/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070412.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 72
Headlines
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Patients' Bid to Designate Plaintiffs Denied
AVIV JUDAICA: Recalls Chanukah Oil Candles in Plastic Cups
CHRISTOPHER A. COHEN: Actors Plan to Sue Over "Unjust" Payment
CRONOS GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over FB Transportation, CRX Deal
DELL INC: European Firm Lead Plaintiff in Tex. Securities Suit
DEUTSCHE BANK: "Newby" Plaintiff Loses Bid to Review Dismissal
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Tenn. Suits Over Buck Merger Agreement
EDDIE BAUER: Faces Labor Related Lawsuit in Calif. State Court
EDDIE BAUER: Shareholders File Suits in Wash. Over Merger Deal
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Tritium Spill Suit Ruling
GEMMY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Disney Princesses Easter Baskets
GILAT SATELLITE: Approval Hearings Held in N.Y. Securities Suit
HONG KONG TOY: Recalls Cart Toys with Hubcaps that can Detach
HOT TOPIC: Settles Calif. Privacy Law Violations Suit for $250T
HSBC FINANCE: Faces Litigation Alleging NBA Violations in Calif.
IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suit for $1.9M
INTELLIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Fraud Claim
KENTUCKY LOTTERY: Former Worker Sues Over Retirement Benefits
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Penna. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
MISSOURI: Residents File Suit Over Ads in Plate Renewal Notices
NEW YORK: City's Adult Protective Services Program Challenged
ORACLE CORP: Nov. Trial Set in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Possible Glass Dregs in Grifulvin Prompts Recall
PUBLIC STORAGE: Subclasses Certified in "Brinkley" Labor Case
PUBLIC STORAGE: Demurrer Pending in Calif. "Simas" Litigation
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Serrao" Lawsuit Remanded to Calif. State Court
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet on Securities Suit Appeal
SMITH & NEPHEW: Orthopaedic Business Faces Bias Suit in Tenn.
TEXAS APARTMENT: Tex. Court Certifies Class in "Ericson" Lawsuit
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over "Limited" Tax Breaks in Hybrid Cars
TTI TEAM: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Shareholder Complaint
WAL-MART STORES: Ga. Court Dismisses Gender Bias Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.
WAL-MART STORES: Court Awards "Savaglio" Plaintiffs $26M More
WELLS REAL: No Ruling Yet on Appeal to Recover Fees in "Hendry"
* Jenner & Block Widens Antitrust, Complex Litigation Practice
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
USANA HEALTH: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Patients' Bid to Designate Plaintiffs Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome Leveque of the Spokane County Superior Court in
Washington issued an order to parties involved in a purported
class action against American Medical Response to develop a
method of identifying overbilled patients, The Spokesman-Review
reports.
According to documents presented at a recent hearing, as many as
30,000 people living inside the city limits of Spokane may have
been overbilled by the private company, which has had a monopoly
on ambulance services since 1998.
The order comes as the judge declined to approve a request by
ambulance patients at a recent hearing to amend their case to
designate four types of plaintiffs.
In declining to approve the request, Judge Leveque specially
stated that he would order the ambulance company and the
plaintiffs to each designate "consultants" that would develop a
method of reviewing transport records to identity all
potentially overbilled patients.
Once a plan is developed, the judge would review it in light of
federal medical privacy laws and the handling of documents in
civil suits.
To develop a list of the estimated 30,000 plaintiffs,
plaintiffs' attorneys, including D. Roger Reed, have attempted
to review Spokane Fire Department 911 calls and "medical
incident reports."
City officials initially were reluctant to turn over that
information out of fear it could violate the federal Health
Information Patient Privacy Act protecting certain data.
However, it was later released, after a protective order was
signed, which restricted the release of only certain 911 patient
information just to attorneys involved in the litigation.
American Medical's attorney, Paul Dayton, told the court at the
recent hearing that the ambulance company has an additional
160,000 pages of patient information that the plaintiffs'
attorneys are now attempting to review.
Mr. Reed explains that he needs to review the records to
establish a list of names of patients, their addresses, and the
types of medical attention they received from American Medical
ambulance crews as part of the process of identifying those
customers who may have been overbilled.
Mr. Dayton told the court, though, that he opposed any expansion
of the suit or additional records reviews and said the ambulance
company wants to get the case to trial, now scheduled for Aug.
6.
Case Background
The suit alleges that the company engaged in an ongoing practice
of overcharging patients under a contract sanctioned and
monitored by city government.
The suit alleges that patients picked up within the city of
Spokane are billed for more-expensive "advanced life support"
(ALS) services when they only need cheaper "basic life support"
(BLS). The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate of
$348.
Filed on Dec. 13, 2005, the suit was brought on behalf of Lori
E. Davis-Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon, all residents of
Spokane. It was certified as a class action in June 2006.
The company, a subsidiary of Emergency Medical Services Corp.,
is the nation's largest provider of ambulance service. It has a
five-year contract with the city of Spokane, which expires in
2008. That contract gives the company the exclusive right to
transport patients within the city.
For more details, contact:
(1) [Plaintiffs] D. Roger Reed of Reed & Giesa, P.S. 222
North Wall, Suite 410, Spokane, Washington 99201,
(Spokane Co.), Phone: 509-838-8341; Fax: 509-838-6341;
and
(2) [Defendant] Paul J. Dayton at Short Cressman & Burgess
PLLC, Wells Fargo Center, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98104-4088 (King Co.), Phone: 206-
682-3333, Fax: 206-340-8856.
AVIV JUDAICA: Recalls Chanukah Oil Candles in Plastic Cups
----------------------------------------------------------
Aviv Judaica Imports Ltd. and Ahron's Judaica, both of Brooklyn,
New York, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, are recalling about 9,000 Chanukah oil candles.
The company said the oil candles can become engulfed in flames
and melt the plastic cups holding the candles in place, allowing
hot wax to leak out, which poses fire and burn hazards to
consumers.
Both firms have received eight reports of the candles igniting
and the plastic melting. No injuries have been reported.
This recall involves both the 44 count and the 36 count of
Chanukah Oil Candles. The packaging is a red box with the
following printed on it: "Chanukah Oil Candles With Jelled Extra
Virgin Olive Oil" and "Distributed by Ahron's Judaica Item #
OCCL-25/44."
These recalled Chanukah oil candles were manufactured in China
and are being sold through Jewish specialty stores nationwide
from November 2006 through December 2006 for between $15 and
$25.
Pictures of recalled Chanukah oil candles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07150a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07150b.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the candles and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund or
contact the firm for instructions on how to get a refund.
For additional information, call Ahron's Judaica toll-free at
(866) 669-1708 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.
CHRISTOPHER A. COHEN: Actors Plan to Sue Over "Unjust" Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
A group made up of more than 50 performers who appear in the
"Broadway's Lost Treasures" DVD series from such shows as 42nd
Street, Cats and Chicago, are threatening to bring a class
action against the films' executive producer, Christopher A.
Cohen, for lack of proper compensation, The New York Post
reports.
The DVDs, made up of performances televised on the Tony Awards,
have been released over the last few years, with a complete box
set coming out in May 2006.
According to the report, a lawyer representing the performers
sent a letter to Mr. Cohen saying that the performers did not
give consent to appear in the series and are asking for revenue
figures.
The paper reports that Mr. Cohen responds that he had worked out
deals with the unions American Federation of Television and
Radio Artists (AFTRA) and Actors' Equity.
CRONOS GROUP: Sued in Calif. Over FB Transportation, CRX Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cronos Group is facing a purported class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County
of San Francisco over an asset purchase agreement the company
had entered into, according to the company's March 16 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit, "Alan Kahn v. Dennis J. Tietz et al.," was filed on
March 2 against the company, the members of the company's board
of directors, and CRX Acquisition Ltd.
The complaint alleges that the company and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and the other
public shareholders of the company, including their duties of
loyalty, good faith, and independence, by entering into an asset
purchase agreement, dated as of Feb. 28, with CRX and FB
Transportation Capital LLC. Plaintiff alleges that CRX aided
and abetted the other defendants' wrongdoing.
The complaint is brought on behalf of the plaintiff and
purportedly on behalf of the other public shareholders of the
company.
Plaintiff seeks class certification and certain forms of
equitable relief, including enjoining the consummation of the
proposed transaction, rescissionary damages, and an accounting
by the defendants of all profits and special benefits received
by them as a result of their alleged wrongful conduct.
The Cronos Group on the Net: http://www.cronos.com/.
DELL INC: European Firm Lead Plaintiff in Tex. Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sam Sparks of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas named Union Asset Management Holding AG lead
plaintiff in the Dell, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Austin
American-Statesman reports.
In its complaint, Union, which is one of Europe's largest
investment fund management companies, claimed that Dell and
company chief executive Michael Dell, former chief executive
Kevin Rollins, and former chief financial officer James
Schneider manipulated earnings then profited from stock sales
made at an inflated price.
