/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070507.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 7, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 89 Headlines BAHRAIN: Top Lawyers' Lawsuit Against Gov't Officials Adjourned BATTAT INC: Recalls Toy Cell Phones with Pin that Could Detach BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill. BONUS TECH: Faces Fair Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. CANADA: Suit Planned to Compel Energy Bill Tax Rebate Payments COAST SPAS: Recalls Spas that Can Overheat, Posing Fire Hazard EXELON GENERATION: Sued in Illinois Over Procurement Auction GALLIKER DAIRY: Possible Under-processing Prompts Milk Recall GENERAL MOTORS: Timetable in Canadian Suit Over Manifold Gaskets GOOGLE INC: YouTube Sued in N.Y. for Copyright Infringement GRACO: Recalls Tower Toys with Plastic Covering that can Detach HALLIBURTON INC: Faces N.Y. ERISA Suit by Dresser-Rand Workers HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Israeli Charity Mulls Suit Against Germany INCO LTD: "Pearson" Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled May 29 J C PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification in Tex. Insurance Case LIFECELL CORP: Still Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Transplants LIFECELL CORP: "Kennedy-McInnis," "Graves" Transferred to MDL MCKESSON HBOC: Court Okays $72.5M Settlement by Arthur Andersen MEDICAL INFORMATION: No Class Status in Profit Sharing Plan Suit MENU FOODS: Rob Pierce Files Penna. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: June Hearing Set for Wash. Consumer Lawsuit PRAXAIR INC: Faces 8 Suits by Welders Seeking Medical Monitoring PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H. PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Marshall" PRIVATE CARE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fair Labor Code Violations QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Violations RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Lawsuit to End September SAMSON RESOURCES: Parties Reach Settlement in "Scott" Litigation SHELHIGH INC: FDA Wants All Shelhigh Medical Devices Recalled SMALL WORLD: Recalls Townhouse Toys with Pieces that can Detach STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Obligatory Tipping VISTAPRINT LTD: Cal. Appeals Court Affirms Settlement Approval WESTERN POWER: Denmark Town Locals to Sue Over Blackouts ZIMBABWE: Newspaper Workers Sue Employer Over Unpaid Wages * Bridegeport Class Action Management Conference Set May 18 ********* BAHRAIN: Top Lawyers' Lawsuit Against Gov't Officials Adjourned --------------------------------------------------------------- The High Civil Administrative Court has adjourned a class action filed against two government officials until June 25 to give officials' lawyers time to reply, Gulf Daily News reports. The Bahrain Bar Assoc. (BBA), represented by Jameela Ali Salman, and 70 lawyers, represented by Ali Jabal, have filed two lawsuits. One is against Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister Shaikh Khalid bin Ali Al Khalifa and Supreme Council for Women secretary-general Lulwa Al Awadhi. The other is against Shaikh Khalid and U.N. General Assembly president Shaikha Haya bint Rashid Al Khalifa. A government legal affairs lawyer represents Shaikh Khalid, while two other lawyers are representing Shaikha Haya and Ms Al Awadhi. The plaintiffs allege that both Ms Al Awadhi and Shaikha Haya, also working privately as lawyers, have continued to practice law in violation of legislation that prevents them from doing so while in government positions. The plaintiffs demand that both lawyers' names be removed from the ministry list of active lawyers. Mr. Al Jabal said Ms Al Awadhi's position at the Supreme Council for Women was in the rank of minister, making it illegal for her to work as a lawyer. Ms Salman alleges that the three have violated Advocacy Law N0 26,1980. "The lawsuits are not of a personal nature against the defendants, because the BBA has great respect for them, but are from the professional perspective," she said. BATTAT INC: Recalls Toy Cell Phones with Pin that Could Detach -------------------------------------------------------------- Battat Inc., of Plattsburgh, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 300,000 units of Parents Magazine Record-A-Voice Toy Cell Phones. Battat said the metal pin inside the hinge of the cell phone flip-top could fall out, posing a choking hazard to young children. The firm has received 54 reports of the metal pin falling out of the hinge. In two cases, consumers reported finding the pin inside a child's mouth, with one child receiving a cut in the mouth. The toy cell phone plays different songs, sound effects and user recorded messages. They were sold in polka dot, swirl, floral and stripe patterns, and the Parents logo is visible inside the flip-top and on the battery compartment cover. Only items bearing date codes 090106 through 101206 are involved in this recall. The date code can be located on the bottom of the product packaging and in the battery compartment. These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at Target stores nationwide from September 2006 to January 2007 for about $8. Consumers are advised to take these toy cell phones away from young children instantly and contact Battat to receive a replacement product or refund. Photo of the toy cell phones included in the recall can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07178.html For additional information, call Battat, Inc. at (800) 247-6144 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm at cellrecall@battatco.com BODISEN BIOTECH: Faces N.Y. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Bodisen Biotech, Inc. was named as a defendant in a consolidated securities fraud class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group. The eight actions are: -- "Stephanie Tabor vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13220 (filed November 2006)," -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13254 (filed November 2006)," -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13454 (filed November 2006)," -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 13567 (filed November 2006)," -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13739 (filed December 2006)," -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006)," -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 15179 (filed December 2006)," and -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-15399 (filed December 2006)." The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single proceeding and as of the date of this annual report, only plaintiffs in two of the actions have served summons and complaint on the company. The time for the company to respond formally to these lawsuits has not come. Thus, it has not responded to any of the complaints in these class actions. The complaints do not specify an amount of damages that plaintiff seek. The fist identified complaint is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs is: Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, PA Phone: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Judd Burstein, Esq. Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P. 1790 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 974-2400 Fax: 212-974-2944 E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com BOEING CO: Still Faces Employment Bias Lawsuits in Wash., Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Boeing Co. remains a defendant in two employment discrimination class actions. In the Williams class action, which was filed on June 8, 1998 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (alleging race discrimination), the company prevailed in a jury trial in December 2005, but plaintiffs appealed the pre-trial dismissal of compensation claims in November 2005. In the Calender class action, which was filed Jan. 25, 2005 in the U.S. Northern District of Illinois (a spin-off from Williams alleging race discrimination), plaintiffs dropped their promotions claim on June 6, 2006, and put their compensation claims on hold pending the outcome of the Williams appeal. The company reported no development in the case at its April 24 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. Chicago, Illinois-based The Boeing Co. -- http://www.boeing.com/ -- is an aerospace company that operates in six principal segments: Commercial Airplanes, Aircraft and Weapon Systems, Network Systems, Support Systems, Launch and Orbital Systems, and Boeing Capital Corp. BONUS TECH: Faces Fair Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Jesus DeJesus, a former employee of both Bonus Tech, Inc. and VJ Investments, Inc., filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against both companies for overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. DeJesus claims he had performed non-exempt work in defendants' aviation consultant business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The suit is brought on behalf of all similarly situated non- exempt employees who have worked in excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks on or after May 2004 and did not receive time and half of their regular rate of pay for all of their hours worked over 40 in one or more work weeks. Plaintiff and those similarly situated to him who have or will opt in this action, demands judgment, jointly and severally against defendants, for the payment of all overtime hours at one and on-half their regular rate of pay due them for the hours worked by them for which they have not been properly compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit, and for all proper relief including prejudgment interest. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e78 The suit is "DeJesus v. Bonus Tech, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07- cv-60622-WPD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing plaintiffs is: Keith Michael Stern, Esq. Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com CANADA: Suit Planned to Compel Energy Bill Tax Rebate Payments -------------------------------------------------------------- A New Brunswick lawyer says he plans to file a class action this summer in an attempt to force the province to make good on a promised tax rebate on energy bills, Oilweek Magazine reports. Lawyer Yassin Choukri, former deputy justice minister of the Lord government, is filing the class action, on behalf of some New Brunswickers who want their money back. The Progressive Government of Bernard Lord first introduced the program to rebate the eight percent provincial portion of the Harmonized Sales Tax on home-heating bills, which the new Liberal Government rejected, saying the province can't afford it. Mr. Choukri says that the rebate order remains in effect and people should keep their bills for a possible refund in the future until the current government cancels the program or a court rules it cannot go ahead. He already sent a notice to the Liberal government about the lawsuit and said he's just waiting until the end of June when new legislation comes into effect that will make it easier to proceed with class actions in New Brunswick. COAST SPAS: Recalls Spas that Can Overheat, Posing Fire Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Coast Spas Manufacturing Inc., of Langley, British Columbia, Canada, in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of 8,000 units of Coast Spas with Franklin Electric Motors. The company said that the recalled spas have a circulating pump and motor assembly, which can overheat and pose a fire hazard. Coast Spas has received 30 reports of spa fires. No injuries have been reported. Only the spas manufactured from January 2002 through October 2004 with either red or yellow pump and motor assemblies are included in this recall. The spa manufacturer's name and date code and the pump and motor assembly can be located in the spa compartment. Consumers can access this compartment by lifting out the compartment door and setting it aside. The spas involved in the recall were manufactured in Canada, and the Engineered Motor Products Division of Franklin Electric Co. Inc., of Bluffton, Ind., manufactured the motors and pump assemblies. Spa dealers nationwide sold this product from January 2002 through October 2004 for between $7,000 and $15,000. Consumers are advised to stop using the product instantly and should contact Coast Spas immediately to arrange for the installation of a free retrofit by a service technician. Product photo can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07177.html For more information, consumers should check the firm's Web site at http://www.spamotorretrofit.com,or call Coast Spas toll-free at (877) 534-5255 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. EXELON GENERATION: Sued in Illinois Over Procurement Auction ------------------------------------------------------------ Exelon Generation Co. LLC and Commonwealth Edison Co. as well as other suppliers in the Illinois procurement auction are facing a class action filed in Illinois state court. The suit claims that the suppliers manipulated the auction and that the resulting wholesale prices are unlawfully high. Exelon Corp. is a utility services holding company engaged, through its subsidiaries, in the generation, and energy delivery businesses, among others. Exelon Generation handles retail sales operations. Commonwealth Edison distributes and transmits services in northern Illinois. GALLIKER DAIRY: Possible Under-processing Prompts Milk Recall ------------------------------------------------------------- Galliker Dairy Co. of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, is recalling half-gallon packages of Galliker's Acidophilus Plus Reduced Milk because they possibly contain under-processed milk. Under-processed milk may be unsafe. It has not been shown to be feasible to perform routine bacteriological tests on the raw milk itself to determine the presence or absence of all pathogens and thereby ensure that it is free of infectious organisms. Only products with the code date of May 13, 2007 are involved. The product comes in a 64-ounce (One Half-Gallon), plastic package marked with the code date on the front of the package. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after a chemical test indicated that possible under-processing occurred. All of Galliker's processing documents indicate that the proper procedures were followed. Only this one product is involved. Production of this product will continue while this incident is investigated. Products having any other code date are not affected. Retailers are asked to pull-from-sale all unsold Galliker's Acidophilus Plus Reduced Fat Milk with the code date of May 13, 2007 and return them for full refund. Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-477- 6455. GENERAL MOTORS: Timetable in Canadian Suit Over Manifold Gaskets ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to a timetable set by the court in a suit over intake manifold gaskets installed in General Motors vehicles, the defendants have until May 31, 2007 to file a responding record. A Web site set up by lawyers from Stevenson LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP, discloses the timetable set by the court in this matter, as: Plaintiff to deliver certification motion record February 28, 2007 Defendants to file responding record May 31, 2007 Reply record, if any July 31, 2007 Case conference with Justice Cullity after July 31, 2007 Cross-examinations to be completed September 30, 2007 with undertakings and motions arising from cross-examinations October 31, 2007 Certification motion December 3-5, 2007 More than 50 owners of General Motors vehicles in Nova Scotia have joined a possible national class action filed against General Motors of Canada Ltd. and its U.S. parent General Motors Corp., in Ontario, according to The Chronicle Herald. The suit alleges that certain Buicks, Chevrolets, Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs made between 1995 and 2003 have a defective intake manifold gasket that degrades prematurely, causing coolant to leak into the engine, and damaging it, the report said. The gasket regulates the flow of air and fuel into the cylinders. The allegation is that the gasket degrades prematurely causing coolant to leak into the engine. A statement of claim was filed with the Nova Scotia Supreme Court last spring. The statement of claim filed with courts in several provinces alleges the defect was corrected when General Motors introduced a new gasket in 2004 but that General Motors was negligent because it failed to inform customers and did not issue a recall on affected vehicles. The claim dates back to 1995. The claim, therefore, is based on negligence, including the failure to warn the class of the problems and to rectify the problems. The damages are difficult to assess but a claim has been made for restitution of the defendants' savings, which are estimated to be about $1,200,000,000 in Canada alone, according to the Web site. Colin Stevenson of Toronto law firm Stevenson LLP and Harvin Pitc as well as Koskie Minsky LLP are representing the plaintiffs in Canada. They have set up the Web site http://www.gmcanadianclassaction.cafor customers to submit a claim. GOOGLE INC: YouTube Sued in N.Y. for Copyright Infringement ----------------------------------------------------------- The Football Association Premier League Limited, the premier league of English soccer, and independent music publisher Bourne Co. filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to stop the alleged unauthorized and uncompensated use of their creative and other copyrighted works and those of all other similarly situated copyright holders on the YouTube.com website. The lawsuit names as defendants: -- YouTube, Inc.; -- YouTube LLC; as well as -- YouTube's corporate parent, Google, Inc. According to the complaint, "Defendants are pursuing a deliberate strategy of engaging in, permitting, encouraging, and facilitating massive copyright infringement on the YouTube website" in order to build traffic to the site. The complaint alleges that the YouTube defendants have long been aware of this pattern of massive infringement yet purposefully refrain from employing readily available measures to curb it because the defendants understand that the popularity of YouTube.com (and its value as a platform for other uses) derive primarily from the ability of website visitors to access, view, and otherwise exploit copyrighted materials without having to pay the owners of those materials. The complaint further alleges that it was this very business model that persuaded defendant Google to pay $1.65 billion to purchase YouTube in November 2006, and that Google has endorsed and directed YouTube's infringing conduct since becoming its corporate parent. According to the complaint, "The $1.65 billion paid by Google to purchase YouTube in 2006, and the concomitant $4 billion increase in Google's market capitalization, vastly understates both the value of the intellectual property rights of the Class that YouTube has misappropriated and the harm to the Class caused by Defendants' unlawful conduct". The Premier League and Bourne plan to prosecute this case as a class action on behalf of themselves and thousands of others whose copyrighted works have appeared on YouTube.com without permission. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint constitutes direct infringement of the Protected Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class; (b) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint constitutes contributory infringement of the Protected Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class; (c) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint constitutes vicarious infringement of the Protected Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class; (d) whether defendants' conduct as alleged in the complaint constitutes "inducing" infringement by others of the Protected Works held by lead plaintiffs and the class; (e) whether defendants acted willfully with respect to the acts complained of; (f) whether defendants have deliberately avoided taking reasonable precautions to deter infringement on YouTube; (g) whether defendant have the right and ability to control the infringing activities taking place on YouTube; (h) whether defendants derive direct financial and related benefits from the infringing activities taking place on YouTube; (i) whether YouTube's procedures for copyright holders to request removal of their copyrighted works through "takedown notices" are futile because, among other things, YouTube does not take effective steps to prevent users who post infringing material from continuing to post material to the YouTube website and the methods provided by YouTube to search for infringing material are inadequate; (j) whether defendants place an undue burden on copyright holders constantly to monitor YouTube in order to identify and locate their copyrighted works posted on YouTube's website; (k) whether there exists technology to identify and remove copyrighted material; (l) if, as the class alleges, such technology exists, whether defendants selectively employ that technology solely for the benefit of copyright holders who agree to enter into a licensing agreement that is satisfactory to YouTube; (m) whether defendants have installed or can install any filtering technology to identify and remove copyrighted material owned by copyright holders who have not agreed to enter into licensing agreements that is satisfactory to YouTube; (n) whether defendants' conduct as alleged constitutes "storage at the direction of a user" of copyrighted material as that phrase is used in 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(1); (o) whether YouTube does more than simply store user directed content without modification and/or provides a number of features and facilities to propagate that content in modified form; (p) whether copyrighted materials displayed by YouTube "reside" on a system or network controlled by defendants as that term is used in U.S.C. Section 512(c)(1); (q) whether defendants have or had actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on their systems or networks is infringing; (r) whether defendants have or had actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on