/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070717.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, July 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 139
Headlines
AMARANTH ADVISORS: NYMEX Alleges Natural Gas Price Fixing
ARTISAN CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate Bars with Undeclared Milk
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Sued Over Mislabeled “All Natural” Beverages
CANADA: Airline Passengers Sue Ga. Man Diagnosed with TB
CAR DEALERS: Penna. Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Illegal Insurance
CARROLS CORP: Opposes Motion to Certify Suit by Former Workers
CATERPILLAR INC: "Winnett" Pension Suit Granted Certification
CB DEVELOPMENT: Sued in B.C. Over Cancelled Pre-Sale Agreements
COCA-COLA: Expert Report Estimates Shareholder Losses at $1.3B
COFFEYVILLE GROUP: New Defendants Named in Kan. Oil Spill Suit
DELL INC: High Court in Canada Dismisses Pocket PC Price Suit
EL POLLO: “Amezcua” Labor Suit Sent to Complex Litigation Panel
EL POLLO: Calif. Managers' Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Still Faces Calif. FACTA Violations Lawsuit
FIRST UNION: Sept. 5 Hearing Set in ATM Fee Suit Settlement
FLORIDA EAST: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Fortress
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal in “Brodhead”
GERMANY: New Generation of Holocaust Survivors Sue in Israel
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Settles Migrant Workers' H-2A Suit for $1.8M
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Cal. Court Junks Claims in Consumer Lawsuit
HOLLINGER INC: Settlement in the Offing, Canadian Lawyer Says
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to Conclude in Sept.
NEW YORK: Court Orders Notification of Cryptosporidium Victims
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Calif. Over “Premium Payments”
OREGON: Misclassified Sergeants Sue to Recover Overtime Wages
RAM ENERGY: Continues to Face Royalty Owners' Lawsuit in Okla.
STATE FARM: Files Motion to Consolidate Chiropractors’ Lawsuit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: 2nd Circuit Reserves Ruling in “Schwab” Suit
VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
VERISIGN INC: Court Dismisses Suit After Approval of $80M Deal
VERISIGN INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Historical Stock Option Grants
WALGREEN CO: Settles Discrimination Lawsuit in Ill. for $20M
WENDY’S INT’L: Accused of Misrepresenting Trans-Fat in Foods
*********
AMARANTH ADVISORS: NYMEX Alleges Natural Gas Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------
Amaranth Advisors LLC, a collapsed hedge fund, is facing a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
over allegations that it manipulated the prices of natural gas futures
contracts, The Associated Press reports.
The lawsuit, filed by NYMEX natural gas futures trader Roberto E. Calle
Gracey, alleges Amaranth artificially manipulated natural gas futures prices
by amassing large positions in futures contracts that "drastically exceeded
applicable position limits" on the New York Mercantile Exchange, while also
amassing large positions in natural gas swaps on the rival
IntercontinentalExchange Inc.
"Defendants' manipulative trading caused traders of natural gas futures
contracts, including plaintiff, to suffer substantial losses," the lawsuit
said.
The complaint is seeking class-action status for traders in natural gas
futures contracts between February 23, 2006, and September 20, 2006.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., which acted as Amaranth's prime broker, was also named
as a defendant in the lawsuit.
Amaranth Advisors, based in Greenwich, Connecticut with offices in Toronto,
Canada, London, England and Singapore, is an investment management firm.
Amaranth specializes in a broad spectrum of alternative investments and
trading strategies, through a multi-strategy investment fund and fund
dedicated to long-short equities.
* * *
Amaranth faces multiple regulatory probes and possible lawsuits after
disclosing in September that it had lost 35%, or approximately $6 billion, of
the value of its natural gas bets due to a dramatic move in gas prices.
Amaranth transferred its energy portfolio to Citadel Investment Group and
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. following the loss announcement.
ARTISAN CONFECTIONS: Recalls Chocolate Bars with Undeclared Milk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Artisan Confections Co. is voluntarily recalling its Scharffen Berger Kumasi
Sambirano 68% Cacao Pure Dark Chocolate bars because they may contain
undeclared milk.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the Kumasi
Sambirano product.
The 3 ounce bars are wrapped in distinctive green packaging and were sold
over the Internet and through specialty retail outlets nationwide from March
2006 to June 2007. All lot numbers of the item are covered by the recall.
This was a limited-edition item that is no longer in production.
The recall was initiated after a consumer contacted Artisan Confections about
an allergic reaction, and it was discovered that Kumasi Sambirano packaging
did not reveal the possible presence of milk.
No other Scharffen Berger items are involved in this recall.
Consumers who have purchased the item in question should contact Artisan
Confections Consumer Relations at 866-608-6944.
CADBURY SCHWEPPES: Sued Over Mislabeled “All Natural” Beverages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cadbury Schweppes plc is facing a class-action complaint filed July 6 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York accusing it of
falsely labeling its Snapple juice drinks as "all natural," reports say.
The company markets Snapple drinks using slogans such as "made from the best
stuff on Earth" when they contain high-fructose corn syrup and other "non
natural" products, according to the complaint.
Named plaintiff Hemant Mehta alleges the company mislabeled certain products,
including its Snapple juice and tea drinks, as all natural when they were
not. He alleges that the drinks contained high fructose corn syrup and other
non-natural products.
"The use of the term natural to describe such products creates consumer
confusion, is deceptive, and detrimentally affects competing products that
are actually naturally produced," Mr. Mehta said in the complaint.
He seeks to represent more than 1,000 people in a class action and seeking
damages of at least $100 million.
According to a Los Angeles Times report, Cadbury spokesman Greg Artkop
declined to comment on the lawsuit but added, "Our products and packaging
meet all legal and regulatory requirements."
The suit is “Mehta v. Cadbury Schweppes SBS, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
06262-LMM,”filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Lawrence M. McKenna.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Krishnan Shanker Chittur
Chittur & Associates, P.C.
286 Madison Avenue, Suite 1100
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 370-0447
Fax: (212) 370-0465
E-mail: kchittur@chittur.com
CANADA: Airline Passengers Sue Ga. Man Diagnosed with TB
--------------------------------------------------------
Nine passengers of Czech Airlines (CSA) filed a $1.3 million lawsuit against
a 31-year-old Atlanta personal injuries attorney who insisted on taking an
international flight despite an advice against travel by health officials
after he was diagnosed with tuberculosis.
Andrew Speaker was in Rome when he learned tests showed he had an extremely
drug-resistant strain of tuberculosis known as XDR-TB. He took a CSA
jetliner to Montreal in early May as part of his return trip home, defying
safety orders. He is currently undergoing treatment under isolation in a
Denver hospital, according to Associated Press.
Montreal lawyer Anlac Nguyen filed a complaint in Quebec Superior Court on
behalf of seven Canadians and two natives of the Czech Republic, according to
the report. Health officials say tests so far indicate his risk of spreading
the infection is low, but Mr. Nguyen said: “nobody can say that they won't
have tuberculosis either."
One of the plaintiffs is Nassim Tabri, a 26-year-old Montreal graduate
student. He is seeking CA$134,900 for pain, suffering and "loss of
opportunities.” His demand is the highest among the nine plaintiffs. He had
tested negatively for tuberculosis.
Speaker's father Ted, a lawyer himself, said they would wait until the
lawsuit is served before responding.
CAR DEALERS: Penna. Lawsuit Alleges Sale of Illegal Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas accuses car dealers of selling insurances without a license to do so,
the CourtHouse News Service reports.
The complaint names as defendants:
-- Alexico Corp.,
-- McCafferty Hyundai Sales, Inc.,
-- McCafferty Beans Holding Co., Inc.,
-- McCafferty Ford Sales, Inc. d/b/a McAfferty Auto
Group
This class action arises out of defendants' illegal sale of "Premium Care
Theft Guard" (PCTG), an aftermarket product distributed, sold and
administered by Alexico Corp. It is sold directly to consumers by the
remaining defendants who are Pennsylvania car dealers who either broker the
sale on behalf of the consumer or as Alexico's "Theft Guard Representative."
The PCTG is a written insurance agreement that, inconsideration of a one-time
premium payment, obligates Alexico to indemnify the PCTG purchaser for a
period of three years against the happening of a fortuitous event: the theft
of the purchaser's vehicle.
Named plaintiff Joanne Moroz contends that the PCTG insurance is illegally
sold by defendants, who have not registered as insurance agents or submitted
the PCTG to the Insurance Department for rate review and approval. In
addition, defendants misrepresent the PCTG to be a form of "warranty," but
they fail to include the required disclosures under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and thereby violate that Act if the PCTG is considered to be
a "warranty" or "service contract" within the meaning of the MMWA, the suit
states.
Ms. Moroz brings this case on behalf of all consumers who purchased the PCTG
from any Pennsylvania car dealer during the period July 1, 2001 through the
present.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the PCTG is insurance under Pennsylvania law;
(b) whether defendants must submit the PCTG to Pennsylvania
Department of Insurance for approval;
(c) whether the defendants are licensed by the Department
of Insurance to sell the PCTG;
(d) whether Alexico is authorized to offer the PCTG for
sale to Pennsylvania consumers through its agents the
dealership defendants;
(e) whether the defendants were aware that selling the PCTG
in Pennsylvania was illegal and nevertheless agreed to
continue its sale;
(f) whether the unlawful sale of the PCTG by the defendants
is a deceptive act or practice that violates the Unfair
Insurance Practices Act, 40 P.S. Section 1171.5;
(g) whether the unlawful sale of the PCTG by the defendants
is a deceptive act or practice that violates the Unfair
Insurance Practices Act, 40 P.S. Section 1171.5;
(h) whether the unconscionable charges for the PCTG imposed
on consumers by defendants violate the Pennsylvania
Motor Vehicle Sales Finance Act, 69 P.S. Section
631(A);
(i) whether the defendants affirmative, deceptive
misrepresentation that the PCTG was "not an insurance
policy" constitutes a deceptive sales practice in
violation of the UTPCPL;
(j) whether the defendants affirmative, deceptive
misrepresentation that the PCTG was "not an insurance
policy" constitutes common law fraud, deceit and
misrepresentation;
(k) whether plaintiff and the class suffered an
ascertainable loss in their purchase of the PCTG, by
drastically over-paying for a three-year/$3000
automobile theft insurance policy, or paying a rate
that was never approved by the Department of Insurance
pursuant to its rate-making procedures;
(l) whether the PCTG is a warranty subject to the 100%
mark-up limitations in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Sales Finance Act, 69 P.S. Section 610(14);
(m) whether the defendants charges in excess of the 100%
mark-up limitations is a per se deceptive act as
defined in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Sales Finance
Act, 69 P.S. Section 610(14);
(n) whether defendants' deceptive act in charging in excess
of the 100% mark-up limitations set by the MVSFA
violates the UTPCPL; and
(o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched by
retaining a portion of the entire fee charged for the
PCTG.
Plaintiff prays for:
-- an order certifying this action as a class action,
appointing plaintiff as class representative and
designating plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel;
-- an order declaring the conduct alleged be a deceptive
sales practice within the meaning of the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73
P.S. Section 201-9.2, and the common law of unjust
enrichment;
-- a judgment awarding plaintiff and each member of the
class a full refund of all monies paid for the PCTG,
interest thereon and any amount by which defendants have
been unjustly enriched, plus treble damages;
-- a judgment awarding plaintiff and each member of the
class the greater of compensatory or statutory damages;
-- an order enjoining the sale of the PCTG unless and until
its premium is approved by the Department of Insurance,
and defendants become properly licensed insurance
producers;
-- an order awarding plaintiff and the class their costs of
suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses
as provided by law; and
-- an award of such other, further, and different relief as
the nature of the case may require or as may be
determined to be just, equitable or proper by the panel.
The suit is "Joanne Moroz et al. v. Alexico Corp., et al., Case No. 003495,"
filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Robert J. Mongeluzzi, Esq.
Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.
One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 575-3895
- and -
Michael D. Donova, Esq.
Donovan Searles, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 732-6067
E-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com
CARROLS CORP: Opposes Motion to Certify Suit by Former Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has yet to rule
on certain motions made in a purported class action against Carrols Corp.,
according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1,
2007.
On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees commenced a lawsuit, "Dawn
Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp."
The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain minimum wage
laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws by
requiring employees to work without recording their time and by retaliating
against those who complained.
Plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief. They also seek to
notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting of current and former
employees who, since 1998, have worked, or are working, for Carrols.
As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties agreed to
withdraw plaintiff's motions to certify and for national discovery, and
defendant's motion to disqualify counsel and related motions, to allow both
sides limited additional discovery.
Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the existing
plaintiffs that the court has under consideration.
On Jan. 19, 2007, plaintiffs refiled a motion to certify and for national
discovery.
Carrols has opposed such motions. It has also moved to disqualify the
Plaintiffs from representing the class and to strike the purported evidence
presented in support of the motion to certify. The various motions are not
yet set for hearing.
The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-
MWP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
under Judge David G. Larimer with referral to Judge Marian W. Payson.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Patrick J. Solomon, Esq.
Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP
693 East Avenue
Rochester, NY 14607
Phone: 585-272-0540
Fax: 585-272-0574
E-mail: psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com
Representing the defendants is:
Helen N. Baker, Esq.
Freeborn & Peters
311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-360-6256
Fax: 312-360-6995
E-mail: hbaker@freebornpeters.com
CATERPILLAR INC: "Winnett" Pension Suit Granted Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aleta A. Trauger of the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee issued an order on July 12 granting class certification
to a lawsuit accusing Caterpillar Inc. of denying retirees and their
surviving spouses the lifetime medical insurance they earned after years of
working at Caterpillar.
On March 28, 2006, two Caterpillar retirees and a surviving wife of a
deceased retiree brought the suit in April alleging that Caterpillar has
denied them retiree medical benefits that were offered for years under their
union contracts (Class Action Reporter, April 4, 2006).
The complaint asserts that the company's labor contracts and benefit plans
provided retiree's health care coverage "continued for his or her lifetime at
no cost." The plaintiffs request the court certify a class of former company
retirees and surviving spouses who retired before the adoption of a March
1998 contract.
Caterpillar has charged retirees for portions of their medical insurance
premiums and also charged retirees and surviving spouses of retirees
increased payments on prescription drugs and medical procedures. Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of more than 4,000 retirees and surviving spouses
who have been charged.
The plaintiffs sued Caterpillar on behalf of a class of all retirees and
surviving spouses of retirees who were represented by the union and who
retired on or after January 1, 1992 and before March 16, 1998. The plaintiffs
brought their claims under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, 29 U.S.C. ss. 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3) and the LMRA, the Labor
Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C ss. 185 (a).
Caterpillar filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint, advancing a
variety of arguments against the plaintiffs' claims. On May 17, the court
denied Caterpillar's motion to dismiss and ordered that the lawsuit against
Caterpillar go forward (Class Action Reporter, May 18, 2007).
In the judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Trauger rejected each of
the defendant's arguments. She held that the plaintiffs have stated a claim
under the LMRA and ERISA and are entitled to proceed with their lawsuit,
summarizing the plaintiff's claim as follows:
"The plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached its promise to pay lifetime
retiree health benefits at no cost when, in 2004, without the retirees'
consent, Caterpillar began charging retirees and their surviving spouses for
a portion of their medical care."
After reviewing the alleged facts and relevant law, the court stated, "To
summarize, in interpreting the language of the relevant documents, the court
finds evidence that Caterpillar intended to confer lifetime vested retiree
medical benefits upon the plaintiffs."
In the July 12, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order, Judge Trauger held that
the class satisfied all the requirements of class certification. In reviewing
the appropriateness of class certification, she held:
"The court finds that the named plaintiffs share a keen interest in declaring
the rights of the entire class to vested, lifetime healthcare benefits under
the 1988 agreements and plans without any premium-sharing payment by them and
without the modifications that have reduced their benefits and imposed new
out-of-pocket costs since January 1, 2006."
The judge ordered that the case will now proceed as a class action.
"We're very pleased with the ruling because it puts over 4,000 retirees
closer to the no cost healthcare benefits that they were promised by
Caterpillar," said Michael Mulder, an attorney at Meites, Mulder, Mollica &
Glink, who represents the plaintiffs.
The suit is "Winnett et al. v. Caterpillar, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv-00235,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, under
Judge Aleta A. Trauger.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq.
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
3319 West End Avenue, Suite 600
Nashville, TN 37203-1074
Phone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com
Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
One Nashville Place
150 4th Avenue, N, Suite 1650
Nashville, TN 37219-2423
Phone: (615) 313-9000
E-mail: kbarnett@lchb.com
- and -
Alexandra Coulter Cross, Esq.
Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner
315 Deaderick Street
1800 First American Center
Nashville, TN 37238
Phone: (615) 256-0500
E-mail: acc@h3gm.com
Representing defendant is:
Lawrence Slade Eastwood, Jr., Esq.
Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC
Commerce Center
211 Commerce Street, Suite 1000
Nashville, TN 37201
Phone: (615) 726-5600
E-mail: leastwood@bakerdonelson.com
CB DEVELOPMENT: Sued in B.C. Over Cancelled Pre-Sale Agreements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Leduc-Ledezma, a would-be Riverbend homeowner filed a class action,
on July 6, in the B.C. Supreme Court against parties involved in the
cancellation of pre-sale agreements in the project, Lara Gerrits of The Tri-
City News reports.
