/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070626.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, June 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 125 Headlines ADROSKY CORP: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ALLIANZ SE: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Overturned AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement of Calif. Suit Over Monitors Okayed APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Wireless Products Fraud Suit in Calif. APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Suit APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Ongoing in “Branning” Litigation BUSINESS REPRESENTATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Work DIEGO’S RESTAURANT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations FAR EAST IMPORTS: Recalls Fireworks Posing Eye Injury Hazard FIRST UNION: Settles Pa. Suit Over Unbranded ATM Fees for $1.35M GATEWAY INC: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries for Fire Hazard GILLS ONIONS: Recalls Yellow Onions for Listeria Contamination IKANOS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. IMPAC MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit JACKSON HEWITT: "Gold Guarantee" Purchaser Accuses Firm of Fraud JAKES FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Burn, Injury Hazards NATURAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Suit OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Cal. Securities Suit for $14M PIER I: Recalls Dual Glassware Pieces Posing Laceration Hazard POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Four Securities Suits in Calif. QWEST CORP: Minn. Suit Aims to Collect Overtime Compensation RANGELEY PROPERTY: Fla. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations RC2 CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys SOUTHERN PUMP: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages STARBUCKS COFFEE: December Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit TEAM ONEY: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Securities Suit Over U.S. Auto’s IPO USANA HEALTH: Distributors Sue in Calif. Over Fraud, Deception VILA AND SON TREE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. WILLIAM PENN: Wins Favorable Ruling in $108M Policyholders Suit * Baron & Budd is Among The Legal 500's Top Toxic Tort Firms New Securities Fraud Cases OPTIONABLE INC: Cohen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ********* ADROSKY CORP: Faces Fla. Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrosky Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service Reports. Named plaintiff Tony Boyles alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Boyles v. Adrosky Corp., Case No. 0:07-cv-60870-ASG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Alan S. Gold. Representing plaintiffs is: Stacey Hope Cohen Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com ALLIANZ SE: Faces Minn. Lawsuit Over Life Insurance Policies ------------------------------------------------------------ Allianz SE is facing class action in a Minnesota state court over its marketing of life insurance policies, Forbes reports, citing Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. According to the report, the lawyers of the two women who filed suit claim Allianz's (NYSER: AZ) U.S. life insurance unit made false bonus promises when selling pension insurance products. It added that according to Lehman Brothers (NYSE: LEH) analyst Nick Holmes, Allianz could be facing costs of about EUR900 million in this matter. A Minnesota state court decided that the case has the status of a class action, which means that a future ruling in the matter may be applicable to up 400,000 people similarly affected, the report said. Allianz SE (NYSER: AZ) -- http://www.allianz.com– is one of the world's biggest insurers. It offers a range of insurance products and services -- including life, health, and property/casualty -- through some 100 subsidiaries and affiliates. AMERICAN FAMILY: $17M Award in Mo. Car Insurance Suit Overturned ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jackson County Circuit Judge Edith Messina overturned a jury's decision ordering American Family Mutual Insurance Co. to pay $17 million in a class action involving after-market auto parts, The Associated Press reports. Filed in May 2000 and certified as a class action in December 2001, the suit challenges the company's policy of specifying after-market auto parts and omitting certain repair procedures in its repair estimates. It alleged that American Family specified non-original equipment manufactured parts in paying to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles. Further, it alleged that the use of aftermarket crash parts, including fenders, doors, hoods and panels, were inferior to original equipment and a potential safety hazard. In March, a Missouri jury awarded more than $17 million to approximately 315,000 Missouri residents with claims for vehicle repairs between May 1990 and December 2004 (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2007). Jurors determined American Family allowed repair shops to use inferior, third-party equipment to repair policyholders' damaged vehicles. American Family is based in Madison, Wisconsin. Representing it is attorney David Oliver. AMERICAN HOME: Faces Suit Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ American Home Mortgage Investment Corp is facing a class-action complaint filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the CourtHouse News Service Reports. Named plaintiffs -- Edward Abram, Jr., Najla Waheed, Richard Zemel and Rosalyn Ceasar -- allege unpaid overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Abram et al. v. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-03252-MJJ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Representing plaintiffs is: Matthew C. Helland Paul J. Lukas Donald H. Nichols Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th St Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 415-277-7235 or (612) 256-3200 Fax: 415-277-7238 or (612) 215-6870 E-mail: helland@nka.com or lukas@nka.com or nichols@nka.com or schwartz@nka.com - and - Adam T. Klein Jack A. Raisner Outten & Golden LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-245-1000 Fax: 212-977-4005 APPLE COMPUTER: Settlement of Calif. Suit Over Monitors Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court in California finally approved a settlement of the consumer fraud class action "Allen v. Apple Computer, Inc." The purported nationwide class action, which was filed in Jan. 28, 2005, initially alleged that a defect in the company's 17" Studio Display monitors results in dimming of half of the screen and constant blinking of the power light. An amended complaint in the Allen case was filed on Oct. 24, 2005, adding additional named plaintiffs and expanding the alleged class to include purchasers of the 20-inch Apple Cinema Display and the 23-inch Apple Cinema HD Display. The amended complaint alleges that the displays have a purported defect that causes dimming of one-half of the screen, and that the Company misrepresented the quality of the displays and/or concealed the purported defect. Plaintiffs assert claims under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The amended complaint seeks remedies including damages and equitable relief. On Nov. 14, 2005, the company filed an answer to the amended