/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070924.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, September 24, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 188 Headlines AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending BRAVO! Recalls Cat, Dog Foods on Risk of Contamination CANADA: Notices of Residential School Suit Settlement Now Out CANADA: Hundreds Join Gagetown Agent Orange Suit, Lawyer Says D'ALESSANDRO & WOODYARD: Real Estate Scam Suit to Continue DEGUSSA CORP: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement DICK'S SPORTING: Seeks to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y. FLORIDA: AFDC Recipient Files Suit Against Social Services Dept. KEYSTONE MFG: Recalls Ovens for Fire, Electrical Shock Hazards LORAL SPACE: New Plaintiff Yet to be Named in N.Y. Investor Suit LORAL SPACE: October 2007 Trial Scheduled for Shareholder Suit MANNATECH INC: Motion to Junk Tex. Securities Suit Deemed Moot MEDIA INDUSTRY: Faces Suit by Expanded Basic Cable Subscribers MOBILE COS: Saskatchewan Court Certifies Suit Over Surcharges NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Brain Cancer Vaccine News PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit QUANTA CAPITAL: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in N.Y. Courts QUONG HOP & CO: Recalls Tofu Due to Possible Health Risk RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Court Remands “Rubery” Back to State Court RCN CORP: Settles ERISA Violations Suit Pending in N.J. Court SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Actor Sues Over Undistributed Funds UNITED ONLINE: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. NetZero Suit UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Investors Yet to File Amended Complaint UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Sued in N.Y. Over MemberHealth Merger Plan VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal ZIPREALTY INC: Still Faces Employee Agents' Lawsuit in Calif. New Securities Fraud Cases COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit NETBANK INC: Schoengold Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga. OPTEUM INC: Eric J. O'Bell Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. ORBCOMM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. ********* AMEREN CORP: Motions to Dismiss Ill. PPA-Related Cases Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss filed by Ameren Corp. and other defendants in relation to lawsuits over the Illinois power procurement auction (PPA) of 2006, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Two similar class actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois in March 2007 named as defendants: * Ameren Corp., * Illinois Power Co. (IP), * Commonwealth Edison Co., * Exelon Corp., and * 15 electricity suppliers, including Ameren Energy Marketing Co., which are selling power to the Illinois utilities pursuant to contracts entered into as a result of the September 2006 power procurement auction. The asserted class seeks to represent all customers who purchased electric service from Commonwealth Edison Co. or the Ameren Illinois Utilities. Both lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Illinois utilities and the power suppliers illegally manipulated prices in the September 2006 power procurement auction. Relief sought in both cases is actual damages to be determined at trial and legal costs, including attorneys’ fees. One of the lawsuits also seeks punitive damages and recovery of illegal profits and excludes the Ameren Illinois Utilities from the requests for relief. In April 2007, the defendants in these lawsuits filed notices removing these cases to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants have pending motions to dismiss. Ameren Corp. -- http://www.ameren.com-- is a public utility holding company. BRAVO! Recalls Cat, Dog Foods on Risk of Contamination ------------------------------------------------------ Bravo! voluntarily recalled select tubes of three of its poultry products for cats and dogs. The pet food is being recalled because two of the products have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes, while the other product has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Both Salmonella and Listeria are organisms which can cause serious infections in dogs and cats, and if there is cross contamination, in people, especially small children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people with Salmonella infection may only suffer short-term symptoms, such as high fever, severe headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Long term complications can include arthritis and other more serious ailments. Healthy people with Listeria infection may only suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The company has received no reports of illness in either people or animals associated with any of the three products. The recalled products are distributed nationwide to distributors, retail stores, internet sales and directly to consumers, and they can be identified by the batch ID code located on the hang tag attached to the bottom of the plastic film tubes. The recalled products should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners should return unopened frozen tubes of food to the store where purchased for a full refund. Pet owners should dispose of opened tubes of product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash receptacle) and return the washed plastic batch ID tag to the store where purchased for a full refund. Recalled Pet Food Product: Bravo Original Formula Chicken Blend frozen raw food Product Numbers: 21-102, 21-105, 21-110 Sizes: 2 pound, 5 pound and 10 pound tubes Batch ID code (on hang tag): 236 Reason for Recall: Salmonella, Listeria Product: Bravo Original Formula Turkey Blend frozen raw food Product Numbers: 31-102, 31-105, 31-110 Sizes: 2 pound, 5 pound and 10 pound tubes Batch ID code (on hang tag): 236 Reason for Recall: Listeria Product: Bravo Basic Formula Finely Ground Chicken frozen raw food Product Number: 21-212 Size: 2 pound tube Batch ID Code (on hang tag): 226 Reason for Recall: Salmonella, Listeria Other Batch IDs for these same products are not involved in the recall. Bravo! is issuing this action out of an abundance of caution and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to pet owners as a result of this announcement. This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA detected the bacteria in samples during a recent review. In an effort to prevent the transmission of Salmonella from pets to family members and care givers, the FDA recommends that everyone follow appropriate pet food handling guidelines when feeding their pets. A list of safe pet food handling tips can be found at: http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CVM_Updates/foodbornetips.htm. People may risk Salmonella infection not only by handling these pet foods, but also by contact with pets or other surfaces exposed to these foods, so it is important that they thoroughly wash their hands with hot water and soap. Anyone who is experiencing the symptoms of Salmonella or Listeria infection after having handled the recalled product should seek medical attention. Consumers may report any complaints to FDA's local District Complaint Coordinator’s located on the FDA website: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html. Healthy cats and dogs rarely become sick from Salmonella. Animals ill with Salmonella will display symptoms similar to the ones listed above for humans. People who have concerns about whether their pet has Salmonella or not should contact their veterinarian. For more information on the Bravo recall, please visit http://www.bravorawdiet.com,or call toll free (866) 922-9222 CANADA: Notices of Residential School Suit Settlement Now Out ------------------------------------------------------------- The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, and Minister Responsible for Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada, and Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, announced on Sept. 19 the Implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. Applications for the Common Experience Payment are being mailed to all former students of Indian Residential Schools who have requested one. They will also be available through all Service Canada Centres and on-line at http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Common Experience Payment to be paid, upon application and verification, to eligible former students of Indian Residential Schools. The Agreement also includes an Independent Assessment Process for claims of sexual or serious physical abuse, as well as measures to support Healing, Commemoration, and the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Over the next four years, former students of Indian Residential Schools will be able to submit Common Experience Payment applications to Service Canada. The deadline for submission of applications by eligible individuals is September 19, 2011. Service Canada's responsibilities include: helping former students obtain and fill out their CEP applications; accepting their completed applications; and processing payments for applications approved by IRSRC. Service Canada's staff will assist former students in-person through community outreach and any of its 328 Service Canada Centres, online at servicecanada.gc.ca and through its toll-free CEP line (1-866-699-1742 or TTY 1-800-926-9105). On May 10, 2006, Canada's New Government announced the conclusion of the final Settlement Agreement. It includes: -- A Common Experience Payment to be paid to all eligible former students who resided at recognized Indian Residential Schools; -- An Independent Assessment Process for claims of sexual and serious physical abuse; -- A fund to support events and other activities which commemorate the legacy of Indian Residential Schools; and -- The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Assembly of First Nations said in a separate statement: “The settlement agreement is the largest settlement in Canadian history, which includes payment for survivors to compensate for loss of language and culture, a more efficient and effective process to deal with serious claims of abuse, and a national truth and reconciliation commission to bring greater understanding and awareness of the Indian residential schools history. More than 150-thousand children attended residential schools. There are about 80- thousand living survivors who are eligible for compensation.” Case Background All nine provincial and territorial judges approved on March 8 the revised Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that will see at