/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070731.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 31, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 149 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over iPhone Battery Replacement Fee ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Awaits Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement BC LEASING: Limousine Franchisees Sue in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. Court COMMENCE CORP: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Consumer, Computer Fraud CONAGRA FOODS: To Settle 401(k) Plan Members’ Lawsuit for $4M CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Peanut Butter Products CV TECHNOLOGIES: Confirms $110M Securities Fraud Suit in Canada FLORIDA’S CHOICE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. FORD MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Mich. ERISA Suit GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm System to Upgrade Software GOODYEAR TIRE: USW Files Suit in Ohio Over VEBA’s Establishment GPC BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Over Satraplatin ICT TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Shainberg” Investor Suit IDAHO: Suit Aims to Invalidate County’s 2007 Property Valuations ILLINOIS: Railroad Enters $9.7M Settlement in Land Sales Suit JAIBA CABINETS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. JP MORGAN: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit KPMG LLP: Accused of Multiple Felonies in Tex. Antitrust Lawsuit NIKE INC: Settles Employees’ Race Bias Suit in Ill. for $7.6M ONEIDA LTD: Amended ERISA Violations Complaint Filed in N.Y. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Pending ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissal of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Appealed ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Stewards Seek Rehearing of Dismissed Lawsuit SUN-SENTINEL CO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face “Ward” Labor Suit in Calif. SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Managers TXU CORP: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Tex. Suit Over Merger US AIRWAYS: Discovery Starts in Suit Over “Lap Children” Fare VIRTUAL IMAGING: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Four Companies Accused of Violating ERISA ********* APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Suit Over iPhone Battery Replacement Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer and AT&T, Inc. are facing a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois that alleges the companies fraudulently concealed an annual fee of $85.95 that all Apple iPhone purchasers must pay for battery replacement, the CourtHouse News Service reports. AT&T is iPhone's exclusive carrier, and along with Apple, retails the iPhone in their stores. Named plaintiff Jose Trujillo says the iPhone is designed so that only authorized agents can replace the battery, which must be mailed in, and that batteries must be replaced after 300 charges, necessitating annual replacements. Mr. Trujillo claims that Apple and AT&T waited until July 5, after the iPhone went on sale, to disclose these terms and conditions. Also subject to the complaint is the company’s “loaner program.” During the three days required to replace the batteries, by mail, “Apple provides a ‘loaner iPhone’ for $29,” and all data stored on the phone is lost during recharging, the complaint states. Pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801, plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all consumers, from 2007 to the date of judgment, throughout the United States, who purchased defendants' iPhone. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants committed a breach of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and all like and similar statutes throughout the United States; (b) whether defendants purposefully omitted, misrepresented, and/or fraudulently concealed the durability of the iPhone battery, the terms and conditions of its battery replacement program and "loaner" program, and the cost of the same, prior to purchase by plaintiff and the class; (c) whether defendants committed a breach of contract and/or breach of warranty to plaintiff and the class; and (d) whether defendants were unjustly enriched to the detriment of plaintiff and the class. Plaintiff prays that the honorable court: -- certify the class and appoint plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel to represent the class; -- find that defendants committed a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, breach of implied warranty, and were unjustly enriched; -- find that defendants should account for all revenues improperly earned, as alleged; -- find that defendants pay actual, compensatory, and punitive damages for their conduct as alleged; -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and -- grant such other releif as the court deems appropriate. The suit is "Jose Trujillo et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al, Case No. 07CH19744," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Representing plaintiffs are: Larry D. Drury James Rowe Larry D. Drury, Ltd. 205 West Randolph, #1430 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-7950 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER: Awaits Final Okay of $29M MDL Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to grant final approval to a proposed $28,000,000 settlement in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding that names Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as one of the defendants. On Oct. 19, 2004, Gallagher was joined as a defendant in a purported class action, originally filed in August 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by OptiCare Health Systems Inc. against various large insurance brokerage firms and commercial insurers, “OptiCare Health Systems Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 CV 06954 (DC))” The amended complaint alleges that the defendants used the contingent commission structure of placement service agreements in a conspiracy to deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage services, as well as free and open competition in the market for insurance." Since fourth quarter 2004, nine other similar purported class actions have been filed alleging claims similar to those alleged by the plaintiff in the OptiCare litigation and such cases have been included in a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) proceeding before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On Dec. 29, 2006 Gallagher reached an agreement to resolve all claims in the MDL and related matters. Gallagher admitted no wrongdoing, but chose to conclude its involvement, rather than prolong what could have been a costly and burdensome lawsuit. The MDL Settlement, which is subject to court approval, provides for Gallagher to distribute $28.0 million to current and former clients and others that used a broker to purchase retail insurance from 1994 to 2005. Gallagher will also pay $8.9 million in plaintiffs' attorney fees. The MDL Settlement continues to be subject to final approval by the court. On April 17, 2007, the court granted preliminary approval of the MDL Settlement. The MDL Settlement continues to be subject to final approval by the court, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. -- http://www.ajg.com/-- is engaged in providing insurance brokerage, risk management, and related services to clients in the U.S. and abroad. Its principal activity is the negotiation and placement of insurance for its clients. BC LEASING: Limousine Franchisees Sue in N.Y. Over Alleged Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------------- BC Leasing, Corp., and individual partners of corporate defendants -- Rudolf Samandarov, Group Americar Transportation LLC –- are facing a class-action complaint filed July 25, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Named plaintiffs Tadeusz Kowalewski, Nicholas Klimiuk, Oleg Logunovski, and Stanislaw Puchala accuse Rudolf Samadarov of defrauding franchisees of his limousine companies, Group Americar Transportation and BC Leasing. The suit is “Kowalewski et al. v. Samandarov et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-06706- KMK,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Kenneth M. Karas. Representing plaintiffs is: Marina Trubitsky Marina Trubitsky, Esq. 225 Broadway New York, NY 10007 BEAZER HOMES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. Court --------------------------------------------------------- The “Denning v. Beazer Homes, USA, Inc., et al.” ERISA Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Beazer Homes USA, Inc. 401(k) Plan, between July 28, 2005 and May 30, 2007 and whose accounts included investments in Beazer Homes common stock. Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by: -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s assets; -- failing to monitor fiduciaries; -- failing to provide complete and accurate information to the class; and -- co-fiduciary liability. The suit is docketed 1:07-cv-01401-JTC. It was filed June 15, 2007 by Patrick Denning, who worked for Beazer from April 1997 through the present. It asks, among others, for a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants, an order compelling the defendants to make good to the plan all losses to the plan resulting from the breaches, and actual damages. It names as defendants Beazer Homes USA, Inc., and directors Laurent Alpert, Katie J. Bayne, Brian C. Beazer, Peter G. Leemputte, Ian J. McCarthy, Larry T. Solari, Stephen P. Zelnak, Jr., and John and Jane Does 1-10. Representing the plaintiff are: Michaeal I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Corey D. Holzer 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta GA 30338 Phone: (770) 392 0090 Fax: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: mfistel@holzerlaw.com Lynn Lincoln Sarko Isarko@kellerrohrback.com Derek W. Loeser E-mail: dloeser@kellerohrback.com Gary A. Gotto E-mail: ggotto@kellerohrback.com Cari Campen Laufenberg E-mail: claufenberg@kellerohrback.com Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle WA 98101 3052 Phone: (206) 623 1900 Fax: (206) 623 3384 COMMENCE CORP: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Consumer, Computer Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------- Commence Corp. is facing a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging it sold a software “time bomb”, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Kalow & Springut LLP claims the company put a “time bomb” in software it provided to thousands of businesses, including law firms, forcing them to pay for expensive upgrades when the bomb went off on March 20, 2006, shutting down all the Commence software. The plaintiffs, who are intellectual property attorneys, say they spent thousands of dollars for Commence software and thousands more on upgrades. Kalow says the upgrade cost it $15,211, and that class members lost money during the fix. Plaintiff brings this as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased Commence Corp. software and were using it as of March 20, 2006. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was violated by defendant's acts as alleged; (b) whether the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act was violated by defendant's acts as alleged; (c) whether the Consumer Fraud Acts of each of the states where the plaintiff class members live were violated by defendant's acts as alleged; (d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the appropriate measure of damages. Plaintiffs pray that: -- the court declare this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the class; -- the court enter judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class against defendant; -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class recover their damages against defendant in an amount to be determined, together with interest; -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class recover their costs of this suit. including reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class be granted such other relief as the court may deem proper. The suit is "Kalow & Springut, LLP et al. v. Commence Corp.," filed in the U.s. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing plaintiffs are: Peter S. Pearlman Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrmann & nopf LLP Park 80 Plaza West-One Saddle Brook, NJ 07663 Phone: 201-845-9600 Fax: 201-845-9423 - and - Marvin A. Miller Matthew E. van Tine Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: 312-332-3400 CONAGRA FOODS: To Settle 401(k) Plan Members’ Lawsuit for $4M -------------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Foods Inc. plans to pay $4 million and make certain changes to its retirement benefit plans to settle three lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, accusing top executives of manipulating the Omaha-based company's earnings, Omaha World-Herald reports. The suits are: -- “Bright v. Conagra Foods Inc., et al., Case No. 8:05-cv- 00348-LES-TDT” -- “Rantala v. ConAgra Foods et al., Case No. 8:05-cv- 00349-LES-TDT” -- “Boyd v. Conagra Foods, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:05-cv- 00386-LES-TDT” Retirees filed the suit on behalf of ConAgra employees who bought the company's stock as part of their 401(k) plans after September 18, 2003. The suit, which asks for unspecified damages, accuses Bruce Rohde, ConAgra president, chief executive and chairman, as well as other executives, of hiding information about the company's finances from the public (Class Action Reporter, July 22, 2005). According to the lawsuit, executives' action caused the retirees to lose money when the value of the company's stock later fell. Under the proposed agreement, insurance would pay most of the $4 million and the retirement benefit plans would get the money, with details of the allocation still being worked out, ConAgra spokeswoman Stephanie Childs said. Other changes ConAgra would make to the benefit plans could not immediately be made public, she said. ConAgra denied any wrongdoing. The settlement was subject to approval of U.S. District Court in Omaha. The suits are before Judge Lyle E. Strom, with referral to Judge Thomas D. Thalken. ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is a packaged food company that operates in different areas of the food industry, with a focus on the sale of branded and value-added consumer products. The Company operates in four segments: Consumer Foods, International Foods, Food and Ingredients, and Trading and Merchandising. Representing defendants are: Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr. William F. Hargens McGrath, North Law Firm 1601 Dodge Street, Suite 3700 First National Tower Omaha, NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 E-mail: pbrookhouser@mcgrathnorth.com or whargens@mcgrathnorth.com Representing plaintiffs are: Paulette S. Fox Wolf, Haldenstein Law Firm – New York 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: pfox@whafh.com - and - Joseph F. Gross, Jr. Timmermier, Gross Law Firm 8712 West Dodge Road, Suite 401 Omaha, NE 68114 Phone: (402) 391-4600 Fax: (402) 391-6221 E-mail: jfgross@tgplaw.com CONAGRA FOODS: Faces Suits Over Recalled Peanut Butter Products --------------------------------------------------------------- ConAgra Foods, Inc. is party to a number of lawsuits, including putative class actions and claims related to the February 2007 recall of its peanut butter products, according to the company’s July 25, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 27, 2007. ConAgra Foods, Inc. -- http://www.conagrafoods.com/-- is a packaged food company that operates in different areas of the food industry, with a focus on the sale of branded and value-added consumer products. The Company operates in four segments: Consumer Foods, International Foods, Food