C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, October 12, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 202 Headlines 3COM CORP: Shareholders Sue Aiming to Block Bain's $2.2B Buyout ACI WORLDWIDE: $24.5M Neb. Securities Suit Settlement Appealed ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia" ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Suit Over Service Mark ups AMCOR LTD: Visy Admission to Boost Antitrust Claims, Lawyer Says APPLE INC: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Suit Over iPhone Locking BANK ONE: Settles Ill. Securities Suit Over 1998 Merger for $28M BLACK & DECKER: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Employment Discrimination CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls Glitter Candles Due to Fire Hazard FARM CONTRACTORS: Undocumented Farm Workers File Suit in Calif. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuits Over FEMA Trailers, Homes GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Avon Pension Fund to Lead Avandia Litigation H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuit Over RSM's Business Valuation Services INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Labor-Related Litigations Still Stayed MICHAELS STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. Securities Suit ORACLE CORP: Nov. 26 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces "Marshall" Hotel Tax Suit in Del. PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Cal. "Bush" Hotel Tax Lawsuit SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex. SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla. SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Seek Review of Decertification SSA GLOBAL: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for $5M Investor Suit Settlement STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed STEWART ENTERPRISES: Faces Up to $1.5B Funeral Consumer Claims TOSHIBA AMERICA: Recalls DVD Players AC Adapters for Burn Hazard WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Appeal 172M Award in "Savaglio" WAL-MART STORES: Certification Motion Filed in Cal. "Bonus" Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ruling on Terrance Suit v. Exxon Upheld ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Co. Settles Six Cases for $405T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Levine Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Action v. Georgia-Pacific Settled on Oct. 2 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Town Council in Talks Over Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Boston Steam Pipe Release ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Minister Orders Building Reassessment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Govt. Worker Seeks GBP200T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Illnesses Afflict South Africa Mining Towns ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Counters Appeal Court Ruling in Mont. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Appeal Filed by Thorpe Insulation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mich. Worker Sues 51 Companies in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Found in Demolished Texas Apartment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Experts Urge Canada to Ban Mining, Export ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DOJ Seeks Probe on Firm's Billing Practices ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Found in Classrooms of U.K. School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Delays Reopening of U.K. Park Farm ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foreign Ship Owners Agree to Asbestos Audit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Discovered at U.K. Sheltered Homes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Praises Passing of Act to Ban Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs Gov't. Petition in Trinity Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Int'l. Records 10,957 Cases at Aug. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Units Expect Ruling on Coverage in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Gets "Majority" of $180M Tax Refunds ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Navy Veteran's Kin Sues 53 Firms in Tex. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Senate Approves Total Ban on Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Seaman Gets GBP62T Payout from British Rail ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Group Demands Better Treatment for Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Agrees to Federal-Mogul Plan ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Pensioner Seeks GBP200T Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Discovered in Grounds of U.K. School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Appeals in Cole Action New Securities Fraud Cases BIGBAND NETWORKS: Wolf Popper Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit LDK SOLAR: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Calif. NUTRISYSTEM INC: Bernard M. Gross Files First Securities Suit ********* 3COM CORP: Shareholders Sue Aiming to Block Bain's $2.2B Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- 3Com Corp. is facing a class action aiming to prevent a $2.2 billion buyout of the company by private equity firm Bain Capital Partners and China's Huawei Technologies, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission dated Oct. 9. On Sept. 28, Bain Capital and Huawei, a privately held company, agreed to purchase 3Com for $2.2 billion in cash. Shareholders would receive $5.30 in cash for each share of 3Com stock. Several purported class actions have been filed since September 28, 2007 by 3Com shareholders against the Company, its current directors, a former director, Bain Capital Partners, and in some cases, Huawei Technologies. The plaintiffs seek class certification and injunctions against the proposed sale of the Company, contending that the sale price agreed to by the directors is insufficient, that the directors breached their fiduciary duties, and that Bain Capital Partners, and in some cases, Huawei Technologies, aided and abetted the alleged breaches. The defendants intend to vigorously defend these suits. The shareholders also argue in their lawsuits that Bain Capital, where Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was once a partner, and in some cases Huawei Technologies, may have "aided and abetted the alleged breaches," according to the filing. Based in Marlborough, Mass., 3Com Corp. provides secure, converged networking solutions on a global scale to businesses of all sizes. Its products and solutions enable customers to manage business-critical voice and data in a secure and efficient network environment. ACI WORLDWIDE: $24.5M Neb. Securities Suit Settlement Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against a $24.5 million settlement of a securities fraud class action against ACI Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. In November 2002, two class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska against the company and certain individuals alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System designated as lead plaintiff. Second Complaint The Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint previously alleged that during the purported class period, the company and the named defendants misrepresented the company's historical financial condition, results of operations and our future prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have indicated an impending decline in the company's revenues. That Complaint also alleged that, prior to August 2002, the purported truth regarding the company's financial condition had not been disclosed to the market. The company and the individual defendants initially filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In response, on Dec. 15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory Derkacht, the company's former president and chief executive officer, as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the remaining defendants, including the company. On July 1, 2004, lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification wherein, for the first time, lead plaintiff sought to add an additional class representative, Roger M. Wally. On Aug. 20, 2004, defendants filed their opposition to the motion. On March 22, 2005, the Court issued an order certifying the class of persons that purchased the company's common stock from Jan. 21, 1999 through Nov. 18, 2002. On Jan. 27, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a dismissal of the lead plaintiff and certain other class members, as well as a limitation on damages based upon plaintiffs' inability to establish loss causation with respect to a large portion of their claims. On Feb. 6, 2006, additional class representative Roger M. Wally filed a motion to withdraw as a class representative and class member. On April 21, 2006, and based upon the pending motion for judgment, a motion to intervene as a class representative was filed by the Louisiana District Attorneys Retirement System (LDARS). LDARS previously attempted to be named as lead plaintiff in the case. On July 5, 2006, the Magistrate denied LDARS' motion to intervene, which LDARS appealed to the District Judge. That appeal has not yet been decided. On May 17, 2006, the Court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings as being moot based upon the Court's granting lead plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, which it did on May 31, 2006. Third Complaint The Third Complaint alleges the same misrepresentations as described above, while simultaneously alleging that the purported truth about our financial condition was being disclosed throughout that time, commencing in April 1999. It seeks unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs. On June 14, 2006, the company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Third Complaint pursuant to Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Lead Plaintiff opposed the motion. Settlement Prior to any ruling on the motion to dismiss, on Nov. 7, 2006, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement for purposes of settling all of the claims in the Class Action Litigation, with no admissions of wrongdoing by the company or any individual defendant. The settlement provides for an aggregate cash payment of $24.5 million of which, net of insurance, the company contributed approximately $8.5 million. The Court approved the settlement on March 2, 2007 and it ordered the case dismissed with prejudice against the company and the individual defendants. Settlement Objection On March 27, 2007, James J. Hayes, a class member, filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit appealing the Court's order. The company responded to this appeal in accordance with the Court of Appeals' orders and procedures. The appeal has not yet been decided, according to the company's Sept. 24, 2007 Form 10-Q Filling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. v. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al., Case No. 02-CV-0553," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska under Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. Representing the plaintiffs are: Cauley Bowman Carney & Williams, PLLC 11001 Executive Center Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: 501.312.8500 Fax: 888.551.9944 E-mail: info@cauleybowman.com Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700 Fax: 212.818.0477 E-mail: info@glrslaw.com Kinsey, Ridenour, Becker & Kistler P.O. Box 85778, 601 Lincoln Square, 121 S. 13th St. Lincoln, NE 68501-5778 Phone: 402.438.1310 Fax: 402.438.1650 E-mail: krbk@krbklaw.com - and - Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 212.907.0700 Fax: 212.818.0477 E-mail: info@labaton.com ALDERWOODS GROUP: Fla. Court Considers Certification in "Garcia" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida has yet to certify a class in the case against Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006. The suit (Case No.: 04-25646 CA 32) was filed by Reyvis Garcia and Alicia Garcia against: -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., -- Osiris Holding of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation, * d/b/a Graceland Memorial Park South, * f/k/a Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Plaintiffs in the case, which was filed in December 2004, are the son and sister of the decedent, Eloisa Garcia, who was buried at Graceland Memorial Park South in March 1986, when the cemetery was owned by Paradise Memorial Gardens, Inc. Initially, the suit sought damages on the individual claims of the plaintiffs relating to the burial of Eloisa Garcia, who essentially claimed that due to poor record keeping, spacing issues and maps, and the fact that the family could not afford to purchase a marker for the grave, the burial location of the decedent could not be located. In July 2006, plaintiffs amended their complaint, seeking to certify a class of all persons buried at the cemetery whose burial sites cannot be located, claiming that this is due to poor record keeping, maps and surveys at the cemetery. They are also seeking unspecified monetary damages, as well as equitable and injunctive relief. No class has been certified in this matter. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. ALDERWOODS GROUP: Still Faces Suit Over Service Mark ups -------------------------------------------------------- Alderwoods Group, Inc., which was acquired by Service Corp. International on Nov. 28, 2006, continues to face a purported class action over its alleged non-disclosure of markups on funeral service contracts. The suit is pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of Los Angeles, Central District. The suit, "Richard Sanchez et al. v. Alderwoods Group, Inc. et al., Case No. BC328962," was filed in February 2005. It seeks to certify a nationwide class on behalf of all consumers who purchased funeral goods and services from the company. Plaintiffs allege in essence that the Federal Trade Commission's Funeral Rule requires the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts. They further allege that the company has failed to make such disclosures. The suit is seeking to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages, attorney's fees, costs and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. AMCOR LTD: Visy Admission to Boost Antitrust Claims, Lawyer Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman is confident that an admission of an antitrust collusion by Visy Industries will boost its case against, Amcor Ltd., reports say. In April 2006, Maurice Blackburn filed a suit in Federal Court of Australia on behalf of the now defunct Jarra Creek Central Packaging Shed Pty Ltd., alleging cartel behavior and seeking declarations, injunctions and unspecified damages against: -- Amcor Ltd., -- Amcor Packaging (Australia) Ltd., and -- Fibre Containers (Queensland) Pty Ltd. The suit claimed the plaintiff has been damaged by price fixing and market sharing in the cardboard box industry between 2000 and 2005. Amcor escaped prosecution after being granted immunity by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commission in return for information about the practice. But now, after Visy owner Richard Pratt admitted to the conspiracy, lawyer Ben Slade of Maurice Blackburn said, "I would have thought that if Amcor has fessed up and said well we want immunity and the immunity has been given by the ACCC from prosecution but not from damages claims and now Visy is saying we done it, then it seems like a pretty difficult one for us to lose," according to ABC Online. The class action alleges customers of Amcor and Visy were overcharged between 8 per cent and 15 per cent for their cardboard packaging for a span of more than five years after the companies allegedly entered into a deal to artificially inflate prices. The class action was expected to focus on how much liability Amcor and Visy should bear for the costs passed on to other businesses, said Rebecca Gilsenan, who is representing the claimants. Visy is facing a class action from companies that claim they were forced to pay an extra $700 million in packaging costs because of the illicit deal. It is joined to the class action against Amcor in April and stands to face greater cost because of its higher market share. Visy has about 55 per cent of the market compared with Amcor's 36 per cent in 2004-05, according to Sydney Morning Herald. Visy and Amcor are also facing a $120 million claim lodged by Cadbury Schweppes, claiming that the anti-competitive conduct extended beyond the cardboard market into PET containers and aluminium cans for drinks. Mr. Pratt's admissions are understood to be part of a settlement reached in the case, with an agreed statement of claim to Justice Peter Heerey in the Federal Court, according to the Sydney Morning Herald. Maurice Blackburn: http://www.mauriceblackburncashman.com.au/. APPLE INC: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Suit Over iPhone Locking -------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Inc. and AT&T Mobility, LLC is facing a class-action complaint filed Oct. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing the companies of conspiring to restrain commerce and injure consumers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. This action arises out of defendants' alleged unlawful acts which were designed for the express purpose, and had the effect of, improperly interfering with the rights of consumers to freely and lawfully use the product they purchased and paid for. Named plaintiffs Paul Holman and Lucy Rivello claim both companies conspired to restrain commerce and injure consumers by making it impossible to run programs on iPhones unless users buy them directly from Apple, and of forcing customers to use AT&T cell phone and mobile data services. The iPhone has "security measures" that illegally restrain trade, the complaint states. Apple has illegally threatened to void the warranties of customers who figure out how to install third-party programs, it states. Apple and AT&T are accused of "taking affirmative steps to break the iPhones of consumers who lawfully unlocked the AT&T SIM card or who installed Third Party Apps." And it accuses AT&T of modifying its iPhone software after the phones went on sale to ensure that it could break customers' phones at will. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all individuals or entities who at any time from June 29, 2007 to the date of judgment in this action, bought and implemented the iPhone and sustained damages as a result. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether, in marketing and selling the iPhone, defendants entered into agreements in restraint of trade; (b) whether defendants' conduct has any technological or competitive justification; (c) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business acts or practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200; (d) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful business acts or practices within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code Section 16720 et seq.; (e) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful business acts or practices in violation of Section 1 of The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; (f) whether defendants' conduct constituted unlawful business acts or practices in violation of Section 2 of The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2; (g) whether Apple's software release 1.1.1 was designed to or did disable Third Party Apps and SIM card unlocks without any need or technological justification for doing so other than to advance product tie-in goals which are unlawful under California and federal law; (h) whether terms of defendants' contracts with plaintiffs and the class are void and unenforceable terms of any enforceable contracts between defendants and plaintiffs and the class; and (j) the appropriate measure of damages and other relief. Plaintiffs and the class pray for an award and judgment against defendants jointly and severally; -- on plaintiffs' first claim for relief, for restitution of all amounts lost as a result of defendants' violation of Business and Professions Code Section 174200 et seq; -- on plaintiffs' second, third and fourth claims for relief, for an amount to be proven at trial for all direct and consequential damages incurred by plaintiffs and the class, but no less than $200 million, trebled to $600 million; -- on plaintiffs' fifth claim for relief, for an amount to be proven at trial for all direct and consequential damages incurred by the plaintiffs and the class as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct, but no less than $200 million; -- on plaintiffs' sixth