/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070703.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 3, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 130
Headlines
AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of ERISA Litigation in Ind.
AVENTURA LIMOUSINE: Sued Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.
BISCAYNE TIRE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the Labor Code
BSH HOME: Recalls Built-in Ovens with Gaps in Insulation
CALIFORNIA: Suit Accuses MTA of Violating Environmental Laws
COLLINS & 74TH: Faces Fla. Suit Alleging Unpaid Overtime Wage
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Faces "Hensley" Antitrust Suit in Ark.
CONSECO INC: To Record $35M Addt’l Expense in Fraud Suit Deal
COOK CHILL: Recalls Chicken Products Contaminated with Bacteria
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Class Certification in “Ellis” Case
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face “Barmak” Lawsuit in Calif.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Multiple “Motor Fuel Temperature” Suits
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Suits Over Membership Renewal Practices
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tenn. Over Buck Deal
FOSTER WHEELER: Penn. TCE Pollution Suit Settlement Approved
GREAT LAKES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of “Reed” Complaint
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Consolidated Suit Over Smart Chips
HOME DEPOT: Fifth Circuit Reverses Ruling in Mo. Shopper's Suit
NIDO LLC: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
NISOURCE INC: Judge Upholds $404M Award in W.Va. Royalties Suit
NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo Resident Sues Over City’s Traffic Fines
PATHMARK STORES: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Great Atlantic Deal
PEP BOYS: Calif. Store Associates Sue Over Employment Practices
RC2 CORP: Hagens Berman Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys
REGISTERFLY INC: Hagens Files Suit Over Internet Domain Names
ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Prone to Contamination
ROHM & HAAS: Court Denies MRI Test Request for Penn. Workers
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Nurses File Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Overtime
TJX COS: Faces Suits in U.S., Canada Over Customer Data Leak
TOUSA INC: Mezzanine Lenders Settlement Not to Hamper Fla. Suits
UNITED RETAIL: Faces Ill. Litigation Alleging FACTA Violations
New Securities Fraud Cases
BRISTOL-MYERS: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
MACY’S INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
NETLIST INC: The Pomerantz Firm Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
PLEXUS CORP: Schiffrin Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Wis.
XINHUA FINANCE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
*********
AES CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Nixing of ERISA Litigation in Ind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., which agreed to be acquired by AES Corp., reports
that plaintiffs in a purported class action, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) have appealed the dismissal
of the case, according to the AES Corp.’s June 21, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2007.
In April 2002, IPALCO Enterprises (IPALCO), the pension committee for the
Indianapolis Power & Light Co. thrift plan, and certain former officers and
directors of IPALCO were named as defendants in a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana.
In May 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit. The amended
complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of the Pension Committee
breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs under ERISA by investing
assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to the
acquisition of IPALCO by the Company.
In September 2003 the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class
certification. A trial addressing only the allegations of breach of
fiduciary duty was held in February 2006.
In March 2007, the Court issued a decision in favor of defendants and
dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.
In April 2007, plaintiffs appealed the Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit as to the former officers and directors of
IPALCO, but not as to IPALCO or the Pension Committee.
The suit is, "Nelson, et al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-00477-DFH-TAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under Judge David Frank Hamilton.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Nicholas Styant-Browne, Esq.
Andrew M. Volk, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Fax: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
nick@hagens-berman.com
andrew@hbsslaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Dane Hal Butswinkas, Esq.
Williams & Connolly, LLP
725 Twelfth Street NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 434-5110
Fax: (202) 434-5029
E-mail: dbutswinkas@wc.com
Web site: http://www.wc.com
- and -
James H. Ham, III, Esq.
Baker & Daniels
300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: (317) 237-1256
Fax: (317) 237-1000
E-mail: jhham@bakerd.com
Web site: http://www.bakerd.com
AVENTURA LIMOUSINE: Sued Over Labor Code Violations in Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aventura Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc. 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 plaintiff Sasa Padjuran alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit is “Padjuran v. Aventura Limousine & Transportation Service, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21650-PCH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District Court of Florida, under Judge Paul C. Huck, with referral
to Judge Andrea M. Simonton.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Barry G. Feingold
8751 W. Broward Boulevard
Plantation, FL 33324
Phone: 954-424-1933
Fax: 954-474-7405
E-mail: bazlaw@yahoo.com
BISCAYNE TIRE: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Violations of the Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biscayne Tire and Auto, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 7
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
Courthouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Alejando Silla alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit is “Silla v. Biscayne Tire and Auto, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21475-CMA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
Representing defendant are:
Steven Frederick Samilow
2645 Executive Park Drive
Weston, FL 33331
Phone: 954-349-6555
Fax: 385-9419
E-mail: Samilow@aol.com
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
BSH HOME: Recalls Built-in Ovens with Gaps in Insulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BSH Home Appliances Corp., of Huntington Beach, Calif. in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is conducting a voluntary recall
of about 42,000 units of Thermador Brand Built-In Ovens.
The firm said the oven can have gaps in the insulation where overheating can
occur and when used in the self-cleaning mode it can cause nearby cabinets to
overheat. This can pose a fire hazard to consumers.
BSH Home Appliances has received ten reports of incidents including one which
resulted in a fire that caused extensive property damage. No injuries have
been reported.
This recall involves Thermador Brand built-in single ovens and combination
models which have a conventional oven and a microwave. The model numbers of
the single ovens are C271B, C301B, SEC271B and SEC301B. The model numbers of
the combination models are SEM272B, SEM302B, SEMW272B and SEMW302B. The
ovens have date codes between FD8403 and FD8701. The model number and date
code can be found on the underside of the control panel.
These ovens were manufactured in the U.S. and were sold at appliance and
specialty stores nationwide from November 2004 through May 2007 for between
$2,400 and $3,900.
Click on the link to view the recalled product:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07228.html
Consumers should stop using the oven’s self-cleaning mode and contact BSH
Home Appliances immediately to schedule an inspection and free repair, if
necessary.
For more information, contact BSH Home Appliances at (800) 701-5230 between 7
a.m. and 11 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm’s Web site at
http://www.thermador.com.
CALIFORNIA: Suit Accuses MTA of Violating Environmental Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is facing a
class-action complaint filed in Superior Court accusing it of violating
environmental laws in relation to a plan to increase fares and reduce
services, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Bus Riders Union claims the MTA’s actions were done
illegally, “without any environmental review ... (and) will decrease bus
ridership and cause significant environmental impacts in the form of air
pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion.”
They claim this “double whammy” of increased fares and reduced service
will “effectively foreclose the bus system as a viable transportation option
for tens of thousands of Los Angeles County residents,” and say the MTA will
unfairly spend the increased fares on roads and rail.
Plaintiffs, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, seek writ of
mandate and an injunction.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is:
Natural Resources Defense Council
1314 Second Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: 310-434-2300
COLLINS & 74TH: Faces Fla. Suit Alleging Unpaid Overtime Wage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Collins & 74th Street, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed June 7
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the
Courthouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Madeline Ramos alleges denial of overtime compensation, a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit is “Ramos v. Collins & 74th Street, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
21478-JEM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, under Judge Jose E. Martinez.
Representing defendants is:
Leslie W. Langbein
Langbein & Langbein
8181 NW 154 Street, Suite 105
Miami Lakes, FL 33016
Phone: 305-556-3663
Fax: 556-3647
E-mail: langbeinpa@bellsouth.net
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jamie H. Zidell
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Phone: 305-865-6766
Fax: 865-7167 (fax)
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Still Faces "Hensley" Antitrust Suit in Ark.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Corp. continues to face a purported class action filed on
Feb. 11, 2005 in Miller County Circuit Court in Arkansas under the
caption, "Hensley, et al. v. Computer Sciences Corp., et al."
The suit, filed as a putative nationwide class action, alleges the defendants
conspired to wrongfully use software products licensed by the company and the
other software vendors to reduce the amount paid to the licensees' insureds
for bodily injury claims.
Plaintiffs also allege wrongful concealment of the manner in which these
software programs evaluate claims and wrongful concealment of information
about alleged inherent errors and flaws in the software.
Plaintiffs seek injunctive and monetary relief of less than $75,000 for each
class member, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.
