/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070514.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, May 14, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 94 Headlines AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Certifies Class in Annuities Lawsuit BRINKER INT'L: Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Reviewed BURGER KING: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit CALIFORNIA: NLG, MALDEF File Suit Over May Day Rally Dispersal CANADA: Suit Claims Oath to Queen Violates Charter Provision CARRIER CORP: Minn. Customers Join High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit CHARTER ONE: Ind. High Court Orders Dismissal of "Condra" Case CHOICE HOTELS: Named in Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo. COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Lawsuit in Penna. Granted Certification CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Frees Insurer from "Russell" Liability DENTSPLY INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Over Cavitron Ultrasonic Scalers DIGIMARC CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Okla. Natural Gas Suit DUN & BRADSTREET: Dismissal of Retirees' Suit in Conn. Upheld DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties Settle "Finley" Litigation in N.Y. EKONOMY QSR: Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ENERGY PARTNERS: Motion in Del. Suit Over Terminated Deal Denied ESTEE LAUDER: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in N.Y. FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Suits Over Tenant Reports FISERV TRUST: Appeals Class Certification in "Jenson" Litigation FLOR LLC: Recalls Carpet Tiles Possibly Embedded with Needles GURLEY'S FOODS: Recalls Cranberry Mix Due to Undeclared Sulfites INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 18 KAPLAN INC: June Hearing Set in $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement L G SOURCING: Recalls Table Lamps After Report of Minor Fire MBNA CANADA: Appeals Court Certifies Suit Over interest Rate MICHIGAN: Plan to Move Correctional Facility Inmates Rejected NEW YORK: Baseball Enthusiasts Sue City Over Metal Bat Ban NORTHWESTERN CORP: Livonia Lawyers Seek $9.9M in Investors Suit OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Andean Operations PERSONAL TOUCH: Lawsuit in Mo. Alleges Labor Code Violations REAL ESTATE FIRMS: Sued Over "Illegal" Conveyancing Practice STATESIDE POWERSPORTS: Recalls ATVs that Lack Safety Devices STUART FENCE: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act TOTAL TIRE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit TRAVELERS COS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits in La. TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Yet to Approve Securities Suit Deal US AUTO: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 28, 2007 WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies Class in Seattle Ticketing Lawsuit * Two U.S. Class Action Law Firms Open Offices in United Kingdom ********* AGRIPROCESSORS INC: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agriprocessors Inc. is facing a federal lawsuit filed March 27, 2007 wherein its former and current employees claim the company has not paid them for preparation time for the last two years, Josh Nelson of WCF Courier reports. The lawsuit now seeks a class-action status that could most likely include 1,500 Agriprocessors employees, Mr. Nelson's report stated. The suit alleges: -- Agriprocessors did not pay for the time spent in changing into safety gears or the time spent in cleaning and sanitizing packing equipments, which is vital to the plant's operations; -- employees were required to continue working, even after compensation stopped to finish daily production and clean work areas; and -- the company refused to compensate the workers at the Postville, Iowa plant despite its knowledge that time spent during the said activities were compensable under state and federal law. The lawsuit further says workers' preparation for work could take up to 35 minutes everyday and that the company adheres to a common policy where the workers are only paid for hours spent in production. Agriprocessors Vice President in Postville Sholom Rubashkin said the company is aware of the complaint but found no merit to the claims. Based on the report, similar lawsuits were filed against Tyson Foods in February by employees at plants in Denison and Storm Lake. The case is "Salazar v. Agriprocessors Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv- 01006-LRR," filed in Iowa Northern District Court under Judge Linda R. Reade. The employees listed in the suit are: Eduardo Salazar, Walter Ortiz, Gregorio Lux, Gustavo Cujluj, Santos Sis Lopez, Rubelino Hernandez, William Sir, Jeronimo Toj Granados, Marvin Yovany Lopez, Imelda Lozano, Cesar Toj Micolax, Claudio Ruiz, Carlos Ixen Choc, Cesar Morroquin, Berulo Morillo Jimenez, Bernardo Hernandez Lemus, Antiono Chavez Figueroa, Hugo Jovani Lopez, Samuel Lopez Garcia, Luis Lopez, Jose Dany Lopez, Sergio Gergara, Jose Damasio Lopez Representing the plaintiffs is: MacDonald Smith, Esq. Smith & McElwain 505 Fifth Street Suite 530 Sioux City, IA 51101 Phone: 712 255 8094 Fax: 712 255 3825 E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com Representing the defendants are: Thomas M. Cunningham, Esq. Nyemaster, Goode, Voigts, West, Hansell and O'Brien, PC 700 Walnut Street Suite 1600 Des Moines, IA 50309-3899 Phone: 515 283 3100 Fax: 515 283 8045 E-mail: tmcunningham@nyemaster.com - and - Jeffery A. Meyer, Esq. Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, LLP 135 Crossways Park Drive Suite 201 Woodbury, NY 11797 Phone: 516 681 1100 Fax: 516 681 1101 E-mail: jmeyer@kdsbvlaw.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Minn. Court Certifies Class in Annuities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has granted national class-action status to the lawsuit, "Mooney v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:06- cv-00545-ADM-FLN." The lawsuit -- filed on Feb. 9 2006 -- accuses Allianz Life of using deceptive sales and marketing tactics to sell annuities to senior citizens. Represented by Karl Cambronne of The Chestnut & Cambronne Law Firm, plaintiffs in the suit are: -- Linda L. Mooney, and -- Lieselotte W. Thorpe. A report by The Minneapolis Star Tribune explains that an annuity is a financial contract in which the purchaser agrees to pay a lump sum to an insurer in exchange for regular payments that last the duration of the contract or until the customer dies. The lawsuits focus on an increasingly popular type of product known as a deferred equity-indexed annuity, in which the buyer invests money tax-free in an account tied to a stock market index, such as the Standard & Poor's 500. After a set period of time, the account balance, including the principal and a minimum return guaranteed by the insurer, is converted into an annuity that pays the customer. Experts have contended that the elderly should not buy deferred annuities since they tie up money -- sometimes long past life expectancy -- and also are difficult for heirs and beneficiaries to access. The suit contends that Allianz promised customers immediate cash bonuses from buying the annuities. In reality, according to the suit those who decided to access their money had to pay enormous "surrender penalties" to collect their bonuses. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that the decision by Judge Ann Montgomery could affect 400,000 people across the country that bought Allianz "cash bonus" annuities since February 2000. Commenting on the recent ruling, a spokesman for Allianz stated that that it plans to appeal. In downplaying the significance of the ruling Allianz spokesman Jim McManus told reporters, "We want to emphasize that this ruling is procedural only and does not address the merits -- or lack thereof -- of the plaintiff's claim." The suit is "Mooney v. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, Case No. 0:06-cv-00545-ADM-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Representing the plaintiff is: Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Chestnut & Cambronne 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-339-7300 Fax: 612-336-2940 E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com Representing the defendants is: David A. Applebaum Leonard Street and Deinard, PA 150 S. 5th St., Ste. 2300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-335-1943 Fax: 612-335-1657 E-mail: david.applebaum@leonard.com BRINKER INT'L: Certification of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Reviewed ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals is reviewing the class certification of a lawsuit against restaurant operator Brinker International, Inc. that was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Certain current and former hourly restaurant employees filed the suit, alleging violations of California labor laws with respect to meal and rest breaks. The suit seeks penalties and attorney's fees. Judge Patricia A.Y. Cowett certified it as a class action in July 2006. The class consists of 63,000 current and former employees of the company who are alleging violations of California law mandating workers' meal and rest breaks (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2006). The California Court of Appeals stayed all trial court activity in December 2006 and is currently reviewing the certification of the class. The company reported no material development in the matter in its May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2007. Brinker International, Inc. -- http://www.brinker.com-- is principally engaged in the ownership, operation, development, and franchising of restaurant concepts. BURGER KING: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Burger King, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Lead plaintiff Ruben Pacheco, former Burger King Assistant Manager Trainee, brings this action on behalf of all hourly-paid employees and/or former employees of Burger King who performed services and/or worked in excess of the maximum hours provided by the FLSA but no provisions was made by the employer to properly pay them at the rate of time-and-one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek as provided in the FLSA. This is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages, under the laws of the U.S. Filed on May 3, the suit alleges Burger King knew and/or showed reckless disregard of the provisions of the FLSA concerning the payment of overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and remain owing plaintiff and those similarly- situated these overtime wages since the commencement of plaintiff's and those similarly-situated employee's employment with defendant, and plaintiff and those similarly situated are entitled to recover double damages. Plaintiffs demand judgment against defendant for: -- compensatory and liquidated damages as set forth in the complaint, including but not limited to payment of all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each workweek at a rate of one and one-half time their hourly rate as well as payment of double damages; -- their costs of suit; -- prejudgment interest; -- reasonable attorney fees; and -- any and all other relief which the court deems just and equitable. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee6 The suit is "Pacheco v. Burger King, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv- 21172-ASG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Alan S. Gold. Representing plaintiffs are: Sheila Marie Cesarano, Esq. Shutts & Bowen 201 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1500 Miami Center Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-379-9103 Fax: 347-7386 E-mail: scesarano@shutts-law.com - and - Jose J. Larraz, Jr., Esq. Jose J. Larraz PA 7270 NW 12th Street, Suite 570 Miami, FL 33126 Phone: 305-477-9900 Fax: 305-477-9976 E-mail: larrazefilings@email.com CALIFORNIA: NLG, MALDEF File Suit Over May Day Rally Dispersal -------------------------------------------------------------- The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), along with attorneys from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the community groups who organized a May Day immigrants rights rally at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles' heavily Latino immigrant community. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) disrupted the event when riot-gear clad officers swept through the park without warning and ordered everyone leave the park. The suit seeks changes in how the LAPD responds to demonstrations, as well as damages for all of the peaceful participants in the rally who were beaten and shot by the police and chased from the park on May 1, 2007. According to the lawsuit, the police broke up the demonstration without justification. A dispersal order was given from a helicopter hovering several blocks away from the park. The announcement was largely drowned out by the noise of the helicopter and was given only in English, despite the fact that the MacArthur Park community is largely Spanish-speaking immigrants. The declaration of an unlawful assembly was not made before the police began shooting people with less lethal munitions and beating anyone in their path with batons and there was no warning and an opportunity to leave before people were shot. Many individuals were shot in the back as they attempted to flee the police. "This was nothing short of a police riot," said Carol Sobel, President of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild and one of the attorneys on the class action. "The police shot munitions at anyone in the park. It was sheer luck that more people were not injured and that no child was seriously harmed by the lawless action of the LAPD on May 1." The original police estimates, provided in the days immediately following May 1, were that 10 people were injured and 50 to 100 "agitators" prompted the police response. Since then, the number of injured reported by the police has risen to 24 and the number of "agitators" dropped to approximately 30. Lawyers for the class action estimate that they have received reports from dozens of individuals injured that day as they were chased from the park, including reports of broken bones, concussions, and other contusions. Several individuals suffered injuries from head strikes with batons, a serious categorically lethal use of force according to the LAPD's own training. To date, videos of the rally and police action have failed to substantiate the police claims of provocation for the massive and brutal police response. Since the early 1990s, the City has paid out over $9,000,000 in damages for police abuse at demonstrations, including approximately $5,000,000 for the police actions at the Democratic National Convention in 2000. Organizational Plaintiffs -- MIWON - Multi-Ethnic Immigrant Workers Organizing Network; -- CHIRLA - Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights Los Angeles; -- KIWA - Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance; -- IDEPSCA - Institute of Popular Education of Southern California; -- GWC - Garment Workers Center; and -- PWC - Philipino Workers Center. Individual plaintiffs include: -- Kevin Breslin, who was present at the May Day rally as a legal observer on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild. He was struck at least 5 times on his legs by at least two officers and then hit in the chest. -- Luis Galvez tried to help people escape from the park and, as he did so, was hit on the head, neck and back multiple times, and knocked unconscious by a baton strike from behind. -- Jorge Lopez was with friends eating snacks when he heard yelling and shouting and saw people running. He was shot with a rubber bullet in the chest. When he tried to retrieve the ball that hit him, he was shot two more times in the leg. -- Leopoldo Ortiz is a 76-year-old veteran who was walking in the park when the police attack began. One officer hit him multiple times in the stomach, knocking the wind out of him. He fell to the ground and was kicked two times in the backside. For more details, contact: Carol Sobel Cyntha Anderson-Barker Jorge Gonzalez National Lawyers Guild - Los Angeles Chapter 8124 West Third Street, Suite 101 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Phone: 310 393-3055, 213 381-3246, and 213 670-0063 Web site: http://www.nlg.org CANADA: Suit Claims Oath to Queen Violates Charter Provision ------------------------------------------------------------ Charles Roach, immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago, now a Canadian resident, filed a lawsuit asserting that the mandatory oath to Great Britain's monarch violates the charter's freedom of conscience provision. He expects his case would stand until September, when he could move for a class-action status, according to a report by Joseph Brean of CanWest News Service. An Ottawa lawyer found the case frivolous and asked Justice Edward Belobaba to dismiss it. Contrary to the lawyer's opinion, the judge found the case "fascinating" and refused to dismiss it, according to the report. CARRIER CORP: Minn. Customers Join High-Efficiency Furnaces Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Homeowners in Minnesota filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Carrier Corp., the manufacturer of Carrier high efficiency condensing furnaces. The homeowners allege that, beginning in 1989, Carrier stopped manufacturing its high-efficiency condensing furnaces with high- grade stainless steel and instead used plastic-coated mild steel that corrodes and fails well before the industry standard and expected life of 20 years. Carrier has never disclosed this problem to its customers, the suit further alleges. The case was filed on behalf of an estimated 150,000 residents of Minnesota who own or owned these furnaces manufactured by Carrier and sold under the Carrier, Bryant, Day & Night, and Payne brand names. "My furnace failed in the middle of January when it was 20 degrees outside," said James Nogosek of Winona, Minnesota, one of the plaintiffs. The technician who examined Mr. Nogosek's furnace told him the furnace failed due to the "poor quality parts" Carrier used. "Minnesota homeowners often run their furnaces a good part of the year," stated Vincent J. Esades of Heins, Mills & Olson, P.L.C. of Minneapolis, one of the firms representing plaintiffs. "It is of great concern that Carrier would sell a furnace that could potentially malfunction in the dead of winter well before the end of their expected and warranted life." "Carrier's high efficiency furnaces are defectively designed and will fail prematurely regardless of installation or maintenance," said Kim D. Stephens, plaintiffs' counsel with the Seattle law firm of Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC. "Carrier's warranty does not cover labor charges for replacement of the part they knew would fail," explained Jonathan D. Selbin, plaintiffs' counsel with the national law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "Homeowners who bought their furnace on the assurance by Carrier that it would last a lifetime have been forced to spend hundreds or even over a thousand dollars on the repair of their faulty furnace, or have had to spend thousands on a brand new furnace." This lawsuit marks the fifth class action filed against Carrier Corporation for failing to disclose defects in its furnaces. In 2005, homeowners in the State of Washington filed suit, followed by homeowners in 2006 in Wisconsin, Michigan and Ontario, Canada. On May 1, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Ronald B. Leighton ordered that the case on behalf of Washington homeowners may proceed as a class action. Factual Allegations -- High-efficiency condensing (or 90%) furnaces maximize efficiency by employing a second heat exchanger to extract more heat from the hot gases through condensation. These furnaces are typically more expensive than non-condensing (or 80%) furnaces. -- The class action complaints in each case allege that, in 1989, Carrier stopped using high-grade stainless steel secondary heat exchangers in favor of cheaper polypropylene laminated ("PPL") mild steel. The complaints allege that Carrier knew from before it sold the first furnace that the PPL degrades and disintegrates due to the high temperatures in the furnace, exposing the underlying mild steel to corrosive acidic condensate. In some cases, the corrosion proceeds to the point of actually perforating the outside wall of the heat exchanger. -- The industry standard was (and still is) to use high grade stainless steel for condensing heat exchangers to prevent corrosion. The complaints charge that Carrier has never disclosed to consumers that the new heat exchangers are not as robust as ones manufactured from stainless steel or that their furnaces would not last as long as consumers typically expect. In the U.S., Carrier warrants the heat exchanger for the lifetime of the original purchaser and for 20 years for subsequent purchasers. Despite this warranty, the complaint charges that Carrier's condensing furnaces fail prematurely and well before their warranted and expected life, resulting in consumers having to incur substantial charges on the labor to repair their furnace or on the purchase of a new furnace. The suit is "Nogosek et al. v. Carrier Corp., Case No. 0:07-cv- 02262-ADM-AJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge Ann D. Montgomery, with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan. Representing plaintiffs are: Vincent J. Esades, Esq. Troy J. Hutchinson, Esq. David R. Woodward, Esq. Heins Mills & Olson, PLC 80 S 8th St, Ste 3550 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-338-4605 Fax: 612-338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com or thutchinson@heinsmills.com or dwoodward@heinsmills.com CHARTER ONE: Ind. High Court Orders Dismissal of "Condra" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- The Indiana Supreme Court issued an opinion that remanded a purported class action against Charter One Mortgage Corp. to the Marion Superior Court with instruction to grant Charter One's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. In 2002, Kyle Condra borrowed $89,600 to purchase real estate. His loan from Charter One was secured by a mortgage on the property. In connection with the loan, Charter One charged Mr. Condra a $175 fee for the completion of a deed and mortgage. Charter One's agents or employees who were not licensed to practice law prepared these documents. In 2003, Mr. Condra filed a class action against Charter One in Marion Superior Court. His complaint for money had and received and unjust enrichment alleged that Charter One's document preparation fee was prohibited under Indiana law because charging a fee for documents prepared by non-lawyers constituted the unauthorized practice of law. The company then filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted Charter One's request to stay all proceedings in the matter, including class certification, pending its ruling on Charter One's motion to dismiss. Charter One asserted that it was an operating subsidiary of a national bank, Charter One 1 Bank, N.A. It therefore was governed by federal regulations promulgated under the National Bank Act by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Among those regulations is a provision that allows national banks and their operating subsidiaries to charge incidental fees for legal services provided by non-lawyers in the preparation of real estate loan documents. Charter One contended that the OCC regulations expressly preempt any conflicting state law. The trial court denied the motion, but certified its order for interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the unauthorized practice of law is not preempted by the federal regulations at issue. In a May 2 order, the Supreme Court held that the preparation of mortgage documents by non-attorneys does not necessarily constitute the practice of law and that a lender's charging a fee for the preparation does not convert it into the unauthorized practice of law. It thus ordered the remanding and eventual dismissal of the case. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ee1 The suit is "Condra v. Charter One, Case No. 49D03-0311-PL- 2102," on appeal from the Marion Superior Court under Judge Patrick L. McCarty. Representing the plaintiff is: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Cohen & Malad, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 or (317) 636-2495 (Voice Mail) Fax: (317) 636-2593 Web site: http://www.cohenandmalad.com Representing the company is: David P. Sanders, Esq. Jenner & Block 330 N. Wabash Avenue Chicago, IL 60611-7603 Phone: (312) 923-2963 Fax: (312) 840-7363 E-mail: dsanders@jenner.com Web site: http://www.jenner.com/ CHOICE HOTELS: Named in Two Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Colo. -------------------------------------------------------------- Choice Hotels International, Inc. is facing two purported securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in April 2007. The suits were brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's stock between April 25, 2006, and July 26, 2006. These substantially-similar lawsuits assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the company, its current vice chairman and chief executive officer, and its former executive vice president and chief financial officer. These claims are related to the Company's July 25, 2006 announcement of its results of operations for the second quarter of 2006. Potential plaintiffs have until June 11, 2007, to move the court for appointment as lead plaintiff, according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Anthony Genovese, et al. v. Choice Hotels International, Inc., et al.," which was filed on April 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Plaintiff firms in this or similar case are: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 - and - Shuman & Berens LLP 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO, 80218-1417 Phone: 303.861.3003 Fax: 303.830.6920 E-mail: info@dyershuman.com COMCAST CORP: Antitrust Lawsuit in Penna. Granted Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John R. Padova of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted certification to an antitrust class action against cable television giant Comcast Corp., Shannon P. Duffy of The Legal Intelligencer reports. The company was named a defendant in a purported class action, filed on behalf of the company's subscriber base in the "Philadelphia and Chicago Clusters," alleging that certain subscriber exchange transactions with other cable providers resulted in unlawful "horizontal market restraints" in those areas. The suit alleges, Comcast succeeded, through a series of swap agreements with AT&T and Adelphia, in establishing monopolies in the cable television and cable Internet service markets, with 94 percent and 92 percent, respectively, of the two markets. Since then, the suit says, Comcast has used its monopoly power to raise cable prices in the Philadelphia and Chicago clusters to "artificially high, supracompetitive levels." Plaintiffs are seeking damages pursuant to antitrust statutes, including treble damages. Comcast's lawyers moved for dismissal of the suit, arguing that the plaintiffs' theories were fatally flawed and that the case failed to allege any antitrust injury. In September, Judge Padova refused to dismiss the suit, finding that the plaintiffs have stated a valid claim that Comcast established a "horizontal restraint." Ms. Duffy reported that the defense team argued in court that the plaintiffs cannot show that any of the swap deals was unlawful because each of the transactions was approved by government authorities at the federal, state and local levels. But the judge disagreed, saying "the mere fact that regulatory and law enforcement agencies may have reviewed and approved the challenged transactions is not ground for dismissal." Instead, Judge Padova said, courts have held that activities that come under the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency may nevertheless be subject to scrutiny under the antitrust laws, and that "there is no general presumption that Congress intends the antitrust laws to be displaced whenever it gives an agency regulatory authority over an industry." Regulatory approval, he said, will act as a bar to an antitrust claim "only where there is a plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions." In his recent 37-page opinion, Judge Padova ruled that the case should be certified as a class action because the plaintiffs met all of the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He certified a class of Comcast subscribers in the 16-county Philadelphia metropolitan area, including six Pennsylvania counties, two Delaware counties and eight New Jersey counties. He also appointed two firms -- Heins Mills & Olson in Minneapolis and Susman Godfrey in Dallas -- to serve as co-lead counsel for the class. Three other firms -- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer in New York, Keller Rohrback in Seattle and Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll in New York -- were appointed to serve on the plaintiffs' executive committee. In a footnote, the judge said the issue of whether to certify a separate class for Comcast consumers in the Chicago area will be decided later in a separate opinion. According to Ms. Duffy, the ruling could reverberate throughout the cable industry because the suit alleges that many of the big cable companies cooperated in carving up much of the nation into separate markets where each would be exclusive providers. Comcast is likely to take an immediate appeal, she said. The suit is " Behrend v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 2:03-cv-06604- JP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge John R. Padova. Representing plaintiffs are: Barry C. Barnett, Esq. Daniel H. Charest, Esq. Jason P. Fulton, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP 901 Main St., Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202-3775 Phone: 214-754-1903 or 214-754-1907 or 214-754-1935 Fax: 214-754-1900 or 214-754-1933 E-mail: bbarnett@susmangodfrey.com or dcharest@susmangodfrey.com or jfulton@susmangodfrey.com - and - Allan I. Gilbert, Esq. Samuel D. Heins, Esq. Heins Mills & Olsen PLC 3550 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street, Ste. 3550 Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: agilbert@heinsmills.com Representing defendants are: Jason A. Leckerman, Esq. Darryl J. May, Esq. Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-864-8266 or 215-864-8103 Fax: 215-864-9167 E-mail: leckermanj@ballardspahr.com or may@ballardspahr.com - and - Michael S. Shuster, Esq. Sheron Korpus, Esq. James T. Cain, Esq. Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP New York, New York 10019 (New York Co.) Phone: 212-506-1700 Fax: 212-506-1800 Web Site: http://www.kasowitz.com CONSECO INC: Ind. Court Frees Insurer from "Russell" Liability -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana absolved RLI Insurance Co. from any further responsibility toward Conseco, Inc. with regard to the settlement of the class action, "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM." According to a report by The Indianapolis Business Journal, when the case was settled two years ago, Conseco was confident that its fiduciary insurance carrier would cover "a substantial portion" of the $10 million payout. However, according to an SEC filing obtained by The Indianapolis Business Journal, Judge Larry J. McKinney absolved RLI Insurance Co. of any further responsibility toward Conseco. Last month, Conseco sought to appeal the judge's decision, but their motion was denied. With the ruling, RLI is now asking Judge McKinney to force Conseco to reimburse RLI for its legaal costs. Conseco said it would try to appeal Judge McKinney's first judgment after he decides on RLI's second set of claims. A trial is scheduled in August. Conseco wanted RLI to cover part of its settlement payment to Roderick W. Russell and other former Conseco employees. In 2005, the court granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated class action, which was filed against Conseco, Inc., Conseco Services LLC and certain of the Company's current and former officers. The suit filed in October 2002 by Mr. Russell was brought on behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and on behalf of the ConsecoSave Plan. It sought an unspecified amount of damages (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 23, 2005). The purported class action consists of all individuals whose 401(k) accounts held common stock of the Company's Predecessor (also named Conseco, Inc.) at any time since April 28, 1999. The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by continuing to permit employees to invest in the Company's Predecessor's common stock without full disclosure of the Company's true financial condition. The suit is "Roderick Russell, et al. v. Conseco, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-CV-1639 LJM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under Judge Larry J. McKinney. Representing the plaintiffs are: T. David Copley, Esq. Keller Rohrback, L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dcopley@kellerrohrback.com - and - Carol A. Nemeth, Esq. Price Waicukauski Riley & Debrota 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 633-8787 Fax: (317) 633-8797 E-mail: cnemeth@price-law.com Representing the company are: Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers, LLP 1625 Eye Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone: (202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414 - and - Steven Kenneth Huffer, Esq. Huffer & Weathers 151 North Delaware Street, Suite 1850 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 822-8010 Fax: (317) 822-8088 E-mail: steve_huffer@hufferandweathers.com DENTSPLY INT'L: Faces Pa. Suit Over Cavitron Ultrasonic Scalers --------------------------------------------------------------- Dentsply International, Inc. is facing a purported class action alleging that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The suit is "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 E-mail: aklein@duanemorris.com Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 Fax: 215-772-7620 E-mail: rplacey@mmwr.com DIGIMARC CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ore. Securities Suit Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities suit against Digimarc Corp. are appealing the dismissal of the suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004. These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all purposes. The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to the company's restatement of its financial statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial statements and issued misleading public statements about the company's operations and prospects. On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the company's favor. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On Aug. 24, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 22, 2006. Plaintiffs' appellate brief was due April 27, 2007. The company expects to file its appellate brief in late May of 2007. The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary M. Berne, Esq. Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: gberne@ssbls.com - and - Gary I. Grenley, Esq. Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-0570 Fax: (503) 241-0914 E-mail: ggrenley@grebb.com ptrinchero@grebb.com DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Dismiss Okla. Natural Gas Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a purported class action filed against Dorchester Minerals, L.P., and several other natural gas companies in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma, have dismissed their case. Dorchester Minerals is a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership that commenced operations on Jan. 31, 2003 upon the combination of Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., which was a publicly traded Texas limited partnership, and Republic Royalty Company and Spinnaker Royalty Company, L.P., both of which were privately held Texas partnerships. The suit initially named as defendants: -- Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., -- Anadarko Petroleum Corp., -- Conoco, Inc., -- XTO Energy Inc., -- ExxonMobil Corp., -- Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated, -- Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc., -- Dorchester Minerals Operating L.P. In January 2002, some individuals and an association called Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights, referred to as RRNGR, filed the suit. The individuals and RRNGR consist primarily of Texas County, Oklahoma residents who, in residences located on leases use natural gas from gas wells located on the same leases, at their own risk, free of cost. The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic gas use is not limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited to a principal dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease agreements with defendants in the 1930s to the 1950s. Plaintiffs' claims against defendants include failure to prudently operate wells, violation of rights to free domestic gas, violation of irrigation gas contracts, underpayment of royalties, a request for accounting, and fraud. Plaintiffs also seek certification of class action against defendants. On Oct. 1, 2004, the plaintiffs severed claims against the operating partnership regarding royalty underpayments. On April 9, 2007, plaintiffs, for immaterial costs, dismissed with prejudice all claims against the operating partnership regarding domestic gas use, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Dorchester Minerals, L.P. is the owner of producing and non- producing natural gas and crude oil royalty, net profits, and leasehold interests in 573 counties and 25 states. DUN & BRADSTREET: Dismissal of Retirees' Suit in Conn. Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the purported class action, "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," which was originally filed in the U.S. District Court of the District of Connecticut. In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed against the company on behalf of 46 specified former employees in relation to the company's retirement plans. During the fourth quarter of 2004, most of the counts in the complaint were dismissed. The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth these putative classes: -- current Dun & Bradstreet employees who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account and were previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; -- current employees of Receivable Management Services Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were Previously participants in its predecessor plan, The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet or Dun & Bradstreet's Receivable Management Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred vested retirement benefit under either The Dun & Bradstreet Corp. Retirement Account or The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and -- former employees of Dun & Bradstreet's RMS operations whose employment with Dun & Bradstreet was terminated after the sale of the RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and who, during their employment with Dun & Bradstreet, were Eligible Employees for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career Transition Plan. The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over 5,000 individuals. There are four counts in the Amended Complaint. Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by not paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career Transition Plan. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that the firm's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the intentional purpose of interfering with their employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights, which they might otherwise have attained. Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions -- in this case, the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave Dun & Bradstreet before age 55 and elect to retire early - - cannot be enforced against them. Count 4 claims that the 6.60% interest rate (the rate is actually 6.75%) used to actuarially reduce early retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA. In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs sought: -- payment of severance benefits; -- equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of employment with Dun & Bradstreet or restoration of employee benefits, including stock options; -- invalidation of the actuarial reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits, including invalidation of the plan rate of 6.60% -- the actual rate is 6.75% -- used to actuarially reduce former employees' early retirement benefits; -- attorneys' fees and such other relief as the court may deem just. The company denies all allegations of wrongdoing. In September 2003, the firm filed a motion to dismiss Counts 1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of facts, and in February 2004, the court heard oral argument on the motion. With respect to Count 4, the court requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery and submit further briefing. In November 2004, after completion of expert discovery on Count 4, the company moved for summary judgment on Count 4 on the ground that an interest rate of 6.75% is reasonable as a matter of law. On Nov. 30, 2004, the court issued a ruling granting the motion to dismiss Counts 1 and 3. Shortly after that ruling, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to dismiss with prejudice Count 2, which challenged the sale of the RMS business as an intentional interference with employee benefit rights, but which the motion to dismiss did not address. Plaintiffs' counsel also stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of Count 1, the severance pay claim, agreeing to forego any appeal of the Court's dismissal of that claim. Plaintiffs' counsel did file a motion to join party plaintiffs and to amend the Amended Complaint to add a new count challenging the adequacy of the retirement plan's mortality tables. The court granted the motion and the company filed its objections. On June 6, 2005, the court granted Dun & Bradstreet's motion for summary judgment as to Count 4 -- the interest rate issue -- and also denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Amended Complaint to add a new claim challenging the mortality tables. On July 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal; they are appealing the ruling granting the motion to dismiss, the ruling granting summary judgment, and the denial of leave to amend their Amended Complaint. Oral argument before the Second Circuit took place on Feb. 15, 2006, and on March 29, 2007 the Second Circuit issued an opinion affirming the judgment of the District Court dismissing the case, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Unless there is a further appeal by the plaintiffs in this matter, this will be the last time the company reports on this case. The suit is "McCarthy, et al. v. Dun & Bradstreet, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-00431-SRU," filed in the U.S District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Stefan R. Underhill. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas G. Moukawsher, Esq. Ian O. Smith, Esq. Moukawsher & Walsh Capitol Place, 21 Oak St., Suite 209 Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 860-278-7000 Fax: 860-548-1740 E-mail: ismith@mwlawgroup.com tmoukawsher@mwlawgroup.com Representing the defendants are: Sandra K. Lalli, Esq. Patrick W. Shea, Esq. Carla R. Walworth, Esq. Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 1055 Washington Blvd., 9Th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Phone: 203-961-7400 and 203-961-7465 Fax: 203-359-3031 E-mail: sandralalli@paulhastings.com patrickshea@paulhastings.com carlawalworth@paulhastings.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties Settle "Finley" Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ Parties in the purported class action "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp., et al.," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, have settled the matter. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was filed in originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Sept. 7, 2005, on behalf of a current employee raising complaints against the company's retirement plans. The complaint seeks certification of these putative classes: -- current or former Dun & Bradstreet employees (other than employees who on December 31, 2001, were at least age 50 with 10 years of vesting service); -- had attained an age which, when added to his or her years of vesting service, was equal to or greater than 70; or -- had attained age 65, who participated in The Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan before January 1, 2002 and who have participated in The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account at any time since Jan. 1, 2002. The complaint estimates that the proposed class covers over 1,000 individuals. There are five counts in the complaint. Count 1 claims that the company violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by reducing the rate of an employee's benefit accrual on the basis of age. Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement, because the plan allegedly conditions receipt of cash balance benefits on foregoing the early retirement benefits plaintiff earned prior to the adoption of the cash balance amendment. Count 3 claims that the cash balance plan violates ERISA's "anti-backloading" rule. Count 4 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to supply advance notice of a significant benefit decrease. Count 5 claims that Dun & Bradstreet failed to provide an adequate Summary Plan Description. In the complaint, the plaintiff seeks: -- a declaration that Dun & Bradstreet's cash balance plan is ineffective and that the Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan is still in force and effect, and plaintiff's benefit accrual under the cash balance plan must be unconditional and not reduced because of age; -- an injunction prohibiting the application of the cash balance plan's reduction in the rate of benefit accruals because of age and its conditions of benefits due under the plan, and ordering appropriate equitable relief to determine plan participant losses caused by D & B's payment of benefits under the cash balance plan's terms and requiring the payment of additional benefits as appropriate; -- attorneys' fees and costs; -- interest; and -- such other relief as the court may deem just. A Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District of New Jersey was filed on Jan. 27, 2006 and was granted on March 31, 2006. The action was transferred to the District of New Jersey, and, on June 5, 2006, plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, which omitted the claim for violation of ERISA's non-forfeitability requirement and added a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on allegedly misleading plan communications. On July 5, 2006, the company filed a Motion to Dismiss, pursuant to Section 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules on Civil Procedures, on the grounds that: -- the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches; -- the cash balance plan does not discriminate on the basis of age; -- the cash balance plan does not violate ERISA's anti- backloading rule; -- D&B complied with Section 204(h) of ERISA by providing sufficient advance notice of the plan amendment; -- D&B's Summary Plan Description fully complies with the requirements of ERISA; and -- plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On Jan. 26, the court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the company's Motion to Dismiss. The Court dismissed Counts 1 and 2 with prejudice on the merits, holding that the D&B Plan did not reduce the rate of benefit accrual on the basis of age and that the Plan did not violate ERISA's anti- backloading rule. The Court dismissed without prejudice Counts 3 and 4, holding that plaintiff had failed to plead extraordinary circumstances, which are a necessary element of a claim for violation of ERISA's disclosure requirements, but allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint restating the claims within 45 days. The Court denied the company's Motion to Dismiss with respect to Count 5. The company filed its answer to Count 5 on Feb. 9, 2007, prior to the plaintiff's filing of an Amended Complaint, the matter was resolved, and Plaintiff has dismissed the case with prejudice, according to the company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Finley v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-01838-SRC-CCC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Claire C. Cecchi. Representing the plaintiff is: Jonathan I. Nirenberg, Esq. Resnick Nirenberg & Siegler 100 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 301 East Hanover, NJ 07936 Phone: 973-781-1204 E-mail: jnirenberg@njemploymentlawfirm.com Representing the defendant is: Christopher H. Mills, Esq. Fisher & Phillips, LLP Corporate Park III, 580 Howard Avenue Somerset, NJ 08873 Phone: (732) 560-7100 E-mail: cmills@laborlawyers.com EKONOMY QSR: Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- Ekonomy QSR, Inc. d/b/a Dunkin Donuts, is facing a class-action complaint filed on May 3, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Melissa Read brings these claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended 29 U.S.C Section 201, et. seq. to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The suit alleges that from at least Jan. 2007 and continuing through March 12, 2007, defendants failed to compensate plaintiff at a rate of one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week. The suit further alleges plaintiff should be compensated at the rate of one-and-one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for those hours that plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the FLSA. Defendants have allegedly violated Title 29 U.S.C. Section 207 from at least Jan. 4, 2007 through March 12, 2007, in that: (a) plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the period of employed with defendants; (b) no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made by defendants to properly compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week as provided by the FLSA; and (c) defendants have failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. Additionally, as part of plaintiff's compensation, she was entitled to a percentage of pooled tips collected in a "tip jar." Although there was no way for plaintiff to track the amount of pooled tips, defendants failed to provide plaintiff with any portion of the pooled tips for plaintiff's last week of work, the suit claims. Defendants' actions were allegedly willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by its failure to compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week when it knew, or should have known, such was, and is due. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of defendants, plaintiff allegedly suffered and continues to suffer damages and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per week, plus liquidated damages. Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor against defendants: -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, that the acts and practices complained of are in violation of the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA; -- awarding plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount due her for plaintiff's time worked in excess of 40 hours per work week; -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the overtime award; -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the suit is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee9 The suit is "Read v. Ekonomy QSR, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 14135-KMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge K. Michael Moore, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. Rosenthal & Levy PA 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-478-2500 Fax: 561-478-3111 ENERGY PARTNERS: Motion in Del. Suit Over Terminated Deal Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court denied a plaintiffs' motion seeking expedited consideration of the claims in a putative securities class action against Energy Partners Ltd. in relation to the company's terminated merger agreement with Stone Energy Corp. On June 22, 2006, the company entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Stone Energy, pursuant to which EPL Acquisition Corp. LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the company, would acquire all of the shares of Stone for a combination of cash and stock valued at approximately $2.1 billion. Prior to entering into the Merger Agreement, Stone terminated its then existing merger agreement with Plains Exploration and Production Company on the same day. As required under the terms of the terminated merger agreement between Stone and Plains, Plains was entitled to a termination fee of $43.5 million, which was advanced by the company to Plains and was included in other assets in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. On Aug. 28, 2006, Woodside Petroleum, Ltd. announced its intention to commence a tender offer, through its U.S. subsidiary ATS Inc., for all of the company's outstanding shares of common stock for $23.00 per share subject to, among other conditions, the company's stockholders voting down the proposed Stone acquisition. The tender offer was commenced on Aug. 31, 2006 and was effective until Sept. 28, 2006. On Sept. 14, 2006, the company announced that, on Sept. 13, 2006, the Company's board of directors rejected as inadequate the unsolicited conditional offer by Woodside and recommended that its stockholders not tender their shares. Woodside extended its offer three times and announced on October 26, 2006 that it was extending its offer for the final time until Nov. 17, 2006. On Oct. 12, 2006, the company announced that it had terminated the Merger Agreement with Stone and that the Board had directed the company, assisted by its financial advisors, to explore strategic alternatives to maximize stockholder value, including the possible sale of the company. In conjunction with the termination of the Merger Agreement, the company paid to Stone $8.0 million, which will be included in general and administrative expenses in the fourth quarter of 2006. In addition, the $43.5 million termination fee that was advanced to Plains in June 2006 on behalf of Stone was expensed in the third quarter of 2006 along with $3.0 million of other Stone merger related costs. The Farrington Class Action On Sept. 12, 2006, Thomas Farrington, a purported stockholder of the company, filed a putative class action in the Delaware Court against: -- the company, -- all of the company's directors, -- EPL Acquisition Corp. LLC, and -- Stone As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington Action alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by: -- agreeing to the termination fee provisions in the Merger Agreement, -- adopting the sixth-month stockholders rights agreement, -- amending and extending coverage to all full time employees of its change of control severance arrangements, and paying a fee to Stone in connection with the termination of the Merger Agreement. "Farrington" also alleges that the company's directors have failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to the Company stockholders' decision whether to accept the Tender Offer. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as unspecified damages. As amended on Oct. 19, 2006, the complaint in the Farrington Action alleges that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the termination fee provisions in the merger agreement, adopting the sixth-month stockholders rights agreement, amending and extending coverage to all full time employees of its change of control severance arrangements, and paying a fee to Stone in connection with the termination of the Merger Agreement. The suit also alleges that the Company's directors have failed to adequately disclose material information relevant to the Company stockholders' decision whether to accept the Tender Offer. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as unspecified damages. On Oct. 19, 2006, the Delaware Court denied a motion filed by Farrington seeking expedited consideration of these claims, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Energy Partners Ltd. -- http://www.eplweb.com/-- is an oil and natural gas exploration and production company. The Company's operations are concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico Shelf, the deepwater Gulf of Mexico, as well as the Gulf Coast onshore region (the Gulf of Mexico Region). ESTEE LAUDER: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. is seeking the dismissal of an amended complaint in the consolidated securities fraud class action pending against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 On March 30, 2006, a purported securities class action complaint, "Thomas S. Shin, et al. v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al.," was filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The complaint alleged that the defendants made statements during the period April 28, 2005 to October 25, 2005 in press releases, the company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that were materially false and misleading and that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. It also alleged claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Additionally, the complaint asserted that during the class period, certain executive officers and the trust for the benefit of a director sold shares of our Class A Common Stock at artificially inflated prices. Three additional purported securities class action complaints were subsequently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York containing similar allegations. On July 10, 2006, the court consolidated these actions as "In Re Estee Lauder Companies Securities Litigation," appointed lead plaintiff, and approved the selection of lead counsel. A consolidated amended complaint addressing the same issues as the original complaint was filed on Sept. 8, 2006. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on Nov. 7, 2006 and the plaintiff responded to the motion on Jan. 5, 2007. Defendants replied to plaintiff's response on Feb. 5, 2007. The suit is "In re: Estee Lauder Cos. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-02505-LAK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan. Representing the plaintiffs are: James Henry Glavin, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 Fax: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: jhglavin@ssbny.com; Eric James Belfi, Esq. Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow, LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 907-0790 Fax: (212) 883-7579 E-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: (310) 201-9150 - and - Marc I. Gross Esq. Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross, L.L.P. 100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor New York, NY 10017, US Phone: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 FIRST ADVANTAGE: Subsidiaries Face Suits Over Tenant Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Subsidiaries of First Advantage Corp. were named as defendants in purported class actions filed in California state court with regards to tenant reports, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The plaintiffs in both cases allege that the company's subsidiaries, directly and through their agents, violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act (ICRA) by failing to use reasonable procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy when issuing tenant reports and to comply with ICRA. The actions seek injunctive relief, an accounting, restitution, statutory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. First Advantage Corp. -- http://www.fadv.com/-- is an international provider of risk mitigation and business solutions. FISERV TRUST: Appeals Class Certification in "Jenson" Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fiserv Trust Co. is appealing a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that certified a class in a lawsuit that was filed against the company in 2005 by investors who maintained self-directed individual retirement accounts administered by Fiserv Trust. The suit alleges that Fiserv Trust, which serves as a custodian and administrator of investment accounts, knew or should have known that third parties were perpetrating an alleged Ponzi scheme and that it breached its contractual and common law duties and aided and abetted the scheme by not advising the plaintiffs to avoid investing in the alleged scheme. It was brought on behalf of a class of investors who maintained self-directed individual retirement accounts administered by Fiserv Trust and others who invested in the alleged scheme, including investors that were never customers of Fiserv Trust, and seeks compensatory damages of $120 million and punitive damages. Fiserv Trust has filed a petition for permission to appeal the class certification order, according to the company's May 3, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 The suit is "Jerome Jenson et al. v. First Trust Company et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03124-ABC-CT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Audrey B. Collins with referral to Judge Carolyn Turchin. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Representing the defendants is: Casey N. Carrington, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-229-7000 E-mail: ccarington@gibsondunn.com FLOR LLC: Recalls Carpet Tiles Possibly Embedded with Needles ------------------------------------------------------------- FLOR LLC of LaGrange, Georgia, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 24,000 tiles of Heartfelt Carpet Tiles. The firm said that the pin-like needles could be embedded in the carpet tiles, posing a puncture wound hazard to consumers. FLOR has received three reports from consumers who have received a puncture, scratch or a small cut from coming into contact with needles in the carpet tiles. None of the injuries required outside medical attention. The carpet tiles are made from a blend of wool and Kenaf, measure 20-inches by 20-inches and come in colors Corazon (beige), Herz (gray), and Coeur (light gray). The tiles have "Made in USA" embossed on the bottom of each tile. These carpet tiles involved in the recall were being sold at FLOR's Web site, home decor boutiques, and in the firm's catalog nationwide from January 2006 through December 2006 for about $12 per tile. Consumers are advised to stop using the product immediately. The company is directly notifying those consumers who purchased the affected tiles on-line or through their catalog. They will receive a full refund when the tiles are returned, or free replacement tiles of an equal value. Photo for the carpet tile can be viewed at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07545.html For more information, contact FLOR at (866) 219-2197 between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.florcatalog.com GURLEY'S FOODS: Recalls Cranberry Mix Due to Undeclared Sulfites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gurley's Foods, Inc., of Willmar, Minnesota, with the knowledge of the U.S Food and Drug Administration, is recalling their Golden Recipe Cranberry Trial Mix, packaged in 7.25 ounce packages (UPC77449 49872) in printed bags, sold primarily through various convenience stores nationwide, due to the presence of undeclared sulfites. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) if they ingest 10 milligrams or more of sulfites per serving. Code Numbers included in the recall are: 0508, 0608, 0618, 0678, 0758, 0888, 0898, 0938, and 1158. These items may contain sulfur dioxide, a food preservative used in many brands of dried fruit products. A recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in packages of the Cranberry Trail Mix, which did not declare sulfites on the label. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this issue. Consumers who have purchased any of these packaged treats should return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-426-7845. INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set June 18 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a June 18, 2007 deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of International Rectifier Corp. between October 27, 2005 and April 9, 2007. The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of International Rectifier Corp. securities. In particular, the Complaint alleges that, unknown to investors, during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that IRF's: (i) revenues, (ii) gross profits (iii) earnings, and (iv) accounts receivable were false and misleading, in violation of generally accepted accounting principles. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the company's internal controls were inadequate (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 20, 2007). The Complaint further alleges that on April 9, 2007, before the markets opened, IRF disclosed, among other things, that an internal investigation at the company revealed "accounting irregularities" at one of the company's foreign subsidiaries. The company further disclosed that the accounting irregularities included among other things premature revenue recognition of product sales. In addition, according to the Complaint, based on an interim report of the investigation, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors concluded that the company's financial statements for the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006, Sept. 30, 2006, March 31, 2006, Dec. 31, 2005 and Sept. 30, 2005, and for the year ended June 30, 2006, should no longer be relied upon. Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that the company cited "material weaknesses in the internal control over financial reporting at a foreign unit." On April 9, 2007, in reaction to IRF's surprising disclosure, its shares declined from $38.80 per share at the close of trading on April 5, 2007, to close at $35.97 per share, a decline of $2.83 per share or approximately 7.3%, on unusually heavy volume. The Complaint also alleges that certain individual Defendants collectively sold approximately 364,000 IRF shares at artificially inflated prices for proceeds of approximately $13 million. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 (Toll-Free) E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com KAPLAN INC: June Hearing Set in $49M Antitrust Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- A June 18, 2007 fairness hearing is set for a $49 million settlement of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against BAR/BRI and Kaplan, Inc. The hearing will be at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Manuel J. Real, at the U.S. District Courthouse at 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012. The class includes individuals who purchased a BAR/BRI bar review course in the U.S., between August 1, 1997 and July 31, 2006. Class members have until Sept. 17, 2007 to make a claim. Objections are due May 21, 2007. The case was filed by former law students in California, Michigan and Louisiana, who had brought it on behalf of all persons who purchased a bar review course from BAR/BRI Bar Review from August 1997 (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2006). Specifically, the suit accuses defendant West Publishing, d/b/a BAR/BRI of violating the federal antitrust laws and conspiring with Kaplan, Inc. to prevent competition in the market for full- service bar review courses. Kaplan is an international provider of educational and career services. BAR/BRI provides bar review courses throughout the U.S. to assist would-be attorneys in their preparation for taking one or more bar examinations required by each state and the District of Columbia prior to the issuance of a license to practice law. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of defendants' conduct, consumers had to pay more for BAR/BRI bar review courses than they should have (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 19, 2007). Class members are all individuals who purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI anywhere in the U.S. where BAR/BRI directly operated a course anytime from August 1997 up to the present time. Therefore, any individual who purchased a full-service bar review course from BAR/BRI to prepare for the winter 1998 bar examination or any subsequent bar examination is a class member. In early December 2006, the parties agreed to a settlement of the litigation. On Feb. 2, 2007, the parties filed a settlement agreement with the court together with documents setting forth a procedure for class notice (Class Action Reporter, Mar. 29, 2007). As a part of the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to establish a $49 million Fund. The Settlement also provides for other non- monetary relief. Class Members are eligible to obtain up to 30% of the total amount they paid for a bar review course from the Fund. The Class includes persons who purchased a BAR/BRI full-service bar review course between August 1, 1997 and July 31, 2006, unless they requested exclusion on or before August 13, 2006. BAR/BRI Class Action Litigation on the net: http://www.barbri-classaction.com The suit is "Ryan Rodriguez et al. v. West Publishing Corp. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-03222-R-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge James W. McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Eliot G. Disner, Esq. Noah E Jussim, Esq. McGuireWoods, LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8299 Fax: 310-315-8298 E-mail: edisner@mcguirewoods.com Sidney K. Kanazawa, Esq. Tracy Evans Moyer, Esq. Colleen M. Regan, Esq. Van Etten Suzumoto and Becket 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-315-8200 E-mail: skanazawa@vsblaw.com or cregan@vsblaw.com - and - Joanna Shally, Esq. Shearman and Sterling 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-848-4700 Representing the defendants are: Edward A. Klein, Esq. Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine & Regenstreif 1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Fl. Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503 Phone: 310-500-3500 Stuart N. Senator, Esq. Lee Scott Taylor, Esq. Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave., 35th Fl., Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 E-mail: stuart.senator@mto.com - and - Jeffrey A. LeVee, Esq. Courtney M. Schaberg, Esq. Brian A. Sun, Esq. Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-489-3939 E-mail: jlevee@jonesday.com or cmschaberg@jonesday.com or basun@jonesday.com For more details, contact: BAR/BRI Class Action Administrator P.O. Box 24639 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Phone: 1-888-285-7850 E-mail: BARBRI@completeclaimsolutions.com L G SOURCING: Recalls Table Lamps After Report of Minor Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ L G Sourcing, Inc., of North Wilkesboro, N.C., in cooperation with The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 97,000 units of Halogen Table Lamps. According to the firm, these lamps can short circuit, posing a fire hazard. L G Sourcing has received one report of a minor fire with the halogen table lamp. No injuries have been reported. The recalled table lamps have a plastic base and two extendable arms connecting the base to a halogen lamp. The lamps were sold in white, red, blue, orange and purple. Item number 101988 is printed on the bottom of the lamp base. Winsource Industries Ltd., of Hong Kong manufactured these table lamps in China and were being exclusively sold at Lowe's retail outlets nationwide from April 2006 through March 2007 for about $10. Consumers are advised to stop using the lamps immediately and return them to any Lowe's retail outlet to receive a full refund. Photo of the table lamp involved in the recall: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07183.html For additional information, contact L G Sourcing toll-free at (866) 284-9162 anytime, or visit http://www.lowes.com MBNA CANADA: Appeals Court Certifies Suit Over interest Rate ------------------------------------------------------------ The Ontario Court of Appeals certified a suit against the Ottawa-based MBNA Canada Bank, a unit of Bank America Corp., to proceed as a class action, overturning two lower court rulings that denied the status to customers who sued, Joe Schneider of Bloomberg News reports. According to Judge Marc Rosenberg, one of the three judges who decided the case, "Access to justice overwhelmingly favors a class proceeding. The amounts involved are so small that no litigant would have an interest in pursuing an individual claim." The lawsuit between Stephen Markson and MBNA Canada Bank, Court of Appeal for Ontario (Toronto), Case No C45191, was originally filed in 2003 in Ontario Superior Court after Mr. Markson got charged 94% interest on a CAN$100 cash advance from the bank's credit card. He said the interest rate was way too high and he believes the bank violated the Criminal Code, limiting the interest rate up to 60% annually (Class Action Reporter, Sep. 17, 2003). According to court documents, the bank had about 2.5 million credit card accounts as of December 2003. Between January 2000 and December 2003 the bank issued 8 million cash advances, of which 17 percent were for less than CAN$62. Customers are charged compound interest from the day of the advance until it gets fully paid and a transaction fee of CAN$7.50. Representing the plaintiff is: William G. Horton, Esq. 400- 112 Adelaide St. E Toronto ON, Canada M5C 1K9 Phone: (416) 564-9560, Fax: (416) 504-7257 Email: wgh@williamghorton.com MICHIGAN: Plan to Move Correctional Facility Inmates Rejected ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Richard Enslen rejected the state's plan for moving and caring for the hundreds of medically fragile inmates at the Southern Michigan Correctional Facility, Fredericka Paul of The Jackson Citizen-Patriot reports. Just last year, Judge Enslen heard a lawsuit demanding that the state improve the care of medically and mentally ill inmates of the said prison. The case filed in the 1980s against the prison system alleges that the hospital and other medical units in the Jackson prison complex are understaffed with doctors and nurses. As a result, written requests by inmates for medical help often are delayed for several days or ignored; referrals to outside medical specialists are routinely delayed for weeks and even months while sick inmates get sicker and, in some case, die; and prescriptions for serious illnesses often go unfilled for several days (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 18, 2006). The case is named "USA v. Michigan, State of, et al., Case No. 1:84-cv-00063-RAE", filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the above mentioned judge, Mr. Richard Enslen. Based on the report, the state announced a plan to shut down the facility on July 15 as part of its cost-cutting plan because it said the old prison was too expensive to operate, but a legal fight over concerns about prisoner health care has complicated the state's plans. Mr. Russ Marlan, corrections department spokesman, said the plan is not yet complete and they're not sure which direction to take. The lead attorneys for the case are: Elizabeth Alexander, Esq. National Prison Project of the ACLUF 915 15th St., NW, 7th Fl. Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: ealexander@npp-aclu.org - and - Michael Barnhart, Esq. 221 North Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48103 Phone: (734) 213-3703 Fax: (734) 213-3704 E-mail: michaelbarnhart@comcast.net NEW YORK: Baseball Enthusiasts Sue City Over Metal Bat Ban ---------------------------------------------------------- A group of coaches, players, parents and sporting goods manufacturers filed a suit to scrap Brooklyn's ban on metal bats at high school baseball games, arguing there is no conclusive proof that metal bats are dangerous, Karla Schuster of Newsday reports. The class action filed on March 7 in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan claims that high school baseball without aluminum bats is less competitive and more expensive, and does not guarantee safety. The complaint also alleges that the ban is unconstitutional because there is no solid proof at all that aluminum bats are harmful. Last month, the City Council proposed a law to ban metal bats on the ground that these bats produce faster hits, which could most likely harm the players. Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed the law and said the city is not in the position to determine which bat is unsafe. The City Council overrode the veto and the said law will take effect in September. Anne Berg from Park Slope, mother of one of the plaintiffs, believes that more kids get killed in cars on their way to baseball games, than all the kids seriously injured or killed by a baseball. Atty. David Ettinger is representing the plaintiffs that include Easton Sports, the nation's largest manufacturer of metal bats. For more information about the case, contact: David Ettinger, Esq. Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP 2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Avenue Detroit, MI 48226-3506 Phone: (313) 465-7368 Fax: (313) 465-7369 NORTHWESTERN CORP: Livonia Lawyers Seek $9.9M in Investors Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff attorneys in a shareholder class action against NorthWestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy, are seeking $9.9 million in fees, which defendants have opposed. In November 2005, the company and its directors were named as defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action, "City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al." The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase NorthWestern. On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited (BBI) offer because it was not the most attractive offer they had received for the company. The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement with BBI or upon termination of the Merger Agreement with BBI -- whichever occurs first. The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in the event that circumstances require timely implementation of such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from shareholders within 12 months after adoption. After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement has been filed. In December 2006 the federal court indicated it would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any benefit to the class members. Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion, seeking discovery in advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees. The motion was denied. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs seeking $9.9 million to which the company have responded arguing that plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to no fees. The plaintiffs will file a reply in May 2007, and the company anticipates a decision by the court within two months, according to the company's May 1, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v. Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota under Judge Lawrence L. Piersol. Representing the plaintiffs are: Randall J. Baron, Esq. Darren J. Robbins, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Timothy J. Dougherty, Esq. Dougherty & Dougherty P.O. Box 1004 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1004 Phone: 335-8586 Representing the defendants are: Filiberto Agusti, Esq. Scott T. Bielicki, Esq. David F. Rifkind, Esq. Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq. Steptoe and Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-429-6428, 202-429-6751, 202-429-8094 and 202-429-6759 E-mail: fagusti@steptoe.com, sbielicki@steptoe.com, drifkind@steptoe.com and asloniewsky@steptoe.com - and - Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq. Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith P.O. Box 1030 Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030 Phone: 336-2880 Fax: 335-3639 E-mail: rlange@dehs.com OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM: Faces Calif. Suit Over Andean Operations -------------------------------------------------------------- Members of an indigenous group in Peru have filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claiming Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s oil production operations in the Andean nation resulted in toxic levels of pollution that left many people sick or at risk of serious illness, the Associated Press reports. Twenty-five Achuar Indians, who claim they suffered health problems from cancer to lead poisoning due to exposure to contaminants from Occidental's oil production operation, brought the complaint. The group, native to Peru's Upper Corrientes Basin, claims the region gradually became contaminated by pollutants over the three decades since Occidental first established operations there. According to the lawsuit, Occidental discharged millions of gallons of water used to process crude oil back into local waterways, flooding rivers with heavy metals, radioactive compounds and other harmful compounds. The crude oil processing also released gasses that have contributed to air pollution and acid rain, the group claims. The suit further alleges the Achuar's land was also exposed to contamination from chemical waste, which the company stored in unlined earthen pits. Government health studies have found that Achuar Indians in the zone suffer high blood concentrations of cadmium and lead -- a problem that Peruvian officials have said goes back to the 1970s when Occidental operated in the region. The company pumped oil in Peru's northern jungle until 1999, when its operations were bought by the Argentine-run company Pluspetrol, the report said. According to the AP report, Pluspetrol, last year, signed an agreement with the Peruvian government to stop dumping contaminated oil waste by July 2008 after two weeks of protests by an Indian group. The suit seeks class-action status and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Apu Tomas Maynas Carijano is the lead plaintiff in the suit. Richard S. Kline, spokesman for Los Angeles-based Occidental, said the company had not seen the lawsuit. "We have no scientific data of any negative health effects resulting from our former operations in Peru," Mr. Kline said. PERSONAL TOUCH: Lawsuit in Mo. Alleges Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Personal Touch Home Care, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging the home health care agency violated labor law by refusing to pay overtime, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges company Chief Operating Officer Gertrude Balk implemented a company-wide scheme to avoid paying overtime to non-exempt hourly field staff Licensed practical nurses with the knowledge and approval of the corporate parent company. Allegedly, in implementing this illegal scheme, Ms. Balk specifically instructed management personnel not to pay overtime unless and until an employee lodged a complaint. Plaintiff Erin Keeley, a former Personal Touch Home Care Field Staff-Licensed Practice Nurse, was hired in 2000 as a licensed practical nurse, paid on an hourly basis. She says she was required to work 50 to 75 hours a week, but allegedly received no overtime. Ms. Keeley brings this claim as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of all current or former field staff LPNs employed by Personal Touch between May 8, 2004, who worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and were intentionally and willfully denied overtime compensation pursuant to defendant's illegal overtime scheme. Plaintiff request that the court, after due consideration: -- judicially recognize this proceeding as a collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA; -- require defendants to provide plaintiff with the names and addresses of all potential opt-in collective action members who have been employed by defendants from May 8, 2004 through the present, within the United States, approve and authorize dissemination of notice to all potential collective action members advising them of the nature of this claim and their right to opt in to this lawsuit; and -- after due proceedings, plaintiffs be awarded all unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs as allowed by Section 216(b) of the FLSA, pre- judgment and post-judgment interests as provided by law, and such other relief the court deems fair and equitable. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee2 The suit is "Keeley v. Personal Touch Home Care, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:07-cv-00923-JCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under Judge Jean C. Hamilton. Representing plaintiffs is: Timm W. Schowalter, Esq. Lashly and Baer, P.C. 714 Locust Street St. Louis, MO 63101-1699 Phone: 314-621-2939 Fax: 314-621-6844 E-mail: tschowalter@lashlybaer.com REAL ESTATE FIRMS: Sued Over "Illegal" Conveyancing Practice ------------------------------------------------------------ Massachusetts attorneys filed a suit on May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against real estate firms over alleged use of agents who are not licensed attorneys in real estate conveyances, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named defendants in the suit: -- National Real Estate Information Services, Inc.; -- National Real Estate Information Services; -- ATM Corporation of America; -- First American Signature Services, Inc.; -- Trans State Closers, Inc.; -- Liberty Title & Escrow Co., Inc.; and -- Service Link, Inc. Typically when an individual purchases residential real estate, she borrows money from a bank or mortgage lender. As a security for the loan, the lender will receive a mortgage on the property. The same is true in the case of an individual refinancing an existing mortgage loan on her home. The mortgage lender will normally want to protect its interests in the transaction by ensuring that the conveyance of the real estate is completed in a legally enforceable manner. In Massachusetts, this process is known as conveyancing and includes: (1) the review of the legal title to the property to ensure that the seller has good and clear and marketable title to the property; (2) the supervision of the process by which any title issues or encumbrances are resolved; (3) controlling the settlement or "closing" of the real estate transaction to ensure that the appropriate legal documents are properly executed, the consideration for the property is exchanged, and the parties' obligations to one another are fulfilled; (4) recording the appropriate documents to protect the various interests in the property; and (5) disbursement of closing proceeds. According to the CourtHouse News Service report, New England states typically require attorneys to handle real estate conveyances, due to ancient land titles and accompanying complications. Class actions have been brought in several New England states, accusing title companies and other real estate businesses of using non-attorneys to perform legal services during the late real estate boom. In this case, covering transactions that occurred in the past four years, lead plaintiff Michael Katin, brings this action on behalf of a proposed class of Massachusetts real estate conveyancing attorney who, during the last four years, were Massachusetts-licensed attorneys in good standing who were engaged in the practice of performing conveyancing services for Massachusetts real estate transactions. The suit alleges defendants practice of utilizing settlement service agents who are not Massachusetts attorneys, or utilizing attorneys who have been divested of all meaningful responsibility and oversight and who merely fulfill the same function as a notary public would in the conveyancing process. The suit further alleges that this practice is in violation of Massachusetts law that defines conveyancing as the practice of law, and statutory provisions that require the involvement of attorneys in the conveyancing process. Thus defendants and their agents are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.c.221, Sections 46A and 46B. Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises, include: (a) whether the elements for the claim for tortious interference with business expectancies are satisfied in this case; (b) whether defendants, failing to use plaintiffs and the class members, and instead entering into contracts with non-lawyers or lawyers who did not retain any meaningful responsibility in the conveyancing process, as settlement service agents, engaged in unfair competition and /or deceptive actions and practices under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch 93A, Section 2(a); and (c) whether defendants' actions constitute an unfair or deceptive act under Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch. 93A by operation of Mass.Gen.Laws Ann.ch. 93, Section 70, The Good Funds Statute, "willful" failure by an attorney to render a certification to the mortgagor as required by the provisions of this section shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the provisions of the chapter 93A. Plaintiffs prey for judgment against defendants for themselves and the class members as follows: -- determining that this action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and ALM GL c. 93A, Section11, and for an order certifying this case as a class action; -- awarding compensatory damages on behalf of plaintiffs and the class members in an amount to be proved at trial; -- awarding punitive damages; -- awarding multiple damages as well as costs and attorney fees under ALM GL c. 93A, Section 11; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class all expenses, costs and disbursements incident to the prosecution of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- granting such other relief as the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ee5 The suit is "Katin et al. v. National Real Estate Information Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-10882-JLT," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro. Representing plaintiffs is: Robert T. Naumes, Esq. Thornton & Naumes, LLP 100 Summer Street, 30th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-720-1333 Fax: 617-720-2445 E-mail: rnaumes@tenlaw.com STATESIDE POWERSPORTS: Recalls ATVs that Lack Safety Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ Stateside Powersports, of Bluffton, Ind., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 100 Long Chang Lion 90cc All-Terrain Vehicles. Consumers should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise instructed. The company said that the ATVs lack adequate tire labeling, tire pressure gauge, adequate stop engine switch, and other safety requirements that could result to injuries. Stateside has not yet received any incident or injury reports. The recall includes all Long Chang Lion 90cc ATVs sold in black, blue, green and red. "Lion" is printed on the side of the gas tank and "90" is printed below the seat area on each side of the ATV. The vehicles were manufactured in China and were being sold at ATV dealerships and online store nationwide from May 2006 through December 2006 for about $1,000. Registered owners have been notified about this recall by mail. Consumers with a recalled ATV should contact Stateside Powersports or their local dealer to schedule a free repair. Photo of the recalled ATV can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07544.html For additional information, contact Stateside Powersports: Phone: (888) 801-4424 from 9a.m.-5p.m. ET Monday through Friday; Web site: http://www.statesidepowersports.com;E-mail: support@statesidepowersports.com STUART FENCE: Accused of Violating Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Fence Company, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 3, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Lead plaintiff Damion Daniel brings these claims damages as a result of wages owed and is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Section 207. The suit alleges defendant failed to compensate plaintiff up to one and half time his hourly rate for all worked performed in excess of 40 hours. Defendant's failure to properly compensate the plaintiff is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207. The suit further alleges defendant's failure to pay plaintiff's overtime was the result of intentional, willful misconduct, such that plaintiff is entitled to overtime payments for the entire preceding 3 year period. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant's action, the plaintiff has obtained counsel to represent him in this action and has agreed to incur reasonable attorney's fees and costs for the prosecution of this matter. As a result, plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement and/or an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C Section 216. Plaintiff pray that judgment be entered in his favor and against defendant as follows: -- that plaintiff be awarded general and compensatory damages, liquidated damages and pre-judgment interest; -- that plaintiff be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216; and -- that plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1eef The suit is "Daniel v. Stuart Fence Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14134-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Jose E. Martinez, with referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr. Representing plaintiffs is: Cathleen Ann Scott, Esq. Cathleen A. Scott 250 South Central Boulevard Jupiter Gardens Suite 104 Jupiter, FL 33458 Phone: 561-653-0008 Fax: 653-0020 E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com TOTAL TIRE: Faces Fla. Fair Labor Standards Act Violations Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Tire of Palm City, Inc. is named defendant in a May 3, 2007 class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging Labor Code violations. Plaintiff Jon-Erik Sparks brings these claims pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended29 U.S.C Section 201, et. seq. to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The complaint alleges that from at least July 20, 2006, and continuing through March 19, 2007, defendant failed to compensate plaintiff at a rate of one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single work week. Defendant has allegedly violated Title 29 U.S.C. Section 207 from at least July 20, 2006, and continuing through March 19, 2007 in that: (a) plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week for the period of employed with defendants; (b) no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made by defendants to properly compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work week as provided by the FLSA; and (c) defendants have failed to maintain proper time records as mandated by the FLSA. Additionally, defendant allegedly wrongfully deducted $80 from plaintiff's last paycheck. Defendants' actions were allegedly willful and/or showed reckless disregard for the provisions of the FLSA as evidenced by its failure to compensate plaintiff at the statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiff's regular rate of pay for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week when it knew, or should have known, such was, and is due. Due to the intentional, willful, and unlawful acts of defendants, plaintiff allegedly suffered and continues to suffer damages and lost compensation for time worked over 40 hours per week, plus liquidated damages. Plaintiff requests that judgment be entered in her favor against defendants: -- declaring, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, that the acts and practices complained of are in violation of the maximum hour provisions of the FLSA; -- awarding plaintiff overtime compensation in the amount due her for plaintiff's time worked in excess of 40 hours per work week; -- awarding plaintiff liquidated damages in an amount equal to the overtime award; -- awarding plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b); -- awarding plaintiff pre-judgment interest; and -- ordering any other further relief the court deems just and proper. A copy of the suit is available free of charge at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1eee The suit is "Sparks v. Total Tire of Palm City, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-14136-DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Donald L. Graham. Representing plaintiffs is: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. Rosenthal & Levy PA 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-478-2500 Fax: 561-478-3111 TRAVELERS COS: Faces Hurricane Katrina-Related Lawsuits in La. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., is a defendant in consolidated federal lawsuit arising out of disputes with certain policyholders over whether insurance coverage is available for flood losses arising from Hurricane Katrina. The case is before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana The suits are: -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No. 06- 1672, 06-1673 and 06-1674," -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No., 06- 1673," -- "Chehardy, et al. v. State Farm, et al., C.A. No., 06- 1674," and -- "Vanderbrook, et al. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., et al. C.A. No. 05-6323," and The suits are proposed class actions in which the company is one of several insurer defendants, according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The Travelers Companies, Inc. -- http://www.travelers.com/-- is a holding company that is principally engaged in providing a range of commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations and individuals. TRAVELERS COS: Minn. Court Yet to Approve Securities Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to approve a proposed settlement of a consolidated securities class action against The Travelers Companies, Inc., formerly The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., according to the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Initially, three actions were filed against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Two of these actions were: -- "Kahn v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 2, 2004);" and -- "Michael A. Bernstein Profit Sharing Plan v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Nov. 10, 2004)." Certain shareholders of the company brought the putative class actions against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. These actions have been consolidated as, "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II," and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed. On July 11, 2005, the lead plaintiff filed an amended consolidated complaint. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with the company's alleged failure to make disclosure relating to the practice of paying brokers commissions on a contingent basis, the company's alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids and the company's allegedly improper use of finite reinsurance products. On Sept. 26, 2005, the company and the other defendants in "In re St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II" moved to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim. Oral argument on the company's motion to dismiss was presented on June 15, 2006. By order dated Sept. 25, 2006, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss. In the third of these actions, an alleged beneficiary of the company's 401(k) savings plan commenced a putative class action against the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors captioned, "Spiziri v. The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc., et al. (Dec. 28, 2004)." The complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act based on the theory that defendants were allegedly aware of issues concerning the value of St. Paul's loss reserves yet failed to protect plan participants from continued investment in company stock. On June 1, 2005, the company and the other defendants in Spiziri moved to dismiss the complaint. On Jan. 4, 2006, the parties in Spiziri entered into a stipulation of settlement. The settlement remains subject to court approval, according to the company's regulatory filing. The suit is "In Re: St. Paul Travelers Securities Litigation II, Case No. 0:04-cv-04697-JRT-FLN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under Judge John R. Tunheim with referral to Magistrate Judge Franklin L. Noel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-545-4690, 212-545-4605 and 212-545-4762 Fax: 212-545-4653 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com, bruckner@whafh.com and rifkin@whafh.com - and - Jack L. Chestnut, Esq. Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. Chestnut & Cambronne 222 S. 9th St., Ste. 3700 Mpls., MN 55402 Phone: (612) 339-7300 Fax: 612-336-2940 E-mail: jchestnut@chestnutcambronne.com and kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com Representing the defendants are: (i) David H. LaRocca, Esq. Michael J. Chepiga, Esq. Michael J. Garvey, Esq. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP 425 Lexington Ave. New York, NY 10017-3954 Phone: 212-455-2377, 212-455-2598 and 212-455-7358 E-mail: dlarocca@stblaw.com, mchepiga@stblaw.com and mgarvey@stblaw.com - and - Peter W. Carter, Esq. Richard B. Solum, Esq. Dorsey & Whitney, 50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500 Mpls., MN 55402-1498 Phone: 612-340-2600 Fax: 612-340-2868 E-mail: carter.peter@dorsey.com and solum.rick@dorsey.com US AUTO: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set May 28, 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced a May 28, 2007, deadline to move to be a lead plaintiff in the securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all common stock purchasers of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's Feb. 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering. The Complaint charges U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 (Class Action Reporter, May 1, 2007). U.S. Auto Parts, a portfolio company of Oak Investment Partners, is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, engine parts, performance parts and accessories. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts: (1) that U.S. Auto Parts was experiencing major integration problems of PartsBin, a company that it acquired prior to the IPO; (2) specifically, integration problems with PartsBin existed due to the different distribution methods utilized by both companies to fill customer's orders; (3) that due to these problems, U.S. Auto Parts had trouble filling customer orders, and was subsequently required to issue credit to its customers for out-of-stock products; (4) that due to these problems, customers were canceling orders en mas, causing the Company to offer substantial discounts which eroded its gross margins; (5) that all of the above resulted in the Company experiencing a horrendous fourth quarter which would lead to disappointing results for the Company's fiscal year 2006; and (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls. On February 8, 2007, U.S. Auto Parts conducted its IPO and raised over $100 million in net proceeds. Then on March 20, 2007, after the market had closed for the day, U.S. Auto Parts disclosed its fourth-quarter and year-end financial results, which were drastically below expectations. Upon the release of this news, the Company's stock declined $4.58 per share, or 41.4 percent, to close on March 21, 2007 at $6.49 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. For more information, contact: Howard G. Smith, Esq. Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 Phone: (215) 638-4847 or (888) 638-4847 (Toll-Free) E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com Website: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com WASHINGTON: Judge Certifies Class in Seattle Ticketing Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The King County Superior Court certified as a class action a lawsuit against City of Seattle, Washington over its issuance of parking tickets and collecting money from parking meters the day before and the day after holidays, Chris Halsne of KIRO 7 Eyewitness News reports. Attorney Dewelle Ellsworth filed the case on behalf of all the people who got ticketed for illegally parking on a holiday or for failure to go back to their car in time. He said they should get their money back. Despite the street signs saying "You don't have to pay for parking or feed the meter on holidays," the city still issued tickets and had been doing so for three years, according to KIRO Team 7 Investigators, who found out about the city's exploit. Colette Turner of Bellevue filed the $700,000 class action on Nov. 21, 2006. In it, Ms. Turner claims that she was ticketed in Seattle on Dec. 31, 2004, even though according to city law, she should have been allowed to park free that New Year's Eve day (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 24, 2006). The lawsuit alleges: -- refund the money it made from the parking-meter revenue; -- reimburse people for the parking tickets they were forced to pay; and -- reimburse them for any towing fees. According to the law at the time, people could park free on city streets the day after Thanksgiving, the Friday before a holiday that fell on a Saturday, and the Monday after a holiday that fell on a Sunday. The city council has already redefined the holidays to avoid any misunderstanding in the future. For more information contact: Dewelle Ellsworth, Esq. P.O. Box 31743 Seattle, WA 98103 Phone: 206-351-2525 * Two U.S. Class Action Law Firms Open Offices in United Kingdom ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two American law firms recently opened their own offices in the United Kingdom, according to a post by Alexia Garamfalvi in The Blog of Legal Times. One of the U.S-based firms is Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, which launched a class-action defense practice in the United Kingdom in anticipation of an onslaught of class-action- style litigation in the country Skadden Arps' class-action defense team will be headed by D.C. litigation partner Andrew Sandler and London-based counsel Penny Madden. The launching came at the same time that Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C., another U.S.-based law firm, opened its London branch. Cohen Milstein, which already had affiliations with various European firms, announced last fall that it would open in London in January, but the launch was delayed until this month. Earlier in the week, Cohen Milstein scooped Rob Murray, former DLA Piper competition head, and Vincent Smith, senior competition director from the U.K. Office of Fair Trading, to spearhead its European push. Michael Hausfeld, a partner at Cohen Milstein explains that London office would focus competition, securities, and employment matters initially. Mr. Hausfeld noted that Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Germany already allow some form of group or class action-style litigation, and many other European countries are considering following suit, especially in the competition and securities arenas. ********* 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 * * *