It also claimed PricewaterhouseCoopers, the company's
independent auditor, failed to establish proper controls to
detect such activity.
Union alleges it lost $20.25 million because of earnings
manipulations and a subsequent drop in Dell's stock price.
Further, Union alleges that Dell and its executives understated
the potential cost of its warranties, putting the extra money
into a "cookie jar" that it could use if a quarter's earnings
came up short.
It based much of its analysis on a December report by Friedman
Billings Ramsey Group Inc. analyst Clay Sumner.
Another set of plaintiffs had claimed losses of almost $88
million, but Judge Sparks ruled in favor of a single plaintiff
over a group.
Judge Sparks had rejected a petition from a larger group of
plaintiffs, and another from the high-profile law firm Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.
In accusing Dell executives of inflating results and profiting
on stock sales, the Union complaint follows the Lerach case,
which has received the most attention since the suits were
filed, the report said.
However, unlike the Lerach case, the Union suit does not include
allegations that Dell got kickbacks from Intel Corp.
In it's lawsuit, which seeks class-action status for investors
who bought Dell stock from February 2003 to September 2006,
Lerach alleges Dell's profits were inflated by hundreds of
millions of dollars through quarterly rebates from Intel that
Dell did not properly account for or disclose.
It charges that Dell got the Intel payments "for shipping only
Intel-based products and not doing business with [Advanced Micro
Devices Inc.]" Dell began using chips from Intel's rival last
year. It also claimed that Dell concealed problems in
accounting and product quality from shareholders while company
executives reaped $3.3 billion from selling their stock.
Further, Lerach claims that Dell withheld knowledge about such
problems as faulty laptop computer batteries that were later
recalled and a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation of Dell.
The consolidated suit is "In re Dell, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00726-SS," filed in the U.S.
District Court of for the Western District of Texas under Judge
Sam Sparks.
Plaintiffs' counsel are Ronald L. Motley, Joseph F. Rice, James
M. Hughes and Ann Kimmel Ritter, all of Motley Rice LLC, P.O.
Box 1792, 28 Bridgeside Blvd., Mount Pleasant, SC 29465, Phone:
(843) 216-9000, Fax: (843) 9410 or (843) 216-9290, E-mail:
jhughes@motleyrice.com; and Lauren S. Antonino of Motley Rice
LLC, 600 West Peachtree Street, Suite 800, Atlanta, GA 30308,
Phone: (404) 201-6900, Fax: (404) 201-6959, E-mail:
lantonino@motleyrice.com.
DEUTSCHE BANK: "Newby" Plaintiff Loses Bid to Review Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
denied a motion of the lead plaintiff in the suit "Newby et al.
v. Enron Corp." to reconsider the dismissal of Deutsche Bank AG
and its affiliates from the case.
Deutsche Bank AG and certain of its affiliates are collectively
involved in a number of lawsuits arising out of their banking
relationship with Enron Corp., its subsidiaries and certain
Enron-related entities.
These lawsuits include a class action brought on behalf of
shareholders of Enron, captioned "Newby v. Enron Corp.," which
purported to allege claims against, among others, Deutsche Bank
and certain of its affiliates under federal securities laws.
On June 5, 2006, the court dismissed all of the claims in the
Newby action against Deutsche Bank AG and its affiliates. On
June 21, 2006, the lead plaintiff in Newby filed a motion
requesting the court to reconsider the dismissal of Deutsche
Bank AG and its affiliates from Newby.
On February 8, 2007, the court denied the lead plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration.
The suit is "Newby, et al. v. Enron Corp., et al., Case No.
4:01-cv-03624," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas under Judge Melinda Harmon.
Representing defendant Deutsche Bank AG are:
(1) Joel M Androphy at Berg & Androphy, 3704 Travis St
Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-529-5622, Fax: 713-529-
3785 fax, E-mail: jandrophy@bafirm.com; and
(2) Lawrence Byrne at Linklaters, 1345 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10105, Phone: 212-903-9105, Fax:
212-903-9100, E-mail: larry.byrne@linklaters.com.
Representing the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of
Enron Corp. (Consol Plaintiff) is Lewis T. LeClair at McKool
Smith P.C., 300 Crescent Ct, Ste 1500, Dallas, Tx 75201, Phone:
214-978-4984, Fax: 214-978-4044, E-mail:
lleclair@mckoolsmith.com.
Representing Amalgamated Bank (Consolidated Plaintiff) is
William S. Lerach at Lerach Coughlin et al., 655 West Broadway,
Ste 1900 San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058.
Representing Enron Stockholders United Inc. (Consolidated
Plaintiff) is John Lee Ringgenberg, Attorney at Law, 12348 W
Dorado Pl, Unit 301, Littleton, CO 80127-5242, Phone: 303-792-
9526.
Representing former Outside Directors Enron is Mark J. Rochon at
Miller & Cehvalier Chartered, 655 Fifteenth St NW Ste 900,
Washington, DC 20005-5701, Phone: 202-626-5819, Fax: 202-626-
5801.
Representing Enron Corp. is Scott David Lassetter at The
Lassetter Law Firm, 708 Main St., Ste 200, Houston, TX 77006,
Phone: 713-523-0325, Fax: 713-523-0132, E-mail:
sdl@lassetterfirm.com.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Tenn. Suits Over Buck Merger Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corp. was named as a defendant in seven purported
class actions over its agreement and plan of merger with Buck
Holdings L.P. and Buck Acquisition Corp., according to the
company's March 29 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 2.
The suits are alleging claims for breach of fiduciary duty
arising out of the proposed sale of the company to Kohlberg
Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings and Buck
Acquisition.
The cases that were filed are:
-- "City of Miami General Employees' & Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust and Louisiana Sheriffs'
Pension and Relief Fund v. David A. Perdue, et al.;"
-- "Lee S. Grubman v. Dollar General Corp., et al.;"
-- "William Hochman, IRA v. Dollar General Corp., et al.;"
-- "Helene Hutt v. Dollar General Corp., et al.;"
-- "Shalom Rechnieder v. David L. Bere, et al.;"
-- "Catherine Rubbery v. Dollar General Corp., et al.;"
and
-- "David B. Shaev, IRA v. David A. Perdue, et al, Case
No. 07-559."
The City of Miami Complaint, the Grubman Complaint, the Hochman
Complaint, the Hutt Complaint, the Rubbery Complaint, and the
Shaev Complaint were each brought in the Chancery Court for
Davidson County, Tennessee, and the Rechnieder Complaint was
brought in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, Tennessee.
Each of the complaints allege, among other things, that the $22
per share price of the proposed transaction is inadequate and
that the process leading to the transaction was unfair.
Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction enjoining
completion of the transaction and, in certain cases,
compensatory damages.
Dollar General Corp. on the Net: http://www.dollargeneral.com/.
EDDIE BAUER: Faces Labor Related Lawsuit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc. is facing a purported class action that was
filed on or about June 15, 2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court
in the State of California, according to the company's March 29
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.
The action, "Tara Hill v. Eddie Bauer, Inc.," is alleging, among
other things, that Eddie Bauer, Inc.:
-- did not provide plaintiffs with adequate wage
statements;
-- did not reimburse plaintiffs for business-related
expenses;
-- forced plaintiffs to buy Eddie Bauer clothing;
-- did not timely pay plaintiffs at the cessation of
employment; and
-- improperly required the plaintiffs to work during rest
and meal periods without compensation.
Based on these allegations, plaintiffs assert various causes of
action, including those under the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code.
No date has yet been set for class certification hearing or
trial. Plaintiffs have until May 7, 2007 to file a motion for
class certification.
Eddie Bauer, Inc. on the Net: http://www.eddiebauer.com/.
EDDIE BAUER: Shareholders File Suits in Wash. Over Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eddie Bauer, Inc. remains a defendant in purported class actions
that were filed by company shareholders in the Superior Court of
the State of Washington in and for King County.
Between Nov. 17, 2006 and Nov. 22, 2006, putative stockholders
of Eddie Bauer filed three purported class action complaints
against the company and its Board of Directors.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the Board of
Directors breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the
proposed merger with an affiliate of Sun Capital Partners and
Golden Gate Capital and that the consideration to have been paid
to holders of Eddie Bauer's common stock was inadequate.
They sought, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the merger, that certain sections of the merger agreement should
have been enjoined and rescinded and attorneys' fees.
An order of dismissal without prejudice with respect to one of
the complaints was entered on Dec. 7, 2006, according to the
company's March 29 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006.
Eddie Bauer, Inc. on the Net: http://www.eddiebauer.com/.
EXELON CORP: Plaintiffs Seek Review of Tritium Spill Suit Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for plaintiffs who are seeking compensation for
damages as a result of radioactive tritium spills from Exelon
Corp.'s Braidwood Nuclear Power Plant in Will County (Illinois)
are asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois to reconsider its decision to deny class-action status
to the case, Chicago Tribune reports.
