/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070716.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 16, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 138 Headlines AG EDWARDS: Faces Financial Consultants’ Suits in Several States A&K ENERGY: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation ALPHARMA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Claiming Non-payment of Overtime AMERICAN CLASSIC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination A&P: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Over Cell Phone Radiation GATEHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages GENESYS ASSOCIATES: Tex. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Basell Deal IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Yet to Respond to “Rosen” Deal JOE HENDERSON: Ala. Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Violation MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Part of DRAM Antitrust Suit MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger NATIONAL BEEF: Defendants in “Schumacher” Case Appeal Judgments PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Now Final POLY IMPLANTS: Dec. 6 Status Conference Set for “Schnebel” Case PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Dried Sweet Potato with Sulfites QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Upholds $15M Lawyers’ Fee REGAL 150: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages REPSOL YPF: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. SIRVA INC: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $53.5M Securities Suit Deal SOLECTRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Flextronics Merger SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal TOYS ‘R’ US: Faces $400M Suit in N.Y. Over “Biased” Inspections TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: 1st Circuit Hears Arguments in RICO Suit UMPC ST. MARGARET: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal UNITED STATES: San Diego Doctors’ Suit Alleges $2.B Underpayment UNITED STATES: Women CIA Spies Complain of Discrimination UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Disabled Workers Sue Over Dismissals UPMC SHADYSIDE: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal WINN-DIXIE STORES: Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit New Securities Fraud Cases MIDWAY GAMES: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit ********* AG EDWARDS: Faces Financial Consultants’ Suits in Several States ---------------------------------------------------------------- A.G. Edwards, Inc. faces separate lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of New York, the Southern District of Ohio, the District of New Jersey, the District of Oregon, the Western District of Pennsylvania, and the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in Pennsylvania. Each of the suits seeks to be a class action on behalf of defined groups of financial consultants or employees being trained to be financial consultants during specified periods that vary in each lawsuit. Each of the suits seeks, among other relief, overtime pay for the purported class members and two of the suits seek reimbursement of certain amounts deducted from commissions allegedly owed the employees or paid by the employees, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007. Missouri-based A.G. Edwards, Inc. -- http://www.agedwards.com/- - is a financial services holding company, which through its directly owned and indirectly owned subsidiaries provide securities and commodities brokerage, investment banking, trust, asset management, financial and retirement planning, insurance products, and other related financial services to individual, corporate, governmental, municipal and institutional clients through retail branch distribution systems. A&K ENERGY: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- A&K Energy Conservation, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Thomas E. Niederhelman alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Niederhelman v. A&K Energy Conservation, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01212-JSM-TBM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge James S. Moody, Jr. with referral to Judge Thomas B. McCoun, III. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: 407/420-1414 Fax: 407/423-7928 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com ALPHARMA INC: Faces N.J. Suit Claiming Non-payment of Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey against Fort Lee-based pharmaceutical company Alpharma, Inc. The suit alleges that more than 200 pharmaceutical sales representatives were denied overtime pay, in violation of state and federal labor laws. The complaint alleges that the company's pharmaceutical representatives have been paid for only forty hours a week even though they often work in excess of 55 hours per week. The complaint, which alleges violations of both state and federal wage and hour laws claims that in addition to not paying workers’ overtime the company violated federal record keeping requirements. The complaint also alleges that Alpharma Inc. is presently active in more than 60 countries. Alpharma has a growing branded pharmaceutical franchise in the chronic pain market. In addition, Alpharma is among the world's leading producers of several specialty pharmaceutical-grade bulk antibiotics, and is internationally recognized as a leading provider of pharmaceutical products for poultry and livestock. The company trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol ALO. For more information about the suit, contact: Reuben Guttman, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP 1920 L Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington D.C. 20036 Phone: 202-783-6091 Fax: 202-350-5908 - or - Robert Morgan, Esq. Morgan Carlo Downs & Everton Executive Plaza IV, Suite 100 11350 McCormick Rd. Hunt Valley, MD 21031 Phone: 410-584-2800 x102 Fax: 410-584-2020 E-mail: RCMorgan@morgancarlo.com AMERICAN CLASSIC: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Labor Code Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- American Classic Cleaners LLC and L.D. Enterprises of South Florida, Inc. are facing a class-action complaint filed July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Marie Chery alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Chery v. L.D. Enterprises of South Florida, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:07-cv-60970-WPD,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Judge William P. Dimitrouleas. Representing plaintiffs is: Keith Michael Stern Shavitz Law Group 1515 S Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-447-8888 Fax: 447-8831 E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: NAACP Files Suit Over Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) filed a class-action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing: -- Ameriquest Mortgage Co., -- Fremont Investment & Loan, -- Option One, -- WMC Mortgage Corp., -- Citigroup Inc., -- BNC MOrtgage Inc., -- Accredited Home Lenders, -- Bear Sterns Residential Mortgage Corp. d/b/a Encore Credit, -- First Franklin Financial Corp. -- HSBC Finance Corp., -- Washington Mutual, Inc., of discriminating against black homebuyers, who are 30 percent more likely to be charged higher rates for subprime mortgages than white applicants “with the same qualifications,” the CourtHouse News Service reports. The NAACP accuses the lending industry, including 11 other named defendants, of “institutionalized, systematic racism,” in violation of fair housing, civil rights and credit laws. It claims mortgage lenders were put on notice of this racist behavior in 2004, but the problem has become even worse since then. NAACP brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of itself and a class consisting of members of the NAACP. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether there are disparities between the interest rate imposed upon African-American mortgages and those imposed on Caucasian mortgagees of equal credit risk and creditworthiness; (b) whether such disparities are statistically significant enough to demonstrate a causal connection between the race of the mortgagee and the interest rate charged; (c) whether such disparities violate the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and Civil Rights Act; and (d) whether these policies and practices have proximately caused damages and injury to plaintiff and the class entitling them to injunctive and declaratory relief, and the measure of that relief. Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment as follows: -- certifying the putative class and appointing plaintiff and its counsel to represent the class; -- entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and the putative class against defendants; -- declaring that defendants' practices, as described, violate the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Opportunity Act, and the Civil Rights Act; -- enjoining the complained of conduct and ordering defendants to modify their lending practices to comport with the law. Plaintiff and the class request that the court exercise its equitable jurisdiction and order defendants. their agents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies to cease and desist from the unlawful conduct described above, and hereafter modify their lending practices to conform with statutory requirements. Plaintiff and the class further request that the court order defendants their agents, subsidiaries, and affiliated companies to establish and publish informative materials and programs to fully inform African-Americans about their rights to equal treatment with respect to home loans and subprime loans. Plaintiff further requests that the court retain jurisdiction on an ongoing basis in order to ensure and, where necessary, enforce compliance. -- awarding attorney fees and costs to plaintiff and members of the class as allowed by law; and -- for such other relief as the court deems just under the circumstances. The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. SACV07-0794 AG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabatek Richard L. Kellner Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@bklawyers.com - and - Austin Tighe Vic Feazell Feazell & Tighe, LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway Bridgepoint 1, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 A&P: N.Y. Supreme Court Certifies Suit Over Denied Overtime Pay --------------------------------------------------------------- New York State Supreme Court Judge Herman Cahn entered an Order on July 3, 2007 granting class certification to claims by Benedetto LaMarca, Delores Guiddy, and Steven Tedesco that The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., The Food Emporium, and Waldbaum's, all part of parent company A&P, systematically denied overtime pay to their hourly employees. The class action originated on June 24, 1998, when former employees of A&P brought a lawsuit in New York State Court alleging that A&P illegally allowed off-the-clock work throughout its stores, and even overtly manipulated employees' time records. Plaintiffs asked the Court to grant the case class-action status, which allows them to represent a class of full-time, hourly-paid employees at A&P who worked overtime for which they were not paid. Plaintiffs offered evidence that A&P systematically deprived employees of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a week, and that company officials were well aware of the continuing violations. For example, plaintiffs presented the court with internal company audits conducted by trained auditors that found that stores deleted employees' hours to avoid having to pay for overtime, and with store-wide memos confirming rampant time-keeping problems. In the Class Certification Order, the court ordered that plaintiffs could represent a class of all full-time hourly employees of defendants who are employed in defendants' supermarket stores located in the State of New York, for the period from June 24, 1998 through the date of the commencement of the action, whom defendants required or permitted to perform work in excess of 40 hours per week without being paid overtime wages. The court also appointed Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and Outten & Golden LLP to serve as Class Counsel. The judge’s recent order means that the case will continue on behalf of thousands of cashiers, clerks, bakers, deli, and other hourly-paid workers in New York State who are challenging A&P's alleged failure to pay overtime since 1998. "I am trying to seek a fair deal for myself and other workers -you should get paid for all the hours that you work," explained Steven Tedesco, plaintiff and court-appointed class representative. Mr. Tedesco worked in a variety of positions, including as a clerk and night manager, at Waldbaum's stores in Long Island. Plaintiff and court-appointed class representative Benedetto LaMarca, who worked in the produce department at A&P stores in Westchester, said, "I worked hard for 12 years at A&P. It wasn't right that they didn't pay me overtime I'd earned." A third Plaintiff and Court-appointed Class Representative, Dolores Guiddy, worked in the bakery department at the Mamaroneck Food Emporium store. "We are pleased that the Court recognized that the workers' claims against A&P for willfully forcing employees to work 'off-the-clock' to reduce payroll expenditures are suitable for review on a class-wide basis," said Rachel Geman, a partner at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein. Explained Piper Hoffman, a partner at Outten & Golden LLP, "New York law prohibits companies, like A&P, from making employees work over 40 hours a week without receiving overtime pay. We intend to prove at trial that A&P's wage and hour practices towards low-paid employees were unfair and illegal." A&P operates on or about 140 stores in New York state, with a strong presence in the five boroughs, Long Island, and Westchester. For more details, contact: Rachel Geman Lieff, Cabraser Phone: 212-355-9500 Website: http://www.lieffcabraser.com - and - Tarik Fouad Ajami Outten & Golden Phone: 212-245-1000 AUDIOVOX CORP: Still Faces Litigation Over Cell Phone Radiation --------------------------------------------------------------- Audiovox Corp., and other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand- held wireless telephones face certain consolidated class actions that were transferred to a Multi-District Litigation Panel of the U.S. District Court of the District of Maryland. The suits are generally alleging damages relating to exposure to radio frequency radiation from hand-held wireless telephones. Audiovox Corp. -- http://www.audiovox.com/-- is an international distributor and value added service provider in the accessory, mobile and consumer electronics industries. GATEHOUSE MANAGEMENT: Fla. Lawsuit Alleges Denied Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gatehouse Management, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Miguel Garcia Alvarez alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Alvarez v. Gatehouse Management, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv- 01213-SDM-MAP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Steven D. Merryday, with referral to Judge Mark A. Pizzo. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: 407/420-1414 Fax: 407/423-7928 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com GENESYS ASSOCIATES: Tex. Suit Alleges Denial of Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Genesys Associates LLC, Atos Origin Inc., Atos Origin IT Services Inc. are facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Michael Moran and Michael J. Richey allege denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The suit is “Richey et al v. Genesys Associates LLC et al., Case No. 3:07-cv- 01231,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, under Judge David C. Godbey. Representing plaintiffs are: James N. Francis Law Office of James N Francis Sherry Lane Place 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75225 Phone: 214/368-1765 Fax: 214/368-3974 E-mail: jimnfrancis@aol.com - and - Robert E. Goodman, Jr. Law Office of Robert Goodman 5956 Sherry Lane, Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75225-6597 Phone: 214/368-1765 Fax: 214/368-3974 E-mail: rgdallas@flash.net HELEN OF TROY: Discovery Underway in Tex. Securities Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in a securities fraud class action filed against Helen of Troy, Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Class actions have been filed and consolidated into one action against the company, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Benson, the company's chief financial officer, on behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of the company. The company understands that the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and the two officers engaged in a scheme to defraud the company's shareholders through the issuance of positive earnings guidance intended to artificially inflate the company's share price so that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the company's common shares at an inflated price. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, interest, fees, costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition of a constructive trust and/or asset freeze on the defendants' insider trading proceeds. The class period stated in the complaint was Oct. 12, 2004 through Oct. 10, 2005. The lawsuit was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and is still in the preliminary stages. On May 15, 2006 the company filed a motion to dismiss the aforementioned lawsuit citing numerous deficiencies with the claims it asserted. On May 24, 2007, the motion to dismiss was denied. The discovery phase of the litigation is now underway, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05- cv-00431-DB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge David Briones. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ariel Acevedo, Esq. Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (561) 361-5000 - and - Daniel R. Malone, Esq. The Malone Law Firm 300 East Main, #1100 El Paso, TX 79901 Phone: (915) 533-5000 Fax: 915/533-5009 Representing the defendants are: Nicholas Even, Esq. Noel M. Hensley, Esq. Haynes Boone, LLP 901 Main St., Ste. 3100 Dallas, TX 75202-3789 Phone: (214) 651-5000 Fax: 214/651-5940 and 214/200-0470 E-mail: nick.even@haynesboone.com - and - H. Christopher Mott, Esq. Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC 4695 North Mesa Street El Paso, TX 79912-6103 Phone: (915) 545-1133 Fax: 915/545-4433 E-mail: cmott@gordonmottpc.com HUNTSMAN CORP: Faces Shareholder Suit in Del. Over Basell Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- A Huntsman Corp. shareholder filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in Chancery Court in Delaware over a pending takeover by Basell, arm of Netherland-based Access Industries Holdings, The Salt Lake Tribune’s Steven Oberbeck reports. Investor Isaac Augenstein brought the suit after the company’s acquisition announcement in June 26. Mr. Augenstein alleges Huntsman’s directors and officers “failed to conduct a sufficient process to investigate and obtain maximum value for the company's shares.” He wants the court to block the $9.6 billion sale “until a proper” process is accomplished to obtain the company’s maximum worth. Just days after Huntsman and Basell’s agreement, another company, Hexion Specialty Chemicals, made a higher bid. The company confirmed Hexion offered a better deal than Access Industries. But it’s not ready to refuse Basell’s offer of $25.25 per share. Huntsman, claiming the lawsuit is “without merit,” said it can still get out of Hunstman-Basell deal by paying $200 million breakup fee, which Hexion offered to pay half. IWI HOLDING: Plaintiffs’ Counsel Yet to Respond to “Rosen” Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs’ counsel in a purported class action against IWI Holding, Ltd. in connection with the company’s initial public offering on Dec. 16, 1994, and in connection with the dissemination of financial data thereafter, have yet to respond to a settlement proposed in the matter. In September 1996, Robert J. Rosen filed a class action in the Supreme Court in the state of New York alleging claims of fraudulent misrepresentations by IWI Holding Ltd. and some company officers, accountants and lawyers in connection with the company’s initial public offering. The plaintiff claims damages on behalf of the class in excess of $11,000,000, which allegedly resulted from a decline of the market value of the company’s common stock after the initial public offering. The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the claim for a significantly lesser amount, which was accrued as of December 31, 1999. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and the Company may decline to proceed with the agreement if a significant number of class members “opt out” of the settlement. As of April 30, 2007 there has been no response from counsel for the class action or from the lead counsel, according to the company’s July 11, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. IWI Holding Ltd. is engaged in the design, assembly, merchandising and wholesale distribution of jewelry. The company provides a range of fashionable jewelry targeted at consumers who seek fine jewelry at moderate prices for everyday wear. These customers are likely to purchase jewelry at frequent intervals as fashions and styles change. The majority of the Company's United States sales are under the trade name, World Pacific Jewelry. Its customers are principally retail establishments with jewelry departments and mass media marketers. JOE HENDERSON: Ala. Suit Alleges Fair Credit Reporting Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Henderson Auto Sales, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed July 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Named plaintiff Angela Edwards alleges Joe Henderson illegally pulls up a credit report from customers’ driver’s licenses without their consent, after demanding the licenses for test drives. Defendant's actions violate the FCRA in that the defendant impermissibly accessed and used plaintiff's credit report as prohibited by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(b)(f), and because it was negligent under Section 1681(n) and or willful under Section 1681(o). Plaintiff seeks damages as follows: (a) punitive damages, statutory damages, attorney's fees, costs incurred and court costs; and (b) any and all other damages which are reasonable, premises considered. Plaintiff prays that after all due proceedings are had, there be judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant as follows: -- that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant; -- damages sustained by plaintiff, including, statutory and punitive damages; -- attorneys' fees, costs incurred, court costs and other assessments proper by law, together with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid; and -- for all such additional, general and equitable relief as may be necessary and proper in the premises. The suit is “Edwards v. Joe Henderson Auto Sales, L.L.C., Case No. 7:07-cv- 01299-SLB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama under Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn. Representing plaintiffs is: R. Brent Irby McCallum Hoagland Cook & Irby LLC 2062 Columbiana Road Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Phone: 205-824-7767 Fax: 205-824-7768 E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Faces Multiple Flash Memory Antitrust Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. was named as a defendant in a number of purported antitrust class actions in relation to the sale of flash memory, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May 31, 2007. In the first calendar half of 2007, at least 22 purported class actions were filed against the company and other suppliers of flash memory products in various federal and state courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of Flash memory products during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed. The complaints seek treble monetary damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Part of DRAM Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. still faces antitrust class actions in the U.S. and in Canada over Dynamic Random Access Memory products, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May 31, 2007. On June 17, 2002, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking information regarding an investigation by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice into possible antitrust violations in the DRAM industry. Subsequent to the commencement of the DOJ DRAM investigation, at least 68 purported class actions have been filed against the Company and other DRAM suppliers in various federal and state courts in the U.S. and in Puerto Rico on behalf of indirect purchasers alleging price-fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products during the period from April 1999 through at least June 2002. The complaints seek treble damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees. On June 1, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs have subsequently sought leave from the Court to file an amended complaint. Three purported class action lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the cases filed in the U.S. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Cal. Court Junks Complaint Over Lexar Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County granted a motion by Micron Technology, Inc. and Lexar Media, Inc. to dismiss an amended class action complaint in relation to a merger agreement. Filed starting March 2006, the complaints allege that the defendants breached, or aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duties owed to Lexar shareholders by, among other things, engaging in self-dealing, failing to engage in efforts to obtain the highest price reasonably available, and failing to properly value Lexar in a merger transaction. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing, or an order of rescission reversing, the merger, compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs. On May 19, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to block the merger. On May 31, 2006, the Court denied the motion. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on Oct. 10, 2006. On June 14, 2007, the Court granted Lexar's and the Company's motions to dismiss the amended complaint but allowed plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May 31, 2007. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. NATIONAL BEEF: Defendants in “Schumacher” Case Appeal Judgments --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants in the class action, “Schumacher v. Tyson Foods, et al.,” are appealing certain judgments made in the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, according to the company’s July 10, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 26, 2007. On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against: -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the predecessor to National Beef Packing Co., LLC (NBP)), -- ConAgra Beef Co., -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and -- Excel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota, seeking certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter. Three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class filed the case. The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef price information generated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to purchase cattle offered for sale by the plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period. Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a theory of unjust enrichment. The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004. The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and court costs. The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the number of class members who have opted out of the class. Trial began March 31, 2006. On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but not against the other defendants. The defendants found liable filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, which were denied. The plaintiffs did not file a post-trial motion seeking to set aside the jury's verdict for FNBPC. The court has not yet entered a final judgment or appealable order and, until it does, the time for an appeal does not begin to run. On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but against the other defendants. The court has not yet entered a final judgment or appealable order as to FNBPC and, until it does, the time for plaintiffs to file an appeal against FNBPC does not begin to run. However, the court did enter a final order granting judgments against the other three defendants on the jury’s verdict and those defendants have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01027- CBK," filed in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq. David F. Herr, Esq. Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 Phone: (612) 672-8200 Fax: (612) 672-8397 Representing the defendants are: William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 Fax: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com - and - Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower Omaha, NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 E-mail: pbrookhouser@mnmk.com PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Dismissal of Securities Fraud Suit Now Final --------------------------------------------------------------- A dismissal of an amended securities fraud class action filed against Parlux Fragrances, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has become final. An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2006, consolidating five class action complaints previously filed during August and September 2006. The class actions alleged the company made knowingly false statements about its revenues and profitability beginning on Feb. 8, 2006. It also contains allegations regarding the sale of company shares by certain former company directors while allegedly in possession of material non-public information. On June 14, 2006, the company's board of directors received an unsolicited letter from company chairman and chief executive, Mr. Ilia Lekach, representing PF Acquisition of Florida LLC, pertaining to the possible acquisition of all of the outstanding common stock of the company at a proposed price of $29.00 ($14.50 after the Stock Split) per share in cash, representing a premium of 55% over the closing price of the company's common stock on June 13, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 28, 2006). The proposal was subject to financial and other contingencies, and was referred to the Special Committee of Independent Directors of the Parlux board of directors. The amended complaint included the allegations in the class actions, as well as new allegations that the company improperly recognized revenue on sales to related parties during the three months ended Sept. 30, 2005 and failed to comply with certain U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules surrounding "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations". On Feb. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an order granting the motion of the defendants, including the company, to dismiss the amended complaint. The Court held that the allegations in the case failed to meet the pleading requirements applicable to the case. The dismissal was without prejudice to the filing of another amended complaint by the plaintiffs, however, the plaintiffs did not file another amended complaint within the time period set by the Court. As a result, the plaintiffs now are unable to file another amended complaint and the Court’s Order of Dismissal is final, according to the company’s July 11, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Haugh v. Parlux Fragrances, et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-61250-PCH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Paul C. Huck. Representing plaintiffs are: Maya Susan Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III Saxena White PA 2424 N Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561-394-3399 Fax: 561-394-3382 E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com Representing defendants is: Richard Eugene Brodsky, Esq. Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP Wachovia Financial Ctr., 200 S. Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2398 Phone: 305-577-7000 Fax: 305-577-7001 E-mail: rbrodsky@ssd.com POLY IMPLANTS: Dec. 6 Status Conference Set for “Schnebel” Case --------------------------------------------------------------- A Dec. 6, 2007 status conference is scheduled for the purported class action against Poly Implants Protheses, S.A. (PIP), an acquisition of Heritage Worldwide, Inc. In November 2003, Jessica Fischer Schnebel and 15 other women filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint against PIP, PIP/USA, Inc., and III Acquisition Corp. d/b/a PIP.America in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint contains counts alleging product liability, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and a contract claim alleging third-party beneficiary status. Unspecified monetary damages, exemplary damages and attorneys fees and costs are sought. Motions to dismiss filed by PIP and PIP.America remains pending and discovery is underway. The plaintiffs have not sought to date to certify any putative class. On June 7, 2006, PIP filed a motion to dismiss third amended consolidated class action Complaint. That motion remains pending. A Status conference is set for Dec. 6, 2007 at 11:00 a.m., according to the Heritage Worldwide’s May 14, 2007 Form 10QSB with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period March 31, 2007. PROSPERITY RESOURCES: Recalls Dried Sweet Potato with Sulfites -------------------------------------------------------------- Prosperity Resources Int'l Inc. of Irvington, N.J., is recalling Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato because it may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The recalled Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato is packed in uncoded 12oz plastic packages sold in the U.S. East Coast areas. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by food laboratory personnel revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Sun Kee Brand Dried Sweet Potato in packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reaction in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more sulfites. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased Sun Kee Brand Dried Potato should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 973-371-9688. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Upholds $15M Lawyers’ Fee ------------------------------------------------------------- The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that lead lawyers for US West retirees and shareholders were entitled to the $15 million they were paid from a $50 million legal settlement with Qwest Communications International Inc. in 2005, Denver Business Journal’s Greg Avery reports. The appeals court maintained the Denver District Court’s initial decision, saying the attorney’s fees were fair because they were working on contingency. Had they lost the case, they would not get any compensation. Plus, the court added, they must be duly compensated for work that benefited nearly 763,000 other eligible claimants. The class composed of retirees and shareholders filed the appeal over their attorney’s fees, saying it was excessive by at least $5 million. The class action suit stemmed from Qwest’s merger with US West in 2000. The merger voided $270 million in dividends that US West promised it would pay investors before June 30, 2000. But the payout never took place. Five years later, Qwest decided to settle with the investors and agreed to put up a $50 million settlement fund. From that amount, the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs sought for and got court’s consent to take $15 million and an addition $1.3 million in costs. The legal team was headed by attorney Adele Brody. REGAL 150: Fla. Lawsuit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Regal 150 Cleaners is facing a class-action complaint filed July 11 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Veronica Yarnall alleges denial of overtime compensation, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Yarnall v. Regal 150 Cleaners et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01211-RAL- TGW,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, under Judge Richard A. Lazzara with referral to Judge Thomas G. Wilson. Representing plaintiffs is: Carlos V. Leach Morgan & Morgan, PA 20 N Orange Ave - Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: 407/420-1414 Fax: 407/423-7928 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com REPSOL YPF: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Repsol YPF, S.A. faces a consolidated securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Following the announcement on Jan. 26, 2006 of the downward revision of Repsol YPF’s proved oil and gas reserves by 1,254 million barrels of oil equivalent, representing a 25% negative adjustment to proved reserves at Dec. 31, 2004, two putative class actions asserting claims under federal securities laws were filed against Repsol YPF and certain executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 13, 2006, the Court entered the Order granting the motion to appoint Jack Reynolds, Charles A. Kubo and John L. Brooks, III as Lead Plaintiffs. The actions 06cv733 and 06cv1014 were consolidated on May 25, 2006 by oral order. The law firms of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Schiffrin & Barroway LLP have been appointed lead counsel. On September 1, 2006, a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed. The original complaint charges Repsol and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically by issuing misrepresentations concerning Repsol's proven reserves. Reserves are estimates of oil and natural gas a company has and expects to pump, a crucial metric in gauging a company's growth prospect. Throughout the Class Period, defendants allegedly failed to disclose the following: -- that Repsol was materially overstating its proven reserves. Repsol has now admitted that it will downgrade its proven reserves by 25% and take an asset impairment charge of approximately EUR 50 million; -- that Repsol was experiencing increasing political pressure in Bolivia which will have an adverse effect on the Company's operations; -- that the Company was experiencing difficulties in its production of gas in Bolivia; and -- that contracts with Repsol's existing customers would likely not be extended due to complications in extracting gas from certain fields in Argentina. The complaint further alleges that on or around Jan. 26, 2006, the Company filed its Form 6-K with the SEC in which it announced that it was cutting its oil and gas reserves estimate by 25% due mostly to problems that it had experienced in Bolivia and Argentina. The two actions have been consolidated, and the process is ongoing, according to the company’s June 28, 2007 Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Repsol YPF, S.A. (Repsol YPF) -- http://www.repsolypf.com-- is an integrated oil and gas company engaged in all aspects of the petroleum business, including exploration, development and production of crude oil and natural gas, transportation of petroleum products, liquefied petroleum gas and natural gas, petroleum refining, petrochemical production and marketing of petroleum products, petroleum derivatives, petrochemicals and natural gas. Repsol YPF operates in over 30 countries. In June 2006, the Company acquired 10% of West Siberian Resources Ltd., a Russian company engaging in gas supply and logistics. In March 2006, it acquired through Gas Natural SDG, S.A. (in which the Company has 30.85% interest) 30.8% of Petroleum Oil & Gas Espana, S.A., a company engaging in oil and gas exploration. SIRVA INC: Oct. 2 Hearing Set for $53.5M Securities Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois will hold on Oct. 2, 2007 at 2:00 p.m., a fairness hearing for the $53.3 million settlement of a securities class action filed against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of SIRVA through any public offering or on the open market between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005, inclusive. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on Sept. 7, 2007. Deadline to file claims is on Dec. 3, 2007. The hearing will be at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the courtroom of the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. Case Background Initially, two securities suits were filed in November 2004 against SIRVA, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors. They are: -- "Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. SIRVA Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7644," and -- "Hiatt v. SIRVA,Inc., et al., No.04-CV-7532." Both complaints purported to be brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Nov. 9, 2004. On Jan. 25, 2005, the plaintiff in "Hiatt" voluntarily dismissed his suit. On March 29, 2005, the court appointed Central Laborers' Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the remaining case, and approved its choice of counsel, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, as lead plaintiff's counsel. On May 13, 2005, plaintiff filed a "corrected" complaint, retaining the same class period, and alleging, among other things, that defendants had made false and misleading statements in certain SEC filings, including the prospectuses to the company's initial and secondary public offerings, and press releases. The statements subject to the complaint generally relate to the Company's insurance claims reserves, European operations, and restatement accounts and are said to constitute violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. On Oct. 11, 2005, plaintiff filed its consolidated amended class action complaint, a corrected version of which was filed on Oct. 19, 2005. The amended complaint adds ten new defendants, including an additional director, the seven underwriters which participated in the initial and secondary public offerings, the company's independent auditor and its controlling shareholder. It also extends the class period, purporting to be brought on behalf of all those who acquired the Company's common stock between Nov. 25, 2003 and Jan. 31, 2005. The amended complaint also contained allegations relating to the following areas: the company's restatement of financial statements and accounting errors for years 2000 through 2003 and the first nine months of 2004, problems in the company's European operations, insurance reserves, financial forecasting, and internal controls. The statements subject to the amended complaint are alleged to violate Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. On Jan. 3, 2006, the company and all other defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On Sept. 22, 2006, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion. It dismissed in full, without prejudice, the claim under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, as well as various allegations underlying the other claims, and granted plaintiff 30 days to amend its complaint. On Oct. 23, 2006, plaintiff filed its consolidated second amended class action complaint in order to replead claims that the court dismissed without prejudice. On Nov. 14, 2006, the company and all other defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint. On Nov. 15, 2006, the company and certain of the other defendants moved in part to dismiss the second amended complaint. The company reported at its May 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing that it entered into settlement discussions to settle the suit (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2007). Under the terms of the settlement, SIRVA's contribution to the settlement will be its agreement to waive its right to reimbursement from its insurers of approximately $5.6 million of legal fees and costs incurred by SIRVA in connection with the litigation, almost all of which has been previously paid by SIRVA (Class Action Reporter, June 25, 2007). The suit is "Central Lab PenFd v. Sirva Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 07644," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ronald A. Guzman. Representing the plaintiffs is: Steven G. Schulman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Representing the company are: Tara Kocheran Charnes, Esq. Richard Bradshaw Kapnick, Esq. Matthew Brian Kilby, Esq. Catherine Rosen, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 E-mail: rkapnick@sidley.com mkilby@sidley.com crosen@sidley.com SOLECTRON CORP: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Flextronics Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Solectron Corp. faces a purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara, seeking to enjoin the proposed merger between the company and Flextronics International Ltd. The suit was filed on June 4, 2007, alleging breach of fiduciary duty of the directors of Solectron, according to the company’s July 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 1, 2007. Solectron Corp. -- http://www.solectron.com-- provides electronics manufacturing and supply chain services to original equipment manufacturers worldwide. SS&C TECHNOLOGIES: July 2008 Trial Set for Suit Over Disposal ------------------------------------------------------------- A July 2008 trial is scheduled for a purported class action against SS&C Technologies, Inc. in connection with the definitive merger agreement that it signed on July 28, 2005 to be acquired by a corporation affiliated with The Carlyle Group. Initially, two purported class actions were filed against the company, each of its directors and, with respect to the first matter described below, Sunshine Acquisition Corp., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in and for New Castle County. The first lawsuit is “Paulena Partners, LLC v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1525-N,” which was filed on July 28, 2005. The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of our directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit. The complaint alleges, among other things, that: -- the merger will benefit company’s management at the expense of company’s public stockholders, -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is inadequate and does not represent the best price available in the marketplace for the company and -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages to the class and attorneys’ fees and expenses, along with such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The second lawsuit is “Stephen Landen v. SS&C Technologies, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1541-N,” which was filed Aug. 3, 2005. The complaint purports to state claims for breach of fiduciary duty against all of our directors at the time of filing of the lawsuit. The complaint alleges, among other things, that: -- the merger will benefit Mr. Stone and Carlyle at the expense of the company’s public stockholders; -- the merger consideration to be paid to stockholders is unfair and that the process by which the merger was approved was unfair; and -- the directors breached their fiduciary duties to the company’s stockholders in negotiating and approving the merger. The complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification of the lawsuit, an injunction preventing the consummation of the merger (or rescinding the merger if it is completed prior to the receipt of such relief), compensatory and/or rescissory damages to the class and costs and disbursements of the lawsuit, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, along with such other relief as the court might find just and proper. The two lawsuits were consolidated by order dated Aug. 31, 2005. On Oct. 18, 2005, the parties to the consolidated lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding, pursuant to which we agreed to make certain additional disclosures to our stockholders in connection with their approval of the merger. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that the parties would enter into a settlement agreement, which the parties executed on July 6, 2006. The settlement agreement was subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to the stockholders of SS&C. The court held a hearing on Sept. 13, 2006, after which the court requested supplemental briefing as to the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Parties submitted such supplemental briefing on Sept. 27, 2006. On Nov. 29, 2006, the court disapproved the proposed settlement. The parties are currently in discovery, and the court has set a trial date for July 2008, according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. SS&C Technologies Holdings -- http://www.ssctech.com-- helps its clients buy low and sell high. The company (which operates through its SS&C Technologies subsidiary) designs software for managing financial portfolios, loans, real estate equity, back-office processing, and securities trading, and it provides consulting and outsourcing services. SS&C's software handles investment portfolio management, asset and liability management for actuaries, property and casualty insurance company risk management, and trade ordering and modeling. Customers include asset managers, insurance companies, banks, corporate treasuries, hedge funds, home offices, and government agencies. TOYS ‘R’ US: Faces $400M Suit in N.Y. Over “Biased” Inspections --------------------------------------------------------------- A toy store chain based in Wayne, N.J. is facing a multimillion-dollar discrimination lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Associated Press reports. The lawsuit seeking class-action status against Toys ‘R’ Us alleges the company discriminates against black customers in a series of race-based stops, searches and wrongful detentions. It also alleges that black customers are required to have their sales receipts inspected after purchasing their merchandise and even after leaving the store while the whites are not subjected to the same biased inspection. In addition, the suit claims the company has policies that subject blacks to unjustified and unreasonable scrutiny, causing several black customers to be assaulted, battered, seized and searched. According to the suit, these unlawful practices degrade, humiliate and cause grave harm to blacks. Lead plaintiff Patricia Drayton purchased a birthday gift on July 10, 2006. She said a security guard stopped her while leaving a Toys 'R' Us store in Bronx. When she declined to show her receipt, the security guard called a supervisor and made her wait for nearly 20 minutes. When she was outside the store, a white man approached her saying he was not asked to show his receipt while leaving the store and that he was angry at how Ms. Drayton was treated. The action, which seeks relief of 400 million and an injunction order, intends to include all those who believe they were illegally or unnecessarily searched or detained just because they’re black. The company said in a statement that they do not tolerate discrimination of any kind, calling the case nonsense and ridiculous. Named plaintiffs are Patricia Drayton and Valerie Kirk. The suit is “Drayton et al. v. Toy Us, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06315- RMB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman. Representing plaintiffs is: Emmanuel Roy, Esq. Law Office of Emmanuel Roy 26 Court St., Suite 2302 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Phone: (718) 797-2553 Fax: (718)-797-3994 (fax) E-mail: nylaw1@gmail.com TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: 1st Circuit Hears Arguments in RICO Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against the dismissal of the class action, "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S Management, et al." The purported class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act against: -- Triple-S Management Corp.; -- certain of its present and former directors; -- certain of Triple-S, Inc.'s present and former directors and others. Filed on Sept. 4, 2003 by Jose Sanchez, the suit specifically alleges, a scheme to defraud the plaintiffs by acquiring control of Triple-S, Inc. through illegally capitalizing Triple-S and later converting it to a for- profit corporation and depriving the stockholders of their ownership rights. Plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed decisions of Triple- S' board of directors and stockholders, allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in order to turn Triple-S into a charitable corporation, basically forever. On March 4, 2005 the court issued an Opinion and Order. In this opinion and order, of the 12 counts included in the complaint, eight counts were dismissed for failing to assert an actionable injury, six of them for lack of standing and two for failing to plead with sufficient particularity in compliance with the Rules. All shareholder allegations were dismissed in the opinion and order. The remaining four counts were found standing, in a limited way, in the opinion and order. Parties finished class certification discovery and fully briefed the issue of class certification. While waiting for the court's decision on the issue of class certification, the court, sua sponte, issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiffs as to why the complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice. The court's Order to Show Cause is predicated on the parties' submissions about class certification. The court then granted plaintiffs leave to file a sur-reply, which they did on April 21, 2006. In its Order to Show Cause the court indicated that it would decide first the sustainability of the complaint before deciding plaintiffs' request for class certification. On May 4, 2006, the Court issued an Opinion and Order awarding summary judgment in favor of all the defendants, thereby dismissing the case. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The parties argued the case before the First Circuit on Feb. 6, 2007, which took the case under advisement and is expected to issue a judgment within approximately 90 days of such date, according to Triple-S Management Corp.’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007. The suit is "Sanchez, et al. v. Triple-S Management, et al., Case No. 3:03-cv-01967-JAF," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico under Judge Jose A. Fuste. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert G. Blakey, Esq. 1341 East Wayne Street North, South Bend, IN 46615 Phone: 219-239-5717 - and – Paul H. Hulsey, Esq. Marco Tulio Torres-Moncada, Esq. Hulsey Litigation Group, L.L.C. Charleston Harbor, 2 Wharfside 3 Charleston, SC 29401 Phone: 843-723-5303 Fax: 843-723-5307 E-mail: phulsey@hulseylitigationgroup.com Representing the company are: Seth B. Kosto, Esq. Gael Mahony 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02114 Phone: 617-523-2700 Fax: 617-523-6850 UMPC ST. MARGARET: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed against the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center St. Margaret accuses the school of firing and refusing to rehire employees because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News Service reports. The suit is “Walsh v. UMPC St. Margaret et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00804-TFM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Representing the plaintiff is: Gregory G. Paul, Esq. Peirce Law Offices 707 Grant Street 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412)281-4229 E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com UNITED STATES: San Diego Doctors’ Suit Alleges $2.B Underpayment ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is facing a suit claiming that under its Medicare system, San Diego County doctors were underpaid, Jessica Long of San Diego Business Journal reports. The suit was filed June 4 in Northern District of California. It is similar to one filed June 15 against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to the report, both suits seek to change the way Medicare decides how much services provided under its 65 and older program should cost in a particular geographic area. The suit by doctors seeks additional pay for doctors in higher-cost counties who say the value of their services has been underestimated. The suit was filed on behalf of doctors in seven counties. It is seeking nearly $2.5 billion for underpayments since 2001. UNITED STATES: Women CIA Spies Complain of Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- A group of women who were former spies for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has filed a complaint alleging discrimination. In June, a group of women who were former CIA officers until their clearances were revoked, met at the office of Janine Brookner, a Washington lawyer and former spy for 24 years, The Standard reported. Ms. Brookner is now taking on the U.S. government as the attorney for a sexual discrimination class action against the CIA. One of the complainants is Lora Griffith, the only former spy of the several dozen involved in the class action, who is prepared to reveal her name. She spent 19 years in the CIA's Directorate of Operations serving in the Middle East, South Asia and Europe. She was terminated from service after admitting a relationship with a foreign intelligence officer while on a mission at the immediate aftermath of 9/11, according to the report. The women complain that the CIA brings down harsher penalties to them than to their men counterparts who entered into similar intimate relationships while on missions. Their complaint is pending at the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Twenty-five have now joined the complaint, and attorneys expect at least 50 to eventually sign on, according to David E. Kaplan of U.S. News (April 22, 2007). UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Disabled Workers Sue Over Dismissals -------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is accused of firing and refusing to rehire employees because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News Service reports. The suit is “Chedwick v. UPMC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00806-TFM,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Terrence F. McVerry. Representing the plaintiff Gary Chedwick is: Gregory G. Paul, Esq. Peirce Law Offices 707 Grant Street 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412)281-4229 E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com UPMC SHADYSIDE: Disabled Workers Sue for “Wrongful” Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action filed against UPMC Shadyside accuses the school of firing and refusing to rehire employees because of their disabilities, CoutHouse News Service reports. The suit is “Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00807-AJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Arthur J. Schwab. Representing the plaintiff Barbara Fowler is: Gregory G. Paul, Esq. Peirce Law Offices 707 Grant Street 2500 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 281-7229 Fax: (412)281-4229 E-mail: gregorygpaul@gmail.com WINN-DIXIE STORES: Lawsuit Still Stayed Pending Bankruptcy Exit --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., remains stayed pending the conclusion of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and certain present and former executive officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws. In March and April 2004, three other putative class actions were filed in the District Court against the Company and certain present and former executive officers and employees of the Company alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended related to the Company’s Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan. By separate court orders, both the securities laws claims and the ERISA claims were consolidated and were to proceed as separate, single actions. The consolidated complaint has not yet been filed in either action. As a result of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in these class action lawsuits from proceeding against the Company. Any such claims against the Company were subordinated under the Plan pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same manner as the Company’s existing shares, which were cancelled without any distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company. The discharge injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the Company from the assertion of these claims in the future. As to the individual co-defendants, on May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying both lawsuits as to all parties and all issues in light of the Company’s Chapter 11 filing. Both lawsuits and the claims asserted against the individual co-defendants remain pending, according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period May April 4, 2007. The ERISA suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. Plaintiff firms in this litigation are: Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Ave., Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212/682-1818 - and - Emerson Poynter LLP 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100 Little Rock, AR 72202-2037 Phone: 501/907-2555 Representing the defendants in both litigation are: King & Spalding LLP 191 Peachtree St., Suite 4900 Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404/572-4600 - and - Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy 225 Water St., Suite 1500 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904/634-1100 Fax: 904/634-1234 New Securities Fraud Cases MIDWAY GAMES: Shalov Stone Bonner Files Ill. Securities Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP filed a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Midway Games Inc. during the period between August 4, 2005, and May 24, 2006, inclusive. The lawsuit is pending According to the complaint, Midway and certain of its top executive officers violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations and omissions about Midway's financial condition and business prospects, including their failure to disclose that they were disposing of their own Midway shares based on inside information that Sumner Redstone -- a prominent investor whose large purchases of Midway stock were driving the market price for shares in the company upward -- intended to cease all further investment in Midway. The complaint also alleges, among other things, that the defendants falsely represented that Midway would perform in line with previously issued guidance, despite their knowledge of planned layoffs and massive restructuring charges, and that David F. Zucker, the company's President and Chief Executive Officer, engaged in a pattern of illegal insider trading in violation of the federal securities laws. When this and other information about the true state of Midway's finances and operations became public, the price of Midway securities declined dramatically, causing Midway investors to collectively suffer millions of dollars in losses. For more information, contact: Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr. Shalov Stone Bonner & Rocco LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, New York 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 E-mail: tciarlone@lawssb.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *