/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071024.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, October [24], 2007, Vol. 9, No. 211
Headlines
ALLSTAR FITNESS: Member Seeks Refund, Files Fraud Suit in Wash.
AMERIFIRST INC: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Pre-Recorded Messages
APPLE INC: Faces Suit in Quebec Over iPod's Storage Capacity
AWB LTD: Fights Aussie Investors’ Suit in Relation to Iraqi Scam
BELKIN CORP: Wireless Products Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
BODEE LLC: Man Files Suit Over Ineffective and Unsafe Sex Pills
COLLECTIONS ETC: Recalls Hammocks with Rods that can Break
COOK INLET: Alaska Supreme Court Hears Shareholder Litigation
DIGITAL DISH: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Ohio FLSA Suit Settlement
DOWNER EDI: To Face Lawsuit over February Profit Guidance
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Recycled Phone Numbers
HANSEN NATURAL: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. Junked
INTEL CORP: Suit Over x86 Microprocessors Continue in Del. Court
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Cal. Judge Junks “Chau” Overtime Lawsuit
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Suit Over Fraudulently Arranged Dates
JC PENNEY: Recalls Art Sets in Wooden Boxes with High Lead Level
JDS UNIPHASE: Trial Begins for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MEDTRONIC INC: Defibrillator Suit Lawyers Answer Recall FAQs
OHIO CASUALTY: Nov. 19 Hearing Set for “Lazarus” Suit Settlement
OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Continues in Pa. Federal Court
PHLX: Settlement of Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid Approved
POZEN INC: $11M N.C. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Fans File Lawsuit Over Alleged Fraud
TFT-LCD LITIGATION: DoJ Wants Stay of Merits Discovery Extended
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Agreement
WILLIS GROUP: $8.5M Gender Bias Suit Settlement Approved
XYBERNAUT CORP: In Talks to Settle Shareholders’ Lawsuit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
New Securities Fraud Cases
FIRST HOME: Becker & Poliakoff Files Securities Suit in Fla.
*********
ALLSTAR FITNESS: Member Seeks Refund, Files Fraud Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstar Fitness Club faces a purported class action in the King County
Superior Court in Washington that was filed by a Monroe woman who sought a
refund for her personal training sessions, Jim Haley of HeraldNet reports.
Teresa Whalen signed up for 60 personal training sessions at Allstar Fitness
in August and paid $3,600 up front. She went to three sessions before the
club abruptly closed in September.
In the lawsuit, Ms. Whalen claims that she's due a refund for the 57
sessions she didn't receive, however, she has been unable to collect the
money from the Seattle-based company.
Ms. Whalen's attorney, John Phillips, has asked the court to make the case a
class action. If granted the case could affect hundreds of others who may
not have been compensated when the club closed.
Mr. Phillips told HeraldNet, "We could be talking about a $1 million of
prepaid fees, depending on how many people are out the money."
The suit states that Ms. Whalen had been a member of the Monroe fitness
facility since it opened in July 2004 and that she maintained a month-to-
month membership agreement until the club closed.
The contract Ms. Whalen signed with Allstar anticipated the possibility of
closure, according to Mr. Phillips. It also requires Allstar to repay
members on a pro-rated basis if "comparable facilities owned and operated by
the club are not made available within a 10-mile radius of the closed
facility," the lawsuit says.
The nearest Allstar Fitness facility is in Seattle, 33 miles from Ms.
Whalen's home. Allstar made arrangements with another Monroe fitness center
to take its clients, but Ms. Whalen considers it inferior.
Thus, in the lawsuit, Ms. Whalen alleges that Allstar broke its contract and
violated the state's Consumer Protection Act.
AMERIFIRST INC: Faces Ill. Lawsuit Over Pre-Recorded Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River filed on Oct. 18 a new class action in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against Amerifirst, Inc. (dba American Freedom
Mortgage, American Freedom Home Lending, American National Brokerage) over
pre-recorded messages, Ann Knef of the Madison County Record reports.
Named plaintiff Marilyn Margulis claims the mortgage lender violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act for using automated telephone dialing
equipment to deliver pre-recorded promotional messages to residences. She
received a pre-recorded message on or about May 10, 2007, which according to
the complaint, invaded her right of privacy to be left alone and maintain
her seclusion in her residence.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "at least 39 other" call
recipients. The suit asserts that state court jurisdiction is appropriate
because individual claims are worth less than $75,000.
Lakin's co-counsel includes Phillip A. Bock of Diab & Bock in Chicago and
Brian J. Wanca of Anderson & Wanca in Rolling Meadows, Ill.
To contact The Lakin Law Firm:
The Lakin Law Firm
300 Evans Avenue
PO Box 229
Wood River, Illinois 62095
Telephone: (618) 254-1127
Toll Free: (800) 851-5523
Website: http://www.lakinlaw.com
APPLE INC: Faces Suit in Quebec Over iPod's Storage Capacity
------------------------------------------------------------
Apple, Inc. faces a purported class action in Quebec Superior Court over the
iPod nano's storage capacity, www.macnn.com reports.
Lead Plaintiff and Montreal law student David Bitton is suing Apple because
the company's 8GB iPod nano offers 7.45GB of actual storage capacity, rather
than the full 8GB as advertised.
Apple sells the 8GB portable player for $200, but lists its definition of
1GB as 1 billion bytes, as displayed on the company's iPod comparison Web
page: "1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less."
The complaint alleges that all Apple products have, on average, 7.5 percent
less storage space than advertised. The Plaintiff is asking for a full
refund or, if a refund is refused, a 7.5 percent refund for him as well as
all iPod owners in Quebec.
Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/-- formerly Apple Computer, Inc.,
designs, manufactures and markets personal computers and related software,
services, peripherals and networking solutions. It also designs, develops
and markets a line of portable digital music players along with accessories,
including the online sale of third-party audio and video products.
AWB LTD: Fights Aussie Investors’ Suit in Relation to Iraqi Scam
----------------------------------------------------------------
AWB Ltd. is fighting a class action filed in federal court in Australia by
shareholders who claim they lost money because AWB failed to inform the
market about steps it made to be in breach of U.N. sanctions under the oil-
for-food program.
Class Action Reporter reported on April 16, 2007 that the law firm Maurice
Blackburn Cashman has been instructed to commence proceedings against AWB on
behalf of shareholders. The suit was filed on the same day (Class Action
Reporter, April 16, 2007).
After being served with the claim, AWB sought further particulars of the
claims being made against the company -- those particulars have since been
supplied to AWB by the Applicants -- in August the proceeding was converted
from a proceeding under Order 6 rule 13 of the Federal Court Rules into a
proceeding under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act following an
application brought by the Applicants and heard by Justice Gyles on August
22, 2007. AWB filed a defense on Oct. 9.
AWB Limited -- http://www.awb.com.au/-- is Australia's leading agribusiness
and one of the world's largest wheat marketing companies. It is also one of
Australia's top 100 publicly listed companies.