claim for relief, for punitive damages in an amount of no less than $600 million; -- on plaintiffs' first through fifth claims for relief, for an injunction prohibiting in the future the unlawful conduct alleged; -- on plaintiffs' first through fourth claims for relief, for an order declaring all unlawful terms of the agreements between Apple and AT&T and either of the plaintiffs or any member of the class void and unenforceable; -- for all costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and interest; and -- for such other and further relief as the court deems just. The suit is "Paul Holman et al. v. Apple, Inc. et al., Case No. C07 05152," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Max Folkenflik, Esq. Margaret McGErity, Esq. Folkenflik & McGerity 1500 Broadway, 21st Floor New York,NY 10036 Phone: (212) 757-0400 Fax: (212) 757-2010 - and - H. Tim Hoffman Arthur W. Lazear Morgan M. Mack Hoffman & Lazear 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1550 Oakland, California 94612 BANK ONE: Settles Ill. Securities Suit Over 1998 Merger for $28M ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP announced that the Class and defendant Bank One in "In re Old Banc One Shareholders Litigation, No. 00 C 2100" filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have entered into a $28,000,000 Stipulation of Settlement dated September 11, 2007 to settle the claims of the Class in this Litigation. The class includes all persons or entities who purchased shares of Banc One Corporation (Old Banc One) common stock during the period of August 6, 1998 through October 1, 1998, both dates inclusive, and received Bank One Corporation (Bank One) common stock through the conversion of Old Banc One common stock to Bank One common stock issued in connection with the merger between Old Banc One and First Chicago NBD Corporation effective October 2, 1998. Excluded from the Class are: (a) all Bank One common stock of former Old Banc One shareholders which were sold prior to August 30, 1999; and (b) the Individual Defendants, officers and directors of Bank One, members of the Individual Defendants' immediate families, any entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns of any such excluded person. The litigation is a consolidated class action under the federal securities laws concerning the Merger of First Chicago and Bank One in October of 1998. Plaintiffs allege that Bank One and the other defendants made material misstatements and omissions in connection with that transaction. Defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing, deny any violations of the securities laws, maintain that they acted properly in all respects and make no admission of fault, liability or damages in connection with the proposed Settlement or otherwise (Class Action Reporter, April 5, 2005). According to the law firm, the Old Banc One Shareholders' claims arise under Section 12(a)(2) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (Section 12(a)(2)) on behalf of all shareholders of Old Banc One securities whose shares were converted to Bank One securities pursuant to the merger. Plaintiffs allege that the Proxy/Prospectus related to the merger between Old Banc One and First Chicago NBD (which was consummated on Oct. 2, 1998) was materially false and misleading because the financial statements contained therein misrepresented the growth of Old Banc One's subsidiary credit card division, First USA. The reality was that First USA was in violation of The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z prior to the merger, and therefore, the reported income and revenue contained in the Proxy/Prospectus were inflated. Bank One issued public announcements in the summer and fall of 1999 revising its financial outlook due, in part, to First USA's discontinuance of its improper conduct in booking late fees and interest charges to which it was not entitled. Bank One has virtually conceded that for approximately 20 months -- from January 1, 1998 though Aug. 31, 1999 -- there had been improper charges to its credit card customers of late fees, interest and other penalties. The Court will hold a hearing on November 30, 2007, at 8:45 a.m., before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to determine: (1) whether the settlement of the Class's claims against Bank One for $28,000,000 should be approved as fair, just, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (5) whether the Lead Plaintiff and Class Representative should be granted an award for services on behalf of the Class as requested by Class Counsel. Deadline to file for exclusion and objection is on November 15, 2007. Deadline to file for claims is on January 15, 2008. Representing the class are: Robin F. Zwerling Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10010 - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP One North LaSalle Street, Suite 2225 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Representing Bank One Corporation is: Robert Y. Sperling Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 BLACK & DECKER: N.J. Lawsuit Alleges Employment Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. d/b/a Porter Cable, is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee alleging it forces job applicants to take a "nerve conduction study" and refuses to hire them if it believes the test shows they are susceptible to carpal tunnel syndrome. Named plaintiff Victor Breehne brings this action for discrimination in employment by taking adverse employment action against individuals at its Jackson, Tennessee plant based upon these individuals' nerve conductions studies. These nerve conduction studies purport to indicate these individuals had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and defendant thereby mistakenly perceived them to be undesirable hires who were substantially limited in the major life activity of working. He brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a),(b)(1),(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all applicants to defendant's facility in Jackson, Tennessee who have actual disabilities, are perceived as being disabled, or have a history of being disabled, who have been denied employment based upon nerve conduction studies purporting to indicate they had a propensity to develop cumulative trauma disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and therefore should not be hired for what amounts to a "class or range of jobs." Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant's policies, procedures, acts and omissions violated (and/or continue to violate) the ADA; and (b) whether plaintiff and the class have sustained injury by reason of defendant's acts or omissions. He prays for relief and judgment as follows: -- determining that this is a proper class action to be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents from engaging in, ratifying, or refusing to correct the employment practices which discriminate in violation of the ADA; -- order defendant to make plaintiffs and the class whole by providing appropriate back-pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, instatement or reinstatement to positions with defendant; -- awarding extraordinary, equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and the federal statutory provisions sued hereunder pursuant to Rule 65 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- awarding plaintiff and class members restitutionary and/or remedial relief; -- awarding plaintiff and class members pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; and -- award such other legal and equitable relief as the court deems appropriate and just. The suit is "Victor Breehne et al. v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. d/b/a Prter Cable," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Representing plaintiffs is: Justin S. Gilbert Michael L. Russell Gilbert & Russell, PLC 2021 Greystone Park P.O. Box 11357 Jackson, Tennessee 38308 Phone: 731-664-1340 Fax: 731-664-1540 CHRISTMAS TREE: Recalls Glitter Candles Due to Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Christmas Tree Shops Inc., of South Yarmouth, Massachusetts, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 9,600 sequin glitter candles. The company said the candle's exterior glitter coating can ignite, posing a fire hazard. The firm has received four reports of flames or smoke coming from the candle or the exterior coating. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves glitter candles in three styles. UPC Size/Shape 0 00014 42442 7 3 inches across x 3 inches tall 0 00014 42441 0 3 inches across x 6 inches tall 0 00014 42444 1 inches tall, teardrop shape The candles were available in gold, silver and red. The UPC label can be located on the product's packaging. These recalled glitter candles were manufactured in China and are being sold at Christmas Tree Shop retail locations nationwide from November 2006 through December 2006 for between $1.70 and $3.00. Picture of recalled glitter candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08014.jpg Consumers should immediately stop using the candles and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. For a list of stores, visit the firm's Web site. For additional information, call Christmas Tree Shops toll-free at (888) 287-3232 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.christmastreeshops.com FARM CONTRACTORS: Undocumented Farm Workers File Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- 3P More than 100 immigrant workers filed a class action against three Salinas-area farm labor contractors and growers in the Monterey County Superior Court in California, on behalf of those who say they were taken advantage of because of their undocumented status, Victor Calderon of The Salinas Californian reports. The complaint names the following as defendants: -- Valley Pride Inc., -- Sea Breeze Harvesting of Castroville and -- Premium Packing Inc. Plaintiffs -- Pedro Diaz Bautista and Jose Zenon Tenorio Moreno -- contend their employers failed to pay them earned overtime wages and did not allow them to take meal and rest periods, among other charges. Plaintiffs, who worked in celery harvesting operation crews for the companies, are seeking compensation for their unpaid wages and court fees. According to the report, the lawsuit will now be served to the employers, and a judge will determine if the case has merit. FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Faces Lawsuits Over FEMA Trailers, Homes --------------------------------------------------------------- Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. faces several complaints, some of which are putative class actions, filed against manufacturers of travel trailers and manufactured homes supplied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be used for emergency living accommodations in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The complaints generally allege injury due to the presence of formaldehyde in the units. Oldenburg Litigation One of these class actions is "Oldenburg et al. v. United State of America et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02961-ILRL-DEK," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, May 28, 2007). The federal government, along with several other parties, faces a purported federal class action that accuses it of housing victims of Hurricane Katrina in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers contaminated by carcinogenic formaldehyde. Robin Oldenburg, Austin Sicard, and Cindy McDonald - all residents of the Parish of St. Bernard -- filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on May 18, 2007. In it, the trio also named as defendants -- Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc.; -- Fleetwood Canada, Ltd.; and -- Other as yet unnamed travel trailer vendors to FEMA. The case was brought on behalf of those persons residing or living in manufactured mobile homes, mobile homes or travel trailers (hereinafter called "housing units") along the Gulf coast of the U.S. The housing units were provided by FEMA after the landfalls of Hurricane Katrina, and who are being subjected to harmful levels of formaldehyde while residing in said housing units. Formaldehyde (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html)is used in the manufacture of certain construction materials as particleboard and plywood, particularly in the manufactured home industry. According to the National Cancer Institute, formaldehyde has been classified as a human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probably human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs, as to themselves and each proposed class member. They are demanding a jury trial for their case. Hillard Litigation Another similar suit is "Hillard et al. v. United States of America et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02576-MVL-KWR," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2006). The suit was initiated by attorney Sean Trundy over dangerous levels of formaldehyde in Federal Emergency Management Agency trailers provided to Hurricane Katrina victims, The South Bend Tribune reports. The suit alleges that high concentrations of formaldehyde, emitted from products in the Indiana-made trailers, caused "a clear and present danger to the health and well-being" of the people who live in the trailers. Mr. Trundy claimed the trailers caused his clients to experience allergy or flu like symptoms including headaches and stuffed noses. After Hurricane Katrina destroyed much of the Gulf Coast region, the federal government bought thousands of trailers to house victims of the storm, according to the report. Named defendants in the suit are: -- United States of America, -- Federal Emergency Management Agency, -- Gulf Stream Coach of Nappanee, -- Pilgrim International Inc. of Middlebury, -- KZRV LP of Shipshewana, -- Starcraft RV of Topeka, -- Monaco Coach of Oregon with plants in northern Indiana, -- Fleetwood Enterprises of California with operations south of Fort Wayne The suit seeks a court order that will require the government to fix the problem rather than offer a monetary award. The suit stemmed from tests conducted by the Sierra Club on 31 FEMA trailers and found out that 29 trailers were above the 1 part per million-formaldehyde safety limit recommended by the federal government and the American Lung Association. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.fleetwood.com/-- is engaged in producing both recreational vehicles and manufactured housing. The Company also operates three supply companies that provide components for the recreational vehicle and housing operations, while also generating outside sales. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Avon Pension Fund to Lead Avandia Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court in the Southern District of New York has appointed Avon Pension Fund, a U.K. fund representing public sector workers, lead plaintiff in a class action against GlaxoSmithKline, accusing the company of allegedly misleading investors over the safety and efficacy of its diabetes drug Avandia. In June, Kaplan Fox filed the suit alleging defendants violated Sections 10 (b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by publicly issuing a series of false and misleading statements regarding Avandia, GSK's popular diabetes drug (Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007). In particular, the Complaint alleges that GSK failed to adequately disclose the fact that it had performed a meta-analysis (a pooled analysis of several clinical trials) related to Avandia which showed an increased risk of heart attacks. Preliminary results of this analysis were presented to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September 2005 and updated results were disclosed to the FDA in August 2006. However, the results of GSK's meta-analysis were never adequately disclosed to the investing public. As alleged in the Complaint, on May 21, 2007, before the close of trading, the results of a meta-analysis on Avandia conducted by a doctor with the Cleveland Clinic was reported and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Similar to GSK's meta-analysis conducted in 2005 and 2006, the results of the meta-analysis published in the Journal revealed that Avandia increased the risk of heart attacks and possibly heart-related deaths. As a result of the reports regarding the meta-analysis, the price of GSK securities declined $4.53 per share, or 7.8%, to close at $53.18 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased GSK securities between October 27, 2005 and May 21, 2007, inclusive. In a statement GSK said it believed the results did not confirm a difference in the safety profile of Avandia. On Oct. 5, the Court appointed Avon as lead plaintiff, ahead of a group of competing German investors that had also sought to be appointed the lead plaintiffs. Leading US securities law firm, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins LLP has been appointed lead counsel in the case. This is the first time that a UK local authority Pension Fund has been appointed lead plaintiff in a case against a UK listed company. The decision by Avon Pension Fund, which as a shareholder in GSK claims it lost $2.7 million, to seek lead plaintiff in the case was taken in light of its fiduciary responsibilities to its members and is in line with guidance issued by the National Association of Pension Funds. The NAPF policy sheet for trustees was published this year at its conference in Edinburgh and advises UK trustees that their fiduciary duties to their beneficiaries extends to monitoring fund investments and making informed decisions about when and how to make the best recoveries. NAPF states that in relation to securities class actions it is "self-evident that trustees have a duty to protect the assets in their scheme" and that they should "not neglect opportunities to recoup losses". By far the majority of funds participate "passively" in US actions, in that they wait for cases to be successfully resolved and then file claims to participate in their share of the recovery. However, not all cases are prosecuted as vigorously as they could or should be and many funds, such as Avon, are finding that where the amount of losses are significant, it is beneficial to get involved in leading the cases not only to assure a significant financial recovery but also to make sure corporate governance improvements are part of the settlement. Commenting, Patrick Daniels, a partner at the Coughlin firm said, "We are thrilled with the Court's decision appointing the Avon Pension Fund, and we certainly are proud to represent them in this action." "The Fund and its trustees take their fiduciary duties to their beneficiaries seriously and are dedicated not only to making a significant financial recovery for themselves and the class but improving the governance and oversight at one of the premier drug companies in the world." "The company has stumbled, and we certainly will hold those individuals responsible to account, but we also want to remedy the problems and let the Board and the executives get back to focusing on growing the business." For more information, contact: Richard Elsen Gus Sellitto The Byfield Consultancy Tel: +44 (0)203 159 4171 or +44 (0)7886 757307 or +44 (0)203 159 4172 or +44 (0)7966 444131 - and - Patrick Daniels Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman and Robbins LLP Tel: +1 619 405 8964 H&R BLOCK: Faces Lawsuit Over RSM's Business Valuation Services --------------------------------------------------------------- H&R Block, Inc. faces a purported class action in the California Superior Court, Orange County regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of H&R Block, Inc., according to the company's Sept. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "Do Right's Plant Growers v. RSM EquiCo, Inc., RSM McGladrey, Inc., H&R Block, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 06 CC00137," which was filed on July 11, 2006. The complaint contains allegations regarding business valuation services provided by RSM EquiCo, Inc., including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair competition and seeks unspecified damages, restitution and equitable relief (Class Action Reporter, July 9, 2007). H&R Block, Inc. -- http://www.handrblock.com-- is a financial services company with subsidiaries providing tax, investment, mortgage, and accounting and business consulting services and products. INTERSTATE BAKERIES: N.J. Labor-Related Litigations Still Stayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Three wage and hour cases that were filed in New Jersey Court against Interstate Bakeries Corp. remain stayed due to the company's Chapter 11 filing. The company was named in two wage and hour cases in New Jersey that have been brought under state law, one of which has been brought on behalf of a putative class of route sales representatives. The case involving the putative class is: -- "Ruzicka, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., et al., No. 03-CV 2846 (FLW) (Superior Court, Ocean City, New Jersey). The other case is: -- "McCourt, et al. v. Interstate Brands Corp., No. 1-03- CV-00220 (FLW) (D.N.J.)." These cases are in their preliminary stages. As a result of the Interstate Bakeries' Chapter 11 filing, these cases have been automatically stayed. The company reported no development in the matter in its Oct. 4, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 25, 2007. Voluntary Chapter 11 Filing On Sept. 22, 2004, or the Petition Date, the company and each of its wholly-owned subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or the Bankruptcy Code, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri, or the Bankruptcy Court (Case Nos. 04-45814, 04-45816, 04-45817, 04-45818, 04-45819, 04-45820, 04-45821 and 04-45822). On October 3, 2007, the Court granted IBC a 30-day extension of exclusive periods to file and solicit acceptances of a plan of reorganization. IBC originally sought an extension to January 2008. The company said in a regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it may seek additional extension of the exclusive periods. The Court will convene a hearing to consider further extension of the exclusivity period on November 7, 2007. Kansas City, Missouri-based Interstate Bakeries Corp. --http://www.interstatebakeriescorp.com-- is a wholesale baker and distributor of fresh baked bread and sweet goods in the U.S. MICHAELS STORES: Amended Complaint Filed in Tex. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint was filed in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Michaels Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed a putative class action on behalf of itself and former holders of Michaels Common Stock. The lawsuit named Michaels and all of its then-current directors as defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things: -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based compensation expense relating to the granting of stock options; -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; and -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in the granting of backdated stock options. The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the defendants and equitable or injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option grants. Lead Plaintiff Named, Consolidated Complaint Filed By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund was named the lead plaintiff in this action. On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine Ziolkowski (who had previously filed two separate stockholder derivative actions, which were consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006) filed a consolidated class action complaint against Michaels and certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of a class of other former shareholders. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 1993 through 2006, including, among other things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of those practices. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy statements failed to disclose: -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls that prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial results violated GAAP; -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels's past compensation expenses; -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past and ongoing backdating practices; and -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in the granting of backdated stock options. The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees and costs. Consolidation of Lawsuits By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund action was consolidated with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski action. In that action, on May 21, 2007 the lead plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and/or omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006, including, among others, failing to disclose: -- Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating practices -- information regarding transactions and holdings of Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for the benefit of two of Michaels' former officers and directors and their family members; and -- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of those practices. Further, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding the Company's financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as well as the recently completed merger with entities affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC and The Blackstone Group. In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: -- an indeterminate amount of damages, -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, -- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and -- equitable or injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option grants. On July 3, 2007, the court granted the motion of the lead plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. On July 5, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed the amended complaint in the proposed form filed with the court on May 21, 2007, according to the company's Sept. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Aug. 4, 2007. The suit is "Hulliung v. Bolen et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01083," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under Judge David C. Godbey. Representing the plaintiffs are: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405/235-1560 Fax: 405/239-2112 E-mail: wfederman@aol.com - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Provost Umphrey Law Firm 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214/744-3000 Fax: 214/744-3015 E-mail: Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com Representing the defendants are: Patricia J. Villareal, Esq. Jones Day PO Box 660623, 2727 N Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75266-0623 Phone: 214/969-2973 Fax: 214/969-5100 E-mail: pjvillareal@jonesday.com - and - Michael L. Smith, Esq. Bickel & Brewer 1717 Main St., Suite 4800 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214/653-4034 Fax: 214/653-1015 E-mail: mls@bickelbrewer.com ORACLE CORP: Nov. 26 Trial Set for Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 26, 2007 trial date is slated for a purported securities fraud class action filed against Oracle Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Initially, stockholder class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and its chief executive officer on and after March 9, 2001. Between March 2002 and March 2003, the court dismissed plaintiffs' consolidated complaint, first amended complaint and a revised second amended complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice. On Sept. 1, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The revised second amended complaint named its chief executive officer, its then chief financial officer (who currently is chairman of the company's board of directors) and a former executive vice president as defendants. This complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of the company's stock during the period from Dec. 14, 2000 through March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of the company's applications products, while certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws. They further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public information. In addition, they also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. On July 26, 2007, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against the company's chief executive officer. On Aug. 7, 2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these motions. The parties' summary judgment motions are fully briefed. Currently, the court has set no date for hearing on these motions. The court has set a trial date of Nov. 26, 2007. The suit is "In Re: Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-0988," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Martin J. Jenkins with referral to Judge Joseph C. Spero. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Andrus Liberty & Anderson LLP 1438 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Phone: 415-896-1000 Fax: 415-896-2249 E-mail: jennie@libertylawoffice.com Representing the defendants is: Dorian Daley, Esq. 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065 Phone: (650) 506-5200 Fax: (650) 506-7114 PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes --------------------------------------------------------------- Priceline.com Inc. continues to face several purported class actions over hotel occupancy taxes, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. A number of cities and counties have filed putative class actions on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated cities and counties within the same respective state against the Company and other defendants, including, but not in all cases: -- Lowestfare.com Incorporated and Travelweb LLC, both of which are subsidiaries of the Company; -- Hotels.com, L.P.; -- Hotels.com GP, LLC; -- Hotwire, Inc.; -- Cheaptickets, Inc.; -- Travelport, Inc. (f/k/a Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.); -- Expedia, Inc.; -- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com); -- Maupintour Holding LLC; -- Orbitz, Inc.; -- Orbitz, LLC; -- Site59.com, LLC; -- Travelocity.com, Inc.; -- Travelocity.com LP; and -- Travelnow.com, Inc. Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by law, attorneys' fees and other relief. Such actions include: -- "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al." -- "City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al." -- "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. -- "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "City of Orange, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." -- "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al." -- "City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." The following developments regarding such legal proceedings occurred during or after the three months ended June 30, 2007: "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al." On March 2, 2007, the City of Los Angeles filed a third amended complaint. On April 11, 2007, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. On July 27, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion without prejudice and stayed further proceedings pending the City's compliance with its administrative procedures for tax collection. "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On Aug. 2, 2007, the City of Findlay filed a motion seeking leave to amend its complaint to withdraw its allegations seeking to assert claims on behalf of a state-wide class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or excise taxes on lodging. That motion is pending. "City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On Feb. 9, 2007, the defendants moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the administrative procedures required by Georgia law and plaintiffs' respective ordinances. On May 10, 2007, the court issued an opinion denying defendants' motion but concluding that plaintiffs were required to estimate, assess and attempt to collect the taxes at issue. The court stayed further litigation until at least Aug. 28, 2007 to permit plaintiffs to comply with those administrative procedures. Since May 10, 2007, certain of the plaintiffs have sent the Company and other defendants notices of deficiency and requests for reports regarding hotel reservation transactions in their respective jurisdictions, to which the Company has responded. "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On March 29, 2007, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 13, 2007, the defendants moved for reconsideration of that decision or, in the alternative, interlocutory appeal. On July 31, 2007, the court conducted oral argument on defendants' motion for reconsideration or interlocutory appeal, which remains pending. The parties are currently conducting discovery. "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On May 16 and 17, 2007, the court conducted a hearing on the City of San Antonio's motion for class certification. That motion remains pending. "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On April 18, 2007, the City of Gallup moved to dismiss its action voluntarily and without prejudice. The court granted that motion and the action was dismissed the same day. "City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On April 12, 2007, the defendants withdrew their previously filed motion to stay the action and filed a motion to dismiss the City of Jacksonville's complaint. On June 18, 2007, the court conducted oral argument on that motion, which remains pending. "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On Sept. 25, 2006, the Company and other defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On Sept. 27, 2006, the Company and other defendants moved to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, where the City of Findlay case is pending. On Jan 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation that the case be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs objected to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations. They also filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to strike all class action allegations from the complaint. On July 10, 2007, the court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendations and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio. On July 23, 2007, the court in the Northern District of Ohio granted defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims, adopting the reasoning of the court's opinion on the motion to dismiss in the City of Findlay case. The same day, the court in the Northern District of Ohio granted plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to strike all class allegations. On July 30, 2007, plaintiffs withdrew their motion for leave to amend the complaint, and thus seek to continue to assert claims on behalf of a putative class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or excise taxes on lodging. "City of Fayetteville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On July 24, 2007, the City of Fayetteville filed an amended complaint correcting the identification of certain defendants. On Aug. 7, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. That motion is being briefed. In addition to those cases discussed above, the following additional legal proceedings were filed during or after the three months ended June 30, 2007: "City of Jefferson, Missouri v. Hotels.com, LP, et al." On June 27, 2007, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri by the City of Jefferson, Missouri on behalf of itself and a putative class of Missouri cities, counties and governments that have enacted taxes on lodging. In addition to the claim for hotel taxes, the complaint also asserted claims for violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, breach of fiduciary duties and a constructive trust. The Company has not been served with the complaint. "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al." On July 6, 2007, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico by the City of Gallup on behalf of itself and a putative class of New Mexico taxing authorities that have enacted lodgers' taxes. The complaint asserts claims for violation of the New Mexico Lodger's Tax Act and municipal ordinances. The claims are brought by the City of Gallup, the same plaintiff whose previous suit against the defendants was voluntarily dismissed on April 18, 2007 (discussed above). The Company has not been served with the complaint. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces "Marshall" Hotel Tax Suit in Del. ---------------------------------------------------------------- priceline.com, Inc. continues to face the purported class action, "Marshall, et al. v. priceline.com, Inc." in the Superior Court of the state of Delaware for New Castle County. On Feb. 17, 2005, Jeanne Marshall and three other individuals filed the suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of allegedly similarly situated consumers. The complaint alleged that the company violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, Section 2511, et seq., relating to its disclosures and charges to customers to cover taxes under city hotel occupancy tax ordinances nationwide, and service fees. The company moved to dismiss the complaint on April 21, 2005. It also moved to stay discovery until a determination of its motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court granted that stay on May 11, 2005. On June 10, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that asserts claims under the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. The amended complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other relief. On July 15, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that it fails to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The company's motion to dismiss was heard by the court on Nov. 4, 2005 and the parties are awaiting a decision. The class action remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Cal. "Bush" Hotel Tax Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ priceline.com, Inc. continues to face the purported consumer class action, "Bush, et al. v. Cheaptickets, Inc., et al.," in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. On Feb. 17, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in Superior Court for County of Los Angeles by Ronald Bush and three other individuals on behalf of themselves and other allegedly similarly situated California consumers against the company and several of the same defendants as named in "City of Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al." (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007). The complaint alleges each of the defendants engaged in acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 17200 relating to their respective disclosures and charges to customers to cover taxes under the above ordinances of the City of Los Angeles and other California cities, and service fees. The complaint seeks restitution, relief for alleged conversion, including punitive damages, injunctive relief, and imposition of a constructive trust. On July 1, 2005, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding claims pursuant to California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Section 1750, et seq. and claims for breach of contract and the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing. On Dec. 2, 2005, the court ordered limited discovery and ordered that motions challenging the amended complaint would be coordinated with any similar motions filed in the City of Los Angeles action. The class action remains pending, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. priceline.com Inc. -- http://www.priceline.com/-- is an online travel company that offers its customers a range of travel services, including airline tickets, hotel rooms, car rentals, vacation packages, cruises and destination services. SERVICE CORP: Still Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- Service Corp. International continues to face the consolidated securities class action, "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International, et al., Civil Action 04-MD-1609," which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit resulted from the transfer and consolidation by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of three lawsuits: -- "Edgar Neufeld v. Service Corp. International, et al.; Cause No. CV-S-03-1561-HDM-PAL," in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada; -- "Rujira Srisythemp v. Service Corp. International, et. al., Cause No. CV-S-03-1392-LDG-LRL," in the U.S. District for the District of Nevada; and -- "Joshua Ackerman v. Service Corp. International, et al., Cause No. 04-CV-20114," in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The lawsuit names as defendants Service Corp. and several of its current and former executive officers or directors. It is a purported class action alleging that the defendants failed to disclose the unlawful treatment of human remains and gravesites at two cemeteries in Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach, Florida. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. The suit is "Conley Investment Counsel v. Service Corp. International et al., Case No. 4:04-md-01609," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Representing the lead plaintiff are: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com - and - Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP Three Bala Plz., E. Ste. 