The company reported no development in the matter in its June 13, 2007 Form
10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended May 14, 2007.
Computer Sciences Corp. -- http://www.csc.com-- is a provider of information
technology (IT) and professional services. CSC offers an array of services
to clients in the Global Commercial and government markets, and specializes
in IT applications. Its service offerings include information technology and
business process outsourcing, and IT and professional services.
CONSECO INC: To Record $35M Addt’l Expense in Fraud Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conseco, Inc. expects to record additional pre-tax expense of approximately
$35 million in the quarter ending June 30, 2007, related to the proposed
settlement in the class action litigation "In Re Conseco Life Insurance
Company Cost of Insurance Litigation."
The Company had previously recorded pre-tax expense of approximately $215
million related to this litigation and proposed settlement. The settlement,
which involved policies sold by insurance companies that were subsequently
acquired by Conseco, is subject to court approval and other conditions. As
previously disclosed, the liability the Company established in prior periods
was subject to significant judgment, including estimates regarding the form
of policy benefit enhancement that would be chosen by the inforce
policyholders.
The Company has revised its estimate of the ultimate cost of the settlement
based on election forms recently received from these policyholders.
While the Company believes the liability it has established is adequate to
cover the ultimate cost of the settlement, the estimate continues to be
subject to significant judgment and it is possible it will prove to be
insufficient to cover actual costs. The ultimate liability will be primarily
impacted by changes in the estimate for:
(1) the cost to settle other cases pending with respect to
the cost of insurance litigation; and
(2) the value realized by the plaintiffs from shares of
Conseco common stock reserved for distribution pursuant
to the bankruptcy plan of Conseco's Predecessor to
satisfy the pre-petition claims of the plaintiffs.
Case Background
The Company and certain subsidiaries, including principally Conseco Life
Insurance Company, have been named in numerous purported class action and
individual lawsuits alleging, among other things, breach of contract, fraud
and misrepresentation with regard to a change made in 2003 and 2004 in the
way cost of insurance charges are calculated for life insurance policies sold
primarily under the names "Lifestyle" and "Lifetime".
Approximately 86,500 of these policies were subject to the change, which
resulted in increased monthly charges to the policyholders' accounts. Many of
the purported class action lawsuits were filed in Federal courts across the
U.S. In June 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated these lawsuits into the action now referred to as “In Re Conseco
Life Insurance Co. Cost of Insurance Litigation, Cause No. MDL 1610 (Central
District, California).
In September 2004, plaintiffs in the multi-district action filed an amended
consolidated complaint and, at that time, added Conseco, Inc. as a defendant.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the change enabled
Conseco, Inc. to add $360 million to its balance sheet. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages as well as an
injunction that would require the Company to reinstate the prior method of
calculating cost of insurance charges and refund any increased charges that
resulted from the change.
On April 26, 2005, the Judge in the multi-district action certified a
nationwide class on the claims for breach of contract and njunctive relief.
On April 27, 2005, the Judge issued an order certifying a statewide
California class for injunctive and restitutionary relief pursuant to
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 and breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, but denied certification on the claims for
fraud and intentional misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment.
The Company announced on August 1, 2006, that it has reached a proposed
settlement of this case. Under the proposed settlement, inforce policyholders
will have an option to choose a form of policy benefit enhancement and
certain former policyholders will share in a settlement fund by either
receiving cash or electing to reinstate their policies with enhanced
benefits. Finalizing the settlement will require court review and approval,
a fairness hearing, notice to all class members, election of options by the
class members, implementation of the settlement and is subject to other
conditions.
The company expects to implement the settlement with the inforce and certain
former policyholders in the third quarter of 2007. On February 12, 2007 the
court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
As a result of the settlement, the company recorded $157.0 million of costs
(before income taxes) related to the proposed settlement in the second
quarter of 2006. In the first quarter of 2007, the company refined its
estimates related to certain provisions of the proposed settlement and
recognized additional expenses of $13.0 million. In addition, the company had
previously recognized costs related to this litigation of $17.7 million in
the three months ended March 31, 2006, and $18.3 million and $9.8 million in
the years ended December 31, 2005 and 2004, respectively.
The liability the company established related to the proposed settlement at
March 31, 2007, includes its best estimate of:
(i) the cost of the benefits to be provided to inforce
policyholders;
(ii) the value of the settlement fund for former
policyholders;
(iii) plaintiff attorney fees;
(iv) the cost to settle other cases pending with respect to
the cost of insurance litigation; and
(v) other costs and professional fees required to implement
the settlement.
The company said that while it believes the liabilities it has established
are adequate to cover these costs, its estimates are subject to significant
judgment (including the form of policy benefit enhancement chosen by the
inforce policyholders) and it is possible that the estimates will prove to be
insufficient to cover our actual costs. In addition, the actual cost it
incurs is dependent on:
(i) the release of no less than 1,000,000 shares of common
stock which were reserved for distribution pursuant to
the bankruptcy plan of our Predecessor to satisfy the
prepetition claims of the plaintiffs; and
(ii) the value of such shares realized by the plaintiffs.
On November 7, 2006 the Bankruptcy Court authorized such release by approving
applicable claims filed by plaintiffs. In determining the company’s current
estimate of the net costs related to the proposed settlement, these shares
were valued based on the March 31, 2007 closing price of a share of our
common stock.
The implementation of the proposed settlement includes enhanced benefits to
the inforce insurance policies, which eliminates the future estimated profits
from these policies in periods subsequent to the proposed settlement date, if
the experience of the policies is consistent with our expectations.
The company recognized income before income taxes on these policies of
approximately $6.0 million in the six months ended June 30, 2006.
The suit is "In re Conseco Life Insurance Company Cost of Insurance
Litigation, Case No. 2:04-ml-01610-AHM-Mc," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California under Judge A. Howard Matz.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Christopher Casper, Esq.
John Yanchunis, Esq.
James Hoyer Newcomer & Smiljanich
1 Urban Centre, 4830 W Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 550
Tampa, FL 33609
Phone: 813-286-4100
Timothy P. Dillon, Esq.
Timothy P. Dillon Law Offices
361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: 949-376-2800
E-mail: timothy@dillonlaw.net
Representing the company is:
Timothy G. Majors, Esq.
Brent L. Caslin, Esq.
Michael S. McCauley, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis
777 S. Figueroa St., Ste. 3700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-680-8400 and 213-680-8686
E-mail: bcaslin@kirkland.com
mmccauley@kirkland.com
COOK CHILL: Recalls Chicken Products Contaminated with Bacteria
---------------------------------------------------------------
State of Tennessee Cook Chill, a Nashville, Tenn. firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 2,768 pounds of ready-to-eat chicken products that
may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.
These products are subject to recall:
- Cases of "BAKED CHICKEN LEG QUARTERS" Each case bears the
case code "D257168C" and the establishment number "P-
19120" inside the USDA seal of inspection; and
- Cases of "OVEN FRIED BREADED CHICKEN LEG QUARTERS, smoke
flavor added." Each case bears the case code "D257154C"
and the establishment number "P-19120" inside the USDA
seal of inspection.
The chicken products were produced on April 25, 2007 and were distributed to
correctional and mental health institutions in Tennessee. There was no
retail distribution of these products.
The problem was discovered through company testing and FSIS inspection
activities. FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of this product.
Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease. Healthy people
rarely contract listeriosis. However, listeriosis can cause high fever,
severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause
miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weakened immune systems, such as infants, the
elderly and persons with HIV infection or undergoing chemotherapy.
Media and consumers with questions about the recall should call company
representative Jaya Bohlmann at (301) 346-1239.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual
representative available 24 hours a day at http://www.AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854)
is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Appeals Class Certification in “Ellis” Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. is appealing a decision granting class-action status
to a purported class action over alleged denial of promotion to certain
female managers of the company, according to the company’s June 15, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 13, 2007.
The case was brought as a class action on behalf of certain present and
former female managers, in which plaintiffs allege denial of promotion based
on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
California state law.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
interest and attorneys’ fees. Class certification was granted on Jan. 11,
2007.
On May 11, 2007, the Ninth Circuit granted a petition to hear Costco’s appeal
of the certification. Appellate briefing will begin in late August 2007.
