005, Nuvelo announced
it had received a Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) agreement
from the FDA, claiming that the SPA would strengthen the path to
approval for alfimeprase.
Defendants further indicated that their "power calculations"
demonstrated alfimeprase's efficacy as a drug candidate.
On Dec. 11, 2006, Nuvelo disclosed that alfimeprase had
completely failed its clinical trials.
Nuvelo's chief executive indicated on a conference call that the
drug failed to perform better than a placebo, and that the
previously reported financial results were due to drug
injections washing clots away rather than dissolving them.
In reaction to the news, Nuvelo's stock fell from $19.55 per
share to $4.05 per share, a one-day decline of 79.2%.
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, E-mail:
info@gsk-law.com.
QUANTA CAPITAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 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 or preferred shares 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 material misrepresentations to the
market concerning the company's financial performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Quanta securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 6,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of the
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888)
638-4847 (Toll-Free), E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com,
Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
SUNRISE SENIOR: Spector, Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. between Aug. 4, 2005 through and
including June 15, 2006.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Section 10b-5
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements contained in press
releases and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
during the class period.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the class
period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the company's business, its stock option
plans, its compensation practices and its financial results.
As a result of these false statements, the price of Sunrise's
common stock was artificially inflated during the class period,
during which time the individual defendants took advantage by
selling shares of their Sunrise stock for illegal insider
trading proceeds of over $34 million, while Sunrise's top
officers pocketed millions more in unjustified bonus payments
enhanced in part by Sunrise's falsified profits.
On May 9, 2006, Sunrise disclosed a delay in reporting its first
quarter 2006 results to allow a review of its financial
statements, and on July 31, 2006, Sunrise revealed it would be
forced to restate its financial statements going back several
years -- at least to 1999 -- and that its prior financial
statements could no longer be relied upon.
Sunrise also admitted it could not file current period financial
statements for the first, second and third quarters of 2006 and
that when it restated its financial results, at least $100
million of previously reported profits from its joint ventures
and real estate sales would be eliminated.
As these disclosures, Sunrise's stock fell from $39.62 on May 8,
2006 to as low as $24.40 on July 31, 2006.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 19,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact Robert M. Roseman, of Spector,
Roseman & Kodroff, P.C., Philadelphia, Phone: 888-844-5862, E-
mail: classaction@srk-law.com, Website: http://www.srk-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 * * *