Named defendants in the complaint are:
-- CB Development 2000 Ltd.;
-- The Bowra Group, CB’s court-appointed receiver;
-- CareVest Capital Inc., the project’s major lender;
-- Marion Lochhead, its real-estate agent;
-- Sutton Group; and
-- 1st West Realty Inc., Ms. Lochhead’s firm.
According to court documents, Ms. Leduc-Ledezma is representing all 32 pre-
sale buyers who had their contracts nixed in April after rising construction
costs left a lender unwilling to release mortgages on the properties unless
they were sold for current market value.
Last month a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled they would not get their homes
for the price they thought they had paid, however, they could later make
claim to all or a portion of the difference between the pre-sale price and
that which the units are eventually sold for.
Ms. Leduc-Ledezma was one of 17 buyers who sought a court order forcing the
pre-purchase agreements to be honored.
The potential class action claims damages for “inducing breach of contract or
intentional interference in economic relations” as well as loss of equity.
COCA-COLA: Expert Report Estimates Shareholder Losses at $1.3B
--------------------------------------------------------------
A report made by a financial expert retained by shareholders suing Coca-Cola
Co. concludes that investors sustained damages exceeding $1.3 billion when
the company improperly inflated revenues to boost stock prices, according to
Robin McDonald Fulton County Daily Report.
The shareholders damage report was authored by Steven P. Feinstein, a
chartered financial analyst and associate professor of finance at Babson
College in Wellesley, Mass. It was submitted to a federal judge as part of
shareholders' efforts to have the case certified as a class action.
Case Background
On Oct. 27, 2000, a class action, "Carpenters Health & Welfare Fund of
Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Co., et al.," was filed against the
company, alleging that the company, M.
Douglas Ivester, Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut violated antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by making misrepresentations or
material omissions relating to the company's financial condition and
prospects in late 1999 and early 2000.
A second, largely identical lawsuit, "Gaetan LaValla v. The Coca-Cola Co., et
al.," was also filed in the same court on Nov. 9, 2000.
The complaint, which was brought seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
alleges that the company and the individual named officers:
-- forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept
"excessive, unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate
during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thus
creating a misleading sense of improvement in the
company's performance in those quarters (the practice
is called “channel stuffing”);
-- failed to write down the value of impaired assets in
Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
resulting in the presentation of misleading interim
financial results in the third and fourth quarters of
1999; and
-- misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure
from the company and then misleadingly reassured the
financial community that there would be no changes in
the company's core business strategy or financial
outlook following that departure.
On Jan. 8, 2001, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
entered an order consolidating the two cases for all purposes as, "Carpenters
Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-Cola Co., et
al." The court also ordered the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended
complaint.
On July 25, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which largely repeated the allegations made in the original complaints and
added Douglas N. Daft as an additional defendant.
On Sept. 25, 2001, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint. On Aug. 20, 2002, the court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.
The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the
complaint. On Sept. 4, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for partial
reconsideration of the court's Aug. 20, 2002 ruling. The court denied the
motion on April 15, 2003.
On June 2, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. The
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 30, 2003.
On March 31, 2004, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In its order, the court
dismissed a number of the plaintiffs' allegations, including the claim that
the company made knowingly false statements to financial analysts. The court
permitted the remainder of the allegations to proceed to discovery.
Mr. Feinstein’s Report
Mr. McDonald said in his article that other court pleadings in the case
stated Mr. Daft was fully aware of “channel stuffing” practices at Coke Japan
where he was president of Coke's Middle East and Far East Group. The
practice artificially boosted stock prices by nearly $12 a share, Mr.
Feinstein concluded.
Total damages to stockholders, not including prejudgment interest, amounted
to $1.33 billion, Mr. Feinstein stated in his report. Interest on those
anticipated damages has, so far, boosted the total by another $500 million,
he said.
Mr. Feinstein’s report cites a sworn testimony from Mr. Ivester confirming
that “channel stuffing” had been a company practice under Mr. Ivester's
tenure as far back as 1997. Mr. Ivester admitted in the testimony that he
was fired in 1999. Coke spokespeople had insisted publicly that Mr. Ivester
had elected to retire.
The report said the investors affected are those who bought Coke stock
between Oct. 21, 1999, and March 6, 2000.
The suit is "Carpenters Health &, et al. v. Coca-Cola Co., et
al., Case No. 1:00-cv-02838-WBH," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Willis B.
Hunt, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
David Andrew, Esq.
Bain of Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP
1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.
2300 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-873-3900
E-mail: dab@classlaw.com
- and -
Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-4297
Phone: 619-231-1058
E-mail: maryb@lerachlaw.com
Representing the company are:
Robert L. Dell Angelo, Esq.
Munger Tolles & Olson, 355
South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-683-9100
- and -
Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
King & Spalding, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30303-1763
Phone: 404-572-4600
E-mail: jcashdan@kslaw.com
COFFEYVILLE GROUP: New Defendants Named in Kan. Oil Spill Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC,
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault and Becnel Law Firm LLC names additional
defendants to a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas, on behalf of numerous individuals and business owners who
have sustained losses as a result of the Coffeyville Resources refinery oil
spill.
The additional defendants include:
-- Coffeyville Acquisition, LLC, an entity principally
owned by Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
-- its subsidiary J. Aron & Company,
-- Kelso & Company and/or its affiliates
-- CVR Energy, Inc.
-- Coffeyville Group Holdings, LLC
-- Coffeyville Refining and Marketing Inc.
-- Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC
-- Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC and
-- Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC.
On July 1 and July 2, 2007, more than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled
from the Coffeyville Resources refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons
that was initially reported. Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at
the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very large
area.
More than 2,500 residents and businesses have been displaced by the oil slick
and "toxic soup" that made its way on the Verdigris River. In excess of 200
properties have already been destroyed by these uncontrolled waterborne
poisons. Refinery officials said they are still investigating how the spill
occurred.
On July 5, the law firms filed the suit on behalf of a man who lost his house
and business as a result of oil spilled from the
Coffeyville Resources refinery (Class Action Reporter, July 10, 2007).
The suit originally named the following as defendants:
-- Coffeyville Resources, LLC;
-- Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC;
-- Coffeyville Resources Crude Transportation, LLC;
-- Coffeyville Resources Terminal, LLC;
-- Coffeyville Resources Pipeline, LLC; and
-- Coffeyville Resources Nitrogen Fertilizers, LLC.
The economic effects of oil spills can be devastating and far-reaching. Large
companies, sole proprietors, and individuals alike stand to endure major
economic losses when oil spills occur. Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990,
the responsible party is liable for the costs associated with the containment
or cleanup of the spill and any damages resulting from the spill.
Oil spills cause large-scale damage, destruction and death to aquatic
environments. The type of oil determines the type of damage. Crude oil is
suffocating and has a toxic effect because it is like a heavy tar. Refined
petroleum such as gasoline is generally more toxic but evaporates quickly.
Crude oil causes much damage to birds and mammals; it sticks to their fur or
feathers, causing hypothermia by reducing insulation and making them easy
prey. It also causes loss of weight due to lack of ability to feed and also
causes damage to the digestive systems when the oil is ingested.
Refined petroleum causes damage not due to stickiness but due to toxicity.
Animals become poisoned when they ingest refined petroleum products, and the
poison travels up the food chain. Respiratory, immune and adrenal systems are
also damaged. Blood and organs are damaged. Breeding is interrupted or
halted, or offspring become poisoned and die.
The suit is “Dunham v. Coffeyville Resouces, LLC et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-
01186-JTM-DWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
under Judge J. Thomas Marten with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Andrew W. Hutton
Hutton & Hutton
8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200
P. O. Box 638
Wichita, KS 67201-638
Phone: 316-688-1166
Fax: 316-686-1077
E-mail: andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com
DELL INC: High Court in Canada Dismisses Pocket PC Price Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled out a class action accusing Dell Inc. of
adding hundreds of dollars to the listed price of a hand-held unit on its Web
site, NEWS.com.au reports.
In 2003, the consumers' group Union des consommateurs initiated a lawsuit,
which seeks to determine if consumers can launch class actions against Dell
Canada (Class Action Reporter, May 13, 2003).
The company allegedly posted a list price for its Axim x5 pocket PC models of
$89 to $118. On April 7, 2003, the Company corrected the price, saying the
actual retail price for the units was $379 for a basic model and $549 for a
faster unit. The consumer advocacy group alleged that a number of customers
had already placed Internet orders under the original price. It added Dell is
violating Canadian competition and consumer-protection laws by refusing to
honor the lower price.
Although Dell learned of the mistake quickly and blocked the page, some
consumers found the incorrect listings and placed orders. The company issued
a correction notice and offered the customers a discount, but refused to
honor the incorrect price listings.
Dell maintains that a standard clause on its Web site, which says that
arbitration will be the sole method used to settle disputes, should protect
it from class actions (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 18, 2006).
However, Quebec's Superior Court in 2004 granted Olivier Dumoulin of Saint-
Laurent, Quebec, and the Union des consommateurs class-action certification.