On May 30, 2007, the District Court ordered a stay of this case during the
pendency of the appeal.
The suit is "Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Case No. 3:04-cv-03341-
MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.
Representing plaintiffs are:
James M. Finberg, Esq.
Lexi Joy Hazam, Esq.
Bill Lann Lee, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
275 Battery Street, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: 415-956-1000
Fax: 415-956-1008
E-mail: JFinberg@lchb.com
lhazam@lchb.com
blee@lchb.com
- and -
Jocelyn Dion Larkin, Esq.
Brad Seligman, Esq.
The Impact Fund, 125 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304
Fax: 510-845-3654
E-mail: jlarkin@impactfund.org
bs@impactfund.org
Representing defendants are:
David D. Kadue, Esq.
William Owen Kampf, Esq.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-201-5211 or 310-277-7200 x1515
Fax: 310-201-5219
E-mail: dkadue@seyfarth.com
wkampf@la.seyfarth.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Continues to Face “Barmak” Lawsuit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. continues to face a purported class action in Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles that was brought on behalf of certain
present and former Costco members.
The suit is “Barmak v. Costco Wholesale Corp., et al., Case No. BC348857.”
It asserts that the Company violated various provisions of the common law and
California statutes in connection with its former practice of paying
Executive Members who downgraded or terminated their memberships a 2% Reward
for less than twelve months of eligible purchases.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, restitution, injunctive relief,
attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and punitive damages.
The Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint in which the
Company had asked that the challenged practice, while it was still in effect,
was appropriately disclosed to Executive Members.
Counsel for the plaintiff in “Barmak” has also sent a letter purporting to
invoke consumer protection statutes in Massachusetts and Texas.
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: Faces Multiple “Motor Fuel Temperature” Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. faces numerous putative class actions that have been
brought around the U.S. against motor fuel retailers, including Costco,
alleging that they have been overcharging drivers by selling gasoline or
diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without adjusting the volume sold to
compensate for heat-related expansion or disclosing the effect of such
expansion on the energy equivalent received by the consumer. The suits are:
-- “Raphael Sagalyn, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);”
-- “Phyllis Lerner, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
Corporation, et al., Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.);”
-- “Linda A. Williams, et al. v. BP Corporation North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D. Ala.);”
-- “James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.);”
-- “Betty A. Delgado, et al. v. Allsups, Convenience
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202 (D.N.M.);”
-- “Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-285 (D. Nev.);”
-- “Mark Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.);”
-- “James Vanderbilt, et al. v. BP Corporation North
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D. Mo.);”
-- “Zachary Wilson, et al. v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-2582 (D. Kan.);” and
-- “Diane Foster, et al. v. BP North America Petroleum,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.).”
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and
costs, and prejudgment interest. At the present time, these cases are all at
a preliminary stage.
Certain defendants have filed a request to handle these cases as part of a
multidistrict litigation proceeding, entitled, “In re Motor Fuel Temperature
Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840.”
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has not yet ruled on this
request, according to the company’s 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: Faces Suits Over Membership Renewal Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corp. faces purported class actions over its membership
renewal practices, according to the company’s June 15, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 13, 2007.
One the suits is “Evans, et ano., v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No.
BC351869,” which was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California.
The other suit is “Dupler v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Index No. 06-007555,”
which was commenced in the Supreme Court of Nassau County, New York and
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
The suits are asserting that the Company violated various provisions of
California and New York common law and statutes in connection with a
membership renewal practice.
Under that practice, members who pay their renewal fees late generally have
their twelve-month membership renewal periods commence at the time of the
prior year’s expiration rather than the time of the late payment.
Plaintiffs in these two actions seek compensatory damages, restitution,
disgorgement, preliminary and permanent injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorneys’ fees and costs, prejudgment interest and, in Evans, punitive
damages.
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.
DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Tenn. Over Buck Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nashville, Tenn. Court consolidated several class actions against Dollar
General Corp. over its agreement and plan of merger with Buck Holdings L.P.
and Buck Acquisition Corp.
Initially, seven purported class actions were filed. The suits are alleging
claims for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of the proposed sale of the
company to Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., the parent of Buck Holdings
and Buck Acquisition.
Each of the complaints alleged, among other things, that Dollar General’s
directors engaged in “self-dealing” by agreeing to recommend the transaction
to the shareholders of Dollar General and that the consideration available to
Dollar General shareholders in the proposed transaction is unfairly low.
On motion of the plaintiffs, each of these cases was transferred to the Sixth
Circuit Court for Davidson County, Twentieth Judicial District, at Nashville.
By order April 26, 2007, the seven lawsuits were consolidated in the Court
under the caption, “In re: Dollar General,” Case No. 07MD-1.
On May 23, 2007, the Court entered an order requiring the plaintiffs in the
consolidated actions to file a consolidated complaint within 30 days.
According to the terms of the order, the consolidated complaint will
supersede all previously filed complaints.
Dollar General Corp. -- http://www.dollargeneral.com-- is a discount
retailer of general merchandise at everyday low prices. Through its stores,
the Company offers a focused assortment of basic consumable merchandise,
including health and beauty aids, packaged food and refrigerated products,
home cleaning supplies, housewares, stationery, seasonal goods, basic
clothing and domestics. Dollar General stores serve primarily low-, middle-
and fixed-income families.
FOSTER WHEELER: Penn. TCE Pollution Suit Settlement Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge A. Richard Caputo of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval to a $1.64
million settlement of a lawsuit over trichloroethylene (TCE) ground
contamination in Pennsylvania, Rory Sweeney of the Timesdealer.com reports.
The settlement doesn’t include testing and a medical-monitoring trust fund
requested in the lawsuit, the report said.
In March 2006, a complaint was filed by Sarah Martin and Jeffrey Martin
against Foster Wheeler Energy before the Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne
County, Pennsylvania. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania.
The complaint was filed on behalf of the Martins and more than 25 others
similarly situated whose wells were contaminated with a hazardous substance
TCE that was released at the company's site. The complaint seeks to recover
costs of environmental remediation and continued environmental monitoring of
alleged class members' property, diminution in property value, costs
associated with obtaining healthy water, the establishment of a medical
monitoring trust fund, statutory, treble and punitive damages and interest
and the costs of the suit.
In April 2007, the court in the Martin case preliminarily approved a class
action settlement (Class Action Reporter, May 24, 2007).
Under the terms of the preliminary settlement, the company would pay the
class and its counsel a total of approximately $1,600,000 in exchange for a
release by class members of all claims with respect to the matters that are
the subject of the litigation. The release would not extend to the claims of
those who opt-out of the settlement.
The class, which is agreed upon only for the purposes of the settlement,
consists of three categories of persons who own or live on property in, or
within approximately 150 feet of, the area in which TCE is inferred to exist
in the groundwater:
-- The 37 Category 1 properties, where TCE contaminated
functioning wells, are estimated to be eligible for
$25,000 each;
-- The 79 Category 2 properties, where contamination exists
but no wells were in use, will likely be eligible for
$4,800 each; and
-- The 31 Category 3 properties, to where, according to
Thomas More Marrone -- attorney for the plaintiffs –
it’s “reasonably likely that the (TCE) plume will
migrate,” are eligible for approximately $3,000 each.
In agreeing to the settlement, Foster Wheeler accepts no responsibility for
the contamination, which was discovered in residential wells along Church
Road, Sunset Gardens and South Mountain Boulevard in October 2004.
Additionally, the settlement doesn’t seek to remediate the contamination or
compensate for any potentially related health problems, neither of which were
aims of the lawsuit.
According to settlement documentation, it seems likely that at least one
possible claimant, Gary Prezkop, will forego the settlement to pursue an
individual lawsuit.
Though any property owned within a defined “affected area” is eligible for
compensation, 147 properties have been specifically identified.
As the named class representatives, Jeffrey and Sarah Martin will receive an
extra $10,000, Mr. Sweeney said.
The estimates are based on full participation and an assumption of almost
$537,000 in costs, including attorneys’ fees. To be eligible, claimants must
complete several requirements, including hooking up to a public water supply,
which would be paid for by Foster Wheeler.
An additional $40,000 was made available to compensate for property damage
caused by water when the polluted wells were capped.
The settlement should be finalized at a fairness hearing before U.S. District
Court Judge A. Richard Caputo scheduled for Aug. 6.
The suit is "Martin et al. v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Case
No. 3:06-cv-00878-ARC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania under Judge A. Richard Caputo.
Representing the defendants are:
Kerry A. Dziubek, Esq.
Arnold & Porter
399 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-715-1022
E-mail: kerry.dziubek@aporter.com
- and -
Marianne J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Stevens & Lee, PC
425 Spruce St.
Ste 300
Scranton, PA 18503
Phone: (570) 343-1827
E-mail: mjg@stevenslee.com
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Thomas W. Grammer, Esq.
Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock
1845 Walnut St.
25th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-567-8300
E-mail: tgrammer@feldmanshepherd.com\
- and -
John Krisa, Esq.
Krisa, McDonough, Cosgrove & Krisa, P.C.
Route 6
Scranton Carbondale Highway
Blakely, PA 18447
Phone: 717-383-3205
GREAT LAKES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of “Reed” Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported property damage class action, "Reed v. USA et
al.,” are appealing the dismissal of their complaint, which names Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Co. as a defendant.
The case was filed on April 24, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana with regards to the dredging operation at the
Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO).
The was brought on behalf of citizens of Louisiana who suffered property
damage from the waters that flooded New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit
the area.
The suit names the company along with numerous other dredging companies who
have completed projects on behalf of the Army Corps of Engineers in the MRGO,
and the federal government as defendants.
The complaint alleges that dredging of MRGO caused the destruction of the
Louisiana wetlands, which provide a natural barrier against storms and
hurricanes.
This loss of natural barriers then contributed to the failure of the levees
upon the impact of Hurricane Katrina, which allowed the floodwaters to damage
plaintiffs' property.
The company is accused of negligence in violation of the Water Pollution
Control Act, among others. The amount of damages was not stated.
On March 9, 2007, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the Reed claim
against Great Lakes and plaintiffs in that case have filed an appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
The suit is "Reed v. USA et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02152-SRD-
JCW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
under Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr. with referral to Judge Joseph C.
Wilkinson, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Camilo Kossy Salas, III, Esq.
Salas & Co. L.C.
650 Poydras St., Suite 1650
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: 504-799-3080
E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq.
The Law Offices of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H
Reserve, LA 70084
Phone: 985-536-1186
E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
- and -
John Francis Nevares, Esq.
John F. Nevares & Associates
P.O. Box 13667
San Juan, PR 00908-3667
Phone: 787-722-9333
E-mail: jfnevares-law@microjuris.com
Representing the defendants is:
James H. Roussel, Eqs.
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Phone: 504-566-5278
E-mail: jroussel@bakerdonelson.com
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Still Faces Consolidated Suit Over Smart Chips
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. remains a defendant in "Smart Chips" suits consolidated
in a single proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
The Company faces several lawsuits filed in California State and Federal
Courts, over its use of "smart chips" that allegedly signal to the customer
that certain inkjet printer cartridges need to be replaced before they are
really empty, and include an expiration date that is allegedly not documented
in marketing materials provided to consumers.
The first suit, styled "Tyler v. HP," was filed in state court in Santa
Clara, California on February 17, 2005, alleging that the Company engaged in
wrongful business practices (including unfair competition, deceptive
advertising, fraud and deceit, breach of express and implied warranty, and
breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing).
Among other things, plaintiffs alleged that the Company engineered "smart
chip" inkjet cartridges for use in certain inkjet printers to register ink
depletion prematurely and to render the cartridge unusable through a built-in
expiration date that is hidden, not documented in marketing materials to
consumers, or both.
Plaintiffs also contend that consumers received false ink depletion warnings
and that the design of the smart chip cartridge limits the ability of
consumers to use the cartridge to its full capacity or to choose competitive
products.
On Feb. 17, 2005, and March 18, 2005, lawsuits captioned
"Obi v. HP" and "Weingart v. HP," respectively, were filed in state court in
Los Angeles, California with similar allegations.
The parties agreed to coordinate these cases, and, on May 25, 2005, the court
granted the petition for coordination and recommended that the matters be
coordinated in state court in
Santa Clara, California.
The suit, styled "Grabell v. HP," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey on March 18, 2005 and asserts causes of action
under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and for unjust enrichment and breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The allegations in the Grabell case are substantively identical to those
in "Tyler" and "Obi."
"Just v. HP" is another federal class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 20, 2005 and
asserts causes of action under the New York General Business Law 349/350 and
for unjust enrichment and breach of the implied covenants of good faith and
fair dealing. The allegations in the Just case substantially identical to the
past four cases.
The suits, "Feder v. HP" and "Ciolino v. Hewlett-Packard Company," were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on June
16, 2005, and Sept. 6, 2005, respectively. Both the "Feder" and "Ciolino"
suits entail allegations similar to the state court cases.
Additionally, on Jan. 17, 2007, an additional lawsuit captioned, “Blennis v.
HP” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California with allegations substantially the same as those consolidated
in “In re Inkjet Printer Litigation.”
All of these actions are putative class actions, which seek certification of
a statewide class, a nationwide class, or both, "of purchasers of inkjet
printers which use cartridges, that contain a chip, or other device, which
prematurely register that the cartridge is empty or expired, and/or
purchasers of HP inkjet cartridges with such technology."
The plaintiffs in all of these cases also seek restitution, damages
(including enhanced damages), injunctive relief, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees.
The suit is styled, "In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, Case
No. 5:05-cv-03580-JF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel with referral to Judge
Patricia V. Trumbull.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
Cotchett Pitre & Simon
S.F. Airport Office Center, 840 Malcolm Road, Ste. 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: 650.697.6000
Fax: 650.692.3606
E-mail: bsimon@cpsmlaw.com
Representing the defendants is:
Sally J. Berens, Esq.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Phone: 650-849-5300
Fax: 650-849-5333
E-mail: sberens@gibsondunn.com
HOME DEPOT: Fifth Circuit Reverses Ruling in Mo. Shopper's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 5th District appellate court reversed a Madison County judge’s decision
to try a Missouri statutory law in Illinois state court, Joe Harris of the
CourtHouse News Service reports.
The Lakin firm filed the suit in 2002 for Madison County
(Ill.) resident Janet Chochorowski, who rented a tiller for $25 at Home Depot
in Brentwood, Missouri. She claimed the store improperly charged a 10
percent damage waiver fee of $2.50, and proposed a class action under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and similar laws of other states.
In light of a 2005 Illinois Supreme Court decision that threw out a
Williamson County verdict in "Avery v. State Farm," and declared that the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act applied only to transactions in Illinois, the
Lakin firm amended Ms. Chochorowski's complaint. It dropped her claim under
Illinois law and initiated a claim under Missouri law.
Home Depot moved to dismiss on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing
that Ms. Chochorowski should sue in Missouri. Madison County Circuit Judge
Daniel Stack denied Home Depot's motion.
Michael Nester of Belleville appealed for Home Depot in June. Phillip Bock of
Chicago, an associate in many Lakin suits, answered in October that Illinois
venue rules applied.
At a Feb. 8 oral argument before the appellate court, Home Depot Inc.
attorney Dwight Davis of Atlanta, said the Missouri Merchandising Act
specifies that consumers with fraud claims can sue in Missouri circuit courts
(Class Action Reporter, March 2, 2007).
Judge Stephen Spomer agreed, finding that “courts cannot generally interfere
with the legislature’s province in determining whether venue is proper.”
Judge Spomer ruled that while an Illinois court may apply its general venue
statute to cases in which another state’s law will provide the rule of
decision, when a venue requirement is part of the statute that creates
another cause of action, that requirement constitutes an integral part of the
statute.
As a result, Illinois courts cannot use its general venue law to circumvent
that venue limitation of another state’s statute.
The plaintiff's attorney is:
Gail Renshaw
The Lakin Law Firm, P.C.
300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229,
Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.)
Phone: 618-254-1127
Telecopier: 618-254-0193
NIDO LLC: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
NIDO LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed June 7 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, the Courthouse News Service
reports.