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 212-545-4600 Representing the defendants are: Andrew M. Edison, Esq. J. Clifford Gunter III, Esq. Bracewell and Giuliani LLP 711 Louisiana, Ste. 2300 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-221-1371 Fax: 713-221-2144 - and - Roger B. Greenberg, Esq. Schwartz Junell et al. 909 Fannin, Ste. 2000 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713-752-0017 Fax: 713-752-0327 E-mail: rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com SERVICE CORP: SCI Funeral Still Faces "Valls" Litigation in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A subsidiary of Service Corp. International continues to face a suit filed in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleging that it improperly handled remains, did not keep adequate records of interments, and engaged in various other improprieties in connection with the operation of the cemetery. The suit was filed Dec. 5, 2005 by Maria Valls, Pedro Valls and Roberto Valls, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated against SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Plan a/k/a Flagler Memorial Park, John Does and Jane Does (Case No. 23693CA08). An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2006. Plaintiffs have requested that the court certify this matter as a class action. The plaintiffs seek to certify as a class all family members of persons buried at the cemetery. The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and have reserved the right to seek leave from the Court to claim punitive damages. The plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief. The company reported no development in the matter in its Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SERVICE CORP: Plaintiffs Appeal Ruling in "Baudino" Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling in the matter, "Mary Louise Baudino, et al. v. Service Corp. International, et al. (Case No. BC324007)," which is pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The case was filed in 2004 by plaintiffs' counsel in the lawsuit filed by David Hijar against SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp. International, (Cause Number 2002-740). The Baudino Lawsuit makes claims similar to those made in the Hijar lawsuit. However, the Baudino Lawsuit seeks a nation-wide class of plaintiffs. The Hijar lawsuit, pending in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three, involves a statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. Plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and/or statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other legal claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages. They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief." On Sept. 15, 2006, the trial court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the merits of plaintiffs claims. Plaintiffs are appealing the summary judgment ruling, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SERVICE CORP: "Hijar" Plaintiffs Seek Review of Decertification --------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Texas requested that Service Corp. International file a response to a petition for review the decertification of the matter, "David Hijar v. SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc., SCI Funeral Services, Inc., and Service Corp. International, Cause Number 2002-740." The Hijar Lawsuit -- originally filed in filed in the County Court of El Paso, County, Texas, County Court at Law Number Three -- involves a statewide class action brought on behalf of all persons, entities and organizations that purchased funeral services from the company or its subsidiaries in Texas at any time since March 18, 1998. Plaintiffs allege that federal and Texas funeral related regulations and/or statutes required the company to disclose its markups on all items obtained from third parties in connection with funeral service contracts and that the failure to make certain disclosures of markups resulted in breach of contract and other legal claims. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of monetary damages. They also seek attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment interest, and unspecified "injunctive and declaratory relief." The company denies that the plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations of the Texas Occupations Code or the Rules; denies that plaintiffs have standing to sue for violations under the relevant regulations and statutes; denies that any breaches of contractual terms occurred; and on other grounds denies liability on all of the plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the company denies that the Hijar Lawsuit satisfies the requirements for class certification. In May 2004, the trial court heard summary judgment cross-motions filed by the company and the plaintiff, at that time, the only plaintiff. The trial court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and denied the company's motion. In its partial summary judgment order, the trial court made certain findings to govern the case, consistent with its summary judgment ruling. The company's request for rehearing was denied. During the course of the Hijar Lawsuit, the parties have disputed the proper scope and substance of discovery. Following briefing by both parties and evidentiary hearings, the trial court entered three orders against the company that are the subject of appellate review: -- a January 2005 discovery sanctions order; -- an April 2005 discovery sanctions order; and -- an April 2005 certification order, certifying a class and two subclasses. On April 29, 2005, the company filed an appeal regarding the certification order. In the certification appeal the court of appeals issued an opinion holding that the plaintiffs do not have a private right of action for monetary damages under the relevant regulations and statutes. The opinion concludes that the plaintiffs do not have standing to assert their claims for monetary damages on behalf of themselves or the class. The court of appeals therefore reversed the trial courts order certifying a class, rendered judgment against the plaintiffs on their claims for damages, and remanded the remaining general individual claims for injunctive relief back to the trial court (without opining on the merits of those claims) for further handling consistent with the courts opinion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing on Aug. 11, 2006. On Jan. 11, 2007, in response to the motion, the court of appeals issued a substitute opinion in which the court revised a portion of its discussion but reached the same result on certification (i.e., the class was decertified). Plaintiffs second motion for rehearing was denied by the court of appeals on March 7, 2007. On March 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court of Texas requested that the company file a response to the petition for review, according to the company's Aug. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007. Service Corp. International -- http://www.sci-corp.com/ -- is a provider of deathcare products and services, with a network of funeral homes and cemeteries. SSA GLOBAL: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for $5M Investor Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007 for a proposed $5,000,000 settlement in matter, "Fisch v. SSA Global Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CH-10636." The hearing will be held before Judge William O. Maki, at the Circuit Court of Cook County, Richard J. Daley Center, 50 West Washington Street, Room 2302, Chicago, Illinois. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before Nov. 9, 2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms is on Dec. 27, 2007. Case Background Stephen Fisch, an SSA Global Technologies Inc. stockholder filed the suit against the company to stop directors' plans to sell the firm to Infor Global Solutions for a price that plaintiff says undervalues the company (Class Action Reporter, June 8, 2006). Mr. Fisch brought the suit as a class action on behalf of himself and other common stockholders who together own 17 percent of the company. The suit alleges that SSA board of directors and majority shareholders Cerberus Capital Management LP and General Atlantic LLC, who own the remaining 83 percent of the company, have breached their fiduciary duties. SSA is being sold for $1.4 billion, which values the company's shares at $19.50 each. The share price represents a 26 percent premium over the average stock price and a 77 percent gain over the 2005 initial public offering price of $11 per share. The suit says the price is low because it is based on the company's January 2006 financial report, which was not corrected after the company released its financial results to the public. It names as defendants SSA Global, its directors, Chief Executive Michael Greenough, and majority shareholders Cerberus and General Atlantic. The plaintiff wanted the court to keep SSA from going through with the planned sale unless the company gets the highest possible price for shareholders. In July 2006, Infor Global Solutions acquired SSA Global. For more details, contact: Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq. Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: elleng@csgrr.com Web site: http://www.csgrr.com STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. over its funeral goods and services operations are appealing the dismissal by the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles of an affiliate of Service Corp. International (SCI) from the case. The suit, "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. BC328961," was filed on Feb. 17, 2005 against the company and several other defendants. The purported class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or services in the U.S. from defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. The suit named the company and several of its Southern California affiliates as defendants. It sought to assert claims against a class of all entities located anywhere in the U.S. whose ultimate parent corporation has been the company at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to similar actions against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and designated SCI case as the lead case. In response, on August 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and the company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005. The case against the company effectively has been held in abeyance while the court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the lead case. Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in the case against the company, and the court has allowed the company to participate in hearings and briefings in the lead case. As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has amended her complaint twice. On Jan. 31, 2006, however, the court overruled SCI demurrer to the third amended complaint and established a schedule leading to hearing on a motion for summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the named plaintiff's claim against SCI. On Aug. 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment. The cross-motions are pending. The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the SCI defendants violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission by failing to disclose that the prices of certain goods and services they obtained from third parties specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded what the defendants paid for them. Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants: -- breached contracts with the plaintiffs; -- were unjustly enriched; and -- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of a provision of California's Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In September and October 2006, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the SCI affiliate with whom the plaintiff had contracted and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of that SCI affiliate. On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff noticed an appeal of this judgment. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/-- is a provider of funeral and cemetery products and services in the death care industry in the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of funeral merchandise and services, along with cemetery property, merchandise and services, both at the time of need and on a pre-need basis. STEWART ENTERPRISES: Faces Up to $1.5B Funeral Consumer Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs are seeking damages ranging from $99 million to $1.5 billion in a consolidated antitrust class action pending against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to the company's Sept. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Funeral Consumers Alliance Case One of the purported class actions was filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. against: * Service Corporation International, * Alderwoods Group, Inc., * Stewart Enterprises, Inc., * Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and * Batesville Casket Co. The Case, No. H-05-3394, was originally filed on May 2, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral home defendants at any time. The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed and substantially similar cases. The matter was known as the Consolidated Consumer Cases. The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted jointly to reduce competition from independent casket discounters and fix and maintain prices on caskets in violation of the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court transferred the Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Texas. On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, the company answered the first amended consolidated class action complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. Discovery is underway. The court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 4-7, 2006, and has taken the motion under advisement. Fact discovery has been completed, and expert discovery is ongoing. In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants would be in the range of approximately $950 million to approximately $1.5 billion, before trebling. Pioneer Valley Case On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., and others against: -- Service Corp. International, -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc., -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and -- Batesville Casket Co. The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only independent casket retailers. On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust and unfair competition claims. On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended and consolidated complaint that satisfies the objections raised in the motions to dismiss. At the defendants' request, the court also issued orders in late September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and the Pioneer Valley Case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Texas. The Pioneer Valley Case has been consolidated with these cases for purposes of discovery only. On October 12, 2005, the consumer plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. On October 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed a first amended complaint. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in both cases. On Sept. 14, 2006, the magistrate recommended that all motions to dismiss be denied. The parties have 10 days to file written objections with the district court judge. A hearing on whether the matters may proceed as class actions was scheduled for Dec. 5, 2006. In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants would be approximately $99.0 million, before trebling. The suit is "Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corporation International., Case No. 4:05-cv-03394," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff 545 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-763-5000 Fax: 212-763-5001 E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com Gordon Ball, Esq. Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-525-7028 Fax: 865-525-4679 E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com - and - Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com Representing the company is: Mark A. Cunningham, Esq. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre 201 St. Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504.582.8536 Fax: 504.589.8536 Web site: http://www.joneswalker.com TOSHIBA AMERICA: Recalls DVD Players AC Adapters for Burn Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC, of Wayne, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 142,000 Toshiba AC adapters sold with portable DVD players. The company said the AC adapters can fail, causing the portable DVD player to overheat, posing a burn hazard to consumers. Toshiba has received two reports of minor damage to the bottom of the DVD player. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the AC adapter sold with the Toshiba portable DVD player Model SD-P1600. "Toshiba" and ADPV16 can be found on the side of the adapter. "Toshiba", Model SD-P1600, and the serial number can be found on a rating label on the bottom of the cabinet for the DVD player. These recalled AC adapters were manufactured in China and are being sold at consumer electronics stores nationwide from January 2005 through April 2006 for between $200 and $230. Pictures of recalled AC adapters: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08015d.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the AC adapters immediately and contact Toshiba Customer Solutions for a replacement adapter. For additional information, contact Toshiba Customer Solutions toll-free at (877) 290-6064 between 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.tacp.com WAL-MART STORES: Continues to Appeal 172M Award in "Savaglio" ------------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is appealing an award made in the class action, "Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," a case in which the plaintiffs allege that they were not provided meal and rest breaks in accordance with California law, and seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. A jury trial on the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages concluded on Dec. 22, 2005. The jury returned a verdict of approximately $57 million in statutory penalties and $115 million in punitive damages. Following a bench trial in June 2006, the judge entered an order allowing some, but not all, of the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. On Dec. 27, 2006, the judge entered an order awarding the plaintiffs an additional amount of approximately $26 million in costs and attorneys' fees. The company believes it has substantial arguments on appeal, and on Jan. 31, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- http://www.walmart.com/-- incorporated in October 1969, operates retail stores in various formats around the world. WAL-MART STORES: Certification Motion Filed in Cal. "Bonus" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Superior Court has yet to rule on a motion to certify a class in the case, "Cruz v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.," which challenges the methodology of payments made under various associate incentive bonus plans. The suit is brought on behalf of present and former employees in California Wal-Mart, Supercenter, and Sam's Club stores, who challenge Wal-Mart's practice of reducing or withholding incentive wages under Wal-Mart's incentive compensation program. In computing the amount of annual "bonus" compensation payments to store employees, Wal-Mart bases that amount on a measure of store profitability that deducts from profits a number of charges that by law must be borne by employers, including the cost of workers' compensation, medical and physical examinations of employees, shrink (theft losses), breakage of merchandise, and other employer expenses. As a result, many employees receive no bonus payments even though their stores are profitable, and many others receive reduced bonuses. The case was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court. Wal-Mart removed the case to federal court in Los Angeles. The federal court remanded the case to the Superior Court, where it is proceeding toward a class action determination. The company reported no development in the matter in its Sept. 9, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2007. The suit is "Cruz et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. BC 304850," filed in Cal. Super. Ct., L.A. County. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. &