/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070702.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 2, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 129 Headlines 1ST UNITED: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation, Faces More ALLSTATE INVESTIGATIONS: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Pay AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Calif. ASHWORTH INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Violations Suit in Calif. CERIDIAN & PILOT: Truck Cos. File Suit Over Fleet-card Fees COOPER COS: July Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Securities Suit COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Litigation COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves $7.5M “Doty” Labor Suit Deal COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Suit CUMMINS POWER: Recalls Generators with Faulty Shut-Off Valve DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Calif. Overtime Suit DYNAMEX INC: Settles “Delesline” Labor-Related Lawsuit in N.Y. ELI LILLY: N.Y. Court Allows Zyprexa Litigation to Go Forward EXCEPTIONAL CARE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Uninsured Auto Insurance Claims HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations LABATT & AMBEV: Retirees File CAD$45M Suit over Health Benefits LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls Heaters with Cord that can Overheat NEW WORLD: Sued in N.Y. for Alleged Labor Code Violations NIAGRA CLEANING: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Alleging Violations of the Sherman Act PHARMA COS: Sales Reps Sue Bristol, Abbott for Overtime Pay ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Tainted with Salmonella SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations SYNERON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Alleging TCPA Violations TARGET: Recalls Toy Barbeque Grills Posing Laceration Hazard TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. TOTAL CALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Rates Misrepresentation TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Litigation in N.D. Ind. VAN DER MOOLEN: Faces N.Y. Antitrust, Securities Violations Suit WASHINGTON: Metro Settles Lawsuit Over MetroAccess for $2.2M New Securities Fraud Cases BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. DENDREON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Suit in Wash. ********* 1ST UNITED: Sued in Fla. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- 1st United Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed June 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Heidi A. Fritz alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Fritz v. 1st United Bank, Case No. 9:07-cv-80513-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing plaintiffs is: Christopher Charles Copeland Christopher C Copeland P.A. 4590 PGA Blvd., Suite 204 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 Phone: 561-691-9048 Fax: 866-259-0719 (fax) E-mail: ChrisCopeland@MyFloridaCounsel.com ABM INDUSTRIES: Settles Calif. Labor Litigation, Faces More ----------------------------------------------------------- ABM Industries, Inc. settled one of several purported class actions related to alleged violations of federal or California wage-and-hour laws, however its still continues to face more. Several suits were filed against the company: -- the consolidated cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services (ACSS) filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County; -- "Augustus and Hernandez v. ACSS" filed on Feb. 23, 2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court; -- "Bucio, Morales and Salcedo v. ABM Janitorial Services" filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco; -- the recently consolidated cases of "Batiz v. ACSS" and "Heine v. ACSS," filed on June 7, 2006 and Aug. 9, 2006, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for the Central of California; -- "Martinez, Lopez, Rodriguez and Godoy v. ABM Janitorial Services" filed on Nov. 28, 2006 in Los Angeles Superior Courtt; -- "Joaquin Diaz v. Ampco System Parking" filed on Dec. 5, 2006, in Los Angeles Superior Court; and -- “Castellanos v. ABM Industries” filed on April 5, 2007, in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. On April 25, 2007, a settlement was reached in “Augustus and Hernandez v. ACSS,” according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007. San Francisco, California-based ABM Industries, Inc. -- http://www.abm.com/ilwwcm/connect/ABM/Home/-- is a facility services contractor for commercial, industrial, institutional and retail facilities in a number of cities throughout the United States and in British Columbia, Canada. The Company conducts its business through a number of subsidiaries, which are grouped into five segments based on the nature of the business operations. ALLSTATE INVESTIGATIONS: N.Y. Suit Claims Denial of Overtime Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Investigations, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Jonathan Elliott alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Elliott v. Allstate Investigations, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07- cv-06078-DLC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Denise L. Cote. Representing plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb Berger & Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St. New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212)-228-9795 Fax: (212)-982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com - and - William Coudert Rand Law Office of William Coudert Rand 711 Third Avenue, Suite 1505 New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-286-1425 Fax: 212-599-7909 E-mail: wcrand@wcrand.com AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces FACTA Violations Litigation in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- AMC Entertainment, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act. The suit, “Michael Bateman v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (No. CV07-00171,” was filed on January 2007. FACTA provides in part that neither expiration dates nor more than the last 5 numbers of a credit or debit card may be printed on electronic receipts given to customers. It imposes significant penalties upon violators where the violation is deemed to have been willful. Otherwise damages are limited to actual losses incurred by the cardholder. The suit is "Michael Bateman v. Regal Cinemas Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00052-GAF-FMO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Gary A. Feess with referral to Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. Ira Spiro, Esq. Spiro Moss Barness 11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310-235-2468 E-mail: greg@spirmoss.com ira@spiromoss.com Representing the defendants is: David E. Novitskim, Esq. Thelen Reid Brown Raymans and Steiner 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3048 Phone: 213-576-8097 Fax: 213-576-8080 ASHWORTH INC: Seeks Dismissal of FCRA Violations Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashworth, Inc., is seeking the dismissal of a purported class action alleging that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing on credit or debit card receipts more than the last five digits of the credit or debit card number and/or the expiration date. The suit was filed on Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. In response, on May 8, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contending that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge George H. King with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Representing the plaintiff is: Farris E. Ain, Esq. Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 West Bonita Avenue Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com Representing the defendants is: J. Scot Kennedy, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949-451-3805 E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com CERIDIAN & PILOT: Truck Cos. File Suit Over Fleet-card Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Two truck companies in Louisiana have filed a lawsuit June 15 against Comdata and its parent company, Ceridian, as well as Pilot Travel Centers and TravelCenters of America, eTrucker.com’s Jill Dunn reports. The complainants Riverbend Truck Stops and Palace Casinos allege that the defendants got involved in anti-competitive fleet-card practices that don’t support independent truck stops. The suit, which seeks class action status on behalf of the lead plaintiffs and those who are similarly situated, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville. It seeks to recover damages at no specific amount. Aside from that, it also seeks “injunctive relief on behalf of plaintiffs and a nationwide class of independent truck stops which have been forced to pay artificially high prices for trucker fleet card processing services.” The complaint further says the defendant’s practices already have led to a Federal Trade Commission consent decree and a $49 million settlement with a rival truck-stop chain, Flying J. Based on the report, a similar suit has also been filed by two other truck- stop companies last March in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. The courts will have to determine whether to let the suits proceed as class action and whether to consolidate them. The suit is “Riverbend Truckstops & Palace Casinos, Inc. et al v. Ceridian Corporation et al, Case No: 3:07-cv-00647,” under Judge Robert Echols with referral to Juliet E. Griffin. Representing the plaintiffs are: Sidney A. Backstrom, Esq. Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. 120-A Courthouse Square Oxford, MS 38655 Phone: (662) 281-12 - and - John C. Hayworth, Esq. Walker, Tipps & Malone 2300 One Nashville Place 150 Fourth Avenue, N Nashville, TN 37219-2415 Phone: (615) 313-6000 E-mail: jhayworth@walkertipps.com COOPER COS: July Hearing Set on Motion to Junk Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A July 16, 2007 hearing was scheduled for a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against The Cooper Cos., Inc., and certain of its officials. On Feb. 15, 2006, Alvin L. Levine filed a putative securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. SACV- 06-169 CJC, against: -- the company; -- A. Thomas Bender, its chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer and a director; -- Robert S. Weiss, its executive vice president, chief operating officer and a director; and -- John D. Fruth, a director. Shortly after the filing of the Levine lawsuit, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case Nos. SACV-06-306 CJC and SACV-06-331 CJC. On May 19, 2006, the court consolidated all three actions under the heading, "In re Cooper Companies, Inc. Securities Litigation," and selected a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on July 31, 2006. The consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the company's securities between July 28, 2004 and Dec. 12, 2005, including persons who received company securities in exchange for their shares of Ocular in the January 2005 merger pursuant to which the company acquired Ocular. The consolidated complaint names as defendants: -- the company, -- Messrs. Bender, Weiss, and Fruth, and also -- Steven M. Neil, the company's vice president and chief financial officer; -- Gregory Fryling, the president and chief operating officer of CooperVision; -- Carol R. Kaufman, the company's senior vice president of legal affairs, secretary and chief administrative officer; -- B. Norris Battin, the company's vice president of investor relations and communications; -- John J. Calcagno, CooperVision's chief financial officer and vice president of business development; -- James M. Welch, the former president of international operations for Coopervision; -- John A. Weber, CooperVision's vice president of Worldwide Manufacturing & Distribution; -- Nicholas J. Pichotta, chief executive officer of CooperSurgical; and -- directors Moses Marx and Steven Rosenberg. The consolidated complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, contending that: -- the company improperly accounted for assets acquired in the Ocular merger by improperly allocating $100 million of acquired customer relationships and manufacturing technology to goodwill (which is not amortized against earnings) instead of to intangible assets other than goodwill (which are amortized against earnings); -- the company's earnings guidance reflected the improper accounting for intangible assets and was inflated by (among other things) the amount of the understated amortization expense; -- contrary to certain alleged statements, Ocular had "flooded the trade channel" with its older products as its Premier lenses were not being well received by customers; -- the company's aggressive revenue and growth targets for 2005 and beyond lacked any reasonable basis when made and did not reflect realistically achievable results primarily because of the absence of a two-week silicone hydrogel product; -- the company's internal controls were inadequate making it possible to misstate earnings by improperly accounting for the merger with Ocular; and -- sales force integration was not materializing and was fraught with dissension and acrimony. This lawsuit, which is in a very preliminary stage, seeks unspecified damages. On Sept. 29, 2006, the Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. A hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for July 16, 2007, according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Cooper Companies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:06-cv-00169-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: X. Jay Alvarez, Esq. Rudman and Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Michiyo Michelle Furukawa, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 E-mail: mfurukawa@ssbla.com - and - Eben O. McNair, Esq. Schwarzwald and McNair, 1330 East Ninth Street, 616 Penton Media Building Cleveland, OH 44114-1503 Phone: 216-566-1600 Representing the defendants is: Charles W. Cox, II, Esq. Latham and Watkins 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007 Phone: 213-485-1234 E-mail: chuck.cox@lw.