/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070516.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 96
Headlines
ABERCROMBIE & KENT: Faces Ill. Consumer, Securities Fraud Suit
ALABAMA: Jefferson County Sued Over Occupational Tax Collection
APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement with Studio Display Buyers Approved
ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: $28M Settlement of Suit Over Commission OK'd
AXA SA: Claim Filing Process for Armenian Genocide Deal Created
BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ga. District Court
CUSTODIAL PLUS: Laborers Sue in Ill. to Claim Unpaid Overtime
CYBERONICS INC: EFCAT Wants to Amend Securities Fraud Complaint
DAVIS STUCCO: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
DEXIA SA: June Hearing Set for $60M L&H Securities Suit Deal
DOERING LANDSCAPE: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
DRAM LITIGATION: Calif. Court Okays $143M Antitrust Suit Deal
DRAM LITIGATION: May 16 Hearing Set for $22M Antitrust Suit Deal
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Security Breach Suit Removed to Federal Court
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Conn. Securities Suit Appealed
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Junks RICO, Sherman Act Claims
HERCULES INC: Settlement of ERISA Suits in Pa. Valued at $18M
ILLINOIS-AMERICAN: Sued Over Lisle Village Water Maintenance
INPHONIC INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July 6
INTEL CORP: Ill. Supreme Court to Review Pentium 4 Litigation
JOHN CHEZIK: Jury Awards $3.4M in "Money-Back Guarantee" Lawsuit
MFS INVESTMENT: Settles Market Timing Suit in Md. Federal Court
MOSCOW CABLECOM: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Renova Media Proposal
NEBRASKA: Holt County Irrigators Sue Over Water Supply Cutoff
OASIS LEGAL: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Illegal" Fee Sharing
OHIO: Class in Traffic Camera Suit Still Not Reimbursed
PALESTINE: Suit Looms Over Qassam Terror Attacks on Civilians
PENNSYLVANIA: Hunterdon County Sued Over Price of Photocopies
REDIFF.COM INDIA: July 12 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Defends Low Sales Forecast in Dismissal Motion
TENNESSEE: Towns Might Face Suit Over Improper Traffic Ticketing
TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit for $2.97B
VEHICLE CLEANING: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ill. Securities Suit Enters Limited Discovery
XEROX CORP: Enters Settlement in N.Y. Civil Rights Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
AROTECH CORP: Shepherd LLC Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ABERCROMBIE & KENT: Faces Ill. Consumer, Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Todd & Weld LLP and Lite DePalma Greenberg &
Rivas, LLC, announces that a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf
of all persons who purchased club memberships in "Distinctive
Retreats by Abercrombie & Kent, Inc." during the period of time
Abercrombie & Kent, Inc. licensed its name to Tanner & Haley.
The case seeks to pursue remedies for violation of common law
causes of action, causes of action arising from violations of
applicable consumer fraud legislative protections and under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The action was originally filed on Nov. 3, 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois and docketed on April 30,
2007, and an amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2007,
pursuant to court order.
The action, "Glazer v. Abercrombie & Kent, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-2284," is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against defendants Abercrombie & Kent,
Inc., Geoffrey Kent, Andrew Harper, Andrew Harper Travel, Inc.
and John Doe a/k/a Andrew Harper for violation of common law
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud and breach of
guarantee.
In addition to common law causes of action and causes of action
arising from violations of applicable consumer fraud legislative
protections, this is a federal class action brought under the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of persons who
purchased securities, that is bonds, representing membership in
a luxury destination club for which, upon information and
belief, they each paid $390,000 or more and the amount paid was
less than the face value of the bonds.
The complaint alleges that said bonds were purchased in reliance
upon a mix of material non-disclosures of facts and materially
false and misleading statements which caused plaintiff and the
plaintiff class to erroneously believe that defendant
Abercrombie & Kent, Inc. was the owner and operator of the club,
and the issuer and backer of both the bonds and of the guarantee
that the face value of the bonds, also known as the "membership
deposit" amount, would be one hundred percent refundable.
It further alleges that Abercrombie & Kent, Inc., after enticing
hundreds of people to become members in the club, announced that
it was no longer permitting its name to be used for the project,
notwithstanding the aggressive marketing campaign that had
featured Abercrombie & Kent's hallmark name front and center on
all approved marketing materials, offering documents and the
membership agreement.
The fact that it was simply lending or licensing its name, if
true, was not disclosed in any of the materials given to the
prospective club members.
Ultimately, Tanner & Haley disclosed that it was the owner of
the club, and stated that Abercrombie & Kent, Inc. would no
longer license its name to Tanner & Haley.
On July 24, 2006, Tanner & Haley filed for protection under
Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The bonds are thus
illiquid and non-refundable by Tanner & Haley at present and the
Class members are general unsecured creditors of Tanner & Haley
in that bankruptcy.
Given, inter alia, the unauthorized change in the debt to equity
ratio and other matters disclosed to date in the pending
bankruptcy proceedings, the class stands to lose most, if not
all, of the value of their securities.
In fact, the assets of the Club have been sold, pursuant to an
order of the bankruptcy court approving same but for an amount
leaving very little if anything to pay the claims of the
unsecured creditors.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased club memberships in "Distinctive Retreats by
Abercrombie & Kent, Inc." during the period of time Abercrombie
& Kent, Inc. licensed its name to Tanner & Haley and suffered a
loss as a result.
Lead plaintiff filing deadline is July 16, 2007.
The suit is "Glazer v. Abercrombie & Kent, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-02284," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge George W. Lindberg.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Michael E. Patunas, Esq.
Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLC
Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
Newark, NY 07102
Phone: (973) 623-3000
Web site: http://www.ldgrlaw.com/
- and -
Todd & Weld LLP
28 State St., 31st Floor,
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 720-2626
Fax: (617) 227-5777
Web site: http://www.toddweld.com/
ALABAMA: Jefferson County Sued Over Occupational Tax Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit says Jefferson County improperly collected its
occupational tax for the past seven years, and every worker who
has paid the tax in that period should be reimbursed, Birmingham
News.
A Jefferson county resident and employee filed a lawsuit
claiming Jefferson County's occupational tax collection illegal.
The suit was filed in the 10th Judicial District, under Circuit
Judge Allwin E. Horn III.
The plaintiff, Jessica Edwards, intends to move her suit into a
class action on behalf of all others who have been paying the
occupational tax for seven years.
The lawsuit claims the state Legislature revoked the 0.5% tax on
the wages of most people in Jefferson County, which took effect
in April 1, 2000.
Andy Strickland, the county attorney, has not yet seen the
lawsuit. No hearing date has been set.
Representing the plaintiff:
Samuel M. Hill, Esq.
Gardner, Middlebrooks, Gibbons, Kittrell &
Olsen , P.C.
2013 First Avenue, North Suite 400
Birmingham, AL 35203-4140
APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement with Studio Display Buyers Approved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles gave
final approval on March 13, 2007 to a proposed settlement in the
matter, "Allen et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. BC
328000," Think Secret reports.
At the final hearing on February 15, the judge ordered Apple to
"extend the claims period and provide additional published
notice." The court also approved a lower fee that Apple will be
paying to cover the Plaintiffs' counsel.
The settlement covers all U.S. customers who purchased one of
the company's 17-inch Studio Displays beginning May 2001, unless
they submitted a request for exclusion before a Jan. 19, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2007).
Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to
claimants who paid for a repair related to the inverter board.
The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who
performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair,
and how old the display was when the repair was performed.
In essence the settlement stipulates that:
-- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired
by the company during the second year of ownership will
be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their
unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and
-- customers who had repairs done by a party other than
the company will receive the actual amount they paid up
to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter.
Customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired on or
before Nov. 13, 2006 must mail a claim form postmarked on or
before Feb. 12, 2007 in order to receive the refund.
If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be
mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered
repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier.
Case Background
The purported nationwide class action, which was filed on Jan.
28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17"
Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen
and constant blinking of the power light.
An amended complaint in the case was filed on Oct. 24, 2005,
adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged
class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display
and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display.
The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported
defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that
the company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or
concealed the purported defect.
Generally, the suit alleged that the inverter board of the
display, manufactured since May 2001, was faulty, causing
gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen and a
power light to constantly blink on and off in a short-short-long
pattern.
Plaintiffs assert claims under:
-- California Business & Professions Code Section 17200
(unfair competition);
-- California Business & Professions Code Section 17500
(false advertising); and
-- Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and
equitable relief.
For more details, contact:
The Settlement Administrator
Phone: 1-888-826-3082
Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com
- and -
Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
35 E. State Street
Media, PA 19063-2917
Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880
Fax: (610) 891-9883
E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com
Web site: http://classactioncounsel.com
ARTHUR J GALLAGHER: $28M Settlement of Suit Over Commission OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
preliminary approval to a proposed $28,000,000 settlement in a
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding that names Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co. as one of the defendants.
On Oct. 19, 2004, Gallagher was joined as a defendant in a
purported class action, originally filed in August 2004, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by
OptiCare Health Systems Inc. against various large insurance
brokerage firms and commercial insurers (OptiCare Health Systems
Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV
06954 (DC)).
The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the
contingent commission structure of placement service agreements
in a conspiracy to deprive policyholders of "independent and
unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open
competition in the market for insurance."
Since fourth quarter 2004, nine other similar purported class
actions have been filed alleging claims similar to those alleged
by the plaintiff in the OptiCare litigation and such cases have
been included in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding
before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
On Dec. 29, 2006 Gallagher reached an agreement to resolve all
claims in the MDL and related matters. Gallagher admitted no
wrongdoing, but chose to conclude its involvement, rather than
prolong what could have been a costly and burdensome lawsuit.
