/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070416.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 74 Headlines AT&T INC: Employees File Suit Over Calif. Labor Laws Violations AWB LTD: Shareholders to File $25M Suit Against Wheat Exporter CIRCUIT CITY: Recalls TV Tilt-Mount Brackets to Repair Lock Bar CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Reviving Suit Against York Correctional EV3 INC: Still Faces Litigation in Del. Over MTI Transaction FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Finds Overpayments to Stan Chesley FIRST DATA: Stockholder Opposes Kohlberg Kravis' $29B Buyout GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses GMAC Debt Securities Litigation GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Yet to Finally Rule in UAW's Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Consolidated Mich. Securities Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification in Canadian Antitrust Case HAWAII: Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit Granted Certification HOOPER HOLMES: Settles Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners for $1.2M H&R BLOCK: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Mo. H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in POM-Related Lawsuit to Seek Trial HYTHIAM INC: Faces Suits in Del. Over CompCare Merger Agreement ICONIX BRAND: Settles Del., Calif. Suits Over Mossimo Merger IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Sues Over $132M Sale to BTP INFOUSA INC: Del. Court Consolidates Shareholder's Litigation INTER-TEL INC: Ariz. Investors' Suit Nixed, Del. Case Remains LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in La. MENU FOODS: Benton County Residents Sue Over Recalled Pet Food MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Recalled Pet Food NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Alpo Dog Food Over Wheat Gluten Content NESTLE PURINA: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food NETRATINGS INC: Del. Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Yet to Begin in La. Securities Suit NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Add Defendant in "Gage" P&G PET: Recalls Contaminated Pouches of 'Wet' Cat and Dog Foods QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling in Ariz. Deferred Presentment Case QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Customers File Lawsuit Over Unsecured Loans QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans SMALL WORLD TOYS: Recalls Wooden Sound Puzzles for Choking Risk SRAM CORP: Recalls Bicycle Brake Calipers Prone to Breakage TEXAS: Settles Suit Over Health Care for Indigent Children UNITED STATES: Sued for "Withholding" Care to Nuclear Workers WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Penna. Racketeering Act Violations Lawsuit WILLIAM LYON: Investors' Suit Settlement Appealed to High Court * April 18 Hearing Set in "Freed & Weiss v. Lakin" Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga. NEW CENTURY: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. ********* AT&T INC: Employees File Suit Over Calif. Labor Laws Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Two computer support and repair technicians employed by AT&T Inc. and Yellowpages.com filed a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court (Central District) against both companies, alleging multiple violations of the California Labor Code. The case (BC 367 856) was filed by Chris Shoff and Richard Traister. It alleges that AT&T and Yellowpages.com failed to pay overtime wages, failed to pay for meal and rest breaks, and maintained unfair business practices in violation of California's Business & Professions Code. The lawsuit states, "While defendants assert that computer support and repair technicians are exempt from the California's mandatory wage and hour laws by calling them 'managers' or 'engineers,' the job duties which they perform demonstrate clearly that they are misclassified by defendant companies." V. James De Simone of Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman, LLP, one of the attorneys for Mr. Shoff and Mr. Traister said, "These computer support technicians comprise the engine which makes these technology companies run. As such, they work long hours but with no additional pay. We believe this is contrary to the law." Thomas Falvey, of the Law Offices of Thomas Falvey, co-counsel for the plaintiffs added, "Employers such as Yellowpages.com are not above the law. They must pay their computer support and repair technicians overtime wages which are required by the California Labor Code." For more information contact V. James DeSimone of Schonbru DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman LLP, Phone: (310) 396-0731, Website: http://www.losangelesemploymentlawyer.com;or Thomas Falvey of the Law Offices of Thomas Falvey, Phone: (626) 795- 0205. AWB LTD: Shareholders to File $25M Suit Against Wheat Exporter -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman has been instructed to commence proceedings against AWB Ltd. on behalf of shareholders, WA Business News reports. According to AWB, it had received a letter from the law firm saying Maurice Blackburn Cashman are prepared, prior to filing these proceedings, to enter into discussions with AWB to agree on claims resolution process. IMF (Australia) Ltd. is allegedly funding the proceedings and has offered to fund litigation for AWB shareholders who are eligible to participate. The suit would, generally, cover those shareholders who purchased AWB shares on ASX between 11 March 2002 and Jan. 13, 2006 and held some or all of those shares as at Jan. 13, 2006. AWB Limited -- http://www.awb.com.au/-- is Australia's leading agribusiness and one of the world's largest wheat marketing companies. It is also one of Australia's top 100 publicly listed companies. Shareholders interested in joining this action are to contact Ben Slade, Jason Geisker or Juliana Tang, all of Maurice Blackburn Cashman, Phone: (02) 9261 1488. CIRCUIT CITY: Recalls TV Tilt-Mount Brackets to Repair Lock Bar --------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit City Stores Inc., of Richmond, Virginia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 9,900 "Verge" flat panel television tilt-mount brackets, manufactured by Logitek (HK) International Co. Ltd., of Hong Kong. The company said if upward force is applied to a mounted television, the bracket's lock bar could unfasten. This could cause the television to fall and injure bystanders. No injuries have been reported. The recalled tilt-mount brackets for flat panel televisions are sold under Circuit City's private label, "Verge." The two model numbers involved in this recall are VPSW103M and VPSW103M2. "Verge" and the model numbers are written on the packaging. There is no writing on the brackets. The brackets were sold individually and through an installation package. These recalled flat panel television tilt-mount brackets were manufactured in China and were sold at Circuit City stores nationwide from September 2006 through April 2007 for about $180 for Model VPSW103M and $140 for Model VPSW103M2. Pictures of recalled flat panel television tilt-mount brackets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07155a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07155b.jpg Circuit City has mailed free repair kits to those consumers it can contact. Consumers who have not received the free repair kit are advised to contact Circuit City immediately to request it. Consumers can also request a free repair by a professional installer. For additional information, contact Circuit City toll-free at (888) 666-9897 anytime, or visit Circuit City's Web site: http://www.circuitcity.com. CONNECTICUT: ACLU Mulls Reviving Suit Against York Correctional --------------------------------------------------------------- The Connecticut chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is considering reopening a class action filed decades ago over the treatment of women prisoners at the York Correctional Institution, according to Associated Press. In 1983, ACLU filed a class action against top officials at York, the Correction Department and the state Department of Children and Youth Services, now the Department of Children and Families. Settlement in the suit, "West v. Manson," led to improvements, but mistreatments still exists in the prison, according to inspection reports. Negligence at the York Correctional Institution has led to inmate deaths, attempted suicides, sexual abuse and illnesses, according to ACLU. The ACLU cited court-ordered monitoring reports that have been mandated twice a year since the 1980s. A court has ordered the reports sealed to protect prisoners' privacy. The state Department of Correction denied any institutional negligence or wrongdoing in response to ACLU's allegations involving York. EV3 INC: Still Faces Litigation in Del. Over MTI Transaction ------------------------------------------------------------ ev3, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported stockholder class action in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in relation to its proposal to acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock of its majority owned subsidiary, Micro Therapeutics, Inc., that it does not already own. On Oct. 11, 2005, a purported stockholder class action filed purportedly on behalf of Micro Therapeutics' minority shareholders was filed against Micro Therapeutics, Micro Therapeutics' directors and ev3 challenging the previously announced exchange offer. The complaint alleged the then-proposed transaction constituted a breach of defendants' fiduciary duties. It sought an injunction preventing the completion of the transaction with Micro Therapeutics or, if the transaction were to be completed, rescission of the transaction or rescissory damages, unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees and expenses. On Jan. 6, 2006, the company completed the transaction with Micro Therapeutics. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. ev3 Inc. on the Net: http://www.ev3.net/. FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Judge Finds Overpayments to Stan Chesley ------------------------------------------------------------- Senior Judge William Wehr ruled that Cincinnati lawyer Stan Chesley got more than $20 million in fees for his services in Kentucky's $200 million fen-phen settlement. "Mr. Chesley was paid more than he should have been and, therefore, will ultimately be responsible for some repayment," Judge Wehr wrote in an order filed in Boone Circuit Court (Ky.) on April 4. The judge stopped short of stating a specific amount that Mr. Chesley should return, according to Jim Hannah of The (Cincinnati) Enquirer.com. Judge Wehr denied a request by the plaintiff's lawyer for summary judgment. It appears that Judge Wehr will "let a jury decide how much he will repay," said Angela Ford, the lawyer representing 440 fen- phen victims who are suing their former attorneys. A jury also will have to decide what fiduciary duty Mr. Chesley had with the plaintiffs, according to the report. Case Background More than 400 former fen-phen plaintiffs are suing their former attorneys: -- William Gallion, -- Melbourne Mills, -- Shirley Cunningham, Jr., and -- Stanley Chesley accusing them of taking more money from the settlement than what they agreed to give them. The attorneys sued American Home Products Corp., maker of the diet drug fen-phen, and won the $200 million settlement in 2001 for the former plaintiffs. Judge Wehr had ruled that Messrs. Gallion, Mills and Ms. Cunningham violated their fiduciary duty to their clients by taking more than half the proceeds from the settlement. They and others involved in the case received about $105 million, while the clients only received $74 million. Part of the $200 million settlement was placed in the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living, a non-profit that paid Messrs. Gallion, Mills and Ms. Cunningham more than $60,000 a year for serving as its directors. The fund gave about $1.5 million to hospitals and other non- profits for various health-care related projects. However, according to court records, much of that money was given after questions were raised about the legitimacy of the fund. Ms. Ford said the money would not be disbursed to the clients until all claims against the lawyers are settled. She sued the lawyers on behalf of their former clients in 2004, arguing that they took about $64 million more from their clients than they should have received. In August, the state Supreme Court temporarily suspended the law licenses of Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms. Cunningham until the Kentucky Bar Association could complete an investigation into possible misconduct in the case. Former Boone Circuit Court Judge Jay Bamberger, who presided over the original fen-phen settlement in 2001, resigned after being publicly reprimanded by the state judicial conduct commission. That reprimand was a result of his role in approving the lawyer's fees and for receiving payment as a board member of the Kentucky Fund for Healthy Living. Recent Developments Judge Wehr said in the April 4 ruling that the plaintiffs will be entitled to damages against Messrs. Mills, Gallion and Ms. Cunningham, but that it will be up to a jury to decide if Mr. Chesley defrauded the clients. After Judge Wehr ruled that the Lexington lawyers breached their duty, Mr. Mills asked the judge to reconsider. In the April 4 order, Wehr wrote, "as to Mr. Mills, the math and law do not support his argument." Mr. Chesley's lawyers filed a motion on March 28 in Boone Circuit Court to strike a pleading that alleges he is "chief architect" of the scheme after Ms. Ford filed court documents saying a letter intending to hide the plan was originally written on a computer in Mr. Chesley's Cincinnati office. Mr. Chesley said he didn't know a lawyer in his office drafted the letter. Meanwhile, at least two Lexington lawyers are targets of a related federal grand jury investigation. Sonya Pickett of Lexington and W.L. Carter of Lawrenceburg are currently under investigation. For more details, contact Angela M. Ford, Chevy Chase Plaza, 836 Euclid Avenue, Suite 311, Lexington, Kentucky 40502, (Fayette County), Phone: 859-268-2923, Fax: 859-268-9141, Web site: http://www.angelafordlaw.com. FIRST DATA: Stockholder Opposes Kohlberg Kravis' $29B Buyout ------------------------------------------------------------ First Data Corp. stockholder Chris Larson filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington, claiming a $29 billion buyout of the world's largest processor of credit card payments, by investment firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. will shortchange investors, Bloomberg reports. Earlier, First Data entered into an agreement to be acquired by an affiliate of Kohlberg Kravis in a transaction with a total value of approximately $29 billion (Troubled Company Reporter, Apr. 4, 2007). Under the agreement, First Data shareholders will receive $34 in cash for each share of First Data common stock they hold, representing a premium of approximately 26% over First Data's closing share price of $26.90 on March 30, 2007 and a premium of approximately 34% over the average closing share price during the previous 30 trading days. Further, the merger agreement stipulates, First Data may solicit proposals from third parties during the next 50 days. In accordance with the agreement, the Board of Directors of First Data, through its Strategic Review Committee and with the assistance of its independent advisors, intends to actively solicit proposals during this period. The agreement was unanimously approved by the First Data Board of Directors based upon the recommendation of the Strategic Review Committee comprised of three independent directors. But Mr. Larson is seeking an order blocking the deal "until the company adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the highest possible price." Colin Wheeler, First Data spokesman, wouldn't comment on the suit. David Lilly, a spokesman for New York-based KKR, said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation "as a matter of policy." Morgan Stanley & Co. is serving as sole financial advisor to First Data and Evercore Group L.L.C. is serving as financial advisor to the Strategic Review Committee of the First Data board of directors. Sidley Austin LLP is acting as legal counsel to First Data. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is acting as legal counsel to the company's independent directors. About KKR Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. -- http://www.kkr.com/-- is one of the world's oldest and most experienced private equity firms specializing in management buyouts. Founded in 1976, it has offices in New York, Menlo Park, London, Paris, Hong Kong and Tokyo. Throughout its history, KKR has brought a long-term investment approach to its portfolio companies, focusing on working in partnership with management teams and investing for future competitiveness and growth. Over the past 30 years, KKR has invested in eleven transactions in the financial services and processing sectors, representing over $35 billion of aggregate value. KKR has completed and announced over 150 transactions with an aggregate value of over $345 billion. About First Data First Data Corp. (NYSE: FDC) -- http://www.firstdata.com/-- provides electronic commerce and payment solutions for businesses worldwide. The company's portfolio of services and solutions includes merchant transaction processing services; credit, debit, private-label, gift, payroll and other prepaid card offerings; fraud protection and authentication solutions; electronic check acceptance services through TeleCheck; as well as Internet commerce and mobile payment solutions. The company's STAR Network offers PIN-secured debit acceptance at 2 million ATM and retail locations. GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismisses GMAC Debt Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- A consolidated class action against General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. (GMAC) and certain of the company's officers and directors with regards to GMAC debt securities has been dismissed. Initially, several suits were filed, namely: -- "Zielezienski, et al. v. General Motors, et al.," filed on Nov. 29, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida; -- "J&R Marketing, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on Dec. 28, 2005, in the Circuit Court for Wayne County, Michigan; and -- "Mager v. General Motors Corporation, et al.," filed on Feb. 17, 2006, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Filed by Stanley Zielezienski, the Zielezienski action was filed against the company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's chairman, Eric A. Feldstein; and company and GMAC officers William F. Muir, Linda K. Zukauckas, Richard J.S. Clout, John E. Gibson, W. Allen Reed, Walter G. Borst, John M. Devine, and Gary L. Cowger. The action also names certain underwriters of GMAC debt securities as defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 11 of the U.S. Securities Act, and with respect to all defendants except the company, Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act. It also alleges that the company violated Section 15 of the Securities Act. In particular, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in certain GMAC financial statements incorporated by reference with GMAC's 2003 Form S-3 Registration Statement and Prospectus. More specifically, the complaint alleges material misrepresentations in connection with the offering for sale of GMAC SmartNotes in certain GMAC financial statements contained in GMAC's Forms 10-Q for the quarterly periods ended in March 31, 2004 and June 30, 2004 and the Form 8-K which disclosed financial results for the quarterly period ended in Sept. 30, 2004, as evidenced by GMAC's 2005 restatement of these quarterly results. In December 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint making substantially the same allegations as were in the previous filing, with respect to additional debt securities issued by GMAC during the period April 23, 2004 to March 14, 2005, and adding approximately 60 additional underwriters as defendants. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On Jan. 6, 2006, defendants named in the original complaint removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. On Feb. 6, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Florida state court, which is currently being briefed by the parties. On March 28, 2006, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated order withdrawing plaintiff's motion to remand and transferring the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. If this order is entered, the parties have agreed to seek to have this case consolidated with the J&R Marketing and Mager cases. Filed by J&R Marketing, SEP, the J&R Marketing action was filed against the company, GMAC, the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; GMAC's Chairman, Eric Feldstein; William F. Muir; Linda K. Zukauckas; Richard J.S. Clout; John E. Gibson; W. Allen Reed; Walter G. Borst; John M. Devine; Gary L. Cowger; and several underwriters of GMAC debt securities. Similar to the original complaint filed in the Zielezienski case, the complaint alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act based on alleged material misrepresentations or omissions in the Registration Statements for GMAC SmartNotes purchased between Sept. 30, 2003 and March 16, 2005, inclusive. The complaint alleges inadequate disclosure of the company's financial condition and performance as well as issues arising from GMAC's 2005 restatement of quarterly results for the three quarters ended Sept. 30, 2005. It does not specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. On Jan. 13, 2006 defendants removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Filed by Alex Mager, the Mager action is substantively identical to the J&R Marketing case. On Feb. 24, 2006, J&R Marketing filed a motion to consolidate the Mager case with its case and for appointment as lead plaintiff and the appointment of lead counsel. On March 8, 2006, the court entered an order consolidating the two cases, and subsequently consolidated those cases with the Zielezienski case described above. Lead plaintiffs' counsel has been appointed, and on July 28, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, differing mainly from the initial complaints by asserting claims for GMAC debt securities purchased during a different time period, of July 28, 2003 through Nov. 9, 2005, and adding additional underwriter defendants. On Aug. 28, 2006, the underwriter defendants were dismissed without prejudice. The GM and GMAC defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. No determination has been made that the case may be maintained as a class action. On Feb. 27, the district court in the consolidated case captioned J&R Marketing issued an opinion granting defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint. Under the terms of the GMAC Transaction, GM is indemnifying GMAC in connection with these cases, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/. GENERAL MOTORS: 6th Circuit Yet to Finally Rule in UAW's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has yet to make a final determination on the settlement agreement in the putative class action "UAW, et al. v. General Motors Corp." On Oct. 18, 2005, the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and two hourly retirees filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of hourly retirees, spouses and dependants, seeking to enjoin unilateral modifications by the company to hourly retiree health-care benefits, claiming that such benefits are unalterably vested. The company though maintains that retiree health-care benefits are not vested and that it has expressly reserved the right to make unilateral changes. On Oct. 29, 2005, the company and the UAW entered into a memorandum of understanding that provided for a number of changes to health care coverage for both UAW represented active employees and UAW retirees. On Oct. 31, 2005, plaintiffs' filed an amended complaint adding four additional retirees and one surviving spouse as putative class representatives. The lawsuit followed months of negotiations between the company and the UAW regarding changes to retiree health-care benefits and is the initial step in implementing this agreement. On Dec. 16, 2005, the company, the UAW and the putative class representatives finalized a settlement agreement and submitted motions to the court for certification of the class, preliminary approval of the final settlement and approval of the proposed notice to class members. On Dec. 22, 2005, the district court certified the class and preliminarily approved the UAW Health Care Settlement Agreement, among General Motors, the UAW, and the putative class representatives. The court's March 31, 2006 order approving the UAW Health Care Settlement Agreement, on a class-wide basis has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by a small number of individual objectors. The appeal has been fully briefed and is awaiting oral argument and final decision, according to the company's March 15 Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit is "United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, et al. v. General Motors Corp., Case No. 2:05-cv-73991-RHC-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Robert H. Cleland with referral to Judge Virginia M. Morgan. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Michael F. Saggau and Daniel W. Sherrick of UAW International Union, 8000 E. Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, MI 48214, US, Phone: 313-926-5216, Fax: 313-926-5240, E-mail: msaggau@uaw.net; (2) John M. West of Bredhoff and Kaiser (Washington), 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-842-2600, Fax: 22-842-1888, E-mail: jwest@bredhoff.com; and (3) William T. Payne, 1007 Mt. Royal Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, US, Phone: 412-492-5797, Fax: 412-492-8978, E-mail: wpayne@stargate.net. Representing the defendants are: Richard C. Godfrey of Kirkland & Ellis, (Chicago), 200 E. Randolph Drive, Suite 6000, Chicago, IL 60601, Phone: 312-861-2391; and Edward W. Risko and Francis S. Jaworski of General Motors Corporation, Legal Staff, 300 Renaissance Center, Phone: 313-667-2408, Fax: 313-667-6323, E- mail: edward.w.risko@gm.com. GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Consolidated Mich. Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp., General Motors Acceptance Corp. and certain of the company's officers and directors remain defendants in the consolidated lawsuit, "In re General Motors Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. On Sept. 19, 2005, a purported class action complaint, "Folksam Asset Management v. General Motors, et al.," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants: -- the company; -- GMAC; -- the company's chairman and chief executive officer, G. Richard Wagoner, Jr.; -- vice chairman, John Devine; -- treasurer, Walter Borst; and -- chief accounting officer, Peter Bible. Plaintiffs purported to bring the claim on behalf of purchasers of the company's debt and/or equity securities from Feb. 25, 2002 to March 16, 2005. The complaint alleged that defendants violated Section 10(b) and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act. The complaint also alleged violations of Sections 11 and 12(a), and, with respect to the individual defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act, in connection with certain registered debt offerings during the class period. In particular, the complaint alleged that the company's cash flows during the class period were overstated based on the reclassification of certain cash items described in its 2004 Form 10-K. The reclassification involves cash flows relating to the financing of GMAC wholesale receivables from dealers that resulted in no net cash receipts and the company's decision to revise Consolidated Statements of Net Cash for the years ended 2002 and 2003. The complaint also alleged misrepresentations relating to forward-looking statements of the company's 2005 earnings forecast that were later revised significantly downward. In October 2005, a substantially identical suit was filed and consolidated with the Folksam case as, "Galliani v. General Motors, et al." The consolidated suit is now called, "In re General Motors Securities Litigation." On Nov. 18, 2005, plaintiffs in the Folksam case filed an amended complaint, which added several additional investors as plaintiffs, extended the end of the class period to Nov. 9, 2005, and named as additional defendants three current and one former member of the company's audit committee, as well as its independent accountants, Deloitte & Touche LLP. In addition to the claims asserted in the original complaint, the amended complaint also added allegations regarding the company's Form SEC 8-K dated Nov. 8, 2005, which reported that its 2001 earnings would be restated and added a claim against defendants Wagoner and General Motors Acceptance Corporation Devine for rescission of their bonuses and incentive compensation during the class period. It also included further allegations regarding the company's accounting for pension obligations, restatement of income for 2001, and financial results for the first and second quarters of 2005. Neither the original complaint nor the amended complaint specify the amount of damages sought and the defendants have no means to estimate damages the plaintiffs will seek based upon the limited information available in the complaint. Defendants have not yet filed their response to the complaints, but intend to vigorously defend these actions. On Dec. 13, 2005, defendants in "In re General Motors Securities Litigation," and in certain other litigation against the company filed a Motion with the JPMDL to transfer and consolidate those cases for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On Jan. 5, 2006, defendants submitted to the JPML an Amended Motion seeking to add to their original Motion the cases: * "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;" and * "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al." for consolidated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On April 17, 2006, the JPML entered an order transferring, "In re General Motors Corp. Securities Litigation" to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with: -- "Stein v. Bowles, et al.;" -- "Rosen, et al. v. General Motors Corp., et al.;" -- "Gluckstern v. Wagoner, et al.;" and -- "Orr v. Wagoner, et al." While the motion was pending, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed "Rosen." The case is now captioned as "In re General Motors Corporation Securities and Derivative Litigation," according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/. GENERAL MOTORS: Appeals Certification in Canadian Antitrust Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Corp. and Nissan Motor Corp., Ltd. are asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit for leave to appeal the certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases." Some 79 purported class actions were filed in various state and federal courts on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001. The defendants include: -- General Motors Corp., -- General Motors of Canada Ltd. along with Ford, -- Daimler Chrysler, -- Toyota, -- Honda, -- Nissan and BMW, -- their Canadian affiliates, -- the National Automobile Dealers Association, and -- the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association The federal court actions were consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in federal court under the caption "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases" in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. Meanwhile the more than 30 California cases were consolidated in the California Superior Court in San Francisco County as: -- "Belch v. Toyota, et al.," and -- "Bell v. General Motors" The nearly identical complaints alleged that the defendant manufacturers, aided by the association defendants, conspired among themselves and with their dealers to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada. The complaints alleged that new vehicle prices in Canada are 10% to 30% lower than those in the U.S. and that preventing the sale of these vehicles to U.S. citizens resulted in the payment of supracompetitive prices by U.S. consumers. In addition, the complaints also alleged unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices act. As amended, the complaints sought injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws, but did not specify damages. On March 5, 2004, the federal court in Maine issued a decision holding that the purported indirect purchaser classes failed to state a claim for damages but allowed a separate claim seeking to enjoin future alleged violations to continue. On March 10, 2006, the federal court in Maine certified a nationwide class of buyers and lessees under Federal Rule 23(b)(2) solely for injunctive relief. General Motors and Nissan filed a motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to appeal this decision. The district court ruled that it would likely certify a class action for damages under various state law theories for six exemplar states under Federal Rule 23(b)(3) after further discovery to determine the proper scope of the classes. Plaintiffs subsequently moved for certification of damages classes for 17 additional states and have asked the court to certify the damages classes for the period from Jan. 1, 2001 through April 30, 2003. General Motors intends to appeal any damages classes certified as class actions and anticipates that its appeal will be consolidated with the pending appeal of the class certification for injunctive relief described above. General Motors Corp. on the Net: http://www.gm.com/. HAWAII: Homeland Beneficiaries' Lawsuit Granted Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Honolulu Circuit Judge Victoria Marks granted certification to a lawsuit filed on behalf of thousands of native for past breaches of trust by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Honolulu Advertiser reports. About 2,700 homelands beneficiaries were denied properties after the state shut down the claims process in 1999 (Class Action Reporter, June 1, 2006). The lawsuit alleges breach of trust on the part of the DHHL and involves a variety of claims from individuals and families who were on the list to be awarded homesteads from 1959 through 1988. The claims range from lengthy waits for parcels to the dissemination of wrong information to beneficiaries to problems associated with the construction of homes. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hawaii allowed the class action to proceed (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 13, 2007). Trial is set to begin Oct. 1. Representing plaintiffs are Carl M. Varady, 1001 Bishop Street, Suite 2870, Honolulu, HI 96813, Phone: 808-523-8447, Fax: 808- 523-8448; and Thomas R. Grande, 400 Davis Levin Livingston Grande Place, 851 Fort Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813, Phone: (808) 524.7500 x310, Fax: (808) 545.7802, Mobile: (808) 271.7500, E-mail: tgrande@davislevin.com; Website: http://www.quitamonline.com. HOOPER HOLMES: Settles Labor Suit by Calif. Examiners for $1.2M --------------------------------------------------------------- Hooper Holmes, Inc. settled for $1.2 million a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County that alleges violations of the state's wage and hour laws, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. On Jan. 25, 2005, Sylvia Gayed, one of the company's examiners in California, filed the suit, alleging that the company failed to pay overtime wages, to provide meal and rest periods, and reimbursement for expenses incurred in performing examinations. The company currently employs approximately 400 examiners in California and have employed in excess of 1,400 examiners in California over the past 60 months. Following mediation on Dec. 6, 2006, the parties reached a settlement, pursuant to which the company will pay the sum of $1.2 million to the class members in full settlement of the matter. Hooper Holmes, Inc. on the Net: http://www.hooperholmes.com/. H&R BLOCK: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Litigation in Mo. ---------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. On March 17, 2006, the first of three putative class actions alleging violations of certain securities laws are were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The suits alleged, among other things, deceptive, material and misleading financial statements, failure to prepare financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and concealment of the potential for lawsuits stemming from the allegedly fraudulent nature of the company's operations. They seek unspecified damages and equitable relief. On Sept. 20, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ordered all of the cases consolidated into a single action, "In re H&R Block Securities Litigation." The suit is "In Re H&R Block Securities Litigation, Case No. 06- 0236-CV-W-ODS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. H&R BLOCK: Plaintiffs in POM-Related Lawsuit to Seek Trial ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., et al., Civil Action 2003L000004," pending in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, have indicated that they plan to seek a trial in July 2007 for the case. The suit, which is in relation to the company's Peace of Mind program, was filed on Jan. 18, 2002, and granted class-action status on Aug. 27, 2003. Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the POM program under which the applicable tax return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for additional tax assessments attributable to tax return preparation error. The plaintiffs allege that the sale of POM guarantees constitutes: -- statutory fraud by selling insurance without a license; -- an unfair trade practice, by omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the guarantee even though they did not request it or want it); and -- a breach of fiduciary duty. In August 2003, the court certified the plaintiff classes consisting of all persons who from Jan. 1, 1997 to final judgment: -- were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member; -- reside in certain class states and were charged a separate fee for POM by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member not licensed to sell insurance; and -- had an unsolicited charge for POM posted to their bills by "H&R Block" or a defendant H&R Block class member. Persons who received the POM guarantee through an H&R Block Premium office and persons who reside in Alabama are excluded from the plaintiff class. The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any entity with names that include "H&R Block" or "HRB," or are otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services, Inc., and that sold or sells the POM product. The trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion to certify class certification issues for interlocutory appeal. Discovery is proceeding. No trial date has been set, although plaintiffs have indicated that they plan to seek a trial in July 2007, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31. H&R Block, Inc. on the Net: http://www.handrblock.com. HYTHIAM INC: Faces Suits in Del. Over CompCare Merger Agreement --------------------------------------------------------------- Hythiam, Inc. and Comprehensive Care Corp. (CompCare) and the officers and board members of CompCare were named defendants in two class actions filed in Delaware Chancery Court by CompCare stockholders on Jan. 23, and Feb. 1. The suits seek to enjoin the company's merger with CompCare on the grounds that it is unfair and that the directors of CompCare breached their fiduciary duties to CompCare's minority stockholders