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals $5.3M Judgment in “Marin” Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing the $5.3 million judgment handed down in favor of the plaintiffs in the case, “Anthony Marin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. RG-04150447,” which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Alameda. The overtime compensation case certified as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco’s semi-annual bonus formula is improper with regard to retroactive overtime pay. Costco has filed an appeal challenging both the entry of a $5.3 million judgment in favor of the class and the accompanying award of attorneys’ fees. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face Calif. Labor-Related Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Two cases were purportedly brought as class actions on behalf of certain present and former Costco Wholesale Corp. managers in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that they have not been properly compensated for overtime work. The suits are: -- “Scott M. Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., U.S. District Court (San Diego), Case No. 02-CV-2003 NAJ (JFS);” and -- “Greg Randall v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC-296369.’ The Randall matter is currently in the class certification-briefing phase. The Williams case has been stayed pending the class certification outcome in the Randall case. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Court Approves $7.5M “Doty” Labor Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal court has approved the proposed settlement in the class action, “Kevin Doty and Sarah Doty v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. CV-05- 3241 FMC (JWJ).” The case was brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which plaintiffs principally allege that Costco did not properly compensate and record hours worked by employees and failed to provide meal and rest breaks. On May 14, 2007, the Court granted final approval to a $7.5 million class wide settlement, according to the company June 15, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 13, 2007. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. COSTCO WHOLESALE: Discovery Ongoing in “Alvarado” Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is ongoing in the case, “Elizabeth Alvarado v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. C-06-04015-MJJ.” The case was purportedly brought as a class action on behalf of present and former hourly employees in California, in which the plaintiff principally alleges that Costco did not properly compensate and record time worked by employees during routine closing procedures, including security searches. Discovery is ongoing in this case, according to the company June 15, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 13, 2007. Costco Wholesale Corp. -- http://www.costco.com-- operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of nationally branded and private-label products in a range of merchandise categories in self-service warehouse facilities. CUMMINS POWER: Recalls Generators with Faulty Shut-Off Valve ------------------------------------------------------------ Cummins Power Generation Inc., of Fridley, Minnesota, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 3,300 units of stationary natural gas and propane fueled generators. The company said the generator’s fuel shut-off valve can fail to close, resulting in a gas leak from the unit. This poses a risk of fire and burn injuries to consumers. Cummins Power has received one report that the fuel shut-off valve failed to close. No injuries or damages have been reported. The recall involves both commercial and residential model Cummins Power Generation gaseous-fueled stationary generator sets (fueled by propane or natural gas). They have the following model numbers listed on the generator nameplate which is located at the front base of the unit: commercial models GGDB, GGMA/B/C, and GNAA/B/C, and residential models RS15000, RS20000, and RS30000. These units also have serial number A050734102 through L068998479 and “Cummins Power Generation” listed on the generator nameplate. These recalled stationary natural gas and propane fueled generators were manufactured in the United States and are being sold at Cummins Power Generation’s authorized distributors and dealers nationwide and http://www.costco.comfrom January 2005 through February 2007 for a retail cost of between $8,000 to $25,000 (depending on the model, retail outlet, and date of purchase). Consumers are advised to stop using these generators immediately, place the Operators switch in “OFF” and maintain this status until the upgrade is completed. The local distributor or dealer should be contacted to schedule a free, on-site repair by a Cummins Power Generation authorized trained technician. For more information, contact Cummins Power Generation Inc. at (800) 888- 6626, Option 3, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. DYNAMEX INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Decision in Calif. Overtime Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported class action against Dynamex, Inc. is appealing a decision by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County in which it denied a motion for class certification of the case. A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005. It alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state law. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2, 2006. The company responded in a memorandum of points and authorities in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification on Nov. 29, 2006. A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007. The company reported no development in the case at its June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007. Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of business centers, the Company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its ground couriers. For many of its inter-city deliveries, Dynamex uses third-party air or motor carriers in conjunction with its ground couriers to provide same-day service. In addition to on- demand delivery services, the Company offers local and regional distribution services, which encompass recurring, often daily, point-to-point deliveries or multiple destination deliveries. It also offers outsourcing services, as well as fleet and facilities management services. These services include designing and managing systems for transporting, sorting and delivering customers' products on a local and multi-city basis. With its fleet management service, the Company manages and may provide a fleet of dedicated vehicles at single or multiple customer sites. DYNAMEX INC: Settles “Delesline” Labor-Related Lawsuit in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynamex, Inc. has reached a settlement in the purported class action, “Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00417-LTS-THK.” On Jan. 19, 2006, a purported class action was filed against the Company by an employee in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the Company unlawfully failed to pay wages for work performed, for which they received no compensation as well as for overtime work for which they received no overtime pay to which the employees were entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor regulations. The plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, additional liquidated damages for unreasonably delayed payment of wages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the action. The Company and the plaintiff has settled the purported class action, according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007. The suit is “Delesline v. Dynamex, Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-00417-LTS-THK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Laura Taylor Swain with referral to Judge Theodore H. Katz. Representing the plaintiff is: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Berger & Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St. New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212)-228-9795 Fax: (212)-982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com Representing the defendant is: Paul J. Siegel, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-247-0404 Fax: 631-247-0417 E-mail: siegelp@jacksonlewis.com ELI LILLY: N.Y. Court Allows Zyprexa Litigation to Go Forward ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued a decision allowing a class action that alleged Eli Lilly & Co. fraudulently marketed the atypical antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa, for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The judge’s 14-page order denied Eli Lilly's motion for summary judgment, as well as a summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiffs. It highlighted the importance of the Courts in protecting the public in the arena of prescription drugs. The Judge stated, "Under the present organization of the pharmaceutical industry, the official federal Food and Drug Administration, and the plaintiffs' bar, the courts are arguably in the strongest position to effectively enforce appropriate standards protecting the public from fraudulent merchandising of drugs." In 2005, two lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors -- excluding governmental entities -- that have made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions have now been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Four additional lawsuits were filed in 2006: two in the Eastern District of New York, one in the Southern District of Indiana, and one in Indiana state court, all on similar grounds. These lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. The lawsuit, brought by the New York-based Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund and others in 2006, alleged that Eli Lilly illegally marketed Zyprexa for "off-label" purposes (i.e. for uses not approved by the FDA), as well as withholding information about Zyprexa's safety and efficacy. Doctors may prescribe prescription drugs for "off-label" uses but drug companies are prohibited from marketing or promoting drugs for such uses. A 2006 study in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that more than 1 in 7 prescriptions for commonly-used drugs were for off-label uses that lacked scientific support. A study released in January 2007 by the federal Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research found that there was little scientific evidence to support the off-label use of Zyprexa and other atypical antipsychotics. The plaintiffs in this case alleged that Lilly's marketing allowed it to charge a higher price than the drug would have been able to command. Lilly sold $4.4 billion worth of Zyprexa in the U.S. in 2006. According to a MarketWatch article, "While U.S. sales of Zyprexa rose 19% in the fourth quarter 2006, Lilly attributed this jump largely to higher prices." ("Lilly CEO: 2007 Zyprexa sales seen flat," Val Brickates Kennedy, MarketWatch, March 14, 2007). The Court further said in its opinion, "Allowing this and like suits to proceed may or may not increase the cost of pharmaceuticals and the efficacy of medical treatment in this country. It does, however, furnish backstop protection against under-regulated potentially dangerous activity by a market where caveat emptor largely rules." "This ruling underscores the important role that Courts play in protecting patients from illegal drug company tactics," said Alex Sugerman-Brozan, director of Prescription Access Litigation, a national coalition of which the Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund is a member. "Unfortunately, the FDA has been trying to slam the courthouse doors in the public's face by arguing that consumers' legal claims are 'preempted' by the FDA's authority." "We are very excited about this success and are grateful to all those who worked diligently defending the interests of our members," said Ed Mullins, President of the Sergeants Benevolent Association. "We will continue to pursue any action of wrongdoing that impacts on a NYPD Sergeant or their family." The suit is “Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund v. Eli Lilly and Co., Case No. 1:06-cv-06322-JBW-RLM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New Yorkm, under Judge Jack B. Weinstein, with referral to Judge Roanne L. Mann. Representing plaintiffs is: David S Nalven Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP One Main Street, 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: 617-482-3700 Fax: 617-482-3003 E-mail: davidn@hbsslaw.com EXCEPTIONAL CARE: Ga. Lawsuit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Exceptional Care, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 7 in the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Sheria Hale alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Hale v. Exceptional Care, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-01319-WSD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. Representing plaintiffs are: Kevin E. Hooks Kevin E. Hooks & Associates, LLC 41 Park of Commerce Way, Suite 107 Savannah, GA 31405 Phone: 912-233-8105 Fax: 912-233-8101 E-mail: khooks@kehlaw.com - and - Benjamin H. Terry Law Offices of Benjamin H. Terry, P.C. 312 Crosstown Road, Suite 355 Peachtree City, GA 30269 Phone: 770-394-1502 Representing defendant is: Betty Bush Walker Bush & Miller P.O. Box 492293 1745 Phoenix Boulevard Atlanta, GA 30349 Phone: 770-994-3600 Fax: 770-994-0014 E-mail: bbwalker@bellsouth.net FARMERS INSURANCE: Sued Over Uninsured Auto Insurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Farmers Insurance Exchange is facing a class-action complaint filed June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Also named in the suit are: -- Farmers Group Inc., -- Farmers Insurance Company of Washington, -- Farmers Insurance Company Inc., -- Illinois Farmers Insurance Company Inc., -- Farmers New Century Insurance Company, -- Farmers Direct Insurance Company Inc., -- Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona, -- Farmers Insurance Company of Columbus Inc., -- Farmers Insurance Company of Oregon, -- Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Company, -- Texas Farmers Insurance Company, -- Mid-Century Insurance Company of Texas, -- Mid-Century Insurance Named plaintiff Ashik Patel accuses Farmers Insurance Exchange and 13 affiliates of refusing to pay valid claims for uninsured auto insurance. The suit is “Ashik Patel v. Farmers Insurance Exchange et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-03573-R-MAN,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Manuel L. Real, with referral to Judge Margaret A. Nagle. Representing