In recent developments, Canada's high court dismissed the lower court’s
ruling that the terms and conditions of sale were not made obvious to
consumers, and referred the case to arbitration.
The high court pointed out that a hyperlink at the bottom of Dell's web page
was "consistent with industry standards" and a notice in bold print urged
consumers to read the document.
"This warning brings the existence of the dispute resolution clause directly
to the attention of the reader at the outset," the court said, adding that "a
certain level of computer competence (must) be attributed to those who choose
to engage in e-commerce."
Several provinces have passed laws voiding mandatory arbitration clauses, but
they are not retroactive in this case, the court said.
EL POLLO: “Amezcua” Labor Suit Sent to Complex Litigation Panel
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles has
assigned a purported class action against El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of EPL Intermediate, Inc. to the complex litigation panel.
Generally, the suit alleges violations of California labor laws and the
California Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff Salvador Amezcua filed the suit on Oct. 18, 2005 on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, based on, among other things,
failure to pay overtime compensation, unlawful deductions from earnings and
unfair competition by the company.
The suit requested remedies that include compensatory damages, injunctive
relief, disgorgement of profits and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
The company was served with this complaint on Dec. 16, 2005. The court has
ordered that the case be deemed complex and assigned it to the complex
litigation panel, according to the company’s May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 28, 2007.
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/-- formerly EPL
Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise restaurants specializing in
marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
EL POLLO: Calif. Managers' Suit Still Stayed Pending Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the state of California, County of Los
Angeles has yet to lift the stay on the proceedings in a purported class
action filed against El Pollo Loco, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of EPL
Intermediate, Inc.
On or about April 16, 2004, three former employees of the company, Elias,
Ramirez and Rivera, filed a class action in the Superior against EPL on
behalf of all putative class members composed of former and current general
managers and restaurant managers from April 2000 to present. The suit
alleges certain violations of California labor laws, including alleged
improper classification of general managers and restaurant managers as exempt
employees.
Plaintiffs' requested remedies include compensatory damages for unpaid wages,
interest, certain statutory penalties, disgorgement of alleged profits,
punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs as well as certain injunctive
relief.
The complaint was served on EPL on April 19, 2004. The court has ordered the
class action stayed pending the arbitration of one of the named putative
class plaintiffs as a result of his execution of a mandatory arbitration
agreement with EPL.
The company reported no development on the case at its May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2007.
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., -- http://www.elpolloloco.com/-- formerly EPL
Holdings, Inc. own, operate and franchise restaurants specializing in
marinated, flame-grilled chicken.
EPL INTERMEDIATE: Still Faces Calif. FACTA Violations Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
EPL Intermediate, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
alleging violations of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which restrict the credit card information
that may be printed on customer receipts.
Veronica Blanco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
filed the suit on Jan. 11, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.
The company reported no development on the case at its May 11, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2007.
The suit is "Blanco v. El Pollo Loco Inc. et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-00054-JVS-
RNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge James V. Selna with referral to Judge Robert N. Block.
Representing the plaintiff is:
James Mark Moore, Esq.
Spiro Moss Barness
11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: 310-235-2468
E-mail: mark@spiromoss.com
Representing the defendant is:
Ralph H. Blakeney, Esq.
Pillsbury Winthrop
650 Town Center Dr, 7th Fl.
Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7122
Phone: 714-436-6800
Fax: 714-436-2800
FIRST UNION: Sept. 5 Hearing Set in ATM Fee Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania will hold a
fairness hearing on September 5, 2007, 9:30 a.m., for a $1,350,000 settlement
of the class action “Bruce Wong v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action
No. May Term, 2003 No. 1173.”
The class is composed of all those who made a cash withdrawal from an
unbranded automated teller machine from July 15, 1996 to 2002 at certain
locations and were a customer of First Union National Bank.
Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on August 24, 2007.
The hearing will be at Court Room 246 of the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, at City Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania.
Case Background
Originally filed in 2003, the lawsuit claims that First Union charged
transaction fees, including surcharges and foreign fees to First Union
customers, for using unbranded automated teller machines owned and/or
operated by First Union. Unbranded First Union ATMs were defined as ATMs
that did not bear any external sign or other marking identifying the
terminals as owned and/or operated by First Union.
The lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff’s customer agreement with First Union
stated that First Union will not charge him fees for withdrawals, balance
inquiries or transfers of funds when using First Union ATMs, but will charge
him $1.00 for each such transaction at a non-First Union ATM. It further
claims that from 1996 – 2002 approximately 250 unbranded ATMs were owned
and/or operated by First Union and approximately 1,170,000 cash withdrawals
were made by First Union cardholders at unbranded First Union ATMs.
The lawsuit alleges First Union cardholders were charged surcharges and
foreign fees for these withdrawals. The lawsuit claims breach of contract,
consumer fraud, and unjust enrichment for the surcharges and foreign fees
charged to First Union customers by First Union for these cash withdrawals at
the unbranded First Union ATMs.
In June, First Union agreed to settle the class action for
$1,350,000 (Class Action Reporter, June 26, 2007). The settlement provides a
refund of all or a portion of the surcharges and foreign fees charged to all
persons who made a cash withdrawal from an unbranded ATM from July 15, 1996
to 2002 at certain locations and were a customer of First Union National Bank.
The cash paid into the settlement fund by First Union, after payment of
attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses, and Settlement administration costs
(Settlement administration costs are estimated to not exceed $200,000), shall
be distributed to claimants who file a proper claim form. If funds remain in
the settlement fund after payment of attorneys’ fees, litigation and
Settlement administration costs and claims, those remaining funds will be
distributed to various charitable institutions to be used for community
improvement service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by
the Court.
The settlement will create a fund of $1,350,000 for payment of claims and
expenses. Attorney's fees and litigation and settlement administration costs
will be paid out of this fund upon Court approval. Any money remaining in
this fund after all class member claims have been processed for payment will
be donated to charitable institutions to be used for community improvement
service programs such as financial literacy programs approved by the Court.
The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether First Union National Bank, its
corporate predecessors and/or corporate successors, collectively known as
First Union, inappropriately charged surcharges and foreign fees to its
customers who used unbranded ATMs owned or operated by First Union.
First Union vigorously denies any wrongdoing and maintains that it is not
liable under any of the causes of action alleged.
Wong v. First Union Settlement on the net:
http://www.wongvfirstunionsettlement.com/index.htm
The suit is “Bruce Wong v. First Union National Bank, Civil Action No. May
Term, 2003 No. 1173,” filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia
County.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman
510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Representing defendants is:
William C. Cagney, Esq.
Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, L.L.P.
120 Albany Street Plaza, 6th Floor
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
FLORIDA EAST: Settles Shareholder Suit Over Sale to Fortress
------------------------------------------------------------
Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. (FECI) entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle a consolidated class action filed against it for
accepting a bid from Fortress Investment Group of New York. The suit is
pending in the Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval
County, Florida.
Satuloff Brothers Nevada Inc., which presently owns 16,000 shares of FEC in
Jacksonville worth about $13.4 million, filed the complaint on May 10 after
Fortress' bid for FEC was declared on May 8.
The defendants are Fortress, FEC, FEC chief executive Adolfo Henriques and
FEC's directors, including Miami-based developers Armando Codina and Jorge
Perez.
Based on the suit, Mr. Henriques will make $12 million simply for staying
with the company during the merger.
Satuloff contends the FEC should have lobbied for a higher price from other
bidders instead of hastily accepting Fortress' $3.5 billion offer.
The complaint says the proposed price of $84 per share for FEC stock is an
unfair and inadequate consideration to be paid to the class members.
Under the terms of the memorandum of understanding, FECI, the other named
defendants and the plaintiffs have agreed to settle the action subject to
court approval. If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the
memorandum of understanding, the action will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of understanding, FECI has agreed to
make available to its shareholders certain additional information in
connection with the proposed merger.
In return, the plaintiffs have agreed to the dismissal of the consolidated
action and to withdraw all motions filed in connection therewith. In
addition, FECI or its successor will pay legal fees and expenses of
plaintiff's counsel, subject to approval by the court.
The settlement of the consolidated class action will not affect the amount of
the special dividend or the merger consideration to be paid in the merger,
any other term of the merger or the timing of the special meeting of
shareholders.
FECI, Fortress and the other named defendants deny all of the allegations in
the consolidated class action and believe that the disclosures in its
definitive proxy statement are appropriate and adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, FECI, Fortress and the other named defendants in the
consolidated class action have agreed to settle the purported class action
litigation in order to avoid costly litigation and eliminate the risk of any
delay to the closing of the merger.
The suit is “In re: Florida East Coast Industries, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Lead Case No. CA- 07-003919,” filed in the Circuit Court for the
Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
C. Oliver Burt, III, Esq.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
Esperante Building, 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 900
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Phone: 561-835-9400
Fax: 561-835-0322
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com
- and -
Michael J. Pucillo, Esq.
