/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070524.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 102
Headlines
ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: No Canadian Toxic-Tort Suit Served on Firm
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Katrina-Related Suit Pending
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Several Property Damage Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Updates on Pending Collective Litigations
ALLTEL CORP: $27.5B TPG Merger Deal Challenged in Del. Court
AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Claims in "Ward" ERISA Lawsuit
AVAYA INC: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Edgar"
AVAYA INC: 3rd Circuit Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit Nixing
BANK OF AMERICA: Support Staff Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages
ESTES EXPRESS: Lawsuit Lodged in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages
EXECUTIVE DELIVERY: Employees Sue in Ind. to Claim Unpaid Wages
FOSTER WHEELER: Settles Suit Over TCE Pollution in Penn.
GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla.
GUAM: Firefighters File Suit to Claim State-Mandated Bonuses
H.A. BERKHEIMER: Fairness Hearing Held in "Collection Fees" Suit
HERCULES OFFSHORE: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over TODCO Acquisition
HESS CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
HOSPITALISTS OF AMERICA: Faces Fla. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
HOTELS.COM: Suit Seeks to Secure Accessible Rooms for Handicaps
ILLINOIS: State High Court to Review Suit Over Transaction Tax
ILLINOIS UNION: "Van Emden" Litigation in Mass. Remains Pending
KENTUCKY: U.S. High Court to Review Suit Over Bond Taxation
LANTRONIX INC: $15M Settlement of Securities Suit Now Final
LECAPIFE CORP: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
OPTIONABLE INC: Kahn Remains Sole Prosecutor in Securities Suit
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Del. Court Told of Rehearing Request's Denial
POCONO MEDICAL: Subsidiary Settles Workers' Overtime Suit in Pa.
PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Sues in Calif. for Unpaid Overtime
QUEEN MARY: Settles Suit Over Alleged Counterfeit Monroe Items
ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
ROBERT HALF: Class Certification Sought for Cal. Overtime Suit
ROBERT HALF: Mass. Court Mulls Class-Status Bid in Overtime Suit
ROK PROTECTIVE: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation
SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Complaint
SOLUTIA INC: New Judge Appointed in Ill. Pension Plan Lawsuit
SOLUTIA INC: Seeks Automatic Stay on "Corlew" Litigation in N.Y.
SOURCEFIRE INC: IPO Underwriters Named in Md. Securities Suit
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in Kans.
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Continues to Face Age Bias Suit in Kansas
STILLWATER MINING: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
TANDEM STAFFING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
WYETH-AYERST: Circuit Court Dismisses Premarin Antitrust Suit
New Securities Fraud Cases
BEAZER HOMES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
BEAZER HOMES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
BEAZER HOMES: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
BKF CAPITAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
*********
ACE LTD: No Ruling Yet in Motion to Dismiss Pa. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities
fraud class action against ACE Ltd.
ACE Ltd. was named in four putative securities class actions on
Oct. 14, 2004 following the filing of a civil suit against Marsh
& McLennan Cos. Inc. by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the
suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
The court appointed as lead plaintiffs Sheet Metal Workers'
National Pension Fund and Alaska Ironworkers Pension Trust.
Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
30, 2005, naming the company, Evan G. Greenberg, Brian
Duperreault, and Philip V. Bancroft as defendants. Plaintiffs
assert claims solely under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Act (control person liability).
Plaintiffs allege that the company public statements and
securities filings should have revealed that insurers, including
certain company entities and brokers, allegedly conspired to
increase premiums and allocate customers through the use of "B"
quotes and contingent commissions and that the company's
revenues and earnings were inflated by these practices.
On Oct. 28, 2005, the company and the individual defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated securities actions.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged any
actionable misrepresentations under the securities laws, and
that defendants could not be held liable for any failures to
disclose information.
Defendants also argued that the individual defendants could not
be held liable for statements they did not make that plaintiffs
had not adequately pled scienter, and that plaintiffs had not
adequately pled loss causation.
Plaintiffs filed a response and the motion to dismiss remains
pending.
The company reported no development in the case at its May 8,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "In Re Ace Limited Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:05-md-01675-TJS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Timothy J. Savage.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Tor Gronborg, Esq.
Udoka Nwanna, Esq.
Debra J. Wyman, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
E-mail: torg@lerachlaw.com
udokan@lerachlaw.com
debraw@lerachlaw.com
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: No Canadian Toxic-Tort Suit Served on Firm
------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLC said it has not been served
with a purported toxic-tort class action filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice until the time for service of the
original action has expired.
The suit was brought on behalf of all persons residing in
Ontario within the past six years (and/or their family members
or heirs).
On June 30, 2005, the company along with its regulated
subsidiary Monongahela Power Co. and its unregulated subsidiary
Allegheny Generating Co., plus 18 other companies with coal-
fired generating plants, was named as defendants in the suit.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants negligently failed to
prevent their generation facilities from emitting air pollutants
in such a manner as to cause death and multiple adverse health
effects, as well as economic damages, to the plaintiff class.
They are seeking damages in the approximate amount of CAD$49.1
billion (approximately $41.6 billion, assuming an exchange rate
of CAD$1.18 per U.S. dollar), along with continuing damages in
the amount of CAD$4.1 billion per year and punitive damages of
CAD$1.0 billion (approximately $3.5 billion and $850 million,
respectively, assuming an exchange rate of CAD$1.18 per U.S.
dollar) along with such other relief as the Court deems just.
Allegheny Energy, Inc., the parent of AE Supply, Monongahela and
AGC reported at its May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007 that it has not yet been served with this
lawsuit, and the time for service of the original action has
expired.
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Motion to Dismiss Katrina-Related Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of the
purported class action filed against Allegheny Energy, Inc., and
numerous other companies with coal-fired generation facilities
and companies in other industries.
The suit was filed on April 19, 2006 on behalf of a purported
class of residents and property owners in Mississippi who were
harmed by Hurricane Katrina. The named plaintiffs allege that
the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants contributed to
global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and
plaintiffs' damages.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages.
On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a
motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim. These motions remain pending.
The company reported no development in the case at its May 8,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T.
Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
F. Gerald Maples, Esq.
Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq.
F. Gerald Maples, PA
902 Julia Street
New Orleans, LA 70113
Phone: 504/569-8732
E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com
mmayberry@geraldmaples.com
- and -
Randall Allan Smith, Esq.
Stephen M. Wiles, Esq.
Smith & Fawer
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: 504/525-2200
Fax: 504/525-2205
E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net
smwiles@smithfawer.com
ALLSTATE CORP: Still Faces Several Property Damage Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. continues to face 19 certified state class
actions involving uninsured motorist property damage coverage
after receiving a favorable ruling in two related multi-state
cases.
There are two multi-state certified class actions against
Allstate in state courts alleging that its failure to pay
"inherent diminished value" to insureds under the collision,
comprehensive, or uninsured motorist property damage liability
provisions of auto policies constitutes breach of contract and
fraud.
Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the difference
between the market value of the insured automobile before an
accident and the market value after repair. Plaintiffs allege
that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished
value under the terms of the policy. To a large degree, these
lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in
the industry.
A trial in the case involving collision and comprehensive
coverage concluded on April 29, 2004, with a jury verdict in
favor of the Company. The plaintiffs filed an appeal from the
judgment, and on June 1, 2006, the judgment for Allstate was
affirmed by the appellate court. The plaintiffs requested a
reconsideration of this ruling, which was denied by the court.
The plaintiffs then filed a petition for leave to appeal to the
Illinois Supreme Court, and that petition was denied on November
29, 2006. Plaintiffs had until February 27, 2007 to petition
the U.S. Supreme Court to review this case, but failed to do so.
In the other case, which involves uninsured motorist property
damage coverage, the trial court certified a 19 state class
action. The appellate court granted the Company's petition for
review of the order of certification, and has affirmed the
certification. The Company filed a petition to appeal to the
Washington Supreme Court, which was denied. The case has been
remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, according
to the company's May 1 form 10-Q filing for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
ALLSTATE CORP: Updates on Pending Collective Litigations
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. provides updates on collective legal
proceedings filed against it at its form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007
The Allstate Corp.'s wholly owned subsidiary is Allstate
Insurance Co., a property-liability insurance company with
various property-liability and life and investment subsidiaries,
which include Allstate Life Insurance Co.
Suits Over Medical Bill Review
There are a number of state and nationwide class actions pending
in various state courts challenging the legal propriety of
Allstate Corp.'s medical bill review processes on a number of
grounds, including, among other things, the manner in which
Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity.
One nationwide class action and one statewide class action have
been certified. These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror
similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the industry,
allege these processes result in a breach of the insurance
policy as well as fraud. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in
the form of contractual and extra-contractual damages. The
Company denies these allegations and has been vigorously
defending these lawsuits. The outcome of these disputes is
currently uncertain.
Suit Over Use of Vendor's Automated Database
There is a nationwide putative class action pending against
Allstate that challenges Allstate's use of a vendor's automated
database in valuing total loss automobiles. To a large degree,
this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed against other
carriers in the industry. Plaintiffs allege that flaws in the
database result in valuations to the detriment of insureds. The
plaintiffs are seeking actual and punitive damages. The lawsuit
is in the early stages of discovery and Allstate is vigorously
defending it, but the ultimate outcome is currently uncertain.
Suits Over Use of Credit Information
The Company has received final approval of a settlement in a
putative nationwide class action that alleged that the Company
discriminates against non-Caucasian policyholders through
underwriting and rate-making practices, including the use of
credit information.
The Company is also defending a putative statewide class action
in federal court challenging its use of credit information under
certain state insurance statutes. These plaintiffs seek
monetary and equitable relief, including actual and punitive
damages and injunctive relief. The Company denies these
allegations and has been vigorously defending this lawsuit. The
outcome of this dispute is currently uncertain.
Hurricane-Related Lawsuits
The Company is defending a number of matters filed in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, including several
statewide putative class actions pending in Mississippi,
Louisiana and Texas. In one matter, the Mississippi Attorney
General filed a suit asserting that the flood exclusion found in
Allstate's and other insurance companies' policies is either
ambiguous, unenforceable as unconscionable or contrary to public
policy, or inapplicable to the damage suffered in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina.
In a putative class action in Mississippi, some members of the
Mississippi Windstorm Underwriters Association have filed suit
against the MWUA board members and the companies they represent,
including an Allstate subsidiary, alleging that the Board
purchased insufficient reinsurance to protect the MWUA members.
In a putative class action in Louisiana, the trial court judge
ruled that Allstate's and other carriers' flood, water and
negligent construction exclusions do not apply to man-made
floods (i.e., floods caused by human negligence), and therefore
do not apply to flooding in the New Orleans area to the extent
it was caused by human negligence in the design, construction
and/or maintenance of the levees.
Allstate and other insurers have filed a petition for
interlocutory appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which was accepted on February 2, 2007. These suits seek
primarily declaratory relief, and in some cases, actual and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts. These matters are in
various stages of development and Allstate intends to vigorously
defend them. The outcome of these disputes is currently
uncertain.
Worker Classification Lawsuits
Allstate is defending various lawsuits involving worker
classification issues. These lawsuits include several certified
class actions challenging the overtime exemption claimed by the
Company under the Fair Labor Standards Act or state wage and
hour laws.
In these cases, plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as
penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such
as injunctive relief and an accounting. These class actions
mirror similar lawsuits filed against other carriers in the
industry and other employers. Allstate is continuing to
vigorously defend its worker classification lawsuits. The
outcome of these disputes is currently uncertain.
ALLTEL CORP: $27.5B TPG Merger Deal Challenged in Del. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina resident Lon Engel, an Alltel Corp. stockholder,
filed a lawsuit, which requests class-action status in Chancery
Court in Wilmington, Delaware claiming the company's proposed
$24.7 billion buyout is "grossly unfair and far below the
maximum value," The Associated Press reports.
Mr. Engel's suit names the company, Chief Executive Scott T.
Ford and other past directors of Alltel as defendants.
Earlier, Alltel signed a definitive merger agreement to be
acquired by TPG Capital and GS Capital Partners, in a
transaction valued at approximately $27.5 billion (Troubled
Company Reporter, May 22, 2007).
Under the terms of the merger agreement, TPG Capital and GSCP
will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of Alltel for
$71.50 per share in cash. The purchase price per share
represents a 23% premium over Alltel's closing share price prior
to media reports of a potential transaction published on Dec.
29, 2006.
The suit asks the court to stop the proposed buyout of the
company, which Mr. Engel described as "wrong, unfair and
harmful" to stockholders. Mr. Engel also accuses the company of
failing to disclose all its offers.
Alltel spokesman Andrew Moreau said the process leading to the
proposed buyout by TPG Capital and GS Capital Partners was
"exceptionally fair."
"The lawsuit only speculate(s) about the events of the last few
weeks, and the speculation offered by the plaintiff's attorneys
is not factual,' Mr. Moreau said in a statement. "Alltel
believes the lawsuit is without merit and the company will
vigorously defend our rights in this litigation. We feel
confident in our position."
Headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, Alltel Corp. (NYSE: AT)
-- http://www.alltel.com/-- owns and operates a wireless
network and has 12 million wireless customers.
AVAYA INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Claims in "Ward" ERISA Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed
most of the claims in the purported class action, "Ward v.
Avaya, Inc. et al."
In April 2006, the purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the
Company, certain employees and the Pension and Employee Benefits
Investment Committee violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, by including in:
* the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for Salaried Employees;
* the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, and
* the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for the Variable Workforce,
investment options for the Lucent Technologies Inc. Stock Fund
and the Avaya Inc. Stock Fund for the period of October 2000 to
April 2003.
The complaint asserts, among other things, that during the Class
Period defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA
by:
-- violating ERISA's provisions against prohibited
transactions;
-- offering the Lucent Fund and Avaya Fund imprudently as
investment options;
-- failing properly to monitor the funds; and,
-- failing properly to monitor the actions of other plan
fiduciaries, thus causing the Plans to suffer damages.
The complaint seeks monetary relief on behalf of the Plans and
their participants, and also seeks injunctive relief and costs,
including attorneys' fees.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss this case in its
entirety and with prejudice. In April 2007, the District Court
issued an opinion dismissing all but one portion of one count of
the complaint, reasoning that the circumstances surrounding the
distribution of Avaya shares of common stock prior to the spin-
off of Avaya from Lucent in October 2000 into the various Avaya
Plans could not be addressed in the procedural posture of a
motion to dismiss.
Defendants intend to seek dismissal of the remaining count of
the complaint at the appropriate time, according to the
company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
The suit is "WARD v. AVAYA, INC. et al, Case No. 3:06-cv-01721-
JAP-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey under Judge Joel A. Pisano with referral to Judge
Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Maureen Binetti
Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer
90 Woodbridge Center Drive, P.O. Box 10
Woodbridge, NJ 07095
Phone: (732) 636-8000
E-mail: mbinetti@wilentz.com
Representing the defendants is:
Joseph A. Martin
Archer & Greiner, PC
One Centennial Square
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phon: (856) 795-2121
E-mail: jmartin@archerlaw.com
AVAYA INC: Third Circuit Mulls Appeal on Dismissal of "Edgar"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal regarding the dismissal of an amended complaint in a
purported class action "Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., et al."
On July 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
company, alleging violations of certain laws under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
On Oct. 17, 2005, an amended purported class action was filed
against the company and certain of its officers, employees and
members of the board.
Like the initial complaint, the amended complain purports to be
filed on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of the
Avaya Inc. Savings Plan, the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for
Salaried Employees and the Avaya Inc. Savings Plan for the
Variable Workforce from Oct. 5, 2004 to Jul. 20, 2005.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to participants
and beneficiaries of the Plans and failed to act in the
interests of the Plans' participants and beneficiaries in
offering Avaya common stock as an investment option, purchasing
Avaya common stock for the Plans and communicating information
to the Plans' participants and beneficiaries. No class has been
certified in the action.
The complaint seeks a monetary payment to the plans to make them
whole for the alleged breaches, costs and attorneys' fees.
Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the district court,
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint
in December 2005.
In an order and opinion dated Apr. 24, 2006, the district court
judge granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety.
In May 2006, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The parties have
completed their respective briefing submissions and the court
heard argument on the matter in April 2007.
The suit is "Edgar v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
03598-SRC-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
Representing the defendants is:
Joseph A. Martin, Esq.
Archer & Greiner, PC
One Centennial Square
Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 795-2121
E-mail: jmartin@archerlaw.com
AVAYA INC: 3rd Circuit Mulls Appeal of Securities Suit Nixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated securities
class action filed against Avaya Inc. and certain of its
officers.
In April and May of 2005, purported class actions were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
violations of the federal securities laws. The actions purport
to be filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common
stock from Oct. 5, 2004 to Apr. 19, 2005.
The complaints, which are substantially similar to one another,
allege, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by:
-- reason of certain allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company relating to the cost of
the Tenovis Germany GmbH integration;
-- the disruption caused by changes in the delivery of the
company's products to the market and reductions in the
demand for the company products in the U.S.,
and that based on the foregoing the company had no basis to
project the company's stated revenue goals for fiscal 2005.
Avaya signed an agreement to acquire Tenovis Germany on Oct. 5,
2004.
The company has been served with a number of these complaints.
No class has been certified in the actions. The complaints seek
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.
In August 2005, the court entered an order identifying a lead
plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in October 2005.
Pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the District Court,
defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint in December 2005.
In September 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the case in its entirety and with prejudice, which
was appealed by the plaintiffs. The appeal is currently pending
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, according to
the company's May 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Charatz v. Avaya, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
02319-MLC-TJB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Mary L. Cooper with referral
to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf, LLP
Park 80 Plaza West One
Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
Phone: (201) 845-9600
E-mail: PSP@njlawfirm.com
Andrew Robert Jacobs Esq.
Epstein Fitzsimmons Brown Gioia Jacobs & Sprouls
245 Green Village Road, P.O. Box 901
Chatham Township, NJ 07928-0901
Phone: (973) 593-4900
E-mail: ajacobs@epsteinfitz.com
- and -
James C. Shah, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
475 White Horse Pike
Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909
Phone: (856) 858-1770
Fax: (856) 858-7012
E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com
Representing the defendants are:
Robert T. Egan, Esq.
Joseph A. Martin, Esq.
Archer & Greiner, PC
One Centennial Square
Haddonffield, NJ 08033
Phone: (856) 795-2121
E-mail: regan@archerlaw.com
jmartin@archerlaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Support Staff Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corp. is facing a class action filed May 15 in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff William Wersinger, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, institutes this class action and collective action for
actual damages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees and the costs of this suit for multiple
violations of the FLSA and violations of the Delaware Code.
This action is concurrently brought as a Collective Action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) as to claims for owed
overtime wages and owed wages, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees and costs under the FLSA.
The class action is intended to cease alleged numerous lucrative
but unlawful practices by defendant and recover wages owed to
employees from defendant. The causes of action arise out of
defendant's policies and practices of not paying for all hours
worked. Defendant systematically and routinely deprived its
employees of their right to receive pay for all hours worked,
according to the complaint.
Plaintiff believes and alleges that during the beginning one
year before the filing of this complaint and continuing through
the time of judgment, defendant has deprived dozens of employees
of their right to receive pay for all hours worked.
Mr. Wersinger files the complaint on behalf of all paralegals
and/or legal support staff for the Bank of America and/or were
employees who had to work in a non-exempt customer service
position outside of normal business hours and were not paid for
such work.
This action is brought as a Plaintiff Class Action and
Collective Action.
Mr. Wersinger requests that:
-- defendant be ordered to pay him and members of the
collective action for owed overtime;
-- liquidated damages be assessed against the defendant;
-- plaintiff and members of the collective action be
awarded pre- and post- judgment interest;
-- this action be designated as a collective action for all
similarly situated employees to opt-in and for the
required notice to be issued to the current and former
employees; and
-- plaintiff and members of the collective action be
awarded their attorney fees and costs.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ff6
The suit is "Wersinger v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No.
1:07-cv-00262-UNA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Donald L. Gouge, Jr., Esq.
Heiman, Gouge & Kaufman, LLP
800 King Street, Suite 303
P.O. Box 1674
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 658-1800
E-mail: dgouge@hgkde.com
ESTES EXPRESS: Lawsuit Lodged in Fla. Aims to Collect Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Estes Express Lines is facing a class action filed May 16 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Ernesto Rodriguez, a warehouse worker and forklift
operator of Estes Express, brings this action for unpaid
overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).
Mr. Rodriguez claims he has not received overtime wages for work
performed over 40 hours weekly and which occurred during the
three-year period prior to filing the complaint.
He further claims defendant willfully and intentionally refused
to pay him the overtime wages as required by U.S. laws and
remain owing him these overtime wages since Mr. Rodriguez' Aug.
2, 1998 employment.
Mr. Rodriguez requests double damages and reasonable attorney
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to be proven at
the time of trial for all overtime wages still owing from his
entire employment period and liquidated damages for all untimely
minimum wage, straight time wage and overtime wage payments made
to him throughout his employment, as much as allowed by the FLSA
-- whichever is greater along with court costs, interest, and
any other relief that the court finds reasonable.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ff2
The suit is "Rodriguez v. Estes Express Lines (Corporation),
Case No. 1:07-cv-21265-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: 305-865-6766
Fax: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
EXECUTIVE DELIVERY: Employees Sue in Ind. to Claim Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Delivery Systems, Inc. is facing a class action filed
May 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Santos Damian Roman, a former dispatcher of Executive
Delivery, files this action for recovery of unpaid overtime
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Mr. Roman brings this suit on behalf of all other employees
and/or former employees of Executive Delivery who worked in
excess of 40 hours during one or more work weeks beginning on or
after May 1, 2004 but did not receive time-and-a-half wages for
their overtime hours worked.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with 29
U.S.C. Sections 210-209, in that Mr. Roman performed services
for the defendants for which no provisions were made to properly
pay her for those hours worked in excess of 40 within in a work
week.
As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' willful and
intentional failure to fully compensate Mr. Roman for overtime
hours worked during her employment, Mr. Roman has been allegedly
damaged in the loss of overtime wages and has incurred and is
incurring costs and reasonable attorney's fees, his suit claims.
Mr. Roman demands judgment against defendants for the payment of
all overtime hours for the hours worked for which he was not
properly compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit and all other relief including
prejudgment interest.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ff5
The suit is "Roman v. Executive Delivery Systems, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21260-JLK," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the U.S. District of Southern Florida under Judge James
Lawrence King.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Donald Joseph Jaret, Esq.
Donald J Jaret PA
2697 Botticelli Drive
Henderson, NV 89052
Phone: 305-740-3383-fax-800
Fax: 616-1685
E-mail: mwot2000@yahoo.com
FOSTER WHEELER: Settles Suit Over TCE Pollution in Penn.
--------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. reached an agreement to settle for
$1.6 million a lawsuit over trichloroethylene (TCE) ground
contamination in Pennsylvania.
In March 2006, a complaint was filed by Sarah Martin and Jeffrey
Martin against Foster Wheeler Energy before the Court of Common
Pleas, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The case was subsequently
removed to the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Pennsylvania.
The complaint was filed on behalf of the Martins and more than
25 others similarly situated whose wells were contaminated with
a hazardous substance TCE that was released at the company's
site. The complaint seeks to recover costs of environmental
remediation and continued environmental monitoring of alleged
class members' property, diminution in property value, costs
associated with obtaining healthy water, the establishment of a
medical monitoring trust fund, statutory, treble and punitive
damages and interest and the costs of the suit.
In April 2007, the court in the Martin case preliminarily
approved a class action settlement that had been jointly filed
by the plaintiffs and the company.
Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, the company would
pay the class and its counsel a total of approximately
$1,600,000 in exchange for a release by class members of all
claims with respect to the matters that are the subject of the
litigation. The release would not extend to the claims of those
who opt-out of the settlement.
The class, which is agreed upon only for the purposes of the
settlement, consists of three categories of persons who own or
live on property in, or within approximately 150 feet of, the
area in which TCE is inferred to exist in the groundwater.
One of the three categories of the class would include those
persons who live in residences at which TCE was detected in
private wells in 2004.
The suit is "Martin et al. v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00878-ARC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania under Judge A. Richard Caputo.
Representing the defendants are:
Kerry A. Dziubek, Esq.
Arnold & Porter
399 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-715-1022
E-mail: kerry.dziubek@aporter.com
- and -
Marianne J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Stevens & Lee, PC
425 Spruce St.
Ste 300
Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: (570) 343-1827
E-mail: mjg@stevenslee.com
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas W. Grammer, Esq.
Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock
1845 Walnut St.
25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-567-8300
E-mail: tgrammer@feldmanshepherd.com\
- and -
John Krisa, Esq.
Krisa, McDonough, Cosgrove & Krisa, P.C.
Route 6
Scranton Carbondale Highway
Blakely, PA 18447
Phone: 717-383-3205
GOLD FIELDS: Continues to Face Suits by Quapaw Tribes in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of Peabody Energy Corp.,
and two other companies continue to face two class actions
seeking medical monitoring and relocation programs for people
allegedly exposed to lead.
Plaintiffs have asserted claims predicated on allegations of
intentional lead exposure by the defendants and are seeking
compensatory damages, punitive damages and the implementation of
medical monitoring and relocation programs for the affected
individuals.
Gold Fields is also a defendant, along with other companies, in
several personal injury lawsuits involving over 50 children,
arising out of the same lead mill operations.
Plaintiffs in these actions are seeking compensatory and
punitive damages for alleged personal injuries from lead
exposure.
In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw
land owners filed a class action against Gold Fields and five
other companies. Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and
punitive damages based on a variety of theories.
Gold Fields has filed a third-party complaint against the U.S.,
and other parties. In February 2005, the state of Oklahoma on
behalf of itself and several other parties sent a notice to Gold
Fields and other companies regarding a possible natural
resources damage claim.
All of the lawsuits are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma.
The company reported no development in the case at its May 4,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Cole, et al. v. Asarco Inc., et al., Case no. 4:03-
cv-00327-JOE-PJC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma under Judge James O. Ellison.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Tammy R. Dodson, Esq.
Donnamarie Antoinette Landsberg, Esq.
Speer Law Firm PA
104 W 9th St., Ste. 305
Kansas City, MO 64105
Phone: 816-472-3560
Fax: 816-421-2150
E-mail: tdodson@speerlawfirm.com
- and -
Tony Wayne Edwards, Esq.
Stipe Law Firm
P.O. BOX 1369
McAlester, OK 74501-1369
Phone: 918-423-0421
Fax: 918-423-0266
E-mail: twedwards@stipelaw.com
Representing the Company are:
Stacy L. Acord, Esq.
Robert Joseph Joyce, Esq.
Archer Scott McDaniel, Esq.
Chris A. Paul, Esq.
Joyce Paul & McDaniel, PC
1717 S. Boulder, Ste. 200
Tulsa, OK 74119
Phone: 918-599-0700
Fax: 918-732-5370
E-mail: sacord@jpm-law.com
rjoyce@jpm-law.com
Smcdaniel@jpm-law.com
cpaul@jpm-law.com
- and -
Mark Douglas Anstoetter, Esq.
Stanley D. Davis, Esq.
John K. Sherk, Esq.
Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
2555 Grand Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64108-2613
Phone: 816-474-6550
Fax: 816-421-5547
E-mail: manstoetter@shb.com
sddavis@shb.com
GUAM: Firefighters File Suit to Claim State-Mandated Bonuses
------------------------------------------------------------
Firefighters filed a class action on May 16 in the District
Court of Guam accusing the Guam government of failing to pay
them skills-based bonuses required by law, Steve limtiaco of
Pacific Daily News reports.
The suit is centered on the question of whether the government
has been appropriately paying the firefighters that were trained
and certified as Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT).
The lawsuit claims the government is inconsistent in paying
bonuses to Guam Fire Department firefighters and often, it
doesn't pay them at all. It further asserts the airport
management decided in January 2004 to end the EMT incentive pay
altogether, on the grounds that airport firefighters were not
specifically assigned to EMT duty.
The lead plaintiffs in the suit are:
-- Douglas Sherwin, assigned in the GFD advanced life
support unit and its fire suppression unit;
-- Cindy Toves, an emergency medical technician for the
airport fire department; and
-- Ronnie Guirmarey, assigned in the GFD ambulance unit.
They seek no less than $500,000, or an amount to be determined
in court.
A 1998 law entitled some firefighters in the Guam Fire
Department who are certified as "Emergency Medical Technician-
Ambulance" and who are assigned duties as emergency medical
technicians, to a 15 percent increase as incentive pay.
In January 2001, Gov. Carl Gutierrez released an executive order
extending extra pay to other firefighters, which includes an 18
percent pay increase and $100 per pay period for those who work
for the GFD Advanced Life Support Unit. It also declared that
certified firefighters and airport firefighters receive a 10
percent pay increase.
The plaintiffs' lawyer said firefighters have been underpaid
since 1990s but claims can only be brought for the last four
years.
Other defendants in the case are the governor, several cabinet
members and the airport executive manager.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Robert P. Kutz, Esq.
Law Office of Robert P. Kutz
P.O. Box 7310
Agat, Guam 96915
H.A. BERKHEIMER: Fairness Hearing Held in "Collection Fees" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement proposal presented at a May 22 fairness hearing in
the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (Penn.) provides
$75,702 for distribution to about 640 Pennsylvanians who sued
H.A. Berkheimer Inc. over the company's loan collection fees,
The Morning Call reports.
A $2 million fund has been set up to settle the suit.
Plaintiffs' attorneys will collect $525,000 in fees, plus
$12,000 in other expenses.
Most unlikely beneficiaries of the suit are the Mercer Museum
and the Bucks County Network of Victims Assistance, which would
split approximately $345,000 under a clause in the settlement
that requires 25 percent of the leftover portion of the
settlement fund be contributed to charity.
Case Background
In 2002, Robert and Kathleen Cheeseman of Bucks County initiated
a lawsuit against H.A. Berkheimer after being slapped with two
bills totaling $57 for "collection costs" that they believed to
be unfair.
The suit alleges that H.A. Berkheimer violated the Pennsylvania
Local Tax Enabling Act, 53 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6901 et. seq., by
assessing and collecting unauthorized costs, other than interest
and penalties, from taxpayers delinquent in payment of their
local Earned Income Tax for tax years 1995 through 2001.
Plaintiffs allege that Berkheimer, who contracts with numerous
political subdivisions in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for
the collection of the local Earned Income Tax, is not authorized
to assess or collect any costs of collection on unpaid taxes
unless and until a suit is brought against the delinquent
taxpayer for such collection.
They further allege that H.A. Berkheimer retained all the monies
it assessed and collected in unauthorized costs from delinquent
taxpayers.
Bucks County Judge C. Theodore Fritsch certified the suit as a
class action in 2005 after ruling the company's fees for
"collection costs" were illegal and served no purpose other than
to add to the company's profits.
After H.A. Berkheimer admitted that its costs are improper,
Judge Mellon ruled that all taxpayers who paid collection costs
to H.A. Berkheimer between 1995 and 2001 are members of the
class.
In January, Berkheimer agreed to pay up to $2 million to settle
the purported class action over alleged illegal fees charged to
delinquent taxpayers (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 31, 2007).
Judge Theodore Fritsch held a fairness hearing on May 22.
Eligible to the settlement are:
-- Taxpayers who could receive up to $48.50, without
interest, for any given tax year that they paid the
collection costs. If they can prove a claim in excess
of that amount, they may be able to recoup more.
-- The Philadelphia law firm of Bernard M. Gross, which
filed the suit, could seek up to 26.25 percent of the
settlement amount, or $525,000, and legal costs up to
$15,000.
-- The Cheesemans, as class representatives, who could
receive up to $7,500.
The suit is "Cheeseman v. H.A. Berkheimer, Inc., Civil Action.
No. 2002-06020-29-5."
For more details, contact:
Bernard M. Gross
Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
Juniper and Market Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 561-3600 or (866) 561-3600
Fax: (215) 561-3000
HERCULES OFFSHORE: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over TODCO Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Offshore, Inc. was named defendant in one of two
lawsuits filed in Texas over the proposed acquisition of TODCO
by the company, according to its April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
On March 19 and 20, 2007, two stockholder lawsuits were filed in
the District Court of Harris County, Texas, both alleging that
the board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties
in approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules
Offshore, Inc.
The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported
stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and
contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty.
The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of
Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder
derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against
the TODCO directors and the company, and contains claims for
breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, good
faith and/or fair dealing; corporate waste; unlawful self
dealing; and claims that the defendants conspired, aided and
abetted and/or assisted one another in a common plan to breach
these fiduciary duties.
Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO
directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed
acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal
interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense
of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process
not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to
consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO
stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of
TODCO common stock.
The second suit also alleges that the Company conspired, aided
and abetted or assisted in these violations.
The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
preventing the completion of the acquisition by the company,
rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a
constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and
expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable
relief the court deems just and proper.
Hercules Offshore, Inc. -- http://www.herculesoffshore.com--
provides shallow-water drilling and liftboat services to the oil
and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf
of Mexico, and internationally. It operates a fleet of nine
jackup rigs that are capable of drilling in maximum water depths
ranging from 85 to 250 feet and a fleet of 64 liftboats with leg
lengths ranging from 105 to 260 feet. Its services are
organized in four segments, Domestic Contract Drilling Services,
International Contract Drilling Services, Domestic Marine
Services and International Marine Services.
HESS CORP: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC in
Haddonfield, New Jersey filed a suit seeking class-action
certification against Hess Corp. over allegation the company
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, NJBIZ reports.
The suit was filed on May 11 by Lisa Rodriguez and Donna Moffa
in the federal District Court in Newark. It claims that Hess'
sales receipts reveal more than the allowable last five digits
of customers' debit and credit cards, and also disclose the
expiration date of the cards.
The federal court has ordered Hess to respond to the complaint.
Hess Corp. -- http://www.hess.com-- together with its
subsidiaries, engages in the exploration, development,
production, purchase, transportation, and sale of crude oil and
natural gas. The company also manufactures, purchases,
transports, trades, and markets refined petroleum, natural gas,
and electricity, as well as offers distributed-electricity
generating equipment to industrial and commercial customers.
In addition, it owns a refinery through a 50% joint venture with
HOVENSA L.L.C., as well as terminals and retail gasoline
stations.
For more information, contact:
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLC
1717 Arch Street
Suite 3838
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(Philadelphia Co.)
(Main Office)
Phone: 215-731-9004
Fax: 215-731-9044
Web Site: http://www.trrlaw.com
HOSPITALISTS OF AMERICA: Faces Fla. FLSA Violations Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hospitalists of America, LLC is facing a class action filed May
15 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Laura Guillen files this action for recovery of unpaid
overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Guillen files this suit on behalf of all current employees
and/or former marketing/provider relations employees of
Hospitalists of America who worked overtime hours as, but did
not receive time-and-a-half wages for their overtime hours
worked or after June 2004.
The complaint alleges that defendants failed to comply with 29
U.S.C. Sections 210-209, in that Ms. Guillen performed services
for the defendants for which no provisions were made to properly
pay her for those hours worked in excess of 40 within in a work
week.
As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' willful and
intentional failure to fully compensate Ms. Guillen for overtime
hours worked during her employment, Ms. Guillen has been damaged
in the loss of overtime wages and has incurred and is incurring
costs and reasonable attorney's fees, her suit claims.
Ms. Guillen demands judgment against defendants for the payment
of all overtime hours at one and one-half her regular rate of
pay for the hours worked for which she was not properly
compensated, liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs of suit and such other relief as the court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ff1
The suit is "Guillen v. Hospitalists of America, LLC. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-21253-DLG," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Donald L.
Graham.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Stacey Hope Cohen, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group
1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-447-8888
Fax: 447-8831
E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com
HOTELS.COM: Suit Seeks to Secure Accessible Rooms for Handicaps
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Disability Rights Advocates of Berkeley filed a lawsuit in
Alameda County Superior Court against online travel agency
Hotels.com seeking guaranteed accessible room reservations, The
Associated Press reports.
The lawsuit, seeking class-action status, is filed on behalf of
all disabled California customers of Hotels.com. It alleges the
company discriminates against people with disabilities by
refusing to guarantee reservations for wheelchair-accessible
rooms.
"It would be unwise and potentially dangerous for me to rely on
a hotel reservation service that does not guarantee the hotel
room I am booking is accessible to someone in a wheelchair,"
said Bonnie Lewkowicz, one of the disabled people suing
Hotels.com. "Accessibility isn't a preference for me it's a
necessity."
Hotels.com spokeswoman Maureen Carig declined to comment because
the company hasn't seen the lawsuit yet.
Hotels.com -- http://ph.hotels.com-- is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Expedia, Inc. (Nasdaq: EXPE), travel products and
services provider to leisure and corporate travelers in the US
and around the world.
ILLINOIS: State High Court to Review Suit Over Transaction Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
The state Supreme Court is to review a decision that dismissed a
suit over Livingston Parish's now-defunct property transaction
tax, David J. Mitchell of 2TheAdvocate reports.
The suit was filed in April 2005 by Carlene T. Kinchen. The
gist of Ms. Kinchen's assertion of the unconstitutionality of
the $300 documentary transaction tax charged for most land
transactions is that the Parish, which operates under a home
rule charter, is limited in its power of taxation to that which
is granted by the legislature or the constitution.
Urging that there is no constitutional or legislative grant of
authority permitting the Parish to impose the documentary
transaction tax, Ms. Kinchen maintains it is an invalid tax.
She is seeking class certification, damages, a refund, pre-
judgment interest expenses, court costs, attorney fees and
declaratory relief pronouncing the document transaction tax
enacted by the Council is unconstitutional.
The tax was approved by the council but without a vote of the
people. The council put it to the voters in the April 1, 2006,
election, but the proposal failed. In November, the council
began repaying $430,000 collected under the tax while it was in
effect.
In September 2005, District Judge Robert Morrison III dismissed
the suit against the Parish Council because the lawsuit didn't
follow technical procedures required to challenge such a tax,
court records show.
The procedure was that protesters should pay the tax but note
their opposition at the time and inform government officials of
their intentions to file suit. Ms. Kinchen said in court
documents she paid the tax, but didn't provide notification. In
later pleadings, she said that the procedure applies only to
protests of property taxes. Also, the suit was filed four
months after the payment of the tax, which exceeds the 30-day
period to sue under the procedure.
In February, the state 1st Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the
decision, prompting the council to abolish the property
transaction tax.
A deadline for briefs had not been set, according to a court
clerk.
ILLINOIS UNION: "Van Emden" Litigation in Mass. Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state court class action, "Van Emden Management Corp. v.
Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., et al.," which names Illinois Union
Insurance Co., a subsidiary of ACE Ltd., as defendant remains
stayed, pending resolution of a consolidated proceeding in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The suit is Case No. 05-0066A, filed in the Superior Court of
Massachusetts on Jan. 13, 2005. The allegations in this case
are similar to the allegations in a consolidated class action
pending against ACE, ACE INA Holdings, Inc. and ACE USA, Inc.,
in the District of New Jersey.
The plaintiffs allege that insurers, including certain ACE
entities, and brokers conspired to increase premiums and
allocate customers through the use of "B" quotes and contingent
commissions. In addition, the complaints allege that the broker
defendants received additional income by improperly placing
their clients' business with insurers through related wholesale
entities that act as intermediaries between the broker and
insurer.
Plaintiffs also allege that broker defendants tied the purchase
of primary insurance with the placement of such coverage with
reinsurance carriers through the broker defendants' reinsurance
broker subsidiaries. In the commercial insurance consolidated
complaint, plaintiffs assert these causes of action against ACE:
Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act,
federal antitrust law, state antitrust law, aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
The Van Emden case has been stayed pending resolution of the
consolidated proceedings in the District of New Jersey or until
further order of the court
ACE, Ltd. reported no development in the case at its May 8, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
ACE, Ltd. -- http://www.acelimited.com/AceLimitedRoot/-- is a
Bermuda-based holding company. ACE and its direct and indirect
subsidiaries are a global property and casualty insurance and
reinsurance organization, servicing the insurance needs of
commercial and individual customers in more than 140 countries
and jurisdictions. The company operates through four business
segments: Insurance-North American, Insurance-Overseas General,
Global Reinsurance, and Life Insurance and Reinsurance.
KENTUCKY: U.S. High Court to Review Suit Over Bond Taxation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court will review in the fall of 2007 a class
action filed over the state's taxation of out-of-state bonds and
exemption of in-state municipal bonds.
The preferential tax treatment for in-state bonds is widely
applied by nearly all the states that have an income tax. It
allows issuers to borrow money at a lower interest rate because
investors are willing to accept lower returns in exchange for
not having to pay taxes on the interest they receive.
In 2003, Louisville Jefferson County residents, George and
Catherine Davis filed the suit seeking declaratory judgment on
allegations that Kentucky's decision to tax the income earned on
out-of-state bonds in this manner violates the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
In July 2003, before the Davises had filed a motion for class
certification, the Department filed a motion for summary
judgment arguing that the tax system in issue was constitutional
and that, furthermore, the Davises lacked standing to challenge
the tax provisions applicable to corporations, estates, and
trusts.
In August 2004, the Jefferson Circuit Court granted the
Department's motion for summary judgment on both the
constitutionality of the bond taxation system and the question
of the Davises' standing. The Davises filed an appeal to the
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals.
In January 2006, the Kentucky Court of Appeals declared the tax
system "facially unconstitutional." It found the Kentucky's tax
on the income derived from bonds issued outside Kentucky
violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It
vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case to the
Jefferson Circuit Court.
Kentucky filed its Supreme Court appeal in November.
The case is "Kentucky v. Davis, 06-666" on Appeal from Jefferson
Circuit Court, Civil Action No. 03-CI-003282 before Judge Barry
Willett.
LANTRONIX INC: $15M Settlement of Securities Suit Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------------
The $15.2 million settlement of the class action, "In re
Lantronix, Inc. (LTRX) Securities Litigation, Master File No.:
CV-02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," has become final and effective.
Beginning on May 15, 2002, a number of securities class actions
were filed against the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and former officers alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. These actions were consolidated into a
single action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California and entitled: "In re Lantronix, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)."
After the Court appointed a lead plaintiff, amended complaints
were filed by the plaintiff, and the defendants filed various
motions to dismiss directed at particular allegations. Through
that process, certain of the allegations were dismissed by the
Court.
On October 18, 2004, the plaintiff filed the third amended
complaint, which was the operative complaint in the action. The
complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended and violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
The Securities Act claims were brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased common stock of Lantronix pursuant or traceable to
the Company's August 4, 2000 initial public offering. The
Exchange Act claims were based on alleged misstatements related
to the Company's financial results that were contained in the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for the IPO.
The claims brought under the Exchange Act were brought on behalf
of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Lantronix
securities from November 1, 2000 through May 30, 2002. The
complaint alleged that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the business and financial condition in
order to allegedly inflate the value of the Company's securities
during the Class Period. The complaint alleged that during the
Class Period, Lantronix overstated financial results through
improper revenue recognition and failure to comply with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
The Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the
Class action. The Company also reached agreements with its
relevant insurance carriers with respect to the funding of the
cash portions of the settlement with plaintiffs, and the cash
funding of the settlement has been completed.
Under the terms of the agreement with the Class Action
plaintiffs, the Company will not be required to contribute any
cash to the Class Action settlement, as all cash contributed
would be from the Company's insurance carriers. However, as
part of the agreement with the plaintiffs in the Class action,
the Company has agreed to issue certain Lantronix securities to
the plaintiffs.
On December 11, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California gave its final approval to the settlement
and issued a final order and judgment in the matter. During the
fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2006, the insurance carriers
funded their share of the settlement, which totaled $13.9
million.
On January 10, 2007, the settlement of the Company's securities
litigation became final and effective, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
The suit is "In re Lantronix, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. CV 02-3899 GPS (JTLx)," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California under Judge George P.
Schiavelli.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Weiss & Yourman
10940 Wilshire Blvd. - 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA, 90024
Phone: 310-725-6400 and 310.208.2800
Fax: 310.209.2348
E-mail: valexander@yaplaw.com
Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
E-mail: andrewb@lerachlaw.com
- and -
Karnit Daniel, Esq.
Weiss and Lurie
10940 Wilshire, Boulevard, 24th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-208-2800
E-mail: service@wyca.com
Representing the defendants are:
Keith E. Eggleton, Esq.
Boris Feldman, Esq.
Kelley E. Moohr, Esq.
Daniel W. Turbow, Esq.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Phone: 650-493-9300
Fax: 650-565-5100
LECAPIFE CORP: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Lecapife Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed May 18
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiffs Edmond Blasini and Junior Guerra claim, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the
New York State Labor Law that they are:
(a) entitled to unpaid wages from Lecapife for work
performed for which they received no compensation at
all, as well as for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law,
as well as for work performed for which they did not
receive the statutory minimum wage; and
(b) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.
They seek to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective action
on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by
Lecapife at any since May 18, 2004, who were non-exempt
employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid
for hours that they worked, were not paid the minimum statutory
rate for the hours that they worked and received no compensation
for overtime at rates not less that one-half times the regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week.
Questions of law and fact that the plaintiff raises, include:
(a) whether defendants employed the collective action
members within the meaning of the FLSA;
(b) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the
employer fails in its duty to maintain records;
(c) whether defendants failed to pray the collective action
members for hours which they worked and received no
compensation as well as for hours worked for which they
did not receive the statutory minimum wage as well as
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per work week, in violation of the FLSA and the
regulations promulgated;
(d) whether defendants' violations of the FLSA are willful
as that term is used within the context of the FLSA;
(e) whether defendants are liable for all damages claimed,
including but not limited to compensatory, punitive
damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' fees; and
(f) whether defendants should be enjoined from such
violations of the FLSA in the future.
Plaintiffs request that the court grant the following relief:
-- certification of this action as a class action pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the
members of the class and appointing plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' counsel to represent the class;
-- designation of this action as a collective action on
behalf of the collective action members of an FLSA opt-
in-class, apprising them of the pendency of this action
and permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this
action by filing individual consents to sue pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and appointing plaintiffs and
plaintiffs' counsel to represent the collective action
members;
-- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
are unlawful under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law;
-- an injunction against the defendants and their officers,
agents, successors, employees, representatives and any
and all persons acting in concert with them, as provided
by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
policies and patterns set forth;
-- an award of unpaid wages and unpaid overtime
compensation due under the FLSA and the New York Labor
Law;
-- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
result of defendants' willful failure to wages and
overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216
and New York Labor Law Section 663(1);
-- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;
-- an award of costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fe5
The suit is "Blasini et al v. Lecapife Corp. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-02063-ARR-MDG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York under Judge Allyne R. Ross with
referral to Judge Marilyn D. Go.
Representing plaintiffs is:
William C. Rand, Esq.
Law Office of William Coudert Rand
711 3rd Avenue, Suite 1505
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-286-1425
Fax: 212-599-7909
E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com
OPTIONABLE INC: Kahn Remains Sole Prosecutor in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, the law firm that filed the first
class action against Optionable, Inc., notifies investors that a
subsequent class action filed by a Connecticut and New York law
firm has been voluntarily dismissed.
Following this untimely withdrawal, KGS remains the sole law
firm actively prosecuting a securities class action seeking to
recover for losses suffered by shareholders who purchased shares
of the Company in connection with its Initial Public Offering in
or about May 9, 2005, or who purchased shares thereafter in the
open market.
KGS' lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, Civil Action No. 07cv3753.
Optionable and certain of its officers and directors are charged
with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false
and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933.
KGS' complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors,
defendants failed to conduct an adequate due diligence
investigation into the company prior to the IPO, and failed to
disclose at the time of the IPO that:
(1) two of the company's board members, including Chairman
Mark Nordlicht, and its only purported independent
director, Albert Helmig, were actually related parties
and board members of a company called Platinum Energy;
(2) the company's customer base suffered from greater
concentration than previously reported, with Bank of
Montreal directly connected to over 80% of revenues,
higher than the 20% to 30% reported; and
(3) defendants had conspired with Bank of Montreal ("BMO")
brokers to provide false trade data that was designed
to avoid reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in
trading losses -- losses that, if disclosed, would have
terminated the BMO trading relationship.
It was only beginning in late April 2007 -- after defendants
sold $28.94 million of their own shares to NYMEX Holdings in a
private sale -- that investors learned the truth about the
company. On April 30, 2007, BMO's announcement of over $300
million in options-related losses shed light on the magnitude of
Optionable's reliance on BMO for a large portion of its
revenues. Days later on May 10, 2007, BMO suspended trading
through Optionable and announced that its private forensic
accountants had discovered that its own brokers -- who by then
had been terminated -- had conspired to under-report trading
losses, in order to maintain trading and avoid accountability to
BMO.
On this news, Optionable's shares collapsed from just under
$5.00 per share on April 30, 2007 to just over $1.00 per share
on May 10, 2007 -- a decline of almost 80% in two trading days,
on huge volume of tens of millions of shares. Subsequent news
has continued to shock investors. On May 12, 2007, CEO Kevin
Cassidy resigned, after revelations surfaced that he failed to
disclose that he was sentenced to 30 months for a felony
conviction on credit card fraud in 1997 and 6 months for income
tax evasion in 1993. Days later, on May 14th, NYMEX, owners of
19% of Optionable shares, announced that it was giving up its
board seat "to avoid potential conflicts of interest."
Optionable shareholders have only 54 days or until July 10, 2007
to request to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in this case.
KGS is continuing its ongoing investigation into Optionable's
dramatic decline and welcomes shareholder inquiries.
More information, contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
650 Poydras St. Suite 2150
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Phone: 866-467-1400, Ext. 100
E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
Web Site: http://www.kgscounsel.com
PEPCO HOLDINGS: Del. Court Told of Rehearing Request's Denial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed pleadings apprising the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit had denied a request for a rehearing in another
case related to a purported class action filed by management
employees of PHI Service Co., a subsidiary of Pepco Holdings,
Inc., alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.
In 1999, Conectiv, which the company later acquired, established
a cash balance retirement plan to replace defined benefit
retirement plans then maintained by Atlantic City Electric Co.
and Delmarva Power & Light Co.
Following the acquisition by Pepco of Conectiv, this plan became
the Conectiv Cash Balance Sub-Plan within the PHI Retirement
Plan.
On Sept. 26, 2005, three management employees of PHI Service Co.
filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against the PHI Retirement Plan, PHI and Conectiv (PHI
Parties), alleging violations of ERISA, on behalf of a class of
management employees who did not have enough age and service
when the Cash Balance Sub-Plan was implemented in 1999 to assure
that their accrued benefits would be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans sponsored by Atlantic City
Electric and Delmarva Power.
A fourth plaintiff was added to the case to represent DPL-
heritage "grandfathered" employees who will not be eligible for
early retirement at the end of the grandfathered period.
Plaintiffs have challenged the design of the Cash Balance Sub-
Plan and are seeking a declaratory judgment that the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan is invalid and that the accrued benefits of
each member of the class should be calculated pursuant to the
terms of the predecessor plans.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the use of a variable
rate to compute the plaintiffs' accrued benefit under the Cash
Balance Sub-Plan results in reductions in the accrued benefits
that violate ERISA.
The complaint also alleges that the benefit accrual rates and
the minimal accrual requirements of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan
violate ERISA as did the notice that was given to plan
participants upon implementation of the Cash Balance Sub-Plan.
The PHI Parties filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which was
denied by the court on July 11, 2006. The court stayed one
count of the complaint regarding alleged age discrimination
pending a decision in another case before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
On Jan. 30, 2007, the 3rd Circuit issued a ruling in the other
case that PHI's counsel believes should result in the favorable
disposition of all of the claims (other than the claim of
inadequate notice) against the PHI Parties.
The PHI Parties filed pleadings apprising the court of the 3rd
Circuit's decision on Feb. 16, 2007, at the same time they filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion.
On March 16, 2007, the plaintiffs filed pleadings apprising the
Delaware District Court that the Third Circuit had denied a
request for a rehearing in the other case, according to the
company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
Pepco Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.pepcoholdings.com/-- is a
diversified energy company that, through its operating
subsidiaries, is engaged primarily in two principal business
operations: electricity and natural gas delivery, and
competitive energy generation, marketing and supply. PHI
Service Co., a subsidiary service company of PHI, provides a
variety of support services, including legal, accounting,
treasury, tax, purchasing and information technology services to
PHI and its operating subsidiaries. These services are provided
pursuant to a service agreement among PHI, PHI Service Company,
and the participating operating subsidiaries.
POCONO MEDICAL: Subsidiary Settles Workers' Overtime Suit in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pocono Medical Center, a subsidiary of Pocono Health System,
agreed to a $280,000 out-of-court settlement for an overtime
class action, The Pocono Record reports.
Under the settlement agreement, each participating class member
shall be paid a pro rata portion of the net settlement fund
based on the number of pay periods during the collective class
period in which she/he was paid pursuant to the 8-and-80
overtime calculation method.
Class counsel seeks 30% of the total amount of monies designated
for the settlement fund plus out-of-pocket costs and expenses
incurred by all plaintiffs' counsel and not to exceed $5,000.
In June 2006, former employees filed a putative class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against Pocono Health System and Pocono Medical Center alleging
violations of the federal Fair Labor Standard Act, and of
Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act and Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The suit alleges defendants paid overtime on an "8 and 80" plan,
requiring overtime if employees work more than 8 hours in a day
or more than 80 hours over a two-week period.
Defendants deny that they owe unpaid wage or overtime
compensation to lead plaintiff Traci Otto and deny they have
violated the FLSA or any other law, rule or regulation relating
to the payment of compensation and maintains that they have at
all times properly compensated Ms. Otto.
The company entered into the settlement, which is still subject
to court approval, to resolve and dismiss with prejudice the
case.
A copy of the Settlement Agreement is available free of charge
at: http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fe3
The suit is "Otto et al. v. Pocono Health System et al., Case
No. 4:06-cv-01186-JEJ," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, under Judge John E. Jones, III.
Representing defendants are:
Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq.
Michael J. Ossip, Esq.
Morgan lewis & Bockius LLP
1701 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-963-5077 or 215-963-5761
Fax: 18774329652
E-mail: sbouchard@morganlewis.com or
mossip@morganlewis.com
Representing plaintiffs are:
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
The Winebrake Law Firm, LLC
715 Twining Office Center, Suite 114
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Phone: 215-884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
- and -
Michael J. O'Connor, Esq.
Robert L. Goodman, Esq.
Michael J. O'Connor & Associates
608 West Oak Street
P.O. Box 201
Frackville, PA 17931
Phone: 570-874-3300
E-mail: michaelj@oconnorlaw.com or rlg@oconnorlaw.com
PROTIVITI INC: Consultant Sues in Calif. for Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Protiviti, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Robert Half
International, Inc., faces a purported class action in
California relating to unpaid overtime pay.
On May 4, 2006, plaintiff Don Tran, on behalf of himself and a
putative class of salaried Consultants, and a sub-class of
terminated salaried Consultants, filed a complaint in California
Superior Court naming Protiviti Inc., as Defendant.
The complaint alleges that salaried consultants based in
California have been misclassified under California law as
exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid
overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as
non-exempt, hourly employees.
Plaintiff also seeks an unspecified amount for statutory
penalties for alleged violations of the California Labor Code
arising from the alleged misclassification of these employees as
exempt employees.
The complaint further seeks damages and penalties for the
failure to provide meal and rest periods, and for the failure to
reimburse business expenses, including, without limitation,
parking and cellular telephone expenses.
Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services. The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.
QUEEN MARY: Settles Suit Over Alleged Counterfeit Monroe Items
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the "Marilyn Monroe: The Exhibit" case have decided a
week prior to a May 7 hearing to settle the suit out of court,
according to pr-inside.com. The report did not reveal further
details about the settlement.
The lawsuit challenged the authenticity of the items in the
exhibit and demanded monetary damages for everyone who purchased
a ticket to the exhibit (Class Action Reporter, Jun 05, 2006).
Named as defendants in the suit were RMS Foundation Inc., which
operates the Queen Mary; Robert Otto, the exhibit's curator; and
Mark A. Roesler, chief executive of CMG Worldwide, which manages
the estate of Marilyn Monroe.
The plaintiffs in the case were Ernest Cunningham, author of
"The Ultimate Marilyn," and Emily Sadjady, a Los Angeles-based
Monroe collector.
The suit claimed Mr. Otto knew that the items he purchased and
displayed were bogus and did not personally belong to Marilyn
Monroe.
The exhibit, which opened Nov. 10 and closed June 15, consisted
of about 800 items and has a $22.95 admission price.
The lawsuit was aimed at getting back the public's money.
Mark Bellinghaus, owner of the largest and most comprehensive
collection of authentic Marilyn Monroe items, was assigned
expert witness in the case.
For more information, contact:
George Gregory Braunstein, Esq.
11601 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 2440
Los Angeles, California
- or -
Timothy D. McGonigle, Esq.
233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 700
Santa Monica, California 90401
Phone: 310-478-7110
Fax: 310-478-7440
Web Site: http://www.mcgoniglelaw.com
ROBERT HALF: Calif. Court Certifies Class in Overtime Pay Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court certified a class in a lawsuit
filed by employees of Robert Half International, Inc. who were
allegedly denied overtime compensation, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
On Sept. 10, 2004, plaintiff Mark Laffitte, on behalf of himself
and a putative class of salaried Account Executives and Staffing
Managers, filed a complaint in California Superior Court naming
the company and three of its wholly owned subsidiaries as
Defendants.
The complaint alleges that salaried Account Executives and
Staffing Managers based in California have been misclassified
under California law as exempt employees and seeks an
unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to be due to
them had they been paid as non-exempt hourly employees.
In addition, the Plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount for
statutory penalties for alleged violations of the California
Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification of these
employees as exempt employees.
On June 22, 2006, the court heard cross-motions concerning class
certification. On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court issued an order
certifying a class with respect to claims for alleged unpaid
overtime pay, but denied certification with respect to claims
relating to meal periods and rest time breaks.
Robert Half International, Inc. -- http://www.rhi.com/--
provides specialized staffing and risk consulting services. The
Company, through its Accountemps, Robert Half Finance &
Accounting, and Robert Half Management Resources divisions, is a
specialized provider of temporary, full-time project
professionals in the fields of accounting and finance.
OfficeTeam specializes in skilled temporary administrative
support personnel. Robert Half Technology provides information
technology professionals. Robert Half Legal provides temporary,
project and full-time staffing of attorneys and specialized
support personnel within law firms and corporate legal
departments. The Creative Group provides project staffing in the
advertising, marketing, and Web design fields. Protiviti Inc.
(Protiviti) provides business and technology risk consulting and
internal audit services. Protiviti, which primarily employs risk
consulting and internal audit professionals formerly associated
with accounting firms, is a wholly owned subsidiary.
ROBERT HALF: Class Certification Sought for Cal. Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit over unpaid overtime that was filed
against Robert Half International, Inc., are seeking class-
action status for their case, according to Robert Half's May 4,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
On Aug. 9, 2005, plaintiff Lizette Greene, on behalf of herself
and a putative class of salaried "inside sales persons," filed a
complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California naming the Company and three of its wholly owned
subsidiaries as Defendants.
On Dec. 1, 2005, the Plaintiff amended the Complaint. The
Amended Complaint alleges that purported "inside sales persons"
based in California have been misclassified under federal law as
exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid
overtime pay alleged to be due to them had they been paid as
non-exempt, hourly employees.
In addition, the Plaintiff also makes two claims under the
California Private Attorney Generals Act seeking an unspecified
amount for statutory penalties for alleged violations of the
California Labor Code arising from the alleged misclassification
of these employees as exempt employees.
Plaintiff also makes a claim under California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 for a putative nation wide class
of purported "inside sales persons."
On Dec. 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
certification of their federal claims in which they seek to
represent a class of salaried employees who worked for the
Company and certain of its subsidiaries in California within
three years before the complaint was filed and seeking
permission to mail class members a notice regarding their right
to opt into the case as plaintiffs.
The suit is "Greene v. Robert Half International Inc. et al.,
Case No. 3:05-cv-03248-SC," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel Conti.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Mark Andrew Chavez, Esq.
Chavez & Gertler LLP
42 Miller Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 93941
Phone: 415-381-5599
Fax: 415-381-5572
E-mail: mark@chavezgertler.com
Representing the defendant is:
Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr., Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-397-2823
Fax: 415-397-8549
E-mail: gdiekmann@seyfarth.com
ROBERT HALF: Mass. Court Mulls Class-Status Bid in Overtime Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has
yet to rule on a motion seeking certification of a class in a
lawsuit over unpaid overtime work that was filed against Robert
Half International, Inc.
On Dec. 6, 2004, plaintiffs Ian O'Donnell and David Jolicoeur,
on behalf of themselves and a putative class of salaried
Staffing Managers, Account Executives and Account Managers,
filed a complaint in Massachusetts Superior Court naming the
Company and one of its wholly owned subsidiaries as Defendants.
The complaint alleges that salaried Staffing Managers, Account
Executives and Account Managers based in Massachusetts within
the past two years have been misclassified under Massachusetts
law as exempt employees and seeks an unspecified amount equal to
three times their unpaid overtime compensation alleged to be due
to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly employees, plus
costs and legal fees.
It also makes similar allegations under the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act on behalf of all Staffing Managers, Account
Executives and Account Managers employed in any state other than
Massachusetts and California within the past three years and
seeks an unspecified amount for unpaid overtime pay alleged to
be due to them had they been paid as non-exempt, hourly
employees, plus an equal amount as liquidated damages.
The case has been removed to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. On March 30, 2006, the Court denied
Plaintiffs' first motion seeking conditional certification of
their federal claims as a collective action on behalf of a group
of Staffing Managers, Account Executives and Account Managers.
The same day, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint to add claims that the Company failed to pay its
exempt employees on a "salary basis" as required by
Massachusetts and federal law.
Plaintiffs have also filed a second motion for conditional
certification of their federal claims in which they seek to
represent a class of salaried employees who worked for the
company in any state other than California within three years
before the original complaint was filed and seeking permission
to mail class members a notice regarding their right to opt into
the case as Plaintiffs.
The company has opposed that motion, and the Court has not yet
issued a ruling, according to Robert Half's May 4, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "O'Donnell et al v. Robert Half International, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-12719-NMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M.
Gorton.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C.
18 Tremont Street, Suite 500
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-367-7200
Fax: 617-367-4820
E-mail: sliss@prle.com
Representing the defendants is:
Richard L. Alfred, Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw
World Trade Center East, Two Seaport Lane, Suite 300
Boston, MA 02210-2028
Phone: 617-946-4800
Fax: 617-946-4801
E-mail: ralfred@seyfarth.com
ROK PROTECTIVE: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rok Protective Services, Inc. and Bogopa-Junius, Inc. are facing
a class-action complaint filed May 18 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York alleging Labor Code
violations.
Plaintiff Charles L. Gooden claim, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and the New York State
Labor Law that he is:
(a) entitled to unpaid wages from defendants for work
performed for which they received no compensation at
all, as well as for overtime work for which they did
not receive overtime premium pay, as required by law,
as well as for work performed for which they did not
receive the statutory minimum wage; and
(b) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.
He seeks to prosecute their FLSA claims as a collective action
on behalf of all persons who are or were formerly employed by
defendants at any since May 18, 2001, who were non-exempt
employees within the meaning of the FLSA and who were not paid
for hours that they worked, were not paid the minimum statutory
rate for the hours that they worked and received no compensation
for overtime at rates not less that one-half times the regular
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per work
week.
Questions of law and fact common that the plaintiff raises,
include:
(a) whether defendants employed the collective action
members within the meaning of the FLSA;
(b) whether defendants failed to keep true and accurate
time records for all hours worked by plaintiffs and the
collective action members;
(c) what proof of hours worked is sufficient where the
employer fails in its duty to maintain time records;
(d) whether defendants failed to post or keep posted a
notice explaining the minimum wages and overtime pay
rights provided by the FLSA in any area where
plaintiffs are employed, in violation of C.F.R. Section
5164;
(e) whether defendants failed to pay the collective action
members overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per work week, in violation of the
FLSA and the regulations promulgated;
(f) whether defendants' violations of the FLSA are willful
as that term is used within the context of the FLSA;
(g) whether defendants are liable for all damages claimed,
including but not limited to compensatory, punitive and
statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements
and attorneys' fees; and
(h) whether defendants should be enjoined from such
violations of the FLSA in the future.
Plaintiff request that the court grant the following relief:
-- certification of this action as a class action pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and (3) on behalf of the
members of the class and appointing plaintiff and his
counsel to represent the class;
-- an order tolling the statute of limitations;
-- designation of this action as a collective action on
behalf of the collective action members and prompt
issuance of notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b)
to all similarly situated members of an FLSA opt-in-
class, apprising them of the pendency of this action,
permitting them to assert timely FLSA claims in this
action by filing individual consents to sue pursuant to
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and appointing plaintiffs and
their counsel to represent the collective action
members;
-- a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of
are unlawful under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law;
-- an injunction against the defendants and its officers,
agents, successors, employees, representatives and any
and all persons acting in concert with it, as provided
by law, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices,
policies and patterns set forth;
-- an award of wages and unpaid overtime compensation and
uniform maintenance reimbursement due under the FLSA and
the New York Labor Law;
-- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
result of the defendants' willful failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 2166
and the New York Labor Law;
-- an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest;
-- an award of costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1fe8
The suit is "Gooden v. Rok Protective Services, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1:07-cv-02061-CPS-SMG," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Charles
P. Sifton, with referral to Judge Steven M. Gold.
Representing plaintiffs is:
William C. Rand, Esq.
Law Office of William Coudert Rand
711 3rd Avenue, Suite 1505
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-286-1425
Fax: 212-599-7909
E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com
SILICON IMAGE: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. is seeking the dismissal of a fourth
consolidated amended securities fraud complaint filed against
the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
Commenced on Jan. 31, 2005, the lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon
Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus," alleged that the
company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged
misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions
of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's
common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005.
On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing lead
plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. On July
27, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The consolidated amended complaint no longer named Mr. Gargus as
an individual defendant, but added Dr. David Lee as an
individual defendant.
The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class
period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on Sept.
26, 2005.
Plaintiffs subsequently received leave to file, and did file, a
second consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 8, 2005. The
second consolidated amended complaint extends the end of the
class period from April 22, 2005 to Oct. 13, 2005 and adds
additional factual allegations under the same causes of action
against us, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee. The complaint also adds a
new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated
amended complaint on Feb. 9, 2006. Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on April 10, 2006
and defendants filed a reply to plaintiffs' opposition on May
19, 2006.
On June 21, 2006 the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second consolidated amended complaint with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended
complaint by the court established deadline of July 21, 2006.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third consolidated
amended complaint on Sept. 1, 2006 and subsequent pleadings by
the parties followed in November and December of 2006 and
January 2007.
On Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the third consolidated amended complaint with leave to
amend.
Plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint on
March 30, 2007. Defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth
consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on or before
May 25, 2007, according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "In Re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California under Judge Maxine M.
Chesney.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Aaron H. Darsky Esq.
Schubert & Reed, LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-788-4220
Fax: 415-788-0161
E-mail: adarsky@schubert-reed.com
Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq.
Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP
212 Wood Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227
Phone: 831-333-0309
Fax: 831-333-0325
E-mail: mrayle@lshllp.com
- and -
Richard A. Speirs, Esq.
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP
41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Phone: 212-223-3900
Representing the defendants is:
Emmett C. Stanton, Esq.
Fenwick & West, LLP
Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041-2008
Phone: 650-988-8500
Fax: 650-938-5200
E-mail: estanton@fenwick.com
SOLUTIA INC: New Judge Appointed in Ill. Pension Plan Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A new judge was appointed to handle a consolidated class action
filed against the Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Since October 2005, current or former participants in the
Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class
actions alleging that the Pension Plan is discriminatory based
upon age and that the lump sum values of individual account
balances in the Pension Plan have been, and continue to be,
miscalculated.
Solutia has not been named as a defendant in any of these cases.
Two of the cases are:
-- "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
Plan;" and
-- "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension
Plan."
Both are still pending against the Solutia Pension Plan and were
consolidated in September 2006 with similar cash balance pension
plan cases pending in the Southern District of Illinois against:
-- Monsanto Company and Monsanto Company Pension Plan
("Walker et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al."),
and
-- Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp.,
Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. ("Donaldson
v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et al.").
The plaintiffs in the Pension Plan cases seek to obtain
injunctive and other equitable relief (including money damages
awarded by the creation of a common fund) on behalf of
themselves and the nationwide putative class of similarly
situated current and former participants in the Pension
Plan.
A consolidated class action complaint was filed by all of the
plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006. The
complaint alleged three separate causes of action against the
Pension Plan:
-- the Pension Plan violates ERISA by terminating interest
credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55;
-- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation
of ERISA; and
-- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age.
The plaintiffs filed motions for class certification in late
2006 against each of the defendants. With respect to the
Pension Plan cases, plaintiffs moved to certify a class only
with respect to the claim that termination of interest credits
violates ERISA.
Briefing on the class certification motions was completed in
January 2007, and the court scheduled the motions for a hearing
on July 12, 2007.
However, on May 3, 2007 the judge presiding over the case
recused himself from the proceeding and a new judge was
appointed, therefore, it is unclear if the hearing will proceed
as scheduled, according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Davis et al. v. Solutia Inc Employees' Pension
Plan, Case No. 3:05-cv-00736-JPG-PMF" filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge J. Phil
Gilbert with referral to Judge Philip M. Frazier.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
Schlichter, Bogard et al.
100 South Fourth Street, Suite 900
St. Louis, MO 63102
Phone: 314-621-6115
Fax: 314-621-7151
E-mail: marmstrong@uselaws.com
Representing the defendant is:
Thomas P. Berra, Jr., Esq.
Lewis, Rice et al.
500 North Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, MO 63102-2147
Phone: 314-444-7600
E-mail: tberra@lewisrice.com
SOLUTIA INC: Seeks Automatic Stay on "Corlew" Litigation in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. filed a suggestion of bankruptcy to invoke
automatic stay for a purported class action, "Corlew, et al., v.
General Electric Company, Monsanto Company, Pharmacia
Corporation, and Solutia Inc.," which was filed on March 13,
2007 in the Superior Court of New York County, New York.
The plaintiffs are current residents of Schenectady, New York,
who seek to represent a class of all individuals who owned
and/or occupied property within a five-mile radius of General
Electric's Main Plant in Schenectady.
They allege that their properties were contaminated by the
release of PCBs manufactured by Monsanto, Pharmacia, and/or
Solutia (collectively referred to in the Complaint as Monsanto)
that were used in the manufacture of a variety of products at
General Electric's Schenectady plant.
Plaintiffs allege a series of twenty-five claims including
thirteen claims specifically against Monsanto, Pharmacia, and
Solutia collectively including negligence, breach of warranty,
strict liability, fraudulent concealment, negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, nuisance,
trespass, unjust enrichment, and willful and wanton misconduct,
with each claim seeking between $12,000 and $20,000 in
compensatory damages, and an equivalent amount in punitive
damages.
Solutia believes the litigation is automatically stayed as to
the company pursuant to Section 362 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.
Accordingly, Solutia has filed its suggestion of bankruptcy with
the trial court, according to the company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its
subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety
of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in
a range of consumer and industrial applications.
SOURCEFIRE INC: IPO Underwriters Named in Md. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has expanded a class action filed on
May 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
against Sourcefire, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors to include the underwriters involved in the company's
March 9, 2007 initial public offering.
The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the common stock of Sourcefire pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with its March 9, 2007 initial public
offering, through April 9, 2007.
KGS has expanded the lawsuit's defendants beyond the Company,
Board of Directors and chief financial officer, to include the
underwriters involved in the Offering including:
-- Morgan Stanley
-- Lehman Bros.
-- UBS Securities and
-- Jeffries & Co.
who are each charged with including or allowing the inclusion of
materially false and misleading statements in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in
direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933.
The defendants are charged with failing to conduct an adequate
due diligence investigation into the Company prior to the IPO,
and that they failed to disclose that the Company was not
operating according to plan regardless of the fact that the
first quarter of 2007 was weeks away from closing, despite
Sourcefire not closing its contracts according to schedule.
The Complaint alleges that on Friday, April 6, 2007, a day the
markets were closed in observance of "Good Friday" -- after
defendants and other Company insiders liquidated at least $6.75
million of their personally held shares in or in connection with
the IPO -- Sourcefire revealed the truth about the Company,
including the problems that existed at the time of the IPO,
which would result in extremely disappointing 1Q:07 results. The
next trading day, Monday, April 9, 2007, Sourcefire Shares fell
almost 30%, plummeting from $17.35 per share to close at $12.28
per share on heavy volume of over 1.629 million shares.
Lead plaintiff filing deadline is July 13, 2007.
For more information, contact:
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces ERISA Violations Litigation in Kans.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. was named as one of the
defendants in a purported class action "Harkness et al. v. The
Boeing Company et al.," which was filed was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas on Feb. 16, 2007.
The defendants were served with the suit in early April. Spirit
AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Spirit AeroSystems Retirement
Plan for IBEW, WEU and WTPU Employees and The Spirit AeroSystems
Retirement Plan for IAM Employees, along with the Boeing Company
and Boeing retirement and health plan entities, were sued by 12
former Boeing employees, eight of whom were or are employees of
Spirit.
The plaintiffs assert several claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and general contract law
and purport to bring the case as a class action on behalf of
similarly-situated individuals.
The putative sub-class members who have asserted claims against
the Spirit entities are those individuals who, as of June 2005,
were employed by Boeing Aircraft Company in Wichita, Kansas and
who were participants in the Boeing pension plan, had at least
10 years of vesting service in the Boeing plan, were in a job
represented by a union, were between the ages of 49 and 55 and
who went to work for Spirit on or about June 17, 2005.
Although there are many claims in the suit, the plaintiffs'
claims against the Spirit entities are that the Spirit plans
wrongfully have failed to determine that certain plaintiffs are
entitled to early retirement "bridging rights" allegedly
triggered by their separation from employment by Boeing and that
the plaintiffs' pension benefits were unlawfully transferred
from Boeing to Spirit in that their claimed early retirement
"bridging rights" are not being afforded these individuals as a
result of their separation from Boeing, thereby decreasing their
benefits.
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class, declaration that
they are entitled to the early retirement benefits, an
injunction ordering that the defendants provide the benefits,
damages pursuant to breach of contract claims and attorney fees.
The suit is "Harkness et al. v. Boeing et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01043-WEB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas under Judge Wesley E. Brown with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas E. Hammond, Esq.
Hammond, Zongker & Farris, L.L.C.
727 North Waco, Ste. 200, P. O. Box 47370
Wichita, KS 67201
Phone: 316-262-6800
Fax: 316-262-3770
E-mail: tehammond1@yahoo.com
- and -
Keira M. McNett, Esq.
Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP
1701 K. Street NW, Ste. 210
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202-223-2620
Fax: 202-223-8651
E-mail: kmcnett@dcbwash.com
Representing the defendants are:
Gregory L. Ash, Esq.
Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
40 Corporate Woods, Ste. 700, 9401 Indian Creek Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66210
Phone: 913-345-8100
Fax: 913-345-0736
- and -
James M. Armstrong, Esq.
Foulston Siefkin LLP
1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-291-9576
Fax: 316-267-6345
E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Continues to Face Age Bias Suit in Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. remains a defendant in an age
discrimination class action filed against it in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas, according to the
company's May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29,
2007.
On Dec. 19, 2005, the action "Perry Apsley et al. v. The Boeing
Co., Onex Corp. and Spirit AeroSystems, Inc." was filed. In
early March 2006, plaintiffs served the company and the other
defendants with the suit.
Generally, plaintiffs assert several claims and purport to bring
the case as a class action and collective action on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Boeing in Wichita, Kansas
or Tulsa, Oklahoma within two years prior to the date of the
Boeing Acquisition and who were terminated or not hired by
Spirit.
The plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for age
discrimination, interference with Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 rights, breach of contract and retaliation.
Additionally, plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and more than $1.5 billion in punitive
damages.
On Nov. 15, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification and held that the plaintiffs may
send notice of the collective action to all former Boeing
employees who were terminated by Boeing on or after Jan. 1,
2002, were 40 years of age or older at the time of termination
and were not hired by Spirit.
Notice has been sent and individuals had until April 20, 2007 to
indicate their interest in joining the lawsuit.
Pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, the company agreed to
indemnify Boeing for damages resulting from the employment
decisions that were made by the company with respect to former
employees of Boeing Wichita which relate or allegedly relate to
the involvement of, or consultation with, employees of Boeing in
such employment decisions.
The suit is "Apsley, et al. v. The Boeing Co., et al., Case No.
6:05-cv-01368-MLB-KMH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Texas under Judge Monti L. Belot with referral to
Judge Karen M. Humphreys.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Uzo L. Ohaebosim, Esq.
Lawrence W. Williamson, Jr., Esq.
Shores, Williamson & Ohaebosim, LLC
301 N. Main, 1400 Epic Center
Wichita, KS 67202
Phone: 316-261-5400
Fax: 316-261-5404
E-mail: u.ohaebosim@swolawfirm.com
l.williamson@swolawfirm.com
Representing the defendants are:
James M. Armstrong, Esq.
Carolyn L. Matthews, Esq.
Foulston Siefkin, LLP
1551 N Waterfront Parkway, Ste. 100
Wichita, KS 67206-4466
Phone: 316-291-9576 and 316-267-6371
Fax: 316-267-6345
E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com
cmatthews@foulston.com
STILLWATER MINING: Sept. 6 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana set a Sept.
6, 2007 hearing to approve a proposed settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Stillwater
Mining Co. and certain of its senior officers
In 2002, nine lawsuits were filed against the company and
certain senior officers in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, purportedly on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the
company from April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002.
They assert claims against the company and certain of its
officers under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures
made by the company regarding its financial performance and, in
particular, it's accounting for probable ore reserves.
In July 2002, the court consolidated these actions, and in May
2003, the case was transferred to federal district court in
Montana.
In May 2004, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
second amended complaint, and in June 2004, plaintiffs filed
their opposition and defendants filed their reply.
Defendants have reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs to settle the federal class action. The proposed
settlement of the federal class action has been approved by the
company's board of directors, and is subject to final approval
of the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana notice to
the class and a hearing, which currently is scheduled for Sept.
6, 2007.
The proposed settlement of the federal class action is also
conditioned on approval by the Delaware Chancery Court of the
proposed settlement to resolve the claims alleged in the related
stockholder derivative lawsuit, unless the parties mutually
agree in writing to proceed with settlement of the federal class
action without such final court approval and dismissal of the
derivative lawsuit.
Under the proposed agreement, any settlement amount will be paid
by the Company's insurance carrier and will not involve any out-
of-pocket payment by the company or the individual defendants.
In light of the proposed settlement, the hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss has been taken off calendar, without prejudice
to their right to reinstate the motion in the event the parties
are not successful in negotiating the terms of the final
settlement papers.
The suit is "In re Stillwater Mining Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:03-cv-00093-RFC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana under Judge Richard F. Cebull.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Susan M. Greenwood, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119,
Phone: 212-594-5300
Fax: 212-868-1229
- and -
Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: 212-545-4600
Representing the defendants are:
Harriet S. Posner, Esq.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-687-5600
- and -
Stephen H. Foster, Esq.
Holland & Hart
P.O. Box 639
Billings, MT 59103-0639
Phone: 406-252-2166
Fax: 406-252-1669
TANDEM STAFFING: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc. is facing a class action filed
May 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiff Rafael Peralta, a former office clerk of Tandem
Staffing, brings this action for unpaid overtime compensation,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).
Mr. Peralta claims he has not received overtime wages for work
performed over 40 hours weekly and which occurred during the
three-year period prior to filing the complaint.
He further claims defendant willfully and intentionally refused
to pay him the overtime wages as required by U.S. laws and
remain owing him these overtime wages since his employment in
2000 until Nov. 31, 2006.
Mr. Peralta requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, to be proven at the
time of trial for all overtime wages still owing from his entire
employment period and liquidated damages for all untimely
minimum wage, straight time wage and overtime wage payments made
to him throughout his employment, as much as allowed by the FLSA
-- whichever is greater along with court costs, interest, and
any other relief that the court finds reasonable.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1ff3
The suit is "Peralta v. Tandem Staffing Solutions, Inc., Case
No. 1:07-cv-21266-JAL," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, under Judge Joan A. Lenard.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: 305-865-6766
Fax: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
WYETH-AYERST: Circuit Court Dismisses Premarin Antitrust Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Circuit dismissed an antitrust class action against
Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, the maker of Premarin, on plaintiffs'
failure to prove that the company engaged in activities that
directly led to increased prices of similar drugs, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
The company was accused of offering large rebates to benefit
managers that listed Wyeth's drugs as the only insured estrogen-
replacement medications in order to keep a similar drug,
Cenestin, from gaining market share.
"The circuit concluded that the buyers' evidence never made a
causal connection between Wyeth's alleged antitrust actions and
its decision to increase prices," according to the report.
In a February 2007 regulatory filing, Wyeth disclosed that is
party to various lawsuits brought in federal and state courts
throughout the U.S., including in Ohio, California and Vermont,
alleging that the company violated the antitrust laws through
the use of exclusive contracts and "disguised exclusive
contracts" with managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit
managers concerning Premarin.
Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief and disgorgement of
profits.
At that time, the company said the District Court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment in:
-- "J.B.D.L. Corp. v. Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Civ. A. No. C-1-01-704, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio," and
-- "CVS Meridian, Inc. et al. v. Wyeth, Civil A. No.
C-1-03-781, U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio"
Plaintiffs in both actions appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 6th Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal took place on
November 28, 2006.
In addition, it said, various actions have been brought against
the Company by indirect purchasers of Premarin.
A copy of the Circuit Court's opinion is available free of
charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?2001
New Securities Fraud Cases
BEAZER HOMES: Chitwood Harley Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-1139) on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. during from July 28, 2005
through and including March 27, 2007.
The defendants are:
-- Beazer;
-- Ian J. McCarthy, who served as President and Chief
Executive Officer of the company;
-- James O'Leary, who served as Chief Financial Officer and
Senior Executive Vice President;
-- Michael T. Rand, who served as Chief Accounting Officer
and Senior Vice President; and
-- Kenneth J. Gary, who served as General Counsel and
Executive Vice President of the company.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's
growth, business, prospects and then-current financial condition
and engaged in improper and possibly illegal mortgage lending
activities for several years in order to misleadingly enhance
the company's business. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions, Beazer stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a
high of $82.03 per share in January 2006.
On March 18, 2007, The Charlotte Observer reported that federal
housing officials were reviewing whether Beazer complied with
federal rules in arranging government-insured loans for buyers
in its subdivisions. On March 21, 2007, Beazer disclosed that
its CFO resigned his employment. Then, on March 27, 2007, the
Associated Press reported that the FBI, the U.S. Attorneys'
Office in Charlotte, North Carolina, the IRS, and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development launched joint
criminal inquiries of Beazer's corporate, mortgage, and
investment related activities.
After the market closed on March 27, 2007, Beazer issued a press
release responding to media reports and inquiries into the
possibility of a federal investigation of the company in
connection with alleged mortgage fraud. This news caused Beazer
stock to fall $2.64 per share to close at $28.77 per share on
March 28, 2007, a one-day decline of 9% and a 65% decline from
its class period high of $82.03 per share.
On May 3, 2007, the company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
revealing that it received notice on May 1, 2007 that the SEC is
conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether any person
or entity related to Beazer has violated the federal securities
laws.
Concerned parties may move the court for appointment as lead
plaintiff no later than sixty (60) days after the date on which
the first notice was published (the first notice was published
on March 29, 2007).
For more information, contact:
Mary Kathryn King, Esq.
Chitwood Harley Harnes LLP
1230 Peachtree St NE 2300 Promenade II
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900
Fax: (404) 876-4476
E-mail: kking@chitwoodlaw.com
Web Site: http://www.chitwoodlaw.com
BEAZER HOMES: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP filed a lawsuit
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-1139) on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the
common stock of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. from July 28, 2005
through and including March 27, 2007.
The defendants are Beazer, Ian J. McCarthy, who served as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the company, James
O'Leary, who served as Chief Financial Officer and Senior
Executive Vice President of the company, Michael T. Rand, who
served as Chief Accounting Officer and Senior Vice President of
the company, and Kenneth J. Gary, who served as General Counsel
and Executive Vice President of the company.
The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's
growth, business, prospects and then-current financial condition
and engaged in improper and possibly illegal mortgage lending
activities for several years in order to misleadingly enhance
the company's business. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements and omissions, Beazer stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the class period, reaching a
high of $82.03 per share in January 2006.
On March 18, 2007, The Charlotte Observer reported that federal
housing officials were reviewing whether Beazer complied with
federal rules in arranging government-insured loans for buyers
in its subdivisions.
On March 21, 2007, Beazer disclosed that its CFO resigned his
employment. Then, on March 27, 2007, the Associated Press
reported that the FBI, the U.S. Attorneys' Office in Charlotte,
North Carolina, the IRS, and the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development launched joint criminal inquiries of Beazer's
corporate, mortgage, and investment related activities.
After the market closed on March 27, 2007, Beazer issued a press
release responding to media reports and inquiries into the
possibility of a federal investigation of the company in
connection with alleged mortgage fraud. This news caused Beazer
stock to fall $2.64 per share to close at $28.77 per share on
March 28, 2007, a one-day decline of 9% and a 65% decline from
its class period high of $82.03 per share.
On May 3, 2007, the company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC
revealing that it received notice on May 1, 2007 that the SEC is
conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether any person
or entity related to Beazer has violated the federal securities
laws.
Interested parties are advised to move the court no later than
sixty (60) days after the date on which the first notice was
published (the first notice was published on March 29, 2007) for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
Contact the following attorney to discuss this lawsuit:
Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl.
New York, NY 10119-0165
Phone: (800) 320-5081
Email: contactus@milbergweiss.com
Website: http://www.milbergweiss.com
BEAZER HOMES: Motley Rice Files Securities Fraud Suit in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC filed a securities fraud class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Beazer Homes USA, Inc., Ian J. McCarthy, Michael H. Furlow,
James O'Leary, and Michael T. Rand.
The case was filed on behalf of a proposed class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Beazer Homes' securities between
March 30, 2005, and March 27, 2007, inclusive and were allegedly
damaged thereby. This class period is broader than the class
period alleged in an earlier suit filed against Beazer.
The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making a variety of materially
false and misleading statements and omissions about the
company's business operations, the reasons for its purported
financial condition, its internal controls and procedures, and
known contingencies, all concealing from investors that the
company had engaged in improper mortgage lending practices.
The complaint further alleges that defendants thus violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and filed false
and misleading reports with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC). The complaint also contends that the
individual defendants engaged in substantial and suspicious
insider trading while in possession of material, non-public
knowledge about these matters.
On January 25, 2007, the complaint alleges, the market first
began to learn of Beazer's deteriorating financial condition
when Beazer reported a net loss and revised its outlook. On
this news, BZH common stock fell $2.64 per share from the prior
day's close on unusually heavy trading volume of over 2.95
million shares.
On March 27, 2007, BusinessWeek.com reported that "the North
Carolina field offices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Internal Revenue Service, and the Justice Dept. recently
opened a joint investigation" of Beazer Homes. The article
quoted FBI spokesman Ken Lucas who stated that "(t)here's all
sorts of potential fraud issues here . . . we're looking at all
types of (potential) fraud associated with Beazer--corporate,
mortgage, investments."
Over the 24-hour period immediately following the article, BZH's
share price dropped precipitously, closing at $28.77 per share
on March 28, reflecting a decline of approximately $3 per share
on record trading volume of over 19.6 million shares.
For appointment as lead plaintiff, you may move the court no
later than May 28, 2007.
A copy of the complaint can be obtained from:
Office of the Clerk of the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Georgia
75 Spring Street SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
For more information about the case, contact:
Kate Zelinskym, Securities Paralegal
Motley Rice LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Phone: 1-800-370-9526
E-mail: beazercase@motleyrice.com
Web Site: http://www.motleyrice.com
- or -
James M. Evangelista, Esq.
600 West Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 800
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Phone: 404-201-6900
E-mail: beazercase@motleyrice.com
Web Site: http://www.motleyrice.com
BKF CAPITAL: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP filed a class action on May 18,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of BKF Capital Group, Inc. (BKF)
between May 10, 2004 and October 18, 2005, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against BKF, Glenn A. Aigen and John A.
Levin.
The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that during the class period, defendants issued a series of
false and misleading statements concerning the company.
The statements were materially false and misleading when made
because:
(1) throughout the class period, as a result of defendants'
failure to properly account for their restricted stock
units, it was not true that the company's financial
statements and reports were prepared in accordance with
GAAP and SEC rules;
(2) as a result of defendants' failure to properly account
for their restricted stock units, the company's
financial reports were not reliable and did not
represent the true financial and operational condition
of the company; and
(3) as a result of defendants' failure to properly account
for their restricted stock units, it was also not true
that BKF contained adequate systems of internal and
operational or financial controls, such that BKF
reported financial statements were true, accurate or
reliable.
On or about October 18, 2005, defendants revealed that BKF's
financial reports were not reliable and that the financial
reports dating back to the beginning of 2004 would need to be
restated. These disclosures caused the price of BKF shares to
decline over $7.40 per share in one day, falling over 30%, and
closing at just above $17.00 per share.
If you are a member of the class described, you may move the
court no later than later than sixty days from May 18, for
appointment as lead plaintiff.
A copy of the complaint can be obtained at:
http://www.labaton.com/en/about/press/BKF-Press-Release.cfm
For more information, contact:
Christopher Keller, Esq.
The Law Firm of Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
100 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 800-321-0476
Web Site: http://www.labaton.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 * * *