plaintiffs are: H Sullivan Bunch Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint 57 Carriage Hill Signal Mountain, TN 37377 Patricia N. Syverson Todd D. Carpenter Andrew S. Friedman Elaine A. Ryan Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: 602-274-1100 E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com or afriedman@bffb.com Stephen M. Hansen Lowenberg Lopez and Hansen Rust Building 950 Pacific Avenue Suite 405 Tacoma, WA 98402-4441 Phone: 253-383-1964 - and - Debra Hayes Reich and Binstock 4625 San Felipe Suite 1000 Houston, TX 77027 Phone: 713-622-7271 HOMEBRIDGE MORTGAGE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs: -- Anatoley Zamoshchik, -- Darrell Burnam, Jr., -- Jermaine Johnson, -- John Williams, -- Joseph Chiofalo, -- Kirk Meyerson, -- Paul McDermott allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Meyerson et al v. Homebridge Mortgage Bankers Corp., Case No. 9:07-cv-80560-DTKH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Daniel T. K. Hurley, with referral to Judge James M. Hopkins. Representing plaintiffs is: Donald Joseph Jaret Donald J Jaret PA 2697 Botticelli Drive Henderson, NV 89052 Phone: 305-740-3383-fax-800 Fax: 616-1685 E-mail: mwot2000@yahoo.com LABATT & AMBEV: Retirees File CAD$45M Suit over Health Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- Former executives and a group of non-union Labatt & Ambev retirees filed a class action against the beer maker Wednesday, Colin Perkel of Canadian Press reports. The suit, filed in the Ontario Supreme Court, alleges that Labatt and its Brazilian parent company AmBev, failed to grant them nearly unlimited health benefits. Apart from breach of contract, the group also charges the company of conspiracy and of enriching themselves at the expense of the retirees by limiting their benefits. The suit further claims the company acted arbitrarily and callously. The complaint specifically states "This unilateral change constituted a breach of each (employee's) contract and violates his or her vested retirement rights and health protection benefits and those of their eligible dependants." The approximately 900 plaintiffs and 700 dependents, seek CAD$50,000 in punitive damages for each class member or for a sum of CAD$45,000,000. Bob Smith, one of the plaintiffs, was director of information technology before he retired in 2005. He had a kidney transplant in 2006 and fears his health benefits would only be good for five years. He needs to maintain expensive anti-rejection drugs. The claims against the defendants Labatt and AmBev have not been proven yet. Canadian Press has obtained Labatt’s letter to its retirees in December saying the changes to their benefits would take effect on March 1, 2007, which include a cap on cumulative lifetime health and drug benefits at CAD$50,000. LASKO PRODUCTS: Recalls Heaters with Cord that can Overheat ----------------------------------------------------------- Lasko Products Inc. of West Chester, Pa., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall of about 1.2 million Lasko Ceramic Heaters. According to the company, the heater’s cord can overheat where it enters the base of the unit, which could pose a fire hazard to consumers. Lasko has received 28 reports of failed power cords, including six reports of minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Lasko ceramic heaters manufactured in 2005. Model numbers included in the recall are: 5132, 5345, 5362, 5364, 5420, 5532, 5534 and 5566. Model numbers are located on the bottom of the unit or at the rear of the base of the heaters. These heaters were manufactured in China and sold at major retailers, home centers and discount department stores nationwide from September 2005 through April 2006 for between $20 and $50. Click on the link below to view photo of the recalled product: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07227.html Consumers should immediately stop using the heaters and contact Lasko to receive a free replacement heater. For additional information, contact Lasko at (800) 984-3311 anytime, or visit the firm’s Web site at http://www.Laskoproducts.com. NEW WORLD: Sued in N.Y. for Alleged Labor Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- New World Mortgage, Inc. and New World Capital Holdings, Inc. are named defendants in a class-action complaint filed May 31 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named defendant Gary Hosking alleged denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Hosking v. New World Mortgage, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 02200-ADS-ARL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Arthur D. Spatt, with referral to Judge Arlene R. Lindsay. Representing plaintiffs is: Erik H. Langeland 500 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1610 New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 354-6270 Fax: (212) 898-9086 E-mail: erikhlangeland@ren.com NIAGRA CLEANING: Fla. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------- Niagra Cleaning Services, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Monterez Floyd alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Floyd v. Niagra Cleaning Services, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-21554- UU,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge Ursula Ungaro. Representing plaintiffs is: Andrew Ross Frisch Rosenthal & Levy PA 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 561-478-2500 Fax: 561-478-3111 OIL COMPANIES: Face Suit Alleging Violations of the Sherman Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Oil companies are facing a class-action complaint filed June 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois over alleged violation of antitrust law by fixing petroleum prices. Named defendants in the suit are: -- Saudi Arabian Oil Co., -- Saudi Petroleum International., -- Aramco Services, -- Saudi Refining, -- Motiva Enterprises, -- Petroleos de Venezuela, -- PDV America, -- Citgo Petroleum, -- PDV Holding, -- PDV Midwest Refining, -- Open Joint Stock Co., -- Oil Company Lukoil, -- Lukoil Americas Corp. and -- Getty Petroleum Marketing. Plaintiff Green Oil Co. brings this action for treble damages and injunctive relief under the antitrust laws of the U.S. against defendants. The claims are brought under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees, against defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiff and members of the class by reason of the violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 915 U.S.C. Plaintiff alleges that during the class period, defendants and their co- conspirators participated in a conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of Refined Petroleum Products' (RPP) sold in the U.S. at the refinery level in violation of the antitrust laws. The conspiracy affected billions of dollars in interstate commerce. Because of defendants' anticompetitive conduct plaintiff and other members of the class paid artificially inflated prices for RPP's and, as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. Plaintiff brings this action, under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who purchased RPPs in the U.S. directly from any of the defendants at any time during the period from Nov. 30, 2002 to the present. The