their systems or networks is infringing; (s) whether, upon notification of claimed infringement as set forth in 17 U.S.C. Section 512(c)(3), defendants respond expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material that is claimed to be infringing; (t) whether the defenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. Section 512 or elsewhere in the Copyright Act are available to defendants; (u) whether defendants provide means and facilities to enable the infringing activities at issue; (v) whether defendants promote, encourage, invite and/or induce the infringing activities at issue; (w) whether, when a user uploads a video to Youtube, Youtube converts the video into YouTube's own software format and makes it available for viewing on YouTube's website; (x) whether defendants offer users a facility to "embed" into another website videos available on Youtube, which allows videos hosted on YouTube to play on separate websites; (y) whether defendants enable users to upload videos onto YouTube and restrict access and viewership of, or render "private," those videos to individuals that the user designates as "friends"; (z) whether defendants permit users to share video files with other individuals; (aa) whether defendants have entered into partnerships with certain copyright holders whereby YouTube has agreed to pay these copyright holders royalties for the uses of their copyrighted material on YouTube; (bb) whether injunctive relief is appropriate; and (cc) whether lead plaintiffs and the class are entitled to damages for defendants' wrongful conduct as alleged in the complaint, including: -- statutory damages; -- monetary damages; -- disgorgement of profits; -- prejudgment interest; and -- attorneys' fess and court costs. The lawsuit seeks a court-ordered injunction to prohibit the defendants from continuing to violate various copyright protection laws. It also asks for unspecified damages for YouTube's past copyright violations. The YouTube Class Action on the net: http://www.youtubeclassaction.com/ The Premier League is the top division of English soccer that is broadcast in 204 countries worldwide and viewed by audiences estimated at 2.59 billion people. Bourne is one of the leading independent publishers of music in the United States. Among its notable classics are "Let's Fall in Love" and "Smile". A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e8d The suit is "The Football Association Premier League Limited, et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Representing plaintiffs are: Louis M. Solomon, Esq. Proskauer Rose LLP 1585 Broadway New York, NY 10036-8299 Phone: (212) 969-3000 - and - Max W. Berger, Esq. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 GRACO: Recalls Tower Toys with Plastic Covering that can Detach --------------------------------------------------------------- Graco Children's Products Inc. of Exton, Pa., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 40,000 units of Soft Blocks Tower Toys that are in Graco Baby Einstein Discover and Play activity centers. The plastic covering on the soft block towers can detach, posing a choking hazard to infants. The soft block tower is a stack of three different shaped stuffed fabric blocks in red, yellow and blue. Pictures of apples, fire engines, ducks, bananas, birds and blueberries on the blocks are covered in plastic film. The soft blocks are one of nine toys that snap onto the tray of the activity center. Only model number 4635BEE with serial numbers 012705 through 063005, which indicates the manufacturing dates of Jan. 27, 2005 through June 30, 2005, are included in this recall. Model and serial numbers are located underneath the activity center's tray. Graco has received 137 reports of infants mouthing and chewing pieces of the plastic film covering, some of whom required medical attention. Serious incident reports include 32 infants who gagged and 49 who choked on the plastic covering. The toys were manufactured in China and were being sold at Army & Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Babies "R" Us, Toys "R" Us, Meijer, Shopko, Target, and various specialty retailers nationwide, and on http://www.Wal-Mart.comand http://www.Target.comfrom February 2005 through about December 2005 for $80. Photo of the product can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07176.html Consumers should immediately remove the Soft Blocks toy from the activity center and contact Graco for a free replacement Tower toy without the plastic film. Consumers can continue to use the activity center after the soft block tower has been removed. For additional information, contact Graco at (800) 345-4109 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or log on to http://www.gracobaby.com HALLIBURTON INC: Faces N.Y. ERISA Suit by Dresser-Rand Workers -------------------------------------------------------------- Halliburton, Inc. is facing a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York accusing it of cheating employees of benefits in its sale of co-defendant Dresser Industries. Plaintiffs claim that on or about Jan. 1, 1987, Dresser-Rand Co. was formed as a New York general partnership by Dresser Industries and Ingersoll-Rand Co. Lead plaintiffs Kathy Joy Kirkendall, Wesley Snyder, Barbara Caya and Bonnie Seth bring this action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who were employed by Dresser-Rand on March 1, 2000 and were participants in the Dresser Plan, and the estates and designated beneficiaries of such persons. The lawsuit contends that the Dresser Plan, sponsored by Dresser, provided for pension benefits for employees of Dresser-Rand. Such benefits were accrued during employment with Dresser prior to Jan. 1, 1987 and with Dresser-Rand thereafter. It states that on or about Sept. 29, 1998 Halliburton became the successor by merger to Dresser and thereby became sponsor of the Dresser Plan. On information and belief, the Dresser Plan was merged into the Halliburton Plan on or about Dec. 31, 2000, with the result that the Halliburton Plan became the successor to the Dresser Plan. As of February 2000, Plaintiffs and the Class (and/or the persons through whom the estate and beneficiary Class members claim) were employees of Dresser-Rand and participants in the Plan. The Plan provides for retirement benefits applicable to Plaintiffs and the Class that are based on age, service and rate of pay at the time of termination of employment with Dresser-Rand. Effective Feb. 28, 2000, Halliburton sold its interest in Dresser-Rand to Ingersoll, leaving Ingersoll as the sole partner of Dresser-Rand. Following the sale, the parties did not wind up the affairs of Dresser-Rand. Rather, Dresser-Rand continued to operate the same business, under the same name, at the same locations, with the same employees performing the same jobs. Plaintiffs and the Class purport that they continue to be employed by Dresser-Rand on and after March 1, 2000, performing the same jobs at the same locations as before the sale. Commencing in or about July, 2002, Halliburton allegedly has taken the position that sale of its interest in Dresser-Rand to Ingersoll had the effect of terminating the existence of Dresser-Rand, and thereby terminating the employment of all Dresser-Rand employees, including Plaintiffs and the Class (and/or those through whom the estate and beneficiary members claim), as of March 1, 2000. On information and belief, since about July 2002, Halliburton has allegedly caused the administrators of the Plan to calculate benefits for members of the Class using March 1, 2000 as the date of termination. In fact, the suit states, under New York law, the withdrawal of a partner leaving a sole partner does not terminate the partnership, unless an intent to terminate is effectuated by winding up the partnership's affairs. Because Dresser-Rand's affairs have not been wound up, it continued in existence, and its employees continued in its employ, after March 1, 2000 and to this day, according to the complaint. Using the date of March 1, 2000 in place of the later actual date(s) of termination has the effect of decreasing the benefits payable to members of the Class, the suit states. Plaintiffs request that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class: (i) declaring that the sale of Halliburton's interest in Dresser-Rand did not have the effect of terminating the existence of Dresser-Rand or the employment of its employees; Dresser-Rand did not cease to exist as of March 1, 2000 or at any other time, and that the employment of Plaintiffs and members of the Class (and the persons through whom estate and beneficiary Class members claim) continued until their individual termination, or continues to the present, for purposes of benefit determinations under the Plan; (ii) requiring Defendants to redetermine benefits due to Plaintiffs and the Class based upon the correct dates of termination, and to pay benefits in accordance with such redetermination, together with interest; (iii) awarding Plaintiffs and the Class compensatory damages in an appropriate amount; (iv) granting Plaintiffs costs and attorneys' fees; and (v) granting such further relief as may be just. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e84 The suit is "Kirkendall et al. v. Halliburton, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00289-WMS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York under Judge William M. Skretny. Representing plaintiffs is: Jules L. Smith, Esq. Blitman & King The Powers Building 16 West Main Street, Suite 207 Rochester, NY 14614 Phone: 585 232-5600 Fax: 585-232-7738 E-mail: jlsmith@bklawyers.com HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Israeli Charity Mulls Suit Against Germany ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Fisher Fund, an Israeli charity that helps Holocaust survivors, plans to launch a class action against Germany on behalf of thousands of children of Holocaust survivors who need psychological treatment, David Gordon Smith of Spiegel Online reports. Currently, the Fund is in unofficial talks with German government officials about finding money to fund much-needed psychological care for tens of thousands of survivors' children in Israel. Traumatized by having been raised in dysfunctional homes and now suffering from depression, anxiety and other psychological maladies, the Fund says they urgently need help, however there is no money available to pay for it. Commenting on the issue, Baruch Mazor, general director of the Fisher Fund, told Spiegel Online, "We think there should be a solution to this problem and we think that part of the solution -- maybe the main part -- should come from Germany. The country, he says, is responsible for the suffering of the second generation, pointing out, "The connection is clear-cut." According to Mr. Mazor, the Fund took on the issue after being approached by a large number of survivors concerned about the next generation. He emphasizes though that, as only a small minority of survivors' children develop psychological problems, the sums involved would not be large. The maximum amount required would be some $10 to 20 million per year and would only be used for treatment and for an accompanying