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
Esperante Building
222 Lakeview Avenue Suite 900
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Phone: (561) 835-9400
Fax: (561) 835-0322
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal in “Brodhead”
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the purported class action, "Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood
Enterprises, Inc.," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, are appealing an order dismissing the class-
action complaint.
Filed on June 22, 2005, the suit states a claim for damages growing out of
certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a
specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers from 1995 through
2003.
Plaintiffs have further clarified and narrowed the class for which they are
seeking certification, which now encompasses all original owners of folding
trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof
but not including original purchasers who received an aluminum roof
replacement and did not pay for freight.
The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class action
previously filed in California state court, entitled,
"Griffin et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al."
The California trial court denied class action certification in the Griffin
matter on April 28, 2005, and the California Court of Appeal upheld the
denial in a decision issued on May 11, 2006.
On March 26, 2007, the federal trial court granted a motion to dismiss the
class-action complaint in the Brodhead case, leaving pending only the
individual claims of the four named plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, but the court
denied that motion and dismissed the claims of the four individual plaintiffs
on May 29, 2007.
On June 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the federal
court’s dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
according to the company’s Jul 12, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 29, 2007.
The suit is "Kenneth Brodhead et al. v. Fleetwood Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-04560-GPS-Mc," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge George
P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge James W. McMahon.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq.
Gergosian and Gralewski
550 West C Street, Suite 1600
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-230-0104
E-mail: ed@gergosian.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Karen Lee Hindin, Esq.
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq.
Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo
601 California St., Ste. 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone: 415-981-4800
E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
klh@girardgibbs.com
jkl@girardgibbs.com
Representing the company are:
Howard B. Golds, Esq.
Best Best & Krieger
3750 University Ave., Ste. 400, P.O. Box 1028
Riverside, CA 92502-1028
Phone: 951-686-1450
E-mail: hbgolds@bbklaw.com
- and –
Lee Ann Anand, Esq.
Richard K. Hines, Esq.
Nelson Mulins Riley & Scroborough
999 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1400
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: 404-817-6000
E-mail: leeann.anand@nelsonmullins.com
richard.hines@nelsonmullins.com
GERMANY: New Generation of Holocaust Survivors Sue in Israel
------------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Fund, on behalf of Israelis who are children of Holocaust survivors
and who call themselves second generation survivors, is filing a class action
in a Tel Aviv court against the German government to finance therapy, the
English General News reports.
The suit claims the second generation grew up "in the shadow of depression,
grief and guilt of their parents, which created a powerful inclination among
the children for pain and suffering."
The suit claims, children had a "twisted relationship with their parents"
that impeded their development and led to severe psychological problems.
Fisher Fund director Baruch Mazor said thousands of people from Holocaust
families are incapable of working, live with an irrational fear of starvation
and suffer incapacitating bouts of depression.
The suit seeks to set up a German-financed fund to pay for biweekly therapy
sessions for 15,000 to 20,000 people, or about US$10 million annually for
three years.
Mr. Mazor said if they are successful in this suit, the plaintiffs would try
to negotiate a settlement, or would take their case to a German or an
international court.
GLOBAL HORIZONS: Settles Migrant Workers' H-2A Suit for $1.8M
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in the U.S. District Court in Washington ordered Los Angeles-
based labor contractor Global Horizons and fruit growers Valley Fruit
Orchards of Wapato and Green Acre Farms of Harrah to pay $1.8 million to some
600 Yakima Valley farmworkers, The Seattle Times reports.
The judge found the companies in violation of state and federal labor laws,
including willfully withholding wages and failing to provide information in
Spanish about available jobs. The ruling entitles each farmworker to damages
ranging from $2,000 to $4,000.
In 2005, several Yakima Valley farm workers initiated a lawsuit against a Los
Angeles-based labor contractor, Global Horizons, alleging that the firm
violated state and federal law when it displaced them with workers from
Thailand (Class Action Reporter, July 15, 2005).
Filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the suit challenges the use of
foreign workers under the federal H-2A guest-worker program. It seeks class-
action status for at least 490 farm workers in the Yakima Valley.
Under the federal guest-worker program, employers may import foreign labor
only after they've shown they can't find local workers.
Additionally, the lawsuit claims that Global reneged on verbal agreements to
hire local farm workers by never telling them when and where to report. It
also claims that employers imposed productivity requirements that weren't
explained in writing -– as required by law.
The lawsuit also alleges that in 2004 Green Acre and Valley Fruit hired
Global to recruit workers, even though the company was operating without a
state recruiter license for more than nine months, which is a violation of
Washington's Farm Labor Contractor Act.
Lori Isley of Columbia Legal Services, which represented the local
farmworkers, called the ruling "both a victory for farmworkers who tried to
work or did work for the two growers, and for farmworkers everywhere who have
been harmed by the unlawful and unscrupulous practice of Global Horizon."
She said many of the farmworkers are still in the area, though some were
migrants who have moved on. Some are illegal immigrants, but under state and
federal law, she said, "all are entitled to protections, regardless of
immigration status."
Additionally, the judge ordered Global and its owner, Mordechai Orian, to pay
nearly $40,000 in sanctions by July 24 or face criminal contempt charges.
Mr. Orian's attorney, Randolph Shiner, said he plans to file a motion for
reconsideration. Global is so financially strapped it could not afford the
sanctions, he said.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Lori A. Jordan Isley
Columbia Legal Services – YAK
6 South Second Street, Suite 510
Yakima, WA 98901
Phone: 509-575-5593
E-mail: lori.isley@columbialegal.org
Representing defendants is:
Randolph S. Shiner I
Suite 114, 12625 High Bluff Dr
San Diego, CA 92130-2053
Phone: (619) 558-9550
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Cal. Court Junks Claims in Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California granted a motion
dismissing the remaining claims in the purported class action against
HealthMarkets, Inc., according to the company’s May 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
HealthMarkets, and the MEGA Life and Health Insurance Co. were named as
defendants in an action filed on Oct. 5, 2005, “Charles H. Gardner v. MEGA,
HealthMarkets, et al.,” pending in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
California, Case No. BC340625.
The plaintiff has asserted violations of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and
unfair competition.
The plaintiff seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive
relief.
On Oct. 6, 2006, HealthMarkets, MEGA, and HealthMarkets Lead Marketing Group,
Inc., filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas to enjoin plaintiff from pursuing claims in this action that were the
subject of a previous class action settlement.
As part of the previous settlement, the Texas Court barred and permanently
enjoined class members from reasserting, in another proceeding, claims that
were the subject of the settlement.
On Jan. 4, 2007, the Texas Court granted the defendants’ motion and enjoined
plaintiff from pursuing claims that were the subject of the previous
settlement.
On Jan. 16, 2007, the California Court granted MEGA’s motion to dismiss these
previously-asserted claims. On Jan. 25, 2007, plaintiff appealed the ruling
of the Texas Court enjoining plaintiff from pursuing claims that were the
subject of the previous settlement. A ruling on the appeal is pending.
On March 6, 2007, HealthMarkets and MEGA filed with the California Court a
motion to dismiss the balance of plaintiff’s claims, which motion was granted
on March 27, 2007.
HealthMarkets, Inc., -- http://www.uici.net-- formerly UICI, is engaged in
the insurance business through its wholly owned insurance subsidiaries, The
MEGA Life and Health Insurance, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of
Tennessee, and The Chesapeake Life Insurance Co. The Company provides
insurance (primarily health and life) to niche consumer and institutional
markets.
HOLLINGER INC: Settlement in the Offing, Canadian Lawyer Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Chicago jury found Conrad Black, former head of the Hollinger International
Inc. newspaper empire, guilty of three mail fraud charges and one charge of
obstruction of justice. He was found not guilty of nine other charges.
Lawyer Tony Merchant of Regina, Saskatchewan, who is leading a $4 billion
class action on behalf of Canadian investors against Mr. Black and some of
his associates, feels a settlement is closer, according to CBC News.
Case Background
Now known as Sun-Times Media Group, Inc., the company faces several purported
securities class actions pending in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Quebec courts.
On Sept. 7, 2004, a group allegedly comprised of those who purchased stock in
one or more of the defendant corporations initiated purported class actions
by issuing Statements of Claim in Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada.
The Saskatchewan claim, issued in that province's Court of
Queen's Bench, and the Ontario claim, issued in that province's
Superior Court of Justice, are identical in all material respects.
The defendants include the company, certain former directors and officers of
the company, Hollinger, Inc., The Ravelston Corp. Ltd. and certain affiliated
entities, Torys LLP, the company's former legal counsel, and KPMG LLP.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty,
violation of the Saskatchewan Securities Act, 1988, S-42.2, and breaches of
obligations under the Canadian Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C.-
44 and seek unspecified monetary damages.
On July 8, 2005, the company and other defendants served motion materials
seeking orders dismissing or staying the Saskatchewan claim on the basis that
the Saskatchewan court has no jurisdiction over the defendants or,
alternatively, that Saskatchewan is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate
the matters in issue.
On Sept. 6, and 7, 2005, the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench heard the
motion. On Feb. 28, 2006, the court stayed the action until Sept. 15, 2007.
The claimants may apply to have the stay lifted prior to that date if they
are unable effectively to pursue their claims by way of the Illinois or
Ontario class actions or in an SEC proceeding.
On Oct. 27, 2006, the company moved to dismiss the third consolidated amended
class action complaint pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The company's motion is pending, according to the
company's March 16 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006 (Class Action Reporter,
April 19, 2007.
On Feb. 3, 2005, substantially the same group of plaintiffs as in the
Saskatchewan and Ontario claims initiated a purported class action by issuing
a Statement of Claim in Quebec, Canada.
The Quebec claim, issued in that province's Superior Court, is substantially
similar to the Saskatchewan and Ontario claims and the defendants are the
same as in the other two proceedings.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty,
violation of the Ontario Securities Act and breaches of obligations under the
Canada Business Corporations Act and seek unspecified money damages.
Sun-Times Media Group, Inc. on the Net:
http://www.thesuntimesgroup.com/.
HSBC FINANCE: Discovery Ongoing in N.Y. Interchange Fee Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action, "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee
and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720," which names HSBC
Finance Corp. and two of its affiliates as defendants.
Since June 2005, the company, HSBC North America Holdings Inc., and HSBC
Holdings plc, as well as other banks and the Visa and Master Card
associations, were named as defendants in four class actions filed in
Connecticut and the Eastern District of New
York.
The suits are:
-- "Photos Etc. Corp. et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al.,
(D. Conn. No. 3:05-CV-01007 (WWE))";
-- "National Association of Convenience Stores, et al. v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc., et al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV 4520
(JG))";
-- "Jethro Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et
al. (E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-4521 (JG))"; and
-- "American Booksellers Ass'n v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al.
(E.D.N.Y. No. 05-CV-5391 (JG))."
Numerous other complaints containing similar allegations – in which no HSBC
entity is named -- were filed across the country against Visa, MasterCard and
other banks.
These actions principally allege that the imposition of a no- surcharge rule
by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged
for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by
retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the Federal
antitrust laws.
In response to motions of the plaintiffs on Oct. 19, 2005, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating these suits and
transferred all of the cases to the Eastern District of New York.
The consolidated case is known as "In re Payment Card
Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL
1720, E.D.N.Y." The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 24, 2006. Discovery has begun since.
The company reported no development in the matter in its 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 "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount
Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Master Docket No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-CLP,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under
Judge John H. Gleeson.
Representing the company is:
David Sapir Lesser, Esq.
Wilmer Cutler of Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-230-8800
Fax: 212-230-8811
E-mail: david.lesser@wilmerhale.com
HSBC FINANCE: Expert Discovery in Ill. Suit to Conclude in Sept.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery in a consolidated securities class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against HSBC
Finance Corp. and other defendants is expected to end by Sept. 14, 2007.
In August 2002, the company restated previously reported consolidated
financial statements. The restatement related to certain MasterCard and Visa
co-branding and affinity credit card relationships and a third-party
marketing agreement, which were entered into between 1992 and 1999. All were
part of the company's Credit Card Services segment.
In consultation with its prior auditors, Arthur Andersen LLP, the company
treated payments made in connection with these agreements as prepaid assets
and amortized them in accordance with the underlying economics of the
agreements.
Its current auditor, KPMG LLP, advised the company that, in its view, these
payments should have either been charged against earnings at the time they
were made or amortized over a shorter period of time.
The restatement resulted in a $155.8 million, after-tax, retroactive
reduction to retained earnings at Dec. 31, 1998. As a result of the
restatement, and other corporate events, including, e.g., the 2002 settlement
with 50 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending
practices, HSBC Finance Corp., and its directors, certain officers and former
auditors, have been involved in various legal proceedings, some of which
purport to be class actions.
A number of these actions allege violations of federal securities laws, were
filed between August and October 2002, and seek to recover damages in respect
of allegedly false and misleading statements about the company's common stock.
These legal actions have been consolidated into a single purported class
action, "Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al., No. 02 C 5893 (N.D.
Ill., filed Aug. 19, 2002)." A consolidated and amended complaint was filed
on March 7, 2003.
On Dec. 3, 2004, the court signed the parties' stipulation to certify a class
with respect to the claims brought under Section 10 and Section 20 of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The parties stipulated that plaintiffs will not seek to certify a class with
respect to the claims brought under Section 11 and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 in this action or otherwise.
The amended complaint purports to assert claims under the federal securities
laws, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
company's securities between Oct. 23, 1997 and Oct. 11, 2002, arising out of
alleged false and misleading statements in connection with the company's
sales and lending practices, the 2002 state settlement agreement referred to
above, the restatement and the HSBC merger.
The amended complaint, which also names as defendants Arthur Andersen LLP,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., fails
to specify the amount of damages sought.
In May 2003, the company, and other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On March 19, 2004, the court granted in part, and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
The court dismissed all claims against Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
Inc. and Goldman Sachs & Co. The court also dismissed certain claims
alleging strict liability for alleged misrepresentation of material facts
based on statute of limitations grounds.
The claims that remain against some or all of the defendants essentially
allege the defendants knowingly made a false statement of a material fact in
conjunction with the purchase or sale of securities, that the plaintiffs
justifiably relied on such statement, the false statement(s) caused the
plaintiffs' damages, and that some or all of the defendants should be liable
for those alleged statements.
On February 28, 2006, the Court also dismissed all alleged Section 10 claims
that arose prior to July 30, 1999, shortening the class period by 22 months.
The bulk of fact discovery concluded on Jan. 31, 2007. Expert discovery is
expected to conclude on Sept. 14, 2007, according to the company’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 "Jaffe v. Household Int'l Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-05893,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under
Judge Ronald A. Guzman.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Gary L. Specks, Esq.
Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 558-1584
NEW YORK: Court Orders Notification of Cryptosporidium Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of victims of the 2005 Cryptosporidium outbreak at the Seneca Lake
State Park Spray Park in Geneva, New York will be receiving Notices that they
are eligible to participate in the pending class action against the State of
New York Department of Parks, Recreation, and Historical Preservation.
The New York Court of Claims has authorized the mailing of Notices and the
necessary documents for joining the class to approximately 3,500 persons who
contracted Cryptosporidiosis and contacted a New York public health agency to
report their illness. Persons who wish to join the class action will have
until Sept. 7, 2007 to do so. The class action seeks monetary damages for
class members.
Victims of the outbreak who did not contact a public health agency regarding
their illness will not receive written notice of the class action lawsuit,
but are still eligible to join the lawsuit.
Individuals eligible to join the class include:
-- All persons who experienced a diarrheal illness with
onset 1 to 15 days after visiting the Seneca Lake Spray
Park between June 1, 2005 and August 17, 2005;
-- Persons who experienced a diarrheal illness with onset
1 to 15 days after exposure to a person who visited the
spray park between June 1, 2005 and August 17, 2005; or
-- Persons who had the legal obligation for medical bills
incurred by a person who became ill with a diarrheal
illness after visiting the spray park or exposure to a
person who visited the spray park between June 1, 2005
and August 17, 2005.
The suit is “Timothy Springer, et al. v. The State of New York, Claim No.
111361.” The case is currently filed in The State of New York Court of
Claims, in front of Judge Nicholas V. Midey, Jr.
All people who believe they are eligible to join the class action lawsuit
against the State of New York in connection with the Seneca Lake Spray Park
Cryptosporidium outbreak can access claim forms at
http://www.SprayParkOutbreak.com,or contact class counsel:
Paul Nunes, Esq.
Underberg & Kessler, LLP
300 Bausch & Lomb Place
Rochester, NY 14604
Phone: (585) 258-2800
Bruce Clark, Esq.
Marler Clark, LLP, PS
701 5th Avenue, Suite 6600
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 346-1888
Don Boyajian, Esq.
Dreyer Boyajian, LLP
75 Columbia Street
Albany, NY 12210
Phone: (518) 463-7784
NOVASTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Calif. Over “Premium Payments”
---------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. is facing a class action alleging it engaged in
unfair competition and false advertising by failing to disclose the “premium
payments” it makes to mortgage brokers, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The suit was filed by Christophe Kubiak and Sebastian Sanges on June 29,
2007. They claim the practice increases interest rates, until final loan
documents are signed.
The suit is “Kubiak et al. v. NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-
cv-03438-EDL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Carter M. Zinn, Esq.
Law Offices of Carter M. Zinn
3450 Broderick Street, Suite 302
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 292-4100
Fax: (415) 292-4106
E-mail: czinn@lrolaw.com
OREGON: Misclassified Sergeants Sue to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants stationed in Clackamas, Klamath, Marion, Columbia, Jackson and
Clatsop counties filed in Marion County Circuit Court a class action against
the Oregon State Police department, The Associated Press reports.
The seven sergeants claim they should be classified as hourly employees, and
paid overtime for their work.
According to the report, Lieutenant Gregg Hastings says state police
commanders can't comment on the lawsuit because litigation is pending.
RAM ENERGY: Continues to Face Royalty Owners' Lawsuit in Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAM Energy Resources, Inc., formerly Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corp.,
remains a defendant in a purported class action filed by royalty owners that
was filed in the District Court for Woods County, Oklahoma.
In April 2002, a lawsuit was filed against RAM Energy, Inc., certain of its
subsidiaries and various other individuals and unrelated companies, by a
lessor of certain oil and gas leases from which production was sold to a
gathering system owned and operated by Magic Circle Energy Corp. or its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Carmen Field Limited Partnership. The lawsuit
covers the period from 1977 to a current date.
In 1998, both Magic Circle and CFLP became wholly owned subsidiaries of RAM
Energy, Inc. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of all
royalty owners under leases owned by any of the defendants during the period
Magic Circle or CFLP owned and operated the gathering system.
The petition claims that additional royalties are due because Magic Circle
and CFLP resold oil and gas purchased at the wellhead for an amount in excess
of the price upon which royalty payments were based and paid no royalties on
natural gas liquids extracted from the gas at plants downstream of the system.
Other allegations include under-measurement of oil and gas at the wellhead by
Magic Circle and CFLP, failure to pay royalties on take or pay settlement
proceeds and failure to properly report deductions for post-production costs
in accordance with Oklahoma's check stub law.
RAM Energy, Inc. and other defendants have filed answers in the lawsuit
denying all material allegations set out in the petition.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May 14, 2007 Form 10-
Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.
RAM Energy Resources, Inc., -- http://www.ramenergy.com/--formerly Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corporation, is an oil and gas company focused on the
acquisition, exploration, development, exploitation, production and
management of oil and gas properties, primarily in Texas, Louisiana and
Oklahoma. On May 8, 2006, RAM Energy Resources, Inc. merged with Tremisis
Energy Acquisition Corporation. In accordance with the merger agreement,
Tremisis Energy Acquisition Corporation has changed its name to RAM Energy
Resources, Inc.
STATE FARM: Files Motion to Consolidate Chiropractors’ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty filed a motion with the Illinois
Supreme Court asking that a Madison County class action be consolidated with
a similar suit pending in Cook County, according to Steve Gonzalez of The
Madison Record.
The Bemis Class Action
Illinois chiropractors filed a class action complaint in Madison County
Circuit Court against State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. claiming the company
uses improper managed-care tactics to reduce reimbursement to health-care
providers, the Madison County Record reports (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24,
2007).
The class consists of all licensed health-care providers in Illinois who were
reimbursed Preferred Provider Organization payments for regular medical
services by State Farm.
Named chiropractor plaintiffs, Frank Bemis, D.C. and Richard Martis, D.C.,
say State Farm systematically takes improper Preferred Provider Organization
network reductions on its payments for medical treatment.
According to the complaint, this "improper" practice is known in the
insurance industry as a "silent PPO," and State Farm reduced the payments by
claiming PPO benefits without any evidence that PPO agreements actually
existed.
A PPO is a managed care technique that involves a network of health care
providers who offer discounted rates for their services in exchange for a
higher volume of patients.
The plaintiffs claim they did not know beforehand that their patients were
even covered by a health plan or that their health plan would seek PPO
discounted rates, and that even if State Farm had a valid PPO agreement, it
did not live up to its end, by failing to refer patients to the plaintiffs.
They are seeking individually and on behalf of the class for the court to
award them and the class members their individual damages and attorneys' fees
and allowable costs, but in no event shall it exceed $75,000 exclusive of
interest.
Motion for Consolidation
Joseph Whyte and Barney Shultz of Heyl Royster in Edwardsville, lawyers for
State Farm, asked the court that the suit filed by Mr. Benis and Martis be
consolidated with “Snead v. State Farm,” a suit filed in 1999.
The company said that the Illinois Supreme Court has transferred three
similar class actions filed by Mr. Bemis’ attorneys to Cook County for
consolidation with the Snead case pursuant to Rule 384.
The insurance company claims the Bemis complaint involves the same
allegations subject to the same defenses, seeks the same relief, and is
brought on behalf of similar and overlapping putative classes as the prior
pending Snead case, according to Mr. Gonzales.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
The Lakin Law Firm
300 Evans Avenue, PO Box 229
Wood River, Illinois 62095
Phone: (618) 254-1127 or
(800) 851-5523 (Toll Free);
Campbell & McGrady Law Office
104 E Chestnut St., Gillespie
IL 62033
Phone: 217-839-2129
- and -
Donald Birner, Esq.
2613 Mayflower Dr., Pekin
IL 61554,
Phone: (309) 347-7058
Fax: (309) 347-7059
Representing State Farm are:
Joseph Whyte, Esq.
Barney Shultz, Esq.
Suite 100, Mark Twain Plaza II
103 West Vandalia Street
P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville
Illinois 62025 (Madison Co.)
Phone: 618-656-4646
Telecopier: 618-656-7940
Web site: http://www.hrva.com
TOBACCO LITIGATION: 2nd Circuit Reserves Ruling in “Schwab” Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard last
week arguments by tobacco companies against the certification of a suit over
cigarettes they labeled as "lights" or "light."
Theodore Grossman, an attorney for Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco division based in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, argued on behalf of
the tobacco companies that the 2004 lawsuit was unjustly seeking compensation
for smokers who bought at least 65 kinds of light cigarettes and observed
even more marketing campaigns.
He said saying circumstances for each smoker vary widely, and that the class
may consist of as many as 60 million people.
The panel reserved a decision, according to Larry Neumeister of the
Associated Press.
The case is a nationwide "lights" class action that was filed on May 11,
2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York,
against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc.
(B&W), as well as other tobacco manufacturers.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each defendant,
jointly and severally, for all losses and damages suffered as a result of the
defendants' alleged wrong-doings complained of, including pre- and post-
judgment interest, costs and disbursements of the action, including
attorneys' fees and experts' fees and costs.
They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent equitable and/or
injunctive relief, including enjoining future wrong-doing, rescission,
disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten funds, and attaching, impounding or
imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of
defendants' ill-gotten funds.
Plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, challenging the practices of the defendants in connection
with the manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and
sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light."
On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other things,
granting class certification and setting a trial date of Jan. 22, 2007.
On Oct. 6, 2006, the defendants filed a petition asking the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit to review the class certification ruling.
The defendants also filed a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the
proposed interlocutory appeal. On Nov. 16, 2006, the Second Circuit granted
the defendants' motions to stay the district court proceedings and for review
of the class certification ruling.
The suit is "[Shwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York under Judge Jack B. Weinstein with referral to Judge
Steven M. Gold.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP
805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-1980 (fax)
E-mail: lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com
William P. Butterfield, Esq.
Finkelstein Thompson & Loughran
1050 30th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Phone: 202-337-8000
Fax: 202-337-8090
- and -
Paul T. Gallagher, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Ave., N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C., DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
Representing the defendants is:
Mark A. Belasic, Esq.
Jones Day
901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point
Cleveland, OH 44114
Phone: (216) 586-3939
Fax: 216-579-0212
E-mail: mabelasic@jonesday.com
VERISIGN INC: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California certified a class in a consumer fraud
lawsuit that accuses VeriSign Inc. of false and misleading advertisement with
regards to its Internet-security software.
On Feb. 14, 2005, Southeast Texas Medical Associates, LLP filed a putative
class action in the Superior Court of California, alleging violations of the
unfair competition laws, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment
relating to the company’s Secure Site Pro SSL certificates.
The complaint is brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the
Secure Site Pro certificate from February 2001 to present. On April 17,
2006, the class was certified and class notice was issued on May 21, 2007,
according to the company’s July 12, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The law firm Kershaw Cutter & Ratinoff is the lead counsel in the matter
(Class Action Reporter, May 31, 2006).
For more details, contact:
Kershaw, Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP
980 9th Street, 19th Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916-448-9800 and 888-285-3333
Fax: 916-669-4499
E-mail: contact@kcrlegal.com
VERISIGN INC: Court Dismisses Suit After Approval of $80M Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued orders
of final judgment and dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
that was filed against VeriSign, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, after a settlement in the matter was given final
approval.
The settlement also resolved a related shareholder derivative suit filed
against certain current and former officers and directors in which the
company was a nominal defendant. Under the terms of the settlement,
liability insurers for VeriSign paid $80 million to settle the lawsuits
(Class Action Reporter, Feb. 6, 2007).
Beginning May of 2002, several class actions were filed against the company.
The actions were later consolidated as, "In re VeriSign, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW (HRL)," on July 26, 2002.
The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased company stock from Jan. 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002. An
amended consolidated complaint was filed on Nov. 8, 2002.
On April 14, 2003, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended and consolidated complaint.
On May 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that was
substantially identical to the amended consolidated complaint except that it
purported to add a claim under Sections 11 and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act
of 1933 on behalf of a subclass of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed Oct. 10, 2001 and
amended Oct. 26, 2001 for the acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc. by
VeriSign.
Plaintiffs’ second amended class action complaint was dismissed by the court
on Nov. 2, 2005 for failure to adequately plead loss causation.
Plaintiffs were given leave to file an amended complaint. On Dec. 22, 2005,
plaintiffs filed a third amended class action Complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On April
6, 2006, that motion was granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs
filed a fourth amended complaint on May 12, 2006.
Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of the April 6, 2006 order was
granted on June 5, 2006. Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on June
30, 2006.
The company reported that it settled matter in January 2007. On April 24,
2007, the District Court entered Final Judgment and Order dismissing the
Securities Litigation with prejudice based on final approval of the parties
settlement of the matter, according to the company’s July 12, 2007 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "In re: Verisign Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:02-cv-
02270-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California under Judge James Ware.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Bernard M. Gross
1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 215.561.3600
Fax: 215.561.3000
E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202.408.4600
Fax: 202.408.4699
E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com
- and -
Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP
100 Pine Street - Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.288.4545
Fax: 415.288.4534
Representing the defendants is:
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
Embarcadero Center West, 275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111-3344
Phone: 415-984-8900
Fax: 415-984-8701
VERISIGN INC: Faces Lawsuit Over Historical Stock Option Grants
---------------------------------------------------------------
A putative class action, “Mykityshyn v. Bidzos, et al., and VeriSign, Inc.”
was filed on May 15, 2007 in state court naming the company and certain
current and former officers and directors. The suit alleges false
representations and disclosure failures regarding certain historical stock
option grants.
The plaintiff purports to represent all individuals who owned VeriSign common
stock between April 3, 2002 and Aug. 9, 2006.
The complaint seeks rescission of amendments to the 1998 and 2006 Option
Plans and the cancellation of shares added to the 1998 Option Plan.
It also seeks to enjoin defendants from granting any stock options and from
allowing the exercise of any currently outstanding options granted under the
1998 and 2006 Option Plans.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, costs and
attorneys fees. The matter was removed to federal court on June 25, 2007.
WALGREEN CO: Settles Discrimination Lawsuit in Ill. for $20M
------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreen Co. will pay $20 million to settle allegations of racial bias
against thousands of African-American workers in a suit filed against it in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, The Associate
Press reports.
Morris Balle -- an attorney with Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen &
Dardarian in Oakland, Calif. -- said the $20 million will be split among
lawyers who handled the case and the class of between 7,500 and 8,000 of
Walgreen employees who were affected by the company's policies.
The lawsuit stemmed from complaints that originated in St. Louis, Kansas
City, Detroit, and Tampa, Florida. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission officials in St. Louis said they found evidence of the same trend
around the country.
In March, the EEOC filed the class action claiming that the Deerfield, Ill.-
based national drugstore chain assigns managers, management trainees and
pharmacists to low-performing stores and to stores in African-American
communities because of their race (Class Action Reporter, March 13, 2007).
Additionally, the EEOC alleges that Walgreen denies these managers and
professionals promotional opportunities based on race -- all in violation of
federal law.
The settlement deal still needs a judge's approval, but both the EEOC and
Walgreen have agreed to it. The proposal was filed in U.S. District Court in
East St. Louis, Ill.
"We commend Walgreens for working cooperatively with us to reach an amicable
settlement of this case without protracted litigation," EEOC Chair Naomi Earp
said in a statement.
Walgreen Chief Executive Jeffrey A. Rein also praised the settlement.
"We are pleased to reach a resolution that is consistent with our past and
future diversity and equal opportunity objectives," Mr. Rein said in a
statement.
The suit is "Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walgreen
Co., Case No. 3:07-cv-00172-MJR-CJP," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois under Judge Michael
J. Reagan, with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Andrea G. Baran
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - Kansas City
400 State Avenue, Suite 905
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913-551-5848
E-mail: andrea.baran@eeoc.gov
Robert G. Johnson
Barbara A. Seely
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission - St. Louis MO
1222 Spruce Street, Room 8.100
St. Louis, MO 63103
Phone: 314-539-7915 or 314-539-7800
E-mail: robert.johnson@eeoc.gov
- and -
Jean P. Kamp
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Cook County
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60661
Phone: 312-353-7525
WENDY’S INT’L: Accused of Misrepresenting Trans-Fat in Foods
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy’s International, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed July 12
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, claiming
it is understating the amount of trans-fatty acids in its food.
Named plaintiff Bokhyun Yoo, brings this complaint for:
-- violation of Section 17200 et seq. of the Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code;
-- violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act;
-- fraud;
-- deceit and/or misrepresentation;
-- breach of contract; and
-- unjust enrichment.
This is a proposed class action against Wendy's for misleading consumers
about the level of trans-fats in Wendy's food products. Specifically, during
the period from June 2006 to the present, Wendy's falsely stated the amount
of trans-fats in its food products, leading consumers to believe the level of
trans-fats in Wendy's food was nominal or non-existent, when, in fact the
true levels of trans-fats were as much as 500% greater than those claimed by
Wendy's.
The presence of trans-fats in food is a leading health risk for Americans.
Numerous studies have shown the consumption of trans-fats to be a significant
health risk leading to an increase in heart attacks, other coronary disease
and death. Because of this health risk, several countries have banned trans-
fats and several U.S. cities - including Los Angeles - are in the process of
considering bans on trans-fats.
Following on the health concerns presented by trans-fats, in June 2006,
Wendy's engaged in a nationwide marketing campaign to promote that it was
practically eliminating in a nationwide marketing campaign to promote that it
was practically eliminating trans-fats in its french fries, chicken
sandwiches and other fried products. Among other representations, Wendy's
claimed it would reduce the amount of trans-fats in its products so that in
the french fries that are part of Wendy's Kids' Meal, the measurable amount
of trans-fats would be zero, and that its other fried food products would
contain nominal amounts of 0.5 grams or less.
Independent studies have shown, however, that Wendy's representations
regarding the level of trans-fats in its products were materially false and
misleading. Specifically, these studies, conducted by separate independent
laboratories hired by Consumer Reports and plaintiff's counsel, reveal that
the levels of trans-fats contained in Wendy's food are significantly higher,
by as much as 500%, than the amounts Wendy's discloses to the public.
Plaintiff claims he suffered injury after purchasing Wendy's french fries
containing higher levels of trans-fats than represented during the class
period and that he would have not bought the french fries nor paid a premium
for them had the true amount of trans-fats been disclosed.
Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who purchased french fries, chicken
sandwiches or any other deep-fat fried products from Wendy's during the class
period.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether Wendy's labeled, marketed, advertised and/or
sold fried food products to plaintiff, and those
similarly situated, using false, misleading and/or
deceptive statements or representations, including
statements or representations concerning the quantity
of trans-fats in those products;
(b) whether Wendy's omitted and/or misrepresented material
facts on connection with the sales of its fried food
products;
(c) whether Wendy's participated in and pursued the common
course of conduct complained of;
(d) whether Wendy's labeling, marketing, advertising and/or
selling of certain fried food products as "trans-fat
free" constitutes an unfair or fraudulent consumer
sales practice; and
(e) the scope of injunctive relief that should be imposed
against Wendy's to prevent such conduct in the future.
Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
-- for restitution and disgorgement pursuant to the Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et. seq.;
-- for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to,
without limitation, the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section
17200, et seq. and Cal. Civ. Code Section 1780(a)(2);
-- an award of compensatory damages, the amount of which is
to be determined at trial;
-- for the value of the unlawful charges;
-- for punitive damages;
-- for interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sum from
and after the date of the unlawful charges;
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees according to proof
pursuant to, without limitation, the California Legal
Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750. et seq.) and
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Section 1021.5;
-- for costs of suit; and
-- for such other relief as the court may deem just and
proper.
The suit is "Bokhyun Yoo et al. v. Wendy's International, Inc. Case No. CV07-
04515FMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Michael R. Reese
Gutride Safier Reese LLP
230 Park Avenue, Suite 963
New York, New York 10169
Phone: (212) 579-4625
Fax: (212) 253-4272
Seth A. Safier
Gutride Safier Reese LLP
835 Douglas Street
San Francisco, California 94114
Phone: (415) 271-6469
Fax: (415) 449-6469
- and -
Lee A. Weiss
Rebecca Tingey
Dreier LLP
499 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Phone: (212) 328-6100
Fax: (212) 328-6101
*********
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 * * *