plaintiff want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, combination, and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of RPP's sold in the United States; (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (d) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (e) whether the defendant's conduct caused the prices of RPP's to be set at higher levels than they would have been absent the conspiracy; (f) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or combination upon United States interstate commerce; (g) the appropriate measure of damages; and (h) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief. Plaintiff pray: -- that the court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful conspiracy alleged be adjudged and decreed to be an unreasonable restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover treble damages, as provided by law, determined to have been sustained by each of them and that joint and several judgments in favor of plaintiff and members of the class be entered against defendants; -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from continuing the unlawful contract, combination and conspiracy alleged; -- that defendants be enjoined from continuing their unlawful activity and ordered to cease and desist from participating in any unlawful conduct or agreements which has as their purpose increasing the prices of RPP's; -- that defendants be permanently enjoined from unlawful actions intended to raise the prices of RPP's sold in the United States upon finding that defendants participated in the conspiracy; -- that the United States subsidiaries of defendants, Saudi Aramco, PdVSA and Lukoil divested from the ownership and control of Saudi Aramco, PdVSA and Lukoil upon finding that defendants participated in the conspiracy as described and that a timetable for sale and divestiture of these subsidiaries be ordered by the court; -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as provided by law; and -- that plaintiff and members of the class be granted such other, further and different relief as the nature of the case may require or as may be deemed just and proper by the court. The suit is “Green Oil Co. v. Saudi Arabian Oil Company et al., Case No. 1:07- cv-03617,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Charles P. Kocoras. Representing plaintiffs is: James B. Sloan Pedersen & Houpt, P.C. 161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601-3224 Phone: (312) 261-2113 E-mail: jsloan@pedersenhoupt.com PHARMA COS: Sales Reps Sue Bristol, Abbott for Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Pharmaceutical representatives filed lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Abbott Laboratories. Plaintiff Beth Amendola of Coconut Creek, Florida, who was at Bristol-Myers Squibb from 1998 until 2006, won top regional sales awards five of the eight years she worked at the company. "We would be in the field from 8 AM until 5 PM, and then have 3-4 hours of paperwork to complete at night. I was always at their beck and call. I felt like the Sorcerers' Apprentice where all the pails and buckets kept coming, no matter how much work I did. Overtime was mandatory; overtime pay was not an option." The suits are the latest in a series of class actions by employees for violation of state and federal overtime laws by drug companies. All of the largest drug companies are now facing national overtime lawsuits filed in state and federal courts in California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Connecticut. The lawsuits against Bristol-Myers are being filed in federal court in New York and in state court in California; the suit against Abbott is being filed in federal court in Chicago. The new lawsuits charge that the companies - like others in the industry - unlawfully characterize pharmaceutical representatives as "exempt" under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other labor laws, thus depriving the reps of overtime pay earned and owed. Although pharmaceutical reps are often given fancy titles, they have little or no decision-making responsibility and their jobs should be covered by state and federal overtime laws, the lawsuits charge. These and earlier cases filed in recent months – against: -- AstraZeneca, -- Johnson & Johnson, -- Amgen, Eli Lilly, -- Hoffman LaRoche, -- Novartis, -- Merck, -- Wyeth, -- GlaxoSmithKline, -- Bayer, -- Boehringer-Ingelheim, -- Schering-Plough and -- Sanofi Aventis are being litigated by the Los Angeles based-firms of Kingsley & Kingsley, LLP and Spiro Moss Barness LLP, the New York firm of Joseph and Herzfeld, LLP and/or the Washington, DC law firm of Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP. The New York firm of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP is also litigating the Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Eli Lilly action, in which it is joined by the New York office of Seeger Weiss. "The industry as a whole employs about 100,000 reps," said Eric Kingsley of Kingsley & Kingsley. "They routinely work very long hours, often 60 hours a week and sometimes up to 70 or more." "Although the companies claim that the representatives are salespersons and therefore not protected by overtime laws, with some exceptions, they actually don't sell anything," explained Charles Joseph of Joseph & Herzfeld. "Rather, they are tasked to influence the prescribing behaviors of doctors. Many employees in all industries are under the mistaken impression that being salaried means that they are not protected under the overtime laws. But a salaried employee is entitled to overtime unless they fit within one of the closely defined exceptions to the rule." "These are loyal, hardworking employees who play by the rules," said Ilann Maazel of Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. "There is no excuse for Bristol-Myers' failure to properly compensate its employees." Recent class actions have won multimillion-dollar settlements for insurance adjusters and computer technicians who were illegally denied overtime by employers who claimed they were exempt. Class certification has been granted in the case against Novartis (“Lopes v. Novartis”), which was originally filed by Sanford Wittels in March 2006. "Hundreds of Novartis reps have joined the suit and we expect shortly that many more will," said attorney David Sanford, who has also filed a sex discrimination lawsuit against the company. Pharma companies’ overtime lawsuits on the net: http://www.pharmarepovertime.com For more information, contact: Eric Kingsley Kingsley & Kingsley, APC Phone: 818-990-8300 Charles Joseph Joseph & Herzfeld LLP (except BMS) Phone: 866-348-7394 David Sanford Sanford Wittels & Heisler LLP Phone: 202-742-7777 - and - Ilann Maazel Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP (BMS and Lilly) Phone: 212-763-5000 ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Tainted with Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert's American Gourmet Food, Inc. of Sea Cliff, New York is recalling all lots and sizes of Veggie Booty Snack Food because it has 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. Veggie Booty was distributed nationwide and also in Canada through local distributors, internet sales, phone orders, mail orders and retail outlets. Veggie Booty is sold in a flexible plastic foil bag in a 4 oz., 1 oz., and l/2 oz. package. The brand name is Robert's American Gourmet, and all codes and expiration dates of Veggie Booty are being recalled. Robert's American Gourmet has been notified by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of 51 cases of Salmonella across 17 states, associated or related to the consumption of the Veggie Booty, predominately in children of three years of age or younger. Based on the information provided by the CDC and FDA Robert's American Gourmet has decided to conduct this recall as a precautionary measure, even though there are no confirmed positive results in the finished product yet. SPRINT NEXTEL: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp., Nextel of New York Inc., Sprint/United Management Co. and Sprint Nextel Inc. are named defendants in a class-action complaint filed June 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Johnny Almonte alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Labor Code. The suit is “Almonte v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 1:07-cv- 06065-NRB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of New York, under Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. Representing plaintiffs are: Cara Elizabeth Greene Adam T. Klein Justin Mitchell Swartz Outten & Golden,LLP (NYC) 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212)-245-1000 Fax: (212)-977-4005 E-mail: ceg@outtengolden.com or atk@outtengolden.com or jms@outtengolden.com SYNERON INC: Seeks Dismissal of Suit Alleging TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Syneron Inc., a subsidiary of Syneron Medical Ltd., is seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action filed against it alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The suit was filed on Nov. 10, 2005. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages and attorney’s fees and costs as a result of the violations. Syneron has answered the Complaint and the parties have engaged in discovery relating to the appropriateness of proceeding with the action on behalf of a class, as well as discovery on the merits of the claim. On Feb. 7, 2007, Syneron Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the action for lack of federal jurisdiction. All further discovery is stayed pending a ruling on this motion, according to the company’s June 15, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Syneron Medical Ltd. -- http://www.syneron.com/-- designs, develops and markets aesthetic medical products based on its electro-optical synergy (ELOS) technology, which uses the synergy between electrical energy and optical energy to provide aesthetic medical treatments. TARGET: Recalls Toy Barbeque Grills Posing Laceration Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ Target of Minneapolis, Minn., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling nearly 2,300 Play Wonder Toy Barbeque Grills. The firm said the circular ash tray attached to the stainless steel legs of the grill could contain sharp edges, posing a laceration hazard. Target has received neither incident nor injury report. This recall involves the Play Wonder Barbeque Grill. The grill is metal and has an orange metal base and top, along with stainless steel legs and a removable circular ash tray. The grill set also includes tongs and a spatula. The “Play Wonder” logo is located on the lower right corner of the packaging. These toy barbeque grills, manufactured in China by Schylling, of Rowley, Mass., were sold at Target Stores nationwide from December 2006 to February 2007 for about $20. Click on the link to view photo of the recalled grill: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07226.html Consumers should immediately take the toy grills away from children and return them to Target for a full refund. For more information, consumers can contact Target at (800) 440-0680 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or log on to the firm’s Web site http://www.target.com. TOLL BROTHERS: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- Toll Brothers, Inc., and two of its current officers were named as defendants in a securities class action filed on April 17, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff filed this action on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between Dec. 9, 2004 and Nov. 8, 2005. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing materially false and misleading statements. The plaintiff class seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, according to the company’s June 8, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2007. The suit is “Lowrey v. Toll Brothers, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01513- JG,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge James T. Giles. Representing the plaintiff is: Ramzi Abadou, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com Representing the defendant is: Steven B. Feirson Dechert, Price & Rhoads 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793 Phone: 215-994-2749 E-mail: steven.feirson@dechert.com TOTAL CALL: Faces Cal. Suit Over Alleged Rates Misrepresentation --------------------------------------------------------------- Total Call International Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Nora Monday accuses Total Call of misrepresenting the rates, charges and other attributes of its prepaid telephone cards. The suit is “Nora Monday v. Total Call International Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv- 03913-ODW-RC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge Otis D Wright, II, with referral to Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Representing plaintiffs is: Tod Aronovitz Steven R. Jaffe Aronovitz Trial Lawyers Museum Tower 150 West Flagler Street, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-372-2772 Eric C. Brunick William M. Sweetnam Paul M. Weiss Freed and Weiss 111 West Washington Street, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 312-220-0000 Lionel Z Glancy Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com Seth Lehrman Lehrman and Lehrman 1801 North Pine Island Road, Suite 103 Plantation, FL 33322 954-472-9990 - and - Eric Stoppenhagen Eric Stoppanhagen Law Offices 285 Avenue C, Suite MB New York, NY 10009 646-594-8669 TRAVELCENTERS OF AMERICA: Faces FATA Litigation in N.D. Ind. ------------------------------------------------------------ Travelcenters of America LLC faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging violations of Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FATA). The suit, “Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00142-AS-PRC,” was filed on May 2, 2007. FATA limits certain credit and debit card information that may appear on electronically printed receipts provided to the cardholder. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons provided with electronically printed receipts for transactions occurring at our travel centers in Indiana after Dec. 4, 2006, which receipts allegedly violate FATA. The complaint seeks damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs. The suit is “Bonner v. Travelcenters of America LLC et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 00142-AS-PRC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana under Judge Allen Sharp with referral to Judge Paul R. Cherry. Representing the plaintiff is: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-739-4200 Fax: 312-419-0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com Representing the defendant is: Bruce de'Medici, Esq. Mandell Menkes LLC 333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 300, Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-251-1000 Fax: 312-251-1010 E-mail: Bdemedici@mandellmenkes.com VAN DER MOOLEN: Faces N.Y. Antitrust, Securities Violations Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Van der Moolen Holding N.V. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that it violated the U.S. anti-trust and federal securities laws. Sea Carriers, LP I, and Sea Carriers Corp., filed the suit on June 1, 2007 against Van der Moolen Holding NV, Van der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC (VDM Specialists), other New York Stock Exchange specialists and their affiliates, eight large brokerage firms and their affiliates, and NYSE Euronext. The plaintiffs allege that, during the period between October 17, 1998 and the date of the complaint, the defendants violated the U.S. anti-trust and federal securities laws by misrepresenting the market for execution services and costs of execution of trades on the New York Stock Exchange, manipulating trading on the New York Stock Exchange, and colluding to raise, fix and maintain at anti-competitive levels the costs of executions services on the New York Stock Exchange, all with respect to market orders sent to the New York Stock Exchange floor by means of the Exchange’s SuperDOT system. The company has not yet been served in this action, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, pre- judgment interest, and treble damages for any violations of anti-trust laws, according to the company’s June 22, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007 Van Der Moolen Holding N.V. -- http://www.vandermoolen.com/-- is a securities trading firm, principally engaging in trading equities, derivatives, equity index options, futures, exchange traded funds (ETF) and bonds on many of the securities exchanges in the U.S. and Europe. The Company operates in three business segments: US Trading, European Trading and Holding and unallocated, which consists of four principal subsidiaries. WASHINGTON: Metro Settles Lawsuit Over MetroAccess for $2.2M ------------------------------------------------------------ The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, commonly known as Metro, settled a class action brought against it by disabled customers, according to ABC7 News. Equal Rights Center, a nonprofit organization, together with the Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, brought the action in 2004. They originally sought for $14 million under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint alleged late and unpredictable service for MetroAccess customers who are mostly blind or in wheelchairs. It further cited that in some instances, drivers didn’t show up at all or use long routes. Riders were often denied of food, water, medication and bathrooms for long hours. The $2.2 million partial settlement includes: -- 10 free rides for 17,000 registered disabled passengers; -- door-to-door service for riders rather than just curbside pick up and drop off; -- requests for the company to hire consultants to monitor the management responsible for the MetroAccess service; and -- $5,000 compensation for each of the 14 plaintiffs named in the suit. Besides the settlement, Metro allotted a budget of $4 million a year for the next three years to render door-to-door service. Plaintiff lawyer Elaine Gardner said "It's a showing of good faith by Metro." The transit agency didn’t admit any of the allegations, maintaining it complied with the ADA. For more information about the suit, contact: Elaine Gardner, Esq. Director, Disability Rights Project, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs Phone: 202-319-1000 E-mail: Elaine_Gardner@washlaw.org New Securities Fraud Cases BRISTOL-MYERS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action on June 19 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased securities of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. between March 22, 2006 and August 8, 2006, inclusive and alleges violations of the federal securities laws by BMY and certain of its present and/or former executives. As alleged in the Complaint, on March 22, 2006, BMY announced that it, along with Sanofi-Aventis SA, entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex, Inc. to resolve a patent infringement lawsuit related to the drug Plavix. The Complaint further alleges that throughout the Class Period, BMY failed to disclose material facts regarding the Apotex Settlement including: (1) that BMY had relinquished material rights in connection with the settlement, including the right to treble damages; (2) that if the Apotex Settlement was not approved, Apotex could flood the market with its generic version of Plavix; and (3) that BMY had negotiated improper side agreements in connection with the Apotex Settlement. On July 27, 2006, BMY revealed that the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") was conducting a criminal investigation into the Apotex Settlement and, as alleged, as a result of this disclosure, the price of BMY's securities declined $1.95 per share, or 7.5%, to close at $24.04 per share. On August 8, 2006, BMY disclosed additional material facts regarding the Apotex Settlement. As a result of this disclosure, it is alleged that BMY's securities declined $1.56 per share, or approximately 7%, to close at $21.21 per share. The Complaint also alleges that on May 10, 2007 BMY issued a press release disclosing that the Company agreed to plead guilty to federal charges of making false statements to a government agency in connection with the Apotex Settlement. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Interested parties may move the court no later than August 27, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Frederic S. Fox Joel B. Strauss Jeffrey P. Campisi Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 805 Third Avenue 22nd Floor New York NY 10022 Phone: (800) 290-1952 or (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 - and - Laurence D. King Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1501 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 772-4700 Fax: (415) 772-4707 DENDREON CORP: Susman Godfrey Files Securities Suit in Wash. ------------------------------------------------------------ Susman Godfrey L.L.P. filed a class action against Dendreon Corp. and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 8. 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 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 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. The complaint further alleges that certain officers and directors traded on this information without disclosing it to the investing public. The complaint alleges 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. 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 ********* 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 * * *