Named plaintiff Jose Gilberto Longas alleges denial of overtime compensation,
a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The suit is “Longas v. NIDO LLC et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21476-CMA,” filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 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 (fax)
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
NISOURCE INC: Judge Upholds $404M Award in W.Va. Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The judge presiding over a natural gas royalties dispute involving the
state’s biggest gas drillers upheld a jury’s $404 million verdict against the
companies, The Charleston Gazette’s Joe Morris reports.
According to Judge Tom Evans of Roane County Circuit Court, West Virginia,
the jury’s discovery of fraud or the extent of damages do not deserve to be
overturned.
Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in early 2003 against Columbia Natural Resources
(CNR) alleging that CNR underpaid royalties on gas produced on their land by
improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair value for
the gas. Plaintiffs also claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed
the deduction of post-production charges.
In December 2004, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to add NiSource, Inc.
and Columbia Energy Group as defendants. Columbia Natural is a former
NiSource subsidiary, which was sold in 2003.
On Jan. 27, 2007, the jury hearing the case returned a verdict against all
defendants in the amount of $404.3 million; this is comprised of $134.3
million in compensatory damages and $270 million in punitive damages.
The defendants filed motions with the trial court challenging the award and
the trial court held a hearing in March on these motions.
Defendants are planning to appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals. NiSource said in a statement that they’re confident the Supreme
Court will overturn the circuit court’s decision and that “punitive damages
are not justified in this case.”
The suit is "Tawney, et al. v. Columbia Natural Resources, Inc.," filed in
West Virginia Circuit Court for Roane County under Judge Thomas Evans III
(Class Action Reporter May 28, 2007).
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Marvin Masters, Esq.
181 Summers Street
Charleston, West Virginia 25301
Phone: 304-342-3106
Fax: 304-342-3189
Representing the defendants is:
Timothy Miller, Esq.
400 Fifth Third Center, 700 Virginia St., P.O. Box 1791
Charleston, West Virginia 25326
Phone: 304-344-5800
Fax: 304-344-9566
NORTH DAKOTA: Fargo Resident Sues Over City’s Traffic Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fargo City in North Dakota is facing a federal class action for charging
motorists traffic violation fines that are higher than what is being imposed
by the state, Dave Kolpack of the Associated Press reports.
Fargo day care worker Stephanie Sauby brought the federal suit on behalf of
all drivers who have paid excessive fines since Aug. 30, 2001.
Ms. Sauby claims the city has overcharged her at five different occasions,
twice for speeding and twice for not wearing her seat belt. In one incident,
she was charged $60 for failure to control her automobile while the state
only charges $30.
The complaint challenges the constitutionality of the high fines the city
imposes on motorists for traffic offenses. It is asking the court for a
class-action status, which would possibly include hundreds of motorists.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Webb said the state Supreme Court must decide
first whether state law allows cities with home-rule charters to charge
higher fines for traffic violations than the state does. Until North Dakota
Supreme Court rules on the issue, the case can’t proceed.
The city previously requested for the lawsuit’s dismissal, which the judge
denied.
According to plaintiff’s attorney Tim Purdon, three Fargo district court
judges have ruled that the city should not be charging more than the state
for traffic fines. He strongly believes the case has merit.
City Attorney Mike Miller is defending the city.
For more information, contact the plaintiffs’ counsel:
Timothy Q. Purdon, Esq.
Vogel Law Firm
U.S. Bank Building, 200 N. 3rd Street, Suite 201
P.O. Box 2097
Bismarck, North Dakota 58502-2097
Phone: 701-258-7899
Fax: 701-258-9705
Web Site: http://www.vogellaw.com
PATHMARK STORES: Faces N.J. Lawsuits Over Great Atlantic Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pathmark Stores, Inc. faces purported class actions in New
Jersey over a definitive merger agreement in which The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. (A&P) will acquire the company.
It was recently announced that The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.,
and Pathmark Stores, Inc., have reached a definitive merger agreement in
which A&P will acquire Pathmark Stores, Inc., for $1.3 billion in cash, stock
and debt assumption or retirement, creating a 550-store, $11 billion
supermarket chain operating in the New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia
metro areas, as well as in Baltimore/Washington DC, Michigan, and Louisiana.
On March 6, 2007, Chris Larson, a stockholder in the company, filed in the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, a purported
class action complaint against the company and its directors.
The complaint asserts on behalf of a purported class of the company's
stockholders' claims against the defendants for alleged self-dealing and
breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the merger.
It seeks:
-- an injunction of the merger unless and until the
company adopts and implements certain procedures to
obtain the highest possible price for its stockholders;
-- imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
plaintiffs, upon any benefits received by defendants as
a result of their alleged wrongful conduct; and
-- recovery of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.
Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise responded, to the complaint.
In a related action, on March 12, 2007, Sarah Kleinmann, a stockholder in the
Company, also filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County a purported class action complaint against the Defendants,
as defined in the above paragraph, and A&P.
The Kleinmann Complaint asserts similar claims and seeks the same relief as
the Larson Complaint. Defendants have not filed answers, or otherwise
responded, to the Kleinmann Complaint as of this date.
Pathmark Stores, Inc. -- http://www.pathmark.com/-- is a supermarket chain
in New York, New Jersey and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, operating as a
single segment.
PEP BOYS: Calif. Store Associates Sue Over Employment Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack faces purported class actions that were filed
by California store associates who were accusing the company of violating
employment laws.
During the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007, the Company
has served with four separate lawsuits brought by former associates employed
in California.
Each of which lawsuits purports to be a class action on behalf of all current
and former California store associates.
One or more of the lawsuits claim that the plaintiff was not paid for:
-- overtime,
-- accrued vacation time,
-- all time worked (i.e. “off the clock” work) and/or
-- late or missed meal periods or rest breaks.
The plaintiffs also allege that the Company violated certain record keeping
requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged violations.
The lawsuits:
-- claim these alleged practices are unfair business
practices,
-- request back pay, restitution, penalties, interest and
attorney fees, and
-- request that the Company be enjoined from committing
further unfair business practices.
The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack -- http://www.pepboys.com/-- is an automotive
retail and service chain. The Company operates in one industry, the
automotive aftermarket. It is engaged principally in the retail sale of
automotive parts, tires and accessories, automotive repairs and maintenance
and the installation of parts.
RC2 CORP: Hagens Berman Files Lawsuit Over Recalled Railway Toys
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed on June 29 a second class action against
the 'Thomas the Train' toy manufacturer RC2 Corp. (Nasdaq: RCRC), this time
seeking redress for diagnostic testing required for the named plaintiffs'
children who have been exposed to the dangerous toys.
Earlier, RC2 Corp. of Oak Brook, Ill., 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).
Despite the recall, the company is not offering a reimbursement program for
the dangerous toys, but will exchange the dangerous one for a new, ostensibly
safer toy.
Subsequently, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action in
U.S. District Court in Illinois on behalf of a Chicago parent after learning
the toys were manufactured using highly toxic lead paint putting children at
a serious health risk (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2007).
The recently 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, acted
negligently in product design and is responsible for medical monitoring of
children who have been exposed to the toys.
The complaint includes two named plaintiffs who are seeking to recover the
costs of blood tests necessary to detect lead poisoning in their children
resulting from RC2's actions. Hagens Berman expects this second filing to be
one of many more lawsuits to come from outraged parents.
"The manufacturer isn't stepping up to the plate for these families, and more
importantly, their children," said Steve Berman, lead counsel and managing
partner at HBSS. "It is unfortunate that we have to push for the protection
and well being of these kids -- one would think it would be common sense to
ensure the safety of your customers."
The new complaint states, "early detection through medical testing of lead
poisoning is made necessary and advisable by the Defendants' manufacturing,
marketing, and sale of the Thomas Toys painted with lead pigment."
All of the plaintiffs have children under the age of five who sleep, eat and
carry their Thomas toys everywhere.
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.
According to the complaint the plaintiffs are not interested in replacement
toys, but want to be refunded for the hazardous toys the company allowed to
come into customers' homes and for any costs of medical testing and checkups.