The MDL Settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides
for Gallagher to distribute $28.0 million to current and former
clients and others that used a broker to purchase retail
insurance from 1994 to 2005. Gallagher will also pay $8.9
million in plaintiffs' attorney fees.
The MDL Settlement continues to be subject to final approval by
the court. On April 17, 2007, the court granted preliminary
approval of the MDL Settlement, according to the company's April
26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. -- http://www.ajg.com/-- is engaged
in providing insurance brokerage, risk management, and related
services to clients in the U.S. and abroad. Its principal
activity is the negotiation and placement of insurance for its
clients.
AXA SA: Claim Filing Process for Armenian Genocide Deal Created
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three Armenian-American attorneys, Brian S. Kabateck, Mark J.
Geragos and Vartkes Yeghiayan, who recently visited Paris,
announced that a claim filing process has been established for
the $17.5 million settlement of U.S. class actions brought
against French insurance giant AXA, S.A. in relation to life
insurance that went unpaid to heirs of those killed during the
1915 Armenian Genocide.
The settlement were for the following suits, which were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California:
-- "Kyurkjian, et. al, v. AXA, S.A., et al., Case No: 02-
01750," and
-- "Ouzounian, et. al., v. AXA, S.A., et al., Case No: 05-
02596."
Attorneys Kabateck, Geragos and Yeghiayan are internationally
representing Armenian descendants such cases.
Mr. Yeghiayan principle of Glendale, California-based Yeghiayan
& Associates states, "These settlements have brought us one step
closer to universal Genocide recognition by forcing everyone who
ignorantly denies the Armenian Genocide, especially those
Turkish citizens who have been blinded by years of state
sponsored propaganda, to come to grips with reality and see that
had there not been a genocide, these multinational corporations
would not have paid millions in settlement."
In order to have a claim considered for payment qualified
individuals must fill out and submit a policy claim to a
Settlement Fund Board. The deadline for submission is Oct. 1,
2007.
Armenians can obtain a list of individuals who had purchased
insurance from AXA in the Ottoman Empire between 1880 and 1930
by going to http://www.armenianinsurancesettlement.com.
For more details, contact
Vartkes Yeghiayan, Esq.
Yeghiayan & Associates
535 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 270
Glendale, California 91203
Phone: (818) 242-7400
Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Geragos & Geragos
350 S. Grand Avenue, 39th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3480
Phone: (213) 625-3900
E-mail: fileclerk@geragos.com
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 39th Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90071
Phone: (213) 217-5000
Fax: (213) 217-5010
E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
- and -
Settlement Administrator
AXA Settlement Claim Fund
900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 614
Los Angeles, CA 90017-4707
Phone: 213-623-7941
Web site: http://www.armenianinsurancesettlement.com
BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ga. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes USA, Inc. received notice that a putative class
action complaint was filed on April 30, 2007 on behalf of a
purported class consisting of present and former participants
and beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes 401(K) Plan naming Beazer
Homes, certain of its current and former officers and directors
and the Benefits Administration Committee as defendants.
The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The complaint alleges
breach of fiduciary duties, including those set forth in the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act as a result of the
investment of retirement monies held by the 401(K) Plan in
common stock of Beazer Homes at a time when participants were
allegedly not provided timely, accurate and complete information
concerning Beazer Homes.
At this time, Beazer Homes said it has found no evidence to
support the allegations and intends to vigorously defend this
action.
Beazer Homes also received notice on May 1, 2007 that the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting an informal
inquiry to determine whether any person or entity related to
Beazer Homes has violated federal securities laws. Beazer Homes
intends to cooperate fully with the Securities and Exchange
Commission's inquiry.
The suit is "Miller v. Beazer Homes USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-00952-RWS," filed the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division under Judge Richard W.
Story.
Representing plaintiff Brenda Miller is:
Lisa T. Millican, Esq.
Greenfield Millican, P.C.
800 The Grant Building
44 Broad Street , NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Phone: 404-522-1122
E-mail: lisa.millican@lawofficePC.com
CUSTODIAL PLUS: Laborers Sue in Ill. to Claim Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Custodial Plus, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed on
May 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging Labor Code violations.
This lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201, et. seq. and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law,
820 ILCS 105/1 et. seq., for Custodial Plus' failure to pay
plaintiffs earned overtime pay.
Plaintiffs Roberto Rodriguez and Jose Luis Rodriguez, claim that
during the course of their employment as laborers, they were not
exempt from the overtime wage provisions under the FLSA.
Plaintiffs allege they were directed by Custodial Plus to work
in excess of 40 hours per week. Although plaintiffs worked in
excess of 40 hours per week, the company failed and refused to
pay them overtime. Instead, plaintiffs are paid straight-time
for time worked, including time worked in excess of 40 hours in
individual work weeks.
The suit states the defendant's failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours was a violation of the
FLSA. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207, for all weeks in which
plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours, they were entitled to
be compensated at a rate of one and on-half times their regular
rate of pay.
Plaintiffs pray for a judgment against defendant as follows:
-- a judgment in the amount of one-half times plaintiffs'
hourly wage rate for all hours which plaintiffs worked
in excess of 40 hours per week;
-- a judgment in the amount of all back wages due as
provided by the Illinois Minimum Wage Law;
-- liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of
unpaid overtime compensation found due;
-- prejudgment interest on the back wages in accordance
with 815 ILCS 205/2;
-- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action as
provided by the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS
150/1 et. seq.;
-- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing
this action;
-- that the court determine the rights of the parties and
direct defendant to account for all hours worked and
wages paid to the class members during the temporality
of the class; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems
appropriate and just.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f1c
The suit is "Rodriguez et al. v. Custodial Plus, LLC, Case No.
1:07-cv-02631," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge John F. Grady.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Maureen Ann Bantz, Esq.
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Werman Law Offices, PC
77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Fax: 312-419-1025
E-mail: mbantz@flsalaw.com or dwerman@flsalaw.com
CYBERONICS INC: EFCAT Wants to Amend Securities Fraud Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff in the consolidated class action, "In re:
Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. H-
0502121," is seeking leave to file an amended complaint in the
matter, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
On June 17, 2005, a putative class action was filed against the
company and certain of its officers and Robert P. Cummins, then
chairman and chief executive, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.
The lawsuit is, "Richard Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. H:05-cv-02121." A second lawsuit with similar
allegations is "Stanley Sved v. Cyberonics, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. H:05-cv-2414," which was filed on July 12, 2005.
On July 28, 2005, the court consolidated the two cases under
Civil Action No. H-05-2121, captioned, "In re Cyberonics, Inc.
Securities Litigation," and entered a scheduling order.
On Sept. 28, 2005, the court appointed EFCAT, Inc., John E. and
Cecelia Catogas, Blanca Rodriguez, and Mohamed Bakry as lead
plaintiffs and also appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel.
The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
Nov. 30, 2005. The complaint generally alleged, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the U.S. Exchange Act by making false and misleading statements
regarding the company's VNS Therapy System device as a therapy
for treatment resistant depression.
On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.
On July 20, 2006, the district court granted the company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, allowing the
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden
to plead a securities fraud claim with particularity, including
failures to allege with particularity a material misstatement or
omission, to allege facts sufficient to raise a strong inference
of intent or severe recklessness, and to allege sufficiently the
causal connection between the plaintiffs' loss and the
defendants' actions.
The court noted that "the deficiencies in plaintiffs' complaint
might well extend beyond the point of cure," but nonetheless
granted plaintiffs the right to amend their complaint in light
of the strong presumption of law favoring a right to amend.
On Aug. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint for violation of the securities laws. The complaint
generally alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act by
making false and misleading statements regarding the VNS Device
as a therapy for treatment resistant depression.
Lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to disclose:
-- that certain individuals associated with the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration had safety and efficacy concerns
about the use of the VNS Device for the treatment of
depression and questioned the adequacy of evidence of
safety and effectiveness the company presented to the
FDA;
-- that the defendants misrepresented the prospect for
payer reimbursement for the VNS Device;
-- that the defendants concealed executive compensation and
governance issues and that the defendants falsely stated
that an analyst's statements about options granted in
June 2004 were inaccurate and without merit.
Lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities, except those named as defendants, who purchased or
otherwise acquired the company's securities during the period
Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006.
The amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and
equitable or injunctive relief, if available.
On Oct. 2, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the basis that the complaint fails to
allege facts that state any claim for securities fraud.
The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss
on Oct. 23, 2006 and the defendants filed a reply to the
opposition on Nov. 6, 2006.
On Oct. 31, 2006, a week before the defendants filed their reply
in connection with the motion to dismiss the amended complaint,
the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association filed a
motion seeking to intervene and asking the court to require the
lead plaintiffs to republish notice of the amended class action
claims.
On Nov. 28, 2006, the court issued an order compelling
republication of notice and staying the proceeding pending
determination of the lead plaintiff pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act.
On Dec. 18, 2006, the lead plaintiffs published notice of the
filing of the first amended complaint, stating that investors
who purchased the company's securities during the expanded class
period (Feb. 5, 2004 through Aug. 1, 2006, inclusive) may move
the court for consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff
within 60 days.
On Feb. 16, 2007, the period for moving the court for
consideration to be appointed as lead plaintiff expired with no
such motion having been filed.