cultural project where interviews with children of survivors would be filmed. Mr. Mazor told Spiegel Online that they took on the issue after being approached by a large number of survivors concerned about the next generation. Spiegel Online reports that if the talks fail, the Fund plans to launch a class action against Germany -- with thousands of potential plaintiffs. However, Mr. Mazor revealed that the Fund has yet to choose a legal partner for the suit, nor the country where it will be filed. He also did not want to say when the suit might be brought, but made it clear that "it won't be years." INCO LTD: "Pearson" Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled May 29 ------------------------------------------------------------ A May 29, 2007 approval hearing in Toronto is scheduled for a settlement of a CAN750 million class action against INCO, Ltd., Mark Tayti of The Welland Tribune reports. The hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. at 361 University Ave. Under the settlement agreement, Ontario has agreed to waive all of its costs in the Superior and Divisional Courts, an amount totaling more than $90,0000. Ontario has also agreed to pay the plaintiff $50,400 -- an amount that will be used by the plaintiff to retain expert witnesses in the pending case. In late March 2001, the company's refinery in Port Colborne, Ontario, Canada was slapped with a purported class action in an Ontario court. The purported class action originally filed against the company and several other parties under Ontario class action proceedings legislation claimed about $514,019,674.41 (CAD600 million) in compensatory damages and $128,511,127.58 (CAD150 million) in punitive damages covering certain residents who lived in the Port Colborne area since 1995 and allegedly suffered a decline in their property values as a result of, and health and other injuries from exposure to, metals and related emissions from the refinery. In June 2002, hearings were held in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to consider whether this action, or any portion of it, should be certified to proceed as a class action. In July 2002 the court rejected certifying any part of the action as a class action. The nominal plaintiff appealed this decision and the appeal, which revised the original pleadings and focused only on the plaintiff's claim for damages for property value diminution, resulting in a significant reduction in the number of citizens that the plaintiff is purporting to represent, was heard in June 2003. In February 2004, the Ontario Divisional Court rejected the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff subsequently sought permission to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal concerning whether this action should be certified as a class action under applicable Ontario law was heard in May 2005. In November 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the Ontario Divisional Court and certified the action as a class action, but the certification was limited to claims for declines in property values. The company filed a motion to the Court of Appeals on Jan. 17, 2006 to correct certain factual errors in the Court's written decision and to settle the precise terms of the formal order to be issued. It also filed a motion in February 2006 for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court of Canada (Class Action Reporter, March 24, 2006). In June, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear any challenge to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that certified the class action (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007). Among the 8,000 plaintiffs is Wilfred Pearson, who launched the suit claiming very high levels of nickel and other metals in the soil at his property. The lawsuit is at the pretrial stage and none of the allegations against Inco have been proven in court. A case trial that is expected to take two months is set for September 2008. Eric Gillespie, legal counsel for the plaintiff, said a judgment could come within six months after the trial ends. "It's reasonable to suggest we will know the court's decision by early 2009," Mr. Gillespie said. Other plaintiff's included the District School Board of Niagara, the Niagara Catholic District School Board, the City of Port Colborne and the region of Niagara. Of the six original defendants, settlements have previously been made with four -- with one settlement with Ontario pending later this month, according to the report. Mr. Gillespie, plaintiffs' legal counsel, can be reached at: Eric Gillespie, Esq. Markle May Phibbs 438 University Ave., Suite 2100 Toronto ON, M5G 2K8 Phone: 416-593-4385 ext. 225 Fax: 416-593-4478 J C PENNEY: Appeals Class Certification in Tex. Insurance Case -------------------------------------------------------------- J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. is appealing to the Supreme Court of Texas the certification of a class in a putative insurance-related class action pending against the company and several other defendants. The suit is "Gayle G. Pitts, et al. v. J. C. Penney Direct Marketing Services, Inc. (DMS), AEGON Direct Marketing Services, Inc., and J. C. Penney Life Insurance Co. n/k/a Stonebridge Insurance Co., No. 01-03395-F," which was filed in the 214th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas. The class action (Texas DMS) concerns the sale of J. C. Penney Life Insurance accidental death and dismemberment insurance over the telephone. The named plaintiffs allege that they did not give permission to defendants to charge their credit cards for such insurance premiums. They allege that the scripted questions asked during the telephone sales presentation are inadequate to obtain permission to charge the customer's credit card, primarily because the customer is not told that the insurance company already has his or her credit card number. The Texas DMS lawsuit originally also included as defendants J. C. Penney Co., Inc., and J. C. Penney International Insurance Group, Inc. The plaintiffs have since dismissed these parties. The Texas DMS lawsuit originally also included named plaintiffs who did not deny giving permission to charge their credit cards for premiums, but who alleged that they had submitted claims that were wrongfully denied. In September 2002, the trial court certified the Texas DMS lawsuit as a national class action. On July 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the 13th District of Texas reversed the certification order and remanded the case to the trial court. Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental motion for class certification, this time seeking a Texas class only. On Jan. 31, 2005, the trial court granted the motion, certifying a Texas class. Following appeal of the trial court order by the defendants, on May 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals for the 13th District of Texas upheld the trial court's certification of a class of Texas consumers who purchased the accidental death and dismemberment insurance products between 1996 and the certification date. The defendants have appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court of Texas, according to J. C. Penney Co., Inc.'s April 4, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007. J. C. Penney Co., Inc. on the Net: http://www.jcpenney.net/. LIFECELL CORP: Still Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Transplants --------------------------------------------------------- LifeCell Corp. remains a defendant in a suit filed by Anita Watling on Jan. 9, 2007 against Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd. The case purports to only involve LifeCell products. Initially, the company along with Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. and many other defendants were named in several lawsuits, which purport to serve as class actions for persons receiving transplants who are not physically injured, but instead seek medical monitoring and/or damages for emotional distress. All of these cases were sent to New Jersey as part of a Multi- District Litigation. The company has been successful in obtaining a voluntarily dismissal of every such class action, with the exception of one case, "Watling et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd." The company reported no development in the case at its form April 25 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. The suit is Case No. 2:07-cv-00116-WJM-RJH filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge William J. Martini with referral to Judge Ronald J. Hedges. Representing the plaintiffs is Brian C. Allen of Anderson & Horne, PLLC, 517 W. Ormsby Avenue, Louisville, KY 40203, Phone: 502-587-0599. Representing the defendants is Alice B. Herrington of Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP, 101 S. Fifth Street, 2500 National City Tower, Louisville, KY 40202-3175, Phone: 502-581-8111. LIFECELL CORP: "Kennedy-McInnis," "Graves" Transferred to MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- Two class actions that were filed in Federal Court in Rochester, New York against Biomedical Tissue Services and LifeCell Corp. -- "Kennedy-McInnis" and "Graves" -- have been transferred to New Jersey as part of a Multi-District Litigation. The two suits seek compensatory damages from Biomedical Tissue Services and all processing defendants that received and used BTS-originated tissue, including LifeCell Corp. They are presently the subjects of motions to dismiss. The "Kennedy-McInnis" Suit In September 2005, the company recalled products containing human tissue because the facility, which recovered the tissue, Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd. of New Jersey, did not follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for donor screening to determine if risk factors for communicable diseases existed. The company promptly notified FDA and all relevant hospitals and medical professionals (Class Action Reporter, Amy 18, 2006). FDA subsequently determined that patients who received tissue implants prepared from Biomedical Tissue donors might be at a heightened risk of communicable disease transmission, and recommended those patients receive appropriate testing. The company has worked closely with FDA to execute a product recall and set up a LifeCell-sponsored testing program. The company has not received any donor tissue from BTS after September 2005. Filed on March 7, 2006, the suit seeks compensatory damages from Biomedical Tissue and all defendants, including the company, which received and used Biomedical Tissue-originated tissue. Plaintiffs are the next-of-kin of the donors who did not authorize Biomedical Tissue to remove the tissue at issue. Presently, plaintiffs are objecting to the transfer to MDL litigation in New Jersey. The suit is "Kennedy-McInnis et al. v. Biomedical Tissue Services, Ltd., et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-06140-DGL-MWP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York under Judge David G. Larimer with referral to Judge Marian W. Payson. Representing the plaintiffs is Van Henri White of The Law Office of Van White, 18 Grove Place, Rochester, NY 14605, Phone: 