and Ingredients, and Trading and Merchandising. CV TECHNOLOGIES: Confirms $110M Securities Fraud Suit in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- CV Technologies Inc. (TSX:CVQ) confirmed that on July 20, a class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against the Company and certain officers and directors, Gordon Tallman, Harry Buddle and Jacqueline Shan and the Company's former auditor. The law firms of Siskinds LLP and Sutts Strosberg LLP jointly filed a $110 million class action against CV Technologies Inc. under Ontario's new investor protection legislation, Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act (Class Action Reporter, July 24, 2007). The suit is seeking, among other things, leave to proceed with a suit under Ontario's investor protection legislation against CV Technologies, the manufacturers of Cold F/X., CV's chief executive, two members of its board of directors, and CV auditors, Grant Thornton LLP. The claim is on behalf of all persons who acquired CV securities between December 11, 2006 and March 23, 2007. The proposed class action arises out of CV's revenue-recognition practices. On December 11, 2006, CV released its management discussion and analysis in which it reported net sales of $46.9 million, an increase of 47% from the prior year, and net earnings of $4.1 million. Before the commencement of trading on March 26, 2007, CV announced that "while reported U.S. sales in the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 were $8.6 million, this primarily represented sales to retailers for stocking their shelves. The actual sell through to consumers has been disappointing and is estimated to be $1.5 -- $2.5 million for the first six months of 2007." On April 11, 2007, CV announced that its consolidated financial statements for the year ended September 30, 2006, as well as its interim consolidated financial statements for the first quarter of fiscal 2007 required restatement due to a revenue deferral issue in the U.S. markets. Upon this news, CV's share price over the TSX fell sharply. On June 14, 2007, CV issued restated financial statements and reported substantially lower net sales and net earnings for fiscal 2006 and the first quarter if fiscal 2007. The notice of action alleges that the defendants negligently or recklessly overstated CV's revenues for fiscal 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 and thereby artificially inflated the trading price of CV securities. The plaintiffs claim $110 million in damages on behalf of the Class Members, including themselves. None of the defendants has been served and the matters raised in the claim are, at this stage. Leave of the Ontario Court has not been granted for the claim to proceed as a secondary market securities class action and the claim has not been certified as a class action at this stage. The class action on the Net: http://www.coldfxclassaction.com/. For more information, contact: Warren Michaels Media Contact: CV Technologies Inc. Vice President, Media Relations Phone: (780) 432-0022 Email: warren.michaels@cvtechnologies.com Website: http://www.cvtechnologies.com - and - Jane Tulloch Investor Contact: CV Technologies Inc. Director, Investor Relations Phone: (780) 577-3724 Email: jane.tulloch@cvtechnologies.com Website: http://www.coldfx.com FLORIDA’S CHOICE: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- Florida’s Choice Painting is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami federal court. Plaintiff Julio Roxas alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Rojas v. Florida's Choice Painting, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07- cv-21802-JAL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Joan A. Lenardfiled. Representing the plaintiff is: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com FORD MOTOR: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Mich. ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A Consolidated Ford ERISA Complaint was filed on April 30, 2007 with the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division on behalf of the class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of these Ford-sponsored, defined-contribution plans: -- the Ford Motor Co. Savings and Stock Investment Plan for Salaried Employees; and -- the Ford Motor Co. Tax Efficient Savings Plan for Hourly Employees between April 15, 2000 and the present and whose accounts included investments in Ford Motor Co. common stock. The suit is now Master Case No. 06-cv-11718. It was originally filed by Theodore Nowak and Gary Brockway. Case Background On April 7, 2006, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan naming as defendants Ford Motor and several of the company's current or former employees and officers. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee savings plans sponsored by Ford. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option in the savings plans. On Dec. 22, 2006, Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback L.L.P. interim co-lead counsel for the Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action brought on behalf of the participants and beneficiaries in the Ford Salaried Plan and the Ford Hourly Plan who held and/or purchased Ford Motor Co. stock in their Plan accounts between April 15, 2000 to the present (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2007). Judge Pepe appointed Keller Rohrback together with the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. The firm of Stephen F. Wasinger, PLC was appointed as Interim Liaison Counsel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-1900 Fax: 206-623-3384 E-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- and -- Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Schiffrin, Barroway LLP 280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor PA 19087-5108 Phone: 610-667-7056 Representing defendants are: Michelle Thurber, Esq. Czapski of Dickinson Wright (Detroit) 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226-3425 Phone: 313-223-3500 E-mail: mczapski@dickinsonwright.com -- and – Gary S. Tell, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers (Washington) 1625 Eye St., NW, Washington DC 20006-4001 Phone: 202-383-5315 Fax: 202-383-5414 GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm System to Upgrade Software ------------------------------------------------------------ Gamewell-FCI, of Northford, Connecticut, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,100 Gamewell-FCI 600 Series SmartScan Fire Alarm Control Panels. The company said the software in the fire alarm system could fail to recognize when a detector needs servicing as a result of the buildup of dust, dirt, or other environmental pollutants, which could result in the system failing to respond in the event of a fire. Gamewell-FCI has received no reports of the firmware failing to operate in the event of a fire. The software upgrade involves the Gamewell-FCI model 600 Series control panel using System Sensor compatible line cards, SmartScan. These panels are components of the Gamewell-FCI 600 Series fire alarm system. They provide the signaling line circuits and display information for the system. These recalled fire alarm system control panels were manufactured in the United States and are being sold at authorized distributors nationwide from October 2004 through May 2007 for between about $400 and $3,500. Authorized distributors resold and installed the control panels for commercial end users in facilities such as hotels and office buildings. Picture of recalled fire alarm system control panels: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07565.jpg Gamewell-FCI is contacting customers directly and providing a free firmware software upgrade. For additional information, contact Gamewell-FCI at (800) 633-1311 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or go to http://www.gamewell- fci.com. GOODYEAR TIRE: USW Files Suit in Ohio Over VEBA’s Establishment --------------------------------------------------------------- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio regarding the establishment of the Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association. The United Steelworkers, and several retirees filed the suit on July 3, 2007, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit, “Redington, et al. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Case No. 5:07-cv- 01999-JRA,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge John R. Adams. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jori B. Naegele, Esq. Gary, Naegele & Theado 446 Broadway Lorain, OH 44052-1797 Phone: 440-244-4809 Fax: 440-244-3462 E-mail: envirolit@aol.com - and - Jeremiah A. Collins, Esq. Bredhoff & Kaiser Ste. 1000, 805 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-842-2600 Fax: 202-842-1888 E-mail: jcollins@bredhoff.com Representing the defendant is: Andrew M. Kramer, Esq. Jones Day 51 Louisiana Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001-2113 Phone: 202-879-3939 Fax: 202-626-1700 GPC BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit in N.Y. Over Satraplatin ----------------------------------------------------------- German company GPC Biotech AG was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired securities of GPC Biotech between December 5, 2005 and July 24, 2007 inclusive. Chief executive Bernd R. Seizinger, Martine George and Marcel Rozencweig were also named as defendants. The complaint alleges that GPC Biotech violated U.S. federal securities laws by making false public statements relating to the prospects of its most advanced product candidate, satraplatin, and thereby artificially inflating the price of GPC Biotech securities. GPC Biotech had spent years attempting to successfully develop it key drug Satraplatin, an oral drug therapy whose goal is to increase overall survival rates, reduce pain, and produce "progression free survival" for advanced prostate cancer patients, and needed to convince investors and collaboration partners who were funding the Company each year that it was making substantial progress toward Satraplatin's "early" U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval to obtain continued funding. However, unbeknownst to public investors, the Phase 3 trial that needed to be conducted for Satraplatin was deeply flawed and employed improper methods for measuring Satraplatin's efficacy. The defendants knew of these gross irregularities not only because of their substantial experience in pharmaceutical development and testing, but also because (as was revealed at the end of the Class Period) they were specifically warned by FDA representatives during Satraplatin's development phase that they were deviating from accepted methodologies, and that the "endpoint" they had selected was one with which the FDA was "unfamiliar" and had "no prior experience." Thus Defendants knew that there was a very substantial chance that the FDA would not approve the drug. Defendants stayed silent about the adverse facts regarding Satraplatin and its unapproved endpoint methodology until they were forced to address them due to FDA disclosures. On May 15, 2007, the Company announced that the FDA would consider approval of Satraplatin at a meeting scheduled for July 24, 2007. On July 24, 2007, the FDA announced that its oncology panel had unanimously recommended against the approval of Satraplatin. The committee said the FDA had no prior experience with that type of endpoint, an issue which was "clearly communicated" to GPC Biotech while the drug was in development. In reaction to these unexpected revelations, GPC Biotech stock fell $7.20 on July 25, 2007 to close at $13.16. GPC Biotech believes the allegations in the complaint to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them. For more information, contact: Martin Braendle Germany- Director, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications - GPC Biotech AG Phone: +49(0) 89-8565-2693 E-mail: ir@gpc-biotech.com - or – Laurie Doyle U.S. - Director, Investor Relations & Corporate Communications - GPC Biotech AG Phone: +1-609-524-5884 E-mail: usinvestors@gpc-biotech.com Website: http://www.gpc-biotech.com ICT TECHNOLOGIES: N.Y. Court Dismisses “Shainberg” Investor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York County court has dismissed a shareholders derivative class action filed against certain officers of ICT Technologies, Inc. The action was filed by Joshua Shainberg on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Vasilios Koutsobinas and Andrew Eracleous, New York County (Index No. 601898/06) on or about May 30, 2006. It purported to be a shareholders derivative class action by former shareholders of the Company and alleged causes of action for negligence, dereliction of duty and conflict of interest in. After the action was commenced, Mr. Shainberg removed himself as the named plaintiff and William Gent was substituted in his place. The Court dismissed this action in its entirety with prejudice, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10KSB Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. IDAHO: Suit Aims to Invalidate County’s 2007 Property Valuations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Coeur d'Alene, Idaho attorney John Francis Magnuson filed a class action on July 19 in the 1st District Court against Kootenai County and Assessor Mike McDowell asking a judge to void the county’s 2007 property valuations, The Spokesman-Review reports. The suit was filed as a class action because the missed deadline, which the county contends was due to new software, potentially affects every property owner in the county. Mr. Magnuson said the county failed to comply with state law to get valuation assessment notices to taxpayer no later than the "first Monday in June." Instead of June 4, the majority of the notices were mailed by June 8 because of last-minute glitches with a new software system that keeps the county's property and tax records, Mr. McDowell admitted. "We did it all in good faith," Mr. McDowell said. "There's been no harm." The suit states the county would have to use the 2006 valuations to calculate property tax bills for the estimated 78,000 parcels in Kootenai County. Mr. McDowell argues that the isn't a realistic remedy because it would create gross inequities. Mr. McDowell said the 2007 assessment reflects market changes. "We all live with a litany of statutory deadlines," Mr. Magnuson said, according to the report. "My intention is to afford as much leeway with deadlines as (the assessor) does the taxpayer -- which is none." Mr. Magnuson said the county doesn't give leniency to property owners who miss the deadline to appeal their assessments. To contact Mr. Magnuson: John Francis Magnuson PO Box 2350 Coeur d'Alene, ID 83816 Phone: (208) 667-0100 Fax: 1-208-667-0500 E-mail: john@magnusononline.com ILLINOIS: Railroad Enters $9.7M Settlement in Land Sales Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A $9.7 million settlement is reached in a class action filed by Decatur attorney Darrell A. Woolums against the Illinois Central Railroad for illegally selling abandoned lands along its railroad track. Mr. Woolums filed the suit in 1992 in Macon County court on behalf of people who purchased from the railroad a parcel of land along the Illinois Central Railroad tracks south of Maroa in 1990. Mr. Woolums, as Maroa city attorney, concluded after reviewing offers to sell some right-of-way, that the railroad had no legal interest in the land. Samuels, Miller, Schroeder, Jackson & Sly LLP and the Chicago law firm O'Rourke, Katten & Moody filed a separate lawsuit that was consolidated with the Macon County action in 1997. Recently, the court found that the railroad, which is now part of the Canadian National Railway Co., wrongly charged for the property it had received free through a federal land grant, The Pantagraph reports. Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will recover the original amount they paid, as well as interest and damages. It will be among the largest civil awards in Macon County Circuit Court history, Mr. Woolums said. Claims are expected to total about $5.8 million, while attorneys' fees total $3.7 million or less, according to documents recently filed in the case. More than 600 people and some communities will benefit from the settlement, according to Herald & Review (Decatur, Ill.). The city of Bloomington will get back about $74,000; Normal, $89,000; Minonk, $90,000; El Paso, $38,250; and Lostant, $20,000. Only original purchasers or their heirs are entitled to file claims for reimbursement under the settlement. The deadline to do so is Oct. 20. Claim forms are available from the attorneys and can be requested by calling 429- 4325 or (312) 849-2020. Macon County Circuit Court Judge Kathleen McCarthy is set to finally approve the settlement on Nov. 16. JAIBA CABINETS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Jaiba Cabinets Inc. is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami federal court. Plaintiff Javier Pena alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Pena v. Jaiba Cabinets, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21804-WMH” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge William M. Hoeveler. Representing the plaintiff is: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com JP MORGAN: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part a motion to certify a class in "In Re J.P. Morgan Chase Cash Balance Litigation, Case No. 06 Civ. 732 (HB)." In a ruling issued May 30, 2007, certification was granted to the class with respect to the notice claims, i.e. Counts IV, V and VI, where plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to: -- provide notice of reduction of the rate of their future benefit accrual pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 204(h); and -- adequate Summary Plan Description as required by ERISA Section 102(b); and -- summaries of material modifications to the Plan pursuant to ERISA Section 102(a), but only with respect to the class claims that stem from the JPMC Plan as of Jan. 1, 2002 and excluding those individuals who have already received their lump sum benefit. Certification is granted to the class with respect to the age discrimination claim beginning the 1st day of Jan. 1989, however, because "Hirt v. The Equitable Ret. Plan for Employees, Managers & Agents, no. 06-cv-4757," is currently sub judice before the 2nd Circuit and since that decision will likely be dispositive of the age discrimination issue, the court reserved the right to revisit this issue following that decision. The court allowed discovery to proceed but restricted it to the age discrimination claims to the period Jan. 1, 2002 and thereafter. It ordered parties to a June 2007 pretrial conference. Appointed class representatives are Neil Aldoroty, John J. Berotti, Annette Marie Falchetti, Terri Melli, Norman J. Schomaker and Perry Shapiro, former employees of JP MOrgan Chase and its various Predecessor Plans. Appointed class counsel are the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP and Keller Rohrback LLP are. Case Background The JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al. Consolidated ERISA Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 23, 2006 on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in the JPMorgan Chase Retirement Plan and all predecessor and successor cash balance plans, at any time after January 1, 1998 whose accrued or pension benefits are based, in whole or in part, on the Plan’s cash balance formula. Predecessor cash balance plans include cash balance plans formerly maintained by: * Bank One Corp.; * Chase Manhattan Bank; * Chemical Bank; * First USA, Inc.; * First Chicago NBD Corp.; and * Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. The Consolidated Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants violated ERISA protections by: -- causing the rate of benefit accrual to decrease because of the age of or attainment of any age by participants; -- failing to provide adequate notice to participants of the impact on benefits caused by the conversion to a cash balance formula; -- failing to fully disclose Plan provisions in the Summary Plan Descriptions provided to participants; and -- failing to provide participants with the required Summaries of Material Modifications to the terms of the Plan. On October 30, 2006, the Hon. Harold Baer, Jr. issued an opinion on Defendants' motion to dismiss. Judge Baer denied Defendants' motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint, the age discrimination claim, as well as Counts IV-VI, the notice claims. The Court dismissed Counts II-III of the Complaint based on Plaintiffs' agreement to withdraw those claims without prejudice pending discovery. The opinion allows Plaintiffs to pursue their core claims against Defendants - - namely that the JP Morgan/Chase Cash Balance Plan discriminated against older workers, and, that JP Morgan/Chase failed to provide adequate notice with respect to the Cash Balance Plan as required by ERISA. On May 30, 2007, the Hon. Harold Baer, Jr. issued an opinion and order certifying a class of plaintiffs in this litigation. Judge Baer certified a class of plaintiffs for the notice claims, but only with respect to the class claims that stem from the JPMC Plan as of January 1, 2002, and excluding those individuals who have already received their lump sum benefits. Judge Baer also certified a class of plaintiffs with respect to the age discrimination claim beginning January 1, 1989. KPMG LLP: Accused of Multiple Felonies in Tex. Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- KPMG LLP is named in a federal antitrust class-action complaint filed July 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of committing multiple felonies to earn tens of millions of dollars fraudulently from 1984-99 in Texas by knowingly using unlicensed accountants, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Douglas Alan Little and Little, Roberts & Co., P.C claims KPMG: -- committed RICO fraud and perjury; -- conspired to compete unfairly and unjustly enrich itself; -- committed bank fraud and wire fraud; -- bribed, destroyed and concealed evidence and transported stolen property; -- repeatedly lied under oath in filings to the accountancy board; and -- that its multiple crimes were enabled “when KPMG’s retired Texas managing partner, Defendant Frank Maresh, was named to the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy in 1993". Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(1)(A), (b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of all persons and entities who, at any or all times from 1984 to 1999, were properly licensed, registered, and/or certified by the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy to perform public accounting services in Texas, including audit, tax, financial advice, litigation support, forensic accounting and management advice and consulting as set out in Title 22, Texas Administrative Code Section 501.51(e) and as defined by the Public Accountancy Act. Plaintiff request: -- that the court certify an appropriate class as requested; -- the court order a trail by jury of the claims asserted, which plaintiffs specifically request and for which a jury fee has been paid; -- plaintiffs and class members recover all damages allowed by law or in equity, including without limitation all fees paid to KPMG from all of the clients of KPMG's Texas offices during the time period from 1984 to 1999 and all profits earned by KPMG in Texas during that timeframe as well as all other damages to be deemed consequential damages, benefit-of-the bargain damages, lost profits, equitable or legal disgorgement, fee forfeiture, treble damages, pecuniary damages, equitable damages, or legal damages. Plaintiffs and class members also seek pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, all costs and expenses to bring this action, and attorneys' fees incurred in this action and any and all appeals, if any, of