For more information, contact:
Ben Slade
Jason Geisker
Juliana Tang
Maurice Blackburn Cashman
Phone: (02) 9261 1488
BELKIN CORP: Wireless Products Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. for the proposed settlement
in the matter, “Shannahoff v. Belkin Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-01474-GPS-PJW.”
The fairness hearing will be held at 312 N. Spring St., Los Angeles,
California 90012, in Courtroom 7 on the Second Floor of the U.S District
Court for the Central District of California.
Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is on Oct. 31, 2007.
Case Background
In general, the suit claims that Belkin Corp. made and sold select models of
its Wireless Products (Covered Products) that do not achieve the advertised
Mbps (megabit per second) data throughput or transmission rates and
advertised connectivity range(s) under alleged “real-world” operating
conditions.
It claimed that consumers who purchased these Wireless Products suffered
injury because they did not receive the advertised speed and transmission
rates or connectivity range(s).
The Covered Belkin Wireless Products in this settlement are the following
Belkin Wireless Product Model Numbers (SKU numbers), the packaging for
which, at the time of retail purchase by the original purchaser, did not
state that the actual data throughput rates and/or connectivity ranges would
be lower than the rate and/or range, identified on the product:
-- B5D036,
-- F1UP0001,
-- F5D6000,
-- F5D6001,
-- F5D6020,
-- F5D6050,
-- F5D6050-APL,
-- F5D6051,
-- F5D6060,
-- F5D6130,
-- F5D6230-3,
-- F5D6230-4,
-- F5D6231-4,
-- F5D6231-4-APL,
-- F5D7000,
-- F5D7001,
-- F5D7010,
-- F5D7010-APL,
-- F5D7011,
-- F5D7050,
-- F5D7130,
-- F5D7230-4,
-- F5D72314,
-- F5D7231-4P,
-- F5D7233,
-- F5D7330,
-- F5D8000,
-- F5D8010,
-- F5D8230-4,
-- F5D9009,
-- F5D9010,
-- F5D9013,
-- F5D9050,
-- F5D9230-4,
-- F6D3000,
-- F6D3010, and
-- F6D3230-4.
Covered Belkin Wireless Products do not include products that were installed
in or sold with other devices, items or equipment by the original equipment
manufacturers of such other devices, items or equipment.
Settlement Terms
Basically, the settlement provides up to two full refunds or up to three 50%
promotional discounts towards the purchase of new Belkin Wireless networking
products from Belkin’s online store.
The settlement will provide up to two full refunds for those who purchased
one or more of the Covered Belkin Wireless Products, submit an online claim
form, and submit a valid sales receipt (original or legible copy).
If an individual is unable to provide a sales receipt, he or she may still
be eligible for a 50% promotional discount toward the online purchase of up
to three new Belkin Wireless Products priced at up to $300.00 each.
To qualify to receive anything, an individual must have been a resident of
the United States at the time he or she purchased the Covered Belkin
Wireless Product, and he or she must have purchased the product from an
entity that regularly sold such devices or items, during the period of Oct.
13, 2002 until Feb. 5, 2007.
For more details, visit:
http://www.belkin.com/class_notice/settlement.asp
The suit is “Shannahoff v. Belkin Corp., Case No. 2:06-cv-01474-GPS-PJW,”
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
under Judge George P. Schiavelli with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
David Mills Arbogast, Esq.
Spiro Moss Barness
11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Phone: 310-235-2468
E-mail: david@spiromoss.com
BODEE LLC: Man Files Suit Over Ineffective and Unsafe Sex Pills
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three companies are facing a class-action complaint in Los Angeles Superior
Court accusing them of pushing a bogus and dangerous product as an “all-
natural” sexual performance enhancer for guys when it’s not, the CourtHouse
News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Josef Salomon claims that:
* Bodee LLC,
* Encore Tabs, and
* Shirin Fourmand
recalled “Zencore Tabs” on Aug. 31 after the FDA revealed that it contains
undeclared contents. The undeclared contents are aminotadalafil,
sildenafil, sulfosildenafil and sulfohomosildenafil, which “may interact
with nitrates found in some prescription drugs and may lower blood pressure
to dangerous levels.”
He claims the defendant intentionally and fraudulently failed to disclose
the dangers.
Plaintiffs’ counsel is:
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP
644 S Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3406
COLLECTIONS ETC: Recalls Hammocks with Rods that can Break
----------------------------------------------------------
Collections Etc. Inc., of Elk Gove Village, Illinois, in cooperation with
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 9,000 double
hammocks.
The company said the wooden rods at the head and foot of the hammock used to
extend the fabric can break, causing the hammock to collapse and the user to
fall to the ground.
Collections Etc. is aware of five reports of the wooden rods breaking,
resulting in four reports of injuries including minor cuts, and sore necks
and backs.
This recall involves hammocks made with a solid green fabric and white
support ropes. The hammocks? green fabric measures 73-inches long by 46-
inches wide and supports a maximum of up to 350lbs.
These recalled hammocks were manufactured by Transfar International Corp.,
of Taipei, Taiwan and are being sold through web sites and catalogs
nationwide from May 2007 through August 2007 for about $20.
Picture of recalled hammocks:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08504.jpg
Consumers are advised to stop using the hammocks immediately and contact
Collections Etc. for a full refund.
For more information, contact Collections Etc. at (800) 518-3020 between
8:30 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. Consumers also can also log
onto the firm’s Web site: http://www.collectionsetc.com
COOK INLET: Alaska Supreme Court Hears Shareholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska Supreme Court is considering a class action against Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI) that would decide whether Native corporations can pay
unequal amounts of money to its shareholders, The Associated Press reports.
Some CIRI Shareholders sued the company back in 2003 over its providing
extra payments to eligible shareholders who are 65 or older, an act that
they claim amounts to discrimination.
Through its elder-benefit program, the company pays eligible elders $1,800
per year.
One of the plaintiffs in the case against CIRI, Maria Coleman of Eklutna,
who has has five daughters and 13 grandchildren. She feels the payments are
robbing her children of their share of CIRI's profits.
CIRI general counsel Ethan Schutt explains to The Associated Press that
Native corporations have social responsibilities that other corporations
don't. He reiterated that they do not operate in the same way as a publicly
traded corporation.
Currently, all challenges in state court to elder benefit programs at other
Native corporations have failed.
For more details, contact:
Ethan Schutt, Esq.
CIRI General Counsel
2525 C Street, Suite 500, Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: (907) 274-8638 and (800) 764-2474
Fax: (907) 263-5186
DIGITAL DISH: Nov. 9 Hearing Set for Ohio FLSA Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio will hold a
fairness hearing on Nov. 9, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. for the proposed settlement in
the matter, “Dominic Musarra, et al. v. Digital Dish, Inc., Case No. C2-05-
545.”
Case Background
On or about June 2, 2005, three former employees of Digital Dish brought the
Civil Action, in which they claimed that Digital Dish violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and various state wage laws by failing to pay employees
minimum wage on some occasions.
Plaintiffs sought recovery of statutory damages, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief.
Digital Dish has denied and continues to deny any wrongdoing and denies any
and all liability and damages to anyone with respect to the alleged facts or
causes of action asserted in the Civil Action.
To avoid the burden, expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of continued
Civil Action, however, Digital Dish has concluded that it is in its best
interests to resolve and settle the Civil Action by entering into a
settlement agreement.
The Civil Action is presently before Judge Algenon Marbley of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The judge has not made
any decision on the merits of Plaintiffs' minimum wage claims.
On Aug. 14, 2007, the Court conditionally certified this matter as a class
action for purposes of settlement and granted preliminary approval of the
Settlement.
Settlement Terms
Covered by the settlement are Job-Based Technicians Hired By Digital Dish,
Inc. between June 2, 2002 and Oct. 12, 2006.
According to the settlement terms, Class Members who timely and properly
complete and return the Claim Form and Release, will be eligible to receive
$23.10, less payroll withholding.
For more details, contact:
Robert DeRose, Esq.
Robert Handelman, Esq.
Barkan Neff Handelman Meizlish, L.L.P.
360 South Grant Avenue, P.O. Box 1989
Columbus, Ohio 43216-1989
Phone: 614-221-4221 and (800) 274-5297
Fax: (614) 744-2300 and (614) 744-2301
Web site: http://www.barkanneff.com/
- and -
John Marshall, Esq.
Edward R. Forman, Esq.
Marshall and Morrow LLC
111 West Rich Street, Suite 430
Columbus, Ohio 43215-5296
Phone: 614-463-9790
Web site: http://www.marshallandmorrow.com/
DOWNER EDI: To Face Lawsuit over February Profit Guidance
---------------------------------------------------------
As of Oct. 3, 2007, Slater & Gordon is in the final stages of preparing a
claim against Downer EDI Ltd. in relation to EDI’s disclosure of the status
of its Iluka contractual dispute, according to the Web site
http://www.delisted.com.au.
On Jan. 23, 2007, it was announced that Slater & Gordon is to launch a class
action against Downer EDI Limited on behalf of shareholders who allege that
the company failed to fully inform the Australian Stock Exchange about its
financial position.
They will allege that Downer EDI engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct
when issuing its February profit guidance and there is also the strong
possibility that the company acted in breach of its continuous disclosure
obligations regarding the status of the Iluka contractual dispute (over the
construction and development of the Douglas Mineral Sands Project in
Victoria) and its financial impact.
The company -- http://www.downeredi.com-- provides engineering and
infrastructure management services to the public and private power, rail,
road, telecommunications, mining and mineral processing sectors in
Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Recycled Phone Numbers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook Inc. is facing a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S.
District Court in San Jose, California alleging it has profited from its
members sending thousands of unauthorized text messages to mobile phone
users whose numbers previously belonged to other people, the AP WorldStream
reports.
Named plaintiff Lindsey Abrams -- a Patriot, Indiana, mother in her mid-20s -
- alleges she began receiving unsolicited text messages apparently intended
for an unidentified Facebook member shortly after she received a new mobile
number from Verizon Communications Inc. in November 2006.
The messages included explicit language and unsettling remarks, according to
Ms. Abrams' civil complaint. She alleges she was charged 10 cents per
message and told she could not block the Facebook texting without cutting
off notes she wanted to receive.
The lawsuit contends other consumers with recycled phone numbers have been
besieged with unsolicited Facebook text messages containing party
invitations and unwanted sexual advances.
The lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages.
Ms. Abrams is represented by Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney.
Facebook spokeswoman Brandee Barker declined to comment on the allegations,
citing the Palo Alto-based company's policy not to discuss lawsuits.
To contact Mr. Edelson:
Jay Edelson
Blim & Edelson, LLC
The Monadnock Building, Suite 1642
53 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 913-9400
Fax: (312) 913-9401
HANSEN NATURAL: Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in Calif. Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John F. Walter of the U.S. District Court for the central District
of California dismissed the consolidated securities fraud class action filed
against Hansen Natural Corp.
From November 2006 through December 2006, several plaintiffs filed
shareholder class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against Hansen and certain of its employees, officers
and directors, entitled:
-- “Hutton v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
07599),”
-- “Kingery v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
07771),”
-- “Williams v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
01369),”
-- “Ziolkowski v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. ED 06-
01403),” and
-- “Walker v. Hansen Natural Corp., et al. (No. 06-
08229).”
On Feb. 27, 2007, the Class Actions were consolidated by the District Court
and styled as “In re Hansen Natural Corporation Securities Litigation (CV06-
07599 JFW (PLAx)).”
The Court appointed Jason E. Peltier as lead plaintiff and approved lead
counsel. Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint on
April 30, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2007).
The consolidated class-action complaint supersedes all previously filed
class-action complaints and is the operative complaint to which the Company
must respond.
Lead Plaintiff alleges, on behalf of all persons who purchased Hansen common
stock during the period beginning Nov. 12, 2001 through Nov. 9, 2006, that
Hansen and the individual defendants made misleading statements and
omissions of material fact which artificially inflated the market price of
Hansen common stock throughout the Class Period.
Plaintiffs further allege that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by misrepresenting or failing to disclose that defendants
incorrectly dated stock option grants, that the Company’s internal controls
were inadequate, and that, as a result, defendants engaged in improper
accounting practices. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.
On June 25, Hansen filed its motion to dismiss consolidated class action
complaint. On Aug. 16, lead plaintiff Jason E. Peltier filed his Omnibus
Opposition to defendant’s motions to dismiss consolidated class action
complaints.
On Sept. 12, defendants filed their Consolidated Reply Brief in Support of
their Motions to Dismiss. The court found the matter appropriate for
submission on the papers without argument. The matter was, therefore,
removed from the court's Sept. 24 hearing calendar, and the parties were
given advance telephonic notice.
On Oct. 16, after considering the moving, opposing, reply, and supplemental
papers, and the arguments therein, the court grants without leave to amend
Hansen's Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Class Action Complaint as well as
the individual defendants' motions.
The suit is "In Re: Hansen Natural Corporation Securities Litigation, Case
No.: CV 06-7599-JFW(PLAx)," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, under the Honorable John F. Walter.
Hansen Natural Corp. -- http://www.hansens.com/-- is a holding company and
carry on no operating business except through direct wholly owned
subsidiaries, Hansen Beverage Co. (HBC). HBC has two segments, Direct Store
Delivery and Warehouse.
INTEL CORP: Suit Over x86 Microprocessors Continue in Del. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware entered an
Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss most of indirect purchasers’
claims that say Intel Corp. exercises monopoly in the market for x86
microprocessors.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed the purported class action
against Intel Corp. in July 2005 in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware for violation of the antitrust laws. The lawsuit is
on behalf of consumers who purchased Intel-based personal computers.
The lawsuit alleges that Intel holds a monopoly in the market for
microprocessors that run the most popular operating systems (x86
microprocessors) and has unlawfully maintained its monopoly power. According
the allegations in the lawsuit, these actions have harmed consumers by
inflating prices for computers beyond what customers would have had to pay
if there was fair and vigorous competition in the market.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has ordered all related cases
transferred to the District of Delaware for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. The Court entered its Memorandum and Order appointing
interim lead counsel on April 18, 2006.
Thereafter, pursuant to the Court’s Order, the Plaintiffs filed the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint and a number of stipulations regarding
coordination of discovery in the MDL action with the “AMD v. Intel, 1:05-cv-
441” action, also pending in the District of Delaware.
Discovery of defendant and numerous third parties is ongoing. In addition,
in July, 2007, the Court entered an Order denying defendant’s motion to
dismiss most of the indirect purchaser claims at issue.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Cal. Judge Junks “Chau” Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed a purported class action filed against International
Business Machines Corp (aka IBM Corp; NYSE: IBM) over overtime “exempt”
status, Paul McDougall of the InformationWeek reports.
Filed on July 9, 2007, former employee Tom Chau claims the tech giant owes
back pay to thousands of workers wrongfully classified as exempt from
overtime compensation. Mr. Chau further claims he was forced to work more
than 40 hours per week without extra compensation and was not given
mandatory rest breaks, as required by California law.
But Judge Chesney said that Mr. Chau cannot sue IBM for back wages because,
in exchange for severance pay, he signed a contract pledging not to take
legal action against the company.
Mr. Chau's "claims are barred by the plain language of a valid and
enforceable general release and covenant not to sue," the judge said, in a
decision handed down earlier this month.
IBM has denied that it purposely withheld overtime from sales reps.
The suit is “Chau v. International Business Machines, Case Number:
3:2007cv03541,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, under the Hon. Maxine M. Chesney.
IT'S JUST LUNCH: Faces Suit Over Fraudulently Arranged Dates
------------------------------------------------------------
It's Just Lunch International (IJL) was named defendant in a purported class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging that the dating service oversells and misrepresents potential
dates, overcharges, and refuses to give refunds.
The suit, which also names It's Just Lunch, Inc., and Harry and Sally, Inc.
as defendants, was filed by attorney John Balestriere on Oct. 15, 2007 on
behalf of a woman known only in court documents as “E. Packman.”
The company is accused in court documents of going to the extent of lying to
clients to close deals and make profit.
In an interview with ABC News, Mr. Balestriere said that: "They (defendants)
lie every step of the way. They lie to sign up the client. They lie in the
initial interview and they lie about the prospective dates."
The suit specifically charges that the company coaches its employees on how
to deal with clients, even providing scripts, and repeatedly lies about how
many clients are in its database. The information they misled clients about
include marital status, employment status, criminal background, age, health
status, physical appearance, religious convictions, politicians and
recreational interests.
Court papers indicated that the company imposes monthly client sign-up
quotas on their franchises, who receive commissions when they sign clients
up. Franchises "do not receive any compensation on their sales ... unless
the total number of sales equals or exceeds the monthly quota set by IJL,"
according to the complaint.
The suit is seeking class-action status. It is also seeking for an
injunction against the defendants and more than $5 million in damages.
The suit is “Packman v. It's Just Lunch International et al., Case No. 1:07-
cv-09227-SHS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Sidney H. Stein.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John Balestriere, Esq.
Ballestriere, P.L.L.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 2700
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (212) 374-5401
Fax: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jb@balestriere.net
JC PENNEY: Recalls Art Sets in Wooden Boxes with High Lead Level
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney, of Plano, Texas, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, is recalling about 19,000 deluxe wood art sets.
The company said the surface paint on the outside of the wooden box contains
excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No
injuries have been reported.
The recalled art set consists of a wooden box with several pull-out trays
containing 177 different art items, including paints and brushes.
These recalled art sets were manufactured in Taiwan and Vietnam and are
being sold through the J.C. Penney catalog and Web site from September 2005
through August 2007 for about $40.
Picture of recalled art sets:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08023.jpg
Consumers are advised to take the recalled products 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
JDS UNIPHASE: Trial Begins for Calif. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A trial for a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against JDS
Uniphase Corp., and certain of its former and current officers and directors
in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California has begun.
According to a report by John O'Brien of The Legal News Line, Connecticut
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal alleged that JDS Uniphase hid from its
group of investors the fact that it expected heavy losses in 2001. Its
investors included the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.
Commenting on the case, Mr. Blumenthal, who hired Labaton Sucharow of New
York to try the case, told The Legal News Line, "The company and its owners
secretly jumped ship, leaving investors to sink."
He adds, “I will vigorously assist efforts to recover tens of millions in
state dollars lost when JDS executives misled investors, even as they cashed
out by cashing in on inside information.”
A.G. Blumenthal also commented, "This trial sends a powerful message: Lie
about your company's financial situation and you will pay a heavy price."
Case Background
On July 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California consolidated all the securities actions then filed in or
transferred to that court as, "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-02-1486 CW," and appointed the Connecticut
Retirement Plans and Trust Funds as lead plaintiff.
The complaint in "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation" purports
to be brought on behalf of a class consisting of those who acquired the
company's securities from
Oct. 28, 1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the company's common stock pursuant to its
acquisitions of The Optical Coating Laboratory, Inc. (OCLI), E-TEK Dynamics,
Inc., and SDL Ltd.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants made material misstatements and omissions
concerning demand for the company's products, improperly recognized revenue,
overstated the value of inventory, and failed to timely write down goodwill.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various violations of
the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.
In January 2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against the
company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles Abbe, and granted in
part and denied in part the motion to dismiss claims against Kevin
Kalkhoven.
Defendants subsequently filed answers denying liability for the claims
asserted against them. On Dec. 21, 2005, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
Fact discovery in the case is substantially complete. Each party has
noticed and taken depositions of both party and non- party witnesses.
On Aug. 24, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
motions for summary judgment and deferred ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for
partial summary judgment.
The suit is "In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation, C-02-1486,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
under Judge Claudia Wilken with referral to Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP
Phone: 415-288-4545 and 619-231-1058
Fax: 415-288-4534 and 619-231-7423
E-mail: reedk@lerachlaw.com
e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com
- and -
John Frith Stewart, Esq.
Segal, Stewart, Cutler, Lindsay, Janes & Ber
1400-B Waterfront Street, 325 West Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202-4251
Phone: 502-568-5600
Representing the defendants are:
Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
Jordan David Eth, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA
Phone: 94105-2482
Fax: (415) 268-7000 and 415-268-7522
E-mail: PBesirof@mofo.com
jeth@mofo.com
MEDTRONIC INC: Defibrillator Suit Lawyers Answer Recall FAQs
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing heart patients that filed the first personal injury
and class actions against Medtronic Inc., and related companies, for
manufacturing defective defibrillator leads, issued a list of answers to
common questions on the recall.
"We wish to educate patients with defibrillators as to how they can identify
if they received the recalled lead as well as to provide basic information
for injured patients on hiring an attorney and their legal rights," stated
attorney Wendy R. Fleishman of the national plaintiffs’ law firm Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "However, first it is critical that
patients with the recalled Medtronic lead promptly meet with their physician
and discuss their options."
The following questions and answers were posted on the website –
http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com-- operated by Lieff Cabraser:
1. What is a defibrillator lead?
Leads are thin insulated wires connected to a
defibrillator that carry electric impulses to the heart
in patients with a heart rhythm abnormality.
2. Why has Medtronic recalled its defibrillator leads?
Medtronic actually refuses to call its actions a recall.
Instead, on October 15, 2007, Medtronic issued a
"voluntary market suspension" to remove its line of
Sprint Fidelis defibrillation leads from the market.
Medtronic stated that the leads are prone to fracturing
which can cause the defibrillator to deliver unnecessary
shocks or not operate at all.
3. What Sprint Fidelis leads were withdrawn from the
market?
The Sprint Fidelis leads that have been recalled contain
the model numbers 6949, 6948, 6931 and 6930.
4. I don't have a Medtronic brand defibrillator. Am I
therefore unaffected by all of this?
No. The Sprint Fidelis leads were connected to
defibrillators made by Medtronic as well as other
defibrillator manufacturers such as Guidant and St.
Jude, and implanted in or sold to an estimated 268,000
patients worldwide since 2004 -- with roughly 235,000
patients still relying on these implanted leads.
Check your wallet card for your defibrillator and see if
anywhere on the card the model numbers 6949, 6948, 6931
and 6930 appear -- either by themselves or at the
beginning of a longer number. If these numbers do
appear, you most likely received a Medtronic Sprint
Fidelis lead.
5. How many patients have suffered an injury?
Medtronic reported that at least five patient deaths
associated with fractured Sprint Fidelis leads have
occurred and that a small number of patients have had
their lead fracture.
However, as listed in an October 16, 2007 letter from
Dr. Sidney M. Wolfe of Public Citizen to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), over 1,600 injury reports
have been filed with the agency over the past two years.
More than 750 of these reports listed the patient as
having received "inappropriate shocks."
6. The Sprint Fidelis lead to my defibrillator has not
fractured. What should I do?
The FDA recommends that defibrillator settings be
adjusted at the patient's next scheduled follow-up visit
with their doctor. Doing so may increase the likelihood
that a fracture will be detected before a patient is
harmed. Unfortunately, no test exists to accurately
predict whether a patient's lead will fracture.
The FDA does not recommend the routine surgical removal
of a fractured lead because removal carries risks.
Instead, physicians should weigh the benefits and risks
of either continuing to use the lead with careful
monitoring or implanting a different lead model and then
capping the old lead so it is no longer useable.
7. What is the fracture rate for patients with the recalled
Medtronic heart lead?
The FDA has stated: "Current adverse event information
indicates that fractures have occurred in less than 1
percent of the approximately 268,000 of these leads
implanted worldwide. We don't know if this rate of
adverse events will remain constant or increase over the
life of these leads."
The number of injury reports filed with the FDA for the
Sprint Fidelis lead, however, have been escalating with
time suggesting the fracture rate is increasing.
Moreover, clinical studies have found a much greater
failure rate. In a study of patients at Cornell
University Medical Center, 17% of patients experienced
abnormal right ventricular sensing, requiring early
revision (change out) in 4% of patients.
In addition, the recalled Medtronic heart leads, because
of their smaller diameter than competing products, were
often used in young adults and child heart patients.
Medical researches have reported a higher fracture rate
with this population. It is believed the leads have come
under greater stress in more-active people, including
kids, adolescents and younger adults.
8. What exactly is the defect with the Medtronic heart
lead?
Medtronic has not disclosed the precise reason why its
Sprint Fidelis leads are fracturing. In a "Dear Doctor"
letter from March 2007 Medtronic claimed surgeons were
responsible for causing the fracturing during
implantation of the device.
In lawsuits filed by heart patients represented by
plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiffs allege that the
defect is attributable to the small diameter of the coil
and conductors in the lead which makes it prone to
stress damage both during and after implant surgery.
Fracture eventually occurs when the conductor is
critically overstressed.
9. What types of injuries have patients with fractured
defibrillator leads suffered?
Many patients have experienced terrifying and
devastating episodes of repeated electrical shocks due
to a fractured lead. In some cases, the patient has died
or the lead did not operate properly when the patient
experienced abnormal heart rhythms.
10. Why is Medtronic legally responsible?
Manufacturers of medical devices have a duty to patients
to produce safe products. In lawsuits against Medtronic
prepared by plaintiffs' counsel, our clients allege that
Medtronic misrepresented the safety of the Sprint
Fidelis lead.
Hundreds of injuries linked to Sprint Fidelis heart
defibrillator wires had been reported as of the end of
2006. The high and early failure rate of Medtronic
Sprint Fidelis leads was also reported in a medical
journal in 2006. Yet, Medtronic failed to issue a recall
and instead continued to sell the devices.
11. Has Medtronic agreed to compensate injured persons for
their pain and suffering and families of loved ones who
died?
No. Medtronic has not agreed to compensate patients for
their extreme injuries. Only by filing a lawsuit or
otherwise making a claim against Medtronic can injured
patients and families of loved ones who died obtain
justice and compensation for their injuries.
12. I was injured. How quickly must I hire an attorney?
You should not feel pressured to make an immediate
decision about hiring counsel. Focusing on restoring
your health or mourning the loss of loved ones should
take precedence over liability issues at this difficult
time. However, keep in mind that each state imposes a
deadline for filing lawsuits. This deadline is known as
the statute of limitations, which in certain states is
one year from the date of the accident.
Information for Heart Patients
On October 15, 2007, due to reports of adverse events and at least five
patient deaths with defibrillator leads sold under the brand name Sprint
Fidelis, Medtronic issued a recall of the product.
Leads are the thin insulated wires connected to a defibrillator that carry
electric impulses to the heart. Your wallet card will specify the
manufacturer of your defibrillator leads.
Medtronic recall on the net:
http://www.personalinjurylawyeramerica.com
For more information, contact:
Wendy Fleishman
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Phone: 212-355-9500 (office)
OHIO CASUALTY: Nov. 19 Hearing Set for “Lazarus” Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio will hold a fairness
hearing on Nov. 19, 2007 at 1:00 p.m. for a proposed settlement in the
matter, “Carol Lazarus, v. The Ohio Casualty Group, et al., Case No. CV-99-
394092.”
The hearing will take place at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse, Courtroom
16B, 1200 Ontario Street, Cleveland, Ohio.
Case Background
The lawsuit claims that between Oct. 5, 1994 and Sept. 2, 1997, the law in
Ohio changed such that only one premium had to be paid for
uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) insurance coverage on one household
vehicle in order for all family members in the household to be afforded
coverage.
Prior to Oct. 5, 1994, Ohio Casualty charged premiums for
uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage based on the number of household
vehicles covered, in order for all family members in the household to be
afforded coverage.
The suit claims that the change in the law potentially resulted in a saving
of premiums to policyholders without sacrificing insurance protection to
family members living in the same household.
The class includes all named insureds of The Ohio Casualty Group, American
Fire & Casualty Company, West American Insurance Company, The Ohio Casualty
Insurance Company, and Ohio Security Insurance Company who, at any time
between Oct. 5, 1994 and Sept. 2, 1997, inclusive, and while they were
residents of Ohio, paid premiums for personal lines uninsured/underinsured
motorist insurance on more than one vehicle at the same time.
Settlement Terms
Under the settlement, eligible class members you may be entitled to a
payment. The settlement will pay eligible class members who timely file
claims an amount equal to approximately 129% of the total UM/UIM premiums
paid by each Class member for UM/UIM coverage on more than one vehicle at
the same time during the Class Period, as reflected on Ohio Casualty's
records, up to a maximum amount of $5.6 million.
For more details, contact:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
Dworken & Bernstein Co. L.P.A.
Suite 200, 60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077-3949
Phone: 440-946-7656, 440-352-3391, and (877) 299-7708
Fax: (440) 352-3469
Web site: http://www.dworken-bernstein.com
OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Continues in Pa. Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------
A suit continues in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against certain defendants sued by Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, which represented direct purchasers of
Oriented Strand Board.
The original suite was filed against:
* Louisiana-Pacific Corporation;
* Georgia-Pacific Corporation;
* Weyerhaeuser Company;
* Potlatch Corporation;
* Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.;
* Norbord, Inc.;
* J.M. Huber Corporation,
The complaint was brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB during the
period from June 1, 2002 through the present, and alleges violations of the
antitrust laws by defendants’ actions in reducing the available supply of
OSB and fixing the price at which it was sold.
The cases are consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed on March 31, 2006. Discovery of millions of pages of documents and
nearly 100 depositions is complete. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification and denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the complaint
and for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007. Trial preparation is
underway.
Meanwhile, Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. has entered into an $8.6 million
agreement with the direct purchaser plaintiffs, settling on a class-wide
basis all claims asserted against it (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007).
The suit is "Sawbell Lumber Co. v. Louisiana-Pacific Corp., et al., Case No.
2:06-cv-00826-PD," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond.
Representing the defendants are:
William P. Butterfield, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll
1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
E-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com
- and –
Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq.
Spector Roseman and Kodroff
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-496-0300
E-mail: jcorrigan@srk-law.com
Representing the company are:
Barack S. Echols, Esq.
James Howard Mutchnik, Esq.
James H. Schink, Esq.
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP
200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350
E-mail: bechols@kirkland.com
jmutchnik@kirkland.com
- and -
Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq.
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP
1600 Market St., Ste. 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-751-2000
Fax: 215-972-7475
E-mail: sswirsky@schnader.com
PHLX: Settlement of Suit Over Rejected Archipelago Bid Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court has approved a settlement of the class
action “Ginsburg v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, et al.,” the Exchange News
Direct reports.
The suit was filed by ex-seatholder Chuck Ginsburg. It accuses chief
executive Meyer Frucher of serving his own interest by rejecting a $50
million bid by Archipelago in 2004 in favor of another deal that would give
him a generous equity bonus.
It also says that PHLX gave up nearly 90 percent of its equity when it
accepted a capital infusion from Merrill, Citadel, UBS and Credit Suisse,
among others. This it did after rejecting another offer –- that of
electronic options and futures trading powerhouse Timberhill, according to
the lawsuit.
Named defendants are:
-- Merrill Lynch Pierce,
-- Fenner & Smith Inc.,
-- Citadel Derivatives Group LLC,
-- Credit Suisse First Boston Next Fund Inc.,
-- Citigroup Financial Products Inc.,
-- Morgan Stanley & Co., and
-- UBS Securities LLC.
In June, parties to the suit entered into settlement talks (Class Action
Reporter, June 28, 2007).
Commenting on the recent development, nMeyer S. Frucher, the Exchange's
chief executive officer stated, "This is a very exciting time for the
Exchange and we are delighted that the Delaware court has approved
settlement of the litigation which has created uncertainty at the Exchange
for the last 16 months. This is a good result for the Exchange and all of
its constituents."
The Exchange’s counsel are:
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP
300 East Lombard Street, 19th Floor
Baltimore, MD 21202-3268
Phone: (410) 528-5600
Website: http://www.ballardspahr.com
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
1875 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-1238 U.S.A.
Phone: 202-303-1000
Fax: 202-303-2000
- and -
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
Chase Manhattan Centre
1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1347
Telephone: 302-658-9200
Telecopier: 302-658-3989
Web Site: http://www.mnat.com
POZEN INC: $11M N.C. Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set Dec.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina will hold
a fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed
$11,205,000 settlement of the matter in "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-505."
The hearing will be held at the L. Richardson Preyer Federal Courthouse, 324
West Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27401.
Any objections or 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 Feb. 9, 2008.
Case Background
Holders of the company's securities filed five purported class actions in
2004 against POZEN Inc. and Dr. John R. Plachetka, chairman, president and
chief executive officer, alleging violations of securities laws. These
actions were filed as a single consolidated class action complaint on Dec.
20, 2004.
The consolidated complaint alleges, among other claims, violations of
federal securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the company and a current officer, arising out of
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company concerning its
product candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.
By order dated Nov. 4, 2004, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who filed
a consolidated amended complaint on Dec. 20, 2004. The defendants named in
the amended complaint are Pozen and John R. Plachetka, chairman and chief
executive officer.
The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff class consisting
of purchasers of stock between Oct. 4, 2002 and May 28, 2004.
On Jan. 27, 2005, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. On Aug. 30, 2005, the motion to dismiss was denied.
On March 27, 2006, a motion for class certification was filed. The court
granted the motion and certified the case as a class action on Feb. 28, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007).
Settlement
Under the settlement, defendants agreed to create a $11,205,000 cash
Settlement Fund. The balance of this fund, after payment of court-approved
attorneys' fees and expenses and the costs of claims administration,
including the costs of printing and mailing the settlement notice and the
cost of publishing notice, will be divided among all Class Members who
submit valid claim forms.
For more details, contact:
In re POZEN Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.
Claims Administrator
PO Box 9173
Dublin, OH 43017-4173
Phone: 1-866-277-8964
The suit is "In Re: Pozen, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-505,"
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
under Judge Frank W. Bullock, Jr.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
James E. McGovern, Esq.
Steven J. Toll, Esq.
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Ave., N.W., West Tower, Ste. 500
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-408-4600
Fax: 202-408-4699
E-mail: mhandley@cmht.com
dsommers@cmht.com
Harry H. Albritton, Jr. Esq.
Marvin Key Blount, Jr., Esq.
The Blount Law Firm, P.L.L.C.
POD 58,
Greenville, NC 27835-0058
Phone: 252-752-6000
Fax: 252-752-2174
E-mail: harry@theblountlawfirm.com
deborah@theblountlawfirm.com
- and -
Richard A. Maniskas Esq.
Marc A. Topaz, Esq.
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
280 King Of Prussia Rd.,
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 610-822-0247
Representing the defendants is:
Pressly McAuley Millen, Esq.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice
P.O. Box 831
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: 919-755-2100 and 919-755-2135
Fax: 919-755-6067
E-mail: pmillen@wcsr.com
SEATTLE SUPERSONICS: Fans File Lawsuit Over Alleged Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Two Seattle SuperSonics season ticket holders filed a purported class action
in King County Superior Court against the team for breach of contract and a
violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, Darnell Mayberry of
NewsOK.com reports.
Carolyn Bechtel, a 58-year-old Kirkland, Wash. resident, and Patrick Sheehy,
a 36-year-old Seattle resident, are accusing the team of false advertising
to ticket buyers who purchased tickets so that as a result, they are under
the impression that the Sonics would play in Seattle through 2010.
The suit claims that a letter from the team was sent to potential season
ticket buyers soon after Sonics Chairman Clay Bennett and his ownership
group purchased the franchise in July 2006.
The letter, according to the suit, promised that season ticket buyers for
the 2007-08 season would be guaranteed the opportunity to purchase tickets
at the same price until the 2009-10 season.
According to the suit, “(The ownership group) purposefully created this
impression in an attempt to persuade season ticket holders to renew their
tickets despite the fact that it knew or should have known that the Sonics'
future in Seattle for the next three seasons was at best uncertain and more
likely than not the team was going to be moved to (the ownership group's)
home, Oklahoma City, Okla.”
The suit seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and attorney fees
as well as class-action status.
For more details, contact:
Michael David Myers, Esq.
Thomas Baisch, Esq.
MYERS & COMPANY, P.L.L.C.
1809 Seventh Avenue, Suite 700
Seattle, Washington 98101
Phone: (206) 398-1188
Fax: (206) 398-1189
E-mail: mmyers@myers-company.com
tbaisch@myers-company.com
TFT-LCD LITIGATION: DoJ Wants Stay of Merits Discovery Extended
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class counsel in the suit, “In re: TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1827” is opposing a motion of the
Department of Justice for an extended stay of merits discovery.
In February 2007, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court in Wisconsin against:
* LG Philips LCD Company Ltd.,
* LG Philips LCD America, Inc.,
* LG Electronics Inc.,
* Royal Philips Electronics N.V.,
* Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
* Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
* AU Optronics Corporation,
* AU Optronics Corporation America,
* Chi Mei Optoelectronics,
* Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.,
* Sharp Corporation,
* Sharp Electronics Corporation,
* Toshiba Corporation,
* Matsushita Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
* Hitachi Ltd.,
* Hitachi Displays, Ltd.,
* Hitachi America Ltd.,
* Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.,
* Sanyo Epson Imaging Devices Corporation,
* NEC Corporation,
* NEC LCD Technologies, Ltd.,
* IDT International Ltd.,
* International Display Technology Co., Ltd.,
* International Display Technology USA Inc.,
* Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd., and
* HannStar Display Corporation,
The complaint was brought on behalf of all persons and entities residing in
Minnesota who, from January 1, 2002 to present, purchased Thin-Film
Transistor Liquid Crystal Displays (TFT-LCDs or panels) in the United States
indirectly from the Defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants
conspired with the purpose and effect of fixing prices, allocating market
shares, eliminating and suppressing competition, constraining supply,
limiting capacity, and committing other unlawful practices designed to
inflate and stabilize the prices of TFT-LCDs.
The case was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
by order dated April 17, 2007 to the Honorable Susan Y. Illston in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
In September, 2007, the Court held a hearing on the motion of the Department
of Justice for an extended stay of merits discovery, which is opposed by
class counsel.
UNUMPROVIDENT CORP: Dec. 10 Hearing Set for ERISA Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee will hold a
fairness hearing on Dec. 10, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $5,000,000.00
settlement in the matter, “Doreen Gee, et al., v. Unumprovident Corporation,
et al., Case No. 1:03-CV-147.”
The hearing will be held at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, in the Third Floor Courtroom, or in the Courtroom then
occupied by Judge Curtis L. Collier.
Any objections to the settlement must be made on or before Dec. 7, 2007.
Case Background
In January 2004, named Plaintiffs Doreen Gee and Bonnie Scanlon, on behalf
of themselves and the Settlement Class, filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint for Breach of Fiduciary Duty under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to allow the investment of the
Plan’s assets in Unum Group (UnumProvident) Company Stock during the Class
Period even though Unum Group Company Stock was an imprudent investment.
The Defendants include Unum Group (Company), J. Harold Chandler, Thomas R.
Watjen, William L. Armstrong, Jon S. Fossel, Ronald E. Goldsberry, Hugh O.
Maclellan, Jr., A.S. MacMillan, Jr., George J. Mitchell, Cynthia A.
Montgomery, James L. Moody, C. William Pollard, Lawrence R. Pugh, Lois D.
Rice, John W. Rowe, Burton Sorensen, the Company’s Benefit Finance
Committee.
The following seven individual members of the Company’s Benefit Finance
Committee were also named as defendants, Robert C. Greving, Eileen C.
Farrar, J. Christopher Collins, Timothy G. Arnold, John H. Iwanicki, Ralph
A. Rogers, Jr. and John S. Roberts, the Company’s Plan Administrator/Benefit
Administrative Committee.
Also, the following four individual Company employees were also named as
defendants, Robert C. Cornett, Marcia Leander, Janeice Anderton and Linda
Levesque.
The Court has not ruled in favor of either side. Both sides agreed to the
settlement to ensure a resolution, avoid the cost and risk of continued
litigation, and/or to provide a recovery to Class Members.
The Court has conditionally certified this case as a class action for
purposes of the Settlement. Thus, it is not possible for any participants
or beneficiaries to exclude themselves from the benefits of the
Settlement. As a Settlement Class member, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders that are entered in the Action for all claims that were
or could have been asserted in the Action or are otherwise included in the
release under the
Settlement.
Class members include any person who was a participant in the UnumProvident
401(k) Retirement Plan (Plan), at any time between Nov. 17, 1999 and March
23, 2003 (Class Period) and whose Plan accounts included investments in the
Unum Group (f/k/a UnumProvident) Company Stock Fund, or a beneficiary,
alternate payee, representative, or successor-in-interest of any such person
(Settlement Class).
The Defendants agreed to create a settlement fund of $5 million to be
divided among eligible Class Members, after compensation payments to the
named Plaintiffs, and payment of other costs and expenses of the
settlement.
The Settlement releases certain claims against the Company and the
individual Defendants with respect to the investment of the Plan’s assets in
Company stock during the Class Period.
On Sept. 21, 2007, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval
of the Settlement.
For more details, contact:
Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 822-0242 or 1-888-262-1556
Fax: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: unum401kerisasettlement@sbtklaw.com
WILLIS GROUP: $8.5M Gender Bias Suit Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. announce that class members
employed at Willis of New York, Inc., Willis of New Jersey, Inc. and Willis
of Massachusetts, Inc. in executive positions have been awarded preliminary
approval in one of the largest per capita recoveries ever in a sex
discrimination lawsuit.
The case was commenced in 2001 on behalf of an alleged nationwide class of
present and former female officer and officer equivalent employees alleging
that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their gender and
seeking injunctive relief, money damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The court has denied plaintiffs' motions to certify a nationwide class or to
grant nationwide discovery, but has certified a class of female officers and
officer equivalent employees based in the company's Northeast (New York, New
Jersey and Massachusetts) offices. The class consists of approximately 200
women.
In June 2007, the parties reached a settlement in principle on the class
claims and with the two remaining named plaintiffs on their individual
claims for an amount that will not have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 6, 2007).
Judge Gerard Lynch U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has granted preliminary approval to the final terms of the settlement.
Under the settlement, Willis agreed to pay $8.5 million to the class
members, and will separately pay for attorneys' fees and expenses. This
settlement represents the full amount of lost earnings calculated by
Plaintiffs' expert, based upon the statistical analysis, which Plaintiffs
planned to present at trial, and the average recovery will be approximately
$50,000 per woman.
In addition, Willis will make changes in its compensation practices and
performance evaluation system. A monitor will be appointed by the Court, and
during the three years of the consent decree, the monitor will review
compensation decisions made by Willis to ensure that there are no
inappropriate disparities in compensation related to gender.
According to lead attorney for the plaintiffs, Christine E. Webber, "The
class includes approximately 180 women who held 'officer level positions' at
these three Willis offices from October 30, 1998 through December 31, 2001.
"We think that changing Willis' practices to prevent discrimination in the
future is equally important. The relief set forth in this consent decree is
an important step for women employees at Willis. They have been doing the
same work as their male peers, and they deserve to receive the same rewards
for their efforts. More remains to be done," said Ms. Webber. "The class we
represented extended only through December 2001, but other litigation is
pending which seeks redress for the same practices from 2002 to the present.
We hope that litigation is equally successful."
"We're pleased that through this class action, members of the class were
able to obtain relief for disparities in pay that may have eluded them if
they had pursued their claims individually, as a result of the recent
Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.,"
said co-lead counsel Joseph M. Sellers, also a partner with Cohen Milstein.
For more information, contact:
Deborah Schwartz
Media Relations Inc.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
Phone: 301-897-8838
Cell: 240-355-8838
Fax: 301-897-9143
E-mail: deborah@mediarelationsinc.com
XYBERNAUT CORP: In Talks to Settle Shareholders’ Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Xybernaut Corp. is in settlement mediation to resolve a suit filed by
shareholders in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware.
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah filed a class action on April 15, 2005
against Xybernaut Corporation in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The action was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Xybernaut securities
between March 27, 2003 and April 8, 2005. Specifically, the case alleges
that Xybernaut omitted or misrepresented material facts about its financial
condition, business prospects, revenue expectations and internal controls
during the Class Period.
Xybernaut filed for bankruptcy in August, 2005. The securities litigation
was stayed as a result of the bankruptcy filing and the action was recently
transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia. On January 19, 2007, the
Court appointed lead counsel and the Al Mesnad Group as lead plaintiff.
Plaintiffs have filed motions to lift the stay in order to obtain certain
documents. A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay is pending
before the Bankruptcy Court.
Plaintiffs have continued to aggressively investigate the claims against
Xybernaut, including filing a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the
securities litigation on February 2, 2007. On April 2, 2007, Defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint. Lead
Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendants' motion on May 14, 2007.
On June 8, 2007, the Court issued an order denying the Motion to Dismiss
filed by Defendants Steven A. Newman, Edward G. Newman and Martin E.
Weisberg. Accordingly, the claims again these Defendants will proceed. The
Court granted the Motion to Dismiss by Defendants Thomas D. Davis and John
F. Moynahan. Defendant Martub E. Weisberg filed a Motion to Stay this action
in June 2007, so as to permit private mediation.
The Court granted the Motion to Stay the Xybernaut litigation. The parties
submitted a written status report to the Court on September 10, 2007, which
advised the Court as to the status of the settlement mediation.
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
October 29-30, 2007
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The InterContinental Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 6, 2007
MEALEY'S BENZENE LITIGATION CONFERENCE THE RITZ-CARLTON, PHOENIX
Mealeys Seminars
The Ritz-Carlton, Phoenix
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 6 - 7, 2007
CHEMICAL PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Chicago
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
November 7-8, 2007
BAD FAITH LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
November 7-9, 2007
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION DEFECT SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Casuarina Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8-9, 2007
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
November 8-9, 2007
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT SECURITIES, TAX,
ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY AND COMPLIANCE
ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
November 9, 2007
2007 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
Westin South Coast Plaza Hotel
Costa Mesa, CA
Contact: 818-783-7156
November 14-15, 2007
MEALEY'S GLOBAL REINSURANCE FORUM
Mealeys Seminars
Elbow Beach, Bermuda
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 29 - 30, 2007
PREPARING FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LIABILITY
American Conference Institute
New Orleans
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
December 10-11, 2007
LEXISNEXIS TRIAL STRATEGIES SEMINAR & EXPO
PREPARING AND DEFENDING THE ULTIMATE CATASTROPHIC PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Mealeys Seminars
Sheraton City Center, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 10, 2007
MEALEY'S SECURITIZATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Marriott Financial Center, NYC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 10-11, 2007
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUPERCONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Madison, Washington, D.C.
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 11-12, 2007
MEALEY'S VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 12-14, 2007
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Waldorf Astoria, New York
Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480
February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-320-2227
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
October 30, 2007
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LAW TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ADVANTAGES &
DISADVANTAGES OF GOING IN-HOUSE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
October 31, 2007
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: VIATICAL SETTLEMENTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
November 8, 2007
LEXISNEXIS® INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 101 TELECONFERENCE SERIES: COPYRIGHTS
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
December 13, 2007
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR
CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org
New Securities Fraud Cases
FIRST HOME: Becker & Poliakoff Files Securities Suit in Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. announced that a federal securities
class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division), on behalf of all persons
who purchased one or more real properties for investment purposes from First
Home Builders of Florida, a Florida general partnership in Cape Coral,
Florida or Lehigh Acres, Florida between September 1, 2003 and December 31,
2005, based upon representations made by First Home and/or its agents,
including the real estate brokerage firm of D'Alessandro & Woodyard, Inc.,
that:
(a) investors would receive a fourteen percent (14%) or
greater return on their investment based upon a tenant
occupying, and then purchasing, each property;
(b) the tenants for each property would be procured solely
through the efforts and expertise of First Home and/or
D&W (and/or their respective affiliates or co-brokers);
and
(c) no further cash outlay would be required from investors
other than the initial contract deposit.
The Complaint alleges that First Home, D&W, and several of its officers and
directors, violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false
and misleading statements to prospective investors in order to induce them
to purchase real estate investment properties from First Home.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
fraudulently induced investors to purchase real estate investment properties
in Lee County, Florida by promising that:
(a) defendants would procure tenants for all properties
purchased by investors;
(b) the rental income generated from these tenants would
cover all of the investor's mortgage expenses: and
(c) investors would receive a guaranteed 14% return on
their investment after the first year.
These representations were knowingly false and misleading at the time that
they were made.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf all those who purchased real
estate investment properties from First Home during the Class Period.
For more information, contact:
Daniel L. Wallach, Esq.
3111 Stirling Road
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312
Phone: (954) 965-5049
E-mail: dwallach@becker-poliakoff.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 * * *