On Feb. 21, 2007, the court lifted its stay of the proceeding,
and in March 2007, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
leave to file an amended complaint, according to the company's
April 26, 2007 Form S-1 filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The suit, "In re Cyberonics, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. H-05-2121," is originally "Darquea v. Cyberonics Inc et al.,
Case No. 4:05-cv-02121," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas under Judge Sim Lake.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Elizabeth A. Abbott, Esq.
John G. Emerson Esq.
Scott E. Poynter, Eq.
Emerson Poynter LLP
2228 Cottondale Lane, Suite 100
Little Rock, AR 72202-2037
E-mail: john@emersonpoynter.com
Mark A. Golovach, Esq.
Mark L. Knutson, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Krinsk Esq.
Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP
501 West Broadway, Ste 1250
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-238-1333
Fax: 619-238-5425
E-mail: mlk@classactionlaw.com
fk@classactionlaw.com
- and -
Neil Rothstein, Esq.
David R. Scott, Esq.
Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLC
600 B Street, Ste. 1500
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-233-4565
Representing the defendants is:
N. Scott Fletche, Esq.
Vinson & Elkins LLP
1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77002-6760
Phone: 713-758-3234
Fax: 713-615-5168
E-mail: sfletcher@velaw.com
DAVIS STUCCO: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Davis Stucco, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on
May 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiffs -- Ramiro Frias, Jaime Frias and Jose Rodrigo Frias -
- bring this claim 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.
Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of employees who held
similar positions and who worked in excess of 40 hours during
one or more work weeks during the relevant time periods who did
not receive pay at one and one-half times their regular rate for
their hours worked in excess of 40 hours.
The complaint alleges that plaintiffs were paid separately for
all hours worked for over 40 at their regular hourly rate, and
not at a rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay as required by FLSA.
According to the suit, the defendant has violated Title 29
U.S.C. Section 207 from at least Jan. 1, 2002, through Oct. 1,
2006, in that:
(a) plaintiffs worked in excess of 40 hours per week for
the period of employment;
(b) no payments, and provisions for payment, have been made
by defendant to properly compensate plaintiffs at the
statutory rate of one and one-half times plaintiffs'
regular rate for those hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week as provided by the FLSA; and
(c) defendant has failed to maintain proper time records as
mandated by the FLSA.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that judgment be entered in
their favor:
-- 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 plaintiffs overtime compensation in the amount
due them for plaintiffs' time worked in excess of 40
hours per work week;
-- awarding plaintiffs overtime compensation due them for
hours worked by them but for which they have not been
properly compensated;
-- awarding plaintiffs liquidated damages in an amount
equal to the overtime award;
-- awarding plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and expenses of the litigation pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b);
-- awarding plaintiffs pre-judgment interest; and
-- ordering any other further relief the court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f20
The suit is "Frias et al. v. Davis Stucco, Inc., Case No. 2:07-
cv-14132-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez.
Representing plaintiffs are:
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
DEXIA SA: June Hearing Set for $60M L&H Securities Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on June 22, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. for the
proposed $60,000,000.00 settlement in the matter, "Hans A.
Quaak, Attilio Po, and Karl Leibinger, et al. v. Dexia, S.A. and
Dexia Bank Belgium (formerly known as Artesia Banking Corp., SA,
Case No. 03-CV-11566."
The hearing will be held before the Judge Patti B. Saris in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Joseph
Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 8 and 12, 2007, respectively. Deadline
for the submission of a proof of claim is on Aug. 21, 2007.
The settlement covers all persons who purchased common stock of
Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (L&H) on the NASDAQ stock
market or purchased L&H call options or sold L&H put options on
any U.S.-based options exchange between Aug. 19, 1998 and Nov.
9, 2000.
Case Background
L&H was a Belgium-based speech recognition software
manufacturer. During the fall of 2000, L&H announced that, as a
result of past accounting "errors and irregularities," the
Company had overstated its publicly reported revenues by 64%, or
a total of $377,000,000.00 ($377 million).
On Nov. 29, 2000, L&H filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Delaware.
Beginning on Aug. 9, 2000, sixteen class actions were filed in
or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs in those actions alleged that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by engaging in accounting
fraud at L&H.
These actions were consolidated by Orders dated Feb. 26, 2001
and Sept. 10, 2001, under the caption, "In re Lernout & Hauspie
Securities Litigation (In re L&H)."
By its Order dated Feb. 26, 2001, the Court appointed Hans A.
Quaak, Attilio Po and Karl Leibinger as the Lead Plaintiffs for
the Class in In re L&H and approved the Lead Plaintiffs'
selection of counsel, appointing Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo; Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP; and Cauley
Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC as Lead Counsel in In re L&H.
The Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel undertook massive formal
and informal discovery efforts in connection with the In re L&H
action. In August 2003, based on recently reported news and
evidence uncovered in the course of Lead Counsel's investigation
of Class Members' claims, Plaintiffs filed this Action against
Dexia's parent, Dexia, S.A.
In their initial complaint, the Lead Plaintiffs alleged that
Dexia, S.A. was liable for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws committed by its predecessor, Artesia Banking.
Plaintiffs later named Dexia, the corporate successor to Artesia
Banking, as a defendant in this Action and agreed to voluntarily
dismiss Dexia, S.A. as a defendant.
In their Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint, dated Nov. 2,
2006, plaintiffs allege that, between Aug. 19, 1998 and Nov. 9,
2000, Artesia Banking and its subsidiary, Artesia Securities,
S.A., directly participated in a fraudulent scheme designed to
inflate artificially L&H's financial results and stock price and
issued certain materially false and misleading representations
in analyst reports concerning L&H, all in violation of Sections
10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Artesia Banking violated
the federal securities laws by, among other things, providing
and concealing loans to purportedly "unaffiliated" L&H customers
that were secretly guaranteed by L&H's officers and by issuing
fraudulent analyst reports in the name of Artesia Securities
that positively reported on L&H's operations and financial
performance without disclosing Artesia Banking's role in
inflating L&H's reported financial results.
Plaintiffs further allege that, while engaging in this scheme,
Artesia Banking sold shares of L&H common stock without
disclosing its fraudulent scheme in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20A of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs further alleged that they and other Class Members
purchased L&H Securities during the Class Period at prices
artificially inflated as a result of the fraudulent scheme
Plaintiffs alleged and by the false statements and omissions
identified in the Complaint.
By orders dated Feb. 9, 2005 and Aug. 8, 2006, the Court denied
Dexia's motions to dismiss the Second and Third Amended
complaints, respectively. Dexia's motion to dismiss the insider
trading claim asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint was
pending at the time the parties reached this Settlement.
Plaintiffs' motion to certify the Class was also pending at that
time.
For more details, contact:
Lernout & Hauspie Securities Litigation
The Dexia Settlement
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217-8041
Phone: (866) 828-2348 or (414) 963-6490
Web site: http://www.LernoutHauspieSettlement.com
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
- and -
Patrick L. Rocco, Esq.
Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 239-4340
DOERING LANDSCAPE: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Doering Landscape Company is facing a class action filed on May
8 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Felix Maya brings this action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq. and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS Section 105/1 et. seq. for Doering's
failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in excess of
40 hours in individual work weeks.
Plaintiff claims that during the course of his employment, he
was directed to work in excess of 40 hours in individual work
weeks but was not compensated at a rate of one and one-half time
their regular hourly rate for all time worked in excess of 40
hours.
Defendant's failure and refusal to pay overtime wages for all
time worked in excess of 40 hours per week was a violation of
the FLSA. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 207, for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks, plaintiff
is entitled to be compensated at a rate of one and one-half
times their regular hourly rate of pay.
Plaintiff prays for a judgment against defendants as follows:
-- a judgment in the amount of one and one-half times
plaintiff and other similarly situated employees'
regular rate for all time which they worked in excess of
40 hours per week;
-- liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of
unpaid overtime compensation found due;
-- damages pursuant to the formula set forth in 820 ILCS
Section 105/12(a);
-- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in filing
this action; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems
appropriate and just.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f23
The suit is "Maya v. Doering Landscape Company et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-02593," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Maureen Ann Bantz, Esq.
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Werman Law Offices, PC
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 419-1008
Fax: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: mbantz@flsalaw.com or dwerman@flsalaw.com
- and -
John Edward Untereker, Esq.
Christopher John Williams, Esq.
Workers' Law Office, P.C.
77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 795-9115
Fax: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: juntereker@workers-law.org or
cwilliams@workers-law.org
DRAM LITIGATION: Calif. Court Okays $143M Antitrust Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
approved on April 18, 2007 a proposed $143,247,000 settlement
with certain defendants in the matter, "In Re Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master Files No. M-
02-1486 PJH (JCS), MDL No. 1486."
The Court determined that each of the proposed settlements were
fair, adequate and reasonable to the Class, approved each
settlement and dismissed the litigation with prejudice against
the Settling Defendants.
The settlement, which is in relation to all direct purchaser
actions, covers all persons or entities that directly purchased
DRAM in the U.S. from the defendants during the period of APRIL
1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.
The settling defendants are:
-- Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.;
-- NEC Electronics America, Inc.;
-- Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics
Corporation America; and
-- Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor
Products, Inc. through its Crucial Technology division.
These are the second group of settlements reached in this
litigation.
The court has granted final approval of the first group of
settlements with:
-- Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies
North America Corp.;
-- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; and
-- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor
America, Inc.
Case Background
Plaintiffs in the suits generally allege that defendants
unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of DRAM and/or to allocate among themselves major
customers and accounts in violation of the federal antitrust
laws during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.
They also allege that, as a result of defendants' unlawful
conduct, they and members of the class paid more for DRAM than
they would have in the absence of defendants' wrongful conduct.
Defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses. On June 5, 2006, the court
certified the class described above.
The Settlement on the Net:
http://www.dramantitrustsettlement.com/dram/default.htm
Class counsels in this lawsuit are:
Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri
Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 217-6810
Anthony d. Shapiro, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
DRAM LITIGATION: May 16 Hearing Set for $22M Antitrust Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing will be held in San Francisco, California on May 16,
2007 to preliminarily approve a third and final group of
settlements reached in the DRAM Antitrust Litigation with
defendants Mosel Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic, Inc. and Nanya
Technology Corp. USA.
The settlement amount for this third group is $22,000,000.
There are no non-settling defendants left in this litigation.
The settlement funds will be distributed at a later date, and
therefore no claim forms are to be submitted at this time.
Class members consist of all persons or entities who directly
purchased dynamic random access memory in the U.S. from the
defendants during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30,
2002.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
has granted final approval of the second group of settlements
with:
-- Elpida Memory, Inc. and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.;
-- NEC Electronics America, Inc.;
-- Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics
Corporation America; and
-- Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor
Products, Inc. through its Crucial Technology division.
The court has granted final approval of the first group of
settlements with:
-- Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies
North America Corp.;
-- Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; and
-- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor
America, Inc.
These settlements total $303,997,000.
Case Background
Plaintiffs in the suits generally allege that defendants
unlawfully agreed to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices of DRAM and/or to allocate among themselves major
customers and accounts in violation of the federal antitrust
laws during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.
They also allege that, as a result of defendants' unlawful
conduct, they and members of the class paid more for DRAM than
they would have in the absence of defendants' wrongful conduct.
Defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted
numerous affirmative defenses. On June 5, 2006, the court
certified the class described above.
The Settlement on the Net:
http://www.dramantitrustsettlement.com/dram/default.htm
Class counsels in this lawsuit are:
Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri
Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 217-6810
Anthony d. Shapiro, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Security Breach Suit Removed to Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action that was originally filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York against Harley-Davidson,
Inc. and the Harley Owners Group on Jan. 22, 2007 has been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
The complaint alleges that the company was negligent in failing
to properly safeguard, protect and keep confidential the
personal "Customer Identifiable Information" that was stored on
a company laptop computer that was lost on or about Aug. 14,
2006.
The complaint also alleges that Harley-Davidson breached
fiduciary duties and made false and fraudulent representations
and warranties to its customers that it would keep confidential
and safeguard and protect the personal customer information in
its possession. It seeks unspecified damages.
On Feb. 23, 2007, this matter was removed to the U.S. District
Court 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 April 1,
2007.
The suit is "Shafran v. Harley-Davidson, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-01365-GBD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge George B. Daniels.
Representing the defendant is:
Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: (212) 702-8100 x8165
Fax: (212) 702-8200
E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Conn. Securities Suit Appealed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has yet
to rule on a motion to appeal the dismissal of consolidated
securities fraud class action brought against The Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., and its top officers, according
to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
Initially, two securities class actions, now consolidated, were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
alleging claims against the Company and certain of its executive
officers under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges on behalf of a
putative class of shareholders that the Company and the four
named individual defendants, as control persons of the Company,
failed to disclose to the investing public that The Hartford's
business and growth was predicated on the unlawful activity
alleged in the NYAG Complaint.
The NYAG Complaint was filed by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on Oct. 14, 2004. It was a civil complaint over
insurance fraud that was filed against Marsh, Inc., and Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain insurance
companies participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit
inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent
commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them.
The class period alleged in the consolidated class action is
Aug. 6, 2003 through Oct. 13, 2004, the day before the NYAG
Complaint was filed. The complaint seeks damages and attorneys'
fees.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss in June 2005, and, on July
13, 2006, the district court granted the motion. The plaintiffs
have noticed an appeal of the dismissal.
The suit is "Staehr v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01740-CFD," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F.
Droney.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
Scott & Scott
108 Norwich Ave., P.O. Box 192
Colchester, CT 06415
Phone: 860-537-5537
Fax: 869-537-4432
E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
- and -
Tor Gronborg, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 631-231-7423
E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Jack C. Auspitz, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
1290 Avenue Of The Americas
New York, NY 10104-0050
Phone: 212-468-8000
Fax: 212-468-7900
E-mail: jauspitz@mofo.com
- and -
Timothy Andrew Diemand, Esq.
Wiggin & Dana
One Cityplace, 185 Asylum St.
Hartford, CT 06103
Phone: 860-297-3738
Fax: 860-525-9380
E-mail: tdiemand@wiggin.com
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: N.J. Court Junks RICO, Sherman Act Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted
the defendants' renewed motions to dismiss the Sherman Act and
RICO claims in a multidistrict litigation against the Hartford
Financial Services Group, Inc., and dismissed the consolidated
actions without prejudice.
There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the
multidistrict litigation, one related to alleged conduct in
connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the
other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of
group benefits products.
The company and various of its subsidiaries are named in both
complaints. The actions assert, on behalf of a class of persons
who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, claims
under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group
benefits complaint, claims under ERISA arising from conduct
similar to that alleged in the NYAG Complaint.
The NYAG Complaint was filed by New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer on Oct. 14, 2004. It was a civil complaint over
insurance fraud that was filed against Marsh, Inc., and Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc., alleging that certain insurance
companies participated with Marsh in arrangements to submit
inflated bids for business insurance and paid contingent
commissions to ensure that Marsh would direct business to them.
The class period alleged in the multidistrict litigation is 1994
through the date of class certification, which has not yet
occurred. The complaints seek treble damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees.
On Oct. 3, 2006, the court denied in part the defendants'
motions to dismiss the two consolidated amended complaints but
found the complaints deficient in other respects and ordered the
plaintiffs to file supplemental pleadings.
After the plaintiffs filed their supplemental pleadings, the
defendants renewed their motions to dismiss. On April 5, 2007,
the court granted the defendants' renewed motions to dismiss the
Sherman Act and RICO claims, dismissed the consolidated actions
without prejudice, and gave the plaintiffs thirty days to file
any amended complaints.
The company also has been named in two similar actions filed in
state courts, which the defendants have removed to federal
court. Those actions currently are transferred to the court
presiding over the multidistrict litigation.
Connecticut-based The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. --
http://www.thehartford.com/-- is a diversified insurance and
financial services company, which provides investment products,
individual life, group life and group disability insurance
products, and property and casualty insurance products in the
U.S.
HERCULES INC: Settlement of ERISA Suits in Pa. Valued at $18M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Actuaries of the Pension Plan of Hercules Inc. value a
settlement reached by company in suits filed by Charles
Stepnowski and Samuel J. Webster at $18 million, excluding
interest payments.
In June 2004, a purported class action filed by Charles
Stepnowski against:
* Hercules Inc.;
* The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.;
* The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee; and
* Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' Vice President Human
Resources.
Civil Action No. 04-cv-2296 was filed in the U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The Stepnowski lawsuit sought the payment of benefits under the
Pension Plan of Hercules Incorporated, and alleged violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. SS1001 et
seq. Under the Plan, eligible retirees of the Company may opt
to receive a single cash payment of 51% of the present value of
their accrued benefit (with the remaining 49% payable as a
monthly annuity).
In the Stepnowski lawsuit, it was alleged that the Company's
adoption in 2002 of a new interest rate assumption used to
determine the 51% cash payment constituted a breach of fiduciary
duty and a violation of the anti-cutback requirements of ERISA,
the Internal Revenue Code and the terms of the Plan, and that
its communications to employees concerning the new interest rate
assumption constituted a breach of fiduciary duty.
The Stepnowski lawsuit sought, among other things, the payment
of additional benefits under ERISA (as well as costs and
attorneys fees), and to compel the Company to use an interest
rate assumption that is more favorable to eligible retirees.
In December 2005, a virtually identical purported class action
(Civil Action No. 05-6404) was filed in the same Court by Samuel
J. Webster, et al. against:
* Hercules, Inc.;
* The Pension Plan of Hercules Inc.;
* The Hercules Inc. Finance Committee; and
* Edward V. Carrington, Hercules' Vice President Human
Resources.
In January 2006, the Court consolidated the Stepnowski and
Webster lawsuits for discovery and trial. In March 2006, the
Court certified the Webster action as a class action.
By Order dated April 20, 2006:
-- the Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of
plaintiffs, holding that while the interest rate change
did not violate the anti-cutback provisions of ERISA,
such change did violate provisions of the Plan; and
-- ordered the Company to recalculate the lump sum pension
benefit owed to class members by using the prior
interest rate assumption (the United States Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) rate, which was the
rate used prior to the change to the new interest rate,
as referenced above) to calculate benefits accrued
through December 31, 2001, and the new interest rate
(the "30-Year Treasury Bond" rate) for all benefits
accrued after December 31, 2001.
That Order also required the Company to make certain payments to
Mr. Stepnowski and Mr. Webster, with such payments representing
the additional lump sum benefit payable as a result of the
adjusted lump sum calculation described in the preceding
sentence, plus interest.
On October 4, 2006, the parties entered into a settlement in
principle to resolve both the Stepnowski lawsuit and Webster
class action. Preliminary approval of the settlement was
granted by the Court on December 4, 2006. A hearing for final
approval of the settlement was set for April 16, 2007, but was
adjourned until May 7, 2007.
The main points of the settlement are:
(1) each Class member's lump sum will be computed using the
30-Year Treasury Bond rate applied to all eligible
service through December 31, 2004 as the "floor," plus
75% of the additional value gained, if any, by using
the PBGC rate for that portion of eligible service
accrued through December 31, 2001 (the Plan's actuaries
have estimated that the "present value" of the total
settlement award is approximately $18 million, without
consideration of additional interest payments);
(2) each Class member who has already received a lump sum
will also receive 3% interest, compounded annually, on
his or her settlement award, from the date the original
lump sum amount was paid until the settlement award has
been paid; and
(3) Defendants will pay $0.3 million toward the fees and
litigation costs of plaintiffs' counsel. In addition,
plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel have agreed to
petition the Court for an additional award which, if
approved, will be credited against the present value of
the aggregate settlement award and will reduce each
Class member's settlement award by the same percentage.
Of note, except for $0.3 million, the payments to be made as a
result of this lawsuit will be made by the Company's pension
plan.
The company reported no development in the case at its May 1,
2007 regulatory filing.
In "Stepnowski," the plaintiffs are represented by:
Alice W. Ballard, Esq.
Law Office of Alice W. Ballard, PC
1616 Walnut St., Suite 2205
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-893-9708
Fax: 215-893-9997
E-mail: awballard@awballard.com
- and -
Mervin M. Wilf, Esq.
Mervin M. Wilf, Ltd.
One South Broad Street, Suite 1630
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-568-4842
In "Webster," the plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Larocca, Esq.
Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: 215-238-1700
E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com.
Representing the company in both cases are:
David S. Fryman, Esq. and Allison V. Kinsey, Esq.
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLPP
1735 Market St., 51ST FL.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Phone: 215-864-8105 and 215-864-8782
Fax: 215-864-9743
E-mail: fryman@ballardspahr.com
kinseya@ballardspahr.com
ILLINOIS-AMERICAN: Sued Over Lisle Village Water Maintenance
------------------------------------------------------------
A family in a west suburban subdivision filed a federal class
action accusing the Illinois-American Water Co. and the Village
of Lisle of failing to adequately supply water to the Oak View
subdivision, WBBM780 reports.
Susan and Jeffrey Srail are plaintiffs for the class action
filed in the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois. They are
suing on behalf of themselves and 400 other families.
Plaintiffs claim that:
-- the village refused to provide the subdivision residents
with a properly-functioning water system, as provided
other residents in the community, and refused to demand
that Illinois-American comply with state law and provide
a safe system;
-- the low pressure creates a threat that fires will not be
extinguished in a timely manner and makes the water
supply more susceptible to contamination and bacteria;
-- the water company recklessly failed to maintain the Oak
View system; and
-- some hydrants, due to low pressure, do not work.
The case is "Srail et al. v. Illinois-American Water Company et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02617" under Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Edward John Manzke, Esq.
The Collins Law Firm
1770 North Park Street Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: (630) 527-1595
E-mail: ejmanzke@collinslaw.com
- and -
Julie Beth Anderson, Esq.
The Collins Law Firm
1770 North Park Street Suite 200
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: (630) 363-2795
E-mail: janderson@collinslaw.com
INPHONIC INC: Lead Plaintiff Filing Deadline Set July 6
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC announces that shareholders of
Inphonic, Inc. (INPC) who purchased shares of the Company
between August 2, 2006 and May 3, 2007, may now move for
appointment as Lead Plaintiff in a securities class action
currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.
Investor alert: Shareholders have only until July 6, 2007 in
which to move for appointment as lead plaintiff, contrary to a
misleading law firm press release circulated claiming that
investors had 90 days, or until August 6, 2007, to move for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
Inphonic and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
as it relates to fiscal year 2006 financial results.
Shares of Inphonic fell from a class period high of $14.49 on
February 8, 2007 to below $9.00 per share, after the company
admitted that it would be forced to restate revenues for 2006.
On April 3, 2007, Inphonic issued a Form 8-K indicating that the
company's financial statements for the quarterly periods ended
June 30, September 30, and December 31, 2006 could no longer be
relied upon due to errors in the company's revenue recognition
process. The result of this restatement caused an aggregate net
loss of at least $43 to $49 million for fiscal 2006, compared to
the $17.3 million net loss previously reported. The restatement
also caused Inphonic to delay regulatory filings.
The complaint further alleges that certain officers and
directors of the company were able to sell tens of millions of
dollars of their personally held Inphonic stock during the class
period while in possession of material adverse, non-public
information.
For more information, contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Managing Partner, Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
650 Poydras St., Ste. 2150
New Orleans, LA 70130-7205
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
Cell phone: 504-301-7900
Fax: (504) 831-2672
E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
INTEL CORP: Ill. Supreme Court to Review Pentium 4 Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
A review by the Illinois Supreme Court of a ruling vacating
class certification of a suit filed by Barbara's Sales against
Intel Corp. remains pending.
In June 2002, plaintiffs filed the putative class action against
Intel, Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, and HPDirect, Inc.
in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants' advertisements and
statements misled the public by suppressing and concealing the
alleged material fact that systems containing Intel Pentium 4
processors are less powerful and slower than systems containing
Intel Pentium III processors and a competitor's microprocessors.
The suit seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.
In July 2004, the court certified against Intel an Illinois-only
class of certain end-use purchasers of certain Pentium 4
processors or computers containing these microprocessors.
In January 2005, the Circuit Court granted a motion filed
jointly by the plaintiffs and Intel that stayed the proceedings
in the trial court pending review of the Circuit Court's class
certification order.
In July 2006, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District,
vacated the Circuit Court's class certification order and
remanded the case to the Circuit Court with instructions to
reconsider its class certification ruling applying California
law.
In August 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court agreed to review the
Appellate Court's decision, and that review is pending,
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 suit is "Barbara's Sales, et al. v. Intel Corporation,
Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co. and HPDirect, Inc., Docket No.
No. 02-L-788," filed in the Third Judicial Circuit Court,
Madison County, Illinois.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Aaron M. Zigler, Esq.
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Korein Tillery, LLC
Gateway One on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300
St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1820
Phone: 314-241-4844
Fax: 314-588-7036
Web Site: http://www.koreintillery.com
- and -
Stephen A. Swedlow, Esq.
Robert L. King, Esq.
Swedlow & King, LLC
Three First National Plaza, 70 W. Madison St., Ste. 660
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: (312) 641-3750
Fax: (312) 641-9751
Representing the company is:
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
333 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone: 312-407-0700
Fax: 312-407-0411
Web Site: http://www.skadden.com
JOHN CHEZIK: Jury Awards $3.4M in "Money-Back Guarantee" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay County (Missouri) Circuit Court jury awarded more than $3.4
million in actual damages to certain buyers of vehicles sold by
auto dealer John Chezik Homerun Inc. and A&L Holding Co., Glenn
E. Rice of The Kansas City Star reports.
The jurors originally agreed upon a settlement of $8.4 million.
However, the amount for punitive damages had to be adjusted
pursuant to Missouri law. Aside from that, they returned two
separate judgments for punitive damages for $5 million. This
amount may also be cut when the court enters judgment.
In 2002, John Chezik Homerun, Inc., which operates John Chezik
Honda faced a class action relating to a "100 percent money-back
guarantee" that the company offered on its vehicle service
contracts (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2002).
The class consisted of 1,186 customers who bought contracts from
Jan. 1, 1997, to Dec. 22, 2003, and who got the money-back
guarantees and made no claim under the contracts.
Law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP commenced the suit
on behalf of named plaintiffs Keith and Deborah Shackelford, who
bought a 1995 Honda Accord from the company. The Shackelfords
also bought a service contract, which said a customer would be
refunded the entire cost of the contract if no claims were made
on it.
According to the Business Journal, the Shackelfords said they
made no claims. They returned to the dealership in April 2002
to request their refund but allegedly were told they could
receive only credit toward another car purchase. The dealership
offered to refund the Shackelfords' money after talks with their
lawyers, but the company refused to pay legal fees and other
costs.
In addition to the verdict, the attorneys for the plaintiffs
will also ask for prejudgment interests, attorney fees and a
separate amount for the lead plaintiffs, Keith and Deborah
Shackleford.
MFS INVESTMENT: Settles Market Timing Suit in Md. Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
MFS Investment Management agreed to settle claims by investors
and pension funds in a market timing suit filed against it,
Toronto Star reports.
Terms were not disclosed in letters to U.S. District Judge J.
Frederick Motz in Baltimore, according to the report. Lead
plaintiff in the class action is the City of Chicago Deferred
Compensation Plan.
There's no timetable for disclosing the terms of the MFS and
Bank One settlements, said Clifford Goodstein, a lawyer for Bank
One fund customers, according to the report.
The deal is part of a larger settlement of the suit "In Re
Alger, Columbia, Janus, MFS, One Group, Allianz Dresdner and
Putnam-One Group Track, O4-MD-15863, Civil No. JFM- 04-0832,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
(Baltimore) under Judge J. Frederick Motz.
Lead plaintiff's lawyer is William C. Frederick.
Massachusetts Financial Services (aka MFS Investment Management)
offers mutual funds, fixed and variable annuities, separately
managed accounts, and retirement plans to retail customers,
institutional investors, and insurance companies.
MOSCOW CABLECOM: Faces Del. Lawsuit Over Renova Media Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moscow CableCom Corp. is facing a purported stockholder class
action over a proposal by Renova Media Enterprises Ltd. to
acquire equity interest in the Company that it does not directly
own.
The suit was filed by Levy Investments, Ltd. against:
* Moscow CableCom Corp.,
* Oliver R. Grace, Jr.,
* Jay M. Haft,
* Andrew Intrater,
* Ivan Isakov,
* Valentin V. Lazutkin,
* James J. Pinto,
* Vladimir A. Serdyuk,
* Mikhail Smirnov,
* David R. Van Valkenburg,
* Alexander P. Vladislavlev, and
* Renova Media Enterprises Ltd.,"
It was filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware.
On Nov. 7, 2006, following Renova Media's announcement of its
initial proposal to acquire the equity interest in the Company
that it does not directly own in a negotiated acquisition at
$10.80 per share of common stock, Levy Investments, Ltd. filed
the purported class action on behalf of the company's public
stockholders.
The plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the
consideration offered to the company's stockholders pursuant to
Renova Media's initial proposal of $10.80 per share of common
stock is not adequate and constitutes an unfair price.
In addition, the plaintiff alleges that Renova Media's initial
proposal is an unfair attempt to freeze out the company's public
stockholders and is designed to enrich Renova Media at the
expense of the company's public stockholders.
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief or, in the alternative,
rescission, and an accounting and damages, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
Moscow CableCom Corp. -- http://www.moscowcablecom.com--
provides television, radio, data transmission and Internet
access services through a hybrid-fiber coaxial network (the HFC
Network or last mile access network) in Moscow, Russia.
For more details, contact:
Carmella Keener, Esq.
Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.
919 N. Market St., Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 656-4433
NEBRASKA: Holt County Irrigators Sue Over Water Supply Cutoff
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Nebraska Department of Resources and Nebraska Public Power
District are facing a class action filed by irrigators in Holt
County, Diane Wetzel of The North Platte Telegraph reports.
Gerald and Janet Keating, Frank and Jane Krejci, Daryl and
Makala Butterfield and Tim and Linda Pearson filed the suit in
U.S. District Court in North Platte. They filed the suit on May
10, 2007 after being ordered to stop getting water from the
Niobrara River. On May 1, the DNR, in alliance with NPPD, sent
stop orders to farmers and ranchers ordering them to turn off
their pumps in favor of NPPD's operation of Spencer Dam.
The suit asks the court to issue an order prohibiting the DNR
and NPPD from interfering with their water rights until they
have been given a full hearing. It also asks the court to
require NPPD to remove the Spencer Dam and the huge amount of
silt behind it. The suit states the silt is a pollutant under
the Clean Water act/
That order was lifted on May 7, but the DNR said it could
reinstate the stop order at any time, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit asks for an unspecified amount of damages to
compensate the irrigators for devaluation of their land caused
by silt.
Terry Waite, of Waite, McWha & Harvat law firm in North Platte
will be assisting lead attorney Frank Taylor, of Briggs and
Morgan in Minneapolis.
The suit is "Keating et al. v. Nebraska Public Power District et
al., Case No. 7:07-cv-05011-LES-FG3," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska under Judge Lyle E. Strom
with referral to F. A. Gossett.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Terrance O. Waite, Esq.
Waite, Mcwha Law Firm
P.O. Box 38
North Platte, NE 69103 - 0038
Phone: (308) 532-2202
Fax: (308) 532-2741
E-mail: twaite@northplattelaw.com
Frank A. Taylor, Esq.
Briggs, Morgan Law Firm - Minneapolis
80 South 8th Street
Suite 2200, IDS Center
Minneapolis, MN 55402-2457
Phone: (612) 977-8800
Fax: (612) 977-8650
OASIS LEGAL: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over "Illegal" Fee Sharing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney James Gillen filed a class-action complaint in
California accusing Oasis Legal Finance of illegally structuring
fee-sharing agreement to provide financing for contingency fee
litigation, charging as much as 240% annual interest, The
CourtHouse News Service reports.
Mr. Gillen claims Oasis markets itself as the "nation's largest
attorney funding source, backed by large institutional funds
that are available to finance contingency fee law practices."
He, however, says, "Oasis is not licensed to practice law in
California or, for that matter, anywhere else. Notwithstanding
that disability, Oasis has insinuated itself into the practice
of law in California by structuring an agreement with Plaintiff
-- and many other California lawyers -- that violates public
policy and California law."
"In effect, the Oasis agreement with Plaintiff constitutes an
unlawful fee sharing agreement between an attorney and non-
attorney. For that reason alone, the Promissory Note, Loan
Agreement and Security Agreement between Plaintiff and Oasis are
void and unenforceable," Mr. Gillen adds.
He demands treble damages.
Representing him is:
Alan S. Gutman
The Law Offices of Alan S. Gutman
9401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 575
Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2928
Phone: (310) 385-0700
Fax: (310) 385-0710
OHIO: Class in Traffic Camera Suit Still Not Reimbursed
-------------------------------------------------------
Steubenville Attorney Gary Stern has filed a motion asking that
a judge order the city to reimburse all money collected from
speeding tickets issued using traffic cameras, News9 reports.
Mr. Stern originally filed the suit against the city and camera
manufacturer Traffipax Inc. on behalf of his wife, who received
one of the $85 tickets issued by a traffic camera. The attorney
argued that the cameras are illegal and unconstitutional
because, for one, under the ordinance, motorists don't have the
right to appeal (Class Action Reporter, March 28, 2006).
The suit was certified as class action and Jefferson County
Common Pleas Judge David Henderson ruled that the drivers get
reimbursed and ordered a permanent injunction of the city's
traffic cameras.
Based on the report, Steubenville residents voted against an
ordinance that would have paved the way for traffic cameras in
November. As a result of the initial lawsuit, the city was
ordered to reimburse those people who received tickets.
However, Mr. Stern says the city is not reimbursing the drivers,
as the judge ordered. The people who paid automated tickets
were supposed to receive checks in their mail. He believes
either these people have already moved or the city got their
addresses wrong.
According to Mr. Stern, these people have been asking him for
their refunds and he said he's been writing to the city since
January and has not received any response.
For more information, contact:
Gary M. Stern, Esq.
Stern, Stern & Stern Co. L.P.A.
108 S 4th St
Steubenville, OH 43952
Phone: (740) 284-1211
Fax: (740) 284-9303
PALESTINE: Suit Looms Over Qassam Terror Attacks on Civilians
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bereaved families from Israel's south who lost loved ones in
Qassam rocket attacks from Gaza are planning a lawsuit against
Palestinian Authority to claim compensation for damages, Shmulik
Hadad of Ynet reports.
The majority of the class comes from Sderot City and some from
the surrounding communities who have lost their loved ones too
in the attacks.
The plaintiffs, together with their lawyer Attorney Nitzana
Darshan-Leitner, met on May 13, 2007 to design a class action
against the Palestinian Authority for the damages inflicted on
their person and property due to the attacks coming from the
Palestinian Authority.
Attorney Darshan-Leitner said they're planning to draft a
lawsuit for several million dollars within a couple of weeks.
Zimero Yaakobov, whose brother was killed when a Qassam rocket
crashed in Sderot, said that they're not really interested in
the money and only want the Palestinian Authority to be punished
for the firing those rockets in the city. He added that this is
the only way they can fight them back.
Alon Davidi, chairman of the Sderot security staff said their
objective is to sue the Palestinian Authority for its crimes and
terror attacks against an innocent civilian population.
In fact, even as the plaintiffs and the lawyers met, the
Palestinian Authority launched three Qassam rockets' landing in
an open area in Negev with no injuries or damages.
PENNSYLVANIA: Hunterdon County Sued Over Price of Photocopies
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed on May 8 against the Hunterdon County
freeholders and the county clerk's office over the price of
photocopies and printed documents made from self-service
machines, Andrea Eilenberger of the Express-Times reports.
The lawsuit, which was filed by Attorney Sander D. Friedman on
behalf of Hunterdon County resident James Gensch, claims that
Mr. Gensch was overcharged for duplicate documents.
In addition, the suit alleges:
-- the 25 cent per-page fee the clerk's office charges for
duplicates of public documents on the self-service
copier and self-service printers exceeds the "actual
cost" incurred by the county;
-- the charges exceed what is permitted under New Jersey's
Common Law Right of Access Doctrine; and
-- Hunterdon County doesn't have the right to collect money
inappropriately charged to the public.
The plaintiffs seek reimbursement for the overcharging, to
establish appropriate charge for the self-service equipment in
the clerk's office and the establishment of a trust fund or
program to use any unclaimed money.
Attorney Guy DeSapio, Hunterdon County Counsel, is going to
evaluate the issue and verify if the county did anything wrong.
The county clerk defendant is Mary Melfi.
REDIFF.COM INDIA: July 12 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on July 12, 2007 at 4:30 p.m. for
the proposed $2,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re
Rediff.com India Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 3020
(SAS)."
The hearing will be held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500
Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 15 and 29, 2007, respectively. Deadline
for submission of proof of claim is on Sept. 7, 2007.
The settlement covers all persons that bought American
Depositary Shares of Rediff.com India Ltd. during the time
period between June 14, 2000, and April 4, 2001.
A copy of the complete notice is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f30
For more details, contact:
Rediff.com India Ltd. Securities Litigation
c/o Berdon Claims Administration LLC
P.O. Box 9014
Jericho, NY 11753-8914
Phone: (800) 766-3330
Fax: (516) 931-0810
Web site: http://www.berdonclaims.com
- and -
Victor E. Stewart, Esq.
Ian T. Stoll, Esq.
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP
500 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10110
Phone: (212) 608-1900
Web site: http://www.lshllp.com
TEMPUR-PEDIC: Defends Low Sales Forecast in Dismissal Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
Tempur-Pedic International filed a more detailed defense on May
3 in support of its pending motion to dismiss a securities fraud
lawsuit filed against it, Jim Jordan of the Kentucky.com
reports.
Between Oct. 7, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were
filed against the company and certain of its directors and
officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who
purchased the company's stock between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept.
19, 2005.
These actions were consolidated and Lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006 and asserted claims
arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public
disclosures regarding its financial performance between April
22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and/or misleading.
On Dec. 7, 2006, lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other
relief within the court's discretion.
Motion to Dismiss
In its first detailed response to the securities fraud suit the
company said it lowered its sales forecast by 3.9 percent for
the third quarter of 2005:
-- because of auto industry incentives, which led customers
to buy cars instead of luxury mattresses;
-- because of Hurricane Katrina, which caused gasoline
prices to rise; and
-- increased raw materials costs and declining consumer
spending.
Tempur-Pedic said other publicly owned home furnishings
companies, including Leggett & Platt and La-Z-Boy, also lowered
sales or earnings estimates at the same time for many of the
same reasons.
Despite its low sales forecast, Tempur-Pedic said it "ultimately
reported net sales for 2005 that were 22.2 percent higher than
the prior record" for 2004. The company said allegations that
the company made false statements to inflate its stock price or
that insider sales had been "unusual or suspicious in timing or
amount" were baseless.
In fact, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer
"sold no shares" in the five months before the price drop.
The value of their combined holdings declined by $33 million on
Sept. 19 when the stock price fell to $11.70 a share from
$16.38, the company said.
The other defendant in the case is TA Associates, the company's
largest shareholder. Both defendants are asking the court to
hear oral arguments before it decides on the case.
Plaintiffs in the suit include the Massachusetts Laborers'
Annuity Fund.
The suit is "Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph M. Hood.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101, U.S.
Phone: 619-213-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
- and -
Andrei V. Rado, Esq.
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P.
New York, One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: 212-594-5300
Fax: 212-868-1229
Representing the defendants are:
Michael D. Blanchard, Esq.
Bingham McCutchen, LLP
Hartford CT, One State Street
Hartford, CT 06103-3178
Phone: 860-240-2700
Fax: 860-240-2800
E-mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com
- and -
Barry D. Hunter, Esq.
Frost Brown Todd, LLC
250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington
Financial Center, Lexington, KY 40507
Phone: 859-231-0000
Fax: 859-231-0011
TENNESSEE: Towns Might Face Suit Over Improper Traffic Ticketing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Somerville lawyer plans to file a class action against Oakland
and Piperton towns over a traffic ticketing system they
implemented between October 2005 and May 2006, Cathryn Stout
reports.
Attorney William Rhea, an ex-Fayette county general sessions
judge, is representing people consisting of traffic offenders
who claim they were unjustly ticketed. He said they are still
in the negotiating stages and refused to talk about the
complaint.
Prior to the current practice where traffic violators must pay
fines, court costs and the chance of citations, City Court Judge
Jim Gallagher used to allow traffic offenders to pay court costs
and a fine of $50 for dismissal of citations. This system came
to an end when the state decided against it.
But offenders reportedly continue to be fined specific to their
violations, and have to pay court costs and still face the
possibility of offenses going on their records.
Oakland Mayor Bill Mullins said he has not been involved in any
negotiations and Piperton Mayor Buck Chambers said they have not
done anything wrong.
Oakland Attorney Richard Myers said he's ready to litigate.
Piperton Attorney Barbara Lapides refused to comment about the
suit.
Plaintiffs' counsel:
William S. Rhea, Esq.
205 W. Market Street
Somerville, TN 38068-1847
Defendants' counsels:
Barbara Lapides, Esq.
Harris Shelton Hanover Walsh, PLLC
Suite 2700, One Commerce Square
Memphis, Tennessee 38103-2555
Telephone: 901-525-1455
Telecopier: 901-526-4084
Web site: http://www.harrisshelton.com
- and -
Richard J. Myers, Esq.
Apperson, Crump & Maxwell, PLC
6000 Poplar Avenue, Suite 400
Memphis, Tennessee 38119-3972
Telephone: 901-756-6300
Facsimile: 901-757-1296
Web site: http://www.appersoncrump.com
TYCO INT'L: Settles Consolidated Securities Lawsuit for $2.97B
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. has agreed to immediately fund $2.975
billion in cash to settle securities and accounting fraud claims
relating to the Kozlowski era which are presently pending in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire before
Judge Paul Barbadoro.
The settlement specifically excludes PriceWaterhouseCoopers and,
by the time the settlement will be presented to the Court for
final distribution, it will exceed $3 billion in value,
inclusive of interest.
The settlement represents the single largest payment from any
corporate defendant in the history of securities class action
litigation. Investors who purchased or acquired Tyco securities
from December 13, 1999 through and including June 7, 2002, are
covered by the settlement.
"This is a settlement of historic proportions for the investors
who suffered significant financial losses and it also sends a
strong message to those who would engage in this type of
misconduct in the future," said Richard Schiffrin of Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, one of the Co-Lead Counsel in the
case.
As part of the settlement, Tyco has agreed to assign the claims
it has against PwC related to the accounting fraud to the Class,
which intends to vigorously pursue both its own claims and the
assigned claims.
As Tyco's auditor, PwC was in a unique position to uncover the
fraud and to prevent the damages to Tyco's shareholders.
Instead, PwC is alleged to have failed in its duties as a
corporate watchdog. In addition, as Tyco already has its own
claims being pursued against certain of the individual
defendants, the Class has assigned its claims against Dennis
Kozlowski, Frank Walsh and Mark Swartz to Tyco in exchange for
receiving a 50% interest in any net recoveries achieved against
these non-settling defendants.
Tyco is alleged to have overstated its income during the Class
Period by $5.8 billion. Defendants Kozlowski and Swartz have
been sentenced to up to 25 years in prison after being convicted
of grand larceny, falsification of business records and
conspiracy for their roles in the alleged scheme to defraud
investors. Defendant Walsh has also pled guilty to committing
fraud.
"This litigation was hard-fought throughout and proved to be an
extraordinarily complex action to prosecute over these last five
years. We are all extremely proud of this result and recovery
for the Class, and are determined to aggressively pursue the
remaining claims," said Mr. Schiffrin.
Case Background
Initially, the company and certain of its former directors and
officers were named as defendants in over 40 securities class
actions.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire most
of the securities class actions for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.
On Jan. 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the New
Hampshire securities actions filed, "In re Tyco International,
Ltd., Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1335,
Master Docket No. 1:02-md-01335-PB," a consolidated securities
class action complaint against the company certain of the
company's former directors and officers and its former auditors.
The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Hampshire.
As to the company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Claims against the company's former directors and officers are
also asserted under Sections 20(a) and 20A of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933.
The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among others:
-- Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed
acquisitions;
-- misstatements of Tyco's financial results;
-- the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
promulgated in 1999) on the company's earnings
performance;
-- compensation of certain of the company's former
executives;
-- their improper use of the company's funds for personal
benefit and their improper self-dealing real estate
transactions;
-- their sales of Tyco shares;
-- payment of $20 million to one of the company's former
directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and
-- the criminal investigation of the company's former
chief executive officer.
The plaintiffs sought class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.
On Mar. 31, 2003, the company made a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint. The other defendants moved
to dismiss shortly thereafter.
On Oct. 14, 2004, the court granted the company's motion, in
part, and denied it in part. The court granted the company's
motion to dismiss Count II of the Consolidated Amended Complaint
alleging a violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder against all
defendants.
The court denied the company's motion to dismiss Count I
alleging a violation of Section10 (b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Counts V and VI alleging violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933.
In addition, the court granted former director Michael
Ashcroft's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section 10 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Counts III and IV alleging a
violation of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, respectively, and Count VII alleging a violation of
Section 14 of the Securities Act of 1933.
On Jan. 7, 2005, the company answered the plaintiffs'
consolidated complaint. On Jan. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs made
a motion for class certification, which the company opposed on
Jul. 22, 2005.
On Jul. 5, 2005, the company moved for revision of the court's
Oct. 14, 2004 order in light of a change in law, insofar as the
order denied the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint for failure to plead loss causation. On Dec. 2, 2005,
the court denied the company's motion.
On April 4, 2006 plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary
judgment that was denied without prejudice to its later renewal.
On June 12, 2006, the court entered an order certifying a class
"consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Tyco securities between Dec. 13, 1999 and
June 7, 2002, and who were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants, all of the officers, directors and partners thereof,
members of their immediate families and their legal
representatives, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in
which any of the foregoing have or had a controlling interest."
On June 26, 2006, Tyco filed a petition for leave to appeal the
class certification order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. Separately, on Sept. 22, 2006, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit denied Tyco's petition.
In December 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit denied a petition by Tyco International, Ltd. for leave
to appeal the class certification order for the consolidated
class action under MDL-1335, (Class Action Reporter, Dec 14,
2006).
The case caption is: In re: Tyco International, Ltd.
Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-1335, Master Docket No. 1:02-md-
01335-PB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Hampshire under Judge Paul Barbadoro.
For more information, contact:
Katharine Ryan, Esq.
Michael Yarnoff, Esq.
Darren Check
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (Toll Free) or 1-610-822-2223 or
1-610-822-2203 or 1-610-822-2235
E-mail: kryan@sbtklaw.com or myarnoff@sbtklaw.com or
dcheck@sbtklaw.com
VEHICLE CLEANING: Employees File Suit to Claim Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicle Cleaning Services, Inc. is named defendant in a class-
action complaint filed on May 8 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee alleging Labor Code
violations.
Plaintiffs Dustin Kimbel and Charles A. Ridenour, bring this
action on behalf of present and former employees of Vehicle
Cleaning Services to recover overtime compensation and
liquidated damages due to them under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically including 29 U.S.C.
Section 216.
The complaint contends that plaintiffs have been employed as
hourly paid workers at defendants' truck cleaning and express
truck detailing operations in Chattanoga, who frequently worked
in excess of 40 hours in their regular work weeks.
The suit alleges that it has been and is a practice of the
defendants to fail and refuse to compensated them and their
other hourly paid employees for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week at the rate of one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay. Rather, defendants have consistently paid
plaintiffs at their regular straight time hour wage for all
hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in any
given work week.
The conduct of the defendants violates the provisions of 29
U.S.C. Section 207, thus plaintiffs are entitled to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
-- an order certifying the case as a collective action on
behalf of all present and former employees of the
defendant;
-- an order requiring the defendants to compensate
plaintiffs for all unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages due to them; and
-- such further relief to which they may be found entitled
to, including their attorneys' fees and costs of this
cause.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f2d
The suit is "Kimbel et al. v. Vehicle Cleaning Services, Inc. et
al, Case No. 1:07-cv-00103," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Eastern Tennessee, under Judge Harry S.
Mattice, Jr., with referral to Judge Susan K. Lee.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Donna J. Mikel, Esq.
Burnette, Dobson & Hardeman
713 Cherry Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone: 423-266-2121
E-mail: dmikel@bdhlaw.com
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Ill. Securities Suit Enters Limited Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery occurred in a stockholder class action filed
against Waste Management Holdings, Inc. (WM Holdings) in
Illinois State Court.
In December 1999, an individual brought an action against Waste
Management Inc., five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM
Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, in
Illinois state court on behalf of a proposed class of
individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before Nov.
3, 1994, and who held that stock through Feb. 24, 1998.
The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence
and breach of fiduciary duty. This case has remained in the
pleadings stage for the last several years due to numerous
motions and rulings by the court related to the viability of
these claims.
The defendants had removed the case to federal court in
Illinois, but in 2006 agreed to the matter being held in state
court as originally filed.
The Company believes that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in
other cases require the Illinois trial court to rule this matter
cannot proceed as a class action.
Only limited discovery has occurred, according to the company's
April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of
integrated waste services in North America. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer,
recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services.
XEROX CORP: Enters Settlement in N.Y. Civil Rights Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York is
considering giving preliminary approval to a proposed settlement
in the class action, "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp.," according
to the company's April 27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
On March 11, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York entered an order certifying a nationwide
class of all black salespersons employed by Xerox from Feb. 1,
1997 to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Six black
sales representatives commenced the suit on May 9, 2001.
Plaintiffs allege that the company engaged in a pattern or
practice of race discrimination against them and other black
sales representatives by assigning them to less desirable sales
territories, denying them promotional opportunities, and paying
them less than their white counterparts.
Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the
classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.
Fact discovery recently concluded and expert reports were
exchanged. The parties participated in private mediation in
mid-May 2006. Fact discovery was concluded and expert reports
have been exchanged.
Following three days of mediation with a private mediator, a
tentative agreement was reached. The company said terms of the
agreement were not material to it.
On March 16, 2007, the parties submitted the settlement
agreement to the Court for preliminary approval. If preliminary
approval is obtained, the agreement will then be subject to a
fairness hearing at which any objections to the agreement shall
be heard. If the court still finds the agreement to be
acceptable, it will give its final approval and administration
of the settlement shall commence.
The suit is "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corp., Case No. 1:01-cv-
02909-JG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge John Gleeson with referral to
Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Barry Alan Weprin, Esq.
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 48th floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: (212) 946-9312
Fax: 212-868-1229
E-mail: bweprin@milbergweiss.com
Representing the defendant are:
Eugene D. Ulterino, Esq.
Amy Laura Ventry, Esq.
Nixon Peabody, LLP
Phone: 585-263-1580 and (516) 832-7500
Fax: 585-263-1600 and (516) 832-7555
E-mail: eulterino@nixonpeabody.com
aventry@nixonpeabody.com
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
May 15-16, 2007
PHARMACEUTICAL ANTITRUST
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
May 17-19, 2007
Electronic Records Management and Digital Discovery: Practical
Considerations for Legal, Technical, and Operational Success
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 21-22, 2007
DEFENDING CONSUMER PROTECTION CLASS ACTIONS
American Conference Institute
San Francisco
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
May 21-22, 2007
RESPONDING TO BROKER/DEALER LITIGATION & REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
May 22-23, 2007
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 4-5, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5, 2007
MEALEY'S MTBE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Miramar Hotel, Santa Monica, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5-6, 2007
CONSUMER CREDIT LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 6, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL WARMING LITIGATION CONFERENCE: ARE YOU READY?
Mealeys Seminars
The Hotel Monaco, San Francisco
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 6-7, 2007
DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS & LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Boston
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 7-8, 2007
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Intercontinental Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 18-19, 2007
OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conference Institute
Philadephia
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
June 21-22, 2007
ASBESTOS CLAIMS
American Conference Institute
Las Vegas
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
July 11-13, 2007
Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State
Courts CN009
ALI-ABA
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
July 18-19, 2007
DRUG AND MEDICAL DEVICE ON TRIAL
American Conference Institute
New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
October 11-12, 2007
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES, TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 1-31, 2007
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com
May 16, 2007
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS: PUNITIVE DAMAGES TELECONFERENCE: THE IMPACT
OF THE WILLIAMS V. PHILIP MORRIS DECISION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 16, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICAL MANAGEMENT OF
CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 17, 2007
MEALEY'S MEDICINE FOR LAWYERS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: TOXICOLOGY
FOR TOXIC TORT LAWYERS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 17, 2007
MEALEY'S DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ZELNORM
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 22, 2007
MEALEY'S COURTROOM PRACTICES TELECONFERENCE SERIES: EXPERT
WITNESSES - FINDING THE RIGHT EXPERT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 5, 2007
RELEASES IN THE SETTLEMENT OF MULTI-PARTY TORT CASES: LEGAL,
TACTICAL, AND ETHICAL ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
June 19, 2007
MEALEY'S PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
NAVIGATING A FEDERAL MDL
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ETHICS AND SETTLEMENTS-
THE ETHICAL PITFALLS IN MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 20, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: FOOD LIABILITY
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 21, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: IDENTIFYING AND PROVING INFRINGEMENT
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 26, 2007
MEALEY'S TOXIC TORT TELECONFERENCE SERIES: NATURAL RESOURCE
DAMAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 27, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE TELECONFERENCE SERIES: REINSURANCE
ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
August 9, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE SERIES: INSURANCE ISSUES REGARDING
SUBPRIME MORTGAGES
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
New Securities Fraud Cases
AROTECH CORP: Shepherd LLC Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, No. 07 Civ. 1914 (RJD), on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Arotech Corp. between
November 9, 2004 and November 14, 2005.
The complaint alleges that the defendants Arotech and officers
Robert S. Ehrlich, Steven Esses and Avihai Shen violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the class period that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the company's stock.
The complaint also alleges that defendants misrepresented and/or
omitted to disclose, despite a duty to do so, among other
things, that the company's recent acquisitions, particularly its
Armour of America subsidiary, were not fully integrated and were
not adding to the company's revenues. It was only after the
company announced the completion of a $17.5 million convertible
debt refinancing transaction on September 30, 2005, which
provided the company with much-needed working capital, that the
full extent of the company's under-performance was revealed.
On November 14, 2005, after the markets closed, the company
disclosed that it would take an impairment charge of almost $9
million principally related to its Armour of America subsidiary.
On this news, Arotech's stock plummeted almost 27% on November
15, 2005, closing at $6.16 per share, down from the previous
day's close of $8.40 per share. Shortly thereafter, Ehrlich was
removed from his position as president of the company, and Shen
was terminated as the company's Chief Financial Officer.
Members of the class described above may move the court no later
than June 5, 2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff.
Representing the plaintiff are:
James E. Miller, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
65 Main Street
Chester, CT 06412
Phone: (866)540-5505
E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com
Web Site: http://www.sfmslaw.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
35 East State St.
Media, PA 19063
Phone: (877) 891-9880
E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com
Web Site: http://www.sfmslaw.com
INTERNATIONAL RECTIFIER: Schiffrin Files Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all common stock
purchasers of International Rectifier Corporation from October
27, 2005 to April 9, 2007.
The complaint charges International Rectifier and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts that were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:
(1) the company's financial statements were materially
overstated;
(2) that the company improperly recognized revenue from
product sales at a foreign subsidiary;
(3) that the company's accounts receivable were materially
overstated;
(4) that the company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(5) that the company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On April 9, 2007, the company shocked investors when it revealed
that an internal investigation had uncovered accounting
"irregularities" at one of its foreign subsidiaries. These
accounting "irregularities" included, among other things,
premature revenue recognition from product sales.
Further, the company instructed and warned investors that they
could no longer continue to rely upon the company's previously
issued financial statements. Additionally, the company
disclosed that its Audit Committee had determined that a
"material weakness" existed in the company's internal control
over financial reporting, and therefore managements' previously
issued representations that the company possessed adequate
internal controls could no longer be relied upon by investors.
On this news, shares of the company's stock declined $2.83 per
share, or 7.3 percent, to close on April 9, 2007 at $35.97 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members
and is represented by the law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz &
Kessler LLP.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the court not later than June 18, 2007 for appointment as lead
plaintiff.
For further information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706
Toll Free: 1-610-667-7706
Web site: http://www.sbtklaw.com
E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
*********
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 * * *