585- 271-6780, Fax: 585-271-6130, E-mail: van.white@thelegalbrief.com. MCKESSON HBOC: Court Okays $72.5M Settlement by Arthur Andersen --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a $72.5 million settlement of the class action "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99- CV-20743 RMV (PVT)." The court held the final approval hearing on April 13, 2007. The court found the settlement of the claims against Arthur Andersen LLP (AALLP) in the Litigation for the sum of $72.5 million in cash, plus accrued interest, as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the settlement class; that the AALLP Plan of Allocation is fair and equitable, which was previously approved in connection with the McKesson Settlement; and approved the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorney's fees, reimbursement of expenses, and interest thereon. See: http://www.mckessonhbocsettlement.com/. The class consists of all persons or entities who: -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of HBOC during the period from Jan. 20, 1997 through and including Jan. 12, 1999; -- purchased or otherwise acquired call options or sold put options of HBOC during the period from Jan. 20, 1997 through and including April 27, 1999; -- purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities or call options, or who sold put options, of McKesson Corporation or of McKesson HBOC, Inc. during the period from Oct. 18, 1998 through and including April 27, 1999; or -- held McKesson common stock on November 27, 1998 and still held those shares on Jan. 12, 1999, and were injured thereby. Deadline to file claims is on May 10, 2007. The suit was filed in April 1999 against McKesson, HBOC, McKesson HBOC, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., Arthur Andersen, LLP, and certain officers or directors of McKesson or HBOC. The litigation alleges that HBOC, and after the merger with McKesson, McKesson HBOC reported fraudulent revenues, income and assets, which caused members of the class to suffer losses. Lead Plaintiff is the New York State Common Retirement Fund. The AALLP Settlement is only a partial settlement of the Litigation, and Lead Plaintiff will continue to pursue claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. The proposed Settlement Amount is in addition to the $960 million settlement with defendants McKesson HBOC, Inc. and HBO & Co. previously approved by the Court. The suit is "In re McKesson HBOC, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-CV-20743 RMV (PVT)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Ronald M. Whyte with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Class counsel are: (1) McKesson HBOC Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o David Stickney and Timothy A. DeLange, 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300, San Diego, California, 92130; and (2) McKesson HBOC Inc Securities Litigation, c/o Leonard Barrack and M. Richard Komins, both of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Representing defendants are: (1) Lyn Robyn Agre of Topel & Goodman, 832 Sansome St. 4th Flr., San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 421-6140, Fax: 415-398-5030, E-mail: lra@topelgoodmanc.com; (2) Sima Saran Ahuja of Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson, One New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, Phone: (212) 820-8000; (3) William F. Alderman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405 Howard St., San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415/773-5944, Fax: 415/773-5700, E-mail: walderman@orrick.com. MEDICAL INFORMATION: No Class Status in Profit Sharing Plan Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied a motion seeking for the certification of a class in a lawsuit against Medical Information Technology, Inc. (Meditech), which was filed by a former employee over the company's profit sharing plan, according to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. On Feb. 10, 2005, Michael Hubert, a former Meditech employee, filed a complaint against the Medical Information Technology Profit Sharing Plan, A. Neil Pappalardo, its Trustee and company Director, and the other five company Directors, Lawrence A. Polimeno, Roland L. Driscoll, Edward B. Roberts, Morton E. Ruderman and L.P. Dan Valente. The complaint is purportedly brought on Plaintiff's own behalf and on behalf of a purported class consisting of "all participants in the [Plan] who have received any distribution since Jan. 1, 1998 and who did not receive the fair value of their benefits." The complaint alleges that: -- the Trustee and Directors are fiduciaries of the Plan in valuing Meditech's common stock for purposes of redemption and payment of a participant's benefits under the Plan; -- the Directors, in connection with an annual contribution of the company's common stock to the Plan, have undervalued the company's common stock and have not paid retiring or terminating participants in the Plan the fair value of their interests in the Plan; -- Meditech's founders and controlling shareholders, including some of the Directors, have been buyers of Meditech common stock and have benefited from the low price established by Mr. Pappalardo and approved without adequate care by the other Directors; -- Mr. Pappalardo is not independent and that neither he nor the other Directors have relied upon an independent appraiser; -- by failing to fairly value the benefits due each employee participating in the Plan upon his or her termination, that all of the defendants violated their fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan and that as a result Plaintiff and members of the purported class are due benefits from the Plan; and -- the Directors violated fiduciary duties to the participants of the Plan in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The complaint seeks certification as a class action, a judgment against the defendants, a permanent injunction ordering the Plan to consult an outside appraiser in valuing the plan's assets, removal of Mr. Pappalardo as the Plan Trustee, and damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. On March 20, 2006, the judge dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claims brought against the individual defendants. The remaining claim is an ERISA benefits claim against the plan, the plan's trustee, and the company. The judge did not rule on the plaintiff's request for the complaint to be a class action. During March 2007 the court denied the plaintiff's motion for the complaint to be certified as a class action. The suit is "Hubert v. Medical Information Technology Profit Sharing Plan, et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-10269-RWZ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Rya W. Zobel. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael A. Collora, Esq. Dwyer & Collora, LLP Federal Reserve Bldg., 600 Atlantic Ave., 12th Floor, Boston, MA 02210 Phone: 617-371-1002 Fax: 617-371-1037 E-mail: mcollora@dwyercollora.com Representing the defendants is: Kevin P. Martin, Esq. Goodwin Proctor, LLP Phone: 617-570-1000 Fax: 617-523-1231 E-mail: Kmartin@goodwinprocter.com MENU FOODS: Rob Pierce Files Penna. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food -------------------------------------------------------------- Rob Peirce, of the law firm Robert Peirce & Associates, has filed a class action on behalf of all Pennsylvania purchasers of pet food recalled by Menu Foods, Inc., The Sewickley Herald reports. According to Mr. Pierce, a family in Lawrence County whose cat got ill causing $5,000 in medical bills has retained his services. He seeks to recover in the class action the purchase price as well as any veterinarian bills. 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 To contact Mr. Peirce: Robert Peirce, Esq. Robert Peirce & Associates, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219-1918 Phone: 1-877-272-9171 Fax: 412-281-4229 NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: June Hearing Set for Wash. Consumer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 2007 trial is slated for a putative consumer fraud class action pending against NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., a subsidiary of Novastar Financial, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Filed in December 2005, the suit argued that the company failed to disclose prior to closing that a broker payment would be made on their loans, which was an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. The suit sought a return of fees paid on the affected loans, excess interest charged, and damage to plaintiffs' credit and finances, treble damages as provided in the Washington Consumer Protection Act and attorney fees. On Oct. 31, 2006, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a Washington state class. NovaStar Mortgage sought to appeal the grant of class certification; however, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request for interlocutory appeal so review of the class certification order must wait until after a final judgment is entered, if necessary. The case is set for trial in June 2007, according to the Novastar Mortgage Funding Trust, Series 2007-1's April 30, 2007 Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 27, 2007 to April 25, 2007. The suit is "Pierce, et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 3:05-cv-05835-RJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Robert J. Bryan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. The Law Office Of Matthew Bergman 705 2ND Avenue, Suite 1601 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-957-9510 E-mail: matt@bergmanlegal.com - and - Ari Y. Brown, Esq. Bergman & Frockt 705 Second Avenue, Ste. 1601 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-957-9510 E-mail: ari@bergmanlegal.com Representing the defendants are: Donald C. Brown, Jr. Esq. Weiner Brodsky Sidmann Kider 1300 19TH St., NW, 5th Fl. Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-628-2000 E-mail: brown@wbsk.com - and - Sal Mungia, Esq. Gordon Thomas Honeywell Malanca Peterson & Daheim P.O. BOX 1157 Tacoma, WA 98401-1157 Phone: 253-620-6500 Fax: 1-253-620-6565 E-mail: smungia@gth-law.com PRAXAIR INC: Faces 8 Suits by Welders Seeking Medical Monitoring ---------------------------------------------------------------- Praxair Inc. is a co-defendant with many other companies in 695 lawsuits (as of March 31, 2007) alleging personal injury caused by manganese contained in welding fumes. There were a total of 4,216 individual claimants in these cases. The cases were pending in several state and federal courts. The federal cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages. In the past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts. There also are eight proposed class actions seeking medical monitoring on behalf of welders. None of the class actions have been certified. No reserves have been recorded for these cases as management does not believe that a loss from them is probable or reasonably estimable. PRESSTEK INC: Continues to Face Securities Fraud Suit in N.H. ------------------------------------------------------------- Presstek, Inc. together with certain of its executive officers, continues to be named as defendants in a purported securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The company was served with the complaint on Oct. 26, 2006. The suit claims to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Presstek's common stock during the period from July 27, 2006 through Sept. 29, 2006. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company and the other defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The company reported no development in the case at its April 24, 2007 form 10-k filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006 The suit is "Sloman v. Presstek, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv- 00377-JD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire under Judge Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. Representing plaintiffs are: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq. Shapiro Haber & Urmy 53 State St., Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617 439-3939 Fax: 617-439-0134 E-mail: ted@shulaw.com or tshapiro@shulaw.com; and Mark L. Mallory, Esq. Mallory & Friedman PLLC 8 Green St., Concord, NH 03301 Phone: 228-2277 E-mail: mark@malloryandfriedman.com Representing defendants is Robert E. McDaniel of McDaniel Law Offices, 755 North Main St., Laconia, NH 03246, Phone: 603 527- 0520, Fax: 603 279-0540, E-mail: remcdanielesq@aol.com. PRICELINE.COM INC: Court Dismisses Certain Claims in "Marshall" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of Delaware for New Castle County has partially dismissed the class action, "Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc." On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated consumers. The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances nationwide, and service fees. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005. It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its motion to dismiss the complaint and the court granted that stay on May 11, 2005. On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. On Oct. 31, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part the company's motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims arising under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act. The court also dismissed all claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing that relate to company's charges for service fees. The court denied the company's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and implied duty of good faith and fair dealing claims as they relate to the company's charges to consumers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 1, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. PRIVATE CARE: Faces Fla. Suit Over Fair Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Private Care, Inc. has been named defendant in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida over violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Lead plaintiff Eileen Moyton bring this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated Private Care employees, to recover unpaid back wages, unpaid overtime compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The complaint alleges that from approximately May 1, 2004 to Dec. 29, 2006, Private Care employed Ms. Moyton, and others, in the aforesaid enterprise for workweeks longer than 40 hours and failed to compensate them for their employment in excess of 40 hours per week at a rate of at least on-half and/or one and one- half times the regular rate at which they were employed. The defendants also allegedly failed to pay them the applicable minimum hourly rate. As a result of the underpayments of wages, Private Care is allegedly indebted to Ms. Moyton and others for unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation and back pay. Ms. Moyton estimates that Private Care owes her in the minimum amount of $15,065, which the company has refused to pay. Plaintiff demands judgment agains Private Care for a minimum estimate of $15,065, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and trial by jury of all issues. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7c The suit is "Moyton v. Private Care Inc. et al, Case No. 9:07- cv-80381-KLR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp, with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac. Representing plaintiffs is: Joseph Bilotta, Esq. Vassallo & Bilotta 1630 S Congress Avenue, Suite 201 Palm Springs, FL 33461 Phone: 561-432-1994 Fax: 432-1117 E-mail: joeb@vassallobilotta.com QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Cellular Phone Sales --------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM, Inc., along with many other manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations, was named as a defendant in several purported class actions, and several individually filed actions pending in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Louisiana, seeking monetary damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones. The courts that have reviewed similar claims against other companies to date have held that there was insufficient scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases. QUALCOMM, Inc. -- http://www.qualcomm.com-- designs, manufactures, and markets digital wireless telecommunications products and services based on its code division multiple access technology and other technologies. QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Ala. Lawsuit Over Alleged RESPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Quicken Loans, Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama accusing it of taking unearned fees for services it did not perform on mortgage loans. Lead plaintiffs, Vincent L. Johnson and Angela L. Johnson, claim that on Aug. 12, 2006, entered into two mortgage transactions with Quicken. One was a first mortgage the other was a second mortgage. Quicken charged the Johnsons for appraisal services in the amount of $80.00 on both the first and second mortgage. However, there was only one property to be appraised and one appraisal service performed. The second $80.00 charge was a duplicative and unearned fee. Plaintiffs further claim they entered into agreements for two mortgage loans from Quicken on one piece of real property. The loans were obtained in a consumer credit transaction and were primarily for personal, family or household purposes and the mortgages were all secured by the Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' respective dwellings. The Plaintiffs' two mortgage loans were closed and settled simultaneously on July 18, 2006. Quicken charged plaintiffs for "TSI Appraisal Services" in the amount of $80.00 on line item 888 on the standard HUD-1 settlement statement on both mortgage loans. The service for which the two charges were made is a one-time service, paid for on the first mortgage and applicable to the second mortgage when that second mortgage is closed on the same day as a first mortgage. No additional appraisal service is needed, performed or provided when two mortgage loans are closed on the same day. Although the Johnson's HUD-1 for their second mortgage shows an $80.00 fee on line 888 as "TSI Appraisal Services" that charge is in actuality a duplicative charge for which no additional service was provided, the suit alleges. This action is properly brought as a Plaintiff Class Action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of all persons nationwide and within the territories of the U.S. who satisfy the following criteria: (a) that, on the same date, closed two mortgage loans on one piece of real property with Quicken Loans, Inc., which loans were secured by a first or second mortgage on residential real property used by them as their principal dwelling; and (b) were charged a "TSI Appraisal Services" fee on both mortgage loans; and (c) the class period shall extend back to a date one year prior to the filing of this suit. Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant, as follows: -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel to act as interim Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 to act on behalf of the putative Class before the determination of whether to certify the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is made; -- for an Order certifying that this action may be maintained as a Plaintiff class action, as defined above, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b) and 23(b)(3); -- for an Order appointing the Plaintiffs to act as representatives of the Class Members and the Class; -- for an Order appointing the undersigned counsel as Class Counsel; -- for an Order directing that reasonable notice of this Class action be given to all members of the Class at the Appropriate time after discovery and dispositive motions have been resolved; -- that the Court convene a jury trial; -- for violating RESPA, an Order finding that the Defendant is liable as a matter of law to each member of the Class for actual damages; -- for violating RESPA, an Order awarding treble damages to the Class Members; -- For a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, together with its officers, directors, employees, agents, partners or representatives, successors, affiliates and any and all persons acting in concert with them or by agreement with them from directly or indirectly engaging in the wrongful acts and practices described above, all for the benefit of the Class Members; -- for an order directing disgorgement or restitution against Defendant as to each Class Member and the imposition of an equitable constructive trust over such amounts for the benefit of the Class Members; -- a judgment of monetary damages against Defendant as to each Plaintiff for not only such prohibited or excess fees, but for all interest that has been contracted for or charged or paid by each of the Class Members, through the date of judgment or settlement and the value of such interest that is due and owing in the future; -- for a judgment of punitive damages against the Defendant in a sum that is fair and reasonable; -- for reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law and statute; -- for pre-and-post judgment interest as provided by law in amount according to proof at trial; -- for an award of costs and expenses incurred in this action; and -- for such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7e The suit is "Johnson et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-00311-CG-C," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama under Judge Callie V. S. Granade with referral to Judge William E. Cassady. Representing plaintiffs is: John W. Sharbrough, III, Esq. P. O. Box 996 Mobile, AL 36601 Phone: 251-432-1413 Fax: 251-432-5297 E-mail: john@sharbroughlawfirm.com RED HAT: Discovery in N.C. Securities Lawsuit to End September -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit pending against Red Hat, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007. In the summer of 2004, 14 class actions were filed against the company and several of its present and former officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's securities during various periods from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004. All 14 suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. In each of the actions, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock during some or all of the period from June 19, 2001 through July 13, 2004. All of the claims arise in connection with the company announcement on July 13, 2004 that it would restate certain of its financial statements. One or more of the plaintiffs assert that certain present and former officers and the company variously violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by issuing the financial statements that the company subsequently restated. One or more of the plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts' fees, an accounting of certain profits obtained by the individual defendants from trading in the company's common stock, disgorgement by the company's chief executive officer and former chief financial officer of certain compensation and profits from trading in the company's common stock pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, and other relief. As of Sept. 8, 2004, all of these class actions were consolidated into a single action referenced as "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-CV-473 BR. Lead counsel and lead plaintiff in the case have now been designated, and on May 6, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action complaint. On July 29, 2005, the company, on behalf of itself and the individual defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Also on that date PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, another defendant, filed a separate motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against several of the individual defendants, but denying the motion to dismiss the U.S. Securities Exchange Act claims against the company, its chief executive officer and its former chief financial officer. The court dismissed the claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in their entirety, and also granted PwC's motion to dismiss. A scheduling order has been entered in the matter, and discovery is scheduled to conclude by Sept. 21, 2007. On Nov. 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. Subsequent to the filing of that motion, several plaintiffs have withdrawn as potential class representatives, and the company has opposed the certification of the remaining proposed class representatives. The suit is "In re Red Hat, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-473," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under Judge W. Earl Britt. Representing the plaintiff is: William Webb The Edmisten & Webb Law Firm, P.O. Box 1509, Raleigh NC 27602 Phone: 919-831-8700 E-mail: woodywebb@wwedmisten.com Representing the company is: Pressly M. Millen Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, Esq. P.O. Box 831 Raleigh, NC 27602 Phone: 919-755-2135 E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com SAMSON RESOURCES: Parties Reach Settlement in "Scott" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the class action, "Robert W. Scott, Individually and as Managing Member of R.W. Scott Investments, LLC v. Samson Resources Co., Case No. C-01-385," have settled the case, which is pending in the District Court of Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The lawsuit seeks class action certification and alleges that the Samson Resources Co., an affiliate of Samson Investment Co., deducted from its payments to royalty and overriding royalty owners certain charges, which were improper under the Wyoming royalty payment statutes. A number of these royalty and overriding royalty payments burdened the interests of the Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-C and Geodyne Energy Income Limited Partnership II-D (II-C and II-D Partnerships). In February 2003, the company made a supplemental payment to the royalty and overriding royalty interest owners who were potential class members of amounts, which were then thought to have been improperly deducted, plus statutory interest thereon. The applicable portions of these payments, $2,548.31 and $26,768.96, respectively, were recouped from the II-C and II-D Partnerships in the first quarter of 2003. The lawsuit also alleges that company's check stubs did not fully comply with the Wyoming Royalty Payment Act. On May 13, 2005 the trial court certified this lawsuit as a class action and denied the company's motion for summary judgment. On June 25, 2005 the Wyoming Supreme Court denied the company's request for it to review these decisions. According to the Geodyne Energy Income Ltd. Partnership II A's April 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006, Samson and the plaintiffs have reached agreement to settle all of the plaintiffs' remaining claims in this lawsuit, and Samson expects a formal settlement agreement to be executed during April 2007. The settlement calls for an additional royalty payment of $1,000,000 and is subject to court approval. Plaintiffs' counsel, subject to court approval, is responsible for determining the allocation of the $1,000,000 among the various class members after deduction of litigation costs and attorneys' fees. Oklahoma-based Samson Investment Co. -- http://www.samson.com-- is an independent oil and gas entity with exploration, development and production activities in Canada, the U.S. (16 states), as well as in Australia and the UK. SHELHIGH INC: FDA Wants All Shelhigh Medical Devices Recalled ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a formal written request to Shelhigh, Inc. to recall all its medical devices remaining in the marketplace, including hospital inventories, because of sterility concerns. On April 17, 2007, U.S. Marshals, at FDA's request, seized all medical devices including components at Shelhigh's Union, N.J. facility after finding significant deficiencies in the company's manufacturing processes. During the seizure, Shelhigh was asked to perform a voluntary recall of its products, but the company declined. "Since these are critical devices implanted into seriously-ill patients, ensuring their sterility is absolutely essential to prevent infection," said Daniel Schultz, M.D., director, FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health. "FDA will continue to provide up-to-date information to patients and physicians about this ongoing public health matter." The company's deficiencies, described in a complaint filed with the U.S. District Court of New Jersey, may compromise the safety and effectiveness of the devices. Shelhigh's own records indicate a number of sterility test failures and that its testing and retesting procedures were not properly performed. Shelhigh devices are used in infants, children and adults. The products include pediatric heart valves, tube-like devices for blood flow (conduits), surgical patches, dural patches to aid in tissue recovery after neurosurgery, annuloplasty rings to help repair heart valves, and arterial grafts. FDA recommends that doctors and hospitals consider using alternative products. Physicians and patients concerned about Shelhigh devices and want to know more about the company's products can visit: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/041907- shelhigh.html. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program: Online: (http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm); Fax: (800-332-0178); or Regular Mail (use postage-paid FDA form 3500 available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htmand mail to MedWatch, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20852-9787 SMALL WORLD: Recalls Townhouse Toys with Pieces that can Detach --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Small World Toys, of Culver City, Calif., is voluntarily recalling about 8,800 IQ Preschool Take-Apart Townhouse toys. The firm said that small magnets used to connect the wooden pieces to the sides of the townhouse can fall out. Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or aspirated. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be fatal. CPSC and Small World Toys have received two reports of magnets coming off of the townhouse pieces. No injuries have been reported. These wooden toys, for children ages "18+ months," are shaped like houses measuring 8.5 inches high by about 4.5 inches wide. They have nine pieces that children can disassemble and reassemble. Each house has a green chimney and a blue and yellow striped pillar with a purple base at each corner. The sides of the house have four removable panels of different shapes with red knobs that children use to pull the panels off. "IQ PreschoolT" appears on the side of the house below the blue and green rectangular panel. Model number 2408808 appears on the packaging. These toys were manufactured in China and were sold at toy stores and various other retailers nationwide and through catalogs from December 2004 through February 2007 for about $21. Consumers are advised to take these toys away from children immediately and contact the firm to obtain a free replacement product. Product's photo: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07179.html For additional information, contact Small World Toys at (800) 421-4153 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, visit their Web site at http://www.smallworldtoys.comor e-mail the firm at townhouserecall@smallworldtoys.com STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Obligatory Tipping ------------------------------------------------------------ Starwood Hotels & Resorts has been named a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County challenging the hotel's "forced tipping," The CourtHouse News Service reports. Plaintiff's claims arise out of Starwood's policy and practice of charging and collecting from plaintiff and other customers of Starwood hotels a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" and mandatory "Housekeeping Gratuity" in addition to the quoted rate for a room. The complaint alleges that when prospective customers make reservations at a Starwood hotel they are quoted a per-night room rate, plus taxes. They are not informed that, in addition to the quoted per-night room rate, Starwood will assess certain other mandatory charges, specifically, a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" and a mandatory "Housekeeping Gratuity." Hotel guest and lead plaintiff, James Shulevitz, claims he booked a room for two nights at The Phoenician in Scottsdale for $325 a night plus tax. On checking out, he says, the hotel billed him $14 a night for a mandatory "bell gratuity" and $4 a night for a "housekeeping gratuity" - plus more tax. He says that's deceptive and illegal unjust enrichment and it's not a tip if it's obligatory. He alleges the practice is a breach of contract and unfair business practice if customers are forced to tip without informing them first. The suit is filed on behalf of all persons who: (a) stayed for one or more nights lodging at a hotel owned, operated or managed by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., pursuant to a reservation made prior to check-in; (b) were charged a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity" in addition to the quoted per-night room rate; and (c) paid a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity." Questions of law and fact common to the class include: (i) whether Starwood, pursuant to a common practice or policy, has wrongfully assessed upon and collected from the plaintiff class monies denominated as a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" or a mandatory "Housekeeping Gratuity" in addition to the quoted per-night hotel room rate; (ii) whether Starwood's practice of assessing and collecting a mandatory "Bell Gratuity" or "Housekeeping Gratuity" constitutes a breach of the lodging contract established by the customer's reservation; (iii) whether Starwood's acts and practices in assessing and collecting a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity" were unfair and/or deceptive within the meaning of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, chapter 19386 RCW (CPA) and/or the analogous and applicable consumer protection statutes of other states; (iv) whether Starwood's assessment and collection of a "Bell Gratuity" or a "Housekeeping Gratuity" caused members of the plaintiff class injury; and (v) whether members of the plaintiff class are entitled to damages and/or other relief against Starwood for breach of contract, violation of the CPA, or unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests relief as follows: -- that the court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action; -- that the court declare that Starwood's actions, detailed in the complaint, including without limitation its assessment and collection of mandatory "Bell Gratuities" or "Housekeeping Gratuities" in addition to the quoted per-night room rate, constitute a breach of Starwood's lodging contracts with its customers, that Starwood's actions are unfair or deceptive acts or practices declared to be unlawful by RCW 19.86.020 and/ or the analogous and applicable consumer protection statutes, and that Starwood's action have unjustly enriched Starwood and/or its affiliates, all to the injury of plaintiff and the class; -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded their actual damages; -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded treble, exemplary, or punitive damages pursuant to RCW 19.86.090 and/or the analogous and applicable consumer protection statutes of other states; -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded prejudgment interest on the damages awarded; -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit pursuant to RCW 19.86.090 and/or the analogous and applicable consumer protection statutes of other states, or other applicable law; -- that Starwood be enjoined, preliminary and permanently, from engaging in further assessing or collection of mandatory "Bell Gratuities" or Housekeeping Gratuities" in addition to the quoted per-night room rate; and -- that plaintiff and the members of the class be granted such other relief as may be deemed just and proper by the court. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e7b The suit is "James Shulevitz et al. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 07-2-13965-6SEA," filed in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for King County. Representing plaintiffs are: Jeff Thomas Mark A. Wilner Gordon Murray Tilden LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4000 Seattle, WA 98154-1007 Phone: (206) 467-6477 Fax: (206) 467-6292 VISTAPRINT LTD: Cal. Appeals Court Affirms Settlement Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals affirmed the Los Angeles Superior Court's final approval of the settlement in a consumer class action pending against a subsidiary of VistaPrint, Ltd. and its predecessor corporation, according to the company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The complaint alleges that the shipping and handling fees the company charges for free products are excessive and in violation of sections of the California Business and Professions Code. The Los Angeles County Superior Court granted preliminary approval of a proposed settlement on April 29, 2005 and, on June 17, 2005, gave final approval to the settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the company agreed to change the term "shipping and handling" to "shipping and processing" on its Web site, to provide all class members who purchase business cards from the company for a two year period in the future the opportunity to receive additional cards at reduced rates, and to pay reasonable attorneys fees to plaintiffs' counsel. In August 2005, an objector to the settlement filed an appeal of the court's final approval of the settlement. On Feb. 28, 2007, the California Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the company, affirming the Superior Court's final approval of the settlement. The period for the objector to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision passed without any appeal being filed, and the effective date of the settlement is April 9, 2007. VistaPrint, Ltd. -- http://www.vistaprint.com/-- is an online supplier of graphic design services and customized printed products to small businesses and consumers worldwide with over 7,000,000 customers served in more than 120 countries. WESTERN POWER: Denmark Town Locals to Sue Over Blackouts -------------------------------------------------------- Some residents of the town of Denmark in Australia are considering launching a class action against Western Power in a bid to force the utility to improve electricity supplies along the south coast, The West Australian reports. Approximately 60 aggravated residents gathered for a public meeting over major power outages last Easter. They unanimously supported the idea of filing a class action against Western Power. Western Power and the government are planning to apply a headworks charge to cover electrical upgrades at the edge of the grid as a method of making payments for the infrastructure equitable. The estimated $2 million improvements to power supplies to Denmark and Walpole is expected finished before next Easter. Gail Guthrie, Denmark Chamber of Commerce president, said it was unfair that power supplies in Margaret River were being improved at no cost to locals while Denmark and Walpole would have to contribute to upgrades and suffer during frequent blackouts. She also added that they experience either power surges or outages every weekend. The company admitted the Easter blackouts were due to equipment failure. They also assured the residents that they are currently working on the problem and that there will be enough electricity all through winter until next Easter. Based on the report, fifteen compensations claims had been received and six had been approved. ZIMBABWE: Newspaper Workers Sue Employer Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Workers at insolvent Zimbabwe Mirror Newspapers filed a lawsuit against the company to claim unpaid wages over the past two months, the Zimbabwean reports. The workers, who have not been paid for two straight months since March, claim that the board members of the newspaper companies and their subsidiaries, Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror, threaten those who ask about their pending salaries. The companies became broke, nearly ZWD$100B in debt, when the Central Intelligence Organization took over the company from entrepreneur Ibbo Mandaza. However, based on some reports, Central Bank is ready to provide cash to the newspaper group. According to Shamiso Sibotshiwe, spokesperson for the plaintiff, they were forced to take the matters to court after the company unlawfully failed to pay workers two months in a row despite assurances at the time of the temporary closure of the newspaper group that workers would continue to receive their salaries. * Bridegeport Class Action Management Conference Set May 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- Bridegeport Continuing Education will host a Class Action Litigation seminar on May 18, 2007 at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles, California. This seminar is designed for transactional and litigation attorneys, in both private practice and corporate counsel. This program will cover the latest developments in the law of federal class actions, California class actions and class actions in hotbed states. The class action is a unique animal in the legal world that requires exceptional and specific skills in researching, writing, case management, and client contact. This workshop was designed to give the practicing attorney and in-house counsel a comprehensive overview of each step in the process, with an emphasis on the procedural rules. The program will also cover Prop. 64 and its effect on the UCL and class actions. This program is designed for civil trial lawyers, in-house counsel who supervises trials and appeals, and counseling attorneys. The Program includes breakfast and handouts. This unique, fast- paced program will incorporate both plaintiff and defense perspectives. Topics include: * CAFA Update * Class Actions Case Update * Life after Certification * Defeating Certification * Settlement or Trial * An Update on the Injunction Remedy * Finding & Replacing Class Representatives * Competing Class Filings * Class-Wide Arbitration Agreements * Recovering Attorney's Fees PROGRAM AGENDA 8:30 - 9:00 Registration & Continental Breakfast 9:00 - 9:30 Case Law Update Thomas Miller of RKMC 9:30 - 10:15 Finding and Replacing Class Representatives Brian Strange of Strange and Carpenter Seth Piece of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp 10:30 - 11:15 Strategies for Seeking & Defeating Class Certification Michael Mallow of Loeb & Loeb Susan Abintata of the Quisenberry Law Firm 11:15 -12:00 Life After Certification Amanda Horn, Esq. of the Garden City Group others to be named Lunch (on your own) 1:15 - 2:15 Competing Class Filings: Who is In Charge Here? Ted Pintar of Lerach Coughlin 2:15 - 3:15 Settlement or Trial? Lisa Simonetti of Strook Strook and Lavan 3:30 -4:30 Getting Paid - The Reasoning Behind Attorneys Fees Marc Primo of the Initiative Legal Group Registration Fees Early $325 until April 13 Regular $350 after March 30 Late $395 after May 16 To register and for additional seminar information: http://reconferences.com/upcomingprograms1.html Bridegeport Continuing Education -- http://reconferences.com/index.html-- has been a provider of professional continuing education programs throughout the western U.S. since 1997. Their conferences and seminars focus on emerging legal issues of vital import to attorneys, real estate professionals, accountants, consultants and government enforcement agencies. Each conference is chaired by a distinguished faculty. The presentations are richly augmented with written materials, including the latest in pending or passed legislation affecting practitioners or clients active in the topic area. For more information, contact: Bridegeport Continuing Education Phone: (818) 783-7156 E-mail: info@bridgeportce.com Website: http://reconferences.com/index.html ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* 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, and Mary Grace Durana, 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 * * *