in approving the transaction, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Hythiam, Inc. on the Net: http://www.hythiam.com/. ICONIX BRAND: Settles Del., Calif. Suits Over Mossimo Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Iconix Brand Group, Inc. settled purported class actions that were filed with regards to its merger agreement with Mossimo, Inc., according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. In April 2005, Mr. Mossimo Giannulli offered to acquire all of the outstanding publicly held common stock of Mossimo at a price of $4.00 per share. Following the announcement of such offer, six purported class actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware seeking an injunction preventing the acquisition of Mossimo by the company and asserting that the Mossimo directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Mossimo stockholders. These six cases were consolidated. Although Mr. Giannulli subsequently withdrew his acquisition proposal, plaintiffs filed a first consolidated amended complaint in March 2006, in which they allege, among other things, that Mossimo and its board of directors breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in self-dealing in approving the merger agreement with the company. In addition, on April 12, 2006, a purported shareholder class action was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles asserting similar claims against Mossimo and its directors with respect to the merger and seeking, among other relief, to enjoin the merger and rescind any agreements entered into in connection with the merger, and to recover costs, including attorney's fees. On Sept. 27, 2006, Mr. Giannulli and other defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Delaware plaintiffs to settle the Delaware action. The settlement was subject to the closing of the merger, the negotiation of a definitive stipulation of settlement and final approval by the Delaware Chancery Court. The terms of the memorandum of understanding provide that if the company sells Mossimo or the Mossimo business prior to Oct. 31, 2007 to an unaffiliated third party and if the consideration for such sale is greater than 120% of the amount paid to the Mossimo stockholders in the merger, 30% of that excess amount will be paid into a settlement fund to be administered and distributed by the plaintiffs' lawyers under the supervision of the Delaware court. This additional amount, if it becomes due and distributable, will be paid to all persons who owned Mossimo stock, directly or indirectly, between April 12, 2005 and Oct. 31, 2006, and will not constitute additional merger consideration. Mossimo also negotiated in good faith with the plaintiffs' lead counsel concerning the amount of attorney fees and expenses to be paid by Mossimo or the company, as its successor, and not to oppose such counsel's application to the court of up to $800,000 in payment of such fees and expenses. In consideration of these terms, the parties agreed that they would fully and finally release and discharge all claims against each other. On Dec. 4, 2006, the parties finalized the terms of the definitive settlement agreement and filed the same with the Delaware court. The Delaware court has entered an order directing the parties to issue a written notice to all Mossimo stockholders informing them, among other things, of the terms of the settlement and of their right to appear at a Feb. 22, 2007 court hearing at which the Delaware court would consider whether the settlement is reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of the class. The Delaware court conducted the hearing on Feb. 22, 2007 and on Feb. 26, 2007, entered an order approving the settlement and dismissing the action with prejudice. On Oct. 27, 2006, Mr. Giannulli and other defendants also entered into a settlement letter with the California plaintiffs in the California action. Under the terms of this settlement, Mr. Giannulli and the other defendants have agreed to pay Plaintiffs' counsel between $620,000 and $650,000. The California plaintiffs are bound by the terms of the Delaware settlement. On March 1, the parties filed a stipulation with the California court dismissing the action with prejudice and requesting an order awarding plaintiffs' counsel between $620,000 and $650,000. A March 29 hearing on the stipulation was set. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. on the Net: http://www.iconixbrand.com. IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Sues Over $132M Sale to BTP ------------------------------------------------------------ Image Entertainment, Inc. shareholder Cindy Henzel filed a potential class action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles in an effort to block the company's $132 million sale to BTP Acquisition Co., LLC, Video Business reports. Image defendants listed in the suit include chief executive Martin W. Greenwald and board of directors David Coriat, Ira S. Epstein and Gary Haber. In March, Image Entertainment -- a licensor, producer and distributor of DVDs and CDs -- signed an agreement to sell the company for about $132 million to BTP Acquisition Co. -- an investor group led by film producer David Bergstein. According Mr. Greenwald, the transaction allows Image to remain a viable and important force in the entertainment industry, and to continue leveraging the company's strong home entertainment operations. But Ms. Henzel hopes to stop the consummation of the BTP merger and force Image to better maximize shareholder value. On April 10, 2007, a purported class action shareholder complaint entitled "Henzel v. Image Entertainment, Inc., et al." was filed against Image Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation and certain of its officers and members of its board of directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, according to the company's April 13 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission The named plaintiff proposes to represent a class of the company's stockholders and claims, among other things, that in connection with the proposed business combination transaction with BTP Acquisition, the directors breached their fiduciary duties of due care, good faith and loyalty by failing to maximize stockholder value and by creating deterrents to third party offers. Among other things, the complaint seeks class action status, and a court order enjoining the consummation of the merger and directing the defendants to take appropriate steps to maximize stockholder value. "In pursuing the unlawful plan to sell Image via an unfair process ... each of the defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing," according to the complaint. Image is now asking its shareholders to carefully read all upcoming proxy statements as they relate to the case and the proposed merger with BTP. Its merger with BTP must be approved by Image voting shareholders before it can be finalized. INFOUSA INC: Del. Court Consolidates Shareholder's Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Chancery for the state of Delaware in and for New Castle County consolidated a lawsuit filed by infoUSA Inc. shareholder Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P. against certain directors of the company including Vinod Gupta. The lawsuit was filed on February 2006 as a derivative action on behalf of the company and as a class action on behalf of Cardinal Value Equity Partners, L.P., which beneficially owns 6.1% of the infoUSA's stock, and other shareholders. It asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty and seeks an order that would require the company to reinstate the special committee of directors. The special committee was formed to consider a proposal from Mr. Gupta to acquire the shares of the company not owned by him and was dissolved in August 2005 following Mr. Gupta's withdrawal of his proposal. The suit seeks an order awarding the company and the class unspecified damages. In May 2006, Cardinal amended its complaint to add several new allegations and named two additional directors of the company as defendants. The company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On Oct. 17, 2006, the court granted that motion and dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. The court's order permits Cardinal to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. Cardinal subsequently filed a third amended complaint, alleging derivative claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Delaware law. In January 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to consolidate the action with a similar action filed by Dolphin Limited Partnership I, L.P. et al., according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. infoUSA, Inc. on the Net: http://www.infousa.com/. INTER-TEL INC: Ariz. Investors' Suit Nixed, Del. Case Remains ------------------------------------------------------------- Inter-Tel, Inc., and selected board members face a purported shareholder class action that was filed in Delaware state court, according to the company's March 15 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The Delaware action was filed on June 16, 2006. The Arizona actions were filed on June 16 and 20, 2006, respectively. The Delaware action, as amended July 14, 2006, raises claims related to the re-incorporation filing by Inter-Tel in Delaware and primarily seeks injunctive relief. The Arizona actions claimed breach of fiduciary duty related to the 13D filings by the company's former chief executive. The Arizona claims were both dismissed by the plaintiffs in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2006. INTER TEL, Inc. on the Net: http://www.inter-tel.com/. LAFARGE NORTH: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuit in La. ------------------------------------------------------------- Lafarge North America, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by people damaged by Hurricane Katrina, according to the company's March 23 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. In late 2005, several class actions were filed. In their complaints, plaintiffs allege that that company and several other defendants are liable for death, bodily and personal injury and property and environmental damage to people and property in and around New Orleans, Louisiana, which they claim resulted from a barge that allegedly breached the Industrial Canal levee in New Orleans during or after Hurricane Katrina. Lafarge North America, Inc. on the Net: http://www.lafargenorthamerica.com/. MENU FOODS: Benton County Residents Sue Over Recalled Pet Food -------------------------------------------------------------- Three Benton County (Arkansas) residents filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas claiming they lost their cats to pet food contamination, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports. Sandra L. Gray and couple Nick and Deena Jackson filed the suit against: -- Menu Foods, Inc.; -- Menu Foods Income Fund; -- Menu Foods Gen Par Limited; -- Menu Foods Limited Partnership; -- Menu Foods Operating Partnership; -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp.; -- Menu Foods South Dakota; -- Menu Foods, Inc.; -- Menu Foods Holdings, Inc.; -- Walmart Stores, Inc.; and -- Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. Ltd., a Chinese company that exports wheat gluten. 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. Plaintiffs are asking the court for injunctive relief "to prevent further contamination of the American pet food supply," according to the suit. The plaintiffs also seek compensatory and punitive damages for their cats, Poopie, Skittles and Boomer, who were euthanized. The three say veterinarians diagnosed the felines with kidney failure resulting from eating contaminated food. 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. The suit is "Gray et al. Menu Foods, et al., Case No. 5:07-cv- 05065-RTD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas under Judge Robert T. Dawson. Representing plaintiffs is Bill Horton of Nolan, Caddell & Reynolds, P.A., 122 North Eleventh Street, P.O. Box 184 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902, Phone: 479-782-5297 or 800-709-5297 (Toll Free), Fax: 479-782-5184, Website: http://www.nolancaddellandreynolds.com. MENU FOODS: Faces Lawsuit in Colo. Over Recalled Pet Food --------------------------------------------------------- Lawyer Jennifer Thomaidis filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of cat owner Emily Tompkins, whose cat, Grover, died in March after eating contaminated pet food, The Denver Post reports. Named defendants in the 23-page lawsuit are: -- Menu Foods Midwest Corp.; -- Menu Foods Income Fund; -- Menu Foods Limited; -- Menu Foods Inc.; -- Menu Foods Holdings, Inc.; -- Proctor & Gamble Co., The; -- Iams Co., The; -- Safeway Inc.; -- Kroger Co., The; -- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; and -- Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. Ms. Tompkins accused the chain stores of selling the allegedly tainted pet food, which the Canadian manufacturer recalled because it was suspected of causing death or sickness in hundreds of dogs and cats. The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages for pet owners in Colorado. "Colorado pet owners want justice served," Ms. Thomaidis said. "They want companies that allowed this to happen to take responsibility." 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 Similar lawsuits have been filed in Ontario and the U.S against Ontario-based Menu Foods on behalf of pet owners who say their animals fell ill after eating tainted food. The suit is "Tompkins v. Menu Foods Midwest Corp. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00736-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge John L. Kane. Representing plaintiffs is Jennifer Reba Thomaidis of the Thomaidis Law, LLC, 1866 Vine Street, Denver, CO 80206, Phone: 303-322-4355, Fax: 303-322-4354, E-mail: jennifer@thomaidislaw.com. NESTLE PURINA: Recalls Alpo Dog Food Over Wheat Gluten Content -------------------------------------------------------------- Nestle Purina PetCare Co. is voluntarily recalling all sizes and varieties of its ALPO Prime Cuts in Gravy wet dog food with specific date codes. The company is taking this voluntary action after learning that wheat gluten containing melamine, a substance not approved for use in food, was provided to Purina by the same company that also supplied Menu Foods, Inc. The contamination occurred in a limited production quantity at only one of Purina's 17 pet food manufacturing facilities. Earlier, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the finding of melamine in products related to the March 16 Menu Foods recall, and advised Purina of the source of the contaminated supply. Purina then determined that it had received some quantity from the suspect supplier. The company proactively notified the FDA and immediately began this recall process. Purina is confident that the contaminated wheat gluten has been isolated to this limited production quantity of ALPO Prime Cuts canned products. The recalled 13.2-ounce and 22-ounce ALPO Prime Cuts cans and 6- , 8-, 12- and 24-can ALPO Prime Cuts Variety Packs have four- digit code dates of 7037 through 7053, followed by the plant code 1159. Those codes follow a "Best Before Feb. 2009" date.** This information should be checked on the bottom of the can or the top or side of the multi-pack cartons. Purina's 5.3-ounce Mighty Dog pouch products, manufactured by Menu Foods, were previously withdrawn from the market as a precaution on March 16 as part of the Menu Foods recall. ONLY Mighty Dog pouch products and specific date codes of ALPO Prime Cuts canned dog food are being recalled. Importantly, no Purina brand dry pet foods are affected by the recall -- including ALPO Prime Cuts dry. In addition, no other Purina dog food products, no Purina cat food products, Purina treat products or Purina Veterinary Diet products are included in this recall, nor have been impacted by the contaminated wheat gluten supply. Consumers are advised to immediately stop feeding ALPO Prime Cuts products with the above-listed date codes to their dogs and consult with a veterinarian if they have any health concerns with their pet. Purina is fully cooperating with the FDA and made the decision to voluntarily recall this product in consultation with the FDA. At Purina, nothing is more important to the company than the health and well-being of the pets whose nutrition has been entrusted to the company by their owners, and the company deeply regrets this unfortunate situation. Purina will continue to take any and all actions necessary to ensure the quality and safety of the company's products. Due to a product name change in early 2007, this voluntary recall also covers one item with the same date code labeled as ALPO Prime Entrees in Gravy with Chicken, Rotini Pasta & Vegetables. Purina guarantees all of its products, and consumers can receive the full replacement value of the recalled products. Consumers can visit http://www.purina.comor call 1-800-218-5898, Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CDT, to receive more information. NESTLE PURINA: Faces Tenn. Lawsuit Over Recalled Pet Food --------------------------------------------------------- Shelby County, Tennessee resident Kimberly Bowser filed a class- action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee against Nestle Purina Pet Care Co., claiming, among other things, that the now-recalled Alpo dog food made by the company had caused the sickness of her golden retriever, the Memphis Daily News reports. Ms. Bowser claims her dog showed symptoms of kidney-related problems after eating possibly contaminated Alpo products. Purina recalled certain Alpo and Mighty Dog brand products in March after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration linked pet illnesses to pet foods containing contaminated wheat gluten from China. The wheat gluten tested positive for melamine, a product used as a fertilizer with other industrial and commercial uses. The lawsuit asks the court to certify the class as all persons who bought the recalled food between August and now. Other companies that have recalled possibly contaminated foods include Menu Foods, Del Monte Pet Products, Hill's Pet Nutrition Inc. and Sunshine Mills Inc., according to the FDA. The suit is "Bowser v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Co., Case No. 2:07-cv-02246-JDB-tmp," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge J. Daniel Breen, with referral to Judge Tu M. Pham. Representing plaintiffs are: (1) A. James Andrews of the Law Offices of A. James Andrews, 905 Locust Street, Knoxville, TN 37902, Phone: 865-660-3993, Fax: 865-523-4623, E-mail: andrewsesq@icx.net; (2) Perry A. Craft of Craft & Sheppard, PLC, Shiloh Building, 214 Centerview Dr., Ste. 233, Brentwood, TN 37027, E-mail: perrycraft@craftsheppardlaw.com; and (3) Karl A. Schledwitz of The Southland Companies, The Tower at Peabody Place, 100 Peabody Place, Ste. 1325, Memphis, TN 38013, Phone: 901-680-0590, Fax: 901-680- 9836. NETRATINGS INC: Del. Court Junks Consolidated Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted a plaintiff's notice to voluntarily dismiss a Delaware consolidated shareholder action filed against Netratings, Inc. Following an Oct. 9, 2006 announcement of The Nielsen Co. B.V.'s proposal to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Netratings' common stock at a price of $16 per share in cash, three substantially similar putative class actions were filed -- two on Oct. 9, 2006 and one on Oct. 10, 2006 -- by certain stockholders of the company against the company, The Nielsen Co. and the company's directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Additionally, one putative class action was filed on Nov. 6, 2006 by a stockholder of the company against the company, The Nielsen Co. and the company's directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The complaints in these actions, which purported to be brought on behalf of all of stockholders of the company excluding the defendants and their affiliates, generally alleged: -- breaches of fiduciary duty by the company's directors; -- that the consideration offered by The Nielsen Company was inadequate and constituted unfair dealing; and -- that The Nielsen Company, as controlling stockholder, breached its duty to the remaining stockholders of NetRatings by acting to further its own interests at the expense of the remaining stockholders of NetRatings. The complaints sought to enjoin the proposal, or in the alternative, damages in an unspecified amount and rescission in the event a merger occurred pursuant to the proposal. The Delaware actions were consolidated under the caption "In re: NetRatings, Inc., Consolidated Shareholders Litigation." On Feb. 5, 2007, Judge Leo E. Strine of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Delaware plaintiffs' notice to voluntarily dismiss the Delaware consolidated actions without prejudice. No compensation has passed from any defendant in that action to the Delaware plaintiffs or their attorneys and no promise to give any such compensation has been made. The New York complaint has not been served on any of the defendants in the action. NEWPARK RESOURCES: Discovery Yet to Begin in La. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- No discovery has been conducted yet in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against Newpark Resources, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, according to the company's March 13 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Between April 21, 2006 and May 9, 2006, five lawsuits asserting claims against the company for violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. All five lawsuits have been transferred to Judge Marcel Livaudais who has consolidated these actions as "In re: Newpark Resources, Inc. Securities Litigation." Following the filing of the Amendment No. 2 to the company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for 2005 on Oct. 10, 2006, the plaintiffs filed on Nov. 9, 2006 a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud against the company and directors and officers James Cole, Matthew Hardey, Thomas Ballantine, David Hunt, Alan Kaufman, James Stone, Roger Stull and Jerry Box. The Consolidated Class Complaint alleges that the company and the individual defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. These allegations arise from a disclosure of an internal investigation into potential irregularities in the processing and payment of invoices at one of the company's subsidiaries, Soloco Texas, LP, and alleged improper granting, recording and accounting of backdated grants of stock options to executives. The Consolidated Class Complaint does not specify the damages sought by the plaintiffs and no discovery has been conducted to date. The suit is "Kim v. Newpark Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02150-ML-KWR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Marcel Livaudais under Judge Karen Wells Roby. Representing the plaintiffs are: (1) Dawn M. Barrios of Barrios, Kingsdorf & Casteix, LLP, One Shell Square, 701 Poydras St., Suite 3650, New Orleans, LA 70139-3650, Phone: (504) 524-3300, E-mail: barrios@bkc-law.com; and (2) Lewis Stephen Kahn of Kahn Gauthier Law Group, LLC, 650 Poydras St., Suite 2150, New Orleans, LA 70130, Phone: 504-455-1400, E-mail: lewis.kahn@kglg.com. Representing the defendants are: (i) Robert B. Bieck, Jr. of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Place St. Charles, 201 St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170- 5100, Phone: (504) 582-8000, E-mail: rbieck@joneswalker.com; and (ii) Donald Lucas Hyatt, II, Donald L. Hyatt, II, APLC Energy Center, 1100 Poydras St., Suite 2960, New Orleans, LA 70163, Phone: 504-582-2466, E-mail: hyattlaw@aol.com. NORTH FORK: June Hearing Set in $20M Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of the state of New York for the County of New York will hold on June 15, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., a hearing on a proposed $20 million settlement of the class action "Lasker v. Kanas et al., Index No. 06/103557." The class consists of all persons who held the common stock of North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. and their successors-in-interest and transferees, immediate and remote, at any time during the period March 12, 2006 through Dec. 1, 2006 other than defendants and any person, firm, trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with any of the defendants. The hearing will be at the Supreme Court of New York, New York County in the courtroom of the Honorable Karla Moskowitz. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is May 25, 2007. On March 12, 2006, the company announced that it had entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Capital One Financial Corp. pursuant to which the company would merge with and into Capital One, with Capital One continuing as the surviving corporation (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2006). On March 15, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County. The suit is "Lasker v. Kanas et al., Index No. 06/103557." On Mar. 16, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed on behalf of North Folk's public shareholders against the company and each of its directors in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County. The suit is "Showers v. Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004624." Two further putative class actions on behalf of the public shareholders of North Fork were subsequently filed: -- "New Jersey Building Laborers Pension & Annuity Fund v. Kanas et al., Index No. 06-004786," filed in the Supreme Court of New York, Nassau County on Mar. 21, 2006; and -- "Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 06105091," filed in the Supreme Court of New York, New York County on Apr. 12, 2006. These complaints allege, among other things that the directors of the company breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize shareholder value in the transaction. Pursuant to a Court Order dated May 31, 2006, the Lasker and Gold actions were consolidated under the caption "Lasker and Gold v. Kanas, et al., Index No. 103557/06" and the Court appointed the law firms of Stull, Stull & Brody and Vianale & Vianale LLP as co-lead counsel to represent the class. On July 12, 2006, North Fork and Capital One filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a joint proxy statement/prospectus concerning the merger. On or about July 17, 2006, plaintiffs served upon defendants a consolidated amended class action complaint. The action predominantly seeks injunctive and other relief on the ground that, among other things, the alleged conduct of the Defendants in connection with the merger constitutes a breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants to North Fork's shareholders. On July 27, 2006, the court: (i) ordered the parties to proceed in good faith on an expedited discovery program and directed defendants to make deponents available for depositions; (ii) approved a briefing schedule on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction; and (iii) scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction for Aug. 18, 2006. Between June 30, 2006 and July 30, 2006, defendants produced a total of 6,596 pages of documents to plaintiffs' counsel, and plaintiffs obtained thousands of pages of additional documents from several non-parties. Plaintiffs took the depositions of: (a) Daniel Healy, a director and chief financial officer of North Fork, on July 28, 2006; (b) A. Robert Towbin, an outside director of North Fork, on July 31, 2006; and (c) Brian Sterling, principal of Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P., one of North Fork's financial advisers, on August 2, 2006. Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for defendants have engaged in arm's-length negotiations concerning a possible settlement of the action. Following negotiations between the parties, counsel for the parties reached an agreement in principle providing for the settlement of the action on the terms and conditions incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding, dated Aug. 7, 2006, and the plaintiffs believe that entering into the Stipulation consistent with the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, is in the best interests of the class they seek to represent. In the settlement, North Fork will agree: -- to establish a settlement fund in an aggregate amount of $20 million, out of which the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees will be paid, with the remaining balance of the settlement fund to be allocated among North Fork stockholders who are members of the class as of the completion of the merger (other than those stockholders who perfect appraisal rights or opt out of the settlement); -- to waive any right to realize total profit in excess of $630 million under the North Fork stock option agreement granted to Capital One in connection with the merger; and -- to publicly announce additional information relating to the merger and certain other matters in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Under the terms of the settlement, all claims relating to the merger agreement and the proposed merger will be dismissed and released on behalf of the settlement class (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 10, 2006). As a result of the foregoing and the negotiations among counsel to the parties, the parties to the action have agreed to the settlement, which provides as follows: -- Capital One has irrevocably waived any right to any portion of the Total Profit, as that term is used in the Stock Option Agreement between North Fork and Capital One, dated March 12, 2006, to the extent that such Total Profit exceeded $630,000,000 (notwithstanding the fact that the Stock Option Agreement provided for a Total Profit of up to $730,000,000; -- North Fork included additional disclosures to shareholders in a Press Release and in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on Aug. 8, 2006 (and thereby incorporated by reference into the Proxy); -- During the course of this Action, Plaintiffs requested that North Fork undertake additional due diligence on certain of Capital One's operations. North Fork carried out such additional due diligence on July 31, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006. -- North Fork has deposited the sum of $20,000,000 in cash into a market-rate, interest-bearing account entitled "North Fork Bancorporation Inc Settlement Fund" at North Fork Bank (the "Settlement Fund"). Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, the entirety of the Settlement Fund shall remain deposited in the North Fork Bancorporation Inc Settlement Fund account, and all interest earned on such funds shall be part of the Settlement Fund, until such time as the Settlement Fund is allocated pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Stipulation, within thirty (30) days after Final Court Approval of the Settlement, North Fork or its successor(s), on behalf of Defendants, shall cause the Settlement Fund to be allocated as follows: (a) The amount awarded by the Court as attorneys' fees and expenses (attorneys' fees up to 25% of the Settlement Fund plus up to $100,000 in expenses) shall be paid out of the Settlement Fund payable to Stull, Stull & Brody. (b) The Settlement Fund less any amount awarded as Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses shall be distributed to the Class Members in the manner described herein and shall constitute the "Net Settlement Fund." The Net Settlement Fund shall be allocated among Class Members holding North Fork common stock as of December 1, 2006 (the "Effective Time") on a pro rata basis in accordance with ownership of North Fork common stock by Class Members at the Effective Time. Payments shall be made within 30 days of the Final Court Approval as defined in the Stipulation. (c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Class Member who has (a) properly exercised such stockholder's appraisal rights under Section 262 of the Delaware General Corporation Law or (b) delivered a timely and valid request for exclusion from the Settlement pursuant to the terms herein (collectively, the "Excluded Members") shall not be entitled to receive any distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. (d) For purposes of allocating the Settlement Fund, shares held by Excluded Members shall not be considered when calculating the total number of shares held by Class Members as of the Effective Time. (e) Any money remaining in the Net Settlement Fund more than six months after distribution is completed shall be donated to a Regulation 501(c) non-sectarian charity in the State of New York mutually agreed to by the Plaintiffs and North Fork or its successor(s). Plaintiffs and North Fork have agreed that The Legal Aid Society in the City of New York would receive any such remaining money. (f) The administration of the Net Settlement Fund shall be undertaken in a manner mutually agreeable to the signatories to the Stipulation subject to the proviso that all costs associated with the administration of the Settlement Fund shall be borne by North Fork or its successor(s). (g) In the event the Stipulation is terminated, the Settlement Fund shall be released to North Fork or its successor(s) and neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs' counsel shall have any claim or entitlement to any part thereof. -- Each Class Member who was a holder of record of North Fork common stock on Dec. 1, 2006, except for Excluded Members, shall be sent a check representing his, her or its pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund. Checks will be payable in U.S. funds and will be sent to eligible shareholders by first-class mail. It is not necessary for Class Members who held North Fork stock on December 1, 2006 and are otherwise eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund to submit a claim or request for payment. Class Members, who are North Fork shareholders of record on December 1, 2006, and are not Excluded Members, will be sent payment. The payment will vary depending upon the number of shares of North Fork stock held on December 1, 2006 and the size of the Net Settlement Fund. Assuming the $20,000,000 Settlement Fund increases with interest to approximately $20,500,000 when payment is distributed to Class Members, the payment for each share of North Fork stock owned on December 1, 2006 will vary as follows: (a) if 25% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0337 per share; (b) if 20% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0360 per share; (c) if 15% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0383 per share; (d) if 10% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0405 per share; (e) if 5% in attorneys' fees and $100,000 in expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0428 per share; or (f) if no attorneys' fees or expenses are awarded, Class Members will receive approximately $0.0453 per share. -- Checks sent to Class Members in connection with this Settlement must be presented for payment within 120 days of issuance. Each check will bear a legend to this effect. -- North Fork also agreed to and did issue on one or more business news wires, a press release devoted solely to announcing: (a) the fact that the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Action, and (b) the general terms of the Settlement. Included in the business news wire and press release was the disclosure of, among other things, conversations during the first half of 2005 by members of North Fork management with management of a financial service company regarding a potential acquisition of North Fork. Such discussions did not lead to an agreement to acquire North Fork. The press release, also disclosed preliminary discussions with another financial services company during late 2005 and the first quarter of 2006 which did not result in an offer for North Fork. In addition the press release discussed changes in the interest rate environment of which North Fork management became aware in the second half of 2005, strategies executed by North Fork in response to that change and its impact as to whether or not North Fork would pursue the merger with Capital One in March 2006. -- The Settlement shall be voidable by defendants if a certain percentage of North Fork shareholders, previously agreed upon by the parties in writing, exclude themselves from the Settlement. On March 12, 2007, the parties entered into the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement, which contains the terms of the settlement of this action subject to court approval. Each of the defendants has denied and continues to deny having committed or attempted to commit any violations of law or breaches of fiduciary duty of any kind. Defendants state that they entered into the Stipulation solely because the proposed settlement would eliminate the burden, risk and expense of further litigation, and is in the best interests of North Fork and all of its shareholders. Plaintiffs state that they brought this action in good faith, have believed at all times in the merit of their claim, and do not admit or concede a lack of merit by entering into the Stipulation. Upon final court approval, the action shall be dismissed on the merits with prejudice and without costs, except as set forth in the Stipulation. A copy of the Pendency Notice is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1d1f Representing plaintiffs are Mark Levine, Esq. of Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212) 687- 7230; and Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. of Vianale & Vianale LLP, 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112, Boca Raton FL 33431, Phone: (561) 392-4750. Representing defendants is William Savitt, Esq. of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd Street, New York, NY 10019. OMNI FINANCIAL: Court Mulls Motion to Add Defendant in "Gage" ------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Fulton County, state of Georgia, has yet to rule on a motion that seeks to add more defendant in a class action against Omni Financial Services, Inc. The company was named as a defendant in litigation involving Georgia Community Bank, which it acquired in 2005. While the plaintiffs had initially dismissed the company from the litigation in May of 2006, they have since filed a motion seeking leave to add one of its subsidiaries as a party- defendant. On Oct. 24, 2005, two shareholders of Georgia Community Bancshares, Inc., the former parent of Georgia Community Bank, filed a proposed class action against, among others, Georgia Community Bancshares, Georgia Community Bank and the company for fraud under the Georgia Securities Act of 1973, as amended and the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The action is "Gage, et al. v. Georgia Community Bank, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2005CV107863, Superior Court of Fulton County, State of Georgia." The complaint alleged that, prior to the company's acquisition of Georgia Community Bank, defendants committed fraud in the sale of Georgia Community. It alleged that the company merged with Georgia Community Bank and assumed all of its liabilities, including liability for the claims alleged in the complaint. The company said it purchased all of Georgia Community Bank's stock from Georgia Community Bancshares, caused Georgia Community Bank to be converted into a national bank and merged it into the company's subsidiary bank, Omni National Bank. After the action was filed, the company was not initially served with process. In discussions with plaintiffs' counsel, the company asserted that neither it nor Omni National Bank has any liability for the claims alleged in the complaint, that Omni National Bank owns any claims against Georgia Community Bank's officers and directors for any breach of their fiduciary duties to Georgia Community Bank and that the company will assert ownership of those claims, if the plaintiffs proceed with the litigation against the company. The company's counsel accepted service of the complaint on April 3, 2006. On April 18, 2006, the company's counsel served the plaintiffs and their counsel with written notice of its intent to file claims for abusive litigation pursuant to Official Code of Georgia (O.C.G.A.) Section 51-7-80 et seq. and for frivolous litigation pursuant to O.C. G.A. Section 9-15-14 against the plaintiffs, their counsel and each counsel's firm if they failed to withdraw, abandon, discontinue or dismiss the complaint against the company within 30 days of notice. Subsequently, on May 3, 2006, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action and all claims therein as to the company without prejudice. The action is still pending against the remaining defendants. On Dec. 4, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave of court to amend the complaint to add the Bank as a party- defendant, alleging in their proposed amended complaint that the Bank, as the successor in interest to Georgia Community Bank assumed liability in the merger for the plaintiffs' claims against Georgia Community Bank. The court has not yet ruled on the motion, according to the company's March 21 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Omni Financial Services, Inc. on the Net: http://www.omnifinserv.com/. P&G PET: Recalls Contaminated Pouches of 'Wet' Cat and Dog Foods ---------------------------------------------------------------- P&G Pet Care, in response to the recent Menu Foods, Inc. nationwide recall of wet pet foods, announces a voluntary recall in the U.S. and Canada on specific 3 oz., 5.5 oz., 6 oz. and 13.2 oz. canned and 3 oz. and 5.3 oz. foil pouch "wet" cat and dog food products manufactured by Menu Foods Inc. Emporia, Kansas plant with the code dates of 6339 through 7073 followed by the plant code 4197. This voluntary recall is part of a larger product recall by Menu Foods Inc., a contract manufacturer that makes a small portion of canned and foil pouch 'wet' cat foods for Iams and Eukanuba as well as other non-P&G brands. There have been a small number of reported cases of cats from the U.S. (none in Canada) becoming sick and developing signs of kidney failure. The signs of kidney failure include loss of appetite, vomiting, and lethargy. P&G Pet Care has received no case reports involving dogs. This voluntary product recall involves discontinuation of all retail sales and product retrieval from consumers. Consumers should stop using the affected products immediately, and consult with a veterinarian if any symptoms are present in their pet. All Iams and Eukanuba products carry a 100 percent guarantee, and consumers can receive a refund for recalled products. To read can product codes, refer to the bottom of the can. The first four numbers of the second line of numbers are the date code, and the following four numbers indicate the plant code. For example, if the second line begins with four numbers from 6339 to 7073 followed by the plant code 4197, then the can should be recalled. For foil pouches, the code numbers are located at the lower left hand corner on the back of the pouch. The date and plant codes appear in the third group of numbers, beginning an 11-digit sequence. P&G Pet Care is taking this proactive step out of an abundance of caution, because the health and well-being of pets is paramount in the mission of Iams and Eukanuba. Tests of some affected product have not revealed the cause of sickness, and testing will continue until a better understanding of the facts has been achieved. All other canned and small foil wet pouch products produced at other plants are not affected by this issue. Iams and Eukanuba "dry" products are not manufactured at Menu Foods and not affected by this issue. Iams and Eukanuba biscuits, treats and sauces are not affected by this issue. P&G Pet Care has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on this issue. The company regrets any inconvenience to its consumers and retail customers. For more information, consumers can contact the company at 1- 800-882-1591 or visit http://www.Iams.comand http://www.Eukanuba.comfor details. QC HOLDINGS: Appeals Ruling in Ariz. Deferred Presentment Case -------------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. appealed a ruling by an Arizona federal court that compels it and the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the company to consider the issue of class action standing of the case while in arbitration. Originally, the suit was filed by an Arizona customer in Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, alleging that a loan to him violated the Arizona Deferred Presentment Companies Statute and asserting various other claims based in tort, contract and violations of state law and seeking class. The company removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The magistrate judge granted the QC Holdings' motion to compel arbitration, but found that the company's class action waiver in the arbitration agreement signed by the customer to be unconscionable. The result of this decision is that the judge compelled the parties to consider the issue of class action standing in arbitration. The company has appealed this ruling to the district court judge, and it awaits his ruling, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/. QC HOLDINGS: Mo. Customers File Lawsuit Over Unsecured Loans ------------------------------------------------------------ QC Holdings, Inc. was named as a defendant in a purported class action over unsecured loans, which was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. The suit was filed on Oct. 13, 2006 by one of the company's Missouri customers as a purported class action. It alleges violations of the Missouri statute pertaining to unsecured loans under $500 and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and a declaratory judgment that the arbitration agreement with the plaintiff is not enforceable on a variety of theories. The company has not filed an answer, but has moved to compel arbitration of this matter. Plaintiff has secured the right to have discovery regarding the company's arbitration provision, however, prior to the court's ruling on its motion to compel arbitration. It anticipates that the court will consider the motion some time this summer. QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/. QC HOLDINGS: Still Faces N.C. Consumer Suit Over Payday Loans ------------------------------------------------------------- QC Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in a putative consumer fraud class action filed in the Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. On Feb. 8, 2005, the company, two of its subsidiaries, including its subsidiary doing business in North Carolina, and Don Early, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer, were sued in Superior Court of New Hanover County, North Carolina in a putative class action filed by James B. Torrence, Sr. and Ben Hubert Cline. The two were customers of a Delaware state-chartered bank for whom the company provided certain services in connection with the bank's origination of payday loans in North Carolina, prior to the closing of the company's North Carolina branches in fourth quarter 2005. The lawsuit alleges that the company violated various North Carolina laws, including the North Carolina Consumer Finance Act, the North Carolina Check Cashers Act, the North Carolina Loan Brokers Act, the state unfair trade practices statute and the state usury statute, in connection with payday loans made by the bank to the two plaintiffs through the company's retail locations in North Carolina. The lawsuit alleges that the company made the payday loans to the plaintiffs in violation of various state statutes, and that if the company is not viewed as the "actual lenders or makers" of the payday loans, the company's services to the bank that made the loans violated various North Carolina statutes. Plaintiffs are seeking certification as a class, unspecified monetary damages, and treble damages and attorneys fees under specified North Carolina statutes. They have not sued the bank in this matter and have specifically stated in the complaint that plaintiffs do not challenge the right of out-of-state banks to enter into loans with North Carolina residents at such rates as the bank's home state may permit, all as authorized by North Carolina and federal law. QC Holdings, Inc. on the Net: http://www.qcholdings.com/. SMALL WORLD TOYS: Recalls Wooden Sound Puzzles for Choking Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Small World Toys, of Culver City, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 78,500 units of "Sounds on the Farm" Puzzle and "Sounds on the Go" Puzzle. The company said the knobs on the recalled puzzle pieces can come off, posing a choking hazard to young children. Small World Toys has received 42 reports of the knobs detaching from the puzzle pieces. No injuries have been reported. The recalled involves two separate wooden-knobbed puzzles that make sounds. "Sounds on the Farm" and "Sounds on the Go" puzzles were sold under the Puzzibilities and Ryan's Room brands. The wooden puzzles have four pieces in farm animal or vehicle shapes that make animal or motor sounds when the pieces are lifted by their knobs from the puzzle boards. "Sounds on the Farm" or "Sounds on the Go" is printed on the top left of the puzzle boards. "2003 Small World Toys" and the number 24101 or 24102 are printed at the bottom of the puzzles boards. These recalled wooden sound puzzles were manufactured in China. Puzzibilities puzzles were sold at toy stores and various retailers nationwide and by catalogs from June 2003 through February 2007. Ryan's Room puzzles were sold at Target Stores nationwide from January 2006 through February 2007. Both puzzles sold for about $16. Pictures of recalled wooden sound puzzles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07154a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07154b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take this toy away from children and contact Small World Toys to obtain a free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Small World Toys at (800) 421-4153 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, visit http://www.smallworldtoys.com,or E-mail: puzzlerecall@smallworldtoys.com SRAM CORP: Recalls Bicycle Brake Calipers Prone to Breakage ----------------------------------------------------------- SRAM Corp., of Chicago, Illinois, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,400 units of SRAM Force Road Brake caliper sets. The company said the brake caliper sets could break and detach from the bicycle's fork or frame. This could cause the rider to lose control and crash. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the SRAM Force Road Brake Calipers sets sold as aftermarket components. The brake caliper sets have "SRAM Force" and some have a date or production code embossed on the unit. Code Example In Recall Not In Recall Date code Dates between Dates after (Day/Month/Year) 01JUN06 01JUN06 and 25DEC06 25DEC06 No date code --------- All sold between --------- July 2006 through March 2007 Production Code 35T61234567 Codes beginning Codes With 35T6 beginning through 51T6 with 52T6 and codes with "7" as the fourth digit The SRAM brake caliper sets may have also been installed on the following makes and models of bicycles: -- Specialized (S-Works Tarmac SL, S-Works Roubaix); -- Trek (Project One Madone models); -- Fuji (Fuji SL1); Scott USA (Addict R3); -- Bianchi (Bianchi 928 SL); -- Kuota (Kuota KOM, Kuota KREDO, Kuota KEBEL); -- Orbea (Orca, Aqua, Loboular, Opal, Arin, Aqua Dama, Dama Race and Diva); -- Kestrel (Evoke SL/Force, RT700/Force), Titus (Vuelo, Solera) and -- Sampson (Diablo). These recalled bicycle brake caliper sets were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold at specialty bicycle retailers nationwide sold individual brake caliper sets from July 2006 through January 2007 for about $270 and bicycles which included these sets through March 2007 for between $3,000 and $7,300. Picture of recalled bicycle brake caliper sets: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07153.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using bicycles equipped with these brake caliper sets immediately and contact their bicycle retailer for a free replacement. For additional information, contact SRAM at (800) 346-2928 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sram.com. TEXAS: Settles Suit Over Health Care for Indigent Children ---------------------------------------------------------- The Texas attorney general's office and lawyers representing the state's poor children reached an agreement to settle a suit aimed at improving the health care of indigent children, according to reports. The settlement was presented on April 9 to U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice for approval. The judge gave attorneys until April 27 to submit a final draft of the settlement agreement. The Medicaid lawsuit was filed in 1993 by Linda Frew on behalf of her daughter Carla Frew. It alleged that Texas failed to ensure access to checkups and follow-up care. The case was certified as a class action in 1994. According to The Houston Chronicle, the settlement includes higher reimbursement rates for doctors and dentists who treat children under the Medicaid program and outreach to make sure that children who are enrolled get regular checkups. It is expected to cost Texas between $500 million and $800 million according to two state officials. The agreement will call for as much as five years of state action, involving the state's obligation to provide transportation for Medicaid beneficiaries, managed care improvements and outreach, according to Susan Zinn, a San Antonio lawyer who represents the children's interests. Among the items addressed in the settlement is the Medicaid provider reimbursement rates, which would increase by 25 percent over current rates to physicians and 50 percent to dentists. Ms. Zinn asked that the judge wait to sign off on the settlement until after the legislative session ends on May 28. The suit is "Frazar, et al. v. Hawkins, et al., Case No. 3:93-cv-00065-WWJ," filed in the Eastern District of Texas under Judge William W. Justice. Representing the plaintiffs is John Robert Heard at Heard & Smith, 3737 Broadway St., Suite 310, San Antonio, TX 78209-6552, Phone: 210/820-3737, Fax: 12108203777, E-mail: jrhatty@heardandsmith.com. Representing the defendants are Linda Ann Halpern, Attorney General's Office, P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711, Phone: 512/475-1969, Fax: 15123200667, E-mail: linda.halpern@oag.state.tx.us. UNITED STATES: Sued for "Withholding" Care to Nuclear Workers ------------------------------------------------------------- Denver law firm Holland & Hart LLP filed a suit on behalf of six former nuclear weapons workers to claim payment for medical costs that the government promised but was allegedly withholding, according to Rocky Mountain News. The workers named in the lawsuit are: Ismael Montano of Cortez; Lionel Palacio of Grants, New Mexico; Addison Keaton of Stout, Ohio; Eugene Bailey of Franklin Furnace, Ohio; Phil DeHerrera of Grants, New Mexico; Clarence Worthen of Grants New Mexico. The lawsuit contends that the Labor Department officials in charge of compensating medical coverage programs are denying, delaying and limiting doctors' orders to provide high levels of home nursing care for severely ill and dying weapons workers. In 2001, federal law created the 2000 Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, a compensation program that includes home health care. This was after the government acknowledged that nuclear weapons workers had faced health risks that were previously kept from them. Under the program, created by Congress five years ago, workers get $150,000 plus future medical benefits. The suit says the workers "for the most part (are) isolated, frail and suffering severe and/or terminal disease." Delaying medical care or restricting the kind of care they can have is "life threatening" to the workers, the lawsuit says. One of the defendants in the suit is Assistant Deputy Labor Secretary Shelby Hallmark. For more information, contact Gregory Russell Piche partner at Holland & Hart LLP, 555 Seventeenth St., Suite 3200, P.O. Box 8749, Denver, Colorado 80201 (Denver Co.), Phone: 303-295-8000 Telecopier: 303-295-8261. WACHOVIA BANK: Faces Penna. Racketeering Act Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Langer & Grogan, P.C. filed a RICO class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Wachovia Bank, N.A. had conspired with a payment processor, Payment Processing Center (PPC), in a scheme that facilitated fraudulent telemarketing directed primarily at the elderly involving tens of millions of dollars. The complaint describes the use of "demand drafts" by deceptive telemarketers based on banking information they obtained over the phone from victims. It alleges that PPC prepared the demand drafts and deposited them in a series of accounts opened at Wachovia. The complaint also alleges that Wachovia, aware that demand drafts were commonly used by deceptive telemarketers, continued to open and to maintain the accounts, even though: (1) the accounts had a return rate of approximately 60% of the total sums of the drafts deposited, and (2) even after a second Philadelphia bank had warned Wachovia that it was being flooded by unauthorized bank drafts originated by PPC and had solicited Wachovia's assistance "in trying to shut down the scam." The complaint states that, "Wachovia responded that 'overzealous' telemarketers were responsible for the problems with the PPC bank drafts, but nonetheless continued to accept such drafts from PPC." The complaint further alleges that other banks complained to Wachovia of PPC's activities. It contends that Wachovia had a special agreement with PPC which granted Wachovia expanded refund and charge back rights. The complaint claims that Wachovia knew that the banking services it provided were an essential element in PPC's scheme. The suit is "Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:07-cv- 01455-JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge John R. Padova. Representing plaintiffs is Judah I. Labovitz of Langer & Grogan P.C., 1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130, Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-320-5660. WILLIAM LYON: Investors' Suit Settlement Appealed to High Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The settlement in the consolidated stockholder class action, "In re: William Lyon Homes, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 05-CC-00092," has been appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On March 17, 2006, the company's principal stockholder commenced a tender offer to purchase all outstanding shares of the company's common stock not already owned by the principal holder. Initially, the price offered in the tender was $93 per share, but it has since been increased to $109 per share. Initially, two purported class actions were filed, purportedly on behalf of the public stockholders of the company, challenging the tender offer and challenging related actions of the company and the directors of the company. "Stephen L. Brown v. William Lyon Homes, et al., Civil Action No. 2015-N" was filed on March 20, 2006, and "Michael Crady, et al. v. General William Lyon, et al., Civil Action No. 2017-N" was filed on March 21, 2006 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. On March 21, 2006, plaintiff in the "Brown" action filed a first amended complaint. The Delaware Complaints name the company and the directors of the company as defendants. These complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs in connection with the tender offer and other related corporate activities. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the tender offer and, among other things, to obtain attorneys' fees and expenses related to the litigation. On March 23, 2006, the company announced that its board had appointed a special committee of independent directors who are not members of the company's management or employed by the company to consider the tender offer. The members of the Special Committee are Harold H. Greene, Lawrence M. Higby, and Dr. Arthur Laffer. The company also announced that the Special Committee had retained Morgan Stanley & Co. as its financial advisor and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP as its legal counsel. On March 24, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated the Delaware Complaints into a single case entitled, "In re: William Lyon Homes Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2015-N." On April 10, 2006, the parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action executed a Memorandum of Understanding, detailing a proposed settlement subject to the Delaware Chancery Court's approval. Pursuant to the MOU, General Lyon increased his offer of $93 per share to $100 per share, extended the closing date of the offer to April 21, 2006, and, on April 11, 2006, filed an amended Schedule Tender Offer. Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware Action have determined that the settlement is "fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of plaintiffs and the putative Class." The Special Committee also determined that the price of $100 per share was fair to the shareholders, and recommended that the company's shareholders accept the revised tender offer and tender their shares. Thereafter, General Lyon also decided to further extend the closing date of the tender offer from April 21, 2006 to April 28, 2006. On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement, and the Delaware Chancery Court approved the settlement on Aug. 9, 2006. On April 23, 2006, Delaware Chancery Court conditionally certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action. The parties to the Consolidated Delaware Action agreed to a Stipulation of Settlement, and on Aug. 9, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court certified a class in the Consolidated Delaware Action, approved the settlement, and dismissed the Consolidated Delaware Action with prejudice as to all defendants and the class. On Feb. 16, the matter was appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware, according to the company's March 14 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. William Lyon Homes on the Net: http://www.lyonhomes.com/. * April 18 Hearing Set in "Freed & Weiss v. Lakin" Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- 3rd Circuit Associate Judge Richard Tognarelli is to hear on April 18 a suit that arose out a 1999 agreement between Freed & Weiss LLC and the Lakin Law Firm to cooperate in Madison County class actions, St. Clair Record reports. In January, the Lakin firm filed for an injunction against Freed & Weiss in the court of Madison County to compel Freed & Weiss to give the Lakin firm backup tapes of files from their cases. The Lakin firm claimed Freed & Weiss broke their agreement by filing class actions without consulting the Lakin firm. Freed & Weiss moved on Feb. 23 to transfer the case to Cook County, where it filed a suit accusing the Lakin firm of wrongly withholding its share of proceeds from class action settlements. Attorney Paul Weiss wrote that the cases his firm filed without consulting the Lakin firm were not filed in Madison County. For the Lakin firm, William Lucco of Edwardsville responded Feb. 28 that many clients have terminated Freed & Weiss. The Lakin firm on March 27 notified Madison County judges that many of its clients terminated the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss as co- counsel, but Freed & Weiss failed to notify the court of the terminations He moved on March 6 to compel a deposition of Weiss's partner, Eric Freed. On March 30, another attorney representing the Lakin firm, Charles Chapman, opposed transfer to Cook County disputing the other party's claim that Madison County is an inconvenient forum. He wrote that among 215 cases involving both firms, 61 percent were in Madison County, and that about half their plaintiffs were Madison County residents. After several substitutions, the case was assigned to Associate Judge Tognarelli, who has set a hearing on April 18. New Securities Fraud Cases CHECKFREE CORP: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga. -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Scott+Scott, LLP, which filed a purported class action against Checkfree Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, has expanded the coverage of the class action to include purchasers of Checkfree publicly traded securities (Nasdaq:CKFR) from April 4, 2006 to Aug. 1, 2006 inclusive. Earlier, the law firm filed the suit on behalf of Checkfree Corp. publicly traded securities purchasers during the period April 26, 2006 and Aug. 1, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007). 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 Aug. 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 Aug. 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. NEW CENTURY: KGS Files First Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on behalf of shareholders who purchased New Century Financial Corp. Series A Preferred shares, sold in a public offering on June 15, 2005, and/or Series B Preferred shares, offered on Aug. 16, 2006. The complaint charges New Century and its entire Board of Directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15. The action charges defendants with strict liability for the false statements contained in each Registration Statement and Proxy/Prospectus. On Feb. 7, 2007, New Century announced that it will have to restate its previously reported financial results to correct errors related to its application of generally accepted accounting principles, necessary for reporting allowances for loan repurchase losses. On this news, New Century's Preferred shares declined precipitously. Later, on March 2, 2007, New Century also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California had notified the company that it is conducting a criminal inquiry in connection with trading in New Century's stock, and its accounting. The following trading day, New Century's Preferred Shares again declined. On April 2, 2007, New Century announced that it would file for Bankruptcy protection. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 4, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner of Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext., 106 (toll free), E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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 * * *