least CA$1.9 billion being distributed to plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, March 23, 2007). A class action brought by the former students of the Mohawk Institute Residential School, a native residential school in Brantford, Ontario, and their families, was settled in November 2005 by way of a national Agreement in Principle between the Government of Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, legal counsel for Indian Residential School survivors and various religious entities. Amongst other things, the Agreement provides for a compensatory Common Experience Payment, for loss of language and culture, to every former Mohawk student who attended a residential school in Canada alive as of Oct. 5, 1996, consisting of a CA$10,000.00 lump sum and CA$3,000.00 extra for each school year or part thereof after their first year of attendance. The Mohawk class action covers the years of 1922 to 1969. During that time, there were 150 to 180 students at the School each year, ranging in age from 4 to 18 and split roughly equally between boys and girls. All were native children, that is, Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act. In all, approximately 1,500 native children attended the Mohawk School during those years. The plaintiffs claimed that the Mohawk School was run in a way that was designed to create an atmosphere of fear, intimidation and brutality. Physical discipline was frequent and excessive. Food, housing and clothing were inadequate. Staff members were unskilled and improperly supervised. Students were cut off from their families. They were forbidden to speak their native languages or to practice their native cultures. CANADA: Hundreds Join Gagetown Agent Orange Suit, Lawyer Says ------------------------------------------------------------- A suit over Ottawa's compensation package for Agent Orange victims at Canadian Forces Base Gagetown are building up against the government. Tony Merchant of the Merchant Law Group said hundreds of people have added their names to the class action, increasing the number to about 3,000 veterans and civilians, Canadian Press reports. These people find the government's offer of a one-time $20,000 payment for those who meet strict eligibility requirements inadequate. "It's enough money to buy a used truck in exchange for what for many is daily pain and suffering,” Mr. Merchant said, according to the report. He is seeking court approval for the case to go ahead in Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador. For people to be eligible for the compensation, they must have worked on or lived near the huge New Brunswick training base in 1966 and 1967 and must exhibit one of 12 disorders associated with Agent Orange exposure, including prostate cancer and type 2 diabetes, Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson said earlier. Thompson said the payments are "ex gratia" meaning the government is not admitting liability. He said people can accept the $20,000 and still join a lawsuit, according to the report. The U.S. military tested Agent Orange and several other combat defoliants for use in the Vietnam War in 1966 and 1967. The lawsuit wanted this period extended to the 1950s, when the base opened, and to continue until recent years. D'ALESSANDRO & WOODYARD: Real Estate Scam Suit to Continue ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits against real estate mogul Frank D’Alessandro will continue even after his death, a Fort Lauderdale class action lawyer said, according to Naples Daily News. The body of Mr. D’Alessandro was found in the waters off the coast of New Jersey about a week after he disappeared from a late night kayaking trip. Mr. D’Alessandro faced dozens of lawsuits, primarily stemming from his involvement with a lease/purchase program that promised real estate investors a 14 percent return on their money. Lawyer Gary Poliakoff, who represents more than 100 investors in a class action filed in federal court, said the discovery of the body would have little bearing on the litigation, according to the report. “Mr. D’Alessandro was one of only many parties and the matter will proceed,” he said. Mr. D’Alessandro is a defendant in the suit “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on May 30. Also named in the suit are Florida companies: * Gates, D'Allesandro & Woodyard LLC, * K.Hovnanian First Homes LLC, * First Home Builders of Florida, * First Home Builders of Florida I, LLC and individuals, * Samir Cabrera, * Honora Kreitner Defendants are accused of running a subprime mortgage scam. Named plaintiffs Randolph Sewell and Daphne Sewell sue for, inter alia, federal securities fraud, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1701 et seq., and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes, Section 501.201 et. seq., in connection with the offering and sale of real estate investment opportunities in Lee County, Florida. According to the complaint, defendants promised 14 percent annual returns through a “Lease To Own” program, in which would supply lessees with poor credit to “investors” who bought new homes; the lessees would get options to buy the homes within three years, at a “promised” annual appreciation of 14 percent. The D'Alessandro & Woodyard prospectus “explains that investors will realize their guaranteed 14 percent annual rate of return when the ‘ready-made’ tenant procured by D'Alessandro & Woodyard ‘buys’ the investor out of the deal. In the “Exit Strategy,” D'Alessandro & Woodyard explains that this ‘buyout’ is made possible through the tenant’s successful procurement of refinancing in the ‘sub-prime’ lending market, and that they will be ‘coached’ in this process by D'Alessandro & Woodyard and its affiliates.” According to plaintiffs, they “invested” $15,000 in three such homes, couldn’t get financing, and stand to lose everything. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons who received the "First Home Lease Purchase Investment Opportunity" prospectus and thereafter purchased properties from First Home Builders in Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres, Florida for investment purposes. Questions raise include: (a) whether defendants violated the federal securities laws by inducing purported class members to purchase investment properties from First Home Builders based upon false and misleading representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral communications with the Plaintiffs and class members; (b) whether defendants violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act by inducing purported class members to purchase investment properties from First Home Builders based upon false and misleading representations contained in the Prospectus and in oral communications; (c) whether defendants' actions also constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, in violation of Sections 501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes; (d) whether defendants D&W and First Home Builders breached their contractual obligations to purported class members failing to obtain tenants for the purchased properties. Plaintiffs demand the following relief: -- that the court certify the case as a class action and appoint the plaintiffs as class representatives and plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; -- that judgment be entered against defendants in the amount of their damages incurred with interest thereon, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; -- that the court order such other relief as it deems just and proper, including, but not limited to, rescission of the subject purchase agreements and the return of each purchaser's down payment or contract deposit (as well as any other monies paid to defendants). The suit is “Sewell et al. v. D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-00343-JES-SPC,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John E. Steele with referral to Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. Representing plaintiffs are: Gary C. Rosen, Esq. Daniel L. Wallach Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. Emerald Lake Corp Pk 3111 Stirling Rd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312-9057 Phone: 954/987-7550 Fax: 954/985-4176 E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com or dwallach@bellsouth.net -- and – Representing Mr. D’Alessandro are: [REDACTED] Philip J. Snyderburn, Esq. Snyderburn, Rishoi & Swann 258 Southhall Lane, Suite 420 Maitland, Florida 32751 (Orange Co.) Phone: 407-647-2005 Fax: 407-647-1522 DEGUSSA CORP: Nov. 16 Hearing Set for Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 16, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $21,000,000 settlement by DEGUSSA Corp. and DEGUSSA GmbH in the matter, "In Re: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 05-666, MDL Docket No. 1682." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Stewart Dalzell in Courtroom 1- B, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at 601 Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19106. Case Background The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of all persons, who purchased Hydrogen Peroxide (including sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate) in the U.S. or from a facility located in the U.S., directly from any of the defendants listed below. Defendants: -- Akzo Nobel Chemicals International B.V.; -- Akzo Nobel Inc.; -- Arkema Inc. (f/k/a Atofina Chemicals, Inc. and Elf Atochem North America, Inc.); -- Arkema France (f/k/a Atofina S.A. and Elf Atochem S.A.); -- Degussa Gmbh (f/k/a Degussa A.G.); -- Degussa Corporation; -- EKA Chemicals, Inc.; -- FMC Corporation; -- Kemira Chemicals, Canada, Inc.; -- Kemira Oyj; -- Solvay America; -- Solvay Chemicals, Inc.; -- Solvay S.A.; and -- Total S.A. (f/k/a Totalfinalelf S.A. and Total, S.A.). In general, the suit asserts that, as a result of the alleged conduct of the defendants, the prices paid to the defendant manufacturers for hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate and sodium percarbonate were higher than they otherwise would have been. Plaintiffs are seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs from defendants. However, no application for attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses is being made as the moment. For more details, contact: Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administrator c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP P.O. Box 58309 Philadelphia, PA 19102-8309 Phone: 215-665-8870 http://www.hydrogenperoxideantitrustlitigation.com/ Michael D. Hausfeld 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 Web site: http://www.cmht.com - and - Robert N. Kaplan Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP 805 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (800) 290-1952 or 212-687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com Web site: http://www.kaplanfox.com DICK'S SPORTING: Seeks to Settle FLSA Lawsuits Pending in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is working to settle two purported class actions that accuse it of failing to pay overtime wages as required by as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The cases were filed in May and November of 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. They are captioned: -- “Tamara Barrus v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and Galyan’s Trading Company, Inc.,” and -- “Daniel Parks v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc.” Because until September 2006 none of these cases were certified as class actions, the company deemed them to be claims that were incidental to its business. In September and October 2006, respectively, a magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York conditionally certified classes for notice purposes under the FLSA in the Barrus and Parks cases, which the U.S. District Judge upheld. In the Barrus case, the parties and the Court agreed to stay the litigation pending an attempt to resolve all claims through mediation. A mediation session was held in April 2007 resulting in the parties agreeing to hold a second mediation session in August 2007. The parties to the Parks case will meet in August or September 2007 to negotiate a schedule for the remainder of the case. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. -- http://www.dickssportinggoods.com/-- is a full-line sporting goods retailer that offers an assortment of brand name sporting goods equipment, apparel and footwear in a specialty store environment. FLORIDA: AFDC Recipient Files Suit Against Social Services Dept. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Department of Children and Families is accused of abusively and unconstitutionally demanding money from people who received overpayments under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Juan Carlos do Campo claims the state is threatening to recoup $3,842 in overpayments from his tax refund if he doesn’t pay the amount. Mr. do Camp denies knowledge of the transaction entered by his deceased mother when he was yet a minor. He brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who have been or will be made subject to claims of recovery by the Department for alleged overpayment of benefits, when the individual was neither the applicant for nor the direct recipient of the AFDC benefits, but was a minor member of a household, and there is no indication that such individual has said benefits in his or her possession. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether federal law provides for actions to collect against former minor children alleged aid overpayments to their parents made when the target of the recovery was a minor, and if not, whether Florida law or Department Manual which purports to provide for such contravenes federal law and is thus invalid; (b) whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates any law or action to collect against former minor children alleged overpayments to their parents made when the target of the recovery was a minor when there are no direct claims against the former minor child in contract, tort or equity; (c) whether the Equal Protection Clause or any other clause of the U.S. Constitution invalidates any law or action to collect against former minor children alleged overpayments to their parents made when the target of the recovery was a minor despite the fact that there is no direct claim against the former child in contract, tort or equity; (d) whether principles of equity prevent such actions; (e) whether such actions violate any statute or regulation; (f) whether, upon ones 18th birthday, a child is liable for claims against his or her parents; (g) whether there is a right to each one's majority without being burdened by actions to collect debts allegedly owed by one's parents; (h) whether damages alleged by the class members were approximately caused by the conduct of the defendant; (i) whether the defendant is liable to the class members for damages; (j) the proper method of calculating damages for members of the class; and (k) whether declaratory and injunctive relief is available to the class. Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendant as follows: -- for compensatory damages; -- for costs of suit, attorneys' fees and such other declaratory and injunctive relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Juan Carlos do Ocampo et al. v. Florida Department of Children and Families, Case No. 07-22465," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under Magistrate Judge Brown. Representing plaintiffs is: John Andres Thornton John Andres Thornton, PL Bank of America Tower 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 532-6851 Fax: (305) 538-1070 E-mail: johnandresthornton@hotmail.com KEYSTONE MFG: Recalls Ovens for Fire, Electrical Shock Hazards -------------------------------------------------------------- Keystone Manufacturing Co. Inc., of Buffalo, N.Y. and QVC of West Chester, Pa., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, are recalling about 32,000 Cook’s Essentials Convection Ovens with Pull-Out Rotisserie and Deni Convection Ovens with Rotisserie. The companies said wires behind the control panel can overheat, posing fire and electric shock hazards. QVC has received 49 reports of incidents, including five minor burns, five electrical shocks and 11 incidents of minor property damage to kitchen cabinets and countertops. This recall involves the Cook’s Essentials Multi-Function Convection Oven with Pull-Out Rotisserie (model number 910500), which was also sold as the Deni Convection Oven with Rotisserie (model number 10500). The model number can be found on the bottom of the oven. These are countertop ovens and the brand name “Cook’s Essentials” or “Deni” is found on the front right panel. These recalled convection ovens were manufactured in China and are being sold through the Cook’s Essentials brand was sold exclusively through QVC and the Deni brand was sold through various on-line retailers from October 2006 through May 2007 for about $125. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the oven and contact QVC or Keystone to receive a replacement oven or a refund. QVC and Keystone have notified consumers by telephone and by mail to stop using the oven. Picture of recalled convection ovens: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07577.jpg Consumers who bought a Cook’s Essentials oven through a QVC broadcast or at QVC.com, and who have not been contacted by QVC, should call QVC at (800) 367- 9444 between 7 a.m. and 1 a.m. ET seven days a week. Consumers who bought a Cook’s Essentials oven at a QVC outlet or retail store should return the oven to the store at which it was purchased for a refund. Consumers who bought a Deni brand oven and who have not been contacted by Keystone should call Keystone at (800) 336-4822 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. Consumers can also visit QVC’s Web site at www.qvc.com or Deni’s Web site: http://www.deni.com LORAL SPACE: New Plaintiff Yet to be Named in N.Y. Investor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A New York state court is yet to confirm the substitution of the plaintiff in a shareholder suit filed against Loral Space & Communications Inc. A new plaintiff in the suit is to be named after the original plaintiff’s death in 2006. On or about Nov. 3, 2006, plaintiff Maxine Babus, derivatively on behalf of Loral Space & Communications Inc., filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against all the members of the Loral board of directors and against Loral as a nominal defendant. On or about April 4, 2007, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, the plaintiff filed an amended shareholder class and derivative complaint against all members of the Loral board of directors, MHR Fund Management LLC (MHR) and certain funds (MHR Funds) and other entities affiliated with MHR (collectively, MHR, the MHR Funds and such other entities, the MHR Entities) and Loral as a nominal defendant. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that, in connection with the Company’s Securities Purchase Agreement dated Oct. 17, 2006, as amended and restated on Feb. 27, 2007, pursuant to which the Company sold to the MHR Funds $300 million in new convertible preferred stock, the directors and the MHR Entities breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, and that the MHR Entities and Dr. Mark H. Rachesky have aided and abetted the directors’ breach of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, both as to the derivative claims and the class action claims, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined, rescission of the Securities Purchase Agreement and plaintiff’s costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees and expenses. On March 21, 2007, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into providing for the settlement of the Babus litigation. Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, the MHR Funds will pay to Loral $4 million in cash after entry of a court order approving the terms of the MOU that is finally approved on appeal or no longer subject to appeal. In addition, the MHR Funds may be obligated to pay to Loral between $9.5 million and $26.5 million depending on the amount of net cash or cash equivalent proceeds actually received from the sale by the MHR Funds of: -- the preferred stock, -- shares issued in respect of and pursuant to the terms of the preferred stock or -- securities issued or delivered in exchange for the preferred stock or the shares referred to in the clause above. The parties to the Babus lawsuit have agreed to use their best efforts to agree upon and execute a stipulation of settlement and such other documentation as may be required to obtain court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the lawsuit (Settlement Documents). The consummation of the settlement is subject to: -- the drafting and execution of the Settlement Documents; -- the completion by the plaintiff of confirmatory discovery in the lawsuit reasonably satisfactory to plaintiff’s counsel; and -- a court order approving the settlement in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Documents and that such order is finally affirmed on appeal or is no longer subject to appeal and dismissal of the lawsuit in its entirety with prejudice and without awarding costs to any party (except for attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses to be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel subject to approval by the court as provided in the MOU). To date, the parties have not engaged in negotiating the Settlement Documents, plaintiff’s counsel has not engaged in confirmatory discovery, and court approval of the settlement has not been sought. On April 27, 2007, plaintiffs in a similar shareholder litigation in Delaware served a motion to intervene in the Babus lawsuit. In their intervention motion, the Delaware plaintiffs claimed that an automatic stay of the Babus lawsuit went into effect on Nov. 12, 2006, by virtue of the death on that day of the New York plaintiff, Maxine Babus. Among other things, the prospective intervenors claimed that all developments in the Babus lawsuit subsequent to Nov. 12, 2006, including the execution of the MOU, the filing of the amended complaint and the pursuit of confirmatory discovery, are null and void. At a hearing in June 2007, the plaintiffs in the Delaware shareholder litigation withdrew their motion to intervene in the Babus lawsuit, and counsel for Maxine Babus produced a stipulation substituting Mrs. Babus’ son as plaintiff in place of his deceased mother. The court ruled that it would so order the substitution contingent upon Mr. Babus filing ancillary proceedings in New York, which he has not done to date, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications company with activities in satellite manufacturing and satellite-based communications services. LORAL SPACE: October 2007 Trial Scheduled for Shareholder Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative October 2007 trial is slated for the matter, “In re: Loral Space and Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation,” which was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County. On or about May 14, 2007, the Delaware court entered an order consolidating two civil actions previously commenced by certain stockholders of the Company against the Company, the MHR Entities (MHR Fund Management LLC (MHR) and certain funds (MHR Funds) and other entities affiliated with MHR are collectively, know as the MHR Entities) and the individual members of the Company’s board of directors under the caption, “In re: Loral Space and Communications Inc. Consolidated Litigation.” Plaintiffs in this action are certain stockholders of the Company who allege that they hold over 18% of the outstanding common stock of the Company (Blackrock Plaintiffs) and Highland Crusader Offshore Partners, L.P. (Highland, and, together with the Blackrock Plaintiffs, the Delaware Plaintiffs), the purported owner of approximately 5% of Loral’s outstanding common stock. The Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought the case derivatively on behalf of the Company and directly on behalf of the Blackrock Plaintiffs individually. The case has also been brought by Highland as a class action on behalf of a class of Loral stockholders consisting of all security holders of the Company (except the defendants and persons or entities related to or affiliated with the defendants) who, as alleged in the amended and consolidated complaint, “are or will be threatened with injury arising from Defendants’ actions” as described in the amended and consolidated complaint. In the amended and consolidated complaint, the Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought derivative claims alleging, among other things, that, in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement, the directors and the MHR Entities breached their fiduciary duties to the Company, including the fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, the MHR Entities have aided and abetted the directors’ breach of fiduciary duty, and the directors have engaged in conduct, or intentionally or recklessly approved conduct, that has caused the Company to waste valuable corporate assets. In addition, the Blackrock Plaintiffs have brought a direct claim against the MHR Entities and Dr. Rachesky alleging breach of their fiduciary duties to the Blackrock Plaintiffs, and a claim alleging that, by approving, engaging in and closing the transactions contemplated by the Securities Purchase Agreement, defendants violated the restriction on transactions between companies and their interested stockholders contained in Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The Blackrock Plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of the Securities Purchase Agreement, a judgment declaring that the Securities Purchase Agreement, and the process by which it was negotiated, approved and completed, violated Delaware law and constituted a breach of defendants’ fiduciary duties and awarding plaintiffs their expenses and costs, including reasonable legal fees. In the amended and consolidated complaint, Highland has brought class claims alleging, among other things, that: -- in connection with the Securities Purchase Agreement pursuant to which the Company sold $300 million of preferred stock to the MHR Funds, MHR and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in negotiating and approving the Securities Purchase Agreement; -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to terminate and re- negotiate the Securities Purchase Agreement after it was announced; -- the individual defendants committed an ultra vires abdication of their statutory authority; -- MHR and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure by stating publicly that they would seek to renegotiate the Securities Purchase Agreement after it was announced or to obtain an alternative and instead proceeding with the Securities Purchase Agreement; and -- MHR aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duty. Highland is seeking, among other things: -- rescission of the preferred stock transaction; -- imposition of a constructive trust on any profits MHR earned through the transaction, * to compel MHR to distribute a portion of the preferred stock or resulting shares into which the preferred stock converts to the class, * to invalidate a portion of the preferred stock or resulting shares into which the preferred stock converts; -- imposition of a permanent injunction on MHR’s right to convert the preferred stock or to exercise the voting power conferred by the preferred stock or the shares into which it converts; -- an award of damages to the class in an amount to be determined at trial; -- an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and an award of costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees. Discovery in the consolidated action has commenced, and a trial has been set for October 2007, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Loral Space & Communications Inc. -- http://www.loral.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a satellite communications company with activities in satellite manufacturing and satellite-based communications services. MANNATECH INC: Motion to Junk Tex. Securities Suit Deemed Moot -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has rendered as moot a motion to dismiss filed by defendants in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Mannatech, Inc. The Second Amended Complaint rendered moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the Court denied the motion as moot and set a briefing schedule such that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was due Aug. 27, 2007. Initially, the company was named in three separates securities class actions. The first suit was filed on Aug. 1, 2005 by Mr. Jonathan Crowell against the Company and Mr. Samuel L. Caster, its Chief Executive Officer. Plaintiff brought the putative class action, on behalf of himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company’s common stock between August 10, 2004 and May 9, 2005, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby. The second lawsuit was filed on Aug. 30, 2005 by Mr. Richard McMurry against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Terry L. Persinger, its President and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Stephen D. Fenstermacher, its Chief Financial Officer. The third case was filed on Sept. 5, 2005 by Mr. Michael Bruce Zeller against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr. Fenstermacher. These three lawsuits were initially filed and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On Jan. 29, 2007, the consolidated action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On March 29, 2007, upon joint motion of the parties, was transferred to the docket of Judge Ed Kinkeade. The Mannatech Group, consisting of Mr. Austin Chang, Ms. Naomi S. Miller, Mr. John Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51 Pension Fund, has been appointed as lead plaintiffs, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has been appointed as lead counsel, and Provost Umphrey LLP has been appointed local counsel for the putative class. On May 21, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint. However, on July 12, 2007, Lead Plaintiff for the putative class filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. This Second Amended Complaint is substantively similar to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on March 22, 2007, but it expands the class period to July 5, 2007. The Second Amended Complaint rendered moot Defendants’ motion to dismiss and the Court denied the motion as moot and set a briefing schedule such that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was due Aug. 27, 2007. The suit is "Crowell v. Mannatech Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv- 00238," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Ed Kinkeade. Representing the plaintiffs are: David J. George, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561/750-3000 Fax: 561/750-3364 E-mail: dgeorge@lerachlaw.com rrobbins@lerachlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Edward S. Koppman, Esq. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld 1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4100 Dallas, TX 75201-4618 Phone: 214/969-2846 Fax: 214/969-4343 E-mail: ekoppman@akingump.com MEDIA INDUSTRY: Faces Suit by Expanded Basic Cable Subscribers -------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers filed on Sept. 20 an antitrust suit against major media companies and major cable and satellite providers in the U.S. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The lawsuit challenges industry-wide agreements and practices that effectively mandate that consumers must purchase prepackaged tiers of bundled cable channels and cannot purchase channels or programming on an "a la carte" basis. It alleges that the agreements and practices are unlawful restraints of trade in violation of the federal antitrust laws. The suit is brought as a class action on behalf of all consumers in the United States who, during the last 4 years, have paid for "expanded basic cable" subscriptions from the following cable or satellite companies: -- Time Warner Cable Inc., -- Comcast Corporation, -- Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., -- Cox Communications, Inc., -- The DirecTV Group, Inc., -- Echostar Satellite L.L.C., and -- Cablevision Systems Corporation The suit also names the following media entities due to restrictive bundling agreements and practices that are passed on to consumers: -- NBC Universal, Inc., -- Viacom Inc., -- The Walt Disney Co., -- Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., -- Time Warner, Inc. The lawsuit specifically alleges that each of the programmer defendants (NBC, Viacom, Disney, Fox, and Time Warner), with knowledge that the other programmer defendants operate in the same manner, will only sell or license the bulk of its programming or channels to the cable/satellite defendants as a package. This "block booking" or "tying" requires the cable/satellite defendants to acquire channels which, if unbundled, they would not acquire at all, or would separately negotiate channel by channel based upon consumer demand. The cable/satellite defendants, in turn, repackage and distribute the channels to the consuming public in bundled tiers of channels. The cable/satellite defendants do not offer "expanded basic" channels to consumers on an "a la carte" basis. This deprives consumers of choice and, because many consumers have no interest in the vast majority of channels they are forced to purchase on expanded basic cable, consumers pay a significant overcharge. According to a recent Federal Communications Commission study, consumers are charged approximately $100,000,000 per year for channels which, if offered "a la carte," they would not purchase. The named plaintiffs and class representatives are: -- Rob Brantley, -- Darryn Cooke, -- William and Beverly Costley, -- Christiana Hills, -- Michael B. Kovac, -- Michelle Navarrette, -- Timothy J. Stabosz, and -- Joseph Vranich. The lawsuit seeks damages for the plaintiffs and all class members, and an injunction to eliminate the "tying" arrangements in the industry and allow consumers to purchase channels on an "a la carte" basis. Representing plaintiffs is: Maxwell M. Blecher David W. Kesselman Blecher & Collins, P.C. Phone: (213) 622-4222 MOBILE COS: Saskatchewan Court Certifies Suit Over Surcharges ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Queen's Bench in Regina certified a lawsuit filed against Canada's cellphone providers over “system access” fees, reports say. The suit was filed by Tony Merchant, Q.C. of Merchant Law Group LLP in 2004. The law firm says it intends to pursue recovery of system access fees and licensing charges on behalf of all Canadian cellular phone users, including current and former customers of Bell Mobility, Telus, Rogers Wireless Inc. & Fido (Microcell), SaskTel, MTS, and Aliant. Other smaller, regional players are also named in the suit. The suit alleges the companies continue to collect the "system access" or "licensing" fees long after it was no longer allowed. The fees are charged when the cellphone industry was still building itself up. It is no longer required, but cellphone service providers have allegedly convinced customers the fees are required under federal regulations. The fees have allegedly enriched the companies by allowing them to advertise lower prices, then boost the cost of cellphone plans through hidden fees, according to Mr. Merchant. Collection of such fees would generate millions of dollars for the industry, about $1.3 to $1.5 billion, according to him. The suit seeks a return of some $12 billion plus interest. It is described as the largest class-action in Canadian history, potentially affecting every cellphone user in the country. Currently, there are 7,500 complainants who had signed onto the suit. Mr. Merchant had filed nine similar lawsuits and this is the first one to be certified. The suits are before the Superior Courts of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Merchant Law Group on the Net: http://www.merchantlaw.com NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Brain Cancer Vaccine News -------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a shareholder class action against Northwest Biotherapeutics Inc. questioning the company's motives in making its July 9, 2007 announcement. When investors saw news that Seattle-based biotechnology company Northwest Biotherapeutics was poised to distribute the "world's first therapeutic vaccine for brain cancer" to patients in Switzerland, investors thought the release of information was good news, but some of those investors have filed a lawsuit against the company. According to the lawsuit the announcement was so misleading, it led to a run- up of the stock price, and then a steep drop once it became clear that some of the claims were untrue. The company issued a news release entitled "World's First Therapeutic Vaccine for Brain Cancer Commercially Available to Patients in Switzerland," and touted the "first commercially available therapeutic vaccine" for brain cancers, claiming that Northwest Biotherapeutics intended on "making the product available to patients in Q3 2007," the suit states. But on July 16, 2007, Northwest Biotherapeutics issued a second news release stating that the only authorization the company had received was for conditional import and export purposes and the Swiss government had yet to even review the vaccine for safety and efficacy, the complaint states. "We believe that Northwest Biotherapeutics knowingly made false and misleading statements that ultimately caused the company's stock to be traded at artificially inflated prices," said lead attorney Reed Kathrein of HBSS. The complaint claims that after the second news release was issued, the company's stock began to downward spiral to less than $3 per share. According to the complaint, Northwest Biotherapeutics acted recklessly in its disregard for disseminating factual information, which violates the Exchange Act as laid out by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The suit seeks to represent all purchasers of Northwest Biotherapeutics securities between July 9, 2007 and July 16, 2007. For more information, contact: Reed Kathrein Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com Website: http://www.hbsslaw.com - and - Mark Firmani Firmani + Associates Inc. Phone: (206) 443-9357 E-mail: mark@firmani.com PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida has yet to rule on a second motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed against Paincare Holdings, Inc. On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The complaint is "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV- 00362-JA-DAB." Mr. Mould alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the company's financial statements, which appear to relate principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously announced intention to restate certain past financial statements. Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before the same court, which recite similar allegations. Lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed, the company moved to dismiss, and oral argument on the motion was held on Jan. 17, 2007 before the Magistrate Judge. In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from March 24, 2003 and March 15, 2006. On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the District Court dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to amend. On April 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order adopting the Magistrate’s report and dismissed the Securities Litigation, with leave to amend. An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 23, 2007. By motion filed June 7, 2007, the Company again moved to dismiss the action. The Magistrate held a hearing regarding the Company’s dismissal motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission by the Magistrate on Aug. 15, 2007, according to the company’s Aug. 28, 2007 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00362- JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with referral to Judge David A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. Vianale & Vianale, LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107 Fax: 561/392-4775 E-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com Representing the company is: Bruce J. Berman, Esq. McDermott, Will & Emery 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33131-4336 Phone: 305/358-3500 Fax: 305/347-6500 E-mail: bberman@mwe.com QUANTA CAPITAL: Still Faces Securities Lawsuits in N.Y. Courts -------------------------------------------------------------- Quanta Capital Holdings, Ltd. continues to face purported securities fraud lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. First Litigation On Feb. 5, 2007 a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, James J. Ritchie, the Company’s Executive Chairman, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, Robert Lippincott III, a director and formerly the Company’s Interim Chief Executive Officer and President, Michael J. Murphy, Nigel W. Morris, W. Russell Ramsey and Wallace L. Timmeny, all former directors, Friedman Billings Ramsey & Co., Ltd and BB&T Capital Markets. It was brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased the coampny's publicly traded Series A preferred securities and common shares between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2, 2006. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company made false, misleading and incomplete statements and that the prospectuses it issued in connection with the sale of Series A preferred shares and common shares in December 2005, at the time they became effective, were inaccurate or misleading, contained untrue statements of material fact and/or omitted to state material facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading, in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. The class action litigation seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. Second Litigation On Feb. 26, 2007, a second class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, Tobey J. Russ, the former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, John Brittain, the former Chief Financial Officer, Jonathan Dodd, James J. Ritchie and Robert Lippincott III. This class action was filed on behalf of a putative class consisting of investors who purchased our publicly traded common shares between May 14, 2004 and March 2, 2006. The complaint alleges that the company’s disclosures about its reserves and other matters were inadequate in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under. This class action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, as well as other forms of relief. Lead Plaintiff Appointments Both of these cases are now pending before U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr. On May 7, 2007, Judge Patterson appointed Zirkin-Cutler Investments, Inc. as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who purchased the company's preferred shares, and appointed Washington State Plumbing and Pipefitting Pension Trust as lead plaintiff for a putative class of investors who purchased our common shares. Judge Patterson directed Zirkin and Washington to filed amended pleadings that would supersede the complaints previously filed by Mr. Zirkin and Mr. Coronel. On July 16, 2007, Zirkin filed an Amended Complaint. The complaint purports to sue on behalf of itself and a class of investors who purchased preferred shares of the Company between Dec. 14, 2005 and March 2, 2006. Zirkin Complaint The Zirkin Complaint alleges that the Company made false statements concerning reserves for hurricane-related losses in a registration statement and prospectus that were circulated to investors in connection with a securities offering the Company completed in December 2005. The Complaint alleges that the Company is liable under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933. The company has named as defendants, in addition to the Company, two firms that served as underwriters for this offering (Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc. and BB&T Capital Markets), and six individuals who served as officers or directors of the company at the time of the offering (James Ritchie, Jonathan Dodd, Robert Lippincott III, Michael Murphy, Nigel Morris, and W. Russell Ramsey). Washington Complaint Washington filed a separate Amended Complaint on July 16, 2007. It purports to sue on behalf of itself and a class of investors who purchased the company's common shares between Oct. 4, 2005 and April 3, 2006. The Washington Complaint alleges that during that period, the Company made false and misleading statements, and omitted to state material information, in various disclosures. The disclosures and alleged omissions at issue in the case relate to reserves for hurricane-related losses, reserves related to an oil pipeline leak, and the quality of the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting. The Washington Complaint alleges claims against the Company under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, based on statements made in connection a securities offering; and under Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made at various times in various contexts. The Company; Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., Inc.; BB&T Capital Markets; and the six individuals named as individual defendants in the Zirkin Complaint (Messrs. Ritchie, Dodd, Lippincott, Murphy, Morris, and Ramsey) are all named as defendants in the Washington Complaint as well. In addition, the Washington Complaint also names as a defendant Tobey Russ (former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors and former Chief Executive Officer). The Court has not yet made any rulings addressing the merits of these cases, nor has the Court decided whether it will certify any case against the Company to proceed as a class action. Quanta Capital Holdings Ltd. -- http://www.quantaholdings.com/-- has been formed to provide specialty lines insurance, reinsurance, risk assessment and risk technical services on a global basis through its affiliated companies. QUONG HOP & CO: Recalls Tofu Due to Possible Health Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Quong Hop & Co. of South San Francisco, California is recalling all SOY DELI brand tofu with code date DEC 17 2007 and certain varieties of SOY DELI and QUONG HOP brand tofu with code date SEP 23 2007. The recall includes the following products in the following sizes and code dates: All varieties and sizes of SOY DELI TOFU coded DEC 17 2007 30 OZ SOY DELI NIGARI TOFU coded SEP 23 2007 12 OZ SOY DELI WATER PACK TOFU coded SEP 23 2007 16 OZ QUONG HOP WATER PACK TOFU coded SEP 23 2007 These products are being recalled because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term symptoms such as high fever, sever headache, stiffness, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection in severe cases can cause miscarriages and still births among pregnant women. Consumers experiencing any of these symptoms should seek immediate medical attention. The recalled “SOY DELI” and “QUONG HOP” brand products are distributed in the Midwest and West coast throughout supermarkets and natural food stores. The date code can be found on the front panel of all the aforementioned products printed in blue ink. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The potential for contamination was noted after a routine test by Washington State Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Program revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in a 12 OZ vacuum pack package of “SOY DELI FIRM ORGANIC NIGARI TOFU”. The company is voluntarily recalling all products produced during the same time period as the sampled product to ensure customer safety. Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 650-553-9900. RADIAN GROUP: Pa. Court Remands “Rubery” Back to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania remanded back to a state court the purported class action against Radian Group, Inc., according to the company’s Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder class action related to the company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment Corp. was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Trial Division in the State of Pennsylvania by Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration to be received by Radian stockholders was inadequate and that the individual defendants, among other things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief. On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on March 26, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the suit, or, in the alternative, for a briefing schedule in connection with any potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas. On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas, which motion defendants opposed. On May 31, 2007, the motion to remand was granted, and the case is now back in the Court of Common Pleas, where the parties are preparing initial pleadings. The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01068-PD,” originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the plaintiffs is: Debra S. Goodman, Esq. The Weiser Law Firm 121 N. Wayne Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: 610-225-0273 Fax: 610-225-2678 E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com Representing the defendants is: Joel Mchugh, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 Phone: 215-751-2437 Fax: 215-751-2205 E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com RCN CORP: Settles ERISA Violations Suit Pending in N.J. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- RCN Corp. has settled a consolidated class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. In September 2004, as part of the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, certain participants and beneficiaries of the former RCN Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (Savings Plan) asserted claims against the company and its current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and managers for alleged violations of ERISA. Plaintiffs generally alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to properly manage and monitor the Savings Plan in light of the drop in the trading price of the company's then-outstanding common stock, which comprised a portion of the aggregate contributions made to the Savings Plan. In April 2005, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York permitted the filing of a consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against RCN Corp. and its current and former directors, officers, employee administrators, and managers, subject to the limitation that the plaintiffs would not be permitted to enforce a judgment against the company in excess of any applicable RCN insurance coverage. The class action complaint was filed on May 16, 2005. In March 2006, the class action complaint was dismissed as to all defendants, except for -- the company and certain former directors of RCN with respect to an alleged "failure to monitor" the Savings Plan, and -- certain individuals who comprised the former administrative committee of the Savings Plan with respect to an alleged failure to prudently invest Savings Plan assets, in each case during late 2003 and early 2004 when the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty occurred. Discovery with respect to these remaining defendants commenced in September 2006. On March 14, 2007, the company reached a tentative settlement for the matter. The settlement agreement was executed on July 19, 2007, and is subject to judicial and other related approvals, according to the company’s Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "In re: RCN Corp. ERISA Litigation, Master File No. 04-CV-5068 (SRC)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com Representing the company is: Edward Cerasia, II, Esq. Proskauer Rose, LLP One Newark Center, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5211 Phone: (973) 274-3200 E-mail: ecerasia@proskauer.com SCREEN ACTORS GUILD: Actor Sues Over Undistributed Funds --------------------------------------------------------- The Screen Actors Guild is facing a class action accusing it of failing to distribute to members part of $8 million in funds collected from foreign royalties, reports say. The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court by actor Ken Osmond. The actor accuses the Guild of unjust enrichment and violations of the state's business code. His suit seeks class-action status on behalf of at least 30,000 actors and others. The royalties, which has been collected since at least 1996, was allegedly collected on behalf of himself and other actions without their permission and knowledge. The Guild has allegedly paid out only about $250,000 of the $8 million collected from States in the form of levies for video rentals, private copying, cable transmissions and other uses of the productions. According to the suit, The Guild said that paying out the monies was 'complex,' and that it did not have a system in place to pay out such monies. UNITED ONLINE: Amended Complaint Filed in Calif. NetZero Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A new class representative is being proposed in a consolidated consumer fraud class action filed against NetZero, a brand name of United Online, Inc. On March 6, 2006, plaintiff Anthony Piercy filed a purported consumer class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero claiming that NetZero continues to charge consumers fees after they cancel their Internet access account. On July 27, 2006, plaintiff Donald E. Ewart filed a purported consumer class action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against NetZero containing substantially similar allegations to the Piercy case. Plaintiffs in both cases are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and damages. NetZero filed a response to both lawsuits denying the material allegations of the complaints. Both Mr. Piercy and Mr. Ewart subsequently withdrew from the actions as class representatives. On March 16, 2007, Barbara Rasnake, Robert Du Verger and Peter Chrisler were substituted as purported class representatives. On May 25, 2007 the court consolidated the actions under the caption, “Rasnake v. NetZero, Inc., Case No. BC348461.” On July 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint, at which time Peter Chrisler was also substituted as a purported class representative. Discovery is continuing and a trial date has not yet been set, according to United Online, Inc.'s Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. United Online, Inc. -- http://www.unitedonline.net/-- is a provider of consumer Internet and media services through a number of brands, including NetZero, Juno, Classmates and MyPoints. UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Investors Yet to File Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the consolidated class action, “In re Universal American Financial Corp. Buyout Offer Shareholder Litigation,” have yet to file an amended complaint in the matter, according to the company's Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Between Oct. 25, 2006 and Nov. 6, 2006, six purported class actions were filed in New York state courts against the Company and other defendants concerning the acquisition proposal received by the Company on Oct. 24, 2006, from members of management led by Richard A. Barasch, the Company’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and private equity firms Capital Z Partners, Ltd., Lee Equity Partners, LLC, Perry Capital, LLC and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P. to acquire all of the Company’s publicly held common stock for $18.15 per share in cash (Offer). Three of these actions were filed in the Supreme Court for New York County as: -- “Stellato v. Universal American Financial Corp., et al. (06-116006),” -- “Green Meadows Partners LLP v. Barasch, et al. (603724-06),” and -- “Sorrentino v. Barasch et al. (06-603853).” The Stellato action alleged that the offer was made at an “unfair price, under unfair terms and through improper means” and sought an injunction preventing the Offer from being consummated, or in the alternative, monetary damages. The Green Meadows action alleged that Mr. Barasch and directors Bradley Cooper, Eric Leathers and Robert Spass dominate the board of directors of the Company, and have breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, making a buyout proposal that “fails to take into account the value of UHCO, its improving financial results and its value in comparison to other similar companies.” The action sought, among other things, an injunction preventing defendants from carrying out an unfair transaction, and monetary damages. The Sorrentino action also alleged board domination by Messers. Barasch, Cooper, Leathers, and Spass, and asserted that the Offer price is “unconscionable, unfair and grossly inadequate and constitutes unfair dealing.” The action sought an injunction preventing the Offer from being consummated or rescinding the Offer, or, in the alternative, monetary damages. Three other actions pertaining to the Offer were filed in the Supreme Court for Westchester County as: -- “Conolly v. Universal American Financial Corp, et al. (06-21712),” -- “McCormack v. Averill et al. (06-21365),” and -- “Zhang v. Barasch et al. (21672-06).” The Conolly action alleged that the shareholder agreement to which Mr. Barasch and Capital Z are parties “deter[s] potential bids for the Company at a premium to the presently offered price,” and that the sponsors of the offer (excluding Mr. Barasch) are members of a “club” of elite private equity funds under investigation for violations of the anti-trust laws that have resulted in “driv[ing] down the prices of potential acquisition targets.” The Conolly action further asserted that the director defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value by, among other things, failing immediately to reject the Offer. It sought an injunction prohibiting consummation of the Offer, or in the alternative, monetary damages. The McCormack action also asserted that the buyout offer is “the product of unfair dealing” by the management of the Company and its largest shareholder, Capital Z, and sought an injunction ordering the directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties, and/or enjoining any transaction based upon the Offer, as well as monetary damages. The Zhang action asserted that the Offer price was unfair and failed to take into account the value of the Company; it sought injunctive relief and/or damages. On January 11, 2007, the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, signed an order consolidating each of the six actions in the Commercial Division of Westchester Court under the caption, “In re Universal American Financial Corp. Buyout Offer Shareholder Litigation.” The defendants named in the consolidation order included the Company, Mr. Barasch and the other sponsors of the offer, including Capital Z, as well as eight other members of the Company’s board of directors. The court’s order provided that the plaintiff would file a consolidated amended complaint, and the defendants’ time to respond would extend to 40 days thereafter. The consolidated amended complaint has not yet been filed. On May 25, 2007, the Court in the Consolidated Actions held a status conference with counsel for all parties. At the May 25 conference, the Court granted the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions approximately two weeks to file an amended consolidated complaint. However, as of July 13, 2007, when the next status conference with the Court was conducted, plaintiffs had not filed an amended consolidated complaint. Universal American Financial Corp. -- http://www.uafc.com-- is a specialty health and life insurance holding company, with an emphasis on providing an array of health insurance and managed care products and services. UNIVERSAL AMERICAN: Sued in N.Y. Over MemberHealth Merger Plan --------------------------------------------------------------- Universal American Financial Corp. is a defendant in a purported class action filed in the Supreme Court for New York State, Westchester County over a merger agreement with MemberHealth, Inc. On July 25, 2007, a purported class action filed by Elizabeth A. Conolly, Thomas McCormack, Shelly Z. Zhang, Green Meadows Partners, James Stellato and Rocco Sorrentino against: * Universal American Financial Corp., * Richard A. Barasch, * Lee Equity Partners LLC, * Perry Capital LLC, * Union Square Partners Management LLC, * Welsh, Carson, * Anderson & Stowe, * Barry Averill, * Bradley E. Cooper, * Mark M. Harmeling, * Bertram Harnett, * Linda H. Lamel, * Eric W. Leathers, * Patrick J. McLaughlin, * Robert A. Spass, and * Robert F. Wright,” was filed in the Supreme Court for New York State, Westchester County. The complaint alleges that the defendants who are directors of the Company allegedly breached fiduciary duties they owed to the Company’s shareholders in connection with the Company entering into its previously announced merger agreement to acquire MemberHealth, Inc. and concurrent agreements with certain equity investors for such equity investors to acquire securities in the Company, and the defendants who are equity investors purportedly aided and abetted that breach. Also, the defendants who are directors of the Company allegedly breached their duty of candor to the Company’s shareholders by failing to disclose material information concerning those transactions. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction against the consummation of the transactions and damages in an amount to be determined. Universal American Financial Corp. -- http://www.uafc.com-- is a specialty health and life insurance holding company, with an emphasis on providing an array of health insurance and managed care products and services. VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Nov. 2 Hearing Set for Securities Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 2, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for a proposed $5,500,000 settlement in the matter, "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM." The hearing will be held before the Honorable Colleen McMahon, U.S. District Judge, at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21B, Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on Dec. 3, 2007. Case Background The suit arises out of the restatement in March 2005 of Veeco's financial statements for the quarterly periods and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2004 as a result of the company's discovery of certain improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc business unit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit seek unspecified damages and assert claims against all defendants for violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and claims against the individual defendants for violations of Section 20(b) of the Exchange Act. In March 2006, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit at the pleading stage, and certified a plaintiff class for the lawsuit consisting of all persons who acquired the company's securities from Apr. 26, 2004 through Feb. 10, 2005. The suit is "In Re: Veeco Instruments Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 7:05-md-01695-CM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Colleen McMahon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Phyllis Maza, Esq. Parker of Berger & Montague, PC 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia PA 19103-6365, U.S. Phone: (215) 875-4647 Fax: (215) 875-4674 E-mail: pparker@bm.net Eric James Belfi, Esq. Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Ste. 801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 E-mail: ebelfi@murrayfrank.com - and - Sherrie Raiken, Esq. Savett of Berg & Androphy 3704 Travis Street Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (215) 875-3071 Fax: (215)-875-5715 Representing the company is: Robert F. Serio, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 200 Park Avenue, 48th Floor New York, NY 10166 Phone: 212-351-3917 Fax: 212-351-5246 E-mail: rserio@gibsondunn.com ZIPREALTY INC: Still Faces Employee Agents' Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- ZipRealty, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that was filed four former employee agents. The suit, “Lubocki, et al. v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” was filed on May 4, 2007. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the company’s policies for expense allowances, expense reimbursements and commission payments to agents for transactions that do not close during the period of employment violate federal and California state laws. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and equitable relief but does not specify the amount of damages sought. The company provided no development in the matter in its Aug. 9, 2007 Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is “Lubocki, et al v. ZipRealty, Case No. CV 07 2959,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge S. James Otero with referral to Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. Representing the plaintiffs are: Sandeep Baweja, Esq. Sandeep Baweja Law Offices 445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-426-2112 E-mail: sbaweja@walialaw.com - and - Ernest J. Franceschi, Jr., Esq. Ernest J. Franceschi Jr. Law Offices 445 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-612-7723 Representing the defendant is: Holly A. Hogan Kerr and Wagstaffe 100 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105-1528 Phone: 415-371-8500 E-mail: hogan@kerrwagstaffe.com New Securities Fraud Cases COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the Capital V preferred stock of Countrywide Financial Corp. from the date of the Company's public offering on November 1, 2006, and all purchasers traceable thereto against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the Offering, alleging violations under under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. ss. 77k and 77l. The Complaint asserts that Countrywide's Prospectus contained both material misstatements and omissions, which plaintiff and the Class relied upon to their detriment. The representations made in the Company's Prospectus were materially false and misleading because at the time of the Offering, Countrywide was already suffering from several adverse factors that were not revealed and/or adequately addressed in the document. These factors include, but are not limited to, failure to disclose Countrywide's exposure to the down market in light of its subprime lending practices and its provision of loans to applicants without proof of income, employment, or assets. There factors already were causing a material adverse affect on Countrywide's business and according to the Company's recent statements, will continue to affect its business going forward. The Director Defendants (as defined in the complaint) and Countrywide's underwriters could have - and should have - discovered the material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus prior to its filing with the SEC and distribution to the investing public. Instead, they failed to do so as a result of a negligent and grossly inadequate due diligence investigation. Certain of the adverse factors affecting Countrywide's business were first revealed on July 24, 2007, in a Company issued press release announcing results for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. The July 24, 2007, announcements forecasted a weak second half of 2007 due to adverse market conditions, which caused the price of Countrywide's Capital V preferred stock to decline from its closing price of $24.46 on July 23, 2007 to a value of $20.85 just a week later on July 31, 2007 on unusually large trading volume. As the Company continued to issue negative reports, including statements in its August 9, 2007 10-Q that the Company was facing "unprecedented market conditions," which significantly diminished its liquidity, the stock price continued its fall to just $13.85 on August 16, 2007. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered serious financial damage as a result of Defendants' material misstatements and omissions in the Company's Prospectus. Had plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said preferred stock, or would not have purchased them at the inflated prices that were paid. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Rachel S. Poplock, Esq. Derek Behnke Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Phone: 800-575-0735 E-mail: classmember@whafh.com Website: http://www.whafh.com NETBANK INC: Schoengold Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------- Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. has filed a class action against NetBank, Inc. (PINKSHEETS: NTBK) and certain key current and former officers and/or directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This action has been brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired NetBank securities during the period between May 1, 2006 and September 17, 2007. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder by making materially false and misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of NetBank stock. Specifically, it is alleged that the defendants repeatedly represented, beginning in May 2006, that NetBank was restructuring its operations to rid its strong core banking business from high risk non-conforming loan origination operations and other business segments which detracted from the performance of its core business. Defendants claimed its restructuring was largely complete by February 2007 and that investors could rely on the book value of the Company as reflecting its true value. However, defendants shocked investors by disclosing that as of May 21, 2007, NetBank's core banking business was so deficient in meeting regulatory capital requirements that bank regulators compelled NetBank to consummate a $2.5 billion asset sale at a significant $60-70 million loss in order to cover NetBank depositors as required by law. The Company's common stock price fell 66% -- from $1.75 per share on May 18, 2007 to $0.59 per share on May 21, 2007 on massive volume of 11,190,400 shares -- over forty- five times the previous day's volume. Further, on August 6, 2007, NetBank announced that its wholly owned retail mortgage business, Market Street Mortgage Corporation ("Market Street"), was completely valueless. NetBank also announced that the NASDAQ securities exchange was delisting the Company's common stock from trading. On August 7, 2007, NetBank's stock price dropped to $0.14 per share from its previous day's close of $0.20 per share, a 30% drop in one day on massive volume of 5,190,600 shares. Finally, on September 17, 2007, the purported buyer of NetBank's assets announced that it had terminated its purchase of the NetBank assets, announced on May 21, 2007, because it had become "clear" that NetBank would not be able to meet its regulatory requirements. NetBank's stock price then closed at $0.08 per share on September 17, 2007. For more information, contact: Jay P. Saltzman, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. 19 Fulton Street, Suite 406 New York, New York 10038 Tel: (212) 964-0046 Fax: (212) 267-8137 Toll Free: (866) 348-7700 Website: http://www.spornlaw.com OPTEUM INC: Eric J. O'Bell Files Securities Fraud Suit in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC announced that a class action has been filed against Opteum Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company in connection with, or traceable to, its September 2004 Initial Public Offering and/or the December 2004 Secondary Offering, and including shareholders who purchased shares in the open market between November 3, 2005 and May 10, 2007, inclusive. The Company and certain of its officers, directors and underwriters are charged with including false and misleading statements in the registration statements and proxy-prospectuses issued in connection with the Offerings in direct violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). Additionally, the Company and certain of its officers and directors are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Eric J. O'Bell Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Phone: 504-456-8677 Fax: 504-456-8624 E-mail: ejo@obelllawfirm.com ORBCOMM INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of ORBCOMM, Inc. ")(NASDAQ:ORBC - News) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about November 3, 2006 through August 14, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. The complaint charges ORBCOMM and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act. ORBCOMM is a satellite-based data communication company that operates a two-way wireless data messaging system optimized for narrowband data communication worldwide. According to the complaint, on or about October 30, 2006, ORBCOMM filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Form S-1/A Registration Statement (the "Registration Statement"), for the IPO. On or about November 3, 2006, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over- allotment, more than 9.2 million shares of ORBCOMM's common stock were sold to the public, thereby raising more than $101 million. It alleges that the Prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact because it failed to disclose that demand for the Company's products was weakening as certain end-users were delaying purchases and international sales were being negatively impacted by delays in modifying regional applications. Then, on August 14, 2007, ORBCOMM issued a press release announcing its financial results for the second quarter of 2007, the period ending June 30, 2007. In the press release and thereafter, the Company revealed that it was experiencing weakening demand for its products and services and was not adding subscribers at the rates it had anticipated. In response to this announcement, the price of ORBCOMM common stock declined from $11.18 per share to $7.86 per share on extremely heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased the common stock of ORBCOMM pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about November 3, 2006 through August 14, 2007, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@csgrr.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, 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 * * *