"We are asking the judge to reconsider her denial based on
specific evidence we have now found on the case," said Kenneth
Grey, one of many lawyers working on the case.
Court depositions taken after the class briefing alleged Exelon
management stifled its own employees for raising safety issues
and contradicted public promises it would put safety first.
According to an amended complaint filed, Exelon managers "did
not want to know if their concerns about contamination were
real. Exelon also failed to disclose their concerns to
neighbors and sought to keep information about the spill from
area residents."
The failure-to-test allegations are in the amended complaint,
which seeks punitive damages in addition to compensatory
damages.
In late 2005, Exelon's nuclear unit Exelon Nuclear announced
elevated tritium levels were found in groundwater outside the
plant. It later said most of the contamination resulted from
two major spills in 1998 and 2000, although the company
determined tritium had been spilled at least 22 times.
Tritium, a byproduct of nuclear generation, can enter the body
through ingestion, absorption or inhalation. Exposure can
increase the risk of cancer, birth defects and genetic damage.
On March 13, 2006, a class action was filed against the company,
Exelon Generation Co. and Commonwealth Edison Co., as the prior
owner of Braidwood, in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, on behalf of all persons who live or own
property within 10 miles of Braidwood.
The plaintiffs primarily seek:
-- a court-supervised fund for medical monitoring for
risks associated with alleged exposures to tritium; and
-- compensation for diminished property values.
Exelon filed a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the
plaintiffs cannot meet the dose threshold required to maintain a
public liability action under the Price-Anderson Act. This
motion was denied.
On March 14 and 23, 2006, 37 area residents filed two separate
but identical lawsuits against the same defendants in the
Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois alleging property
contamination and seeking compensation for diminished property
values.
The company removed these cases to federal court, and all three
cases were assigned to the same judge. It has submitted its
answer to the class action. The company's motions to dismiss
the amended complaints in the other two lawsuits were denied in
part on July 19, 2006.
The court dismissed all claims premised on violations of
Illinois environmental statutes. The court has set a schedule
for a class certification motion and discovery for all three
suits.
On Sept. 29, 2006, amended complaints were filed in all three
cases. Seven plaintiffs withdrew from the cases, and 18
additional plaintiffs were added.
On Oct. 11, 2006, two area residents filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the
defendants.
The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to
the lawsuits described above, and the case has been transferred
to the judge overseeing the other federal cases.
Company officials said testing of private wells near the plant
showed elevated tritium levels -- which were well below federal
drinking water limits -- in only one private well. They said
groundwater contamination was confined to the plant site and
nearby areas. Exelon, state and federal officials have said the
contamination near Braidwood poses no threat to public health.
Last month, Judge Suzanne Conlon denied class-action status to
the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 26, 2007).
The judge concluded that attorneys who filed the suit went too
far in defining the potential plaintiffs, or class, as up to
6,500 people living in a 25-square-mile area surrounding the
Braidwood Generating Station.
Plaintiff attorneys have asked the court to reconsider the
class-action status denial.
In a recent announcement, Exelon Nuclear officials said they had
significantly reduced tritium contamination at and near the
plant.
The first federal suit is "Duffin et al. v. Exelon Corp. et al.,
Case No. 1:06-cv-01382," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon.
Representing the plaintiffs are Nicholas Evans Sakellariou of
McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck, Hutchison & Ruttle, 2455
Glenwood Avenue, Joliet, IL 60432, Phone: (815) 729-4800; and
Kenneth A. Grey of McKeown, Fitzgerald, Zollner, Buck,
Hutchison, & Ruttle, 28 Kansas Street, Frankfort, IL 60423,
Phone: (815) 469-2176, Fax: (815) 469-0295.
GEMMY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Disney Princesses Easter Baskets
----------------------------------------------------------
Gemmy Industries Corp., of Coppell, Texas, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
8,500 Disney Princesses Easter baskets.
The company said silver beads and ribbons attached to the basket
can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. No
injuries have been reported.
The product is a pink and purple plush Easter basket decorated
with silver beads and ribbons. "Disney Princesses" is written
on top of the basket. Pictures of the princesses are on the
front of the basket. The basket measures about 10-inches high
by 8-inches wide.
These recalled Disney Princesses Easter baskets were
manufactured in China and are being sold by Wal-Mart stores
nationwide from February 2007 through March 2007 for about $10.
Picture of recalled Disney Princesses Easter baskets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07152.jpg
Consumers are advised to take the Easter basket away from young
children immediately and remove the beads and ribbons to prevent
the choking hazard. Consumers also can return the item to the
nearest Wal-Mart store for a full refund.
For additional information, please contact Gemmy Industries at
(800) 231-6879 between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site: http://www.gemmy.com.
GILAT SATELLITE: Approval Hearings Held in N.Y. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has
held preliminary approval hearings in a settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Gilat
Satellite Networks Ltd. in 2002.
In the first half of 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the company and certain of the company's
officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia, and a request to file a class
action was filed in the Tel-Aviv, Israel District Court.
The class actions allege violations of the federal securities
laws and claim that the company issued material
misrepresentations to the market. The class actions in the U.S.
have been consolidated into a single action in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York and an amended
complaint has been filed In September 2005, the court rendered
its decision to dismiss a number of the claims listed in the
complaint.
In June, 2006, following a successful mediation, the parties
reached a settlement in the consolidated class action filed in
the U.S. The entire amount due would be covered by the
company's insurance carriers.
The settlement stipulates that the company does not admit to any
wrongdoing, fault or liability. The company and the plaintiffs
filed the settlement papers with the court on Nov. 13, 2006, and
preliminary approval hearings have been held.
If the court preliminarily approves the proposed settlement,
plaintiffs will provide notice to the class.
The Israeli court granted a motion to stay the proceedings of
the Israeli action pending the outcome of the U.S. class action
proceeding.
The consolidated suit is "In re: Gilat Satellite Networks, Case
No. 1:02-cv-01510-CPS-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York under Judge Charles P. Sifton,
with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.
Representing the defendants are Andrew M. Behrman and Joseph P.
Cyr both of Lovells, 590 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: (212) 909-0600, Fax: 212-858-1000, E-mail:
andrew.behrman@lovells.com; and Thomas Bush of Lovells, One IBM
Plaza Suite 1900, 330 N. Wabash Ave., Chicago, IL 60611, Phone:
(313)-832-4400.
Representing plaintiffs are:
(1) Jules Brody of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th
Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687-7230, Fax:
212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com;
(2) Jeffrey Michael Haber of Bernstein, Liebhard &
Lifshitz, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New
York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414, Fax: (212) 779-
3218, E-mail: haber@bernlieb.com;
(3) Jacob Sabo of The Law Office of Jacob Sabo, Fax: 011
972-3 607 88 89;
(4) Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119, Phone:
212-946-9356, Fax: 212-273-4406, E-mail:
sschulman@milbergweiss.com;
(5) Richard A. Speirs of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling,
LLP, 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10010,
Phone: 212-223-3900, Fax: 212-371-5969, E-mail:
rspeirs@zsz.com;
(6) Steven J. Toll and Catherine A. Torell both of Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, The First Interstate
Building, 150 East 52nd Street, 13th Floor, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-838-7797, Fax: 212-838-7745, E-
mail: ctorell@cmht.com; and
(7) Joseph Harry Weiss of Weiss & Lurie, 551 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176, Phone: (212) 682-3025,
Fax: (212) 682-3010, E-mail: jweiss@weisslurie.com.
HONG KONG TOY: Recalls Cart Toys with Hubcaps that can Detach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hong Kong Toy Centre, of Hong Kong and Target, of Minneapolis,
Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission, is recalling about 18,500 units of Little Tree Wood
Activity Cart toys.
The company said the orange hubcaps on the wheel of the cart can
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.
Target has reported seven incidents of the hubcaps detaching.
No injuries have been reported.
The recall involves Little Tree wooden activity cart toys. This
is a multi-colored cart with an orange seat and a wooden tray.
The cart has apple trees, a blue fence, and red, blue and green
flowers painted on one side. The cart also has a wooden sheep,
dog and horse affixed to that same side. The other side of the
cart contains a board with multi-colored wooden magnets.
These recalled Little Tree Wood Activity Cart toys were
manufactured in China and are being sold by Target stores
nationwide from July 2006 through March 2007 and on
http://www.target.comfrom October 2006 through February 2007
for about $20.
Picture of recalled Little Tree Wood Activity Cart toys:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07148.jpg
Consumers are advised to take the toy away from children and
return the item to any Target store for a full refund.
For additional information, please contact Target at (800) 440-
0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or
visit http://www.target.com.
HOT TOPIC: Settles Calif. Privacy Law Violations Suit for $250T
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hot Topic, Inc. reached an agreement to settle for $250,000 a
suit alleging it violated California laws on the extent at which
it is allowed to obtain certain customer information in
connection with credit card transactions.
In April 2006, a California resident filed a lawsuit against the
company in Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging that
the company violated California Civil Code Section 1747.08.
That code section regulates when a retailer is permitted to
obtain certain customer information in connection with credit
card transactions. The case is alleged as a class action.
In May 2006, the company answered the complaint and denied all
liability. In October 2006, the court gave preliminary approval
to a settlement agreement between the plaintiff (on behalf of
the purported class) and the company, which agreement the
company entered into as opposed to incurring additional legal
fees defending the claims.
The settlement agreement set forth the company's position that
complete defenses to the claims exist. Further, there was no
admission of liability and no finding of violation of law. In
January 2007, the court granted final approval of the settlement
terms.
Under the settlement agreement, the company will pay (during the
first two quarters of fiscal 2007) an estimated aggregate of
approximately $250,000 to cover certain attorneys' fees and
claims administration costs; and the company will provide class
members who have opted in to the settlement class a coupon to
receive 20% off on a single purchase of up to $100 in Topic or
Torrid stores.
The company accrued amounts to account for the settlement during
the third quarter of 2006 following agreement on the settlement
terms. The company expect the case to be finally dismissed with
prejudice upon completion of the above steps, and do not expect
any further activity with respect to the matter.
HSBC FINANCE: Faces Litigation Alleging NBA Violations in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A stipulation was filed to consolidate cases filed in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California that
alleges violations of National Bank Act by, among others, HSBC
Finance Corp.
Beginning with "Pinon et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.
Case No. C07 0772," HSBC Finance, and HSBC North America
Holdings Inc., as well as others, have been named as defendants
in four class actions filed.
These purported nationwide class actions allege that defendants
impose excessive late and over-limit fees in violation of the
Act, and that defendants have conspired to fix and maintain a
"price floor" for late fees in violation of Section 1 of the
federal Sherman Antitrust Act.
The suits further claim violations of the California Business
and Professions Code, Section 17200, et seq., the California
Legal Remedies Act, the California Cartwright Act, and common
law breach of covenant and unjust enrichment.
The purported class seeks damages from Jan. 31, 2003. While at
least one of these suits has yet to have been served on any HSBC
entity, a stipulation was filed on March 23 to consolidate these
cases.
HSBC Finance Corp. on the Net: http://www.hsbc.com.
IBIS TECHNOLOGY: Settles Mass. Securities Fraud Suit for $1.9M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ibis Technology Corp. has yet to report that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts has approved an
agreement in principle it entered to settle a consolidated
securities class action against it and its president and chief
executive officer.
The proposed settlement provides for a payment to the plaintiffs
of $1.9 million, which amount will be funded entirely by the
company's insurance carrier.
The settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a
formal settlement agreement and to final court approval.
Initially, these five securities class actions were filed
against the company and its president and chief executive:
-- "Martin Smolowitz v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et
al., Case No. 03-12613 (RCL);"
-- "Fred Den v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Case
No. 04-10060 (RCL);"
-- "Weinstein v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al., Case
No. 04-10088 (RCL);"
-- "George Harrison v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et
al., Case No. 04-10286 (RCL);" and
-- "Eleanor Pitzer v. Ibis Technology Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 04-10446 (RCL)."
On June 4, 2004, the court entered an order consolidating these
actions as, "In re Ibis Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 04-10446 RCL."
On July 6, 2004, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed which alleges, among other things, that the company
violated federal securities laws by allegedly making
misstatements to the investing public relating to demand for
certain Ibis products and intellectual property issues relating
to the sale of the i2000 oxygen implanter. Plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages.
On Aug. 5, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on the grounds, among others,
that it failed to state a claim on which the relief could be
granted.
On Sept. 25, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation recommending that the company's motion be granted
in part and denied in part.
The company and the plaintiffs both filed partial objections to
the report and recommendation with the court. On March 31,
2006, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation, and thus granted in part and denied in part the
company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims.
The settlement in principle announced on Oct. 2, 2006 is subject
to and contingent on, the negotiation and execution of a formal
settlement agreement and final court approval.
The proposed settlement, which provides for a payment to the
plaintiffs of $1.9 million and is to be funded entirely by the
company's insurance carrier, will not have a material adverse
effect on its business, results of operations, and financial
condition.
The company reported no development in the case at its March 26
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 IBIS Technology Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:04-cv-10446-RCL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts under Judge Reginald C. Lindsay.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP, 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02108, Phone: 617-439-3939,
Fax: 617-439-0134, E-mail: ted@shulaw.com; and
(2) Gregory M. Nespole, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman &
Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 2112-545-4653, E-mail:
nespole@whafh.com.
Representing the company are:
(i) Christine A. S. Chung and Brian E. Pastuszenski,
Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place, 53 State Street,
Boston, MA 02109, E-mail: cchung@goodwinprocter.com or
BPastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com; and
(ii) Laura M Stock of Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place 53
State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-570-1709,
Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail: lstock@goodwinprocter.com.
INTELLIGROUP INC: Seeks Dismissal of N.J. Securities Fraud Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligroup, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a third amended
complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action
pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, according to the company's March 29 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
On or about Oct. 12, 2004, the first of six class actions was
filed on behalf of a purported class of investors who purchased
the company's common stock against the company and former
officers Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and
David Distel.
In August 2005, the court consolidated the six class actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff. Plaintiffs subsequently dropped Mr.
Distel and Mr. Carr from the shareholder class action, failing
to name either of them as a defendant in the amended
consolidated complaint filed on or about Oct. 10, 2005.
The shareholder class action generally alleges violations of
federal securities laws, including allegations that the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the company's financial condition and that the
Defendants materially overstated financial results by engaging
in improper accounting practices.
The class period proposed was May 1, 2001 through Sept. 24,
2004. The shareholder class action generally seeks relief in
the form of unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable
costs, expenses and legal fees.
On Dec. 5, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. On Feb. 10, 2006, prior to the hearing
on defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint.
On Feb. 10, 2006, lead plaintiffs filed a second amended
consolidated class action complaint. On March 27, 2006,
defendants filed their motions to dismiss the complaint.
Lead plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motions on
May 11, 2006, and beginning June 9, 2006 defendants filed
further briefing in support of their motions.
On Dec. 20, 2006 Judge Garrett Brown granted the motion to
dismiss.
On or about Jan. 25, plaintiffs filed the third consolidated
amended complaint. On or about March 5, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint.
The suit is "Lydia Garcia, et al. v. Intelligroup Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-CV-4980," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge John C. Lifland with referral
to Judge Mark Falk.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Joseph J. DePalma of Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas,
LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail:
jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com;
(2) Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman,
Esqs., 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ 07645, Phone:
(201) 391-7000, E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com; and
(3) Lisa J. Rodriguez of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards,
LLP, 8 Kings Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033,
Phone: (856) 795-9002, E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are Dennis J. Drasco and Kevin J.
O'Connor of Lum, Danzis, Drasco & Positan, LLC, 103 Eisenhower
Parkway, Roseland, NJ 07068-1049, Phone: (973) 403-9000, E-mail:
ddrasco@lumlaw.com and koconnor@lumlaw.com.
KENTUCKY LOTTERY: Former Worker Sues Over Retirement Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Michael D. Grabhorn filed a lawsuit on behalf of a
former employee of Kentucky Lottery Corp., Kathy Cheatham,
questioning the company's retirement benefit plan, The Courier-
Journal reports.
Because Lottery employees aren't part of the Kentucky Employee
Retirement System, the lottery takes the 6.2 percent of their
pay that would normally go to Social Security plus its own 6.2
percent contribution, and invests it in mutual funds.
Mr. Grabhorn said it is questionable whether the plan ever met
the requirements for a Social Security substitute, something
that "can't have losses" and must guarantee a "reasonable rate
of return." The lottery's plan doesn't control the risks
because it lets employees choose their funds, according to him.
The retirement benefits plan suffered losses during the stock-
market declines a few years ago, Mr. Grabhorn said.
Under federal rules, Social Security members who get money from
plans outside the system will have their benefits reduced.
Employees who had contributed to Social Security before working
for the lottery, thus, would have to suffer these cuts. They
also lose cost-of-living increases based on the diminished
payments, according to the lawsuit. After five years of not
paying Social Security taxes, workers lose their disability
coverage. The lottery's own coverage ends when an employee
stops working for the agency.
Ms. Cheatham says in court records that she stands to receive
$925 a month less from Social Security when she retires and that
since she quit the lottery corporation in January she has lost
disability insurance. Ms. Cheatham's lawyer estimates her
losses at at least $100,000.
The defendants have asked that the case be moved to U.S.
District Court in Louisville.
MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Penna. Court Over Recalled Pet Food
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Attorney Robert Peirce, representing an Ellwood
City woman whose cat was injured by a Menu Foods Inc. product,
filed a class action on behalf of all pet owners in Pennsylvania
who may have purchased contaminated pet food, KDKA reports.
Mr. Peirce claims his client fed her cat the pet food, and over
a series of days it got worse and worse.
He further claimed the cat unfortunately, had kidney failure
and, which in turn, had his client incurring almost $5,000 in
medical bills.
Mr. Peirce filed a lawsuit against Menu Foods and Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., where the food was purchased and he is asking the
court to certify this case as a class action.
The lawsuit accuses pet food manufacturers of violating the
state's consumer protection law, negligence, and breach of
warranty.
Mr. Peirce advises interested parties to keep any receipts they
have for purchasing the product. Further, he asked for them to
keep the food itself in a safe place or his firm can store it
for them. In addition, if interested parties have veterinary
bills, he advised them to keep those bills, too.
On March 17, 2007, Menu Foods issued a North American-wide
recall of 48 brands of dog food and 42 brands of cat food in
response to reported deaths of cats and dogs in the U.S.
The nationwide recall includes popular brands such as Iams,
Nutro, and Eukanuba and private-label brands sold by retailers
Wal-Mart, Safeway, Petsmart, and others.
Veterinary professionals estimate thousands of pets across the
nation will die of kidney failure or become very sick with
similar symptoms as a result of consuming the contaminated
products.
To see complete list of recalled products:
http://www.menufoods.com/recall
Menu Foods is facing other federal class actions in other parts
of the country.
Robert Peirce is with Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C., 2500
Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-
1918, Phone: 1-877-272-9171, Fax: 412-281-4229.
MISSOURI: Residents File Suit Over Ads in Plate Renewal Notices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri residents Michele Poynter and Jan Bradstreet filed a
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, alleging their privacy is being violated by a policy
allowing ads to be inserted in license plate renewal notices,
the Associated Press reports.
Last year, the state Revenue Department hired Imagitas Inc. to
handle printing of vehicle registration notices, for free, in
exchange for the right to sell and insert commercial
advertisements in the packets.
But plaintiffs claim that providing their information to the
company violates a federal law protecting drivers' data.
"Defendants' disclosure of plaintiffs' personal information
constitutes an invasion of privacy that violates the (federal
law)," according to the lawsuit filed by Kansas City attorney
Douglas Gentile.
According to the lawsuit the Driver's Privacy Protection Act
forbids disclosing personal information in motor vehicle records
for "surveys, marketing materials or solicitations" without
first obtaining people's consent.
The lawsuit seeks class-action status and damages of $2,500 per
person whose information was improperly provided -- in a state
the lawsuit estimates has more than 2 million drivers.
The Revenue Department said Monday that advertisers have no
access to Missourians' information, and that details the company
gets are not considered private under the federal law.
The company gets a person's name, address and vehicle
registration details, but not a Social Security number, age or
other personal information, Revenue Department spokeswoman Maura
Browning said.
The suit is "Poynter et al. v. Vincent et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-
04047-NKL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Missouri under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey.
Representing plaintiffs are R. Douglas Gentile, Evan A. Douthit,
Randall L. Rhodes and Phillip Charles Rouse, all of Douthit,
Frets, Rouse, Gentile & Rhodes, LLC, 903 East 104th Street,
Suite 610, Kansas City, MO 64131, Phone: (816) 941-7600, Fax:
(816) 941-6666, E-mail: dgentile@dfrglaw.com or
edouthit@dfrglaw.com or rrhodes@dfrglaw.com or
crouse@dfrglaw.com.
NEW YORK: City's Adult Protective Services Program Challenged
-------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Legal Assistance Group filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of New York city's mentally and physically disabled
adults.
The suit targets the City's Adult Protective Services (APS)
program, which is responsible for protecting adults who, because
of a physical or mental impairment, are unable to care for
themselves and who have no one willing or able to assist them.
Many APS clients are poor and elderly, all are disabled, and all
desperately need APS' help to protect them from harm.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five plaintiffs and a class
of all current and future APS clients who are not receiving or
will not receive the protective services to which they are
legally entitled.
Plaintiffs challenge the failures of the city and state to
comply with federal and state laws mandating the provision of
services to protect adults from harm.
Plaintiffs include Matilda Belovic, a 94 year-old woman who was
taken from her home by APS and put into a nursing home against
her will without APS first making required efforts to keep her
safe at home, and Madelaine Andrews who cannot walk because of
her disabilities and is therefore trapped in her fourth floor
walk-up apartment, unable to go downstairs unless she is
carried. APS has made no efforts to help her find an accessible
apartment or medical care she desperately needs.
"APS promised me they would help me find a new place to live and
then completely abandoned me. As a result, I wasn't able to
leave my house for over six months, until I had a heart attack
and an ambulance came to take me away. APS has not done
anything to help me," said Ms. Andrews.
APS is mandated to provide a wide range of services, including
eviction prevention; financial management; applying for
guardians; help obtaining government benefits such as public
assistance, Medicaid, home care, food stamps, and Supplemental
Security Income; heavy duty home cleaning; and protection from
physical and economic harm.
Allegedly, APS' mandate to help vulnerable New Yorkers often
goes unfulfilled. "Its caseworkers are under-trained and
overworked. As a result, elderly and disabled New Yorkers go
hungry, are shut away in nursing homes unnecessarily, or go
without medical care they desperately need," a statement by
NYLAG.
Plaintiffs present claims under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the federal and state
constitutions, and New York Social Services Law.
Founded in 1990, the New York Legal Assistance Group --
http://www.nylag.org-- is a not-for-profit law office providing
free civil legal services to low-income New Yorkers.
For more information, contact Jane Greengold Stevens, Esq. or
Sabrina Tavi, Esq., both of the New York Legal Assistance Group,
Phone: +1-212-613-5031 or +1-212-613-5032, E-mail:
jstevens@nylag.org or stavi@nylag.org.
ORACLE CORP: Nov. Trial Set in Calif. Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has set a November 26, 2007 trial in a consolidated securities
class action filed against Oracle Corp.
Stockholder class actions were filed against the company and its
chief executive officer on and after March 9, 2001. Between
March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised
second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with
prejudice.
On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The revised second amended complaint named the company's chief
executive officer, the company's then chief financial officer
(who currently is chairman of the company's board of directors)
and a former executive vice president as defendants.
This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the
company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through
March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the company's actual and
expected financial performance and the performance of certain of
its applications products, while certain individual defendants
were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities
laws.
Plaintiffs further alleged that certain individual defendants
sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged
in accounting violations.
Currently, the parties are conducting discovery. The court has
set a trial date of November 26, 2007. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs,
and equitable and injunctive relief.
The suit is "Nursing Home Pension Fund et al. v. Oracle Corp. et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00988-MJJ," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California under Judge
Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero.
Representing the plaintiffs are Jennie Lee Anderson, Eli
Greenstein, Mark Solomon and Monique Winkler of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine St., Suite 2600,
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058,
Fax: 619-231-7423 and 415-288-4534, E-mail:
jenniea@lerachlaw.com, Elig@lerachlaw.com, marks@lerachlaw.com
and MoniqueW@lerachlaw.com.
Representing the defendants are:
(1) Dorian Daley, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA
94065, Phone: (650) 506-5200, Fax: (650) 506-7114;
(2) James C. Maroulis of Oracle Corporation, 500 Oracle
Parkway, M/S 5OP7, Redwood Shores, CA 94065, Phone:
650-506-4517, Fax: 650-506-7114, E-mail:
jim.maroulis@oracle.com; and
(3) Lee Howard Rubin of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, Two
Palo Alto Square, Suite 300, 3000 El Camino Real, Palo
Alto, CA 94306-2112, Phone: 650-331-2037, Fax: 540-331-
4537, E-mail: lrubin@mayerbrownrowe.com.
ORTHO-MCNEIL: Possible Glass Dregs in Grifulvin Prompts Recall
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ortho Dermatological division of Ortho-McNeil
Pharmaceutical, Inc., manufacturer of GRIFULVIN V and
griseofulvin oral suspension, is recalling microsize 125 mg/5mL
glass bottles of the oral suspension liquid, a prescription
medicine used to treat ringworm and other fungal infections.
The voluntary recall is a precaution for wholesalers and retail
pharmacies nationwide based on two reports of glass fragments
found in bottles of the liquid formulation.
This voluntary recall is limited to the liquid formulation of
the medication and does not include any other dosage form.
The two reports of glass fragments are believed to be the result
of bottle breakage during shipping and handling. A plastic
over-wrap placed on bottles of this medicine for protection
might have made it difficult to detect breakage that occurred
during shipping and handling, and action is being taken to
change the over-wrap to prevent this possible occurrence in the
future.
In the unlikely event that a damaged bottle has been dispensed,
a potential exists for injury due to accidental ingestion of
glass fragments. There have been no reports of adverse events
from the reported glass fragments in broken bottles.
The lots were shipped to distributors in the U.S. only between
August 23, 2005 and March 14, 2007. Lot numbers are listed at
the end of this press advisory and posted on
http://www.aboutgrifulvin.com.
Lot numbers can be found on the back of the product label only
on four-ounce (120 mL) glass bottles filled by the manufacturer.
Consumers with pharmacy-dispensed bottles, which were filled at
the pharmacy and do not contain lot numbers, should contact the
pharmacy where they purchased the medicine to determine if they
are in possession of product that has been recalled.
In addition to contacting the pharmacy where the medicine was
purchased, consumers who believe they are in possession of
recalled bottles of GRIFULVIN V griseofulvin oral suspension
(liquid) may also call 1-800-426-7762.
Consumers who believe they are in possession of affected product
from Patriot Pharmaceuticals, LLC, griseofulvin oral suspension
(liquid), may call 1-800-510-0383.
Consumers should direct medical questions to their health care
providers. Adverse reactions experienced with the use of this
product should be reported to the company using the telephone
numbers above.
The company is voluntarily conducting this recall in cooperation
with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and sending urgent
recall letters to wholesalers and pharmacies nationwide. In
addition, the company is taking action to supply new inventory
to its customers.
Consumers who believe they are in possession of recalled product
should contact the pharmacy where the medicine was purchased.
PUBLIC STORAGE: Subclasses Certified in "Brinkley" Labor Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County certified
certain subclasses in the purported class action, "Brinkley v.
Public Storage, Inc.," which was filed on April 2005.
The plaintiff sued the company on behalf of a purported class of
California non-exempt employees based on various California wage
and hour laws and seeking monetary damages and injunctive
relief.
In May 2006, a motion for class certification was filed seeking
to certify five subclasses. Plaintiff sought certification for
alleged meal period violations, rest period violations, failure
to pay for travel time, failure to pay for mileage
reimbursement, and for wage statement violations.
In October 2006, the court declined to certify three out of the
five subclasses. The court did, however, certify subclasses
based on alleged meal period and wage statement violations,
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.
Public Storage, Inc. on the Net: http://www.publicstorage.com.
PUBLIC STORAGE: Demurrer Pending in Calif. "Simas" Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A demurrer is currently pending in a lawsuit filed against
Public Storage, Inc. in relation to the company's sale of
storage insurance.
Filed on January 2006 in the Superior Court of California,
Orange County, plaintiffs brought the action, "Simas v. Public
Storage, Inc.," against the company on behalf of a purported
class, who bought insurance coverage at the company's
facilities.
They are alleging that the company does not have a license to
offer, sell and/or transact storage insurance. The suit was
brought under California Business and Professions Code Section
17200.
The company filed a demurrer to the complaint. While the
demurrer was pending, plaintiff amended the complaint to allege
a national class and claims for unfair business practices,
unjust enrichment, money had and received, and negligent and
intentional misrepresentation.
Ultimately all claims except for unjust enrichment was
dismissed. There is currently a demurrer pending on plaintiff's
amended allegations as to unjust enrichment, 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.
Public Storage, Inc. on the Net: http://www.publicstorage.com.
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Serrao" Lawsuit Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal lawsuit alleging violations of consumer fraud laws,
which is pending against Public Storage, Inc., was remanded to
the California Superior Court for Orange County.
The plaintiff filed the suit, "Serrao v. Public Storage, Inc.,"
in April 2003 against the company on behalf of a putative class
of renters who rented self-storage units from the company.
Plaintiff alleges that the company misrepresented the size of
its storage units, has brought claims under California statutory
and common law relating to consumer protection, fraud, unfair
competition, and negligent misrepresentation.
The suit seeks monetary damages, restitution, and declaratory
and injunctive relief.
On Nov. 3, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
strike the plaintiff's nationwide class allegations and to limit
any putative class to California residents only.
In August 2005, the company filed a motion to remove the case to
federal court, but the case has been remanded to the Superior
Court, 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.
Public Storage, Inc. on the Net: http://www.publicstorage.com.
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: No Oral Argument Yet on Securities Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has yet to set a date for oral argument on an appeal against the
dismissal of a securities fraud complaint against Siebel
Systems, Inc.
On March 10, 2004, William Wollrab, on behalf of himself and
purportedly on behalf of a class of stockholders of Siebel
Systems, a company acquired by Oracle Corp. in January 2006,
filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Siebel and certain of its
officers relating to predicted adoption rates of Siebel v7.0 and
certain customer satisfaction surveys.
This complaint was consolidated and amended on August 27, 2004,
with the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago being
appointed to serve as lead plaintiff. The consolidated
complaint also raised claims regarding Siebel's business
performance in 2002.
In October 2004, Siebel filed a motion to dismiss, which was
granted on January 28, 2005 with leave to amend. Plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on March 1, 2005.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. Siebel
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 27,
2005, and on Dec. 28, 2005, the Court dismissed the case with
prejudice.
On January 17, 2006, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, and on
September 18, 2006, plaintiffs filed their opening appellate
brief. Defendants' responsive brief was filed on Dec. 15, 2006.
Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on January 16, 2007. The
court has not yet set a date for oral argument on this appeal.
The suit is "Wollrab v. Siebel Systems, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:04-cv-00983-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Stephen R. Basser of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 402 W.
Broadway, Ste. 850, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)
230-0800, E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com;
(2) Francis M. Gregorek of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz, Symphony Towers, 750 B. Street, Suite 2770, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-239-4599, E-mail:
gregorek@whafh.com;
(3) Mel E. Lifshitz of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP,
10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY 10016,
Phone: 212-779-1414, Fax: 212-779-3218, E-mail:
lifshitz@bernlieb.com; and
(4) Dale MacDiarmid of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP, 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Phone: 310-201-9150, Fax: 310-201-9160.
Representing the defendants are Michael D. Torpey, Erin L.
Bansal and Penelope Graboys of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe,
LLP, The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-2669, Phone: 415-778-5700, Fax: 415-778-5759, E-mail:
mtorpey@orrick.com, ebansal@orrick.com and
pgraboysblair@orrick.com.
SMITH & NEPHEW: Orthopaedic Business Faces Bias Suit in Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Nephew plc's orthopaedic business continues to face a
discrimination suit seeking class-action status in Memphis,
Tennessee.
In 2006, seven Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charges
and one federal lawsuit have been filed in Memphis, Tennessee
against the Group's orthopaedic business alleging that the
company's employee promotion practices are discriminatory.
An eighth EEOC charge, which was filed by the same lawyers
involved in all of the other charges and the suit, alleges that
the company did not provide the employee with necessary
training. Seven of the eight who have filed charges are the
plaintiffs in the suit.
Both the charges and the suit seek certification as class
actions. As at March 15, 2007, the EEOC charges have been
dismissed but the class actions remain.
TEXAS APARTMENT: Tex. Court Certifies Class in "Ericson" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
conditionally certified a class in the purported class action,
"Ericson, et al. v. Texas Apartment Locators, Inc. et al., Case
No. Case No. 3:06-CV-1431."
Three leasing agents of Texas Apartment filed the case for
unpaid overtime and underpaid wages on Aug. 10, 2006. They
named as defendants the company and Edwin J. Kanyuck.
Texas employment lawyer Rob Wiley filed the action on behalf of
the three employees. The original three plaintiffs, James D.
Ericson, 37, Christopher Reasor, 33, and Judy Hurlburt, 50, had
met while they were working out of Texas Apartment Locators'
Dallas uptown office. Vernon Singleton was added as the fourth
plaintiff in the case.
Generally, plaintiffs alleged that they were misclassified as
independent contractors.
On April 10, Judge Ed Kinkeade ordered that Texas Apartment
Locators' leasing agents be conditionally certified as a class
in the lawsuit.
The judge's order gives Texas Apartment Locators 10 days to turn
over the names and last known addresses of its current and
former employees.
The suit affects leasing agents in Austin, Dallas, Houston, and
San Antonio. According to the Texas Apartment Locators website,
"Texas Apartment Locators has been locating Texas apartments and
rental housing for Dallas Texas, Houston Texas, San Antonio
Texas, and Austin Texas renters since 1972 and is considered one
of the 'founders' of the 'locating industry' for Texas
apartments."
"These employees tell a consistent story. They were hired to
perform work and, like most employees, they should have been
paid for every hour they spent working. Instead, these
employees were paid by commission. These employees are claiming
that in slow weeks they weren't making enough to satisfy even
the minimum wage requirements," explained Wiley.
"These employees also claim that they were sometimes working
fifty or sixty hours a week. Despite these long hours, the
employees claim they were being denied their overtime pay,"
stated Mr. Wiley.
For more details, contact Rob Wiley of The Law Office of Rob
Wiley, P.C., Phone: (214) 528-6500, Fax: (214) 202-5568, Web
site: http://www.texasovertime.com.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over "Limited" Tax Breaks in Hybrid Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brodsky & Smith, LLC lodged a class action on behalf of hybrid
car owner Daniel Girard against Toyota Motor Corp. over its
promotion of hybrid cars with limited tax breaks, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.
The suit alleges Toyota sells more hybrid cars by promising tax
credits that only apply to a narrow group of consumers.
The alleged tax break is a selling point for the Toyota Prius,
Toyota Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX400h, the suit claims.
Mr. Girard says Toyota advertised a $3,150 tax credit for the
2005 and 2006 Prius, helping it sell more than 212,000 hybrids
in 2006.
The suit claims defendants failed to tell hybrid buyers that the
tax credit only applies to consumers with annual incomes of less
than $80,000 and more than $750,000, leaving buyers in the
middle bracket ineligible for the break.
The limitation is the result of the IRS-enforced "alternative
minimum tax," which applies to the "vast majority" of people who
buy hybrids, the lawsuit states.
Plaintiffs say they found out about the income restrictions only
after they had purchased one of the fuel-efficient cars, basing
their decision in part on the expected tax break.
Plaintiffs seek more than $5 million in remuneration.
Plaintiffs are represented by Brodsky & Smith, 9595 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 900, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, Phone:
310.300.8425, Fax: 310.247.0160.
TTI TEAM: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Shareholder Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
TTI Team Telecom International Ltd. is seeking the dismissal of
a second amended and consolidated complaint in a shareholder
class action filed against the company.
A putative shareholder class action was filed in September 2004
against the company, Team Software Industries Ltd. and certain
of the company's executive officers.
The lawsuit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
persons who held the company's shares during the period between
Feb. 6, 2002 and Nov. 14, 2002.
It alleges that material misrepresentations and omissions
concerning the company's operations and performance artificially
inflated the company's stock price, causing damages to
investors.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which motion
was granted by an opinion dated Oct. 6, 2006. The opinion
dismissed the amended and consolidated complaint but granted
plaintiff the right to file a second amended and consolidated
complaint.
The second amended and consolidated complaint was filed on Nov.
9, 2006. The company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended and consolidated complaint on Jan. 10, according to the
company's March 29 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
TTI Team Telecom International Ltd. on the Net:
http://www.tti-telecom.com/.
WAL-MART STORES: Ga. Court Dismisses Gender Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
dismissed the gender discrimination suit "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.
The suit was filed on Oct. 16, 2001 on behalf of female Wal-Mart
Associates who were participants in the Associates Health and
Welfare Plan at any time from March 8, 2001 to the present and
who were using prescription contraceptives.
Plaintiffs sought an amendment of the plan to include coverage
for prescription contraceptives, back pay for all members in the
form of reimbursement of the cost of prescription
contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees.
The complaint alleges that the company's Health Plan violates
Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination in that
the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems provision does not
provide coverage for prescription contraceptives.
The class was certified on Aug. 23, 2002. On Sept. 30, 2003,
the court denied the company's motion to reconsider that ruling.
On Dec. 20, the court entered an order granting the motion and
dismissing the case.
The suit is "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, case no. 1:01-cv-02755-
JEC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia under Judge Julie E. Carnes.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
(1) Kirk E. Chapman, Douglas J. Hoffman, Janine L. Pollack,
Jennifer Templeton Schirmer, Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th Floor, New York,
NY 10119-0165, Phone: 212-594-5300;
(2) George Albert Stein, Office of George Albert Stein,
1355 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 150, Atlanta, GA 30309,
Phone: 404-881-6500; and
(3) Sigmund Wissner-Gross, Heller Horowitz & Feit, 292
Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-685-
7600.
Representing the company are Mark A. Casciari, Allen William
Groves, Alissa Lipson and Antonia-Anna R. Palmer of Seyfarth
Shaw, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60603-5803,
Phone: 312-346-8000, E-mail: agroves@seyfarth.com or
apalmer@seyfarth.com.
WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Face Gender Bias Lawsuit in Ken.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a gender discrimination
lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
The suit was brought on behalf of Janice Smith and all other
females who made application or transfer requests at the London,
Kentucky, Distribution Center from 1995 to the present, and who
were not hired or transferred into the warehouse positions for
which they applied.
Plaintiffs seek back pay for those females not selected for hire
or transfer during the relevant time period. It also seeks
injunctive and prospective affirmative relief.
The complaint alleges that the company based hiring decisions on
gender are in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act as amended. The EEOC can maintain this action as a class
without certification.
The company reported no development in the case at its April
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
The suit is "EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, case no. 3:01-cv-
00065-JMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Kentucky under Judge Joseph M. Hood.
Representing the plaintiffs are Michelle Eisele, E. Paige
Freitag, Gwendolyn Young Reams, and Laurie A. Young of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 101 W. Ohio Street, Suite
1900, Indianapolis, IN 46204-4203, Phone: 317-226-7949, Fax:
317-226-5571.
Representing the company is Kathryn A. Quesenberry of Woodward,
Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City
Tower, Louisville, KY 40202, Phone: 502-581-8025, Fax: 502-581-
8111, E-mail: kquesenberry@whf-law.com.
The suit is "Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins.
Representing the plaintiffs is Brad Seligman of The Impact Fund,
125 University Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94710, Phone: 510-845-3473
ext 304, Fax: 510-845-3654, E-mail: bs@impactfund.org.
Representing the company is Nancy L. Abell of Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker LLP - Employment, 555 South Flower Street,
25th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2371, Phone: 213 683-6162,
Fax: (213) 627-0705, E-mail: nancyabell@paulhastings.com.
WAL-MART STORES: Court Awards "Savaglio" Plaintiffs $26M More
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is appealing an additional award of $26
million in costs and attorneys' fees in the suit, "Savaglio v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc."
Plaintiffs in the class action allege that they were not
provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California law,
and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. A jury trial
on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec.
22, 2005. The jury returned a verdict of approximately $57
million in statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive
damages.
Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order
allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by
the plaintiffs. On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order
awarding the plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately
$26 million in costs and attorneys' fees. The company filed a
notice of appeal on Jan. 31.
WELLS REAL: No Ruling Yet on Appeal to Recover Fees in "Hendry"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia has yet to rule
on a cross appeal against a court order denying a request to
recover attorneys' fees and other expenses in the case, "Hendry
et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al., Civil Action No. 04A-13051-
6."
On or about Nov. 24, 2004, four individuals filed a putative
class action complaint "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et
al.," in Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia (Civil
Action No. 04A-13051-6) against the Wells Real Estate Fund I
(Partnership), Leo F. Wells, III and Wells Capital, Inc. (the
General Partners), and Wells Management Co. Inc.
The Hendry Action states that the Partnership is named only as
an allegedly necessary party defendant and that the plaintiffs
seek no money from or relief at the expense of the Partnership.
As of December 31, 2006, Wells Capital had incurred
approximately $866,000 in legal fees, costs, and expenses
related to defending against the Hendry Action.
The indemnification provisions of the partnership agreement
require the Partnership to indemnify the General Partners for
their costs of defending the Hendry Action under certain
circumstances upon the conclusion of this litigation.
The plaintiffs filed the Hendry Action purportedly on behalf of
all limited partners of the Partnership holding Class B Units as
of January 9, 2002. The Hendry Action alleges, among other
things, that the General Partners breached their fiduciary
duties to the limited partners by, among other things:
(a) failing to timely disclose alleged inconsistencies
between sales literature and the partnership agreement
relating to the distribution of net sale proceeds;
(b) engaging in a scheme to fraudulently conceal alleged
inconsistencies between sales literature and the
partnership agreement relating to the distribution of
net sae proceeds; and
(c) not accepting a settlement offer proposed by a holder
of Class A Units and a holder of Class A and Class B
Units in other litigation naming the Partnership as a
defendant, in which the Court subsequently granted
summary judgment in favor of the Partnership.
The Hendry Action also alleges that misrepresentations and
omissions in an April 2002 consent solicitation to the limited
partners caused that consent solicitation to be materially
misleading. In addition, the Hendry Action alleges that the
General Partners and Wells Management breached an alleged
contract arising out of a June 2000 consent solicitation to the
limited partners relating to an alleged waiver of deferred
management fees.
The plaintiffs seek, among other remedies, the following:
-- judgment against the General Partners of the
Partnership, jointly and severally, in an amount to be
proven at trial; punitive damages;
-- disgorgement of fees earned by the General Partners
directly or through their affiliates;
-- a declaration that the consent obtained as a result of
an April 2002 consent solicitation is null and void;
-- enforcement of an alleged contract arising out of the
June 2000 consent solicitation to allegedly waive Wells
Management's deferred management fees; and
-- an award to the plaintiffs of their attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses.
On January 28, 2005, the defendants filed motions for summary
judgment and motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims. On
March 31, 2005, the plaintiffs filed briefs in opposition to the
defendants' motions.
Pursuant to Orders entered July 1, 2005, the Court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on all
counts in the complaint. Thus, this action was at the time
dismissed, subject to plaintiffs' right to file a notice of
appeal within the required time period.
On August 3, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the
Court to vacate and re-enter the orders to give the plaintiffs
an opportunity to file a motion for the reconsideration or
notice of appeal.
After both sides had filed briefs in support of their respective
positions, on February 15, 2006, the Court heard argument on
plaintiffs' motion to vacate and to re-enter the judgments
previously entered on July 1, 2005.
On or about August 8, 2005, the defendants filed a motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation. On or about August
12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion for attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation as to one of the defenses asserted by
defendants. On April 20, 2006, the Court held a hearing
addressing only the liability aspects on the defendants' and
plaintiffs' motions for attorneys' fees and expenses.
By Orders entered May 24, 2006, the Court denied the plaintiffs'
and the defendants' motions to recover attorneys' fees and
expenses of litigation. Also by Orders entered May 24, 2006,
the Court re-entered its July 1, 2005 judgments granting the
Wells defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment on
all counts in the complaint, so as to allow the plaintiffs 30
days within which to file a notice of appeal.
On or about June 21, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with respect to the Court's Order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. On
July 5, 2006, the defendants filed a notice of cross appeal with
respect to the Court's Order denying the defendants' motion for
attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation.
On August 18, 2006, the appeal and cross appeal were docketed in
the Georgia Court of Appeals. It is not known when the Court of
Appeals will rule on the appeal and cross appeal, according to
Wells Real Estate Fund I's March 28 form 10-k filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Wells Real Estate Funds -- http://www.wellsref.com/-- is a
national real estate investment company. More than 200,000
individuals have invested in Wells-sponsored investment programs
through their financial advisors, and these programs
collectively own over $7.5 billion in assets.
* Jenner & Block Widens Antitrust, Complex Litigation Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenner & Block significantly expanded its antitrust and complex
litigation capabilities with the addition of six attorneys who
recently practiced as Freeman, Freeman & Salzman P.C., a
prominent antitrust and complex litigation boutique led by Lee
A. Freeman.
"My colleagues and I are excited to join Jenner & Block, a firm
that is consistently considered to be one of the nation's
elite," Mr. Freeman said. "We look forward to bringing over 30
years of experience representing major corporations in antitrust
matters to a Firm that exemplifies a commitment to excellence in
providing legal services to its clients."
Lee Freeman, highly regarded as one of the nation's foremost
antitrust litigators, and his partners have developed
longstanding relationships with numerous national and
international companies, including NCR Corp., The Coca-Cola Co.,
Anheuser-Busch, Kraft Foods, Central Vermont Public Service
Corp., and Wabash Valley Power Association.
Mr. Freeman has also served as a Special Assistant Attorney
General for 10 states in numerous antitrust suits.
In addition to Mr. Freeman, joining Jenner & Block as Partners
are John F. Kinney and James T. Malysiak.
Richard P. Campbell joins the Firm as Of Counsel, and Joseph P.
Adamczyk and Joseph J. Bial join as Associates.
Among the many accomplishments of the group are its successful
representation of major corporations in suits to recover damages
against foreign cartels for fixing the prices of vitamins and
sorbates purchased in the U.S. and abroad.
The firm also defended Forest Laboratories in the nationwide
class action In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust
Litigation, which alleged a conspiracy among pharmaceutical
companies not to give retail druggists the same discounts
offered to hospitals and managed care entities.
While most of the defendants settled before trial for $850
million, Forest Laboratories was granted a directed verdict
after 10 weeks of jury trial and awarded sanctions of over $2
million against the lead class action counsel for
misrepresenting evidence in response to Forest Laboratories'
summary judgment motion.
In the field of public utility regulation, the firm recently
convinced the First Circuit that it was unconstitutional for the
State of New Hampshire to seek to impose its Electric Utility
Restructuring Act against Central Vermont Public Service Co.
Currently the group is involved in the prosecution of a complex
antitrust action on behalf of Omnicare, Inc. against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc., which is pending in the Northern
District of Illinois.
"The addition of Lee and his team of seasoned attorneys adds
considerable experience to our existing antitrust and complex
litigation practices, specifically in cases involving price
fixing, bid rigging, and allocation of customers and markets,"
stated Anton R. Valukas, former U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of Illinois and a member of Jenner & Block's Policy
Committee.
Managing Partner Gregory S. Gallopoulos said, "We are delighted
to add the wide-ranging antitrust experience of the attorneys at
Freeman, Freeman & Salzman."
He added, "Working together, we will be able to provide even
more comprehensive service to the growing antitrust and complex
litigation needs of our clients."
Jenner & Block has a history of handling significant antitrust
matters, as evidenced by the Firm's involvement in such landmark
antitrust cases as "MCI v. AT&T," "Maple Flooring Manufacturers
Association v. U.S.," and "Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois." The
practice group's experience spans a wide variety of industries,
from health care to defense contracting to telecommunications to
manufacturing to distribution.
Jenner & Block LLP -- http://www.jenner.com-- is a national law
firm with offices in Chicago, Dallas, New York and Washington,
D.C. Founded in 1914, the Firm has over 450 lawyers offering
experience in virtually every area of the law and industry.
Jenner & Block's reputation as one of the country's most
successful law firms has been established by consistently
delivering excellent legal counsel to clients in the boardroom
and in the courtroom, from the trial level through the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Jenner & Block has been repeatedly named to The American
Lawyer's "A-List" identifying the country's 20 law firms that
are "true leaders of the profession" based on its demonstrated
commitment to client service, pro bono representation, diversity
and career development.
In January of 2006, the Firm also placed among the top five
litigation departments in The American Lawyer's biennial
"Litigation Department of the Year" award competition.
New Securities Fraud Cases
CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of
Checkfree Corp. publicly traded securities purchasers during the
period April 26, 2006 and August 1, 2006 inclusive.
The complaint charges Checkfree and certain of its officers and
directors of making false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the company's business and operations and
that, as a result, the price of the company's securities was
inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
company's business, accounting practices and financial results.
As early as April of 2006, Defendants issued objectively
unreasonable guidance regarding the purported sustainability of
month-over-month growth in their electronic commerce business,
which included the projection of "25% annual transaction growth
for the foreseeable future."
Upon these false and misleading representations, stock analysts
raised Checkfree's target price, as well as FY 2006 and 2007 EPS
estimates, while issuing favorable "Buy" and "Outperform"
ratings.
On August 1, 2006, Defendants shocked the market with their
disclosure of laggard fourth-quarter revenues, including a 2%
decline in the company's Payment Services division.
As a result of disclosure of the corrective disclosure of the
laggard nature of the company's consumer transactions growth,
the price of Checkfree shares plummeted $5.93 or 15.9%, to close
on August 2, 2006 at $37.20, on extremely heavy volume of over
17.2 million shares.
For more information, contact Scott+Scott, LLP, Phone: (800)
404-7770 or (860) 537-5537, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com.
USANA HEALTH: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah, Central Division, on behalf of all common stock purchasers
of USANA Health Sciences Inc. from July 18, 2006 and March 14,
2007, inclusive.
The complaint charges USANA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
(1) that the company's business model was unsustainable
because it required the constant recruitment of new
Associates due to a high level of attrition within the
company's sales force;
(2) that USANA's multi-level marketing model operated as a
pyramid scheme;
(3) that the majority of the company's Associates did not
actually sell to consumers, but rather to other company
Associates;
(4) that over 74 percent of the company's Associates were
failing within the first year of joining the company;
(5) that over 87 percent of the company's Associates were
losing money instead of receiving compensation for
their sales efforts;
(6) that USANA lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(7) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
statements about its future business prospects and
projections were lacking in a reasonable basis when
made.
Prior to and throughout the Class Period, USANA represented to
be a highly successful company with a history of record earnings
and a solid business model.
However, despite the misrepresentations made by the company, on
March 15, 2007, the Fraud Discovery Institute ("FDI") and The
Wall Street Journal revealed to investors the underlying
unsustainability of the company's business model, and that the
company was perpetrating a pyramid scheme in an attempt to sell
its products.
Immediately following these detailed exposes, shares of the
company's stock declined $8.92, or 15 percent, to close on March
15, 2007 at $49.85 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
As subsequent adverse information about the company surfaced,
shares of the company's stock declined even further.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 25, 2007
for lead plaintiff appointment.
USANA develops and manufactures nutritionals, personal care, and
weight management products that are sold directly to Preferred
Customers and Associates throughout the U.S., Canada, and the
world.
For more information, contact Darren J. Check, Esq. or Richard
A. Maniskas, Esq., both of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler,
LLP, Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-667-7706, E-
mail: info@sbtklaw.com.
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *