/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071022.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 22, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 208
Headlines
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lone Star Merger
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
BMTC GROUP: Ordered To Pay $2M in Lawsuit Over Credit Practices
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set on November 16
DELPHI CORP: November Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
DOW JONES: Settles N.Y. Shareholder Lawsuit Over News Corp. Bid
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Kornitzer Capital Pursues Securities Suit
FISHER CONTROLS: Recalls Gas Regulators Due to Leak Hazards
FORD MOTOR: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges F-150 XLTs' Faulty Switches
FREMONT GENERAL: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Suits
FREMONT INVESTMENT: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in Calif.
GRAVITY CO: Nov. 14 Hearing Set for $10M Securities Suit Deal
GUIDANT CORP: Defibrillator Suit Certification Hearing Set Dec.
HONEYWELL INT'L: Settles Ariz. Pensioners' Litigation for $35M
ISRAEL RAILWAYS: Faces $871MM Lawsuit over Delayed Trains
JC PENNEY: Recalls Disney Pooh Play Sets for Lead Paint Standard
KVH INDUSTRIES: Jan. 25, 2008 Hearing Set for $5.3 Settlement
MEDTRONIC INC: Defibrillator Suit Certification Hearing Set Nov.
NEWMONT MINING: Dec. 11 Hearing Set for $15 Mil. Suit Settlement
NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Settles Ill., Del. Suits Over MDP Agreement
POWERNET GLOBAL: Nov. 19 Hearing Set in $3.18M Suit Settlement
REILLY PLATING: Faces Three MI Suits Over Toxic Cloud Spilling
REPSOL YPF: Jan. 11, 2008 Hearing Set for $8M Suit Settlement
STATE STREET BANK: Botched Retirement Accts Prompts ERISA Suit
UNITED SURGICAL: Dec. 3 Hearing Set for Stockholders' Settlement
VERTRUE INC: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Deceptive Practices
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Jan. 23, 2008 Hearing Slated for "East" Deal
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
YAMAHA MOTOR: Steering Problem Prompts Snowmobiles Recall
SMART ONLINE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Litigation Over Lone Star Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (AHLHC) faces a purported
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California over recent merger with an affiliate of Lone Star
Fund V (U.S.), L.P., according to the company's Oct. 19, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
In October 2007, as a result of the merger with Lone Star, AHLHC
succeeded to the position of LSF5 Accredited Merger Co., Inc.,
as a defendant in a class action, "McNeil, et al. v. Lone Star
Fund V (U.S.), L.P., et al.," brought in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.
The complaint alleges that the failure of defendants to
consummate the purchase of AHLHC at the original price of $15.10
per share constitutes a breach of contract as to each of the
defendants and a breach of guaranty by defendant Lone Star Fund
V (U.S.), L.P. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated individuals, damages,
attorneys' fees, and any other relief the court may grant.
AHLHC has not been served with the complaint, is unaware of any
motion to certify the class having been filed or of any ruling
on the merits of either the plaintiff's individual claims or
those of the putative class, and intends to vigorously defend
this action if served.
The suit is "Yass McNeil et al v. Lone Star Fund V (U.S.), L.P.
et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-01191-CJC-AN," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California under
Judge Cormac J. Carney with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Deborah A. Klar, Esq.
Liner Yankelevitz Sunshine and Regenstreif
1100 Glendon Ave, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
Phone: 310-500-3500
E-mail: dklar@linerlaw.com
ACCREDITED HOME: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging WARN Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. (AHLHC) and Accredited Home
Lenders, Inc. (AHL) faces a purported class action in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act (WARN), according to the company's
Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
In October 2007, AHLHC and AHL were named in a class action
complaint, "Seigel v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. et al.,"
brought in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.
The complaint alleges that AHLHC and AHL violated the WARN Act
by failing to provide 60 days' notice to plaintiffs who were
terminated through no fault of their own as part of or as the
reasonable consequence of a mass layoff and/or plant closing
effectuated by AHL on or about Aug. 22, 2007.
The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated former employees, the alleged wages for
the work days in the 60 calendar days prior to their respective
terminations along with benefits, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs of suit.
Neither AHLHC nor AHL has been served with the action, a motion
to certify a class has not been filed, and there has been no
ruling on the merits of either the plaintiffs' individual claims
or the claims of the putative class.
Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. -- http://www.accredhome.com
-- is a mortgage company operating throughout the U.S. and in
Canada. The Company originates, finances, securitizes,
services, and sells non-prime mortgage loans secured by
residential real estate.
BMTC GROUP: Ordered To Pay $2M in Lawsuit Over Credit Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
BMTC Group Inc. (TSX:GBT.A) announced that the Superior Court of
Montreal rendered a judgment against its subsidiary Brault &
Martineau Inc. ordering Brault & Martineau to pay damages in the
amount of $2 million (plus interest from the judgment date and
costs of distribution) in relation to a class action instituted
by a group of consumers that had purchased goods from Brault &
Martineau using the financing programs offered by Brault &
Martineau and its credit supplier.
The suit was filed by a group of consumers who had made
purchases at the well-known Quebec chain under a buy-now-pay-
later credit program, Canoe Money reports.
The plaintiffs were claiming an amount of $240 million in this
class action.
Management of BMTC is currently studying the judgment in order
to determine whether it will appeal the judgment to the Qu‚bec
Court of Appeal.
Management estimates that the judgment will result in an after-
tax one-time charge of approximately $1.7 million during the
current financial year.
For further information, contact:
Mr. Yves Des Groseillers
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
BMTC Group Inc.
Phone: (514) 648-5757
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set on November 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 16, 2007 fairness hearing is set for a $7.5 million
settlement of a class action filed against companies accused of
coordinating output and fixing the price of bananas.
Nationwide settlements have been reached in a class action
lawsuit about whether Chiquita Brands International, Inc. and
Chiquita Fresh North America LLC (Chiquita); Fresh Del
Monte Produce Inc. and Del Monte Fresh Produce Company
(Del Monte); and Dole Food Company, Inc. and Dole Fresh
Fruit Company conspired with others (the co-conspirators) to
coordinate output and fix the price of bananas.
The settlements provide $7,500,000 to those who purchased
bananas from the Defendants or co-conspirators, as well as to
pay lawyers' fees and costs. The Defendants deny that they have
done anything wrong, and the settlements don't mean that any
The settlements include anyone who purchased bananas within or
provided to the United States, directly from Defendants or from
any of the alleged co-conspirators, from May 1, 1999 up until
the date the Court grants final approval of the settlements and
all appeals are resolved. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants, their respective parents, employees, subsidiaries
and affiliates, their alleged co-conspirators, and all
government entities.
The lawsuit claims that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize banana prices, and control and restrict
output for bananas sold in the United States, and, as a result,
Class members paid higher prices for bananas.
The Court did not decide which side was right. Instead, the
settlements resolve the case, and provide payments to Class
members. The settlements don't mean that any law was broken, and
the Defendants deny all claims of wrongdoing in this case.
Chiquita, Del Monte, and Dole have agreed to each pay
$2,500,000, for a total of $7,500,000, to settle the lawsuit.
These funds will be used to provide cash payments for valid
claims from Class members, as well as lawyers' fees and costs.
Deadline to file claims is January 21, 2008.
The Court will hold a hearing on November 16, 2007 to consider
whether to approve the settlements, and a request by Class
Counsel for fees up to $1,875,000, plus costs and expenses.
Class Counsel will also ask for a payment of $5,000 to each
Class Representative, who helped the lawyers on behalf of the
whole Class.
The suit is "Brookshire Brothers, Ltd., et al. v. Chiquita
Brands International, Inc., et al., No. 05-CIV-21962."
DELPHI CORP: November Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A fairness hearing on a $47,000,000 settlement of a litigation
filed against Delphi Corp. over an alleged violation of the
Employees Retirement Income Security Act is set Nov. 13, 2007.
The Delphi ERISA Consolidated Complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the following Delphi-
sponsored, defined-contribution plans:
(1) the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program for Salaried
Employees in the United States;
(2) the Delphi Personal Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate
Employees in the United States;
(3) the ASEC Manufacturing Savings Plan; and
(4) the Delphi Mechatronic Systems Savings-Stock Purchase
Program from May 28, 1999 to November 1, 2005 and whose
accounts included investments in Delphi or General
Motors (GM) common stock.
Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, the Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class
members by:
* failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
assets;
* failing to act in accordance with Plan documents and
ERISA;
* failing to monitor fiduciaries;
* failing to disclose to and inform the other fiduciaries
of the Plans of information which the other fiduciaries
reasonably needed to know to fulfill their fiduciary
duties to Plan participants and beneficiaries; and
* breaching their obligations as co-fiduciaries.
The Defendants in the case are:
-- the Delphi Corporation Board of Directors' Executive
Committee and its members;
-- the Investment Policy Committee and its members; and
-- J.T. Battenberg III, Robert H. Brust, Alan S. Dawes,
Susan A. McLaughlin, and John D. Opie (collectively, the
Delphi Officer and Director Defendants),
-- General Motors Investment Management Company (GMIMCo),
and
-- State Street Bank & Trust Company.
Not all claims are against every Defendant.
Settlement Update
On August 31, 2007, Plaintiffs filed their motion for
preliminary approval of a Settlement between the Named ERISA
Plaintiffs and Defendants Delphi, ASEC Manufacturing, Delphi
Mechatronic Systems, the Delphi Corporation Board of Directors
Executive Committee and its members, the Investment Policy
Committee and its members, and the Delphi Director and Officer
Defendants.
Claims asserted against State Street are not a part of the
Settlement. Plaintiffs continue to litigate their claims
against State Street.
On September 5, 2007, the Court issued an order granting
preliminary approval of the Settlement. At the Fairness Hearing,
to be held on November 13, 2007 at 9:30 a.m., the Court will
decide, among other things:
-- whether to approve the Settlement;
-- whether to dismiss with prejudice the litigation against
Settling Defendants pursuant to the terms of the
Settlement Stipulations;
-- whether the Notice and the Publication Notice and the
means of disseminating same were satisfactory and
complied with applicable law;
-- whether to bar all Barred Claims against the Releasee
Parties by any Barred Person;
-- whether to establish a reserve of 25% of the Gross
Settlement Fund for a potential award of attorneys' fees
and expenses; and
-- whether to grant each Named Plaintiff a case
contribution award of up to $5,000 payable from the
Gross Settlement Fund.
As part of the Settlement, the Settling Defendants agree to pay
$47,000,000, consisting of approximately $22,500,000 in cash to
be paid from available insurance policies, and an "allowed
interest" in the Delphi Corporation Chapter 11 case that counsel
expect to be valued at $24,500,000.
After payment of and establishment of reserves for any taxes and
Court-approved costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses, including
any Court-approved compensation to be paid to the Named
Plaintiffs, the Settlement proceeds will be paid to the Plans
and, after payment of implementation expenses, the remaining
amount will be allocated to the Plan accounts of members of the
Settlement Class according to a Plan of Allocation to be
approved by the Court. If necessary, a Plan account will be
created for those members of the Settlement Class who no longer
have Plan accounts.
Any payments to the Plans are subject to certain conditions and
limitations set forth in the Settlement Stipulation. Until the
Delphi ERISA Action has been concluded and fully and finally
resolved with respect to all Barred Persons, there will be no
distribution from the Net Settlement Fund that would cause the
balance remaining in the Net Settlement Fund to be less than the
aggregate of Named Plaintiffs' claims for potential damages with
respect to all claims against Barred Persons that have not been
concluded and fully and finally resolved.
The Settlement on the Net: http://www.KellerSettlements.com.
DOW JONES: Settles N.Y. Shareholder Lawsuit Over News Corp. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. settled a shareholder lawsuit in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York that accuses its
directors, and the Bancroft family of failing to properly
evaluate News Corp.'s takeover for the company, Reuters reports.
Earlier this year, Rupert Murdochs News Corp. sealed a
$5.6 billion deal to buy Dow Jones, the publisher of The Wall
Street Journal.
Case Background
The suit alleges the Bancroft family and company directors
exercised poor business judgment and rejected Mr. Murdoch's
offer "in bad faith" (Class Action Reporter, May 8, 2007).
It claims the Bancrofts and Dow Jones directors rejected Mr.
Murdoch's offer with the motive of solidifying their dominance
over the company.
According to the lawsuit, which had been seeking class-action
status, the rejection of the offer by the Bancrofts and
directors "represents an ill-considered, hasty reaction, which
did not satisfy their duty to obtain adequate information before
rejecting a bona fide acquisition proposal."
Specifically, the suit claimed that Dow's directors had failed
to do their fiduciary duty by not disclosing conflicts of
interest and either scaring off or not pursuing other
competitive bids for the company.
It also claimed that Dow's September filing about the merger did
not disclose management's projections and forecasts for the
company. The plaintiffs argued those forecasts would signal
management's true opinion of the value of the company.
The suit was originally filed in May 2007 as two separate
shareholder suits by Carol Cresh and Nora Vides, but the suits
were consolidated in New York State Supreme Court in July 2007.
Settlement
In a Securities and Exchange Commission filing, obtained by
Reuters, Dow Jones said it has agreed to pay $895,000 to cover
legal costs for the plaintiffs in the case, and make additional
disclosures in the filing about the company's internal
forecasts.
The settlement was reached "in principle" and Dow has agreed to
pay the plaintiffs' fees within 10 business days of the
settlement becoming effective, according to the filing. The
settlement must receive court approval.
FARO TECHNOLOGIES: Kornitzer Capital Pursues Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kornitzer Capital Management, Inc. is proceeding with discovery
and will begin preparing for a trial on the merits of a case
filed against FARO Technologies, Inc. in federal court in
Florida over alleged securities fraud suit violation.
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah (SFMS) and its co-counsel filed
a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff on February 6, 2006
on behalf of their client, KCM, in this class action against
FARO Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.
The action is currently being pursued on behalf of all
purchasers of FARO securities between April 15, 2004 and March
15, 2006. Specifically, the case alleges that Defendants
violated the federal securities laws by repeatedly issuing false
and misleading states throughout the Class Period.
Status of Pending Case
In April of 2006, the related cases against FARO were
consolidated. KCM was appointed as Lead Plaintiff and SFMS and
The Edgar Law Firm were appointed as Co-Lead Counsel.
On May 16, 2006, KCM filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which modified the original class period to include all
purchasers of FARO securities between April 15, 2004 and March
15, 2006. The Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss in response
to the Consolidated Amended Complaint and Plaintiff filed a
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss on Aug. 30,
2006.
A hearing with respect to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was held
on Sept. 15, 2006 before The Honorable David A. Baker, United
States Magistrate Judge. On Feb. 3, 2007, the Honorable Anne C.
Conway issued an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of
the Honorable David A. Baker, which dismissed the case but
granted KCM leave to re-plead the case. The decision was made
by KCM to file a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint and to re-plead the case, rather than object to or
appeal certain of the Court's rulings with respect to the CAC.
Specifically, as a result of the extensive and continuing
investigation with respect to Defendants' alleged misconduct,
which has been conducted on behalf of KCM and the Class, KCM
determined that it was possible to incorporate significant,
additional substantive information and alleged facts in the SAC,
which were discovered following the filing of the CAC, including
additional details as to the role of the Individual Defendants
(Simon Raab, Gregory Fraser, Barbara Smith) and FARO
Technologies' auditor, Grant Thornton LLP, in order to provide
greater details regarding the alleged wrongdoing and violations
of the federal securities laws.
The Class Period in the Second Amended Complaint continues to
include all purchasers of FARO securities between April 15, 2004
and March 15, 2006. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on May 11, 2007 and Plaintiff filed an
Opposition to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss on June 8, 2007.
At the request of the Court, on June 29, 2007, the parties
submitted additional briefing concerning the Supreme Court's
recent decision in "Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights,
Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499 (June 21, 2007)."
On August 7, 2007, the Honorable David A. Baker issued a Report
and Recommendation, which recommended that the Motion to Dismiss
filed by FARO and the Individual Defendants be denied and that
Grant Thornton's Motion to Dismiss be granted. The parties
submitted briefing regarding their respective objections to the
Report and Recommendation dated August 7, 2007 and, on September
18, 2007, the Honorable Anne C. Conway issued an Order adopting
the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
The effect of the ruling is that the case will be permitted to
proceed against FARO and the Individual Defendants. Since the
claims against Grant Thornton now have been dismissed, claims
against Grant Thornton only can be pursued if any appeal in the
future as to the claims against Grant Thornton ultimately is
successful.
Although KCM respectfully believes that it should have been
permitted to proceed with claims against Grant Thornton and
respectfully disagrees with the Court's ruling in that respect,
it is heartened by the Court's decision that the claims against
FARO and the Individual Defendants have been adequately pled and
by the Court's conclusion that the Second Amended Complaints
"inferences suggesting fraudulent motivation are both cogent
and, at the very least, equally compelling" when compared to the
contrary explanations that Defendants attempted to offer. KCM
will now proceed with discovery in this case and will begin
preparing this case for a trial on the merits.
The suit is "In re: Faro Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action no. 6:05-cv-1810-ACC-DAB," pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
Representing the lead plaintiff is:
Scott R. Shepherd, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLC
4400 North Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064
Phone: (954)943-9191
Fax: (954)943-9173
E-mail: sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com
FISHER CONTROLS: Recalls Gas Regulators Due to Leak Hazards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fisher Controls International (FCI), of McKinney, Texas, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 144,000 Model HSR natural gas regulators and
various models of LP-gas regulators.
The company said the gas can leak from regulator's flanges when
flange screw heads break, posing a fire or explosion hazard to
consumers. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled gas regulators were manufactured from March 2007
through May 2007 and installed on natural gas or LP-gas supply
systems in homes and small commercial buildings. The recalls
involves model HSR natural gas regulators and LP-gas regulators
with model numbers 67CD, 67CH, 67CN, and 67CW, HSRL, R622,
R622E, R622H, R632, R642, R652, R652E, R122H, R222, or R232.
The model number can be found on a white label attached to the
regulator spring case. The date of manufacture is also stamped
on the regulator.
These recalled gas regulators were manufactured in China and are
being sold by FCI to gas supply system dealers and utilities
nationwide from March 2007 through June 2007.
Consumers who had a natural gas or LP-gas system installed with
a recalled regulator should immediately contact the company that
provides their natural gas or LP-gas services to receive a
replacement regulator installed free-of-charge.
Pictures of recalled gas regulators:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502d.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502e.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08502f.jpg
Dealers and utilities that purchased and installed the recalled
regulators have been notified of the recall directly and
instructed to replace the regulator. The companies will contact
affected consumers. Consumers who have not been contacted
directly and wish to determine if they have a recalled gas
regulator should call their gas supplier directly.
For additional information contact Fisher Controls International
toll-free at (888) 237-1751 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.fisherregulators.com
FORD MOTOR: Ill. Lawsuit Alleges F-150 XLTs' Faulty Switches
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Medrano of Woodbridge, Va. filed a 10-count class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois alleging his 2000 Ford F-150 XLT caught fire because
of a faulty cruise control switch, Steve Gonzalez of the St.
Clair Record reports.
According to the suit, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) reports indicate that at least 218
similar events of fires from cruise control deactivation
switches in Ford vehicles have been reported and by June 22,
2005, at least 65 fires were confirmed by NHTSA to have been
caused the failure of the SCD switch.
"On May 13, 1999, because of the fire problems with the SCD
switch, Ford voluntarily recalled over 250,000 Ford vehicles,"
the complaint states.
Mr. Medrano claims model years 1992 and 1993 Ford Crown
Victorias, Lincoln Town Cars and Mercury Grand Marquises were
included in the recall.
According to Mr. Medrano, the Ford vehicles in question are
defective and unsafe for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) The speed control deactivation switch (SCD switch) is
located in a circuit that is always energized with
electricity even when the vehicle is parked and the
ignition is turned off;
(b) Even though the cruise control deactivation switch
requires only a half amp of power to operate, Ford
designed the vehicles so that the switches continually
received 15 amps of power;
(c) The circuitry for the SCD switch does not contain a
fused wiring harness that will interrupt the power to
the switch if it starts to overheat because of a
resistive short to ground;
(d) Vacuum pressure generated by the Ford vehicle's brake
system caused the Kapton orientation to invert or "oil
can" and ultimately fatigue and wear out much sooner
than if the diaphragm had only experienced pressure
applications in one direction; and
(7) The SCD switch, which is typically mounted on the brake
proportioning valve, is mounted in the master cylinder
in a vertically up or angled down orientation, such
that the metallic corrosion products can settle in such
a way that dendrite growth can develop.
"The SCD switch, located in a circuit that is powered at all
times regardless of whether the vehicle's ignition is in the on
position, creates a significant fire risk not only to the Ford
vehicles, but also the garages and houses in which the Ford
vehicles are parked," the complaint states.
Mr. Medrano also claims prior to manufacturing the vehicles,
Ford knew there were problems with the design, manufacture, and
placement of the SCD switch used in their vehicles, but used the
same or similar design anyway.
He also claims the Ford had a second recall on Jan. 27, 2005,
that included 740,451 vehicles. Model year 2000 Ford F-150,
Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator and 2001 Ford Super Cabs were
involved in the second recall.
According to the complaint, for the third time on Sept. 7, 2005,
Ford recalled 4,297,461 vehicles and as part of the recall Ford
instructed owners to take their vehicles to a dealership where
the cruise control function will be disabled to avoid fires
until the replacement parts were made available.
Mr. Medrano claims that he and the class have been damaged and
suffered a monetary loss by paying for a Ford vehicle that was
defective and not safe.
He also claims he and the class suffered or will suffer an
inconvenience and disruption of their work or activities at the
time the defective SCD switch is replaced.
Mr. Medrano further claims some Ford owners suffered additional
damage due to fire including destruction of their vehicle,
damage to property, disruption of life, and in some cases
physical injury and death.
According to Mr. Gonzalez, he is seeking a judgment in excess of
$5 million, plus punitive damages, attorney fees and costs of
the suit.
The suit is "Medrano v. Ford Motor Company, Inc., Case Number:
3:2007cv00724," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, under Judge G. Patrick Murphy,
with referral to Judge Clifford J. Proud.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jeffrey Lowe
The Lowe Law Firm
8235 Forsyth Blvd, Suite 1100
St. Louis, Missouri 63105
Toll Free: 877.678.3400
Phone: 314.678.3400
Fax: 314.678.3401
FREMONT GENERAL: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
No Trial date was set for several purported securities fraud
class actions filed against Fremont General Corp. in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
In September 2007, three separate complaints seeking class
certification were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the Company and various
officers and directors alleging violations of federal securities
laws in connection with published statements by the Company
regarding its loan portfolio and loans held for resale during
the period from May 9, 2006 through Feb. 27, 2007.
The three complaints are:
-- "Mohammed Al-Beitawi v. Fremont General Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-05756-FMC-FFM," filed on Sept.
4, 2007;
-- "Lawrence Miller v. Fremont General Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06093-FMC-FFM," filed on Sept.
19, 2007; and
-- "Patricia C Mathews v. Fremont General Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-06152-FMC-FFM," filed on Sept.
21, 2007.
No trial date has been set, according to the company's Oct. 17,
2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007.
Fremont General Corp. -- http://www.fremontgeneral.com-- is a
financial services holding company.
FREMONT INVESTMENT: Faces Racial Discrimination Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fremont Investment & Loan (FIL), an indirectly wholly-owned
California industrial bank subsidiary of Fremont General Corp.,
faces a purported class action in California, alleging
discriminatory lending practices, according to the company's
Oct. 17, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2007.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
filed the lawsuit on July 11, 2007 in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California. It against FIL and several
other large home mortgage loan originators and is seeking class
certification.
The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and attorney fees, but not
monetary damages, to enjoin defendants from the alleged
discriminatory practices and to modify their conduct to comport
with the law.
The suit is "National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company et al., Case No. 8:07-cv-
00794-AG-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with
referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Angela Ciccolo, Esq.
NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Dr.
Baltimore, MD 21215
Phone: 410-580-5792
Vic Feazell, Esq.
Feazell & Tighe LLP
6300 Bridgepoint Parkway,Suite 220
Austin, TX 78730
Phone: 512-372-8100
- and -
Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
Kabateck Brown Kellner
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-217-5000
E-mail: bsk@kbklawyers.com
GRAVITY CO: Nov. 14 Hearing Set for $10M Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 14, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for
the proposed $10 million settlement in the matter, "In re
Gravity Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, No. 1:05-CV-04804-LAP."
The hearing will be held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S.
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312, in
Courtroom 12A.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Oct.
24, 2007. Exclusion requests must be made on or before Oct. 22,
2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms is on
Nov. 29, 2007.
Case Background
In 2005, several class action complaints were lodged in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of all securities purchasers of Gravity Co., Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRVY)
between February 7, 2005 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (Class
Action Reporter, July 12, 2005).
The Complaints charge Gravity and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading financial statements to
the investing public that caused the price of the Company's
stock to be artificially inflated.
Gravity develops and distributes online games and related
businesses within Korea and other countries worldwide. The
Company's primary product, Ragnarok Online, is commercially
available in 19 markets.
Historically, revenues from Ragnarok Online have accounted for
the majority of the Company's revenue, with 95% of the Company's
revenue prior to the IPO attributable to that product.
The Complaint alleges defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts, including that:
(1) Ragnarok Online was experiencing a material decline in
customer demand and increased competition in the
marketplace, which caused Ragnarok Online's revenues to
steeply decline;
(2) Gravity's mobile animation business was in such a dire
state that it was no longer capable of producing a
viable revenue stream for the Company; and
(3) the Company's statements about substantial growth
potential for online gaming were lacking in any
reasonable basis when made because Gravity's royalties
and license fees (for online gaming) were negatively
impacted by unfavorable trends in China which caused a
decline of Ragnarok Online revenues.
On May 12, 2005, Gravity announced disappointing financial
results for first-quarter 2005 which shocked the market, causing
Gravity's share price to tumble $3.64 per share, more than 39%,
to close at $5.60 per share on May 13, 2005.
Settlement Terms
Under the proposed settlement, a fund of $10 million will be
created to settle the claims of a class consisting of persons
who purchased American Depository Shares of the Company during
the period from Feb. 7, 2005 through Nov. 10, 2005, inclusive
(Class Action Reporter, June 13, 2007).
The Company's share of the settlement fund will be $5 million.
Costs of administering the settlement, as well as Plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and expenses (which have not yet been
determined) will be paid out of the settlement fund before
distributions are made to class members.
In exchange, the Company, its current and former directors and
officers as well as other third parties will be released from
liability for the claims asserted by the class.
The suit is "In re Gravity Co., Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:05-CV-04804-LAP," in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Loretta A. Preska.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com
srudman@lerachlaw.com
- and -
Joe Kendall, Esq.
Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (214) 744-3000
Fax: (214) 744-3015
Web site: http://www.provostumphrey.com
Representing defendants are:
Joseph P. Moodhe
Eliza M. Sporn
Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP(NYC)
919 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-909-6000 or 212-909-6536
Fax: 212-909-6836
E-mail: jpmoodhe@debevoise.com
esporn@debevoise.com
- and -
Michael Joseph Osnato, Jr., Esq.
Lindner, Speers & Reuland, P.C
54 West Downer Place, P. O. Box 5055
Aurora, IL 10105
Phone: 212 424 9041
Fax: 212 424 9100
E-mail: mike.osnato@linklaters.com
GUIDANT CORP: Defibrillator Suit Certification Hearing Set Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A certification hearing in a suit filed against:
-- Guidant Corp.,
-- Guidant Canada Corp.,
-- Guidant Sales Corp., and
-- Cardiac Pacemakers Inc.
is scheduled to start on December 18, 2007 in Toronto.
The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and Lerners LLP are
solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in the proposed class
action.
The solicitors of record are working with the firms of Roy
Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP and Rochon Genova LLP.
The action is on behalf of all persons who were implanted in
Canada with the following defibrillators and cardiac
resynchronization therapy defibrillators manufactured by
Guidant:
ICD and CRT-D Model
VENTAK PRIZM 2 DR 1861
CONTAK RENEWAL H135
CONTAK RENEWAL 2 H155
CONTAK RENEWAL 3 H170, H173 and H175
CONTAK RENEWAL 3 HE H177 and H179
CONTAK RENEWAL 4 H190 and H195
CONTAK RENEWAL 4 HE H197 and H199
CONTAK RENEWAL 3 AVT M150 and M155
CONTAK RENEWAL 3 AVT HE M157 and M159
CONTAK RENEWAL 4 AVT M170 and M175
CONTAK RENEWAL 4 AVT HE M177 and M179
RENEWAL RF H230 and H235
RENEWAL RF HE H239
VENTAK PRIZM AVT 1900
VITALITY AVT A135 and A155
and their family members.
In May and June, 2005, Guidant revealed that certain
Defibrillators contained defects. Two deaths have been reported
in connection with malfunctions of the Defibrillators.
The plaintiffs allege that Guidant was negligent in the design
of the Defibrillators and failed to properly report significant
defects in the Defibrillators to regulatory authorities and the
public.
Mr. Justice Cullity has been assigned to case manage the action.
The certification motion has been scheduled to be heard for two
days beginning December 18, 2007 in Toronto.
For more information, contact:
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Phone: 800.229.5323, extension 8296
Lerners LLP
Phone: 416.601.2359
HONEYWELL INT'L: Settles Ariz. Pensioners' Litigation for $35M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. reached a $35 million settlement in
the class action, "Allen, et. al. v. Honeywell Retirement
Earnings Plan," which was filed by members of its retirement
earnings plan, according to the company's Oct. 19, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
Plaintiffs in the suit seek unspecified damages relating to
allegations that, among other things, Honeywell impermissibly
reduced the pension benefits of employees of Garrett Corp., a
predecessor entity, when the plan was amended in 1983 and failed
to calculate certain benefits in accordance with the terms of
the plan (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007).
In the third quarter of 2005, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on these
claims and in favor of the Honeywell on virtually all other
claims.
The company said it strongly disagrees with, and intends to
appeal, the court's adverse ruling. In September 2006, the
court certified a class.
During the third quarter of 2007, the company agreed to a
settlement in principle with the plaintiffs in this class
action.
Under the terms of the settlement in principle, 18 of the 21
claims alleged by plaintiffs would be dismissed with prejudice
in exchange for approximately $35 million, and the maximum
aggregate liability for the remaining three claims would be
capped at $500 million.
The suit is "Allen, et al. v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings
Plan, Case No. 2:04-cv-00424-ROS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Roslyn O. Silver.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Daniel Lee Bonnett, Esq.
Jennifer Lynn Kroll, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett, PLLC
3300 N. Central Ave., Ste. 1720
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: 602-240-6900
Fax: 602-240-2345
E-mail: dbonnett@martinbonnett.com
jkroll@martinbonnett.com
Representing the defendants are:
Michael L. Banks, Esq.
Amy Covert, Esq.
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
1701 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2721
Phone: 215-963-5387 and 215-963-4749
Fax: 215-963-5001
E-mail: mbanks@morganlewis.com
acovert@morganlewis.com
- and -
Dawn L. Dauphine, Esq.
Osborn Maledon, PA
P.O. Box 36379
Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379
Phone: 602-640-9000
Fax: 602-640-6075
E-mail: ddauphine@omlaw.com
ISRAEL RAILWAYS: Faces $871MM Lawsuit over Delayed Trains
---------------------------------------------------------
Israel Railways is facing an $871.29 million lawsuit in the
Haifa District Court for Administration Affairs, with a request
to recognize it as a class-action suit, Orli Peleg-Mizrahi of
The Globes Online reports.
Filed by Eran Goren, under the Consumer Protection Law (5741-
1981), states that Israel Railways' trains are "chronically"
late, resulting in damage to passengers who are salaried
employees who sign in at their places of work or whom are paid
overtime. He says that the late trains cause passengers to
arrive late at work, costing them substantial losses in
salaries.
The petition is supported by statements from numerous Israel
Railways passengers, who said that the problem of late trains is
not limited to one person, but causes real distress and damage
to a large segment of the population.
The petitioner says that Israel Railways should also compensate
passengers for distress caused by the frequent delays.
Israel Railways is Israel's government-owned national railway
company and is responsible for all inter-city and suburban
railway passenger and freight traffic in the country. It
utilizes the standard gauge in all its lines. The network is
centered in Israel's densely populated coastal plain from where
lines radiate out from Tel Aviv in many directions. Unlike road
vehicles, Israeli trains run on the left side of the tracks.
JC PENNEY: Recalls Disney Pooh Play Sets for Lead Paint Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney, of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 49,000
units of Disney Deluxe Winnie-the-Pooh 23-Piece play sets.
The company said the surface paints on the play sets contain
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint
standard. No injuries have been reported.
The recalled play set consists of 23 pieces including: either a
white or black baby doll and assorted Winnie-the-Pooh themed
items such as a diaper bag, blanket, playpen, highchair, swing,
stroller, and carrying bags.
These recalled play sets were manufactured in China and are sold
through the J.C. Penney catalog, Web site and outlet stores
nationwide from August 2005 through August 2007 for about $40.
Picture of recalled play sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08022.jpg
Consumers are advised to take the recalled play set away from
young children immediately and return it to any J.C. Penney
store for a full refund.
For further information, contact J.C. Penney toll-free at (888)
333-6063 anytime, or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.jcp.com
KVH INDUSTRIES: Jan. 25, 2008 Hearing Set for $5.3 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island will
hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 25, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed $5.3 million settlement in the matter, "Sekuk Global,
et al. v. KVH Industries, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00306-
ML."
The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, One Exchange Terrace, Federal Building
and Courthouse, Providence, RI 02903.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Dec. 31, 2007. Deadline for the submission of
proof of claim forms is also on Dec. 31, 2007.
Case Background
The suit was filed against the company and certain of its
officers in 2004 on behalf of a class of KVH shareholders. It
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 under that
statute, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of purchasers of the
company's securities in the period Oct. 1, 2003 and July 2, 2004
and seeks certain legal remedies, including compensatory damages
(Class Action Reporter, April 3, 2007).
The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead
plaintiff in the case. This matter consolidates into one action
eight separate complaints filed between July 24, 2004 and Sept.
15, 2004.
On Jan. 14, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. The court denied this motion in part and
granted it in part (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 9, 2005).
On Oct. 14, 2005, the defendants answered the consolidated
complaint and denied liability and all allegations of
wrongdoing.
Settlement Terms
Pursuant to the terms of the settlements, plaintiffs and their
attorneys will receive an aggregate cash payment of $5.3
million, all of which will be paid by KVH's insurance carrier
(Class Action Reporter, July 30, 2007).
Under the recent settlement, KVH also agreed to adopt,
formalize, or reconfirm adherence to certain corporate
governance policies and practices.
The suit is "Sekuk Global, et al. v. KVH Industries, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:04-cv-00306-ML," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge Mary M Lisi.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Matthew F. Medeiros, Esq.
Little, Medeiros, Kinder, Bulman & Whitney
72 Pine St., 5th Floor
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 401-272-8080
Fax: 401-521-3555
- and -
Barry J. Kusinitz, Esq.
155 South Main St., Suite 405
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 401-831-4200
Fax: 401-831-7053
Representing the company are:
John H. Henn, Esq.
Kalun Lee, Esq.
Brandon F. White, Esq.
Foley Hoag LLP
155 Seaport Boulevard
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: 617-832-1000
Fax: 617-832-7000
- and -
Brooks R. Magratten, Esq.
Benjamin V. White III, Esq.
Vetter & White, Incorporated
20 Washington Place
Providence, RI 02903
Phone: 401-421-3060
Fax: 401-272-6803
MEDTRONIC INC: Defibrillator Suit Certification Hearing Set Nov.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Nov. 12 certification hearing has been set in a suit filed
against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd. over
certain Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac
resynchronization therapy defibrillators.
The law firms Rochon Genova LLP and Roy Elliott Kim O'Connor LLP
are solicitors of record for the plaintiffs in a proposed class
action against Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd. The
solicitors of record are working with Sutts, Strosberg LLP and
Lerners LLP.
The action concerns the design, development, testing,
manufacturing, licensing, assembly, distribution, marketing and
sale of certain Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillators and
cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators.
On February 10, 2005, Medtronic provided notice that certain
implantable cardiac defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization
therapy defibrillators manufactured between April, 2001 and
December, 2003 had a potential battery shorting problem which
could result in rapid battery depletion. If the battery in a
defibrillator shorts out, the device will not function and is
not able to deliver the therapy required if the user develops
potentially life-threatening arrhythmias. Since the batteries
are located within the implanted defibrillator, the device would
have to be surgically removed in order to eliminate the defect.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration characterized the notice
provided by Medtronic as a recall.
There are two proposed classes in this action. The first class
is comprised of all persons who were implanted in Canada with
the following Medtronic defibrillators manufactured between
April, 2001 and December, 2003:
DEVICE FAMILY MODEL NUMBERS
Marquis VR 7230
Marquis DR 7274
Maximo VR 7332
Maximo DR 7278
InSync Marquis 7277
InSync II Marquis 7289
InSync III Marquis 7279
InSync III Protect 7285
The second class is comprised of the family members of the Class
members.
The certification motion has been scheduled for five days
beginning November 12, 2007 in Toronto.
For more information, contact:
Sutts, Strosberg LLP
Phone: 800.229.5323, extension 8296
NEWMONT MINING: Dec. 11 Hearing Set for $15 Mil. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 11, 2007 at 4:30 a.m. for the proposed
$15,000,000 settlement of a consolidated securities class
action, "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund
v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046-MSK-
BNB."
The hearing will be held on before Judge Marcia S. Krieger, U.S.
District Court Judge, at the Alfred A. Arraj U.S. Courthouse,
901 19th Street, Denver, Colorado 80294-3589.
Exclusions requests must be made on or before Nov. 27, 2007.
Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms is on
Feb. 7, 2008.
Case Background
On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint
Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the federal
district court in Colorado purportedly on behalf of purchasers
of Newmont Mining Corp. publicly traded securities between July
28, 2004 and April 26, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 14,
2007).
The action named Newmont, Wayne W. Murdy, Pierre Lassonde and
Bruce D. Hansen as defendants. Substantially similar purported
class actions were filed in the same court on June 15, 2005 by
John S. Chapman and on June 20, 2005 by Zoe Myerson. In
November 2005, the court consolidated these cases and, in March
2006, appointed a lead plaintiff.
In April 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming David Francisco, Russell Ball, Thomas Enos and
Robert Gallagher as additional defendants.
It alleged, among other things, that Newmont and the individual
defendants violated certain antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by failing to disclose alleged operating
deficiencies and sought unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.
On Oct. 20, 2006, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a settlement
class consisting of all purchasers of Newmont securities from
Nov. 1, 2003, through and including March 23, 2006, except
defendants and certain related persons, entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement with defendants.
Settlement Terms
If approved by the Court, the Settlement:
(a) would release all claims asserted, or that could
have been asserted, in the action;
(b) would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 million
to be distributed to class members pursuant to a
plan of allocation developed by the lead
plaintiff; and
(c) would provide that all defendants deny any
wrongdoing or liability with respect to the
settled matters.
The suit is "UFCW Local 880-Retail Food Employers Joint Pension
Fund v. Newmont Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01046
MSK-BNB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado under Judge Marcia S. Krieger with referral to Judge
Boyd N. Boland.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Darby K. Kennedy, Esq.
Dyer & Shuman, LLP
801 East 17th Avenue
Denver, CO 80218-1417
Phone: 303-861-3003
Fax: 303-830-6920
E-mail: dkennedy@dyershuman.com
Representing the defendants is
Pamela Robillard Mackey, Esq.
Haddon, Morgan, Mueller, Jordan, Mackey &
Foreman, PC
150 East 10th Avenue
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-831-7364
Fax: 303-832-2628
E-mail: pmackey@hmflaw.com
NUVEEN INVESTMENTS: Settles Ill., Del. Suits Over MDP Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuveen Investments, Inc. reached a settlement for class actions
in Illinois and Delaware over its acquisition by an investor
group led by the private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners
(MDP), according to the company's Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission of the
quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007.
The company entered into a merger agreement on June 19, 2007 for
the acquisition of Nuveen Investments, Inc. by a corporation
formed by a group of investors led by Madison Dearborn, which
merger will be presented to the shareholders of Nuveen
Investments, Inc. for the their approval at a shareholders'
meeting expected to be held in the third quarter of 2007 (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 18, 2007).
Illinois Litigation
On June 20, 2007, a putative class action suit was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, by an
alleged stockholder of Nuveen Investments, naming Nuveen
Investments, members of the board of directors and Madison
Dearborn Capital Partners as defendants in the complaint.
The case is captioned, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen
Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315." This is a
stockholder class action for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty
or other violations of applicable law arising out of the pending
merger.
It alleges that the defendants have breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing, or have aided and abetted such breaches.
The plaintiff asks the court to declare the suit a proper class
action and to certify the plaintiff as class representative and
plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.
Also, plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
proposed merger, to have the Circuit Court declare that the
directors of Nuveen Investments have breached their fiduciary
duties and to have attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff's
counsel.
On June 21, 2007, June 26, 2007 and June 27, 2007, similar
putative class action were filed in the same court by alleged
stockholders of Nuveen Investments.
The cases are captioned:
-- "Samuel K. Rosen v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et. al.,
Case No. 07CH 16443,"
-- "Levy Investments v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07CH 16832," and
-- "John Sudderth v. Nuveen Investments, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 07CH 16939.
They name as defendants Nuveen Investments, members of its board
of directors and, in the case of Levy Investments, Madison
Dearborn Capital Partners.
On July 31, 2007, the four cases were ordered consolidated
before Judge Philip Bronstein.
Delaware Litigation
On June 28, 2007, a similar putative class action suit was filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County.
The case is captioned, "Brockton Contributory Retirement Sys. v.
Nuveen Investments, Inc., Case No. 3060," and names as
defendants Nuveen Investments, members of its board of
directors, Madison Dearborn Capital Partners, and related
parties.
The complaints similarly allege that by entering into the
proposed transaction, the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith and fair
dealing.
All of the plaintiffs ask the court to declare the suit a proper
class action suit and to certify the respective plaintiffs as
class representative.
Among other things, all complaints seek to enjoin the proposed
merger.
Additionally, two of the cases, "Sudderth," and "Brockton
Contributory Retirement System," seek imposition of a
constructive trust, in favor of the class, upon any benefits
improperly received by defendants as a result of the alleged
misconduct.
Settlement
On Sept. 4, 2007, Nuveen Investments, Inc., and other named
defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
the plaintiffs in the putative class actions filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division,
consolidated under the caption, "Robert Summerfield v. Nuveen
Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 07CH 16315," and in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County, captioned, "Brockton Contributory Retirement Sys. v.
Nuveen Investments, Inc., Case No. 3060."
Under the terms of the MOU, Nuveen Investments, the other named
defendants and plaintiffs have agreed to settle the above
actions.
Nuveen Investments and the other defendants deny the allegations
in the actions and deny having committed, or having aided and
abetted, any breach of fiduciary duty or other violation of
state or federal law in connection with the entry into the
merger agreement.
The settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to members of the
proposed settlement class.
If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all claims
that were or could have been brought on behalf of the proposed
settlement class in the actions being settled, including all
claims relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith.
In addition, as part of the proposed settlement, the company has
agreed to pay $1,000,000 to the plaintiffs' counsel for their
fees and expenses, subject to final approval of the settlement
and such fees by the court. The merger may be consummated prior
to final court approval of the settlement.
Nuveen Investments, Inc. -- http://www.nuveen.com-- is
primarily engaged in asset management and related research, as
well as the development, marketing and distribution of
investment products and services for the affluent, high-net-
worth and institutional market segments.
POWERNET GLOBAL: Nov. 19 Hearing Set in $3.18M Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
will hold a fairness hearing on Nov. 19, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. for
the proposed $3,180,000 settlement in the matter, "Maycumber v.
PowerNet Global Communications, et al., Case No. 06-CV-1773-H
(RBB)."
The hearing will held before Judge Marilyn Huff in Courtroom 13
of the Court, located at 940 Front Street, Fifth Floor, San
Diego, California 92101.
In general, the lawsuit claimed that PNG mislabeled certain
charges on its bills to consumers beginning in April 2003 by
charging a Network Access Charge and placing it under the taxes
section of the bill.
Recently, PNG has agreed to pay $3,180,000 in compensation in
the form of calling cards, cash, and other benefits, to be
divided among Class Members who send in a valid claim form.
Covered by the settlement are people who were PNG customers
between April 1, 2003 and July 31, 2006 and who paid the Network
Access Charge.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Nov. 5, 2007. Deadline for the submission of
proof of claim forms is also on Dec. 17, 2007.
For more details, contact:
PowerNet Global Communications Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
PO Box 8060
San Rafael, CA 94912-8060
Phone: 1-800-831-7159
Web site: http://www.powernetsettlement.com/
REILLY PLATING: Faces Three MI Suits Over Toxic Cloud Spilling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reilly Plating Co. is facing three class-action complaints in
the Third Judicial Circuit in and for the County of Wayne in the
State of Michigan accusing it of contaminating a neighborhood in
Melvindale with a toxic cloud by spilling 500 gallons of
hydrochloric acid.
The complaint alleges defendant's facility routinely uses,
handles, treats and stores hazardous and non-hazardous chemicals
and/or substances, including hydrochloric acid.
Defendant has intentionally and knowingly failed to properly
correct is equipments or operations so as to prevent chemical
explosions and the release of hazardous and non-hazardous
substances, the complaint states.
Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in excess of $25,000 per
plaintiff, exclusive of costs and attorney fees, and equitable
relief.
The interference with plaintiffs' rights caused by defendant's
actions or lack thereof have significant harm to plaintiffs and
others similarly situated, including but not limited to:
(a) physical harm to plaintiffs' personal property;
(b) physical harm to plaintiff's real property;
(c) loss of and interference of plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property rights, including but not
limited to suffering from the effect of unpleasant
odors, smoke, visible emissions, noise and otherwise
horrible conditions that forced plaintiffs indoors, to
shut their windows and/or evacuate their homes.
Plaintiffs request that the court grant judgment in its favor of
plaintiffs and those similarly situated and against defendant
and award to plaintiffs and all those similarly situated;
-- all actual damages suffered by plaintiffs and those
similarly situated;
-- all other relief this court deems just and appropriate,
including but not limited to, all costs and attorneys'
fees associated with bringing this action and interest
from the date of the filing of this complaint until the
date of judgment at the statutory rate;
-- a permanent injunction enjoining defendant from any
further operation; and
-- exemplary damages.
One of the suits is "Abbas Alkanas et al. v. Reilly Plating
Company, Case No: 07-727724 NI," filed in the 3rd Judicial
Circuit in and for the County of Wayne in the State of Michigan.
Representing plaintiff is:
Ari Charlip
Elizabeth C. Thomson
40900 woodward Ave., Ste. 250
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
REPSOL YPF: Jan. 11, 2008 Hearing Set for $8M Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
will hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 11, 2008, at 11:00 a.m. for
the proposed $8,000,000 settlement in the matter, "Reynolds v.
Repsol YPF, S.A. et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00733-DAB."
The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Southern
District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 24-B, New
York, New York 10007.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before Nov. 26, 2007. Deadline for the submission of
proof of claim forms is on Jan. 8, 2008.
Case Background
The complaint, filed in early 2006, charges Repsol and certain
of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16,
2006).
The complaint alleges that defendants' issued a series of false
and misleading statements to the market artificially inflating
the company's stock. More specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose these materially adverse facts to the market:
(1) that the company's proven reserves were materially
overstated;
(2) that changes in Bolivia's legal framework, were
negatively effecting the company's Bolivian gas
production operation;
(3) that the company was experiencing production problems
in Argentina;
(4) that the company had to take an asset impairment charge
of EUR50 million; and
(5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the company's
positive statements about its reserves and business
growth lacked in all reasonable basis when made.
On Jan. 26, 2006, the company announced that it was reducing its
proven oil and gas reserves estimates by 25%. On this news,
shares of Repsol ADRs fell $2.12 per share, or 7%, on Jan. 26,
2006, to close at $27.99 per share. The company's stock
continued to decline on Jan. 27, 2006, when it fell $1.34 per
share, or 4.79%, to close at $26.65 per share.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages.
By mid-year, the law firm Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP filed an
amended class action claiming company executives "knowingly or
recklessly made numerous false and misleading statements
concerning the company's business and financial results," (Class
Action Reporter, Sept. 8, 2006).
Settlement Terms
Spanish petrochemicals group Repsol YPF has reached a settlement
for $8 million with U.S. shareholders in a class-action in on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Repsol YPF, S.A. (REP)
between July 28, 2005 and Jan. 27, 2006 inclusive (Class Action
Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007).
Under the terms of an agreement, the Spanish group will pay
shareholders $8 million.
For more details, contact
Repsol Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 990
Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990
Phone: 1-800-447-7657
Web site: http://www.gilardi.com/
The suit is Reynolds v. Repsol YPF, S.A. et al., Case No. 1:06-
cv-00733-DAB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Deborah A. Batts.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq.
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
E-mail: malba@lerachlaw.com
drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com
srudman@lerachlaw.com
- and -
Kay E. Sickles, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
Fax: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: ksickles@sbtklaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Joyce Szuyun Huang, Esq.
Brad Scott Karp, Esq.
Douglas M. Pravda, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 212-373-3000
Fax: 212-7573990
E-mail: jhuang@paulweiss.com
bkarp@paulweiss.com
dpravda@paulweiss.com
STATE STREET BANK: Botched Retirement Accts Prompts ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. announce the filing of a class action
lawsuit against State Street Bank & Trust Company and State
Street Global Advisors.
The plaintiff, New York publisher Unisystems, Inc., seeks to
recover the losses State Street caused to plaintiff's retirement
plan, and to retirement plans throughout the country by
investing purportedly conservative, risk-averse bond funds in
high-risk mortgage backed securities and exotic financial
instruments. Certain bond funds managed by State Street
increased their holdings of mortgage-backed securities from just
8% in September 2006 to 25% in March 2007, despite the fact that
the indices those funds were supposed to track are comprised 60%
of Government bonds, with the remainder comprised largely of
Corporate bonds. In addition, State Street highly leveraged
those investments by purchasing mortgage-backed securities using
borrowed money, thus compounding the risk to investors.
As a result of those imprudent investments, bond funds managed
by State Street -- which were supposed to track a well-defined
index of investment-grade U.S. Government and Corporate bonds --
lost up to 40% of their value when the market for mortgage-
backed securities collapsed in August 2007. As the Investment
Manager for the bond funds, the action seeks to hold State
Street liable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") for the losses caused by its imprudent
management of those funds.
The complaint filed by Keller Rohrback and Bernstein Litowitz
asserts that State Street breached its fiduciary duties under
ERISA, and seeks to recover losses to ERISA plans caused by
State Street's actions. The claim is asserted on behalf of all
ERISA plans, and the participants therein, that were invested in
bond funds managed by State Street between January and October
2007.
For more information, contact:
Gerald H. Silk
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
Tel: 212-554-1400
Email: jerry@blbglaw.com
Website: http://www.blbglaw.com
- and -
Derek W. Loeser
Keller Rohrback L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98101
Tel: 206-623-1900
Email: dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
Website: http://www.erisafraud.com
UNITED SURGICAL: Dec. 3 Hearing Set for Stockholders' Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on Dec. 3, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. for the
proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re United Surgical
Partners International, Inc. (USPI) Stockholders Litigation,
Case No. Consolidated Cause No. 07-00156."
The hearing will he held in the 134th Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, George L. Allen Sr. Courts Building, 600
Commerce Street, 6th Floor, Old Tower, Dallas, TX 75202.
The settlement covers all persons who owned USPI common stock
between Nov. 13, 2006, and April 19, 2007.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Nov.
19, 2007.
Case Background
On Jan. 8, 2007, USPI announced the Merger Agreement and the
proposed Merger Transaction whereby, as more fully set forth in
the Merger Agreement and subject to stockholder approval, Welsh
Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe X, L.P. (Welsh Carson X),
through the merger of USPI and UNCN Acquisition Corp.
(Acquisition), a wholly-owned subsidiary of UNCN Holdings, Inc.
(Holdings), would acquire all of the issued and outstanding
shares of common stock of USPI for $31.05 per share in cash on a
fully-diluted basis, pursuant to the terms of an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of January 7, 2007 among USPI, Holdings
and Acquisition, after which USPI would become a privately-held
company, and a group of investors, led by Welsh Carson X and
certain members of USPI's management, would own all of the
outstanding capital stock of Holdings.
In response to that announcement, a purported class action was
filed in the Court by John McMullen, styled, "McMullen v. United
Surgical Partners International, Inc., et al., Cause No. 07-
00156, in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas.
It named as defendants Donald E. Steen, William H. Wilcox, Joel
T. Allison, John C. Garrett, Thomas L. Mills, James Ken Newman,
Boone Powell, Jr., Paul B. Queally, Jerry P. Widman, and Nancy
L. Weaver, USPI and Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe.
The McMullen Action was brought on behalf of a purported class
of USPI stockholders, asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims
in connection with the Merger Agreement and the Merger
Transaction (and as to Welsh Carson, an aiding and abetting
claim), and alleging that the Preliminary Proxy was false,
misleading and omitted materials facts about various aspects of
the Merger Transaction.
Settlement Terms
As a result of the negotiations between the parties, a proposed
Settlement has been reached under the following
terms:
-- On or about March 20, 2007, USPI sent its stockholders
the Final Proxy containing certain additional
disclosures that were the subject of claims in the
Actions and were requested by counsel for Plaintiffs
in the Actions.
-- Under certain circumstances, a $42.5 million
termination fee would have become payable to Welsh
Carson by USPI pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement. In response to the request of counsel for
Plaintiffs in the Action, Welsh Carson agreed that if
a termination fee in excess of $32.5 million became
payable by USPI pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Welsh Carson would waive its right to
receive the portion of such termination fee in excess
of $32.5 million.
-- Defendants agreed to release Plaintiffs, their counsel
in the Action, and their respective heirs, successors
and assigns, for claims arising from or relating to
the Consolidated Action, excepting only claims to
enforce the terms and conditions of this Settlement,
or for breach of any confidentiality obligations or
agreements in connection the Consolidated Action.
-- The Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses in
connection with the Consolidated Action and the
Settlement have been separately negotiated, and
agreement has been reached that, subject to the terms
of the Stipulation, USPI, or its insurers, will pay a
total of $750,000.00, inclusive of all fees, expenses
and costs incurred by Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'
counsel in connection with the Consolidated Action and
the Settlement, to a joint escrow account, care of
Plaintiffs' Interim Class Counsel and Plaintiffs'
Interim Derivative Counsel, within ten (10) business
days after entry of the Scheduling Order.
-- the Consolidated Action will be dismissed with
prejudice.
For more details, contact:
Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
320 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 983-9330 or (877) 247-4292
Fax: (212) 983-9331
Web site: http://www.faruqilaw.com/
VERTRUE INC: Consumers Sue Over Alleged Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Consumers filed a class action in Monroe County, Illinois
concerning allegations that Vertrue, Inc. uses coercive and
deceptive practices to generate new business.
The lawsuit was filed by Brad Lakin and Robert Schmieder of The
Lakin Law Firm on behalf of their client.
Mr. Lakin said, "Mr. Spivey's Bank of American credit card was
charged $199.95 without his authorization for a membership in
AP9 Home Works Plus."
Mr. Spivey's Bank of American credit card was charged $199.95
without his authorization for a membership in AP9 Home Works
Plus.
The suit alleges that Vertrue, Inc. was sued by the US
Government years ago and the settlement required Vertrue to
prove memberships in their programs by recording consumer
consent over the phone or in writing. The lawsuit seeks to
represent a class of consumers who Vertrue failed to get the
confirmation as required in the settlement with the government.
Vertrue, formerly known as Memberworks, markets at least 22
membership programs having names such as 24 Assistance, 24
Protect Plus, At Home Rewards, BusinessMax, Card Protect Plus,
Connections, Essentials, Galleria USA, Homeworks Plus, Lifestyle
Rewards, Main Street Savings, Passport To Fun, Premier Health
Plus, Privacy Matters, Privacy Plus, Shopping Essentials, Simple
Escapes, Simply You, Today's Escapes, Travel Source, ValueMax,
and Your Savings Club.
"The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of Illinois consumers
whoVertrue allegedly charged consumers credit cards, debit cards
and bank accounts for memberships without their consent," Mr.
Lakin said.
The suit includes claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
Illinois Credit Card & Debit Card Act and for unjust enrichment
and conversion. The Lakin Law Firm is currently litigating a
similar case against Trilegiant Corporation in Madison County,
Illinois who markets similar memberships.
The suit is "Quinten Spivey v. Vertrue, Inc. Case No. 07-L-31,"
filed in Monroe County, Illinois.
TWENTIETH CENTURY: Jan. 23, 2008 Hearing Slated for "East" Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will
hold a fairness hearing on Jan. 23, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. for the
$1,164,000 settlement in the purported class action, "Nathan
East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., et al., Case
No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx)."
The hearing will be held before Judge Gary A. Feess, at the U.S.
Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California
90012.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Nov.
16, 2007. Exclusion requests must be made on or before Nov. 27,
2007. Deadline for the submission of proof of claim forms is on
Dec. 14, 2007.
Case Background
The suit was brought on behalf of composers and others in
connection with music allegedly used without permission in the
television program Santa Barbara, according to a report by
http://www.filmmusicmag.com(Class Action Reporter, Oct. 19,
2007).
Plaintiffs Nathan East, Stanley M. Clarke, and The Music Force
LLC commenced legal action on July 6, 2004, alleging they are
owners of musical compositions or sound recordings that were
used without authorization in the television series Santa
Barbara and thereafter reproduced and distributed in episodes
internationally.
Named as defendants in the matter are:
-- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation,
-- Twentieth Century Fox Film International Television,
Inc.,
-- New World Television Productions, Inc., and
-- New World Entertainment, Ltd.
Plaintiffs asserted claims for copyright infringement for
themselves individually and on behalf of classes of owners of
thousands of musical compositions and sound recordings, or
portions thereof, that were embodied in Santa Barbara.
Settlement Terms
The proposed settlement creates a Settlement Fund in the amount
of $1,164,000 and will include interest that accrues on the
Settlement Fund prior to distribution.
It covers a Musical Composition Class or Musical Composition
Class Members. This class members are defines as all Persons
who are Legal Owners of a musical composition or portion thereof
that, without license or authorization, was broadcast,
cablecast, copied displayed, disseminated, distributed,
embodied, exhibited, performed, recorded, reproduced,
synchronized, syndicated, telecast, transmitted or otherwise
used in connection with, or as part of, Santa Barbara in any
manner or medium, whether known or hereafter devised, anywhere.
For more details, contact:
Santa Barbara Class Settlement
Settlement Administrator
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 9149
Dublin, OH 43017 - 4149
Phone: 1 (888) 381-1828
Web site: http://www.santabarbaraclasssettlement.com
The suit is "Nathan East, et al., v. Twentieth Century Fox Film
Corporation, et al., Case No. CV 04-4920 GAF (Shx)," filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge Gary A. Feess.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Jeffrey L. Graubart, Esq.
Law Offices of Jeffrey L. Graubart
350 West Colorado Boulevard, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105-1855
Phone: (626) 304-2800
Fax: (626) 304-2807
- and -
Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq.
Blecher & Collins, P.C.
515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, California 90071
Phone: (213) 622-4222
Fax: (232) 689-1944
Web site: http://www.blechercollins.com
Representing the defendant is:
Xanath Owens
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
777 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5800
Phone: (213) 680-8537
Fax: (213) 680-8500
E-mail: xowens@kirkland.com
Web site: http://www.kirkland.com
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc. continues to face a purported class action
filed on January 2006, in the District Court of Texas County,
Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma.
Plaintiffs in the suit, "Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,"
allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to the
plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled and seek
an accounting regarding the natural gas and other products
produced from their wells and the prices paid for the natural
gas and other products produced, and for payment of the monies
allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited number of
plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.
A hearing on the class certification has not been scheduled. The
plaintiffs have not alleged, in their petition, an amount they
are seeking.
XTO Energy has informed the trustee (Bank of America, N.A.) that
it believes that it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and
intends to vigorously defend its position.
However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments
or receives a judgment against it, the trust (Hugoton Royalty
Trust) will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment
related to production from the underlying properties.
Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its
proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced
net proceeds.
XTO Energy has informed the trustee that, although the amount of
any reduction in net proceeds is not presently determinable, in
its management's opinion, the amount is not currently expected
to be material to the trust's annual distributable income,
financial position or liquidity.
Hugoton Royalty Trust reported no development in the matter in
its Oct. 19, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007.
XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com-- and its
subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.
YAMAHA MOTOR: Steering Problem Prompts Snowmobiles Recall
---------------------------------------------------------
Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., of Cypress, California, in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
recalling about 5,700 2007 Model Year PZ50 snowmobiles.
The company said snow and ice stuck around the steering idler
arm can cause a loss of steering ability, posing a risk of
injury and death to drivers and passengers. No injuries have
been reported.
This recall involves all model year 2007 PZ50 snowmobiles,
including PZ50W (Phazer), PZ50FXW (Phazer FX), PZ50GTW (Phazer
GT), PZ50MW (Phazer Mountain Lite), and PZ50VTW (Venture Lite)
model snowmobiles.
These recalled snowmobiles were manufactured in Japan and are
being sold by Yamaha dealers nationwide from June 2006 through
September 2007 for between $7,000 and $8,000.
Pictures of recalled snowmobiles:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08505.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled
snowmobiles and contact an authorized Yamaha snowmobile dealer
in their area to schedule a free repair. Registered owners were
sent direct mail notification of this recall.
For additional information and to locate a Yamaha snowmobile
dealer, contact Yamaha at (800) 962-7926, 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.yamaha-
motor.com
New Securities Fraud Cases
SMART ONLINE: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federman & Sherwood filed, on October 18, 2007, the first
securities class action lawsuit against Smart Online, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina.
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from May 2, 2005 through September 28, 2007.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class.
For more information, contact:
William B. Federman
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email: wfederman@aol.com
Website: http://www.federmanlaw.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, Editors.
Copyright 2007. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *