/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070611.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, June 11, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 114
Headlines
ACTION LABS: Recalls Salmonella-tainted Shark Cartilage Capsules
ATRAZINE CASES: Law Clerk to Help Judge Stack in Pending Cases
AVISTA CORP: Agrees to Settle Wash. Securities Suit for $9.5M
CRACKER BARREL: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Age Discrimination
DOANE PET: Recalls Dog Food Potentially Tainted With Salmonella
DORAL FINANCIAL: July 16 Hearing Set for $130M Suit Settlement
DRAM LITIGATION: Aug. 1 Hearing Set for $22M Suit Settlement
EXXON MOBIL: $2.5B Award to Exxon Valdez Spill Victims Upheld
GEMMY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Eyeball Toys Posing Chemical Hazard
MICROSOFT CORP: Wis. Antitrust Suit Claims Deadline Set June 30
MIDWEST DRYWALL: Drywallers File Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
PERFORMANCE PLUS: Resident Mulls Suit Over Foul-smelling Factory
PERSONAL CREATIONS: Recalls Long Johns with Detachable Snaps
PFIZER INC: Lawyer Bars Protective Order; Deposition Set June 12
PIONEER COS: Faces “Frazier” Pollution Suit in La. Federal Court
PIONEER NATURAL: Kans. Court OKs Royalty Owners' Suit Settlement
PLAINS ALL: Reaches Settlement in “Kosseff” Merger Litigation
PMA CAPITAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Litigation in Pa.
PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
PURDUE PHARMA: Wagner Law Firm Plans to Sue Over Oxycontin
SAFECO INSURANCE: Wins Favorable High Court Ruling in FCRA Suit
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Nixing of Securities Fraud Suit Becomes Final
STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed in Conn. Consolidated Securities Suit
TRIBUNE CO: Continues to Face Several Advertisers’ Suits in N.Y.
TRIBUNE CO: Dismissal of Securities, ERISA Suits Under Appeal
TRIAD HOSPITALS: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit Over Merger
TXU CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tex. Over Merger Agreement
WELLS REAL: Md. Court Allows Transfer of “Washtenaw County” Case
WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: Mass. Suit Opposes Assabet Valley Merger
WHOLESOY & CO: Recalls Blueberry Yogurt Due to Undeclared Dairy
YAHOO INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
* Justice Warren K. Winkler Named Chief Justice of Ontario
New Securities Fraud Cases
DENDRON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
TELIK INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
XINHUA FINACE: Abraham Fruchter Files Suit in N.Y. Over IPO
*********
ACTION LABS: Recalls Salmonella-tainted Shark Cartilage Capsules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Action Labs, Inc. of Anaheim, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product and Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling its Sentinel brand
Shark Cartilage Capsules manufactured in 2005 because they have the potential
to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea
(which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting
into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial
infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
Routine testing performed recently at NBTY, Inc. (the manufacturer) shows
that the recalled capsules have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. Although multiple lot numbers may have been involved in the
recall by NBTY, only NBTY lot number 64951 was purchased, repacked and
distributed by Action Labs, Inc.
The Shark Cartilage Capsules were sold in bottles of 60 capsules and labeled
as Sentinel Shark Cartilage 750mg. A sticker with lot number 064951 and
expiration date 07 2009 is located on the bottom of the bottle. The Shark
Cartilage Capsules were distributed to retail establishments in Southern
California and internationally to Hong Kong.
No illnesses have been reported to date. This recall is being made with the
knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration.
Customers may return product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Customers may also contact the company with questions and to obtain
information on how to return the product at 1-714-630-5941.
ATRAZINE CASES: Law Clerk to Help Judge Stack in Pending Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County (Ill.) Circuit Judge Daniel J. Stack is getting help on
Atrazine cases before him.
The American Bar Association is supplying him with a law clerk for six weeks
this summer and that two law students will also join him for credits toward
their degree, Steve Gonzalez of The Madison St. Clair Record has learned.
Judge Stack said the clerks will be working on book briefs and memos on the
Atrazine class actions.
He said he has fallen behind in some of his cases he has under advisement
because of complex litigation that has gone to trial such as the Vioxx trial.
Atrazine is an economical pesticide that is used on most corn and grain
sorghum grown in the United States. One of the suits filed in 2004 claims
that atrazine from farming operations has contaminated the lake that supplies
water for the unincorporated neighborhood (Class Action Reporter, March 16,
2007). It was filed by the Holiday Shores Sanitary District, which operates
a water plant in the Holiday Shores area west of Edwardsville.
AVISTA CORP: Agrees to Settle Wash. Securities Suit for $9.5M
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corp. has agreed to settle a consolidated class action filed against
it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington for $9.5
million, John Stucke of The Spokesman Review reports.
Despite the settlement, Avista continues to deny the core allegations of the
lawsuit originally filed in September 2002 that it failed to disclose its
role in electricity trades between Enron Corp. and Portland General Electric,
an Enron subsidiary at the time.
"We did not admit any wrongdoing, but we're glad to get this over," said Hugh
Imhof, a company spokesman.
Insurers will pay all of the settlement costs, legal fees and expenses.
Avista is responsible for paying a $1 million deductible. The settlement
will have no impact on rates, Mr. Imhof said.
The settlement would erase claims against the company as well as against
former chairman and chief executive Thomas Matthews.
Gary Ely, chairman and chief executive officer, and Jon Eliassen, a former
senior vice president and chief financial officer, also will have their names
dropped from the lawsuit.
Several class action complaints were filed in September through November 2002
in the same court against the company, Mr. Matthews, former chairman of the
board, president and chief executive officer; Gary G. Ely, current chairman
of the board and chief executive officer; and Mr. Eliassen, former senior
vice president and chief financial officer.
In February 2003, the court issued an order, which consolidated the
complaints and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint.
On June 13, 2005, the company filed a motion for reconsideration of its
earlier motion to dismiss this complaint, based, in part, on a recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision with respect to the pleading requirements surrounding
a sufficient showing of loss causation.
On Oct. 19, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss this
complaint. The order to dismiss was issued without prejudice, which allowed
the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
The amended complaint filed on Nov. 10, 2005 alleges approximately $2.6
billion in damages due to the decrease in the total market value of the
company's common stock during the class period.
These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal securities laws
through alleged misstatements and omissions of material facts with respect to
the company's energy trading practices in western power markets.
Plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions regarding these
matters were made in the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the
company, including press releases.
The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf of all persons who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the company's common
stock between Nov. 23, 1999 and Aug. 13, 2002.
On Jan. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss an amended class
action complaint -- filed on Nov. 10, 2005 -asserting deficiencies in it,
including that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege loss causation.
On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the company's
motion to dismiss the complaint. The District Court's order denying the
company's motion to dismiss is not a decision on the merits of the lawsuit
and the matter will proceed in the normal course of litigation, according to
the company.
Settlement negotiations began last fall and the sides made progress with a
federal mediator in January.
A second round of mediation in April led to an agreement in principle to
settle the suit, Mr. Stucke reports. During the time period in question,
Messrs. Matthews, Ely and Eliassen were not trading large amounts of stock,
according to court records, a factor that showed the executives did not
enrich themselves by cashing in before the stock price tanked.
In a prepared statement, Avista said it agreed with the settlement to avoid
the risk of trial and protracted legal costs.
The pending settlement still needs the approval of U.S. District Judge Fred
Van Sickle of Spokane.
The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al., Case No. 2:00-
cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington, under Judge Robert
H. Whaley.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Randi D. Bandman
Michael Reese
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP - CA(SF)
100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Karl P. Barth
Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP
1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (425) 452-9800
Fax: (425) 452-9801
E-mail: kbarth@lmbllp.com
- and -
Steve W .Berman
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-623-7292
Fax: 12066230594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
Representing the company are:
Curt Roy Hineline
David M. Jacobson
Evan L. Schwab
Dorsey & Whitney LLP – SEA
U S Bank Center
1420 5th Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206-903-8800
Fax: 206-903-8820
E-mail: jacobson.david@dorsey.com and
schwab.evan@dorsey.com
- and -
Donald Gene Stone
Paine Hamblen Coffin Brooke & Miller – SPO
717 W Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
Spokane, WA 99201-3503
Phone: 509-455-6000
Fax: 15098380007
E-mail: don.stone@painehamblen.com
CRACKER BARREL: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. is facing a class action filed June 8
in the U. S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleging age
discrimination.
The suit alleges that Cracker Barrel illegally required applicants to state
their age on employment applications, as well as other interview and pre-
employment testing materials.
It further alleges that the request for and utilization of such information
is in clear violation of the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act.
The lawsuit is filed on behalf of lead plaintiff, William DeMarse, as well as
all applicants nationwide who applied for jobs at Cracker Barrel and who were
denied equal opportunity based upon their age.
The suit is “Demarse v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., Case No. 8:07-
cv-00981-SDM-MSS, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida under Judge Steven D. Merryday with referral to Judge Mary S. Scriven.
Representing plaintiffs is:
David J. Linesch
The Linesch Firm
700 Bee Pond Rd
Palm Harbor, FL 34683
Phone: 727/786-0000
Fax: 727/786-0974
E-mail: laborlaw@lineschfirm.com
DOANE PET: Recalls Dog Food Potentially Tainted With Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doane Pet Care of Manassas, Virginia, is voluntarily recalling a specific
single lot of 55 pound bonus bags of Ol' Roy Complete Nutrition dry dog
food. This product was produced at one facility in Manassas, Virginia and
was distributed exclusively by some Wal-Mart Stores.
Please note that no other Ol' Roy products are affected, and that this recall
is not related to the Menu Foods recall (and other recent recalls) of pet
food due to tainted Chinese vegetable proteins.
This product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. People
handling this pet food can become exposed to Salmonella, especially if they
have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with this pet
food or any surfaces exposed to this product. Consumers who have the dry dog
food bearing the code "04 0735 1" with a "Best By Apr 13 08" should not feed
it to their pets.
This voluntary recall has been issued because FDA detected Salmonella in the
product. Doane Pet Care has not confirmed the presence of Salmonella,
despite extensive independent testing of duplicate samples. Nonetheless, the
company is issuing this voluntary recall out of an abundance of caution. The
company regrets any inconvenience to pet owners. No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this product, or any product produced at
this facility.
Product: Ol' Roy Complete Nutrition dry dog food
Size: 55 pound bonus bag
UPC Code: 6 05388 72076 4
Lot Number: 04 0735 1
Best Buy Date: Apr 13 '08
Best Buy Date Location: Back of bag
Only 69 Wal-Mart Stores potentially received this product from 2 distribution
warehouses in Virginia. The 69 stores are located in Maryland (4 stores),
North Carolina (10), Ohio (1), Pennsylvania (3), Virginia (40) and West
Virginia (11). A full listing of the affected stores is available at
http://www.doanepetcare.com. This product UPC has been blocked from retail
sale at these 69 locations.
Any remaining product should not be fed to pets. Dispose of product in a
safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle) and return the
empty bag to the store where purchased for a full refund.
Pet owners who have questions about the voluntary recall of this 55 lb bonus
bag of Ol' Roy Complete Nutrition dry dog food products should call 800-624-
7387, or visit the web site listed above.
DORAL FINANCIAL: July 16 Hearing Set for $130M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a
fairness hearing on July 16, 2007 at 2:30 a.m. for the proposed $130,000,000
settlement in the matter, "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO."
The hearing will be held before Judge Richard Owen in the Daniel Patrick
Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, New York 10007.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or
before June 25, 2007.
Case Background
The company and certain of its officers and directors and former officers and
directors, were named as defendants in 18 purported class actions filed
between April 20, 2005 and June 14, 2005 over allegations of federal
securities laws violations.
Sixteen of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and two were filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico.
These lawsuits were brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Doral
Financial securities as early as May 15, 2000 and as late as Aug. 15, 2006.
They allege primarily that the defendants engaged in securities fraud by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements during the class
period, failing to disclose material information concerning the valuation of
the company's IO Strip portfolios, and misleading investors as to Doral's
vulnerability to interest rate increases.
The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation has transferred the two
actions that were not initially filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to that court for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions previously
filed there before Judge Richard Owen.
On Feb. 8, 2006, Judge Owen entered an order appointing the West Virginia
Investment Management Board as lead plaintiff and approving the selection of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel.
On June 22, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
alleging securities fraud during the period between March 15, 2000 and Oct.
25, 2005, based on allegations similar to those noted above, as well as based
on the reversal of certain transactions entered into by Doral Financial with
other Puerto Rico financial institutions and on weaknesses in Doral
Financial's control environment as described in the company's amended annual
report on Form 10-K/ A for 2004.
The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages
including interest, costs and expenses, and injunctive relief.
Settlement Terms
As part of the settlement, the company and insurers will pay an aggregate of
$129 million, of which insurers will pay approximately $34 million.
In addition, one or more individual defendants will pay an aggregate of $1
million (in cash or Doral Financial stock). The company also agreed to
certain corporate governance enhancements.
The company's payment obligations under the settlement agreement are subject
to the closing and funding of one or more transactions through which the
company obtains outside financing during 2007 to meet its liquidity and
capital needs, including the repayment of the company's $625 million senior
notes due on July 20, 2007, payment of the amounts due under the settlement
agreement and certain other working capital and contractual needs.
Either side may terminate the settlement agreement if the company has not
raised the necessary funding by Sept. 30, 2007 or if the settlement has not
been fully funded within 30 days from the receipt of such funding.
For more details, visit: http://www.gilardi.com
The suit is "In Re: Doral Financial Corp. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:05-md-01706-RO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Richard Owen.
DRAM LITIGATION: Aug. 1 Hearing Set for $22M Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a
fairness hearing on Aug. 1, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for a proposed $22,000,000
settlement with certain defendants in the matter, "In Re Dynamic Random
Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, Master Files No. M-02-1486 PJH
(JCS), MDL No. 1486."
The hearing will be held before Judge Physilis J. Hamilton, in Courtroom 3,
on the 17th floor of the U.S. District Courthouse, at 450 Golden State Ave.,
San Francisco, California 94102.
The settlement, which is in relation to all direct purchaser actions, covers
all persons or entities that directly purchased DRAM in the U.S. from the
defendants during the period of April
1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.
Any objections to the the settlement must be made by July 6, 2007.
The settling defendants are:
-- Mosel Vitelic Corp.;
-- Mosel-Vitelic, Inc.; and
-- Nanya Technology Corp. USA.
The Mosel Vitec defendants' settlement is valued at $15,000,000, while the
Nanya Technology's settlement is valued at $7,000,000.
Case Background
Plaintiffs in the suits generally allege that defendants unlawfully agreed to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of DRAM and/or to allocate
among themselves major customers and accounts in violation of the federal
antitrust laws during the period of April 1, 1999 through June 30, 2002.
They also allege that, as a result of defendants' unlawful conduct, they and
members of the class paid more for DRAM than they would have in the absence
of defendants' wrongful conduct.
Defendants deny plaintiffs' allegations and have asserted numerous
affirmative defenses. On June 5, 2006, the court certified the class
described above.
For more details, contact:
DRAM Antitrust Litigation
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc.,
P.O. Box 24657
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: 866-483-9938
E-mail: dram@rustconsulting.com
Web site: http://www.dramantitrustsettlement.com
Guido Saveri, Esq.
R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
111 Pine Street, Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 217-6810 and (415) 217-6813
Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq.
Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Fax: (212) 545-4653
- and -
Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101,
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
EXXON MOBIL: $2.5B Award to Exxon Valdez Spill Victims Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 9th U.S. Circuit court reconfirmed the $2.5 billion award to victims of
the accidental release of crude oil from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989, and
denied Exxon Mobil Corp.’s petition for a panel rehearing, Stephanie Lovett
of The Legal Intelligencer reports.
In its decision, the court implied it wants to end the case, according to the
report.
A number of lawsuits, including class-actions, were brought in various courts
against Exxon Mobil and certain of its subsidiaries relating to the
accident. All of the compensatory claims have been resolved and paid. All
of the punitive damage claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began
in 1994.
The first judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in
the amount of $5 billion was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th
Circuit as being excessive under the Constitution.
The second judgment in the amount of $4 billion was vacated by the 9th
Circuit panel without argument and sent back for the District Court to
reconsider in light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in "Campbell v.
State Farm." The most recent
District Court judgment for punitive damages was for $4.5 billion plus
interest and was entered in January 2004.
The corporation posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit. ExxonMobil and the
plaintiffs appealed this decision to the 9th Circuit, which ruled on Dec. 22,
2006, that the award be reduced to $2.5 billion.
On Jan. 12, 2007, ExxonMobil petitioned the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for
a rehearing en banc of its appeal (Class Action Reporter, March 19, 2007).
Former Philadelphia Common Pleas Judge Harold Berger, one of the prosecutors,
said though $2.5 billion is only half of the original jury award, the
accumulated interest will reach $2 billion for a total award of $4.5 billion.
The court had ruled that attorneys get a little more than 22 percent of the
award.
According to Mr. Berger, the plaintiffs’ legal team has not planned an appeal
to establish $5 billion award despite its belief that the class deserves it.
He said Exxon intends to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, then
they will have to revert to their initial claim of $5 billion. But he
strongly believes the Supreme Court won’t take the case.
The suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al.
(3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska under Judge
H. Russel Holland.
Representing the defendants are:
John F. Clough, III, Esq.
Clough & Associates
POB 211187
Auke Bay, AK 99821
Phone: 907-790-1912
Fax: 907-790-1913
- and -
Douglas J. Serdahely, Esq.
Patton Boggs LLP
601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907-263-6300
Fax: 907-263-6345
E-mail: dserdahely@pattonboggs.com
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Charles W. Coe, Esq.
Law Office of Charles W. Coe
805 W 3rd Avenue, #10
Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S.
Phone: 907-276-6173
Fax: 907-279-1884
E-mail: charlielaw@gci.net
- and -
Lloyd B. Miller, Esq.
Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP
900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700
Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S.
Phone: 907-258-6377
Fax: 907-272-8332
E-mail: lloyd@sonosky.net
GEMMY INDUSTRIES: Recalls Eyeball Toys Posing Chemical Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gemmy Industries Corp., of Coppell, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about
500 units of Floating Eyeballs.
The firm said the plastic eyeball contains kerosene, which if broken,
presents a chemical hazard to children.
Gemmy Industries has not received any injury or incident reports.
The product is a plastic flashing eyeball toy filled with liquid. The model
numbers of this product are: 27828, 27544 and 06470. The model number is
found on the back of the packaging. The writing on the packaging
reads, “FLASHING EVIL EYE,” and “TRY ME!”
These eyeball toys were manufactured in China and sold through toy and
novelty stores during July 2006 for about $3.
Consumers should take these toys away from children immediately, and return
the item to the store for a full refund.
To view the photo of the toy eyeball, click on the link:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07556.html
For additional information, please contact Gemmy Industries at (800) 231-6879
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, visit the firm’s Web site
at http://www.gemmy.com,or e-mail the firm at Davidm@gemmy.com.
MICROSOFT CORP: Wis. Antitrust Suit Claims Deadline Set June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
June 30 is the last day for Wisconsin consumers and businesses to claim up to
$233,896,000 in benefits from a class action settlement with the lawyers
involved in the Court-approved settlement in the matters:
-- "Spence v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 00-CV-003042,"
-- "Capp v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. No. 05-CV-011127,"
and
-- "Bettendorf v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. No. 05-CV-
010927."
The settlement includes Wisconsin consumers, businesses, and governmental
entities that acquired Microsoft software from December 7, 1993 through April
30, 2003, for use in Wisconsin.
Plaintiffs in the lawsuits claim that the company violated Wisconsin's
antitrust and unfair competition laws and thereby overcharged consumers for
some of its software.
The settlement was reached on behalf of Wisconsin consumers and businesses
that acquired Microsoft software from Dec. 7, 1993 through April 30, 2003,
for use in Wisconsin, and not for resale (Class Action Reporter, Mar 20,
2007).
Microsoft will distribute up to $223,896,000 in vouchers that eligible class
members can redeem regarding their purchases of computers, peripheral
computer hardware, and computer software made by any manufacturer.
The vouchers are worth:
-- $23 each for Microsoft's "Office" productivity
suite software and Microsoft's "Excel" spreadsheet
software;
-- $15 each for Microsoft's "Windows" and "MS-DOS"
operating system software; and
-- $10 each for Microsoft's "Word" word processing
software (including "Home Essentials" and "Works
Suite").
Under the settlement, which was approved April 6, Microsoft denies that it
did anything wrong and the settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an
indication that any law was violated. The Court did not rule on the merits of
the lawsuit.
For more details, contact:
Microsoft-Wisconsin Settlement
P.O. Box 1626
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1626
Phone: 1-800-598-3050 and 1-866-494-8399
Web site: http://www.microsoftWIsuit.com
- and -
Ben Barnow
Barnow and Associates, P.C.
One North LaSalle St.
Suite 4600, Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: 312-621-2000
Fax: 312-641-5504
MIDWEST DRYWALL: Drywallers File Lawsuit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Drywall, Co., Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 4 in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging Labor
Code violations.
Named plaintiffs -- Estaban Badillo Gomez, Alfredo Chavez Dimas, Eylien
Estrada and Francisco Lucero -- former metal stud framers and drywallers of
Midwest Drywall, bring this collective action on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated employees who will opt in to this suit to recover
straight time compensation, overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys’ fees, and costs under the provisions of Section 16(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.
Plaintiffs also seek relief for violations of various provisions of the
California Labor Code, Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare
Commission and for unfair business practices under the Business and
Professions Code. Plaintiffs bring the California State claims as a
representative action or in the alternative, as a class action. Plaintiffs
seek restitution, disgorgement of profits, statutory penalties, injunctive
relief, attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
Plaintiffs seek the compensation due them and other employees of Defendant
who are similarly situated, under Sections 6 and 7 of the FLSA (29 U.S.C.
Sections 206 and 207). Plaintiffs also seek liquidated damages in an amount
equal to the compensation due them and other similarly situated employees as
authorized by Section 16(b) of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), and an
extension of the statute of limitations to three years for willful violation
of the Act under 29 U.S.C. Section 255.
The complaint alleges defendant required, suffered, or permitted Plaintiffs,
and other similarly situated metal stud framers and drywallers, to work hours
in excess of 40 per week without overtime compensation in compliance with the
FLSA, the California Labor Code or the relevant California Industrial Welcome
Commission Wage Orders.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires workers to be paid at the right time at
the right rate for all time worked. The employer is violating each of these
concepts. The uncompensated and improperly compensated overtime and straight
time was worked by Plaintiffs and other similarly situated metal stud framers
and drywallers under the following circumstances.
As a result of the violations of the FLSA alleged, during the three years
prior to the filing of this complaint and continuing through the present,
Defendant, by virtue of their failure and refusal to pay Plaintiffs and
other, similarly situated metal stud framers and drywallers, suffered or
permitted Plaintiffs to work in excess of 40 hours in numerous work weeks but
have not paid Plaintiffs and other metal stud framers and drywallers overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA and the regulations established by the
Department of Labor (DOL) thereunder. By failing to give the check to the
workers and instead giving the check to the worker’s brother or cousin, the
employer violates the pay-on-time rules of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 29
C.F.R. 778.106.
As a result of said violations of Section 7 of the FLSA and the applicable
regulations of the Department of Labor by Defendant, there is now a sum due
and owing in an amount which has not yet been precisely determined by
Plaintiffs. The employment and work records for Plaintiffs and other,
similarly situated metal stud framers and drywallers are in the exclusive
possession, custody and control of Defendant and Plaintiffs is unable to
state at this time the exact amounts owing.
Defendants are under a duty imposed by Section 11(c) of the FLSA (29 U.S.C.
Section 211(c) and the regulations of the DOL to maintain and preserve
payroll and other employment records with respect to Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated metal stud framers and drywallers from which the amounts
of Defendant’ liability can be ascertained.
Additionally, as a result of the foregoing alleged violations of Section 7 of
the FLSA, Plaintiffs and other, similarly situated metal stud framers and
drywallers are entitled to liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 216(b), and costs and to an extension of the statute of limitations to
three years because of the bad faith and willfulness of Defendant in failing
and refusing to properly compensate Plaintiffs and/or other similarly,
situated metal stud framers and drywallers and continuing to deny Plaintiffs
overtime compensation in compliance with the FLSA.
Plaintiffs pray judgment as follows:
-- for an order imposing back pay at time and one half the
regular rate for all uncompensated toil performed during
work weeks which Plaintiffs worked in excess of 8 hours
in a day or 40 hours in a week;
-- for liquidated damages at the rate of twice the amount
owed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b);
-- for an order imposing all statutory and/or civil
penalties provided by law;
-- for an accounting including, but not limited to the
wages and hours of its employees, and of all relevant
matters presented herein;
-- for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees as provided
by 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Labor Code section 1194, Code of
Civil Procedure § 1021.5, and otherwise;
-- for costs of suit incurred herein;
-- for an equitable accounting to identify, locate and
restore to all current and former employees the wages
they are due;
-- for legal interest; and
-- grant such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?20be
The suit is “Gomez, et al vs Midwest Drywall Co., Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
01066-FCD-JFM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, under Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., with referral to Judge John F.
Moulds.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Matthew J. Gauger
Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld
428 J Street, Suite #520
Sacramento, CA 95814-2341
Phone: (916) 443-6600
Fax: (916) 442-0244
E-mail: sacramentocourtnotices@unioncounsel.net
PERFORMANCE PLUS: Resident Mulls Suit Over Foul-smelling Factory
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Twin Falls (Idaho) city resident intends to file a class action against
Performance Plus over the putrid odor the factory emits, Jared S. Hopkins of
Times-News writer reports.
John Kreps has been fighting with Performance Plus, a cattle feed company
just east of his auto repair shop, for nearly three years.
He alleges the company violates environmental standards. He said his appeals
have fallen on “bureaucratic finger-pointing” with the City Council leaving
the matter unresolved, saying it’s an environmental problem. The city
council handed the problem to the Department of Environmental Quality.
In the past, Performance Plus has violated environmental regulations for odor
and dust. It devised a management plan to reduce and correct the problem on
odors.
Early this year, Mr. Kreps raised another issue over water sump, stinking
odors and spillage on the ground.
Performance Plus company general manager Matt Beed said the pungent odor was
due to the annual cleaning of a large holding tank containing waste.
Van Zandt of the Department of Environmental Quality said their agency
handles the odor and the dust but not sanitation and water issues such as
drainage problems, which fall under the city’s jurisdiction.
City officials, however, remain adamant, saying that the environment problems
are not their responsibility and that their role is just to expedite the
process.
Fritz Wonderlich, city attorney, says there’s little the city can do mainly
due to right-to-farm legislation.
Mr. Kreps said he will file a class action if the plant is not shut down soon.
But Mr. Beed said he is not intimidated by such threats.
PERSONAL CREATIONS: Recalls Long Johns with Detachable Snaps
------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Creations, of Lemont, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer
Product and Safety Commission is conducting a voluntary recall of about 5,500
Red Baby Long Johns.
According to the firm, the metal snaps on the long johns can loosen and
detach, posing a choking hazard to young children.
Personal Creations has received 10 reports of snaps loosening or detaching.
No injuries have been reported.
The recalled Baby Long Johns are red with snap fasteners down the front and
along the legs. Personalized embroidery is stitched across the button-up
back flap on the long johns. The long johns were sold in sizes 6, 12, 18 and
24 months.
These long johns were manufactured by Li Yi Embroidery Garments Factory, of
Guangdong Province, China and were sold through Personal Creations catalog
and http://www.personalcreations.combetween September 2006 and January 2007
for about $22.
Consumers should immediately take the long johns from children and contact
Personal Creations for more information on receiving a refund or replacement.
Click on the link to view the photo of the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07557.html
Consumers can call Personal Creations at (888) 627-3283 between 7 a.m. and 11
p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Saturday and
Sunday. Consumers can also visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.personalcreations.com
PFIZER INC: Lawyer Bars Protective Order; Deposition Set June 12
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs opposed Pfizer Inc.’s proposed protective order that would have
set confidentiality rules in a class action over painkillers Celebrex and
Bextra, Steve Korris of Madison St. Clair Record reports.
The suit was filed by Ricky Lott, Gerald Sumner, Sandy Becker and Mike
Baldwin, alleging that Pfizer hid from consumers the risks in prescription
drugs Celebrex and Bextra. The plaintiffs claim no damage to their health,
but seek the difference between what they paid and what they would have paid
if they had known the risks (Class Action Reporter, Jul 19, 2006).
Attorney Stephen Tillery represents the plaintiffs and aims to include all
Americans similarly situated.
Late last year, Pfizer filed a motion for transfer on the ground that it
doesn’t do business in Madison County, Illinois.
In order to prove that the company does business in Madison County, Mr.
Tillery wants Pfizer to expose nearly all of company’s secrets and five years
of tax returns and backup records from Steven Faulkner of Edwardsville.
Other than that, he also wants to review all expenses Pfizer reimbursed for
Mr. Faulkner for five years and all expenses Faulkner incurred "related in
any way to deponent's home, office or employment with defendant."
However, Pfizer attorney Robert Shultz, who proposed the protective order,
said federal regulations prohibit Pfizer from releasing all the information
Mr. Tillery wants.
He contends some data would improperly identify patients.
He added that he tried to reach accord with Mr. Tillery on a protective order
since July to no avail.
Before Mendelsohn could sign the order, Aaron Zigler stopped him, saying “the
plaintiffs do not consent to Pfizer's proposed protective order and we ask
that you set Pfizer's motion for hearing at your convenience.”
Mr. Tillery set deposition for Faulkner in St. Louis June 12.
Plaintiffs’ counsels are:
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
Aaron Zigler, Esq.
Korein Tillery LLC
10 Executive Woods Court
Belleville, Illinois 62226
Defendant’s counsel is:
Robert Shultz, Esq.
Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Professional
Corporation
Suite 100, Mark Twain Plaza II, 103 West Vandalia
Street, P.O. Box 467
Edwardsville, Illinois 62025
Phone: 618-656-4646
Telecopier: 618-656-7940
PIONEER COS: Faces “Frazier” Pollution Suit in La. Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pioneer Cos. Inc. continues to face a class action in the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana over damages caused by mercury released
from the company's St. Gabriel chlor-alkali facility in 2004.
The suit -- now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Louisiana -- was filed in October 2005 by 18 named
plaintiffs in a Louisiana state court as, "Claude Frazier, et al. v. Pioneer
Americas, LLC and State of Louisiana through the Department of Environmental
Quality."
Plaintiffs claim that they and a proposed class of approximately
500 people who live near the St. Gabriel facility were exposed to mercury
released from the facility for a two and one-half month period as a result of
the 2004 mercury vapor emissions release.
The plaintiffs request compensatory damages for numerous medical conditions
that are alleged to have occurred or are likely to occur as a result of the
alleged mercury exposure.
The lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court in the Middle
District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs appealed this removal, but the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the appeal and the lawsuit will
proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May 9, 2007 Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Frazier v. Pioneer Americas, LLC, et al., Case No.
3:05-cv-01338-JJB-SCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Louisiana under Judge James J. Brady with referral to Judge
Stephen C. Riedlinger.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Joseph Charles Possa, Esq.
Tyler & Possa, APLC
3225 Broussard
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Phone: 225-343-8313
Fax: 225-344-8353
E-mail: jpossa@tylerpossa.com
Representing the defendants are:
Bradley Charles Myers, Esq.
Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman
P.O. Box 3513
Baton Rouge, LA 70821-3513
Phone: 225-387-0999
Fax: 225-388-9133
E-mail: brad.myers@keanmiller.com
- and -
William M. Hudson, III, Esq.
Patrick Bayard McIntire, Esq.
Oats & Hudson
100 East Vermilion, Suite 400
Lafayette, LA 70501
Phone: 337-233-1100
Fax: 337-233-1178
E-mail: pmcintire@oatshudson.com
PIONEER NATURAL: Kans. Court OKs Royalty Owners' Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 26th Judicial District Court of Stevens County, Kansas gave final
approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against Pioneer
Natural Resources Co. by two classes of royalty owners -- one for each of the
gathering systems connected to its Satanta gas plant.
The case, first filed in 1993, was relatively inactive for several years. In
early 2000, the plaintiffs amended their pleadings and it now contains two
material claims.
First, the plaintiffs assert that they were improperly charged expenses,
primarily field compression, which are a "cost of production," and for which
the plaintiffs, as royalty owners, are not responsible.
Second, the plaintiffs claim they are entitled to 50 percent of the value of
the helium extracted at the company's Satanta gas plant.
During the third quarter of 2006, the company reached an agreement to settle
the claims made in the lawsuit. Under the terms of the agreement, the
company agreed to make cash payments to settle the plaintiffs' claims with
respect to production occurring on and before Dec. 31, 2005.
The company's portion of the cash payments is expected to be
$32.7 million, of which approximately $17.0 million was paid during the third
quarter of 2006 and the remaining approximately
$15.7 million will be paid in the third quarter of 2007.
The company also agreed to adjust the manner in which royalty payments to the
class members will be calculated for production occurring on and after Jan.
1, 2006, which change is not expected to have a material effect on the
company's liquidity, financial position or future results of operations.
Final approval was received from the court on Feb. 9, 2007, and the
settlement became final during April 2007, according to the company’s May 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
Pioneer Natural Resources Co. -- http://www.pxd.com/-- is an independent oil
and gas exploration and production company with operations in the U.S.,
Canada, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, South Africa and Tunisia. It explores,
develops and produces oil, natural gas liquid and gas reserves.
PLAINS ALL: Reaches Settlement in “Kosseff” Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., which acquired Pacific Energy Partners,
L.P, settled the purported class action, “Kosseff v. Pacific Energy, et al,
Case No. BC 3544016,” which was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles on June 15, 2006.
A plaintiff, who alleged that he was a unitholder of Pacific and he sought to
represent a class comprising all of Pacific’s unitholders, filed the lawsuit.
The complaint named as defendants Pacific and certain of the officers and
directors of Pacific’s general partner, and asserted claims of self-dealing
and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the pending merger with
Plains All and related transactions.
The plaintiff sought injunctive relief against completing the merger or, if
the merger was completed, rescission of the merger, other equitable relief,
and recovery of the plaintiff’s costs and attorneys’ fees.
On Sept. 14, 2006, Pacific and the other defendants entered into a memorandum
of settlement with the plaintiff to settle the lawsuit. As part of the
settlement, Pacific and the other defendants deny all allegations of
wrongdoing and express willingness to settle the lawsuit solely because the
settlement would eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation.
The settlement is subject to customary conditions, including court approval.
As part of the settlement, the company (as successor to Pacific) will pay
approximately $0.5 million to the plaintiff’s counsel for their fees and
expenses, and incur the cost of mailing materials to former Pacific
unitholders.
The court has preliminarily approved the settlement and a notice of
settlement has been sent to the class members, according to the company’s May
9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. -- http://www.paalp.com-- is engaged in
the transportation, storage, terminalling and marketing of crude oil, refined
products and liquefied petroleum gas, and other natural gas-related petroleum
products. The company operates through three segments: transportation,
facilities and marketing.
PMA CAPITAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Litigation in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
PMA Capital Corp. reached agreement to settle the securities class
action, “In re PMA Capital Corporation Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 03-6121,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period March 31, 2007.
Several suits were initially filed on behalf of purported purchasers of the
company's Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior
Convertible Debt due 2022 (4.25% Convertible Debt) and 8.50% Monthly Income
Senior Notes.
The complaint names as defendants the company, former chairman, Frederick W.
Anton, and former chief executive officer, John W. Smithson, and two other
individuals who were top officers at the company during the class period.
On June 28, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the cases under "In
Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 03-6121," and appointing Sheet Metal Workers
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund and
Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and
Death Benefits as lead plaintiff.
On Sept. 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and consolidated complaint
on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the company's securities
between May 5, 1999 and
Feb. 11, 2004.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making
materially false and misleading public statements and material omissions
during the class period regarding the company's underwriting performance,
loss reserves and related internal controls.
It also alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities
Act by making materially false and misleading statements in registration
statements and prospectuses about the company's financial results,
underwriting performance, loss reserves and related internal controls.
The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, the right to rescind
the purchases of securities in the public offerings, interest, and
plaintiffs' reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.
By order dated July 27, 2005, the court partially granted the company's
previously filed motion to dismiss the amended complaint, dismissing all
allegations with respect to The PMA Insurance Group, and otherwise denying
the motion to dismiss.
By virtue of the order, the alleged class period was reduced to
Nov. 6, 2003.
On Aug. 31, 2005 defendants filed their answers to lead plaintiffs' amended
complaint. On Nov. 14, 2005, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification. On Nov.
30, 2005, defendant's motion for partial dismissal was denied.
On April 28, 2006, defendants filed their oppositions to the motion for class
certification. Oral arguments for the motion were heard on Dec. 1, 2006.
PMA Capital Corp. has reached agreement to settle the securities class
action. The settlement is subject to documentation and Court approval. The
settlement agreement makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing by the
Company or its officers and directors.
The suit is "In Re PMA Capital Corp. Securities Litigation,
Civil Action No. 03-6121," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania under Judge Petrese B. Tucker.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert A. Kauffman, Esq.
Arthur Stock, Esq.
Sherri Savett, Esq.
Berger and Montague
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-875-3000
Fax: 215-875-4636
E-mail: astock@bm.net
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-594-5300
Representing the company are:
David M. Howard, Esq.
Michael L. Kichline, Esq.
Joseph A. Tate, Esq.
Dechert, LLP
4000 Bell Atlantic Tower, 1717 Arch Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2973
Phone: 215-994-2218
E-mail: michael.kichline@dechert.com
david.howard@dechert.com
joseph.tate@dechert.com
PXRE GROUP: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has
consolidated several purported securities fraud class actions filed against
PXRE Group, Ltd.
Initially, several class actions were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the company; Jeffrey
Radke, the company's chief executive officer; and John Modin, the company's
former chief financial officer.
Those suits were brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of
investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of PXRE between July
28, 2005 and Feb. 16, 2006.
Each of the class action complaints asserts nearly identical claims and
alleges that during the purported class period certain PXRE executives made a
series of materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
PXRE's business, prospects and operations, thereby causing investors to
purchase PXRE's securities at artificially inflated prices, in violation of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the 1934
Act.
The class action complaints allege, among other things, that the company
failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts:
-- the full impact on PXRE's business of hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma;
-- the doubling of PXRE's cost of the 2005 Hurricanes to
an estimated $758 million to $788 million; and
-- the magnitude of the loss to PXRE and PXRE's potential
loss of its financial-strength and credit ratings from
A.M. Best.
Further, the complaints allege, based on the foregoing asserted facts, that
PXRE's statements with respect to its loss estimates for the 2005 hurricane
season lacked any reasonable basis.
The class actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other
forms of relief.
Pursuant to an opinion and order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York dated March 30, 2007, these lawsuits have been
consolidated into one proceeding, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period March 31, 2007.
The suit is “In re PXRE Group, Ltd. Securities Litigation, case No. 1:06-cv-
03410-KMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Kenneth M. Karas.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212)-661-1100
Fax: (212)-661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
- and -
Bradley Peter Dyer, Esq.
Stull Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212 687-7230
Fax: 212 490-2022
E-mail: BPDyer@SSBNY.com
Representing the defendants is:
Bruce Domenick Angiolillo, Esq.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-455-2000
Fax: 212-455-2502
E-mail: bangiolillo@stblaw.com
PURDUE PHARMA: Wagner Law Firm Plans to Sue Over Oxycontin
----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Wagner of the Wagners Law Firm is considering starting a class action
against the makers of the prescription painkiller OxyContin, CBC News
reports.
According to Mr. Wagner, some current and former Purdue Pharma executives
have admitted to downplaying the addictive qualities of the drug.
"We've had people in the past, historically, and we have not pursued the case
previously because of a number of difficulties with it," Mr. Wagner.
"But with the new information that came out as a result of the criminal
conviction of Purdue, that puts a different spin on the case and makes it a
little more attractive in terms of an action to pursue."
In an advertisement in Cape Breton Post, Mr. Wagner invites individuals, or
family members of individuals who've been prescribed OxyContin and believe
they've developed an addiction to the painkiller to contact the law firm.
Claimants could become part of the proposed lawsuit, which may go national.
Mr. Wagner’s interest in the effort peaked when Purdue and three of its
current and former executives pleaded guilty to lying about the drug's risk
of addiction. Its president, top lawyer and former chief medical officer
will pay $634.5 million in fines for claiming the drug was less addictive and
less subject to abuse than other pain medications.
According to a statement of fact filed in court, the company's market
research showed general practitioners were concerned about OxyContin's
potential for abuse, and the company responded by giving its sales
representatives false information about that to present to doctors.
Since the drug first hit pharmacies in the 1990s and became the number one
pain reliever prescribed by doctors, hundreds of fatal overdoses have been
reported across the country, including Cape Breton. Within a 16-month period
that spanned into 2004, 20 deaths on the island were linked to OxyContin
overdoses, the Cape Breton Post said.
A crackdown on the drug has since helped to reduce the amount prescribed on
the island.
Mr. Wagner, plaintiffs’ lawyer, can be contacted at:
Ray Wagner
Wagners Law Firm
3rd Floor, Pontac House
Historic Properties
1869 Upper Water Street
Halifax NS B3J 1S9
Phone: (902)425-7330
Toll Free: 1-800-465-8794
Fax: (902)422-1233
E-mail: seriousinjury@wagnerlaw.ca
SAFECO INSURANCE: Wins Favorable High Court Ruling in FCRA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court has reversed a ruling that favored consumers in the suit:
-- "Safeco Insurance Co. v. Burr, 06-84," and
-- "GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Edo, 06-100."
The Supreme Court agreed on Sept. 29 to review a ruling by the Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, San Francisco in the class actions that accuses the
companies of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not telling consumers
low credit scores resulted in higher quotes for insurance coverage. It heard
arguments in January.
The federal appeals court had ruled that companies must tell consumers when
credit scores result in higher insurance rates. It also said companies can
be found liable for violating federal credit laws even without meeting a
tougher "willful" legal standard that requires the companies know they were
breaking the law.
The companies say the ruling made it too easy to win large damage awards in
suits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The insurance industry wants the
Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling on both the liability
standard and the disclosure requirements.
On June 4, the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit’s opinion and sent the
cases back to the lower courts for further deliberation.
The High Court's majority opinion, written by Justice David Souter, stated
that in order for a company to be found liable for a reckless violation,
Souter wrote, its conduct must involve an unjustifiably high risk of harm
that is either known to a company or is so obvious that it should have been
known.
The court ruled that the law's notification requirements apply to initial
applicants, which means new customers will be informed when their credit
scores affect the rates they're being quoted. It does not apply to a vast
majority of customers.
Geico's Supreme Court lawyer is Maureen Mahoney of Latham &
Watkins, 555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, District of Columbia
20004-1304, Phone: 202-637-2200, Telecopier: 202-
637-2201.
The consumers' lead lawyer is Scott A. Shorr at Stoll Stoll
Berne Lokting & Shlachter, P.C., 209 S.W. Oak Street, 5th Floor
Portland, Oregon 97204 (Clackamas, Multnomah & Washington Cos.),
Phone: 503-227-1600, Telecopier: 503-227-6840.
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Nixing of Securities Fraud Suit Becomes Final
---------------------------------------------------------------
A decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to
dismiss, in its entirety, a securities fraud class action filed against
Staktek Holdings, Inc. and two of its executive officers, has become final.
On Oct. 22, 2004, a class action complaint for violations of U.S. federal
securities laws was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court in
New Mexico.
Plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to the public an
anticipated shortage of computer memory chips and that they knew or
recklessly disregarded that the anticipated shortage would have a materially
adverse impact on its revenue and earnings.
In addition, the plaintiff claims that the defendants failed to disclose to
investors that the industry's transition to a new generation of higher-
capacity memory chips was causing computer makers to stockpile supplies of
older memory chips, increasing the shortage. The suit covers individuals who
purchased the company's stock between Nov. 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.
In April 2005, the case was transferred to federal district court in Austin,
Texas, and in June the plaintiff amended her complaint, adding the company's
chairman of the board as a defendant.
On March 26, 2007, the judge dismissed this litigation and the time period to
appeal this ruling has expired, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Holzwasser v. Staktek Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:05-cv-00239-LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for Western District
of Texas under Judge Lee Yeakel.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Peter A. Binkow, Esq.
Dale MacDiarmid, Esq.
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP
1801 Avenue of The Stars, #311
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Fax: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Smith & Smith, L.L.P.
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: (215) 638-4847
Fax: (215) 638-4867
Representing the defendants are:
Robert W. Brownlie, Esq.
Jennifer A. Lloyd, Esq.
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary
Phone: (619) 699-3665 and (512) 457-7000
Fax: 619/699-2701 and 512/457-7001
E-mail: jenny.lloyd@dlapiper.com
- and –
Stephanie Lucie, Esq.
8900 Shoak Creek Blvd. #125
Austin, TX 78757
Phone: (512) 454-9531
Fax: (512) 454-2598
STAR GAS: Discovery Stayed in Conn. Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the consolidated securities fraud class action against Star Gas
Partners, L.P., which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, remains stayed pursuant to the mandatory stay provisions of
the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).
On or about Oct. 21, 2004, a purported class action on behalf of a purported
class of unitholders was filed against the Partnership and various
subsidiaries and officers and directors in the U.S. District Court of the
District of Connecticut entitled, “Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al.,
No. 3:04-cv-01766-IBA.”
Subsequently, 16 additional class action complaints, alleging the same or
substantially similar claims, were filed in the same district court. The
class actions were consolidated into one consolidated amended complaint.
On Sept. 23, 2005, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated
Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal securities
laws and failure to satisfy the applicable pleading requirements of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA), and the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
On July 27, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the pending motion to
dismiss. On Aug. 21, 2006, the court issued its rulings on defendants’
motions to dismiss, granting the motions and dismissing the consolidated
amended complaint in its entirety.
On Aug. 23, 2006, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. On Sept. 7,
2006, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and to alter and reopen the
court’s Aug. 23, 2006 judgment of dismissal and for leave to file a second
consolidated amended complaint (Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion).
On Oct. 20, 2006, defendants filed their memorandum of law in opposition to
the Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion. Plaintiffs filed their reply brief on
or about November 20, 2006. On March 22, 2007 the Court issued its decision
denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.
On April 3, 2007, the Star Gas Defendants filed a Motion for a Mandatory Rule
11 Inquiry and fee shifting which seeks recovery of Defendants’ legal fees
pursuant to the PSLRA.
On April 24, 2007, class plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion.
The Star Gas Defendants’ reply is due on May 8, 2007.
On April 20, 2007, class plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the Second Court of Judge Arterton’s decisions dismissing the
amended complaint and denying Plaintiffs’ Post-Judgment Motion.
In the interim, discovery in the matter remains stayed pursuant to the
mandatory stay provisions of the PSLRA, according to the company’s May 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Star Gas Securities Litigation, Case No.
3:04-cv-01766-JBA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Connecticut under Judge Janet Bond Arterton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jonathan F. Andres, Esq.
Green Schaaf & Jacobson, P.C.
7733 Forsyth, Suite 700
St. Louis, MO 63105
Phone: 314-862-6800
Fax: 314-862-1606
E-mail: andres@stlouislaw.com
- and -
David L. Belt, Esq.
Jacobs, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, P.C.
350 Orange St., P.O. Box 606
New Haven, CT 06503-0606
Phone: 203-772-3100
Fax: 203-772-1691
E-mail: dbelt@jacobslaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Terence J. Gallagher, III, Esq.
Day, Berry & Howard
One Canterbury Green
Stamford, CT 06901-2047
Phone: 203-977-7300
Fax: 203-977-7301
E-mail: tjgallagher@dbh.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Andrews, Esq.
Tyler, Cooper & Alcorn
205 Church St., P.O. Box 1936
New Haven, CT 06509-1910
Phone: 203-784-8200
Fax: 203-777-1181
E-mail: eandrews@tylercooper.com
TRIBUNE CO: Continues to Face Several Advertisers’ Suits in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tribune Co. still faces several purported class actions for allegedly
overcharging advertisers in its Newsday and Hoy, New York, publications,
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period April 1, 2007.
In February 2004, a purported class action was filed in New York Federal
Court by certain advertisers of Newsday and Hoy, New York, alleging that they
were overcharged for advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers
at these two publications.
The purported class action also alleges that entities that paid a Newsday
subsidiary to deliver advertising flyers were overcharged.
In July 2004, another lawsuit was filed in New York Federal Court by certain
advertisers of Newsday alleging damages resulting from inflated Newsday
circulation numbers as well as federal and state antitrust violations.
Tribune Co. -- http://www.tribune.com-- is operating businesses in
publishing, interactive and broadcasting. It reaches more than 80 percent of
U.S. households and is the only media organization with newspapers,
television stations and websites in the nation’s top three markets.
TRIBUNE CO: Dismissal of Securities, ERISA Suits Under Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has yet to rule on an
appeal regarding the dismissal of certain class actions against Tribune Co.,
according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period April 1, 2007.
Several class actions were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers as a result of the circulation
misstatements at Newsday and Hoy, New York.
These suits alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other managerial and
director failings under the federal securities laws and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).
The consolidated securities class action lawsuit and the consolidated ERISA
class action lawsuit filed in Federal District Court in Chicago were both
dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 29, 2006 and the dismissals are currently
being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Tribune Co. -- http://www.tribune.com-- is operating businesses in
publishing, interactive and broadcasting. It reaches more than 80 percent of
U.S. households and is the only media organization with newspapers,
television stations and websites in the nation’s top three markets.
TRIAD HOSPITALS: Continues to Face Consolidated Suit Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Hospitals, Inc. still faces a consolidated class action over its merger
agreement with Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), according to the
company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
Between February 5, 2007 and March 2, 2007, five putative class actions were
filed against Triad and its directors. The suits are:
-- “Market Street Securities v. Shelton, et al., Cause No.
296-0436-07 (Feb. 5, 2007),”
-- “Clark v. Triad Hospitals, Inc., et al., Cause No. 296-
0461-07 (Feb. 6, 2007),”
-- “Rubery v. Triad Hospitals, Inc., et al., Cause No.
296-0566-07 (Feb. 6, 2007),”
-- “Sternhell v. Shelton, et al., Cause No. 416-0494-0
(Feb. 8, 2007),” and
-- “Thomas Purdy, III v. Triad Hospitals Inc., et al.,
Cause No. 296-809-07 (Mar. 2, 2007).”
The Rubery and Sternhell petitions also named as defendants CCMP Capital
Investors II, L.P. and GS Capital Partners VI, L.P., and the Sternhell
petition further named Panthera Partners, LLC, Panthera Holdco Corp. and
Panthera Acquisition Corp. as defendants.
All of the petitions were filed in the District Court of Collin County,
Texas.
The petitions, which purported to be brought on behalf of all Triad
stockholders (excluding the defendants and their affiliates), alleged that
the $50.25 per share in cash that was to be paid to stockholders in
connection with Triad’s previously proposed merger with affiliates of CCMP
Capital Investors II, L.P. and GS Capital Partners VI, L.P. was inadequate,
and that Triad and its directors violated their fiduciary obligations to
stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger.
Following the announcement on March 19, 2007 that Triad had terminated its
previous merger agreement with affiliates of CCMP Capital Investors II, L.P.
and GS Capital Partners VI, L.P. and had, instead, entered into a merger
agreement at $54.00 per share with CHS the above-referenced actions were
consolidated in the 296th District Court of Collin County, Texas.
On April 23, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended petition
challenging the proposed transaction with CHS.
The consolidated amended petition alleges, among other things, that:
-- the $54.00 per share in cash that is to be paid to
stockholders in connection with Triad’s proposed merger
with CHS is still inadequate;
-- the “go shop” auction process that led to the higher
offer from CHS was flawed;
-- the directors violated their fiduciary duties to
shareholders by administering a sale process that
failed to maximize shareholder value;
-- the terms of the merger agreement with CHS, which
include a so-called “non-solicitation” clause and a
$130 million termination fee, will artificially deter
higher bids for the Company;
-- the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving, in mid-December 2006, amended change in
control severance agreements with several Triad
executives; and
-- the Company failed to disclose certain purportedly
material information relating to the valuation of the
company and the process leading to the approval of the
proposed merger.
The consolidated amended petition seeks a judgment declaring that Triad and
its directors breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiffs, enjoining Triad
and its directors from executing the merger with CHS, indemnifying
plaintiffs, and awarding plaintiffs attorneys’ fees and costs.
Triad believes that this consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the action. Plaintiffs’ counsel in the consolidated action
have advised Defendants’ counsel of plaintiffs’ intention to conduct
discovery and to file a motion for a temporary injunction by May 24, 2007.
The presiding judge has indicated to counsel for the parties that if such a
motion is filed, it will be set for hearing before the court in June 2007.
Triad Hospitals, Inc. -- http://www.triadhospitals.com-- provides healthcare
services through hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers that it owns and
operates in small cities and selected urban markets primarily in the
southern, midwestern and western U.S.
TXU CORP: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tex. Over Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
TXU Corp. faces a consolidated merger-related class action pending in the
44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, according to the company’s May 9,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
The company entered an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2007,
under which an investor group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas
Pacific Group would acquire TXU Corp. (Merger Agreement).
In February and March 2007 eight lawsuits were filed in state district court
in Dallas County, Texas by putative shareholders against the directors of TXU
Corp., TXU Corp., two private equity firms, and certain financial entities,
asserting claims on behalf of owners of shares of TXU common stock as well as
seeking to certify a class action on behalf of allegedly similarly situated
shareholders.
The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one action in the 44th
District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contend that the directors of TXU Corp.
violated various fiduciary duties owed plaintiffs and other shareholders in
connection with the execution of the Merger Agreement and that the two
private equity firms and certain financial entities aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger Agreement
until such time as a procedure or process is adopted to obtain the highest
possible price for shareholders, as well as a request that the Court direct
the officers and directors of TXU Corp. to exercise their fiduciary duties in
order to obtain a transaction in the best interest of TXU Corp. shareholders.
The consolidated suit includes claims that the directors failed to take steps
to properly value or maximize the value of TXU Corp. and breached their
duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence owed to TXU Corp.
shareholders.
The Merger Agreement allowed TXU Corp. to solicit other proposals from third
parties until April 16, 2007 and is subject to the approval of TXU Corp.’s
shareholders.
The consolidated suit purports to assert claims by shareholders directly
against the directors.
TXU Corp. believes that Texas law does not recognize such a cause of action.
Consequently, TXU Corp. and its directors have filed a Motion to Dismiss,
which is pending before the Court.
TXU Corp. -- http://www.txucorp.com-- is a Dallas-based energy company,
which manages a portfolio of energy businesses in Texas. TXU Corp. is a
holding company conducting its operations principally through its TXU Energy
Company LLC (TXU Energy Company), TXU Electric Delivery Company (TXU Electric
Delivery) and TXU Generation Development Company LLC (TXU DevCo)
subsidiaries. The Company has two operating segments: TXU Energy Holdings and
TXU Electric Delivery. TXU Energy Holdings includes the activities of TXU
Energy Company and TXU DevCo., and also includes the activities of a lease
trust holding certain natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. TXU Electric
Delivery includes the activities of TXU Electric Delivery, and its wholly
owned bankruptcy-remote financing subsidiary. Corporate and Other represents
the remaining nonsegment operations consisting primarily of discontinued
operations, general corporate expenses, interest on debt at the TXU Corp.
level and activities involving mineral interest holdings.
WELLS REAL: Md. Court Allows Transfer of “Washtenaw County” Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted a motion by
Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (Wells REIT) to transfer to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia a purported class action
and derivative complaint filed against the company, according to the
company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period March 31, 2007.
On March 12, 2007, a stockholder filed a purported class action and
derivative complaint, “Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System v. Wells
Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., et al.,” in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland against, among others, Wells REIT, and the officers
and directors of Wells REIT prior to the closing of the Internalization
transaction.
The complaint attempts to assert class action claims on behalf of those
persons who received and were entitled to vote on the proxy statement filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Feb. 26, 2007.
The complaint alleges, among other things:
-- that the consideration to be paid as part of the
Internalization is excessive;
-- violations of Section 14(A), including Rule 14a-9
thereunder, and Section 20(A) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, based upon allegations that the
proxy statement contains false and misleading
statements or omits to state material facts;
-- that the board of directors and the current and
previous advisors breached their fiduciary duties to
the class and to Wells REIT; and
-- that the proposed Internalization will unjustly enrich
certain directors and officers of Wells REIT.
The complaint seeks, among other things:
-- certification of the class action;
-- a judgment declaring the proxy statement false and
misleading;
-- unspecified monetary damages;
-- to nullify any stockholder approvals obtained during
the proxy process;
-- to nullify the merger proposal and the merger
agreement;
-- restitution for disgorgement of profits, benefits and
other compensation for wrongful conduct and fiduciary
breaches;
-- the nomination and election of new independent
directors, and the retention of a new financial advisor
to assess the advisability of Wells REIT’s strategic
alternatives; and
-- the payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’
fees.
On April 9, 2007, the District Court denied the plaintiff’s motion for an
order enjoining the Internalization transaction. On April 17, 2007, the Court
granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia, and the case was docketed in that court
on April 24, 2007.
The suit is “In Re Wells Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc., Securities
Litigation Case No. 1:07-cv-00862-CAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq.
Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP
361 West Lancaster Avenue, One Haverford Centre
Haverford, PA 19041-0100
Phone: 215-642-8500
E-mail: nick@chimicles.com
Representing the defendants is:
Michael J. Cates, Esq.
King & Spalding, LLP
1180 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309-3521
Phone: 404-572-4600
E-mail: mcates@kslaw.com
WESTBOROUGH FINANCIAL: Mass. Suit Opposes Assabet Valley Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Westborough Financial Services Inc. investors filed a lawsuit seeking class-
action status in Worcester Superior Court (Mass.) to block a proposed merger
of Westborough Financial and Assabet Valley Bancorp, Bob Kievra of Telegram
and Gazette reports.
In addition to West Financial, the lawsuit names the following Westborough
Financial directors as defendants:
-- President and Chief Executive Officer Joseph F.
MacDonough,
-- John L. Casagrande, Westborough Financial’s senior vice
president and chief financial officer,
-- James N. Ball,
-- Nelson P. Ball,
-- Edward S. Bilzerian,
-- David E. Carlstrom,
-- Nancy M. Carlson,
-- Benjamin H. Colonero Jr.,
-- Robert A. Klugman,
-- Jeffrey B. Leland,
-- Paul F. McGrath,
-- Charlotte C. Spinney,
-- Phyllis A. Stone and
-- James E. Tashjian.
In November 2006, Westborough Financial announced a $20.6 million cash
transaction merger with Assabet Valley -- the parent of Hudson Savings Bank --
that would create a nearly $1 billion community bank and produce no layoffs
or branch closings.
Named plaintiffs Philippe E. Gut and Gwen Pratt Gut allege the transaction is
unfair in both price and procedure. They further allege Westborough
Financial and its 14 directors, including President and Chief Executive
Officer Joseph F. MacDonough, breached their fiduciary duties by structuring
a deal that includes $2.4 million in payments to directors and executive
officers.
The Guts said the merger is also discriminatory because it cashes out
minority shareholders while enabling majority shareholders to maintain an
equity interest in the merged institution.
In addition, the complaint, which also names Assabet Valley as a defendant,
alleges the $35 per share offered by Assabet Valley is inadequate, citing
unsolicited offers in recent months of $38.50 per share, $40 per share and
$41 per share, all of which have been rejected by Westborough Financial,
parent of The Westborough Bank.
The complaint further alleges that Westborough Financial enacted a flood of
changes to its executive compensation and benefits packages during the merger
discussion with Assabet Valley, increasing the price of the transaction
solely for their benefit and to the detriment of public shareholders.
Directors who stood to benefit from the Assabet Valley deal ignored higher
offers because they were in line for significant payouts and future positions
with the merged entity, according to the complaint.
“The individual defendants are hopelessly conflicted and unable to protect
the best interests of the public shareholders,” according to the complaint.
The Guts’ lawyers are seeking a preliminary injunction to block the merger
and any payments that would occur as a result of the transaction.
“The total compensation as a percentage of the deal is high and significant,”
said the Guts’ lawyer, Patrick T. Egan of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt
& Pucillo of Boston. “All of these directors also have conflicts in their
actions because they have a financial interest in seeing this deal go
through.”
Mr. Egan can be contacted at:
Patrick T. Egan
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Phone: (617) 542-8300
Fax: (617) 1194-0322
E-mail: pegan@bermanesq.com
WHOLESOY & CO: Recalls Blueberry Yogurt Due to Undeclared Dairy
---------------------------------------------------------------
WholeSoy & Co. of San Francisco, Cal. is voluntarily recalling 34,656 cups of
WholeSoy & Co. Blueberry yogurt because it may contain undeclared dairy.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to dairy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The yogurt was distributed nationwide through retailers.
This batch of blueberry has "best by" date of June 22. The UPC code is
664372600086. The containers are 6oz plastic yogurt cups.
The recall was initiated after allergy tests confirmed the presence of dairy
in samples sent for testing after two customers reported allergic reactions.
Subsequent investigation has not revealed the source of contamination. The
investigation into the cause continues.
Consumers who have purchased WholeSoy & Co. blueberry yogurt with "best by"
date June 22 are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-877-569-6376.
YAHOO INC: Faces Several Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Five different class suits are filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California against Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO) and certain
of its officers and directors, Seeking Alpha reports.
The five law firms are:
Scott & Scott, San Diego, CA
Brodsky & Smith LLC, Bala Cynwyd, PA
Spector, Roseman 7 Kodroff P.C, Philadelphia, PA
Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., Hartford CT
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geler Rudman & Robbins LLP, San
Francisco, CA
These lawsuits, representing holders of Yahoo! stock, essentially claim that
Yahoo!, Terry Semel, and Sue Decker misrepresented to the public sales and
earnings of the company beginning April 7, 2004, when higher than expected
earnings and a 2/1 stock split were announced, John Olagues reports.
According to the Scott & Scott complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, financial results and forward guidance (Class Action Reporter, May
22, 2007).
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to the investing public the
following adverse facts:
(a) false, misleading and deceptive means were being used
to promote and sell the Company's business to business
(B2B) advertising services to customers seeking a
presence for the generation of marketing opportunities
on the Internet;
(b) revenues generated from Yahoo! B2B activities were
unsustainable and fraudulent in nature, as Yahoo!
misrepresented and deceptively described the Company's
abilities to deliver the claimed attributes and quality
of its content and services;
(c) Yahoo! advertising services were operationally flawed
and defective, and did not favorably compare to the
quality and cost of B2B services offered by its
competitors; and
(d) Yahoo! was, in fact losing market share to other
Internet search providers.
The suits claim that as a result of the misrepresentation, on July 18, 2006,
shares of Yahoo! stock plunged $7.04 per share, for a loss of over 21%
percent, to close on July 18, 2006 at $25.20 per share, on extremely high
volume of over 204.3 million shares.
* Justice Warren K. Winkler Named Chief Justice of Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------
Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on June 1 the appointment of The
Honourable Mr. Justice Warren K. Winkler, Regional Senior Judge of the
Superior Court of Justice in and for the Province of Ontario for the Toronto
Region, as Chief Justice of Ontario. He replaces the Honourable Chief
Justice R. McMurtry who retired May 31, 2007.
Chief Justice Winkler is a nationally recognized legal scholar and author, an
expert in labor law and class action law and practical jurist who has been a
member of the Ontario court system for the past 14 years, the last three as
the Regional Senior Judge for the Toronto Region.
Chief Justice Winkler received a Master of Laws (LL.M.) and a Bachelor of
Laws (LL.B) from Osgoode Hall Law School and a Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) from
the University of Manitoba (Brandon College). Chief Justice Winkler’s
impressive legal career spans more than four decades. As a lawyer he
practiced with Winkler Filion and Wakely and its predecessor firms in
Toronto.
He was also very active in the legal community acting in numerous capacities
with the Canadian Bar Association, including as member of its national
executive committee, as chair of provincial and national labour law sections,
and as founding chair of the environmental law section.
Appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division) in 1993 and then
appointed Regional Senior Judge for Toronto Region in March 2004, Chief
Justice Winkler has acted as member of the Court’s Commercial List, as a
member of the Divisional Court, as Team Leader of the Court’s Long Trial
List, and as Team Leader for Class Actions Toronto Region.
He has also acted as a judicial mediator for large multi-party disputes
including the Walkerton water disaster, Ontario Hydro and Power Workers,
Windsor-Michigan Tunnel dispute and the Air Canada restructuring.
Chief Justice Winkler is a distinguished legal author and editor in the area
of labour law, acting as a founding editor of the Labour Law Journal, editor
of law reports ‘Labour Arbitration Cases’ (Canada Law Book), and co-author of
O’Brien’s Encyclopedia of Forms, 11th Ed., Labour Relations and Employment,
Vols. 1 and 2 and Labour Arbitration: The Year in Review (Canada Law Book,
2006).
He has been awarded two honourary doctorates and numerous other academic
distinctions including, most recently, the Bora Laskin Award from the
University of Toronto for outstanding achievements in Canadian labour law.
Besides being a frequent speaker at legal and judicial conferences, Chief
Justice Winkler is a global thinker and local actor for environmental
responsibility, chairing the Long Point Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Fund
and acting as a member of the Board of Directors of Bird Studies Canada.
This appointment is effective immediately.
New Securities Fraud Cases
DENDRON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susman Godfrey L.L.P. commenced a class action in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington against Dendreon Corporation and
certain of its officers and directors. The action is on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the common stock of Dendreon
between March 1, 2007 and May 8, 2007, inclusive.
The complaint filed in the action charges Dendreon and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the progress of the Company's Biologics License
Application ("BLA") for Provenge. According to the complaint, the FDA
conducted a pre-approval Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC)
inspection of Dendreon's Hanover, New Jersey manufacturing facility in mid-
February 2007 and issued to Dendreon what is known as an FDA Form 483,
Inspectional Observations Report, which cited various violations of FDA
regulations at the Dendreon facility.
Pursuant to FDA regulations, the complaint alleges, the issuance of a Form
483 made it highly likely that FDA approval would be delayed substantially
past May 15, 2007, the anticipated FDA review date.
According to the complaint, the defendants repeatedly failed to disclose this
information to investors and made false and misleading statements, thereby
artificially inflating Dendreon's stock price.
It further alleges that certain officers and directors traded on this
information without disclosing it to the investing public.
The complaint contends that the Company only began disclosing this
information as part of its May 9, 2007 announcement that the FDA had issued a
Complete Response letter denying approval for Provenge, which letter cited
the same CMC issues allegedly known to the defendants in February. As a
result of this disclosure, Dendreon stock lost nearly 70% of its market
value, causing significant losses to investors.
Dendreon is a biotechnology company focused on the development and
commercialization of therapies for cancer. Its most advanced product is
Provenge (sipuleucel-T), an active cellular immunotherapy for advanced
prostate cancer.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 7, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Ryan C. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: 713-650-4349
E-mail: dndn@susmangodfrey.com
Website: http://www.susmangodfrey.com
TELIK INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm filed the first securities class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of Telik, Inc. common stock during the period from March 27, 2003
through June 4, 2007, inclusive, including purchasers in the Company's
November 5, 2003 and January 28, 2005 stock offerings.
The Complaint charges Telik and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements about the Company's lead drug
candidate TELCYTA. It asserts the Company misled investors about the
effectiveness and safety of TELCYTA and the conduct of certain clinical
trials for TELCYTA during the Class Period.
The Complaint further alleges that when the Company issued its preliminary
results from its Phase III clinical trials of TELCYTA, defendants materially
misled the investing public by concealing the fact that patients in those
trials were dying much sooner than patients receiving the standard treatment.
As a result of these alleged misrepresentations and omissions, the Complaint
asserts that investors were damaged.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 6, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
Phone: (212) 686-1060 or (917) 797-4425 (Weekends) or
1-866-767-3653 (Toll Free)
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com
XINHUA FINACE: Abraham Fruchter Files Suit in N.Y. Over IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
who acquired Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. American Depositary Shares (ADSs)
pursuant to the Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with its March 8, 2007 initial public
offering (IPO).
The complaint charges Xinhua and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Xinhua is a diversified media
company in China.
The complaint alleges that on March 8, 2007, Xinhua accomplished its IPO of
23.07 million ADSs, representing 46.15 million common shares, at $13.00 per
ADS (including 1.5 million shares sold by Xinhua's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, Fredy Bush) for net proceeds of $300 million, pursuant to
the Registration Statement.
Due to defendants' positive but false statements following the IPO, by May
15, 2007, the stock was trading around $12.00 per share.
Then on May 21, 2007, Barron's published an article on Xinhua disclosing that
the Registration Statement for the IPO failed to disclose that Xinhua's Chief
Financial Officer was simultaneously the Company's CFO and an investment
banker and stockbroker who ran a securities firm that had been under
regulatory scrutiny in the past year.
On this news, Xinhua's stock price collapsed from $10.79 per share on May 17,
2007 to close at $8.76 per share on May 21, 2007, on unusually high volume.
The suit is “Brickman Investments Inc. v. Xinhua Finance Media Limited et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-04719-UA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jack Gerald Fruchter
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.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 * * *