/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070319.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, March 19, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 55
Headlines
180 CONNECT: Faces Wage and Hour Laws Violations Suit in Wash.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit Against MBNA America et al. Stayed
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Hoffman" Case
AMPROBE TEST: Recalls Defective Digital Clamp Meters
CIBO SPECIALTY: Recalls Dal Raccolto Olives Over Botulism Risk
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Award to Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Victims
EXXON MOBIL: Delivers Agreed $1,075M Settlement with Dealers
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Wellbutrin SR Lawsuits
GLOBAL MARKETING: Recalls Coffeemakers at Risk of Overheating
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Applications for Lead Plaintiff Due Today
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
IDACORP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in Idaho
IPSCO INC: Settles Suit Over Plan to Merge with PI Acquisition
MERCK & CO: Court to Rule on Fosamax Suit Class Status in 2007
MERCK-MEDCO: $42.5M Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit Under Appeal
MGM MIRAGE: Nev. Court Dismisses Boardwalk Shareholder Lawsuit
MICHIGAN: ACLU Sues City, Police Dept. Over Flint Club Raid
MJC CO: Faces Wage and Hour Laws Violations Lawsuit in Penna.
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in D.C.
NCL CORP: Discovery Begins in Fla. ADA Violations Lawsuit
NCL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of ADA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
NCL CORP: Summary Judgment in Tex. Consumer Litigation Appealed
POLYMEDICA CORP: Fla. Judge Finds Violations in Labor Practices
RHODE ISLAND: Recalls Mood Necklaces for Lead Poisoning Hazard
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Settles Workers' Overtime Suit for $2.5M
ST ANTHONY'S: Accused of Fraud in Processing Insurance Claims
TICKETMASTER: Calif. Suit Over Online Transaction Charges Stayed
TICKETMASTER: Ill. Court Declines to Certify Class in "Zaveduk"
UNION PACIFIC: Court Finds No Violation in Birth Control Case
WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Faces Labor Suit by Financial Advisors
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suit Settlement
* McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Launches Audio Podcasts
* U.K.'s Pension Fund Group Highlights Rewards of Class Actions
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Gutride Safier Announces Securities Suit Filing
HCC INSURANCE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing in Tex.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
180 CONNECT: Faces Wage and Hour Laws Violations Suit in Wash.
--------------------------------------------------------------
180 Connect Inc. is party to a class action filed in the U.S.
District Court in Seattle, Washington by current and former
employees of the company, alleging violations of Washington wage
and hour laws, the company said at its recently released
financial results for the year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The class
period dates back to April 2002.
As a result of this class action, the company established a
reserve for estimated costs of $2.5 million as of Dec. 31, 2005.
As of Dec. 31, 2006, $1.7 million remained in this reserve.
180 Connect, Inc. -- http://www.180connect.net-- is one of
North America's largest provider of installation, integration
and fulfillment services to home entertainment and
communications, enterprise data and home integration service
industries. The Group provides these services in the U.S. It
employs technicians in each of its 82 locations to ensure the
timely completion of its services.
For further information, contact Claudia A. Di Maio, Director
Investor Relations of 180 Connect, Inc., Phone: (866) 995-8888
or (416) 930-7710 (Direct Line), E-mail: cdimaio@180connect.net,
Website: http://www.180connect.net.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. is a
defendant in a consolidated action pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York over alleged federal
antitrust laws violations.
In August 2005 a purported class action captioned, "Performance
Labs Inc. v. American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc.
(TRS), MasterCard International Inc., Visa USA, Inc., et al.,"
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.
The complaint alleges that the company's policy prohibiting
merchants from imposing restrictions on the use of American
Express cards that are not imposed equally on other forms of
payment violates U.S. antitrust laws. The suit seeks injunctive
relief.
The company has moved to dismiss the complaint and that motion
is pending, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
In addition, the company has learned that two additional
purported class actions that make allegations similar to those
made in the Performance Labs action have also been filed,
namely:
-- "518 Restaurant Corp. v. American Express Travel
Related Services Co., Inc., MasterCard
International Incorporated, Visa USA, Inc., et al."
(filed in August 2005 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; and
-- "Lepkowski v. American Express Travel Related Services
Co., Inc., MasterCard International Inc., Visa USA,
Inc., et al.," filed in October 2005 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.
The plaintiffs in such actions seek injunctive relief.
The 518 Restaurant Corp. action was voluntarily withdrawn
without TRS ever having been served with the complaint. The
complaint in the Lepkowski action was also never served.
The Lepkowski and Performance Labs cases were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for
pre-trial purposes in a larger multi-district litigation
involving other named defendants not affiliated with the
company.
All proceedings in the consolidated action were stayed pending
the filing of a consolidated amended complaint, according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Such consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2006,
but the company was not named in that action. Other defendants,
not affiliated with the company, were named.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Lawsuit Against MBNA America et al. Stayed
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
stayed the purported class action filed by National Supermarkets
Association, Inc., Mascari Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Sound
Stations, and Bunda Starr Corp. d/b/a Brite Wines and Spirits
against:
* MBNA America Bank, N.A.,
* MBNA Corp.,
* Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., and
* Citigroup, Inc.
The action, filed in December 2004, is alleging that defendants
are in violation of various state and federal laws for the
unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between American Express
Co.'s charge cards.
Although American Express is not named as a defendant in the
case, the plaintiffs in this action are also plaintiffs in
similar cases against American Express.
The suit alleges that, by agreeing to issue American Express-
branded cards, MBNA and Citibank have conspired with the company
in the alleged wrongful tying arrangement described in the
preceding paragraph.
The company believes this lawsuit is without merit and is
contrary to the Department of Justice's successful efforts to
render unenforceable Visa's and MasterCard's rules that
prevented banks from issuing American Express-branded cards in
the U.S.
The company also believes that this lawsuit is susceptible to
the same defenses available to the company in the direct actions
filed against it.
In a March 15, 2006 decision, the Southern District of New York
denied the company's request to intervene in this action and
denied the motion of MBNA and Citibank to dismiss the action.
The court did, however, stay the action against MBNA and
Citibank pending the arbitration of the claims made against the
company in similar actions, according to the company's March 1
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "National Supermarket Association Inc. et al v. MBNA
America Bank, N.A. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-10318-GBD," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge George B. Daniels.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Eric James Belfi, Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;
(2) Blaine Howell Bortnick, Liddle and Robinson, LLP, 800
Third Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212
687-8500, Fax: 212 687-1505, E-mail:
bbortnick@liddlerobinson.com
(3) Gary B. Friedman, Noah L. Shube, Friedman & Shube, 155
Spring Street, New York, NY 10012, Phone: (212) 680-
5150, Fax: (212)-219-6446, E-mail:
garybfriedman@att.net
(4) Michael Goldberg, Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg L.L.P., 455
Market Street, Suite 1810 San Francisco, CA 94105
(5) Mark Reinhardt, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, E-
1250 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: (651) 297-2100.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeks to Compel Arbitration in "Hoffman" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California, County of Alameda
denied jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal filed by
American Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc. against the
certification of a suit by charge card holders.
In January 2006, in a matter "Hoffman, et al. v. American
Express Travel Related Services Co., Inc., No. 2001-02281," the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda,
certified a class action against TRS.
Two classes were certified:
-- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
billing addresses in California who purchased American
Express' fee-based travel-related insurance plans from
Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be determined; and
-- all persons who held American Express charge cards with
billing addresses in states other than California and
who purchased American Express' fee-based travel-related
insurance plans from Sept. 6, 1995, through a date to be
determined.
Plaintiffs allege that American Express violated California and
New York law by allegedly billing customers for flight and
baggage insurance that they did not receive. American Express
denies the allegations and filed an interlocutory appeal
(petition for a writ of mandate) of the class certification
order.
In June 2006, the appellate court denied jurisdiction over that
interlocutory appeal. American Express also appealed the denial
of its motion to compel individual arbitration of all non-
California class members. The appellate court has jurisdiction
over that appeal and the appeal is pending, according to the
company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
In the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
a case making related allegations as those raised in Hoffman is
pending. That suit, "Environment Law Enforcement Systems v.
American Express et al.," had effectively been stayed pending
the proceedings in the Hoffman action.
In October 2006, the Court in the Environment Law action entered
an order scheduling a pre-motion conference on American Express'
anticipated motion to compel arbitration for Jan. 31, 2007.
That date has since been extended to March 5. No update is yet
available.
AMPROBE TEST: Recalls Defective Digital Clamp Meters
----------------------------------------------------
Amprobe Test Tools, of Everett, Washington, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
70,000 Amprobe digital clamp meters used for electrical testing.
The company said the meters can fail to give an appropriate
voltage reading, resulting in the operator believing the
electrical power is off, which can pose a risk of shock,
electrocution, or thermal burn hazard.
Amprobe is aware of one report of a clamp meter displaying an
incorrect voltage reading. No injuries have been reported.
Only Amprobe brand digital clamp meter models ACD-10PRO, ACD-10
TRMS-PRO, ACD-14 and ACD-14TRMS, except those model numbers
followed by "FX" or "PLUS," are included in the recall.
"Amprobe" and the model numbers are printed on the front of the
units. These clamp meters measure 0 to 600 volts alternating
current, and 0 to 600 volts direct current. In addition, they
measure 0 to 400 amps alternating current. The tester body is
red and grey and measures 7-1/2 inches in length by 2-1/2 inches
in width by 1-1/4 inches thick.
These recalled Amprobe digital clamp meters were manufactured in
Taiwan and are being sold at industrial distributors, electrical
wholesalers and hardware stores nationwide from January 2002
through December 2006 for about $100.
Picture of recalled Amprobe digital clamp meters:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07130.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled clamp meters
immediately and contact Amprobe for a free replacement clamp
meter.
For additional information, contact Amprobe at (800) 350-8661
between 7 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit
http://www.amprobe.com/recall.
CIBO SPECIALTY: Recalls Dal Raccolto Olives Over Botulism Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cibo Specialty Foods, a division of Colavita U.S.A., LLC of
Linden, New Jersey, is voluntarily recalling these olive
products sold under the "DAL RACCOLTO" brand:
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Italian Colossal Olives," Lot G062, packed
in 4.18 lb. glass jars;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Natural Cerignola Olives," Lot G062,
packed in 4.18 lb. glass jars;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Black Cerignola Olives, " Lots G009 &
G066, packed in 2.5 kg tins;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Red Cerignola Olives," Lot G046, packed in
4.18 lb. glass jars;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Green Cerignola Olives," Lot G062, packed
in 4.18 lb. glass jars;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Baresana Olives," Lot G198, packed in 11
lb. plastic tubs;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Nocellara Olives," Lots G216 & G217,
packed in 11 lb. plastic tubs;
-- DAL RACCOLTO "Calabrese Olives," Lot G198, packed in 11
lb. plastic tubs;
The items are packed in 4.18 lb., 2.5 kg., and 11 lb. -size
containers, and are sold primarily to the foodservice trade
(e.g. restaurants, restaurant distributors and other foodservice
institutions).
Any establishments or individual consumers that may have
purchased any of these products should discard them immediately
even though the product may appear to be normal. You cannot
tell if the product harbors botulism by sight, taste or smell.
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product.
Testing of the products in question has revealed that specific
products had pH and water activity that exceed the levels
necessary to control botulism.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-
vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in
breathing, weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.
This recall is precautionary; there have been no reported cases
of botulism from these products.
Distribution of these products have been suspended as U.S. Food
and Drug Administration and the company continue their
investigation.
For further information about the recall, contact Mickey
Colombo, Sales Manager at Cibo Specialty Foods at (718) 967-
6858, or Joseph R. Profaci, V.P. of Colavita USA at (908) 862-
5454.
ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder
----------------------------------------------------------------
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. remains a defendant in a
purported class action filed by a unitholder of its TEPPCO
Partners, L.P. affiliate, a publicly traded Delaware limited
partnership.
On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of
TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of
New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual
capacity, as:
* a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of
TEPPCO, and
* derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO,
concerning, among other things, certain transactions involving
TEPPCO and Enterprise Products or its affiliates.
The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and
certain of its affiliates; Enterprise Products and certain of
the company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the
chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the
company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise
unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over
TEPPCO.
These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to
further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the
Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -- entered
into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August
2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates
of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006.
The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced
from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas
processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver
natural gas to end-use markets.
The complaint seeks:
-- rescission of these transactions or an award of
rescissory damages with respect thereto;
-- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly
obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged
wrongdoings in the complaint; and
-- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees
and expenses of his attorneys and experts.
The company reported no development in the case at its form 10-k
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Award to Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corp. petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
for a rehearing en banc of its appeal against a multi-billion
dollar award in a suit over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against Exxon Mobil Corp. and certain of its
subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil
from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989. All of the compensatory
claims have been resolved and paid. All of the punitive damage
claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began in 1994.
The first judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District
of Alaska in the amount of $5 billion was vacated by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit as being excessive under
the Constitution.
The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was vacated by
the 9th Circuit panel without argument and sent back for the
District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme
Court decision in "Campbell v. State Farm." The most recent
District Court judgment for punitive damages was for $4.5
billion plus interest and was entered in January 2004.
The corporation posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit.
ExxonMobil and the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the 9th
Circuit, which ruled on Dec. 22, 2006, that the award be reduced
to $2.5 billion.
On Jan. 12, 2007, ExxonMobil petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals for a rehearing en banc of its appeal.
The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al.
(3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska
under Judge H. Russel Holland.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) John F. Clough, III of Clough & Associates, POB 211187,
Auke Bay, AK 99821, U.S., Phone: 907-790-1912; Fax:
907-790-1913; and
(2) Douglas J. Serdahely of Patton Boggs LLP, 601 West 5th
Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
907-263-6300; Fax: 907-263-6345; E-mail:
dserdahely@pattonboggs.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Charles W. Coe of the Law Office of Charles W. Coe, 805
W 3rd Avenue, #10, Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S., Phone:
907-276-6173; Fax: 907-279-1884; E-mail:
charlielaw@gci.net; and
(2) Lloyd B. Miller of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller &
Munson, LLP, 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700, Anchorage,
AK 99501, U.S., Phone: 907-258-6377; Fax: 907-272-8332;
E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net.
EXXON MOBIL: Delivers Agreed $1,075M Settlement with Dealers
------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corp. has paid a $1,075 million settlement of a
class action filed by Exxon dealers claiming they have been
overcharged for gasoline, according to a company regulatory
filing.
In "Allapattah v. Exxon," a jury in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida determined in 2001 that a class
of Exxon dealers between March 1983 and August 1994 had been
overcharged.
In June 2003, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
judgment and in March 2004, denied a petition for a rehearing en
banc. In October 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review as
to whether the class in the District Court judgment should
include members that individually do not satisfy the $50,000
minimum amount-in-controversy requirement in federal court.
In light of the Supreme Court's decision to grant review of only
part of ExxonMobil's appeal, the corporation took an after-tax
charge of $550 million in the third quarter of 2004 reflecting
the estimated liability, after considering potential set-offs
and defenses for the claims under review by the Supreme Court.
In June 2005, the Supreme Court granted the District Court the
right to hear the claims of all class members and the
corporation took an after-tax charge of $200 million. The
District Court has given final approval of a settlement of
$1,075 million, pre-tax. This obligation has been fully accrued
and was paid in the second quarter 2006, according to the
company's Feb. 28 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The case is Allapattah Services, Inc. et al. v. Exxon
Corp., Case No. CASE NO. 91-0986-CIV-Gold/Simonton," filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Eugene E. Stearns, Esq. and Mark Dikeman of Stearns Weaver
Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A represent the
plaintiff.
GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Discovery Ongoing in Wellbutrin SR Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in federal antitrust suits against GlaxoSmithKline plc
over its antidepressant drug Wellbutrin SR are currently engaged
in discovery.
In December 2004, and January and February 2005, lawsuits,
several of which purported to be class actions, were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the company on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers
of Wellbutrin SR.
The complaints allege violations of U.S. antitrust laws through
sham litigation and fraud on the patent office by the company in
obtaining and enforcing patents covering Wellbutrin SR.
The complaints follow the introduction of generic competition to
Wellbutrin SR in April 2004 after district and appellate court
rulings that a generic manufacturer did not infringe the group's
patents.
The parties are involved in discovery, according to the
company's March 2 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
GlaxoSmithKline PLC on the Net: http://www.gsk.com/.
GLOBAL MARKETING: Recalls Coffeemakers at Risk of Overheating
-------------------------------------------------------------
Global Marketing Corp., of Parsippany, New Jersey, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 21,000 Gevalia Kaffe Combo Coffeemakers.
The company said the coffee maker's heating element can melt the
plastic outer shell, posing a burn hazard to consumers.
Gevalia has received 28 reports of overheated coffeemakers,
including 12 reports of damaged counter tops, and one report of
a minor burn from spilled coffee.
The recalled product is a 12-cup programmable "Kaffe Combo"
coffeemaker with model number CM830 and a glass carafe and two
travel mugs. The name "Gevalia" is on the front of the
coffeemaker and the model number is located on the bottom of the
unit. No other Gevalia coffeemakers are affected by this
recall.
The recalled coffeemakers were manufactured in China and were
distributed directly to consumers who joined the Gevalia Kaffe
program, and through catalog sales from September 2006 through
January 2007. The coffeemakers are valued at about $90.
Picture of recalled coffeemakers:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07534.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the coffeemaker
and contact Gevalia for a free replacement coffeemaker. Those
consumers who purchased the coffeemaker will be offered the
option of receiving a refund. Gevalia is contacting all
registered consumers directly.
For more information, call Gevalia at (800) GEVALIA any time, or
visit http://www.gevalia.com.
HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Applications for Lead Plaintiff Due Today
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates announces that shareholders of Hornbeck
Offshore Services, Inc. common stock and other securities who
purchased during the period from Nov. 1, 2006 through Jan. 10,
2007 have until today, March 19, 2007, to move for appointment
as lead plaintiff in a securities fraud class action currently
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
In January, the law firm filed a class action alleging Hornbeck
and certain of its officers and directors violated the federal
securities laws by making false and misleading statements and
omissions concerning the company's operations and expected
earnings for the 4th Quarter 2006, and for fiscal 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2007).
On Nov. 1, 2006, the company reaffirmed its guidance for fiscal
2007 and specifically reaffirmed earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization for the fourth quarter of
2006 to range of between $39.0 million and $41.0 million and
earnings per share to range of between $0.69 and $0.74.
On Nov. 6, 2006, the company announced an offering of $200.0
million in convertible senior notes with an over-allotment of
$30.0 million in principal amount of additional notes.
On Nov. 13, 2006, the company announced that it had closed the
note offering and received the offering proceeds. These
aggressive projections were crucial to the completion of the
note offering, but have the effect of artificially inflating the
price of the stock.
On Jan. 10, 2007, the company shocked the market by announcing
that that it was revising its EBITDA and earnings per share
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2006 and for fiscal 2006,
materially reducing EBITDA for the fourth quarter of 2006 to
range between $33.0 million and $34.0 million, down from $39.0
million to $41.0 million.
The company announced it now expected that per share earnings
for the fourth quarter of 2006 to range between $0.61 and $0.63,
down from $0.72 to $0.77. It also expected to reduce 2007
guidance by 15 to 20 percent.
The company was forced to admit that it had knowledge over the
previous several months that operating issues had negatively
impacted the company's financial performance, including
volatility in the offshore vessel day-rate, a lag in the
shipyard delivery schedules for new-builds and increased
turnaround time for regulatory dry-dockings, repairs and
maintenance, as well as increased costs for personnel and
insurance.
As a result of this unexpected news, the price Hornbeck shares
slumped to a 52-week low in early trading on Jan. 11, 2007 and
the stock was down $7.11, or 21.2%, on markedly increased
volume.
For more details, contact Roy Jacobs & Associates, Phone: 1-888-
884-4490, E-mail: jacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com, Web site:
http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com.
IAC/INTERACTIVECORP: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to rule on a motion by IAC/InterActiveCorp to dismiss a
consolidated securities fraud complaint filed against it.
The case arose out of the company's Aug. 4, 2004 announcement of
its earnings for the second quarter of 2004.
The consolidated amended complaint, filed on May 20, 2005,
generally alleges that the value of the company's stock was
artificially inflated by pre-announcement statements about its
financial results and forecasts that were false and misleading
due to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose various
problems faced by the company's travel businesses.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased IAC common stock between March 21, 2003 and Aug. 3,
2004. The defendants are IAC and 14 current or former officers
or directors of the company or its former Expedia travel
business.
The complaint purports to assert claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10(b)(5) promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and 15
of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.
Two related shareholder derivative actions Garber and Butler
have been consolidated with the securities class action for pre-
trial purposes. The consolidated shareholder derivative
complaint, filed on July 5, 2005 against IAC (as a nominal
defendant) and 16 current or former officers or directors of the
company or its former Expedia travel business, is based upon
factual allegations similar to those in the securities class
action.
It purports to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse
of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets,
unjust enrichment, violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange
Act, and contribution and indemnification.
The complaint seeks an order voiding the election of the
company's current Board of Directors, as well as damages in an
unspecified amount, various forms of equitable relief,
restitution, and disgorgement of remuneration received by the
individual defendants from the company.
On Sept. 15, 2005, IAC and the other defendants filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint in the securities class action. On
Nov. 30, 2005, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motions.
On Jan. 6, 2006, the defendants filed reply papers in further
support of the dismissal motion. On Oct. 12, 2006, the court
heard oral argument on the motions.
The motions to dismiss remain pending, according to
IAC/InteractiveCorp's March 1 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 IAC/InteractiveCorp Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:04-cv-07447-RJH," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J.
Holwell.
Representing defendant Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (all
defendants) is Stephen R. DiPrima at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 403-
1382, Fax: (212) 403-2000, E-mail: srdiprima@wlrk.com.
Representing lead plaintiff Cement Masons and Plasterers
Retirement Trust are:
(1) Gregory M. Nespole at Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman
& Herz L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016;
and
(2) Jeffrey S. Nobel at Schatz & Nobel, One Corporate
Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
06103, Phone: 860-493-6292.
IDACORP INC: Seeks to Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit in Idaho
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho recently heard
oral arguments on a motion by IDACORP, Inc. to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against it, and
certain of its officers and directors.
On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, respectively, two shareholder
lawsuits, "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al." and
"Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al." were filed against
the company and certain of its directors and officers.
The lawsuits are putative class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of IDACORP stock between Feb. 1, 2002 and June 4,
2002.
The named defendants in each suit, in addition to the company,
are:
-- Jon H. Miller,
-- Jan B. Packwood,
-- J. LaMont Keen, and
-- Darrel T. Anderson.
The complaints alleged that, during the purported class period,
the company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
the company's financial outlook in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5, thereby causing investors to purchase
the company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.
More specifically, the complaints alleged that the company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:
-- the company failed to appreciate the negative impact
that lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in
the western wholesale energy market would have on its
marketing subsidiary, IDACORP Energy;
-- the company would be forced to limit its origination
activities to shorter-term transactions due to
increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
deterioration of creditworthy counterparties;
-- the company failed to discount for the fact that Idaho
Power Co., a principal operating subsidiary, may not
recover from the lingering effects of the prior year's
regional drought; and
-- as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
the company and their earnings projections.
The Powell complaint also alleged that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock.
The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.
By order dated Aug. 31, 2004, the court consolidated the Powell
and Shorthouse cases for pretrial purposes, and ordered the
plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within 60 days.
On Nov. 1, 2004, the company and the directors and officers
named above were served with a purported consolidated complaint
captioned "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al.," which was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho.
The new complaint alleges that during the class period, the
company and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
its business operations, and specifically the IDACORP Energy
financial outlook, in violation of Rule 10b-5, thereby causing
investors to purchase the company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.
The new complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which
were known to it or recklessly disregarded by it:
-- IDACORP falsely inflated the value of energy contracts
held by its subsidiary IDACORP Energy in order to
report higher revenues and profits;
-- IDACORP permitted Idaho Power Co., its subsidiary, to
inappropriately grant native load priority for certain
energy transactions to IDACORP Energy;
-- IDACORP failed to file 13 ancillary service agreements
involving the sale of power for resale in interstate
commerce that it was required to file under Section 205
of the Federal Power Act;
-- IDACORP failed to file 1,182 contracts that IPC
assigned to IDACORP Energy for the sale of power for
resale in interstate commerce that Idaho Power Co. was
required to file under Section 203 of the Federal Power
Act;
-- IDACORP failed to ensure that IDACORP Energy provided
appropriate compensation from IDACORP Energy to Idaho
Power Co. for certain affiliated energy transactions;
and
-- IDACORP permitted inappropriate sharing of certain
energy pricing and transmission information between
Idaho Power Co. and IDACORP Energy.
These activities allegedly allowed IDACORP Energy to maintain a
false perception of continued growth that inflated its earnings.
In addition, the new complaint alleges that those earnings press
releases, earnings release conference calls, analyst reports and
revised earnings guidance releases issued during the class
period were false and misleading. The action seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief.
The company and the other defendants filed a consolidated motion
to dismiss on Feb. 9, 2005, and the plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the consolidated motion to dismiss on March 28,
2005.
The company and the other defendants filed their response to the
plaintiff's opposition on April 29, 2005 and oral argument on
the motion was held on May 19, 2005.
On Sept. 14, 2005, Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho issued a Report
and Recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss be
granted and that the case be dismissed.
The Magistrate Judge determined that the plaintiffs did not
satisfactorily plead loss causation (i.e., a causal connection
between the alleged material misrepresentation and the loss) in
conformance with the standards set forth in the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision of "Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo,
544 U.S._____, 125 S. Ct. 1627 (2005)."
The Magistrate Judge also concluded that it would be futile to
afford the plaintiffs an opportunity to file an amended
complaint because it did not appear that they could cure the
deficiencies in their pleadings. Each party filed objections to
different parts of the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation.
On March 29, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho Judge Edward J. Lodge issued an Order in the case "Powell
v. IDACORP," adopting the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Williams issued on Sept. 14, 2005, granting the
defendants' motion to dismiss because plaintiffs failed to
satisfy the pleading requirements for loss causation.
However, Judge Lodge modified the Report and Recommendation and
ruled that plaintiffs had until May 1, 2006, to file an amended
complaint only as to the loss causation element.
On May 1, 2006, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 16, 2006, asserting that the amended complaint still failed
to satisfy the pleading requirements for loss causation.
Briefing on this most recent motion to dismiss was completed on
Aug. 28, 2006 and oral argument was held on Feb. 26, according
to the company's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Powell v. Idacorp., Inc., et al., case no. 1:04-cv-
00249-EJL-MHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Idaho under Judge Edward J. Lodge.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) John K. Grant, Eli Greenstein, David A. Rosenfeld and
Samuel H. Rudman of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins,
100 Pine St. #2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone:
(415) 288-4545, E-mail: drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com, and
e_file_ny@lerachlaw.com; and
(2) Richard H. Greener and John T. Simmons of Greener
Banducci Shoemaker P.A., 815 W Washington, Boise, ID
83702, Phone: (208) 319-2600, Fax: (208) 319-2601, E-
mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com or
jsimmons@greenerlaw.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Rex Blackburn of Blackburn & Jones, P.O. Box 7808,
Boise, ID 83707, Phone: (208) 489-8989, Fax: (208) 489-
8988, E-mail: rex@blackburnjoneslaw.com; and
(ii) David G. Hetzel and Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr. of Leboeuf
Lamb Greene & Macrae, 125 W 55th St, New York, NY
10019, Phone: (212) 424-8000, Fax: (212) 424-8000, E-
mail: dghetzel@llgm.com and dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com.
IPSCO INC: Settles Suit Over Plan to Merge with PI Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
IPSCO, Inc. settles a purported class action filed against the
company in the Campbell Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky over an agreement and plan of merger it entered with NS
Group, Inc., and PI Acquisition Co.
The deal provides for the merger of PI Acquisition, a wholly-
owned subsidiary of IPSCO, with and into NS Group, with NS Group
continuing as the surviving corporation, and the conversion of
each outstanding share of common stock of NS Group (other than
shares held by NS Group, IPSCO, PI Acquisition or any of their
direct or indirect wholly-owned subsidiaries and shares held by
shareholders who validly perfect their dissenters' rights under
Kentucky law) into the right to receive $66 in cash.
Filed on October 2006 in Campbell Circuit Court of the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Case No. 06-CI-01422), the plaintiff,
a purported shareholder of the NS Group, alleged, among other
things, that the merger consideration to be paid to the
shareholders of NS Group in the merger is unfair and inadequate,
as a result of alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by NS Group
and its directors.
According to the complaint, NS Group's directors agreed to an
allegedly unfair and inadequate price and agreed to a
termination fee, which is alleged to serve as a substantial
deterrent to other prospective buyers, because of the directors'
interest in "quickly" signing the merger agreement in order to
obtain allegedly "improper" personal benefits from the
acceleration of various stock options and incentive plans and
the indemnification provision of the merger agreement and, in
the case of certain directors, salary continuation agreements.
The complaint further alleges that the NS Group defendants
breached an alleged duty of "full and fair disclosure" by
failing to disclose in a previously filed preliminary proxy
statement certain allegedly material information regarding the
negotiation of the merger agreement, including information
relating to NS Group and its directors' consideration of
alternative transactions, additional information regarding the
criteria that Raymond James utilized in certain aspects of its
financial analysis, as well as the percentage of its fee that is
contingent on consummation of the merger.
It also alleges that IPSCO aided and abetted NS Group and its
directors in the breaches of their duties to NS Group's
shareholders.
The complaint seeks compensatory and/or rescissory damages to
the class and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to the
plaintiff, among other relief.
On Nov. 28, 2006, the defendants, including IPSCO, entered into
an agreement in principle with the plaintiff for the settlement
of the lawsuit, according to the company's March 1 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The proposed settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery by
plaintiff's counsel and to court approval.
As part of the agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit, NS
Group agreed to, and did, make certain disclosures of
information sought by plaintiff, and IPSCO agreed that it would
limit the circumstances under which it would receive a
termination fee in the event that the merger agreement were
terminated.
The merger agreement was not terminated, and the merger closed
in December 2006.
The agreement in principle provides that, upon completing of
confirmatory discovery by plaintiff's counsel, the parties will
submit a stipulation of settlement to the court, pursuant to
which, subject to prior notice to the proposed class and
approval by the court, the plaintiff class will release the
defendants from all claims relating to the merger, excepting any
statutory rights to appraisal, and pursuant to which, again
subject to prior notice to the class and approval by the court,
defendants will pay the attorneys' fees of plaintiff's counsel
in an amount awarded by the court, but not to exceed $475,000.
The parties are in the process of conducting confirmatory
discovery. Upon completion of such discovery, the parties will
submit the proposed stipulation of settlement to the court for
an order directing notice to the plaintiff class and scheduling
a hearing for the court to consider approval of the proposed
settlement and attorneys' fees.
IPSCO, Inc. on the Net: http://www.ipsco.com/.
MERCK & CO: Court to Rule on Fosamax Suit Class Status in 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge John Keenan has issued a Case Management
Order setting forth a schedule governing the proceedings of
lawsuits filed against Merck & Co. Inc. over its drug Fosamax.
The Order focuses primarily upon resolving class action
certification motions in 2007.
The company is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the
U.S. involving Fosamax. As of Dec. 31, 2006, 104 cases had been
filed against Merck in either federal or state court, including
4 cases which seek class action certification, as well as
damages and medical monitoring.
In these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw, generally
subsequent to invasive dental procedures such as tooth
extraction or dental implants, and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax.
On Aug. 16, 2006, the Judicial Panel Multidistrict Litigation
ordered that the Fosamax product liability cases pending in
federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated
into one multidistrict litigation (the Fosamax MDL) for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax MDL has been
transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
As a result of the JPML order, over 80 cases are before Judge
Keenan. Judge Keenan has issued a Case Management Order setting
forth a schedule governing the proceedings which focuses
primarily upon resolving the class action certification motions
in 2007. The company intends to defend against these lawsuits.
As of Dec. 31, 2006, the company established a reserve of
approximately $48 million solely for its future legal defense
costs for the Fosamax Litigation. Some of the significant
factors considered in the establishment of the reserve for the
Fosamax Litigation legal defense costs were as:
-- the actual costs incurred by the company thus far;
-- the development of the company's legal defense strategy
and structure in light of the creation of the Fosamax
MDL;
-- the number of cases being brought against the company;
and
-- the anticipated timing, progression, and related costs
of pre-trial activities in the Fosamax Litigation.
MERCK-MEDCO: $42.5M Settlement of ERISA Lawsuit Under Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals are pending against a $42.5 million agreement to settle
a lawsuit filed against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. over
alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act by the company.
Prior to the spin-off of Medco Health, the company and Medco
Health agreed to settle, on a class action basis, a series of
lawsuits asserting violations of ERISA ("Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C." filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York).
The company, Medco Health and certain plaintiffs' counsel filed
the settlement agreement with the federal district court in New
York, where cases commenced by a number of plaintiffs, including
participants in a number of pharmaceutical benefit plans for
which Medco Health is the pharmacy benefit manager, as well as
trustees of such plans, have been consolidated.
Medco Health and the company agreed to the proposed settlement
in order to avoid the significant cost and distraction of
prolonged litigation. The proposed class settlement has been
agreed to by plaintiffs in five of the cases filed against Medco
Health and the company.
Under the proposed settlement, the company and Medco Health have
agreed to pay a total of $42.5 million, and Medco Health has
agreed to modify certain business practices or to continue
certain specified business practices for a period of five years.
The financial compensation is intended to benefit members of the
settlement class, which includes ERISA plans for which Medco
Health administered a pharmacy benefit at any time since Dec.
17, 1994. The district court held hearings to hear objections
to the fairness of the proposed settlement and approved the
settlement in 2004, but has not yet determined the number of
class member plans that have properly elected not to participate
in the settlement.
The settlement becomes final only if and when all appeals have
been resolved. Certain class member plans have indicated that
they will not participate in the settlement. Cases initiated by
three such plans and two individuals remain pending in the
Southern District of New York, according to the company's Feb.
27 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Plaintiffs in these cases have asserted claims based on ERISA as
well as other federal and state laws that are the same as or
similar to the claims that had been asserted by settling class
members in the Gruer Cases. The company and Medco Health are
named as defendants in these cases.
Three notices of appeal were filed and the appellate court heard
oral argument in May 2005. On Dec. 8, 2005, the appellate court
issued a decision vacating the district court's judgment and
remanding the cases to the district court to allow the district
court to resolve certain jurisdictional issues.
A hearing was held to address such issues on Feb. 24, 2006. The
District Court issued a ruling on Aug. 10, 2006 resolving such
jurisdictional issues in favor of the settling plaintiffs. The
class members and other party that had previously appealed the
District Court's judgment have renewed their appeals. The
renewed appeals are presently being briefed, the regulatory
filing said.
After the spin-off of Medco Health, Medco Health assumed
substantially all of the liability exposure for the matters
discussed in the foregoing two paragraphs. These cases are
being defended by Medco Health.
The suit is "Gruer, et al. v. Merck-Medco Managed, et al, Case
No. 7:97-cv-09167-CLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Charles L. Brieant.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Arthur N. Abbey, Mark C. Gardy and Linda J. Cahn of
Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th St., New York, NY
10016, Phone: (212) 889-3700, E-mail:
aabbey@abbeygardy.com and mgardy@abbeygardy.com;
(2) Mary E. Alexander and Richard L. Akel of Mary A.
Alexander & Associates, 44 Montgomery St., Suite 1303,
San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: (415) 433-4440;
(3) Russell M. Herman of Herman, Mathis, Casey, Kitchens &
Gerel, 820 O'Keefe Ave., New Orleans, LA 70113, Phone:
(504) 581-4892;
(4) Stephen J. Herman and David A. McKay of Herman, Mathis,
Casey, Kitchens, & Gerel, 230 Peachtree St., N.W.,
Suite 2260, Atlanta, GA 30303;
(5) Christopher Adam Seeger of Seeger, Weiss, L.L.P., One
William St., New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 584-0700;
and
(6) Philippe Z. Selendy of BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP,
570 Lexington Ave., 16th floor, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 446-2300.
Representing the defendants are Bruce B. Kelson of Shearman &
Sterling, 555 California St., 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA
94104, Phone: (415) 616-1100; and Kenneth M. Kramer and James P.
Tallon of Shearman & Sterling, L.L.P., 599 Lexington Ave., New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 848-4000, E-mail:
jtallon@shearman.com.
MGM MIRAGE: Nev. Court Dismisses Boardwalk Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Clark County, Nevada has dismissed with
prejudice a case filed by a former shareholder of Mirage Resorts
Inc., a subsidiary of MGM Mirage.
On Sept. 28, 1999, a former stockholder of the company's
subsidiary which owns and, until January 2006 operated, the
Boardwalk Hotel and Casino filed a first amended complaint in a
putative class action in District Court for Clark County, Nevada
against Mirage Resorts and certain former directors and
principal stockholders of the Boardwalk subsidiary.
The complaint alleged that Mirage Resorts induced the other
defendants to breach their fiduciary duties to Boardwalk's
minority stockholders by devising and implementing a scheme by
which Mirage Resorts acquired Boardwalk at significantly less
than the true value of its shares. The complaint sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages from Mirage Resorts
and punitive damages from the other defendants, whom the company
are required to defend and indemnify.
In June 2000, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted. The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Nevada
Supreme Court. The parties filed briefs with the Nevada Supreme
Court, and oral arguments were conducted in October 2001.
In February 2003, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the
District Court's order granting the company's motion to dismiss
the complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings on the elements of the lawsuit involving
wrongful conduct in approving the merger and/or in the valuation
of the merged corporation's shares.
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the District Court's dismissal
of the plaintiff's claims for lost profits and mismanagement.
The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling relates only to the District
Court's ruling on the company's motion to dismiss and is not a
determination of the merits of the plaintiff's case. The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and in November 2003, the
District Court certified the action as a class action.
In March 2005, the District Court for Clark County, Nevada
granted summary judgment in the company's favor. In May 2005
plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal to the Nevada
Supreme Court. At a mediation conference mandated by court
rule, the parties reached a settlement agreement on terms
favorable to us, which was subject to final approval by the
Nevada Supreme Court.
On April 11, 2006 the Nevada Supreme Court on its own motion
entered an order dismissing the appeal and cross-appeals as
abandoned, and remanded the case to the District Court to
conduct any further proceedings necessary to effectuate the
parties' settlement agreement.
On Jan. 23, 2007, the Nevada District Court entered an order
pursuant to stipulation of the parties that dismissed the case
with prejudice.
MICHIGAN: ACLU Sues City, Police Dept. Over Flint Club Raid
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties of Michigan filed a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
against the City of Flint, the Flint Police Department and
Genesee County Sheriff Department on behalf of 40 innocent young
men and women who were allegedly stripped and/or cavity searched
and wrongfully arrested during a 2005 raid of a licensed Flint
nightclub.
"These young people simply did what thousands like them do all
over the country -- they went to a licensed and legal club to
listen to music, dance and socialize," said Kary Moss, Executive
Director of the ACLU of Michigan. "A judge has already agreed
with us that the arrests were unlawful and we now seek to hold
Flint and Genesee County accountable for their reckless
disregard for the patrons' rights and to ensure that these
practices are abolished."
Statement by ACLU Relating the Incident
On March 20, 2005, undercover officers from the sheriff's
department and the Flint Police Department entered Club What's
Next, a Flint dance club, to investigate possible drug activity.
While the undercover officers reportedly bought drugs from
certain individuals in the bar, nobody represented by the ACLU
possessed drugs or drug paraphernalia.
Nonetheless, a team of police officers raided the club and
charged all 94 patrons who did not possess drugs with a
misdemeanor for "frequenting a drug house." In October a
Genesee Circuit Court judge threw out the charges against the
ACLU clients because the police did not have reason to believe
that they had committed a crime.
During the raid, the dance club patrons were handcuffed and
divided into two groups -- females and males. Women were taken
into a bathroom and searched, at times in the presence of
others. Some were told to lift their shirts and bras in view of
male officers. An officer commented to one woman about the size
of her breasts and asked if they were "real." Several people
have reported that they were subjected to cavity searches. One
woman reported that the officer did not change the latex glove
in between searching her vagina and anus.
"It was a horrible and humiliating experience. The entire
ordeal was terrifying beyond belief," said Jennifer Thompson,
20, of Dearborn who was cavity searched and wrongfully arrested
for "frequenting a drug house." "They treated me like a common
criminal. I thought because they were police they could do
this, but now I know I was violated and I want to make sure this
doesn't happen to anyone else."
Most men were taken into a men's bathroom and searched and told
to raise their shirts, drop their pants and underwear, and to
bend over and cough. Some were told to put a finger into their
anus. Those who were still handcuffed had their pants and
underwear pulled down to around their knees by officers. One man
was stripped on the side of the road after he had left the club.
"A strip-search should occur only under the most extreme
circumstances, where the suspicion is well-informed and
individualized and where the immediate safety of others is at
stake," said Maureen M. Crane, ACLU of Michigan Cooperating
Attorney. "It is evident, by the police's own admission, that
none of these essential ingredients were present in this case."
The ACLU of Michigan's lawsuit asks the court to declare that
the City of Flint, the Flint Police Department and the Genesee
County Sheriff Department violated the club patrons'
constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure and
freedom of association and assembly. The plaintiffs have also
accused the law enforcement officers of assault and battery and
false arrest and imprisonment. The ACLU clients are from across
Michigan, Ohio, Arizona and Florida.
They have also asked the courts to order the city and law
enforcement agencies to discontinue the use of similar tactics
and require training and supervision of all officers to avoid
such violations in the future.
The suit is "Thompson et al. v. Flint, City of et al., Case No.
4:07-cv-11107-PVG-RSW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Paul V. Gadola with
referral to Judge R. Steven Whalen.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Gregory T. Gibbs of Gregory T. Gibbs Assoc., 328 S.
Saginaw, Suite 9001, Flint, MI 48502, Phone: 810-239-
9470, E-mail: greggibbs51@sbcglobal.net;
(2) Elizabeth L. Jacobs, 615 Griswold, Suite 1125, Detroit,
MI 48226, Phone: 313-962-4090, E-mail:
elzjacobs@aol.com;
(3) Kenneth M. Mogill of Mogill, Posner, (Lake Orion), 27
E. Flint Street, 2nd Floor, Lake Orion, MI 48226,
Phone: 248-814-9470, Fax: 248-814-8231, E-mail:
kmogill@bignet.net;
(4) Michael L. Pitt of Pitt, Dowty, (Royal Oak), 117 W.
Fourth Street, Suite 200, Royal Oak, MI 48067-3804,
Phone: 248-398-9800, E-mail: attorneypitt@aol.com; and
(5) Michael J. Steinberg of the American Civil Liberties
Union Fund of Michigan, 60 W. Hancock, Detroit, MI
48201, Phone: 313-578-6800, E-mail:
msteinberg@aclumich.org.
MJC CO: Faces Wage and Hour Laws Violations Lawsuit in Penna.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MJC Co. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania over alleged wage law
violations, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named defendants in the suit are:
-- M.J.C. Co. dba The Lawn Works Co.,
-- Carl A. Hemphill,
-- Joseph F. Hemphill, and
-- Michael R. Hemphill.
The complaint alleges that the Hemphills abused the H-2B non-
agricultural visa process to defraud the U.S. government and
Latin American workers they hired to work in the U.S.
Plaintiffs claim the Hemphills violated Mexican laws in
recruiting laborers in Tuxpan and Tampico, and through the Web
site Latinlabor.com. They claim the Hemphills commit mail fraud
and wire fraud and defraud the government and their workers by
paying in cash, without overtime pay, at less than minimum wage,
and falsely reporting its payroll practices to the government.
Further, they claim the Hemphills use MJC Inc., apparently an
expired corporate name, as a false and misleading cover for
their operation.
Questions of law and fact common to the class include:
(1) at least since 2004 defendants submitted materially
false information verified under penalty of perjury by
defendant Carl Hemphill to government agencies as part
of the process of applying for visas for H-2B workers;
(2) defendants as a matter of business practice routinely
failed to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40
hours in a week to workers employed by or through
defendants;
(3) payroll system reports and business expense reports
utilized to generate tax filings to local,
Pennsylvania and federal agencies falsely reported
wages paid to workers as a result of a system of cash
payment of wages at straight time when workers were
employed more than 40 hours in a week. Upon
information and belief, such reports are transmitted
to government agencies electronically and by mail;
(4) defendants as a matter of business practice recruited
H-2B workers for employment without complying with the
requirements of local laws in Mexico and Guatemala;
(5) defendants failed to pay required minimum and promised
wages to foreign H-2B workers employed by them as a
result of required kickback payments to defendants and
reductions in wages due to H-2B workers because of
recruitment, visa and transportation costs required to
be paid by such workers for the benefit of defendant
employers;
(6) since at least early 2004, defendants advertised on
their website -- http://www.latinlabor.com-- both to
other employers and to H-2B workers that defendants
offered housing in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to
temporary workers and falsely assured workers that the
housing was "correct" and adequate";
(7) defendants required workers employed by them to make
rental payments for unlicensed overcrowded substandard
housing controlled by defendants, even if workers did
not live in the housing;
(8) defendants communicated with each other, with other
employers to whom they furnished workers, with
government agencies, and with workers and potential
workers by mail, telephone, facsimile transfer, and
internet; and
(9) defendants' website -- http://www.latinlabor.com--
purports that defendants provide legal assistance to
both workers (http://www.latinlabor.com/workers.htm)
and employers
(http://www.latinlabor.com/employers/process.htm)in
the process of labor certification for employment
authorized workers foreign workers. This constituted
unauthorized practice of law in violation of
Pennsylvania law which is a misdemeanor of the third
degree.
Plaintiff request that the court:
-- issue appropriate declaratory relief as authorized by
law as to each of the violations of the law by
defendants;
-- award treble damages to plaintiff and the plaintiff RICO
class for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Sections
1961 et seq. in an amount to be determined at trial;
-- award damages to plaintiff and other members of the FLSA
representative class(es) who participate in this action
for unpaid minimum wages and overtime together with
statutory damages in accordance with the FLSA at 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b);
-- award damages to plaintiff and other members of the PA
Minimum Wage Act class(es) for unpaid minimum wages and
overtime together with statutory damages in accordance
with the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PA Minimum Wage
Act), 43 P.S. Section 333.113;
-- award damages to plaintiff and other similarly situated
persons represented by him pursuant to the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law (PA WPCL), 43 P.S.
Section 260.1 et seq. for the amounts of unpaid wages
and statutory liquidated damages as provided at 43 P.S.
Section 261.10;
-- award damage to plaintiff and other similarly situated
class members in accordance with their contract law
claims;
-- award damages under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PA Unfair Trade
Practices Law), 73 P.S. Section 201-1 et seq. at 73 P.S.
Section 201-9.2 on behalf of plaintiff and other
similarly situated plaintiff class members;
-- award damages to plaintiff and any other similarly
situated persons for retaliation in violation of the
FLSA at 29 U.S.C. Section 215(a)(3) as authorized at 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b); and
-- award attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b),
at P.S. Section 260.9a(f), 43 P.S. Section 333.113, and
73 P.S. Section201-9.2.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b77
The suit is "Fuentes v. M.J.C. Co. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
00980-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Representing plaintiffs are Liz Maria Chacko of Friends of
Farmworkers, Inc., 924 Cherry St., 4th Fl., Philadelphia, PA
19107, Phone: 215-733-0878, E-mail: lchacko@friendsfw.org; and
Arthur N. Read, 924 Cherry St., 2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA
19107-2411, Phone: 215-981-3733, E-mail: aread@friendsfw.org.
MORGAN STANLEY: Settles Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in D.C.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley has agreed to settle claims in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia alleging gender discrimination under state and federal
laws, the AP News reports.
According to a Feb. 26 court document, the New York-based broker
dealer has filed a joint status report with the lead plaintiffs
saying a settlement has been reached and a "memorandum of
understanding" drafted.
The purported class action was filed on June 22, 2006 and,
captioned, "Joanne August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW
Inc." Plaintiffs, who seek damages in law and in equity, are:
-- Cheryl Guistiniano,
-- Debra Shaw,
-- Joanne August-Johnson,
-- Laurie Blackburn, and
-- Nancy Reeves
According to the complaint, the case arises out of the company's
alleged systematic discriminatory treatment of its female
financial advisors in violation of federal and applicable state
civil rights laws (Class Action Reporter, July 11, 2006).
The suit was brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.
In a November court filing, Morgan Stanley denied all
allegations.
"We believe that the settlement will cover all claims related to
this particular case," James Wiggins, a Morgan Stanley spokesman
said.
Cyrus Mehri, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs and the
class, declined to give specifics on the settlement.
Formal settlement papers and a request for preliminary approval
of the agreed terms will be filed in the Court within four to
six weeks, according to the report.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?d76.
The suit is "August-Johnson et al. v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01142-RWR," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Richard W.
Roberts.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, 1300 19th Street
NW, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-5100, E-
mail: cmehri@findjustice.com; and
(2) Steven M. Sprenger of Sprenger & Lang, PLLC, 1400 I
Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005,
Phone: (202) 265-8010, Fax: (202) 332-6652, E-mail:
ssprenger@sprengerlang.com.
NCL CORP: Discovery Begins in Fla. ADA Violations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has commenced in a purported class action filed
against NCL Corp. Ltd. in Florida State Court, primarily
alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.
The proposed class action was filed on Dec. 20, 2000, alleging
that the company discriminated against disabled persons in
violation of the ADA and the Florida Trade Act on several of its
ships.
Discovery has commenced, according to the company's March 6 Form
20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
NCL Corp. Ltd. on the Net: http://www.ncl.com/.
NCL CORP: Seeks Dismissal of ADA Violations Lawsuit in Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------
NCL Corp. Ltd. is seeking the dismissal of a purported class
action filed against it in Texas, alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
On Aug. 1, 2000, a proposed class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the
company, alleging that it violated the ADA in its treatment of
physically impaired passengers.
On June 6, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case that
the ADA is applicable to foreign-flagged cruise ships that
operate in U.S. waters to the same extent that it applies to
U.S. flagged ships.
The U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 5th Circuit to determine which claims in the
lawsuit remain and the 5th Circuit remanded the case to the
trial court.
The company has filed a motion for summary judgment in the trial
court, which is currently pending, according to the company's
March 6 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
NCL Corp. Ltd. on the Net: http://www.ncl.com/.
NCL CORP: Summary Judgment in Tex. Consumer Litigation Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action alleging violations of
Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act
against NCL Corp. Ltd. are appealing a summary judgment favoring
the company.
The suit was filed on Aug. 1, 2000 in a Texas state court,
alleging that the company along with a third party, violated
Texas laws.
The state court judge granted the company motion for summary
judgment and the plaintiff filed an appeal, which is currently
pending, according to the company's March 6 Form 20-F filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
NCL Corp. Ltd. on the Net: http://www.ncl.com/.
POLYMEDICA CORP: Fla. Judge Finds Violations in Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida declared that PolyMedica Corp., parent company of Port
St. Lucie-based Liberty Medical Supply, violated federal labor
laws by automatically charging employees for 30-minute lunch
breaks, the Palm Beach Post.
A class of 292 plaintiffs is seeking about $476,500 in damages
for lost pay plus plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The amount would
be doubled because the judge found that Liberty willfully
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the report.
Wakefield, Mass.-based PolyMedica Corp. plans to appeal the
decision by U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore. It is setting
aside $1.4 million to cover the costs, including its own legal
fees.
Plaintiffs' lawyer Mark Cullen at West Palm Beach estimates that
his fees in pursuing the suit for two years would more than $1
million. The damages, according to him, is double at $953,000.
The suit was filed in 2005 by Catherine Ealy-Simon, a former
worker at Liberty's call centers in Port St. Lucie. She expects
to receive about $6,400 in damages from the company, according
to the erport.
A final judgment is expected in about 45 days, according to the
report.
The suit is "Ealy-Simon, et al v. Liberty Medical, et al., Case
No. 2:05-cv-14059-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge K. Michael Moore, with
referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch.
Representing defendants are Haas A. Hatic of Greenspoon Marder
Hirschfeld Rafkin Ross & Berger, 100 W Cypress Creek Road, Suite
700, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, Phone: 954-491-1120, Fax: 954-
343-6956, E-mail: haas.hatic@greenspoonmarder.com; and David
Barmak and Frank T. Pimentel, both of Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris
Glovsky & Popeo, 701 Pensylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900,
Washington, DC 20004-2608, Phone: 202-434-7300.
Representing plaintiffs are Beth Linda Blechman and Mark
Aloysius Cullen, both of Cullen Law Firm PA, 2090 Palm Beach
Lakes Boulevard, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33409, Phone:
561-640-9191, Fax: 214-4021, E-mail: mailbox@cullenlawfirm.net.
RHODE ISLAND: Recalls Mood Necklaces for Lead Poisoning Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rhode Island Novelty, of Cumberland, Rhode Island, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 47,000 children's mood necklaces.
The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of
lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled children's mood necklaces have multi-colored
pendants including hearts, moons, dolphins, dragonflies, stars
and butterflies that hang from a black cord. "Mood Necklace is
printed on the necklace's packaging.
These recalled children's mood necklaces were manufactured in
China and are being sold at carnivals, amusement parks, family
entertainment centers, and small discount stores nationwide, and
through Rhode Island Novelty's Web site:
http://www.rinovelty.com,from August 2005 through December 2006
for about $1.
Picture of recalled children's mood necklaces:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07129.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately take this recalled jewelry
away from children and return it to the store where purchased or
to Rhode Island Novelty for a free replacement jewelry item.
For additional information, contact Rhode Island Novelty at
(800) 528-5599 between 8:30 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.rinovelty.com.
ROCHESTER INSTITUTE: Settles Workers' Overtime Suit for $2.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rochester Institute of Technology will pay about $2.5
million to about 170 of its 2,800 employees and their lawyers to
settle a planned class action involving overtime practices, the
Rochester Democrat and Chronicle reports.
According to Patrick Solomon, a lawyer representing RIT
employees, the suit resulted from a complaint from lead
plaintiff and a former employee who worked in food service at
RIT, Jan Lighthouse of Chili.
At issue are overtime claims for hourly employees who were
classified as being exempt from overtime privileges.
Bob Finnerty, RIT's chief communications officer, said affected
employees include those who are paid hourly as well as some
salaried positions, including sign language interpreters and
support staff who will be reclassified.
The college does not admit wrongdoing.
ST ANTHONY'S: Accused of Fraud in Processing Insurance Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action filed in the Circuit Court of the 3rd Judicial
Circuit, County of Madison claims Saint Anthony's Health Systems
routinely asserts lien against the proceeds of its patients'
personal injury insurance recovery, the Courthouse News Service
reports.
The suit was filed March 5, 2007 by Jefferson Hartley, a
resident of the Village of Cottage Hills, County of Madison,
against Saint Anthony's Health Sytems. While a patient at the
hospital, Mr. Hartley was treated for injuries he sustained in
an automobile accident on Dec. 11, 2005. He incurred charges
totaling $7,713.15.
Subsequent to Dec. 11, 2005, the defendant, acting through its
agents and employees, allegedly refused to submit Mr. Hartley's
charges for payment to his health insurer for payment, although
requested to do so. As a result, plaintiff experienced
uninsured medical costs.
According to the complaint, had the defendant submitted
plaintiff's medical charges, the same would have been paid at a
reduced rate in accordance with the terms of the contract
between his health insurer and the defendant. Rather than allow
plaintiff to have the benefit of his insurance, Saint Anthony's
Health Center allegedly asserted a lien against the proceeds of
Mr. Hartley's personal injury recovery. The acts of defendant
resulted in economic loss for the plaintiff.
Subsequently, defendant was asked to release its lien but it
allegedly refused claiming it was still entitled to a lien on
plaintiff's personal injury recovery, rather than accept the
reduced payment from his health insurer.
Mr. Hartley is representing himself and all others similarly
situated.
He is not making claims against his employer or against any
employer sponsored benefit plan.
The class consists of all Illinois residents who were Saint
Anthony's patients with third-party payor benefits that Saint
Anthony's refused to honor since 1994 and those patients for
whom Saint Anthony's refused to release liens after receiving
payment from third-party payors.
Mr. Hartley's complaint claims that Saint Anthony's Hospital
developed a scheme that identifies services provided to trauma
victims that result in third-party liability claims. Once the
victims are identified, St. Anthony's either does not submit
charges to the victim's health insurance provider, or it accepts
payment from third-party insurers but still asserts a lien for
the full, purported amount of services, the suit states.
The scheme allows Saint Anthony's to be paid the full amount,
rather than the reduced amount given to insurance providers.
Questions of law and fact common to the class include:
(1) whether defendant, fails to inform its patients that it
will not submit its charges for medical treatment to
its patients' insurance carriers;
(2) whether the conduct of defendant violates the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act;
(3) whether defendant is obligated to submit its patients'
charges to their third-party payors;
(4) whether defendant is entitled to assert a lien interest
in potential third-party recoveries of its patients,
after it had failed to submit its patients' charges to
their third-party payors; and/or
(5) whether defendant is entitled to receive and continue
to maintain a lien on personal injury proceeds.
Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant as follows:
-- an order that this action shall be maintained as a
class action pursuant to Rule 5/2-801 et seq. of the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure and that the class be
certified;
-- an order declaring and confirming that defendant's
conduct is unlawful under the causes of action alleged;
-- an injunctive order requiring defendant to cease and
desist all deceptive unjust and unreasonable practices
described in the complaint;
-- an order requiring an account for, and imposition of a
constructive trust upon, all monies received by
defendant as a result of the unlawful and unjust
conduct alleged in the complaint;
-- an order requiring defendant to return all monies it
has received pursuant to purported liens in situations
in which it refused to honor its patients' third-party
payor benefits;
-- an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of
this suit, including expert fees;
-- an award of factual and compensatory damages for each
class member;
-- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
-- such other relief that the court deems just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1b56
The suit is "Hartley et al. v. Saint Anthony's Health Systems,
Case No. 07-L-204," filed in the Circuit Court of the Third
Judicial Circuit, County of Madison.
Representing plaintiffs are Lanny Darr of Schrempf, Blaine,
Kelly, Napp & Darr, Ltd., 307 Henry Street, Suite 415, P.O. Box
725, Alton, IL 62002, Phone: (618) 465-2311, Fax: (618) 465-
2318; and T. Evan Schaeffer of Schaeffer and Lamere, P.C., 5512
Godfrey Road, Suite B, Godfrey, IL 62035, Phone: (618) 467-8200,
Fax: (618) 467-1885.
TICKETMASTER: Calif. Suit Over Online Transaction Charges Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Los Angeles County has stayed proceedings
in the purported class action, "Curt Schlessinger et al. v.
Ticketmaster, No. BC304565."
Originally the case was filed on Oct. 21, 2003, as a purported
representative action, challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for UPS ticket delivery.
The lawsuit alleges in essence that it is unlawful for
Ticketmaster not to disclose on its website that the fee it
charges to online customers to have their tickets delivered by
UPS contains a profit component.
The complaint asserted a claim for violation of Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code. It sought
restitution or disgorgement of the difference between the total
UPS-delivery fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales and the amount it paid to UPS for that
service.
On Jan. 9, 2004, the court denied Ticketmaster's motion to stay
the litigation in favor of an earlier-filed and similar Illinois
case.
On Dec. 31, 2004, the court denied Ticketmaster's motion for
summary judgment. On April 1, 2005, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to include
UPS-delivery fees charged in connection with ticket orders
placed by telephone.
Citing Proposition 64, a recently approved California ballot
initiative that outlawed so-called "representative" actions
brought on behalf of the general public, the court ruled that
since the named plaintiffs did not order their tickets by
telephone, they lacked standing to assert a claim based on
telephone ticket sales.
However, plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended
complaint that would survive application of Proposition 64.
On Aug. 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
and representative-action complaint alleging:
-- as before that Ticketmaster's website disclosures in
respect of its charges for UPS ticket delivery violate
Section 17200 of the California Business and
Professions Code; and
-- for the first time, that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order-processing
fees constitute false advertising in violation of
Section 17500 of the California Business and
Professions Code.
On the latter claim, the amended complaint seeks restitution or
disgorgement of the entire amount of order-processing fees
charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable statute-of-
limitations period.
On Sept. 1, 2005, in light of the newly pleaded claim based upon
order-processing fees, Ticketmaster removed the case to federal
court pursuant to the recently enacted federal Class Action
Fairness Act.
The case now fell under the caption, "Curt Schlessinger et al.
v. Ticketmaster, No. 05-CV-6515," which was pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
On Oct. 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the
case to state court, which Ticketmaster opposed. On March 23,
2006, the federal district court issued an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to state court.
On April 4, 2006, Ticketmaster filed a petition for leave to
appeal the district court's order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit, which the plaintiffs opposed.
On May 25, 2006, the federal court of appeals issued an order
denying Ticketmaster's petition; as a result, the case was
remanded to state court.
On Aug. 14, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster opposed. On Sept. 25, 2006,
Ticketmaster filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which
the plaintiffs opposed.
On Nov. 21, 2006, Ticketmaster requested that the court stay the
case pending the California Supreme Court's decisions in two
cases:
-- "In re Tobacco II Cases, 142 Cal. App. 4th 891," and
-- "Pfizer Inc. v. Superior Court (Galfano), 141 Cal. App.
4th 290)"
that present issues concerning the interpretation of Proposition
64 that are directly pertinent to both of the pending motions.
The plaintiffs opposed Ticketmaster's request. On Nov. 29,
2006, the court ordered that the case be stayed, according to
IAC/InteractiveCorp's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
Ticketmaster is an operating business of IAC/InterActiveCorp.
IAC/InterActiveCorp on the Net: http://www.iac.com/.
TICKETMASTER: Ill. Court Declines to Certify Class in "Zaveduk"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois denied a motion
seeking class-action status for the case, "Mitchell B. Zaveduk,
et al. v. Ticketmaster, et al., Case No. 02 CH 21148," which is
challenging the company's charges to customers for UPS ticket
delivery.
The lawsuit alleges in essence that it is unlawful for the
company not to disclose that the fee it charges to customers to
have their tickets delivered by UPS contains a profit component.
It asserted claims for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices Act and for unjust enrichment
and sought restitution to the purported class of the difference
between what the company charged for UPS delivery and what it
paid UPS for that service.
On May 20, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the common-law claim for unjust enrichment but declined
to dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.
On July 7, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint,
adding claims for breach of contract and for violation of the
California Consumers' Legal Remedies Act and Section 17200 of
the California Business and Professions Code.
On Aug. 13, 2004, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claim under the California Consumers' Legal Remedies
Act.
On Oct. 28, 2004, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claim for breach of contract, but declined again to
dismiss the claim under the Illinois statute.
On June 16, 2005, the court denied Ticketmaster's motions for
summary judgment on the Illinois statutory claim.
On Nov. 9, 2006, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which Ticketmaster opposed on Dec. 14, 2006.
On Feb. 2, the court, after hearing oral argument, issued an
order denying the motion for class certification, according to
the IAC/InteractiveCorp's March 1 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
IAC/InterActiveCorp on the Net: http://www.iac.com/.
UNION PACIFIC: Court Finds No Violation in Birth Control Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that Union
Pacific Railroad's policy of not covering contraceptives in its
health plan does not violate the federal Civil Rights Act, KHQ
Right Now reports.
The lawsuit, backed by Planned Parenthood, alleges that Union
Pacific's decision to exclude prescription contraception
coverage in its health plans for unionized employees is sex
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the nation's foremost law
against race and sex discrimination in employment (Class Action
Reporter April 4, 2005).
The class is estimated to include more than 400 female employees
of childbearing age located throughout the westernmost two
thirds of the nation.
Lead plaintiffs in the class action are two Union Pacific
employees, Brandi Standridge, a 25-year-old trainman and
engineer from Pocatello, Idaho, and Kenya Phillips, a 32-year-
old engineer who lives near Kansas City, Mo.
In 2005, Judge Laurie Smith-Camp ruled that Union Pacific
discriminated against women by not covering contraceptives in
its health care plan (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2005).
Specifically, Judge Smith-Camp wrote in her ruling, "Union
Pacific's policy of excluding prescription contraceptives and
related outpatient services from its plans" is discriminatory
"because it treats medical care women need to prevent pregnancy
less favorably than it treats medical care needed to prevent
other medical conditions that are no greater threat to
employees' health than is pregnancy."
The judge set a $5.2 million appeal bond in the class action
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 20, 2006). Judge Smith-Camp also
ordered the company to:
-- provide prescription contraceptive coverage equal to
health-plan benefits for other prescription drugs;
-- reimburse employees, who are members of the union which
negotiated the health care plans, for their
prescription contraceptive costs since Feb. 9, 2001;
and
-- pay $5,500 each to two women who represented other
employees in the class action, plus about $800,000 to
cover attorney's fees.
In November 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit
heard arguments on the appeal (Class Action Reporter, Nov 17,
2006).
Plaintiffs' attorney Roberta Riley told the panel of three
judges that the women were discriminated against when denied
coverage for contraceptives.
Ms. Riley argued that all men at Union Pacific got coverage for
drugs that protected them against health risks. She pointed out
that only women were denied coverage of drugs that would help
them avoid pregnancy.
However, Union Pacific attorney Donald Munro countered that the
policy didn't discriminate against women at all, pointing out
that all employees, men and women alike, were denied
contraception coverage.
Mr. Munro clarified though that the health care plan did provide
contraceptive coverage for women who faced higher health risks
from pregnancy, such as those with high blood pressure or other
conditions.
Earlier, the three-judge panel -- composed of Judges Kermit
Bye, Raymond Gruender and Pasco Bowman -- ruled that Union
Pacific Railroad's policy of not covering contraceptives in its
health plan isn't discriminatory and is not in violation of the
federal Civil Rights Act.
The suit is "In Re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices
Litigation," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nebraska under Judge Laurie Smith Camp with referral
to Judge F. A. Gossett.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Roberta N. Riley of Planned Parenthood Of Western
Washington, 2001 East Madison, Seattle, WA 98122,
Phone: (206) 328-6805, Fax: (206) 720-4657, E-mail:
roberta.riley@ppww.org and Kelly.Reese@ppww.org; and
(2) T. David Copley and Claire Cordon of Keller Rohrback
Law Firm, 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3200, Seattle, WA
98101, Phone: (206) 623-1900, Fax: (206) 623-3384, E-
mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com and
ccordon@kellerrohrback.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(i) Brenda J. Council of Whitner Law Firm, 1905 Harney
Street, Suite 640, Omaha, NE 68102, Phone: (402) 344-
7797, Fax: (402) 344-7798, E-mail:
bcouncil@whitnerlawfirm.com; and
(ii) Donald J. Munro of Goodwin Procter Law Firm, 901 New
York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202)
346-4137, Fax: (202) 346-4444, E-mail:
dmunro@goodwinprocter.com.
WACHOVIA SECURITIES: Faces Labor Suit by Financial Advisors
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Securities, LLC is defendant in multiple state and
nationwide putative class actions alleging unpaid overtime wages
and improper wage deductions for financial advisors.
In December 2006 and January 2007, related cases pending in U.S.
District courts in several states were consolidated for case
administrative purposes in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California pursuant to two orders of the
Multi-District Litigation Panel.
There is an additional case alleging a statewide class under
California law, which is currently pending before the California
Court of Appeals.
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Awaits Court Approval of Labor Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. agreed in March 2006 to
settle a litigation filed on behalf of a purported class of
employees under the California Labor Code and the Federal Fair
Labor Standards Act. The settlement amounted to $2,300 plus
other costs and expenses.
The settlement was accrued for in fiscal 2005 and is subject to
final approval by the court, according to the company's Feb. 28
10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
* McGlinchey Stafford's CAFA Law Blog Launches Audio Podcasts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm McGlinchey Stafford PLLC's CAFA Law Blog now
features audio podcasts of important developments related to the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and class action litigation.
CAFA Law Blog -- http://www.cafalawblog.com-- is the nation's
leading online resource for information regarding CAFA, which
provides its readers, and now its listeners, with a constantly
renewed source of decisions, analyses, news and insights about
CAFA and its rapidly evolving case law.
The new CAFA Law Blog podcasts highlight the important cases,
court decisions, trends and developments in the class action
field, and also feature reviews of articles from other legal
publications.
"Adding podcasts to the CAFA Law Blog allows lawyers, judges,
corporate counsel and others interested in CAFA to easily
download information from the blog and then listen to that
information whenever and wherever they want," according to
Anthony Rollo, CAFA Law Blog Co-Editor in Chief.
He practices class action law in McGlinchey Stafford's New
Orleans and Baton Rouge offices, and heads McGlinchey's national
class action defense practice group.
"We're excited about the new technology, and our readers and
listeners are, too," said Hunter Twiford, CAFA Law Blog Co-
Editor in Chief. "The CAFA Law Blog just published its 300th
post, and we're going to keep bringing our audience the latest
CAFA decisions and news. The podcasts are just another way to
offer the information."
He practices commercial and class action defense law in
McGlinchey Stafford's Jackson, Mississippi office.
"CAFA Law Blog's new podcasts just solidify McGlinchey
Stafford's position as a leader in the innovative use of
information technology," said Kevin O'Keefe, President of
Seattle-based LexBlog -- http://www.lexblog.com-- the foremost
provider of professional blogs to the legal profession.
"McGlinchey is the first large law firm in the country among our
clients to harness the power of podcasting," Mr. O'Keefe
observed.
He noted, "Law firms tend to lag behind other industries in
their use of technology, such as podcasting. That's not the case
here. It's significant that McGlinchey offers this free service
to its users, who have come to see CAFA Law Blog as the go-to
source on CAFA issues."
CAFA Law Blog podcasts are available at no cost and can be
accessed directly from the website or through iTunes or RSS
feeds.
* U.K.'s Pension Fund Group Highlights Rewards of Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.K.'s National Association of Pension Funds outlines the
potential benefits for investors of taking part in Securities
Class Actions in a paper published March 15.
An estimated $18.3 billion was paid out in such legal actions by
U.S. companies in 2006 alone, and it has been suggested that, in
all, some $2.4 billion remains unclaimed by U.K. and European
investors, including pension funds, a statement by NAPF said.
In its new paper, "Securities Litigation - Question for
Trustees," the NAPF says U.K. pension funds are becoming more
active in joining U.S. class actions, but adds that all U.K.
pension fund trustees should ensure that their schemes are not
missing out on potentially significant sums.
Launching the paper at the NAPF's annual Investment Conference
in Edinburgh, the NAPF's Head of Corporate Governance, David
Paterson, said: "It seems self-evident that pension trustees
have a duty to protect the assets in their scheme. At the very
least, they should not neglect opportunities to recoup losses,
especially where the cost and effort of doing so are
commensurate with the expected return.
"This paper sets out in practical terms the measures trustees
should take to ensure they are not missing out. At a time when
pensions scheme deficits are a matter of ongoing concern, scheme
members could be forgiven for asking why trustees are not taking
every available opportunity to recoup funds to which they are
rightfully entitled."
Securities Litigation - Question for Trustees answers 10
questions which trustees should be asking in relation to
Securities Class Actions.
The full paper can be accessed at http://www.napf.co.uk.
The NAPF is the leading voice of workplace pension provision in
the U.K. Some 10 million working people are currently in NAPF
Member schemes, while around 5 million pensioners are receiving
valuable retirement income from such schemes. NAPF Member
schemes hold assets of around GBP800 billion, and account for
over approximately one fifth of investment in the U.K. stock
market.
New Securities Fraud Cases
ALVARION LTD: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on Feb. 7, 2007, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Alvarion, Ltd.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from Nov. 3, 2004 through May 12, 2006.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 9,
2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, Phone: +1-405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com,
Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com.
GLOBALSTAR INC: Gutride Safier Announces Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gutride Safier LLP announces that a class action was commenced
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
against Globalstar, Inc. and certain officers on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the company during the period
from Nov. 2, 2006 through Feb. 5, 2007, inclusive.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act. It alleges that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the initial public
offering Prospectus failed to disclose that Globalstar's
satellites were degrading at an accelerating rate and the length
of their commercial viability was decreasing.
On Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar filed a Form 8-K with the Securities
and Exchange Commission disclosing several material events
including 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 declined
precipitously, falling from $14.48 per share to $10.40 per share
-- approximately 39% below the IPO price.
Motions for appointment of lead plaintiff are due on April 10,
2007.
For more information, contact Michael Reese of Gutride Safier
LLP, 230 Park Avenue New York, New York 10169, Phone: (212) 579-
4625, E-mail: michael@gutridesafier.com, Website:
http://www.gutridesafier.com.
HCC INSURANCE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing in Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood announces that on March 8, 2007, a class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas against HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 3, 2005 through Nov. 17, 2006.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 7, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact William B. Federman of Federman &
Sherwood, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK
73120, Phone: +1-405-235-1560, E-mail: wfederman@aol.com,
Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action 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 Monster Worldwide, Inc. (Nasdaq:MNST) between May
6, 2005 and June 9, 2006, inclusive.
The lawsuit charges Monster and Andrew T. McKelvey, Myron
Olesnyckyj and Charles "Lanny" Baker of violating Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-
5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme and or published a series of materially false
and misleading statements that Defendants knew, and or were
severely reckless in not knowing, were materially false and
misleading, and failed to disclose material information
necessary to render such statements not false and misleading.
During the Class Period, Defendants granted stock options to
themselves and to other Monster officers and directors on dates
that Monster stock had reached its lowest, or next-lowest price
in weeks or months. These grants almost invariably preceded
share gains, and or followed significant drops in the company's
stock price. In public disclosures, however, Defendants falsely
claimed that the grants were dated and priced as of the date of
the actual grants.
On June 12, 2006, The Wall Street Journal published an article
titled "Monster Worldwide Gave Officials Options Ahead of Share
Run-Ups." The article stated that Monster may have backdated
option grants, and reported that there was a one in nine million
chance that the grant dates of the options The Wall Street
Journal examined were selected at random. That same day, Monster
issued a press release announcing the receipt of a subpoena from
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York,
relating to the company's stock option granting practices.
Shares of Monster reacted negatively to the news, closing at
$38.60, down $3.40 from the prior trading day, a one day drop of
8.1%, on unusually heavy volume.
Subsequently, Defendant Olesnyckyj has pleaded guilty to
criminal federal securities fraud and conspiracy to commit
securities fraud.
For more information, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP, Phone: 800-321-0476.
*********
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 * * *