One of the named plaintiffs, John O'Leary, claims his sons have spent every
waking hour playing with their trains, including inviting them to dinner,
sleeping with them and putting the toys in their mouths. After learning of
the hazardous substance Mr. O'Leary returned all of the boys' toys and
believes the defendant should take responsibility for the danger they have
put his family in, the complaint states.
"In the last week it has become clear as day to me that parents around the
country they feel like their families have unnecessarily been put in harms
way and there is an unmistakable rage for the way RC2 is handling itself and
the manner in which it is treating this issue," said Mr. Berman.
The named plaintiff in the original lawsuit, 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 Mr. Berman, she wonders about
the long-term health effects on her children.
The hazardous toys were sold at various retailers throughout the U.S. from
January 2005 through June 2007. The Thomas Toys are made with yellow and red
surface paints containing lead and it is estimated that at least 1.5 million
of the toys out there contain lead paint.
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
REGISTERFLY INC: Hagens Files Suit Over Internet Domain Names
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a nationwide class action against
Registerfly.com -- obtaining a temporary restraining order freezing
defendants' assets -- against Registerfly.com, an online domain registration
site.
The suit claims the company has cheated customers and failed on numerous
occasions to meet its own contract agreements.
Named plaintiff brought the case to Hagens Berman after 14 domain URLs he
registered through Registerfly failed be to renewed or transferred as
promised and despite numerous conversations with the company's
claimed 'excellent customer service' department.
"This suit is coming as a reaction from several misguided and illegal steps
by Registerfly," said Steve Berman, lead attorney from Hagens Berman. "The
company's inability to meet its own predetermined customer commitments shows
a strong disregard for the consumers' rights." According to the complaint
this lawsuit isn't the first to bring into question Registerfly's business
practices.
In early 2007 two vendors threatened termination of contract with Registerfly
based on numerous customer complaints, its continued non-adherence to
transfer regulations and its failure to provide adequate customer service to
registrants, the complaint states.
Additionally in February 2007 an internal lawsuit was brought on by
Registerfly against a partial owner of the company, Kevin Medina, seeking a
buy-out of his ownership. The complaint states the company lost 75,000 domain
names for its customers since January 2007 due to Medina's malfeasance and
alleged that he wasted corporate assets.
"It is clear from the recent history of this company that the ownerships'
inability to act lawfully has translated directly into its dealings with
customers," said Mr. Berman.
The recently filed class action seeks to recover loses for the named
plaintiff and all consumers who have purchased and lost a domain name through
Registerfly since August 11, 2004 until present.
"The company claims they have registered over 2 million Web addresses, so we
expect the scope of their failed contracts to be widespread," said Mr.
Berman.
According to the complaint the plaintiff not only lost monetary damages for
the services he paid for and didn't receive, but the domain names lost were
registered for business purposes. The suit seeks redress for the loss of
business as a result of consumers not being able to connect with his services
at existing URLs and for all others similarly in his position.
Registerfly claims to be 'the single source for all of your internet presence
needs.' Handling domain name registration, URL renewals, domain transfers,
hosting, e-commerce, Web design, blogging and e-mail services.
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
ROBERT'S AMERICAN: Recalls Snack Foods Prone to Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert's American Gourmet Food, Inc. of Sea Cliff, New York is recalling
Veggie Booty Snack Food all lots and sizes, 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.
ROHM & HAAS: Court Denies MRI Test Request for Penn. Workers
------------------------------------------------------------
A Commonwealth Court panel has denied a Philadelphia lawyer's attempt to seek
regular MRI screenings for 6,000 current and former employees of a Rohm &
Haas Co. research facility in Spring House, Montgomery County (Penn.), Tom
Avril of The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
The court said in its decision that the law did not provide for the Bureau of
Workers’ Compensation to handle the issue as a class action. However, the
plaintiffs may still file claims individually and that the bureau could
consolidate these claims.
Plaintiff lawyer Aaron Freiwald said the regular screenings were supposed to
be for those who have not yet developed brain tumor but worry they would get
it.
In 2002, it was found out that at least 10 of more than 5,600 employees had
developed brain tumors. A company doctor later estimated the tumor rate
might be as much as five times normal, according to documents obtained by The
Inquirer.
In fact, twelve employees of Rohm & Haas have died of brain cancer.
Mr. Freiwald sought before the Commonwealth Court in Philadelphia routine
tumor screenings for anyone who has worked at the facility since it opened in
1963.
He approached the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, which normally deals with
workplace issues, but a class action is something new to it, so he opted to
go to court (Class Action Reporter, April 23, 2007).
Lawyers’ contact information:
Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq.
Layser & Freiwald, P.C., 1500
Walnut Street, 18th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Phone: 215-875-8000
Fax: 215-875-8575
Web site: http://www.lflawoffice.com
- and -
Ralph G. Wellington, Esq.
Schnader Harrison
Segal & Lewis LLP
Suite 3600, 1600 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-7286
Phone: 215-751-2000
Fax: 215-751-2205
Web Site: http://www.schnader.com
SHARP HEALTHCARE: Nurses File Suit in Cal. Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several nurses filed a potentially multi-million dollar class action against
Sharp HealthCare in San Diego Superior Court Thursday, according to
10News.com.
The suit alleges that the firm violated the state law for failing to
compensate its employees for overtime rendered.
It states that Sharp forced the licensed nurses into not declaring total
hours worked "by, among other things, disciplining the registered nurses who
reported overtime and working through their meal and rest periods."
United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals
president Kathy Sackman said a number of nurses do not get paid for lost
meals, breaks and overtime.
Ms. Sackman added the suit demonstrates the firm’s "unwillingness to
adequately staff its hospitals and stubborn refusal to work collaboratively
with its nurses to tackle this problem."
According to John Cihomsky, Sharp’s spokesman, the complaint is the nurses’
tactic to put pressure on the company at the bargaining table while both
parties are drafting a new contract.
Based on the state law, employers are obliged to give meal periods and breaks
to almost all employees, including nurses, who are paid per hour. Should
employees be unable to take their breaks, they are entitled to get fair
compensation for that time. Likewise, those who work beyond their shifts,
especially nurses, must also be fairly compensated.
TJX COS: Faces Suits in U.S., Canada Over Customer Data Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
TJX Companies, Inc. is a defendant in several purported class actions in both
Canada and the U.S. over computer intrusions, according to the company’s June
7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended April 28, 2007.
Putative class actions have been filed against TJX in state and federal
courts in Alabama, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and
Puerto Rico, and in provincial Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of
customers, including all customers in the United States, Puerto Rico and
Canada, whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by computer
intrusions, and putative class actions have also been filed against TJX in
federal court in Massachusetts putatively on behalf of all financial
institutions which issued credit and debit cards purportedly used at TJX
stores during the period of computer intrusions.
The actions assert claims, generally, for negligence and related common-law
and/or statutory causes of action stemming from the Computer Intrusion, and
seek various forms of relief including damages, related injunctive or
equitable remedies, multiple or punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.
Several actions and consolidated complaints have been filed, aside from those
mentioned above.
Robinson Litigation
On April 17, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, entitled, “Robinson v. TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-02139.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons and entities in
the United States and Canada who entered into credit or debit card
transactions, or any other transaction which involved the transmission of
personal and/or financial information, with TJX whose personal and/or
financial information was stored in defendants’ databases and/or computer
systems during the time-period that security was compromised.
The complaint asserts a claim for negligence, and also names Fifth Third
Bancorp as a defendant.
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, credit monitoring,
attorneys’ fees and costs.
Arians Litigation
On April 18, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. Court for
the District of Massachusetts, entitled, “Arians, et al. v. TJX Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-10754.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all TJX customers who made
credit and debit card transactions at TJX’s stores during the period that the
security of defendant’s computer systems was compromised and the privacy or
security of whose credit card, check card, or debit card account,
transaction, or non-public information was compromised.
The complaint asserts claims for negligence per se, negligence, breach of
contract and bailment, and also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, credit
monitoring, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Mascolo-Brown Litigation
On April 20, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled, “Mascolo-Brown, et al. v.