complaint as to the allegations regarding the 17-inch display and a demurrer/motion to strike as to the allegations regarding the 20-inch and 23-inch displays on the ground that plaintiffs failed to allege that they purchased those displays. At a status conference on Nov. 1, 2005, the court ordered plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, 2005, and the company answered on Jan. 5, 2006 denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The company has reached a settlement in this matter, which was given preliminary approval by the court on Sept. 18, 2006. At the final approval hearing on Feb. 15, 2007, the court required the Company to extend the claims period and provide additional published notice. At the continued final approval hearing on March 1, 2007 the court approved the settlement but did not approve the fee award. After additional briefing the court approved a reduced fee award to Plaintiffs’ counsel on March 13, 2007. Settlement of this matter will not have a material effect on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Under the settlement, the company will provide a cash refund to those customers who paid for a repair related to the inverter board and who send in a valid claim form. The amount of the cash refund will vary depending on who performed the repair, how much the customer paid for the repair, and how old the display was when the repair was performed. In essence the settlement stipulates that: -- customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired by the company during the second year of ownership will be entitled to a $400 refund, while those who had their unit repaired in the third year will receive $350; and -- customers who had repairs done by a party other than the company will receive the actual amount they paid up to $150 during the second year and $75 thereafter. However, in order to receive the refund, customers who had their 17-inch Studio Display repaired on or before Nov. 13, 2006 were required to mail a claim form postmarked on or before Feb. 12, 2007. If the repair occurs after Nov. 13, 2006, a claim form must be mailed and postmarked within 90 days after the date the covered repair occurred or by Aug. 31, 2007, which ever is the earlier. For more details, contact: The Settlement Administrator Phone: 1-888-826-3082 Web site: http://www.Apple17inchLCDdisplay.com - and - Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063-2917 Phone: (610) 891-9880 and (877) 891-9880 Fax: (610) 891-9883 E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com Web site: http://classactioncounsel.com/ APPLE COMPUTER: Settles Wireless Products Fraud Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. settled the purported consumer class action, "Baghdasarian, et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which was filed in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County. Plaintiffs filed this action on October 31, 2005, on behalf of a purported nationwide class of all purchasers of all Apple wireless products (router, modem, or adaptor) sold at any time. The complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented the transmission rates of these products. It alleges causes of action for breach of express warranty and for violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising). The complaint seeks damages and equitable remedies. On Dec. 15, 2005, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The parties have reached a settlement and the matter is concluded, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Apple Inc., -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. APPLE COMPUTER: Seeks Dismissal of Calif. iPod Hearing Loss Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. has yet to respond to a purported class action filed against it in California claiming that defects in its iPod causes hearing loss to users. The action, "Birdsong v. Apple Computers Inc.," alleges that the company's iPod music players, and the ear bud headphones sold with them, are inherently defective in design and are sold without adequate warnings concerning the risk of noise-induced hearing loss by iPod users. The Birdsong action was initially filed on Jan. 30, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. It asserts causes of action on behalf of a purported Louisiana class of iPod purchasers. A similar action, "Patterson v. Apple Computer, Inc.," was filed on Jan. 31, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting California causes of action on behalf of a purported class of all iPod purchasers within the four-year period before Jan. 31, 2006. The Birdsong action was transferred to the Northern District of California, and the Patterson action was dismissed. An amended complaint was subsequently filed in Birdsong, dropping the Louisiana law-based claims and adding California law-based claims equivalent to those in Patterson. After the company filed a motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2006, plaintiffs agreed not to oppose the motion and filed a second amended complaint on Jan. 16, 2007. That complaint alleges California law-based claims for breaches of implied and express warranties, violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and negligent misrepresentation on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a Louisiana law-based claim for redhibition for a Louisiana sub- class. On March 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the California law based claims, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. APPLE COMPUTER: Discovery Ongoing in “Branning” Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Branning et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc.," which is pending in the Santa Clara County Superior Court in California. Plaintiffs originally filed the purported class action in San Francisco County Superior Court on Feb. 17, 2005. The initial complaint alleged violations of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act regarding a variety of purportedly unfair and unlawful conduct including, but not limited to, allegedly selling used computers as new and failing to honor warranties. Plaintiffs also brought causes of action for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and violation of the Song-Beverly Act. Plaintiffs requested unspecified damages and other relief. On May 9, 2005, the court granted the company's motion to transfer the case to Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding two new named plaintiffs and three new causes of action including a claim for treble damages under the Cartwright Act – California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. -- and a claim for false advertising. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint, which the court sustained in its entirety on Nov. 10, 2005. The court granted plaintiffs leave to amend and they filed an amended complaint on Dec. 29, 2005. Plaintiffs' amended complaint added three plaintiffs and alleged many of the same factual claims as the previous complaints, such as the selling of used equipment as new, failure to honor warranties and service contracts for the consumer plaintiffs, and fraud related to the opening of Apple Retail stores. Plaintiffs continued to assert causes of action for unfair competition (Section 17200), violations of the CLRA, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the Cartwright Act and alleged new causes of action for fraud, conversion and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The company filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on Jan. 31, 2006, which the court sustained on March 3, 2006 on 16 of 17 causes of action. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding one new plaintiff. The Company filed a demurrer, which was granted in part on Sept. 9, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint on September 21, 2006. On Oct. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer denying all allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The case is in discovery, according to the company’s May 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. Apple Inc., -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc., designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software, services, peripherals and networking solutions. BUSINESS REPRESENTATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Work ---------------------------------------------------------------- Business Representation International, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs -- Jose Almonte, Luis Barrera, Mario Lomba and Oscar E. Garcia – allege they were denied overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Almonte et al. v. Business Representation International, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21572-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga. Representing plaintiffs is: Jamie H. Zidell 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM DIEGO’S RESTAURANT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Diego's Restaurant, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Ricardo Rodriguez alleges denied overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Rodriguez v. Diego's Restaurant, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 21575-JLK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge James Lawrence King. Representing plaintiffs is: Jamie H. Zidell 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM FAR EAST IMPORTS: Recalls Fireworks Posing Eye Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Far East Imports, of Pittsburg, Kansas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 13,600 units of 300 Shot Saturn Missiles Battery Fireworks. The company said these fireworks devices can travel in an unexpected and dangerous direction, which could pose eye and other injury hazards to bystanders. These fireworks devices can travel in an unexpected and dangerous direction, which could pose eye and other injury hazards to bystanders. No injuries have been reported. The recalled fireworks are a 200 gram multi shot device that consists of 300 individual missiles with a single fuse for ignition. The device measures 2 1/2” by 23 7/8” by 3 1/4” and its packaging has a red and yellow label and the words “Saturn Missiles-Battery-300 Shots Finale” printed on it. These recalled 300 Shot Saturn Missiles Battery Fireworks were manufactured in China and are being sold by Boomer Distributors nationwide from April 2006 through July 2006 for $10. Picture of recalled 300 Shot Saturn Missiles Battery Fireworks: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07217.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using this fireworks and contact Far East Imports for a replacement product. For additional information, contact Far East Imports at (800) 766-1277 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.fareastimporting.com. FIRST UNION: Settles Pa. Suit Over Unbranded ATM Fees for $1.35M ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Union National Bank has agreed to settle the class action “Bruce Wong v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action No. May Term, 2003 No. 1173,” filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County, for $1,350,000. Originally filed in 2003, the lawsuit claims that First Union charged transaction fees, including surcharges and foreign fees to First Union customers, for using unbranded automated teller machines (ATMs) owned and/or operated by First Union. Unbranded First Union ATMs were defined as ATMs that did not bear any external sign or other marking identifying the terminals as owned and/or operated by First Union. The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff’s customer agreement with First Union stated that First Union will not charge him fees for withdrawals, balance inquiries or transfers of funds when using First Union ATMs, but will charge him $1.00 for each such transaction at a non-First Union ATM. It further claims that from 1996 – 2002 approximately 250 unbranded ATMs were owned and/or operated by First Union and approximately 1,170,000 cash withdrawals were made by First Union cardholders at unbranded First Union ATMs. The lawsuit alleges First Union cardholders were charged surcharges and foreign fees for these withdrawals. The lawsuit claims breach of contract, consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment for the surcharges and foreign fees charged to First Union customers by First Union for these cash withdrawals at the unbranded First Union ATMs. The recent settlement provides a refund of all or a portion of the surcharges and foreign fees charged to all persons who made a cash withdrawal from an unbranded automated teller machine (ATM) from July 15, 1996 to 2002 at certain locations and were a customer of First Union National Bank. The cash paid into the settlement fund by First Union, after payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and Settlement administration costs (Settlement administration costs are estimated to not exceed $200,000), shall be distributed to claimants who file a proper claim form. If funds remain in the settlement fund after payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation and Settlement administration costs and claims, those remaining funds will be distributed to various charitable institutions to be used for community improvement service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by the Court. The settlement will create a fund of $1,350,000 for payment of claims and expenses. Attorney's fees and litigation and settlement administration costs will be paid out of this fund upon Court approval. Any money remaining in this fund after all class member claims have been processed for payment will be donated to charitable institutions to be used for community improvement service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by the Court. The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether First Union National Bank, its corporate predecessors and/or corporate successors, collectively known as First Union, inappropriately charged surcharges and foreign fees to its customers who used unbranded ATMs owned or operated by First Union. First Union vigorously denies any wrongdoing and maintains that it is not liable under any of the causes of action alleged. The Court did not decide in favor of Plaintiff or Defendant. Instead, both sides agreed to a settlement. That way, they avoid the cost of a trial, and the people affected could receive all or part of the surcharges and foreign fees paid while a customer at First Union at the unbranded ATMs owned by First Union. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on August 24, 2007. The Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County will hold a Fairness Hearing on Sep. 5, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Court Room 246 of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, at City Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania. The suit is “Bruce Wong v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action No. May Term, 2003 No. 1173,” filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. Representing plaintiffs is: Daniel C. Levin, Esq. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Representing defendants is: William C. Cagney, Esq. Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, L.L.P. 120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor New Brunswick, NJ 08901 GATEWAY INC: Recalls Notebook Computer Batteries for Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gateway Inc., of Irvine, California, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 14,000 units of lithium ion battery packs. The company said these lithium-ion battery packs can overheat, which could pose a fire hazard to consumers. This is not an internal battery cell defect. Gateway has received four reports of battery packs overheating, including minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. The recalled battery packs were shipped as the primary or spare battery pack for some Gateway 400VTX and 450ROG series notebooks, and are identified by part numbers: 6500760 or 6500761. The part number and “made by SMP” are printed on a label on the underside of the battery pack. These recalled battery packs were manufactured in China and are being sold through Gateway’s professional and direct distributors and Gateway Country stores nationwide from May 2003 through August 2003. The computers with these batteries sold for between $1,200 and $2,400 and individual batteries sold for between $60 and $90. Pictures of recalled battery packs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07219a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07219b.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using these recalled batteries immediately and contact Gateway to receive a replacement battery. Consumers can continue to use the notebook computers safely by turning the system off, removing the battery pack, and using the AC adapter and power cord to power the system until the replacement battery is received. For additional information, contact Gateway at (800) 292-6813 between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. CT seven days a week or visit the company’s Web site: http://www.gateway.com/battery. GILLS ONIONS: Recalls Yellow Onions for Listeria Contamination -------------------------------------------------------------- Gills Onions, LLC of Oxnard, California is recalling diced yellow onions with "Lot #2017-R and a Best if used by 06/16/07." The recall comes after the Washington State Department of Agriculture, during routine testing, detected Listeria monocytogenes in one retail bag of diced yellow onions. Gills Onions is working with both State and Federal officials to determine the cause. At this time there have been no reported illnesses associated with this product. Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short- term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Anyone with these symptoms, are encouraged to contact their physician. The identified lot 2017-R is no longer in production at Gills Onions. As a precautionary measure, both retail and food service diced packs are being recalled. The retail product was labeled with the Trader Joe's brand name and was distributed to stores in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington. The Trader Joe's brand diced onions were packaged in a 10 oz. bag with the Lot 2017-R and a best if used by date of 06/16/07. The lot information for the 10 oz diced retail product can be found printed directly on the back of the package. The foodservice packages were packed in 4/5 lb cartons and labeled under the Gills Onions Brand and the Sysco Natural Brand, both with the Lot 2017-R and the best-if-used by date of 06/16/07 printed directly on the front of the 5 lb bag as well as on the outside carton label. Consumers and Retailers that have this recalled product should either destroy or return to place of purchase. "Although no illnesses have been reported and only one 10 oz. retail bag of diced onions tested positive, we want to be sure that all diced products associated with the production lot are accounted for," said Nelia Alamo, VP of Marketing. "We are committed to food safety at all levels and we will always put our customers and our consumer first." IKANOS COMMS: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Ikanos Communications, Inc. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In November 2006, three putative class actions were filed against the company, its directors, an executive officer and a former executive officer. These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in connection with its initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business and prospects. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages. The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967- PAC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Paul A. Crotty. Plaintiff firms in this or similar case: Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky One Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1910 New York, NY, 10119 Phone: 212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655 E-mail: JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com - and - Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy 265 Llwyds Lane Vero Beach La, FL 32963 Phone: 561.231.4202 IMPAC MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. reached a settlement in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. From Jan. 10, 2006 through Feb. 28, 2006, six purported class action complaints were filed against the company and its senior officers and all but one of its directors. The plaintiffs in the suits are: -- Earl Schriver, Jr. (filed Jan. 10, 2006), -- Jeff Dayton (filed Jan. 13, 2006), -- Joseph Mathieu (filed Jan. 18, 2006), -- Fred Safir and Wilma Libar (filed Jan. 26, 2006), -- Ronald Kelner (filed Feb. 1, 2006), and -- Miroslav Bardos (filed Feb. 9, 2006). The complaints were brought on behalf of persons who acquired the company's common stock during the period of May 13, 2005 through Aug. 9, 2005. The plaintiffs allege claims against all defendants for violations under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. They also claim against the individual defendants of violations of Section 20 (a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants caused the company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices through false and misleading statements related to the company's financial condition and future prospects and that the individual defendants improperly sold holdings. The complaints seek compensatory damages for all damages sustained as a result of the defendants' actions, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On May 1, 2006, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California approved the consolidation of the federal securities class actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. A consolidated complaint was filed in this action on July 24, 2006. In April 2007, the Company entered into a preliminary agreement to settle the matter, according to the company’s May 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re Impac Mortgage Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation, Case no. 8:06-cv-00031-CJC-RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Robert N. Block. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com David Goldberger, Esq. Scott and Scott 600 B. Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. Labaton Sucharo and Rudoff 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-907-0857 Representing the defendants is: Peter W. Devereaux, Esq. Latham & Watkins 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Phone: 213-485-1234 E-mail: peter.devereaux@lw.com JACKSON HEWITT: "Gold Guarantee" Purchaser Accuses Firm of Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action was filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., the nation's second largest income tax preparation service, claiming that the company knowingly defrauded customers in order to maximize profits. Jackson Hewitt provides general income tax filing services and offers a "gold guarantee" for an additional fee that claims all prepared income tax returns will be filed accurately. If that isn't the case the company states they will bear any costs or penalties a customer receives from the Internal Revenue Service. In 2004 and 2005, named plaintiff James Chapman sought Jackson Hewitt's tax services and purchased the company's "gold guarantee." Mr. Chapman was penalized by the IRS after Jackson Hewitt filed for an improper earned-income credit and despite its guarantee did not pay the IRS fines, the complaint alleges. "Through our investigation we believe Mr. Chapman's experience is very common among Jackson Hewitt's customers, and is part of an intentional scheme by the company in play across the country," said Steve Berman, lead counsel and managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. According to the complaint, when Mr. Chapman discovered he was being audited by the IRS, he attempted to exercise his right to protection under the "gold guarantee" but was denied any assistance from Jackson Hewitt. The tax preparation service instead accused him of providing false information, therefore forfeiting him from his protection. Jackson Hewitt held Mr. Chapman responsible for their mistake, and as such, Mr. Chapman was obligated to reimburse the IRS the complaint states. The complaint against Jackson Hewitt goes on to say that the company did not take the proper steps to determine if Mr. Chapman was eligible for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) which led him to improperly claim a refund of $4,500. By law, earning an EITC requires that the tax payer claim a qualifying child as a dependent. In Mr. Chapman's case, the dependent did not meet all IRS criteria. According to Mr. Berman, James Chapman was unaware that the child did not qualify as a dependent. The complaint states that Jackson Hewitt should have verified that the child met each of the IRS's criteria for determining dependency by obtaining documents and conducting an interview with the customer. Jackson Hewitt did neither, but did convince Chapman to purchase its "gold guarantee" for an additional fee of $39.00. Mr. Berman adds that this isn't the first time Jackson Hewitt's business practices have been called into question, "They've been charged with facilitating tax fraud schemes numerous times and this sort of deception just can't continue." The government charged Jackson Hewitt in Mich., Ga., and Illinois for similar abuses, citing that when the company knows there is chance of an audit, they recommend their "gold guarantee" and then claims that the customer is at fault, the complaint states. "James Chapman trusted that his return was being prepared by an expert," Mr. Berman said. "Instead Jackson Hewitt blamed him for their intentional mistake and then fell through on their promise to protect him." The complaint alleges that Jackson Hewitt violated the Consumer Fraud Act, is guilty of breach of contract, and unjustly enriched as a result of the unlawful collection of payments for their "gold guarantee." The suit seeks full restitution for Jackson Hewitt's ill-gotten gains and punitive damages for those who were failed by the "gold guarantee." Jackson Hewitt reports that it files 3.7 million tax returns a year, all prepared by trained individuals who know and adhere to United States tax laws. The service, which has nearly 6,000 offices and franchises in the country, promises to protect all customers if a tax return is prepared in incorrectly. For more information, contact: Steve Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 E-mail: Mark@firmani.com JAKES FIREWORKS: Recalls Fireworks Due to Burn, Injury Hazards -------------------------------------------------------------- Jakes Fireworks Inc., of Pittsburg, Kansas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,000 March or Die Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices. The company said the tubes on these fireworks devices could become loose, making the devices unstable during use. If the device tips over during use, it could pose burn and injury hazards to bystanders. No injuries have been reported. The recalled fireworks are a 500 gram mine/shell device that consists of nine, 3-inch tubes with a single fuse for ignition. The device measures 16”x16”x13” and its packaging is a dark blue cardboard label with the words “March or Die” printed in red. These recalled March or Die Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices were manufactured in China and are being sold by World Class Distributors nationwide from April 2006 through May 2006 for $40. Picture of recalled March or Die Mine/Shell Fireworks Devices: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07216.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the product and contact Jakes Fireworks for a replacement product. For additional information, contact Jakes Fireworks at (800) 766-1277 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the company’s Web site: http://www.jakesfireworks.com. NATURAL HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of Tex. Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Health Trends Corp. is seeking the dismissal of a securities fraud class action pending against it in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. On Sept. 11, 2006, The Rosen Law Firm P.A. filed a putative class action purportedly on behalf of certain purchasers of the company's common stock to recover damages caused by alleged violations of federal securities laws. The lawsuit names the company and certain current and former officers and directors as defendants. On Dec. 20, 2006, the court granted an unopposed motion to designate The Rosen Law Firm P.A. as lead counsel. On Feb. 18, 2007, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On April 23, 2007, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss. The suit "Zagami v. Natural Health Trends Corp et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01654," is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner & Bilek 1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713/227-7720 Fax: 713/227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com Christopher S. Hinton, Esq. The Hinton Law Firm 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 646/723-3377 Fax: 212/202-3827 - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence Rosen, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm 350 Fifth Ave., Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212/686-1060 Fax: 214/202-3827 OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Cal. Securities Suit for $14M -------------------------------------------------------------- A $13.75 settlement was reached in a consolidated securities class action filed against OmniVision Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions were filed against the company and certain of its present and former directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the company's common stock at various times from February 2003 to June 9, 2004. Those actions were consolidated as, "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. C-04-2297-SC." It asserts claims on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock between June 11, 2003 and June 9, 2004. It is seeking unspecified damages. The suit generally alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices that purportedly led to the company's financial restatement. On July 29, 2005, the court denied the company's motion to dismiss the complaint and discovery commenced thereafter. The parties engaged in settlement discussions and in November 2006, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle this litigation (Class Action Reporter, March 26, 2007). Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on August 14, 2007. Deadline to file claims is October 9, 2007. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing on September 7, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Samuel Conti. The suit is "In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-2297," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Samuel L. Conti with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero. The Claims Administrator is: In re OmniVision Securities Litigation c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, Claims Administrator P.O. Box 990 Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990 Phone: (800) 447-7657 Web site: http://www.gilardi.com Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel is: Jeff S. Westerman Milberg Weiss & Bershad LLP One California Plaza 300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 PIER I: Recalls Dual Glassware Pieces Posing Laceration Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Pier 1 Imports of Fort Worth, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 219,000 blue/green dual glassware pieces -- with about 180,000 orange and red glassware pieces recalled on. The company said the glassware can crack or break unexpectedly, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. Pier 1 Imports has received 21 reports in total of glassware that cracked or broke, including one injury involving a minor cut from broken glass associated with a previous recall. The recalled glassware pieces involve large and small tumblers, goblets and margaritas. The bottom half of the tumblers is aquamarine and the top half is yellow. The bottom of the margaritas and the goblets is clear and the top is aquamarine and yellow. These recalled dual glassware pieces were manufactured in China and are being sold by Pier 1 Imports stores nationwide, its Web site – http://www.pier1.com-- and its June 2007 catalog from January 2007 through April 2007 for about $6. Picture of the recalled dual glassware pieces: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07221a.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the glassware pieces immediately and return them to their nearest Pier 1 Imports retail store for a refund or merchandise credit. For additional information consumers can contact Pier 1 Imports at (800) 245- 4595 between 8 a.m. and 11 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday and between 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday, or visit the firm’s Web site: http://www.pier1.com. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Four Securities Suits in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Powerwave Technologies Inc. faces several purported securities fraud class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Several purported shareholder class action complaints were filed in January, February and March 2007, against the company, its president and chief executive officer, its executive chairman of the board of directors and its chief financial officer. The complaints are: -- "Jerry Crafton v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al.," -- "Kenneth Kwan v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al.," -- "Achille Tedesco v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc., et. al.," and -- “Farokh Etemadieh v. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. et. al.” These were brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaints purport to state claims on behalf of all persons who purchased Powerwave securities between May 2, 2005 and Oct. 9, 2006. The essence of the allegations is that the defendants made misleading statements or omissions concerning the company's projected and actual sales revenues, the integration of certain acquisitions and the sufficiency of the company's internal controls. Powerwave Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.powerwave.com/-- is a global supplier of end-to-end wireless solutions for wireless communications networks. The company’s business consists of the design, manufacture and marketing and sale of products to improve coverage, capacity and data speed in wireless communications networks, including antennas, boosters, combiners, filters, radio frequency power amplifiers, repeaters, tower-mounted amplifiers and coverage solutions. QWEST CORP: Minn. Suit Aims to Collect Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------ Qwest Communications International, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 20 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Darcy Jones and Paul Larsen allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Jones et al v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-02979-DWF-AJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge Donovan W. Frank, with referral to Judge Arthur J. Boylan. Representing plaintiffs is: Barbara A Bagdon Dady & Garner, PA 80 S 8th St Ste 5100 Mpls, MN 55402 Phone: 612-359-5495 Fax: 612-359-3507 E-mail: bbagdon@dadygarner.com RANGELEY PROPERTY: Fla. Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Rangeley Property Maintenance, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service Reports. Named plaintiff Clothaire Thelemaque alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Thelemaque v. Rangeley Property Maintenance, Inc. et al, Case No. 0:07-cv-60868-KMM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge K. Michael Moore. Representing plaintiffs is: Gregg I. Shavitz Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com RC2 CORP: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys ------------------------------------------------------- A Chicago parent filed a proposed class action in U.S. District Court in Illinois against RC2 Corp. (Nasdaq: RCRC), the 'Thomas the Train' toy manufacturer, on behalf of all purchasers after learning the toys were manufactured using highly toxic lead paint putting children at a serious health risk. According to the complaint, RC2 distributed at least 1.5 million toys containing lead paint between January 2005 and June 2007. Among the products in question is the popular Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway. Despite marketing its toys as 'Safe and Quality Playthings' RC2 distributed toys that had red and yellow surface paint containing lead, which is extremely toxic if ingested, the complaint states. Earlier, the Oak Brook, Ill. company, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, voluntarily recalled nearly 1.5 million Various Thomas & Friends Wooden Railway Toys (Class Action Reporter, June 19, 2007). The firm said the surface paints on the recalled products contain lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. "We think RC2's response to this dangerous health issue is far short of what is necessary," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and the attorney representing the named plaintiffs. "There are legions of children that may have ingested lead paint from these toys, and we think the company should stand up to its responsibility to help identify these kids." Named plaintiff Channing Hesse purchased a number of the lead-tainted toys for her toddler boys beginning in 2006 believing the toys were safe. Now, according to Berman, she wonders about the long-term health effects on her children. "The biggest horror of this story is that parents know their toddlers often put toys in their mouths,' Mr. Berman noted. "Consumers trust that companies like RC2 will live up to the promise it makes in its advertising, promising "safe and quality playthings." The complaint states that children under six years of age will absorb about 50 percent of the lead they ingest and exposure can lead to a wide range of health effects, including IQ deficits, learning disabilities, behavioral problems, stunted or slowed growth and impaired hearing. "We know that lead poisoning affects children differently but experts agree that there is no such thing as a 'safe' level of lead exposure," said Berman. RC2 states on its Web site "We understand that what matters most to parents is keeping their children healthy, happy and safe. What mattes most to us is helping parents to just that by offering products for every stage of your child's development ... " Since there is no effective treatment available for lead poisoning the CPSC has declared that "toys and other articles intended for use by children that bear lead-containing paint are banned hazardous products." The filed suit claims RC2 violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and Consumer Fraud Laws of other states, breached the implied warranty by selling goods that were unfit, is strictly liable for damages and acted negligently in product design. RC2 designs, produces and markets a wide range of infant and toddler toys and accessories including Soothie bottles, sippy and straw cups, feeding accessories and healthcare products and markets under The First Years and Lamaze brands, Thomas & Friends, Bob the Builder, Winnie the Pooh, John Deere, Nickelodeon and Sesame Street. For more information, contact: Steve Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: Steve@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 E-mail: Mark@firmani.com SOUTHERN PUMP: Fla. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Pump and Sprinkler Repair, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service Reports. Named plaintiff Philip Gonin alleges unpaid overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Gonin v. Southern Pump and Sprinkler Repair, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-60871-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing plaintiffs is: Stacey Hope Cohen Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: cohen@shavitzlaw.com STARBUCKS COFFEE: December Trial Set in “Jou Chau” Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The San Diego County Superior Court scheduled a December 2007 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v. Starbucks Coffee Co." On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips. More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons for other employees. It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the California Unfair Competition Law. In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay wages due. Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs. On March 30, 2006, the court issued an order certifying the case as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of all persons employed as baristas in the state of California since Oct. 8, 2000. The size of the class has yet to be determined. Trial is currently set for December 2007, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2007. Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh, rich-brewed coffees, Italian- style espresso beverages, cold blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated retail stores. TEAM ONEY: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Team Oney, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Armando Diaz alleges denied overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Diaz v. Team Oney, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21573-UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Ursula Ungaro. Representing plaintiffs is: Jamie H. Zidell 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM THOMAS WEISEL: Faces Calif. Securities Suit Over U.S. Auto’s IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Weisel Partners Group, Inc. faces a purported class action arising out U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc.’s Initial public offering. The suit, “In re U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. Securities Litigation,” was filed on March 2007. It was filed with respect to the initial public offering of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. on Feb. 8, 2007, and subsequent public disclosures by U.S. Auto Parts. Thomas Weisel was an underwriter and a co-book manager of the U.S. Auto Parts initial public offering. The complaint, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleges violations of various federal securities laws against U.S. Auto Parts and certain of its directors and officers as well as U.S. Auto Parts’ underwriters, including the Thomas Weisel, based on, among other things, alleged false and misleading statements. U.S Auto Parts Network -- http://www.usautoparts.com-- is an online provider of aftermarket auto parts, including body parts, engine parts, performance parts and accessories. The Company sells its products, identified as stock keeping units (SKUs), to individual consumers through its network of Websites and online marketplaces. U.S. Auto Parts Websites provide customers with a selection of approximately 550,000 SKUs with detailed product descriptions and photographs. It has developed a product database, which maps its 550,000 SKUs to over 4.3 million product applications based on vehicle makes, models and years. U.S. Auto Parts principally sells its products to individual customers through its network of Websites and online marketplaces. USANA HEALTH: Distributors Sue in Calif. Over Fraud, Deception -------------------------------------------------------------- Independent distributors filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in California state court accusing vitamin marketer USANA Health Sciences Inc. of fraud and deception, Paul Foy of Forbes reports. Veteran San Diego class-action lawyer Alexander M. Schack filed the suit on behalf of hundreds of low-level distributors in California. The plaintiff in the suit is 23-year-old Christopher Crane who said he lost $500 from his $3,500 investment in his USANA business. Mr. Crane was brought into the business by a former top USANA executive Ladd McNamara. His suit is the first proposed class-action filed on behalf of distributors after San Diego investigator Barry Minkow came out with a report criticizing USANA in February. Investors have also filed suits against the USANA. The lawsuit alleges Usana failed to disclose “material adverse facts” to recruits, notably that 87 percent of active distributors are losing money and that the company's business model amounts to a pyramid scheme. It is seeking an injunction stopping Salt Lake City-based USANA from doing business in California, one of the company's biggest markets; as well as damages for "downline" distributors. VILA AND SON TREE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- Vila and Son Tree Farms, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Mario Melo alleges denied overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Melo v. Vila and Son Tree Farms, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21574- MGC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Marcia G. Cooke. Representing plaintiffs is: Jamie H. Zidell 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM WILLIAM PENN: Wins Favorable Ruling in $108M Policyholders Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Susman Godfrey, LLP, obtained a unanimous jury verdict for its client William Penn Life Insurance Co. of New York with regards to the litigation, “Beller, et al. v. William Penn Life Insurance Co. of New York.” The case was brought by class action firm Harwood Feffer and alleged breach of contract claims on behalf of a class of 25,000 policyholders, seeking $108 million in damages from William Penn. Plaintiffs alleged that William Penn had overcharged policyholders for cost of insurance rates. A jury in Mineola, New York, ruled on June 20 that the company has not breached a contract, and thus, refused to award damages. Although the case had been litigated for five years, Susman Godfrey was hired only six days before trial to take over as lead counsel. The jury’s verdict was a complete victory for William Penn. Susman Godfrey's Bill Carmody and Tibor Nagy, both of the firm’s New York office, served as trial counsel. For more details, contact: Bill Carmody, Esq. Tibor Nagy, Esq. Susman Godfrey, LLP Phone: 212-336-8334 and 646-369-0500 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com tnagy@susmangodfrey.com Web site: http://www.susmangodfrey.com * Baron & Budd is Among The Legal 500's Top Toxic Tort Firms ------------------------------------------------------------ Dallas-based Baron & Budd, P.C. has earned selection to The Legal 500 listing of the country's top law firms based on the firm's work in mass tort claims and class action litigation. The firm is included in The Legal 500's recently published third volume, which ranks the country's top litigation firms. Firm clients, other attorneys and judges were interviewed by The Legal 500 staff to determine which firms would be included in the listing. Baron & Budd is ranked as one of the top three law firms in the nation for toxic tort claims. Russell Budd, managing shareholder of Baron & Budd, is noted in the publication for his "considerable renown for his trial and negotiation abilities." Firm attorney Alan Rich also is highlighted as a "heavyweight in the asbestos and toxic tort arena." "We are honored to be recognized for the legal accomplishments of our many fine attorneys," says Mr. Budd. "I believe the talent and achievements of our attorneys truly qualify our firm as one of the top mass tort/class action firms in the country, and it is very nice to receive the recognition from a publication like The Legal 500." In addition to highlighting Mr. Budd and Mr. Rich, the publication also notes Baron & Budd's extensive work in asbestos-related cases, water contamination claims, and incidences of exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace. Since 1977, the law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. has championed the rights of people and communities harmed by corporate misconduct. With more than 50 attorneys and offices in Texas, California, Ohio and Louisiana, Baron & Budd enjoys a national reputation as a leader of the plaintiffs' bar. The firm represents individuals with mesothelioma and other diseases caused by asbestos; leukemia caused by benzene; and injuries caused by other toxic substances and pharmaceuticals. The firm also represents water authorities seeking clean-up costs for drinking water contamination; municipalities and securities investors defrauded by corporate wrongdoing; and consumers. For more information, contact: Bruce Vincent Baron & Budd, P.C. Phone: 800-222-2766 or 800-559-4534 E-mail: bruce@legalpr.com Website: http://www.baronandbudd.com New Securities Cases OPTIONABLE INC: Cohen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Optionable Inc. shares (OTC BB:OPBL.OB) during the period from September 27, 2005 to May 14, 2007, inclusive. The complaint alleges that throughout Optionable's history, the Company understated its dependence on BMO Financial Group (BMO), also known as Bank of Montreal. In its latest quarterly report, Optionable stated that BMO accounted for approximately 30% of its revenues during the three-month period ended March 31, 2007. BMO, however, actually accounted for approximately 60% of the Company's potential revenue. Moreover, the Company failed to tell investors that its business with BMO was tied intimately to David Lee (Lee), a natural gas trader at BMO. Unbeknownst to investors, Lee had a close personal relationship with executives at Optionable, including Defendant Kevin Cassidy, the company's Vice Chairman and CEO. According to reports, Lee's trading alone in the first quarter of 2007 amounted to $2.73 million, or 30% of Optionable's revenue. On April 27, 2007, BMO issued a press release announcing that its mark-to- market commodity trading losses were estimated to be between $350 million and $450 million (pre-tax) in the second quarter of 2007, due in part to positions held by BMO in the energy market which were negatively impacted by changes in market conditions. Upon this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $1.45 per share, or almost 21%, to close at $5.56 per share after investors recognized that BMO accounted for 24% of the Company's revenues in 2006. On May 8, 2007, BMO issued a statement announcing that it was suspending its business relationships with Optionable, as well as all derivatives trading through the Company, pending the results of an external review of its commodity trading losses. In response to this news, the price of Optionable stock declined precipitously, falling from $4.64 per share to $2.81 per share - a decline of approximately 40% - on heavy trading volume. Shares of the Company's stock continued to decline as investors learned that: (i) NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (NYMEX) had resigned its board representation of Optionable; (ii) Cassidy had resigned as Vice Chairman and CEO; and (iii) Cassidy served time in prison for a felony conviction on credit card fraud in 1997 and for income tax evasion in 1993. Optionable provides natural gas and other energy derivatives trading and brokerage services to brokerage firms, financial institutions, energy traders, and hedge funds. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 E-mail: stoll@cmht.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 * * *