this action; -- punitive or exemplary damages to the maximum extent allowed by law, including in an unlimited amount, to be determined by the jury in this case; and -- such other relief, both at law and in equity, to which plaintiffs and class members may be entitled. The suit is “Little et al. v. KPMG LLP et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00621-FB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, under Judge Fred Biery. Representing plaintiffs are: Amir H. Alavi Demetrios Anaipakos Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, P.C. 3460 One Houston Center 1221 McKinney Street Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 655-1101 Fax: 713/655-0062 E-mail: aalavi@azalaw.com or danaipakos@azalaw.com John Zavitsanos Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Anaipakos, PC 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 3460 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713)655-1101 Fax: 713/655-0062 E-mail: jzavitsanos@azalaw.com Rudy A. Garza Attorney at Law 300 Convent St., Suite 2400 San Antonio, TX 78205-3701 Phone: (210) 225-2400 Fax: 210/225-7402 E-mail: rugar@sbcglobal.net - and - David E. Warden Yetter & Warden, L.L.P. 909 Fannin, Suite 3600 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: (713) 632-8000 Fax: 713/632-8002 E-mail: dwarden@yetterwarden.com NIKE INC: Settles Employees’ Race Bias Suit in Ill. for $7.6M -------------------------------------------------------------- Nike Inc. has reached a $7.6 million settlement in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of 400 black employees of the company's Chicago Niketown store, the English Business News reports. Under the terms of the agreement, Nike Retail Services will pay $7.6 million to the current and former employees to resolve the claims. The lawsuit covers black employees who worked at the store from 1999 until now. The lawsuit, filed in 2003, stated that the store, owned by Nike Inc., employed 63 stockroom workers between January 2001 and May 2003, 46 of whom were African Americans and three were Caucasian (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 26, 2004). The suit also stated that the starting hourly wage was less than $8 an hour. The suit further stated that during the same time period, eight of the 33 "commissioned sales specialists" were African American and 23 were Caucasian, the sales specialists often earned three to four times as much as a stockroom employee. The 15 plaintiffs, who are current and former Niketown employees, also contend that even though many worked 40 hours a week, they were not considered fulltime employees and therefore were denied benefits such as paid vacation and health and dental insurance. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that they were subject to a racially hostile work environment. The plaintiffs further stated that despite complaints of harassment to numerous managers, Nike failed to respond. Nike has denied the allegations. Under the terms of the recent settlement, Nike also must make a host of other changes to address diversity, such as appointing a diversity consultant to monitor the Chicago store's compliance and a compliance officer at Nike's headquarters in Beaverton. The company must also add an ombudsperson at the store and conduct diversity training for all supervisors and managers there. Nike also is required to review its human resources practice, create equal opportunity objectives for the store and review its theft-loss policies. It also will create a formal mentoring program for black employees. The company and the attorney for the plaintiffs declined to comment further on the case, the report said. The suit is “Smith, et al. v. Nike Retail Svc Inc., Case No. 1:03-cv-09110,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton I. Shadur. Representing defendants are: David S. Baffa Sheldon Leigh Jeter Seyfarth Shaw LLP 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-4205 Phone: (312) 460-5000 Fax: 312-460-7000 E-mail: dbaffa@seyfarth.com or ljeter@seyfarth.com Brenda H. Feis Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 346-8000 - and - Martin Peter Greene Kevin Thomas Lee James L. Singleton Karen Elaine Tinglin Carl K. Turpin Greene & Letts 111 West Washington, Suite 1650 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 346-1100 Fax: 312 346-4571 E-mail: mpgreene@greeneandletts.com or ktlee@greeneandletts.com or jsingleton@greeneandletts.com or ckturpin@greeneandletts.com Representing plaintiffs are: Noelle Christine Brennan Beth A Davis Ines M. Monte Brennan & Monte, Ltd. 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 422-0001 E-mail: nbrennan@brennan-monte.com or bdavis@brennan-monte.com or imonte@brennan-monte.com - and - Randall D. Schmidt Mandel Legal Aid Clinic 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 Phone: (312) 702-9611 E-mail: r-schmidt@uchicago.edu ONEIDA LTD: Amended ERISA Violations Complaint Filed in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ A second amended class action complaint for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against: -- Oneida Ltd. Employee Benefits Administrative Committee; -- Oneida Ltd. Management Development and Executive Compensation Committee; -- Oneida ltd. Pension and Profit Sharing Fund Investment Committee; -- company directors; and -- director committee. The suit was filed by plaintiffs Milton Lilly and Donald Grogan. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the alleged failure of Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plan, to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and to exercise the required skill, care, prudence, and diligence in administering the Plan and the Plan’s assets during the period May 28, 2003 to March 20, 2006. On information and belief, the Plan held between 1.5 million and 1.8 million shares of Oneida common stock during the Class Period. The Plan document provides that the Plan should be invested primarily in Oneida stock. However, under ERISA, the Plan document’s provision for investment in Company stock was controlling only to the extent that it was consistent with ERISA. During the period from May 28, 2003 to March 20, 2006, Oneida stock became an imprudent investment for an ERISA retirement plan. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants allowed imprudent investment of the Plan’s assets in Oneida equity throughout the Class Period despite the fact that they clearly knew or should have known that such investment was imprudent due to, among other things: (a) the fact that Oneida’s core legacy business – production of flatware, dinnerware, crystal, glassware and metal serveware - was suffering from declining consumer confidence and a weak economy; (b) a failed business plan that combined acquisitions of companies outside of Oneida’s core business, coupled with a restructuring plan that resulted in massive employee layoffs; (c) the failure of negotiations with a private investor with regard to a preferred equity investment in the Company; (d) repeated disclosures that Oneida was in breach of its loan covenants and required waivers from it lenders, (e) two consecutive years of financial statements that included a “going concern” qualification from Oneida’s independent public accountants; and (f) the steady weakening of the Company’s financial position and its ultimate collapse into bankruptcy. The plaintiffs are seeking, among others, relief from the defendants in the form of a monetary payment to the Plan to make good to the Plan the losses to the Plan resulting from the breaches of fiduciary duties alleged above in an amount to be proven at trial; and injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief to remedy the breaches alleged. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Britt L. Tinglum, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Avenue Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com btinglum@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com Terence Devine, Esq. Degraff, Foy, Kunz & Devine, LLP 90 State Street Suite 1100 Albany, New York 12207-1780 Phone: (518) 462-5300 Fax: (518) 436-0210 E-mail: tdevine@degraff-foy.com Ron Kilgard, Esq. Gary A. Gotto, Esq. Keller Rohrback P.L.C. 3101 North Central Avenue Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 248-0088 Fax: (602) 248-2822 E-mail: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com ggotto@kellerrohrback.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an intellectual rights class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida remains pending. The suit was filed on January 2006. It alleges that the company infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual property by presenting performances on company cruise ships without securing the necessary licenses. The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a permanent injunction against future infringement. In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00606- DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Deborah A. Batts. Representing the plaintiffs is: Howard J. Schwartz Porzio, Esq. Bromberg & Newman, P.C. 156 West 56th St. New York, NY 10019-3800 Phone: (212) 265-6888 E-mail: hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Frank W. Ryan, Esq. Nixon Peabody, LLP 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 940-3129 Fax: (866) 947-2289 E-mail: fryan@nixonpeabody.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Dismissal of Calif. Labor Lawsuit Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the purported class action "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, et al.," are appealing the dismissal of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on July 2006. It alleges that the company failed to timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper crew overtime. It seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under 46 USC Section 10313 and equitable relief damages under the California Unfair Competition Law. In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claim and held that it should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement. In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Michael Rogers, et al. v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Stephen V. Wilson with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joseph S. Farzam, Esq. Farzam and Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345 Los Angleles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-226-6890 E-mail: farzam@lawyer.com Representing the defendants is: Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq. Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-374-8500 E-mail: sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Stewards Seek Rehearing of Dismissed Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs are seeking for a re-hearing of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit to affirm the dismissal of a purported class action against Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands. Filed in April 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the suit alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards. The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest. In March 2006, the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the suit. In April 2006, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Celebrity’s collective bargaining agreement. In June 2007, following an appeal by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, the appellate court affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing the suit. The plaintiff has since filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for re- hearing enbanc, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. -- http://www.royalcaribbean.com-- is a cruise company with 34 cruise ships and 67,550 berths. The Company operates three brands: Royal Caribbean International, Celebrity Cruises and Pullmantur Cruises in the cruise vacation industry. The cruise vacation industry comprises the budget, contemporary, premium and luxury segments. The ships operate on a selection of worldwide itineraries that call on approximately 200 destinations. On Nov. 14, 2006, the Company completed the acquisition of Pullmantur S.A., a Madrid-based cruise and tour operator. SUN-SENTINEL CO: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- Sun-Sentinel Co. is facing a class action filed July 12 in West Palm Beach Federal Court. Plaintiff Charlemagne Louis-Charles alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Louis-Charles v. Sun-Sentinel Co., Case No. 9:07-cv-80621-KLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge Kenneth L. Ryskamp with referral to Judge Ann E. Vitunac. Representing the plaintiff is: Stephen Joseph Padula, Esq. Hodkin Kopelowitz & Ostrow Firm PA 350 E Las Olas Boulevard Suite 980 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216 Phone: 954-525-4100 Fax: 525-4300 E-mail: padula@thkolaw.com SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc. remains a defendant in a suit alleging it failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees employed in key carrier positions. Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint in California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego in August 2004. It was later certified as a class action. The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by California law. It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or penalties owed the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the premises during meal periods. It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000 to time of trial. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2007. Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. SUPERVALU INC: Continues to Face “Ward” Labor Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class action, “Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.,” which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. The suit -- filed on Oct 13, 2000 -- alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely manner. The suit seeks statutory penalties. On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2007. Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Managers ------------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu, Inc. remains a defendant in a class action filed by Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. assistant store managers in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. In April 2000, a class action complaint, “Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Co., et al.,” was filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. New Albertson's, Inc. consist of the core supermarket businesses formerly owned by Albertson's, Inc. operating under Sav-On banners among others. Assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime based on plaintiffs’ allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under California law, filed the suit. In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit The company reported no development in the matter in its July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 16, 2007. Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a United States grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. The Retail food operations include results of food stores owned and results of sales to limited assortment food stores licensed by the Company. Supply chain services operations include results of sales to affiliated food stores, mass merchants and other customers, and logistics arrangements. As of Feb. 24, 2007, the Company conducted its retail operations through 2,478 stores, including 858 licensed limited assortment stores. As of Feb. 24, 2007, the Company served as the primary grocery supplier to approximately 2,200 stores, in addition to its own regional banner store network, as well as serving as secondary grocery supplier to approximately 400 stores. TXU CORP: Agrees to Settle Consolidated Tex. Suit Over Merger -------------------------------------------------------------- Investors buying electric utility TXU Corp. have entered into an agreement to settle a consolidated merger-related class action pending in the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, the AP WorldStream reports. Under the deal, TXU would not pay anything to the plaintiffs. But the buyers agreed that TXU would pay $925 million instead of $1 billion if it broke off the deal, and they made other changes in the proxy statement sent to shareholders. The company entered an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25, 2007, under which an investor group led by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group would acquire TXU Corp. (Merger Agreement) (Class Action Reporter, June 11, 2007). In February and March 2007 eight lawsuits were filed in state district court in Dallas County, Texas by putative shareholders against the directors of TXU Corp., TXU Corp., two private equity firms, and certain financial entities, asserting claims on behalf of owners of shares of TXU common stock as well as seeking to certify a class action on behalf of allegedly similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated into one action in the 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas, contend that the directors of TXU Corp. violated various fiduciary duties owed plaintiffs and other shareholders in connection with the execution of the Merger Agreement and that the two private equity firms and certain financial entities aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the directors. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from consummating the Merger Agreement until such time as a procedure or process is adopted to obtain the highest possible price for shareholders, as well as a request that the Court direct the officers and directors of TXU Corp. to exercise their fiduciary duties in order to obtain a transaction in the best interest of TXU Corp. shareholders. The consolidated suit includes claims that the directors failed to take steps to properly value or maximize the value of TXU Corp. and breached their duties of loyalty, good faith, candor and independence owed to TXU Corp. shareholders. The Merger Agreement allowed TXU Corp. to solicit other proposals from third parties until April 16, 2007 and is subject to the approval of TXU Corp.’s shareholders. The consolidated suit purports to assert claims by shareholders directly against the directors. TXU Corp. believes that Texas law does not recognize such a cause of action. Consequently, TXU Corp. and its directors have filed a Motion to Dismiss, which is pending before the Court. If approved by the courts, the settlement would remove a hurdle to the deal, which faces a Sept. 7 vote of TXU shareholders. The agreement between KKR-TPG investors, TXU and some of the plaintiffs would result in dismissing all the merger-related lawsuits if the courts approve. TXU Corp. -- http://www.txucorp.com-- is a Dallas-based energy company, which manages a portfolio of energy businesses in Texas. TXU Corp. is a holding company conducting its operations principally through its TXU Energy Company LLC (TXU Energy Company), TXU Electric Delivery Company (TXU Electric Delivery) and TXU Generation Development Company LLC (TXU DevCo) subsidiaries. The Company has two operating segments: TXU Energy Holdings and TXU Electric Delivery. TXU Energy Holdings includes the activities of TXU Energy Company and TXU DevCo., and also includes the activities of a lease trust holding certain natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. TXU Electric Delivery includes the activities of TXU Electric Delivery, and its wholly owned bankruptcy-remote financing subsidiary. Corporate and Other represents the remaining nonsegment operations consisting primarily of discontinued operations, general corporate expenses, interest on debt at the TXU Corp. level and activities involving mineral interest holdings. US AIRWAYS: Discovery Starts in Suit Over “Lap Children” Fare -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against US Airways Group, Inc. by passengers Daphne Renard and Todd Robins in San Francisco Superior Court on Feb. 9, 2007. The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of carriage by charging additional fares and fees, after the purchase of tickets on the usairways.com website, for passengers under two years of age who travel as “lap children,” meaning that the child does not occupy his or her own seat but travels instead on the lap of an accompanying adult. The named plaintiffs allege that they purchased international tickets through the website for themselves and a lap child. Plaintiffs allege that after initially receiving an electronic confirmation that there would be no charge for the lap child, they were later charged an additional $242.50. The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002 to the present. The company was served with an amended complaint in early March that continued the same allegations, but dropped plaintiff’s wife as a class representative. On May 1, 2007, US Airways filed an Answer to the complaint and also asked the court for a “complex case” designation, which the court granted on May 11, 2007. The case is now in the discovery phase, according to the company’s July 26, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. US Airways Group, Inc. -- http://www.usairways.com-- serves as the holding company for its direct and indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) and America West Airlines, Inc. (AWA). VIRTUAL IMAGING: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------ Virtual Imaging Services Inc. is facing a class action filed July 13 in Miami federal court. Plaintiff Jose Luis Rodriguez alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is “Rodriguez v. Virtual Imaging Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-21803-UU” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under judge Ursula Ungaro. Representing the plaintiff is: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 300 71st Street Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: 305-865-6766 Fax: 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Four Companies Accused of Violating ERISA ------------------------------------------------------------- The Washington Mutual Pension Plan ERISA Complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 12, 2007 on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in the WaMu Pension Plan and predecessor and successor plans, at any time after January 1, 1987 whose accrued or pension benefits are based, in whole or in part, on the Plan’s cash balance formula. Predecessor plans include cash balance plans formerly maintained by: * Great Western Financial Corp.; * H.F. Ahmanson & Company; * Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB; and * Pacific First Bank. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants violated ERISA protections by: -- causing the rate of benefit accrual to decrease because of the age of or attainment of any age by participants; -- failing to provide adequate notice to participants of the impact on benefits caused by the conversion to a cash balance formula; -- failing to fully disclose Plan provisions in the Summary Plan Descriptions provided to participants; and -- failing to provide participants with the required Summaries of Material Modifications to the terms of the Plan. The suit was filed by Gary Buus, Sidney John Flor, Audrey Schulman and Margaret Weber against the Wamu Pension Plan and the Washington Mutual Pension Plan Administration Committee. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Amy Williams-Derry, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623 3384 E-mail: dloeser@kellerohrback.com ********* A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches, collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related liabilities. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300. * * * End of Transmission * * *