TJX Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-10769.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all TJX customers who made
credit and debit card transactions at TJX’s stores during the period that the
security of defendant’s computer systems was compromised and the privacy or
security of whose credit card, check card, or debit card account,
transaction, or non-public information was compromised.
The complaint asserts claims for negligence per se, negligence, breach of
contract and bailment, and also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, credit
monitoring, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Massachusetts Bankers Litigation
On April 25, 2007, a putative class action was filed against TJX in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, entitled, “Massachusetts
Bankers Association, et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-10791.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of financial institutions that
have suffered damages and/or harm as a result of data breaches with respect
to personal and financial information of customers who used debit or credit
cards at TJX’s retail stores.
The complaint asserts claims for negligent misrepresentation, violations of
Massachusetts General Laws, c. 93A, Section 11, negligence and breach of
contract.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages with respect to the
statutory violation claim, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and
interest.
Wardrop Litigation
On April 30, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Michigan, entitled, “Wardrop v. TJX
Companies, Inc., Case No. 07-cv-00430.”
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons whose personal,
financial and/or transaction data was accessed by unauthorized persons while
in the possession, custody or control of TJX.
The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract and bailment.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, a fund to
compensate future damages, credit monitoring, attorneys’ fees, interest and
costs.
Taliaferro Litigation
On May 17, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, entitled, “Taliaferro, et al. v. TJX
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-00388.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all TJX customers who made
credit and debit card transactions at TJX’s stores during the period that the
security of defendants’ computer systems was compromised and the privacy or
security of whose credit card, check card, or debit card account,
transaction, or non-public information was compromised.
The complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of
contract and bailment, and also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, injunctive relief, credit
monitoring, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Lack Litigation
On May 23, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, entitled, “Lack, et al. v. TJX Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-00233.”
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of themselves and all other
similarly situated persons and entities in Texas who had sensitive personal
information stolen and/or compromised as a result of the TJX breach.
The complaint asserts claims for violations of the Texas Identity Theft
Enforcement and Protection Act, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract and bailment, and also names Fifth
Third Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.
Lamb Litigation
On May 23, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, entitled, “Lamb v. TJX Companies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 07-cv-00379.”
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons or entities in
Missouri who entered into credit or debit card transactions, or any other
transaction which involved the transmission of personal and/or financial
information, with TJX whose personal and/or financial information was stored
in defendants’ databases and/or computer systems during the time-period that
security was compromised.
The complaint asserts a claim for negligence, and also names Fifth Third
Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiff seeks credit monitoring, injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Roberts Litigation
On May 23, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, entitled, “Roberts v. TJX Companies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 07-cv-02887.”
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all other similarly situated
persons or entities in Illinois who had sensitive personal information stolen
and/or compromised as a result of the TJX breach.
The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
negligence per se, breach of contract and bailment, and also names Fifth
Third Bancorp as a defendant.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, interest and costs.
Mace Litigation
“Mace v. TJX Companies, Inc.,” which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts has been administratively designated as the
lead case with respect to all actions pending in the District of
Massachusetts, which have been consolidated.
In those consolidated proceedings, a consolidated customer complaint naming
TJX and Fifth Third Bancorp as defendants was filed on May 9, 2007, in which
several named customer plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all persons
or entities in the United States who shopped at TJX’s stores in the United
States, made a purchase or return, have had personal or financial data stolen
or compromised from TJX’s computer systems, and who were damaged thereby.
The consolidated customer complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of
contract, breach of implied contract, and violations of Massachusetts Gen.
Laws ch. 93A, Section 9 and 11 and seeks compensatory damages, treble damages
as to the statutory violation claim, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees,
interest and costs.
The TJX Companies, Inc. -- http://www.tjx.com-- is an off-price retailer of
apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company sells and
distributes off-price family apparel and home fashions through its TJ. Maxx,
Marshalls and A.J. Wright chains in the United States; its Winners chain in
Canada, and through the T.K. Maxx chain in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
TJX sells off-price home fashions through its HomeGoods chain in the United
States and its Canadian HomeSense chain, operated by Winners. The target
customer for all of the Company's off-price chains, except A.J. Wright, is
the middle to upper-middle income shopper, with the same profile as a
department or specialty store customer. TJX also operates Bob's Stores, a
branded apparel chain based in the Northeast United States that offers casual
and family apparel.
TOUSA INC: Mezzanine Lenders Settlement Not to Hamper Fla. Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement agreement entered into by TOUSA, Inc. (formerly Technical
Olympic USA Inc.) with the senior and junior mezzanine lenders to the
Transeastern JV does not suspend the lawsuits by stockholder plaintiffs
seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, the company said in a statement.
TOUSA announced earlier that it had entered into a settlement agreement with
the senior and junior mezzanine lenders to the Transeastern JV and has now
reached a global consensual resolution with all participants in the
Transeastern JV including: the senior lenders, the mezzanine lenders, the JV
partner and land bankers.
The global settlement would be financed by TOUSA's issuance of new equity and
debt securities including a new $500 million senior secured credit facility
underwritten by Citibank.
The full amount of the debt to the Transeastern JV senior secured lenders,
$400 million plus approximately $22.7 million of interest will be repaid in
cash resolving all claims of the Transeastern JV senior secured lenders.
The Company expects to close the global settlement with the lenders on or
about July 31, 2007, subject to closing conditions.
Class Actions
Beginning in December 2006, various stockholder plaintiffs brought lawsuits
seeking class-action status. The actions allege that Technical Olympic and
certain of its current and former officers violated the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose:
-- certain guaranties entered into by Technical Olympic in
connection with the Transeastern JV's acquisition of
Transeastern Properties, Inc. and related potential
liability;
-- declining conditions in the housing market in Florida;
and
-- that, as a consequence of market declines, Technical
Olympic could lose value in its investment in the joint
venture.
One of the complaints also alleges that the defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933 by omitting material facts about the financing of the
Transeastern Properties acquisition from the offering materials related to
Technical Olympic's September 2005 offering of common stock.
Plaintiffs in each of these actions seek compensatory damages, plus fees and
costs, on behalf of themselves and the putative class of purchasers of
Technical Olympic common stock and purchasers and sellers of options on
Technical Olympic common stock.
At a hearing held March 29, 2007, the court granted consolidation of the
actions and heard arguments on the appointment of the lead plaintiff and
counsel (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2007).
The is "George Durgin, et al. v. Technical Olympic USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 06-CV-61844," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida under Judge Kenneth A. Marra with referral to Judge Linnea R.
Johnson.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Stuart Andrew Davidson, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-750-3000
Fax: 561-750-3364
E-mail: sdavidson@lerachlaw.com
Representing the company is:
David Paul Ackerman, Esq.
Ackerman Link & Sartory
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 1250
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: 561-838-4100
Fax: 561-838-5305
E-mail: dackerman@alslaw.com
UNITED RETAIL: Faces Ill. Litigation Alleging FACTA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Retail, Inc., an operating subsidiary of United Retail Group, Inc.,
faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, alleging violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act of 2003 FACTA, an amendment to the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Ms. Earnestine Matthews, a customer of an AVENUE store in Illinois, filed the
suit (Case No. 07C 2487) on May 14, 2007.
The gist of the complaint in Matthews vs. United Retail Incorporated is an
allegation that the defendant willfully violated the FACTA.
The transaction asserted as the basis for this allegation is that the
plaintiff made a purchase on Dec. 15, 2006 and received from the defendant a
computer-generated cash register receipt that displayed her credit card
expiration date in purported violation of FACTA.
The defendant has filed an answer denying the material allegations of the
complaint; including a denial that any violation of FACTA by the defendant
alleged to have taken place was willful.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons in
Illinois to whom the defendant provided an electronically printed register
receipt after Dec. 4, 2006, which receipt displayed the expiration date of
the person’s credit or debit card.
The plaintiff seeks statutory damages and attorney’s fees. The statutory
damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation.
United Retail Group, Inc. -- http://www.unitedretail.com/-- is a specialty
retailer of large size women's fashions featuring its AVENUE brand. The
Company's product line features AVENUE brand wearing apparel, AVENUE BODY
brand undergarments and loungewear, AVENUE BODY brand hosiery, CLOUDWALKERS
brand footwear, and AVENUE brand accessories and gifts. The Company serves
the middle mass market in the United States and targets fashion-conscious
women between 25 and 55 years of age (with mean age at the mid 40’s) who wear
size 14 or larger apparel. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company had 402 stores in
strip shopping centers, 65 in malls and 17 in urban locations.
New Securities Fraud Cases
BRISTOL-MYERS: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action in the U.S. 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.
As alleged in the Complaint, on March 22, 2006, BMY announced that it, along
with Sanofi-Aventis S.A., had entered into a settlement agreement with
Apotex, Inc. (Apotex) to resolve a patent infringement lawsuit (Apotex
Settlement) related to its 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 in May 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.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Karen H. Riebel, Esq.
Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
MACY’S INC: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all common
stock purchasers of Macy's Inc. (f/k/a Federated Department Stores, Inc.)
from February 8, 2007 to May 15, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint charges Macy's and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Macy's operates department
stores in the United States and sells a range of merchandise, including
men's, women's, and children's apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home
furnishings, and other consumer goods.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company was not successfully converting
customers as a result of its new sales and promotional
strategies;
(2) as such, the Company's sales substantially diminished
as same-store sales dramatically declined;
(3) that interim sales data for the first quarter of 2007,
which was known to the defendants during the Class
Period, made the Company's guidance completely
unattainable; and
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial and operational statements were lacking in a
reasonable basis when made.
Prior to, and throughout the Class Period, Macy's provided positive sales
guidance to investors and financial analysts. This was based on the Company's
statements that they expected increased numbers of customers, and revenue, as
a result of the Company's new sales and promotional strategies. The Company
told investors that it expected same-store sales to increase by 2-3 percent.
However, on May 10, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced
that its same-store sales were in fact down 2.2 percent, in large part due to
the Company's failed sales and promotional strategies. Further, the Company
indicated that as a result of the failed promotional strategies, it now
expected same-store sales to continue to decrease going forward, into the
range of flat to down 2 percent. On this news, shares of the Company's stock
declined $1.72, or over 3.9 percent, to close on May 10, 2007 at $42.10 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Then on May 16, 2007, the Company reported its quarterly earnings for the
first quarter of 2007 and lowered its sales guidance for the second quarter,
and indicated that it expected same-store sales to be substantially lower
than previously provided to investors. On this news, shares of the Company's
stock declined an additional 2.35 percent, or $0.96 per share, to close on
May 15, 2007 at $39.94 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
As the truth emerged concerning the Company's failed strategies and
disappointing sales numbers, shares of the Company's stock declined a
cumulative $3.88 per share, or over 8.85 percent. The closing price of the
Company's stock on May 15, 2007 represented a cumulative decline of over 14
percent, or $6.57 per share, from the high value of the Company's stock
during the Class Period of $56.51, which was attained on March 23, 2007.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 3, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
NETLIST INC: The Pomerantz Firm Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a class action in the U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, against Netlist Inc. and
certain officers, on behalf of purchasers of the common stock, who purchased
or otherwise acquired common stock pursuant or traceable to the Company's
November 30, 2006 Initial Public Offering through April 16, 2007, inclusive.
The complaint alleges violations of Section 11, 12 (a) (2), and 15of the
Securities Exchange Act.
The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO, defendants
failed to disclose or indicate that, among other things:
(1) the Company's growth and operational strategies were
materially flawed;
(2) the Company was already experiencing the effects of an
oversaturated memory chip market, and that demand for
the Company's products had deteriorated substantially;
(3) the Company's products were not unique or well
positioned in the market;
(4) the Company encouraged its largest customers to order
and maintain excess inventory so that the Company would
appear financially stable; and
(5) due to these excessive inventory levels, the Company's
profit margins were quickly eroding in the memory chip
market.
In particular, on November 30, 2006 the Company conducted a successful IPO,
raising $43.70 million by selling 6.25 million shares of stock to the public
for $7.00 per share. Pursuant to the IPO, Company insiders, were eligible to
sell up to 937,500 shares of Company stock, of which they initially planned
to sell 812,500 shares, or 86 percent of the available allotment. At the
time of the IPO, the insiders sold all 937,500 shares, for gross proceeds of
over $6.5 million.
On April 16, 2007 the Company disclosed that its operating income would be
dramatically lower due to an oversupplied dynamic random access memory
market, which in turn affected the Company's pricing and gross margins on its
products.
Additionally, the Company revealed that it had experienced a lower than
expected demand from its largest customers for its high-end products, due to
excess inventory concerns, which had also significantly reduced demand for
the Company's products. As a result of this news, shares of the Company's
stock declined more than 28 percent, or $1.68 per share.
Interested parties may move the court no later than July 27, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
Netlist is headquartered in Irvine, California. The Company is a designer and
manufacturer of high performance memory subsystems, which are sold to
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") in the server, high performance
computing and communications markets.
For more information, contact:
Teresa Webb
Carolyn S. Moskowitz
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
Phone: (888) 476-6529 or (888) 4-POMLAW
E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com
PLEXUS CORP: Schiffrin Commences Securities Fraud Suit in Wis.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on behalf of
all common stock purchasers of Plexus Corp. from January 25, 2006 to July 27,
2006, inclusive.
The Complaint charges Plexus and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plexus is participant in
the electronics manufacturing services industry, providing product design,
test, manufacturing, fulfillment and aftermarket solutions to branded product
companies in the wireline/networking, wireless infrastructure, medical,
industrial/commercial and defense/security/aerospace industries.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:
(1) that the Company was experiencing softness in its
defense market segment and was not performing according
to internal expectations;
(2) that the Company's United Kingdom operations were in
decline and would have to be reorganized; and
(3) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about
the Company, its prospects and revenue growth rate.
On July 27, 2006, the Company shocked investors when it revealed, contrary to
prior statements, that it was lowering its previously issued earnings outlook
for the year, based in part on limited revenue growth. The Company's CEO was
forced to admit that "[the Company's] fourth quarter revenue outlook is
softer than we implied in our second quarter press release."
This was largely a consequence of lower production orders from the Company's
defense programs, since the Company did not realize that these orders came
from a sporadic ordering pattern, and were not constant. On this news, shares
of the Company's stock fell $10.71 per share, or approximately 32 percent, to
close at $22.89 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than August 24, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
XINHUA FINANCE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting
of purchasers of American Depository Shares of Xinhua Finance Media Ltd. who
purchased or otherwise acquired Xinhua shares pursuant or traceable to the
Company's March 8, 2007 Initial Public Offering through May 21, 2007,
inclusive.
The Complaint charges Xinhua and certain of the Company's executive officers
with violations of, among other things, Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933. Plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and
dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and management caused Xinhua's stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors.
The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate at the
time of the Company's IPO that:
(1) Company Chief Financial Officer Shelly Singhal's
company, Bedrock Securities, was accused by the NASD of
violating U.S. securities regulations;
(2) the Company's CFO had received a cease-and-desist order
from the NASD;
(3) the Company had failed to adequately conduct a due
diligence investigation prior to its IPO;
(4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On May 19, 2007, an article published in Barrons revealed that the Company
had failed to disclose that its CFO had received a cease-and-desist letter
from the NASD, and was accused of other improper behavior relating to
securities violations.
Additionally, it was revealed that a broker-dealer firm that the CFO owned
had been accused by the NASD of violating United States securities
regulations. As a result of this news, the Company's shares fell 11.8
percent, or $1.18 per share, to close on May 21, 2007 at $8.76 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Then, on May 21, 2007, the Company issued a statement concerning its IPO,
assuring investors that it fully complied with "all disclosure and due
diligence processes required in the United States." Investors, however,
reacted negatively, and in response the Company's shares fell an additional
18.9 percent, or $1.66 per share, to close on May 22, 2007 at $7.10 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than July 23, 2007 for lead
plaintiff appointment.
Xinhua operates as a diversified media company in the Peoples Republic of
China. The company operates in five divisions: Media Production,
Broadcasting, Print, Advertising, and Research.
For more information, contact:
Lionel Z. Glancy
Michael Goldberg
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
Los Angeles, California 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224
E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
Website: http://www.glancylaw.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 * * *