/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 225 Headlines ATLANTIC LOTTO: Newfoundland Couple Sues Over Daughter's Suicide CONNECTICUT: Request for Madison Permit Fees Suit Fund Filed EDWARD JONES: $127M Securities Suits Settlements Get Final Okay GUNNS LTD: Tasmanians Plan to Sue Over Proposed Pulp Mill HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifier After Reports of Water Leakage JDS UNIPHASE: CEO Denies Hiding Writedowns at Cal. Court Trial MCKESSON CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for AWP Litigation in Mass. MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Submits Plan to Improve Foster Care NESTOR TRAFFIC: Expects 2008 Ruling on Ohio Speed Program Suit NEWMONT MINING: Col. Court Okays $15M Securities Suit Settlement OLIN CORP: Dropped in Amended Suit Over Pioneer Cos. Purchase OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit ORKIN EXTERMINATING: “Butland” Decertification Appeal Nixed ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Customer Damage Suits in Cal., Ga. OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Lumber Settles for $8.6M PACER INT'L: Subsidiaries Settle Calif. Owner-Operators' Lawsuit SAIA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharge Rates SAIA INC: Dock Workers File Labor Law Violations Suit in Cal. SCIELE PHARMA: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Nix Securities Suit SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Robot on Paint's High Lead Level SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls “Skippy” Pool Toys on Laceration Hazard TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit TFT-LCD LITIGATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint YALE-NEW HAVEN: Suit Over Free Bed Funds Denied Class Status * E.U. Consumer Watchdog Chief Rejects U.S.-Style Class Action New Securities Fraud Cases BIGBAND NETWORKS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit CITIGROUP INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit MEDTRONIC INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit WSB FINANCIAL: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ********* ATLANTIC LOTTO: Newfoundland Couple Sues Over Daughter's Suicide ---------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Lottery Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed on behalf of all residents of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada) who have gambled on video lottery terminals, The Daily News reports. Newfoundland couple Keith and Cathy Piercey filed the suit claiming their daughter's gambling addiction led her to commit suicide in 2003. The suit claims that VLTs are unlike other forms of gambling, and are inherently deceptive, addictive and dangerous. The Atlantic Lottery Corp. is an organization which operates lottery games in Atlantic Canada. It is owned jointly by the four Atlantic provincial governments: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. ALC's headquarters are located in Moncton, New Brunswick. All profits returned by ALC are distributed to the provinces for their general funds. CONNECTICUT: Request for Madison Permit Fees Suit Fund Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Attorney Drew Lichtenfels, who represents the builders in a class action over Madison's building permit fees, asked the court to order the town to set aside money in case it needs to pay up, Abbe Smith of New Haven Register reports. Connecticut Superior Court Judge William T. Cremins granted class-action status to the purported class action that claims the Town of Madison’s building permit fees are excessively high (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 25, 2007). The judge made the ruling on Oct. 12, 2007 in the complex litigation division of the court. Madison is appealing the ruling. Case Background Five local area builders filed the civil suit in Superior Court, alleging that Madison's building permit fee schedule is an unconstitutional “scheme” that specifically and illegally targets the building industry as a source of town revenue (Class Action Reporter, April 29, 2007). The five builders listed in the suit are: -- Dowler Group, -- Peter Smith Building Co., -- MJM Builders, Inc., -- Paul Coady Construction, and -- Neighborhood Builders, Inc. The class includes anyone who paid for a building permit after April 1, 2003. Seeking both monetary and punitive damages as well as an injunction prohibiting the town from continuing to charge its stated fees. The lawsuit seeks total damages worth about $7 million, according to the report. In 2002, the town revised its building permit fee schedule after Town Engineer Stew MacMillan surveyed fee schedules in a number of communities throughout the area and the state and found that the town has neither the lowest nor the highest fees. Following that survey he recommended a revised schedule for building fees. In their suit, the plaintiffs allege that the fees do not reflect the actual costs the town incurs in the administration and inspection of buildings under construction. Instead, plaintiffs say, the fee schedule is being used as a revenue producing measure “in part to fund social programs, and other initiatives that have no relationship to the offering and regulation of building activity in the town.” This allegedly constitutes an illegal tax, which violates the state's Unfair Trade Practices Act. Mr. Lichtenfels also asked the court to force the town's Building Department to hire more licensed inspectors to speed up processing of applications and inspections. For more details, contact: Drew Lichtenfels, Esq. 29 Water Street, Guilford, CT 06437 Phone: 203-458-7879 Fax: 203-458-0186 EDWARD JONES: $127M Securities Suits Settlements Get Final Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- St. Louis Circuit Judge Margaret Neill finalized a $127.5 million settlement of nine securities class actions against Edward D. Jones & Co., the principal operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P., Heather Cole of the St. Charles County Business Record reports. The Jones Financial was sued in nine civil class actions that were eventually consolidated into three proceedings: (1) "Bressler, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."; (2) "Spahn IRA, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P."; and (3) "Enriquez, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P." In August 2006, Jones Financial announced a preliminary settlement agreement to resolve all three groups of lawsuits. Each of the suits claimed that Jones Financial failed to adequately disclose its revenue sharing arrangements with certain designated Preferred Mutual Fund Families. The settlement involves all of the Partnership's present and former clients who purchased and/or held shares in any of the Preferred Mutual Fund Families during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 through Dec. 31, 2004. Jones Financial has agreed to pay $55 million to former clients and for attorneys' fees, as well as any costs to administer the settlement. Additionally, Jones Financial will issue $72.5 million of credit vouchers to current clients that can be redeemed ratably over a three-year period. Any credit voucher not redeemed during the applicable year would expire after each annual redemption period. The $55 million cash component of the settlement and related administrative costs was charged against previously established legal expense accruals. The $72.5 million non-cash credit voucher component will be recognized as a reduction to revenue in the periods in which they are redeemed by clients. The company agreed to assume the cost of notice and administration of the settlement. The settlement provides for the release of all claims, debts and causes of action related to certain revenue sharing payments received by Jones Financial, fees and commissions received by the company for mutual fund trades, shelf-space arrangements, directed brokerage transactions, shareholder accounting fees and mutual fund trades generally. On Dec. 12, 2006, the Court in the Spahn case gave its preliminary approval for the settlement and directed notice be provided to class members within 120 days (Class Action Reporter, May 3, 2007). On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court in the Enriquez case entered an identical order preliminarily approving the settlement. The District Court in Bressler dismissed the lawsuit, however, the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal. The appeal has been stayed pending completion of the settlement. In October 2007, Judge Neill approved the $127.5 million settlement . Under it, about 1.3 million former customers will get a check for $18.33 mailed to them, for a total of $24 million, and 3.6 million current customers will get credit vouchers worth $20.23, according to court filings from plaintiffs' and defense attorneys. The vouchers can be applied to annual IRA fees, used to reduce commissions for equity and fixed income trades, or applied toward the $50 fee charged when a customer closes an account and moves the assets. The judges also awarded the fee request from plaintiffs' attorneys of $27 million. Edward Jones also may be reimbursed for up to $6 million for its costs administering the settlement out of any settlement money left after the former customers and plaintiffs' attorneys are paid. GUNNS LTD: Tasmanians Plan to Sue Over Proposed Pulp Mill --------------------------------------------------------- A group is planning to file a $2 billion class action against the company planning to build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania, reports say. More than 200 people voted to begin a register of potential litigants against timber company Gunns Ltd., which is planning to build the pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, north of Launceston. Gunns already received permission from the state and federal government to go ahead with the project subject to certain conditions. The Tasmanians Against the Pulp Mill (TAP) is leading the plan to launch the lawsuit. TAP chairman Bob McMahon told The voice of Tasmania Mercury: "We are looking at least at a possible $2 billion class action against Gunns Ltd. which will include thousands of claims for loss of property and housing values in the Tamar Valley, loss to businesses, loss to public amenities and potential threats to public health and safety." HUNTER FAN: Recalls Humidifier After Reports of Water Leakage ------------------------------------------------------------- Hunter Fan Co., of Memphis, Tenn., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 84,000 Warm Mist Carefree Humidifier. The company said water used in the humidifier can leak into the unit’s electrical compartment, posing a fire hazard. Hunter has received four reports of incidents involving a water leak, including one report of a fire resulting in minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves Warm Mist CareFree humidifiers sold in white and black with blue or green tinted water tanks. “Hunter” and “NiteGlo” are printed on the humidifier. Model numbers are listed on a white label on the bottom of the humidifier. Model numbers and tank sizes are: Model Numbers Name Size Description 36200 Carefree 2 Gallon White plastic Humidifier with a blue Warm Mist tinted water tank 35201, 36201 Carefree 2 Gallon White plastic Humidifier with a blue Warm Mist tinted water tank 35202, 36204 CareFree 2 Gallon White plastic Humidifier with a blue Warm Mist tinted water tank 35203, 36203, CareFree 2 Gallon White plastic 37203 Humidifier with a green Warm Mist tinted water tank 35207, 36207 CareFree 2 Gallon White plastic Humidifier with a blue Warm Mist tinted water tank 35253, 36253 CareFree Humidifier Warm Mist 2.5 Gallon Black plastic with a blue tinted water tank Picture of the recalled product: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08064f.jpg The humidifiers are made in China and sold at Lowe’s, Wal-Mart, discount and hardware stores nationwide, as well as through mail order catalogs and Web retailers from September 2005 through February 2007 for between $40 and $65. Consumers are advised to immediately stop using and unplug the recalled humidifiers. Consumers should contact Hunter Fan to receive a free replacement humidifier or refund. For additional information, contact Hunter Fan Co. toll-free at (877) 288-1145 anytime, or visit http://www.hunterfan.com. JDS UNIPHASE: CEO Denies Hiding Writedowns at Cal. Court Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- JDS Uniphase Corp. chief executive officer Jozef Straus testified last week in a shareholder class action before an Oakland, California court, Bert Hill of The Ottawa Citizen reports. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal alleged that JDS Uniphase hid from its group of investors the fact that it expected heavy losses in 2001. Last week, Mr. Straus said demand for optical gear in 2000 was "bursting at the seams." He denied he hid looming writedowns from acquisitions and excess inventory. He denied selling $123 million worth of JDS shares in July 2000 based in information abut the company's prospects. 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. 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 MCKESSON CORP: Nov. 13 Hearing Set for AWP Litigation in Mass. -------------------------------------------------------------- A Nov. 13, 2007 hearing is set for the matter, “New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund et al., v. First DataBank, Inc. and McKesson Corp. (Civil Action No. 05-11148).” The suit, originally filed in U.S. District Court in Boston in October 2006 by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro on behalf of consumers and third-party payers alleges that McKesson -- the largest pharmaceutical distributor in North America -- entered into a secret agreement to artificially inflate the reported average wholesale price (AWP) of thousands of drugs, a benchmark used by Medicaid and insurance plans to determine payment to pharmacies. On Aug. 27, 2007, the court issued its ruling on plaintiffs’ petition for class certification. The court certified a class of third party payors for purposes of liability and equitable relief, but declined to certify such a class for purposes of a damages award. The court did certify a class of percentage co-pay consumers on issues of both liability and damages. The court has set a hearing date of Nov. 13, 2007 to further address the class issues, including whether a damages class can be certified for third party payors. Following the court’s class certification order, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add a new class of uninsured consumers who paid “usual and customary” cash prices, and to add a Sherman Act or alternatively a state antitrust claim on behalf of all classes. The court has set a hearing date of Jan. 22, 2008 to consider final approval of the publicly reported proposed settlements with defendants, First DataBank, Inc. and Medi-Span, Inc. The suit is "New England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund, et al. v. First Databank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-11148-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris. Representing the plaintiffs are: George E. Barrett, Esq. Barret Johnston & Parsley 217 Second Avenue N. Nashville, TN 37201-1601 Phone: 615-244-2202 E-mail: gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com Jennifer Fountain Connolly, Esq. The Wexler Firm, LLC, 2000 One LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-346-2222 Fax: 312-346-0022 E-mail: jfc@wtwlaw.us Barbara Mahoney, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 E-mail: barbaram@hbsslaw.com - and - Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Fax: 215-496-6611 E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com Web site: http://www.srk-law.com MISSISSIPPI: Human Services Submits Plan to Improve Foster Care -------------------------------------------------------------- The Mississippi Dept. of Human Services and attorneys representing children in the state's foster care submitted a plan to the court to correct deficiencies in the state's foster care system, Ronni Mott of Jackson Free Press, reports. The plan was made with the cooperation of the Children’s Rights out of New York, the Attorney General’s office, and the Office of the Governor. The plan includes: -- providing foster children with required medical and mental health screenings, assessments, and care; -- providing foster children with at least two in-person caseworker visits per month to monitor their safety and well-being; -- licensing all foster family homes, including kinship care homes; -- increasing foster care reimbursement rates to reflect the actual costs of caring for foster children; -- limiting caseloads to 14 cases per worker; -- appointing an independent court monitor to ensure the timely implementation of reforms. “Olivia Y. v. Barbour” was originally filed in March of 2004 on behalf of six plaintiffs -- children who had allegedly fallen victim to physical and psychological harm while in the custody of the Mississippi DFCS or had simply been neglected by DFCS altogether. These six plaintiffs were representative of the over 3,500 foster children dependent upon the care of DFCS, as well as thousands more who are improperly diverted from the system. In May of 2004, seven more children joined in the lawsuit through an amended complaint. The suit alleged that the substantive constitutional due process rights of over 3,500 Mississippi foster children in state custody had been violated through the State's repeated failures to provide essential medical care, protection against neglect and abuse, and minimally acceptable placement and adoption services. Rather than face trial, Mississippi agreed to a court-supervised process of reforming its child welfare system such to meet and exceed constitutional, federal, and national child protective standards. The suit was filed against the Governor of Mississippi, the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services, and the Director of DHS’s Division of Familyand Children’s Services, all in their official capacities. The U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee has approved the settlement of the suit (Class Action Reporter, July 13, 2007). The suit is “Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 04-CV-251,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi on March 30, 2004. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marcia Lowry Eric Thompson Tara Crean Margaret Ross Children's Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Fax: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: ethompson@childrenrights.org Wayne Drinkwater, Esq. Melody McAnally, Esq. Bradley Arant Rose & White, LLP One Jackson Place, Suite 450 188 E. Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 948-8000 Fax: (601) 948-3000 E-mail: wdrinkwater@bradleyarant.com John Lang, Esq. Christian Carbone, Esq. Loeb & Loeb, LLP 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10037 Phone: (212) 407-4000 Fax: (212) 407-4990 E-mail: jlang@loeb.com Stephen H. Leech, Esq. P.O. Box 3623 Jackson, MS 39207 Phone: (601) 355-4013 E-mail: s.leech@sleech.com NESTOR TRAFFIC: Expects 2008 Ruling on Ohio Speed Program Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Nestor, Inc., expects a decision by 2008 on a question that is before the Ohio Supreme Court on whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact civil penalties for the offense of violating a traffic signal light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are criminal offenses under the Ohio Revised Code. The Supreme Court accepted the case for determination of the question in relation to two cases naming Nestor Traffic, and the City of Akron, as defendants. Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek damages and injunction against the city's speed program. These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are: -- "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 00139-DDD;" and -- "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD." Both actions were originally filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court. Mendenhall Litigation In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, plaintiff brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and state constitutional violations. On Feb. 17, 2006, defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed on Oct. 20, 2006. The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006 to include equal protection violations among her federal constitutional claims. The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on Aug. 18, 2006. Sipe Litigation In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, plaintiffs filed a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against the company, various past and present employees of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy, negligence, and federal constitutional violation. The action was filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and was removed to federal court. On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed on Oct. 20, 2006. Questions Before Ohio Supreme Court With respect to both of the above cases, final resolution can be determined only after disposition of the Court’s certified question to the Ohio Supreme Court, namely: “Whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact civil penalties for the offense of violating a traffic signal light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are criminal offenses under the Ohio Revised Code.” On Feb. 7, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for determination of the question presented. The Ohio Supreme Court has received briefs from all parties, and oral arguments were heard on Sept. 18, 2007. Although the Ohio Supreme Court is not bound to render a decision in a specific period of time, the company anticipates that a decision will be rendered not later than March 2008, according to Nestor, Inc.'s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 30, 2007. For more details, contact: Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Esq. [Mendenhall Plaintiff] Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street Akron, OH 44304 Phone: 330-535-8160 Fax: 330-762-9743 E-mail: j.corgan@justice.com Antoni Dalayanis, Esq. [Sipe Plaintiff] 5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-315-1060 Fax: 800-787-4089 E-mail: lawyer@bright.net - and - Michael J. Defibaugh [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] City of Akron, Law Department Ste. 202, 161 South High Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-375-2030 Fax: 330-375-2041 E-mail: defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us NEWMONT MINING: Col. Court Okays $15M Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado gave preliminary approval to a tentative settlement of a consolidated securities class action filed against Newmont Mining Corp. Case Background On June 8, 2005, UFCW Local 880 - Retail Food Employers Joint Pension Fund filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Newmont Mining Corp.'s publicly traded securities between July 28, 2004 and April 26, 2005. 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 November 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: -- would release all claims asserted, or that could have been asserted, in the action; -- would provide for a payment by Newmont of $15 to be distributed to class members pursuant to a plan of allocation developed by the lead plaintiff; and -- would provide that all defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability with respect to the settled matters. On Sept. 25, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. A Dec. 11, 2007 final hearing is set 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 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 22, 2007). 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 OLIN CORP: Dropped in Amended Suit Over Pioneer Cos. Purchase ------------------------------------------------------------- Olin Corp.'s name was struck out in the Third Amended Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duties suit that was filed in connection to the purported class action, “Denton v. McGovern.” The company was responsible as indemnitor of the former directors of Pioneer, who were named as defendants in this action filed in the 129th Judicial District of the Harris County District Court in Texas in June 2007. Originally filed as a stockholder derivative action and now purportedly pleaded as a class action, the suit alleges state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty by the former Pioneer directors in connection with the company's acquisition of Pioneer Companies, Inc. on Aug. 31, 2007. The suit requests certification of a class, declaratory relief, rescission of the Pioneer transaction or, if rescission is not feasible, an award of money damages, attorney’s fees and unspecified other equitable relief. The company (and Pioneer) were initially named as defendants, but were not included as defendants in plaintiff’s Third Amended Petition for Breach of Fiduciary Duties, which was served on Sept. 17, 2007, according to the company's Oct. 30, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. Olin Corp. -- http://www.olin.com-- is manufacturer engaged in three business segments: Chlor Alkali Products, Metals and Winchester. Chlor Alkali Products manufactures and sells chlorine and caustic soda, sodium hydrosulfite, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen, bleach products and potassium hydroxide. Metals products, include copper and copper alloy sheet, strip, foil, rod, welded tube, fabricated parts, and stainless steel and aluminum strip. Winchester products, include sporting ammunition, canister powder, reloading components, small caliber military ammunition and components, and industrial cartridges. OMNICARE INC: Ky. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted a motion that sought for the the dismissal of a purported securities fraud class action filed against Omnicare Inc. in relation to the company's December 2005 public offering. On Feb. 2 and Feb. 13, 2006, respectively, two substantially similar putative class actions were filed against the company: -- "Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26," and -- "Chi v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv31" These suits were filed against the company and two of its officers in the U.S. District Court For the Eastern District of Kentucky, purporting to assert claims for violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints, which purport to be brought on behalf of all company shareholders, allege that the company artificially inflated its earnings by engaging in improper generic drug substitution and that the defendants have made false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and prospects. Thus, the suit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. On March 7, 2006, the parties to both actions filed stipulations agreeing that the cases should be consolidated and proposing a scheduling order for the conduct of the actions upon consolidation. Those scheduling orders were entered on March 10, 2006. On April 3, 2006 plaintiffs in the HOD Carriers case formally moved for consolidation and the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On May 22, 2006, that motion was granted, the cases were consolidated, and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were appointed. On July 20, 2006, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, adding a third officer as a defendant and new factual allegations relating primarily to revenue recognition, the valuation of receivables and the valuation of inventories. On Oct. 31, 2006, plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second amended complaint, which was granted on January 26, 2007, on the condition that no further amendments would be permitted absent extraordinary circumstances. Plaintiffs thereafter filed their second amended complaint on Jan. 29, 2007. The second amended complaint: -- expands the putative class to include all purchasers of Omnicare common stock from Aug. 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, -- names two members of the Company’s board of directors as additional defendants, -- adds a new plaintiff and a new claim for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on alleged false and misleading statements in the registration statement filed in connection with the Company’s December 2005 public offering, -- alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth, and -- alleges that the Company failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on March 12, 2007, claiming that plaintiffs had failed adequately to plead loss causation, scienter or any actionable misstatement or omission. That motion was fully briefed as of May 1, 2007. In response to certain arguments relating to the individual claims of the named plaintiffs that were raised in defendants’ pending motion to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a motion to add, or in the alternative, to intervene an additional named plaintiff, Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on July 27, 2007. Oral argument was held on defendants’ motion to dismiss on Aug. 2, 2007. On Oct. 12, 2007, the court issued an opinion and order dismissing the case and denying plaintiffs’ motion to add an additional named plaintiff, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund, et al. v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00026-WOB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Judge William O. Bertelsman. Representing the plaintiff is: Shirley Huang, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 E-mail: shirleyh@lerachlaw.com Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 E-mail: rmaniskas@sbclasslaw.com - and - Kevin L. Murphy, Esq. Graydon, Head & Ritchey, LLP 2500 Chamber Center Drive, Suite 300, P.O. Box 17070 Ft. Mitchell, KY 41017 Phone: 859-344-0330 Fax: 859-344-0886 E-mail: kmurphy@graydon.com Representing the defendant is: Richard W. Reinthaler, Esq. Dewey Ballantine LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-6092 Phone: 212-258-8000 Fax: 212-259-6333 E-mail: lpmco@dbllp.com ORKIN EXTERMINATING: “Butland” Decertification Appeal Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------- The Florida Supreme Court rejected plaintiff’s petition for certiorari against a ruling declaring that the certification of the suit “Mark and Christine Butland et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., et al.” was improper. The company, a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., was a named as defendant in the case, which was filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Tampa, Florida on March 1999. The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled in early April 2002, certifying the class action against Orkin. Orkin appealed this ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals, which remanded the case back to the trial court for further findings. In December 2004, the court issued a new ruling certifying the class action. Orkin appealed this new ruling to the Florida 2nd District Court of Appeals. In June 2006, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals issued a ruling denying certification of the class. Following the Plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing, the court upheld its prior decision that class certification was improper but also ruled that the Plaintiffs can return to the trial court and attempt to certify a narrower class. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari with the Florida Supreme Court seeking review of the ruling that the class certification was improper. The Florida Supreme Court has rejected Plaintiff’s petition, according to Rollins, Inc.'s Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of Rollins, provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices throughout the U.S. Orkin offers its services under the Acurid, Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names. ORKIN EXTERMINATING: Faces Customer Damage Suits in Cal., Ga. ------------------------------------------------------------- Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc., a subsidiary of Rollins, Inc., faces several purported class actions in California and Georgia, which allege that plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the rendering of services by the company. Some of these lawsuits are: -- “Ernest W. Warren and Dolores G. Warren, et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., et al;” -- “John Maciel v. Orkin, Inc., et. al.;” and -- “Ronald and Ileana Krzyzanowsky et al. v. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc. and Rollins, Inc.” The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a class. The cases originate in Georgia and California, respectively. In Warren, the Superior Court of Cobb County, Marietta, Georgia, ruled in August 2006, certifying the class action against Orkin. Orkin has appealed this ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals. The Maciel lawsuit has not been scheduled for a class certification hearing. The Krzyzanowsky lawsuit has recently been filed in the United U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of California. Orkin, Inc. -- Net: http://www.orkin.com-- a subsidiary of Rollins, provides insect, rodent, and termite control services to more than 1.7 million commercial and residential customers in the U.S., Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, and Panama. The company, which was founded in 1901, has more than 400 branch offices throughout the U.S. Orkin offers its services under the Acurid, Orkin, PCO Services, and Western Pest Services brand names. OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Lumber Settles for $8.6M ------------------------------------------------------------ Ainsworth Lumber Co. of Vancouver, Canada has entered into an agreement with the direct-purchaser plaintiffs in the OSB Antitrust Litigation. Under the agreement, Ainsworth will pay US$8.6 million to be distributed across the settlement class. The agreement is subject to court approval. The suit was filed by Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, representing direct purchasers of Oriented Strand Board against: * Louisiana-Pacific Corporation; * Georgia-Pacific Corporation; * Weyerhaeuser Company; * Potlatch Corporation; * Ainsworth Lumber Co., Ltd.; * Norbord, Inc.; * J.M. Huber Corporation, J.M. Huber Corp. has also settled in the case, according to reports. 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 defendantsï¿½ 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. 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 PACER INT'L: Subsidiaries Settle Calif. Owner-Operators' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Two subsidiaries of Pacer International Inc. have settled a California class action known as the “Renteria,” which was filed against them on behalf of a class of owner-operators. The subsidiaries -- Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal Container Service -– engaged in local cartage and harbor drayage operations. The “Renteria” case specifically alleges that the subsidiaries providing insurance for their owner-operators constitutes engaging in the insurance business without a license in violation of California law and that charging the putative class of owner-operators in Renteria for workers compensation insurance that they elected to obtain through the subsidiaries violated California’s Business and Professions Code. In June 2007, the company's motion for summary adjudication on the insurance issue was granted, so that the only remaining issue in the case is the workers compensation claim. In August 2007, the company agreed to settle this last remaining claim on a “claims-made” basis under which the Company’s maximum exposure would not exceed its previously established $750,000 liability reserve. The settlement has received preliminary court approval, but remains subject to completion of the claims filing and payment process, and then final court approval. Pacer International, Inc. -- http://www.pacer-international.com/ -- is a non-asset-based North American logistics provider. The Company focuses on its core intermodal product, with intermodal sales representing approximately 80% of its total revenues. SAIA INC: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits Over Fuel Surcharge Rates ------------------------------------------------------------ Saia, Inc. faces several purported class actions alleging that the company along with other defendants conspired to fix fuel surcharge rates in violation of federal antitrust laws. Initially, on July 2007, a lawsuit was filed in federal court in California against Saia and several other major LTL (less-than- truckload) freight carriers. It sought injunctive relief, treble damages and attorneys’ fees. Since the filing of the original case, similar cases have been filed against Saia and other LTL freight carriers, each with the same allegation of conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge rates. The plaintiffs in these cases are seeking class-action status for their cases, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. Duluth, Georgia-based Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a trucking transportation company that provides a variety of trucking transportation and supply chain solutions to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical and manufacturing industries. SAIA INC: Dock Workers File Labor Law Violations Suit in Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- Saia, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in California state court on behalf of California dock workers alleging various violations of state labor laws. The claims include the alleged failure of the Company to provide rest and meal breaks and the failure to reimburse the employees for the cost of work shoes, among other claims. The plaintiff is seeking class-action certification. Duluth, Georgia-based Saia, Inc. -- http://www.saia.com/-- is a trucking transportation company that provides a variety of trucking transportation and supply chain solutions to a range of industries, including the retail, chemical and manufacturing industries. SCIELE PHARMA: Ga. Court Considers Motion to Nix Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has yet to rule on a motion that is seeking for the dismissal of a second amended complaint in a securities fraud suit filed against Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. The company, certain former and current officers and directors are defendants in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed on Aug. 22, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection with the company's public offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing" activities. The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class action. Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the District Court to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and lift the condition that they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further amendment. On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay defendants' fees and costs. Once again, plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended complaint. Instead, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s determination that the Amended Complaint was a “shotgun pleading” that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under the federal rules. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered by the District Court. Instead of dismissing the Amended Complaint with a right to further amend if Plaintiffs paid Defendants’ fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have ordered Plaintiffs to replead under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The Court of Appeals also held that Plaintiffs’ claims under the Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those claims sound in fraud. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading. On April 20, 2007, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On June 29, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which is currently pending, according to the company's Oct. 31, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Andrew Bain, Esq. Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 E-mail: dab@classlaw.com Representing the defendants is: John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404-572-5100 E-mail: pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com SCHYLLING ASSOCIATES: Recalls Robot on Paint's High Lead Level -------------------------------------------------------------- Schylling Associates Inc., of Rowley, Mass., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 2,600 "Robot 2000" collectable tin robot. The company said the surface paints on the robot contain excessive levels of lead, which violates the federal lead paint standard. No incidents/injuries have been reported so far. The "Robot 2000" is a battery-operated, tin robot standing 12" tall. It has a red light on the head and chest panels that open. The robots were made in China and sold at specialty toy stores and gift shops nationwide from October 2006 through September 2007 for about $25. Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toy away from children and contact Schylling to receive a refund or free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Schylling at (800) 767-8697 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.schylling.com. SWIMWAYS CORP: Recalls “Skippy” Pool Toys on Laceration Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- Swimways Corp., of Virginia Beach, Va., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily recalling about 31,000 “Skippy” Pool Toys. The company said the elastic tongue of the fish can break and forcefully come out and cut the users’ hands during launching of the toy. Swimways has received 24 reports of the pool toy breaking during use. There were five reports of injuries to children including one requiring stitches to a child’s hand. Another child’s thumb nail was ripped back from the nail bed. This recall involves a rubber pool toy shaped like a fish. The fish are blue, purple or green colored and measure 8 1/2 inches long by 5 inches wide. A loop of elastic tubing shaped like a tongue comes out of the mouth of the fish and is used for launching the fish across the water like a slingshot. “WARNING. Do not aim at another person. Made in China” is printed on the bottom of the fish. Picture of the recalled product: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08065a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08065b.jpg The pool toys were made in China and sold at mass merchandisers and independent pool supply stores nationwide from February 2007 through September 2007 for about $10. Consumers are advised to take the toy away from children immediately and contact Swimways for a free replacement toy. For additional information, contact Swimways toll-free at (888) 559-4653 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.swimways.com TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Seeks Dismissal of Ga. Antitrust Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss two of three counts of a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia accusing the company of restraining trade and fixing prices of mattresses. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3), as representatives of a class made up of all persons and entities who purchased Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses for delivery in the United States, at any time from Jan. 5, 2003 to the present, directly from TPX or from an authorized distributor and/or their selling agents (Class Action Reporter, May 29, 2007). The class seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under U.S. antitrust laws. The purported class raises the question of: -- whether distributors agreed with TPX on minimum resale prices for Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses; -- whether distributors agreed with TPX to fix the price at which the distributors and TPX would sell Tempur- Pedic brand mattresses to consumers; -- the identities of the parties to the agreements; -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to set minimum resale prices for Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses; -- the duration, extent, and success of the agreements to fix the price a which TPX and its distributors would sell Tempur-Pedic brand mattresses to consumers; -- whether the agreements violated the federal antitrust laws; -- whether an injunction should issue to prohibit TPX and its distributors from engaging in conduct in violation of the antitrust laws; -- whether and to what extent the conduct of TPX and its distributors caused injury to the class members; and -- the appropriate measure of damages to the class members. Plaintiffs request that the court enter judgment against defendants as follows: -- that the court certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and designate plaintiffs as the representatives of the class and counsel for plaintiffs as counsel for the class; -- that the court adjudge and decree that TPX has engaged in unlawful conduct in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1; -- that the court order TPX to pay the class and plaintiffs actual damages as result of the unlawful overcharges identified, trebled as required under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15; -- that the court enjoin TPX from continuing or resuming its unlawful anticompetitive conduct as permitted under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 26; -- that the court order TPX to pay the costs of this action, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, as permitted under Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 15; and -- that the court grant all other relief as may be deemed equitable, appropriate and just. The Company filed a motion to dismiss two of the three counts of the Jacobs action on Feb. 23, 2007. Count Two of the complaint was dismissed by the court on June 25, 2007, based on a motion filed by the Company. Following a decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in “Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.,” on June 28, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining two counts of the Antitrust Action on July 10, 2007. That motion is fully briefed and the Company is awaiting a decision on the motion, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Jacobs et al v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-00002-HLM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Harold L. Murphy. Representing plaintiffs are: Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. Craig Gordon Harley, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. Chitwood Harley Harnes 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 E-mail: mchitwood@chitwoodlaw.com CHarley@chitwoodlaw.com jmw@classlaw.com; - and - Robert Kirtley Finnell, Esq. The Finnell Firm Suite 200, P.O. Box 63 One West Fourth Avenue Rome, GA 30162-0063 Phone: 706-235-7272 E-mail: bob@finnelllawfirm.com TEMPUR-PEDIC INT'L: Ky. Court Mulls Bid to Junk Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky has yet to rule on Tempur-Pedic International Inc.'s motion seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it. Between Oct. 7, 2005 and Nov. 21, 2005, five complaints were filed against the company and certain of its directors and officers purportedly on behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the company's stock between Apr. 22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005. These actions were consolidated and Lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on Feb. 27, 2006 and asserted claims arising under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs allege that certain of the company's public disclosures regarding its financial performance between April 22, 2005 and Sept. 19, 2005 were false and/or misleading. On Dec. 7, 2006, lead plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs, fees and other relief within the court's discretion. The company has filed a motion to dismiss the Securities Law Action which has been fully briefed, and are now awaiting a decision on that motion, according to the company's Nov. 1, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Grillo, et al. v. Tempur-Pedic International, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:05-cv-00410-JMH,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky under Joseph M. Hood. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michelle M. Ciccarelli, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-213-1058 Fax: 619-231-7423 - and - Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, & Schulman, L.L.P. One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY 10119-0165 Phone: 212-594-5300 Fax: 212-868-1229 Representing the defendants are: Michael D. Blanchard, Esq. Bingham McCutchen, LLP One State Street Hartford, CT 06103-3178 Phone: 860-240-2700 Fax: 860-240-2800 E-mail: michael.blanchard@bingham.com - and - Barry D. Hunter, Esq. Frost Brown Todd, LLC 250 W. Main Street, 2700 Lexington, Financial Center Lexington, KY 40507 Phone: 859-231-0000 Fax: 859-231-0011 TFT-LCD LITIGATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------- Class counsel for businesses and individuals that purchased Thin Film Transistor Liquid Crystal Display (TFT-LCD) products directly from manufacturers announced that plaintiffs filed last week a consolidated class action complaint charging defendants with operating a global cartel to fix the prices of LCDs sold in the United States. "After initial introduction, components for consumer electronics products are typically characterized by downward pricing trends," stated plaintiffs' counsel Richard M. Heimann of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. "This has not always been the case with TFT-LCDs. For the past decade, we have seen price manipulation including periods of substantial price increases. Amongst the reasons for this are that the top manufacturers agreed to fix and maintain prices and to restrict supply." "Despite the enormous size of the TFT-LCD industry, over $100 billion, a small group of corporations dominate it and control the price of TFT-LCDs," explained plaintiffs' counsel Bruce L. Simon of Pearson Simon Soter Warshaw & Penny, LLP. "Repeatedly these corporations have asserted that a shortage of manufacturing capacity has been the cause of TFT-LCD price increases. Any such shortages, plaintiffs allege, were the result of collusion among defendants to restrict output and artificially increase prices." Case Background 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 TFT-LCDs or panels in the U.S. 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 was opposed by the class counsel(Class Action Reporter, Oct 24, 2007). For more information, contact: Richard M. Heimann Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP Phone: 415-956-1000 - and - Bruce L. Simon Pearson Simon Soter Warshaw & Penny, LLP Phone: 415-433-9000 YALE-NEW HAVEN: Suit Over Free Bed Funds Denied Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ The state Supreme Court denied class-action status for a suit accusing Yale-New Haven Hospital with misuse of its free bed funds, the New Haven (CT) Register reports. The suit arose out of the Service Employees International Union's study of the hospital's debt collection practices. The study found hundreds of liens on properties and wage garnishments against uninsured patients. The SEIU then filed a suit on behalf of nine plaintiffs. The suit claims uninsured and underinsured patients served at the hospital since 1991 may not have been told about the funds and were subject to harsh collection methods by Yale-New Haven. In 2006, a Superior Court ruled there wasn't enough communality among the plaintiffs for the suit to go ahead as a class action. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. A total of four suits were brought against the hospital. A suit filed by a clinic at the Yale Law School was settled after Yale- New Haven agreed to send out free and reduced care applications to some 18,000 patients who had open accounts prior to Oct. 1, 2003. After getting back 360 applications, all of which qualified for free care, Yale-New Haven decided to close all 18,000 accounts, according to the report. * E.U. Consumer Watchdog Chief Rejects U.S.-Style Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The European Union's consumer chief has ruled out a U.S.-style class action for Europe -- at least -- in her term, reports say. E.U. Consumer Protection Commissioner Meglena Kuneva told a group of business leaders, consumer groups and leading law firms in Lisbon, Portugal: "To those who have come all the way to Lisbon to hear the words "class action", let me be clear from the start. There will not be any. Not in Europe, not under my watch." The commissioner said in March that she hopes to introduce a new system of "collective redress" as part of her strategy to strengthen consumer rights. What retailers describe as "perceived insecurity of transactions" have kept people in E.U. states from making cross-border purchases. At the meeting, the commissioner said, instead: she intends to introduce what she describes as "group action," in which plaintiffs are represented by their national consumers' body or a new E.U. consumers regulatory body. Class actions in the U.S. have been criticized as more beneficial to lawyers than individuals concerned. European employers group BusinessEurope opposes the U.S. model. Under the commissioner's model, proceeds from the lawsuit will be distributed in an appropriate manner among plaintiffs and their representatives. Introduction of unmeritorious claims should be discouraged, she added. A total of 15 E.U. member states currently have no legal provision for class actions. The remaining 12 that have such rules only have jurisdiction within their own country. Among them, the Netherlands is the closest to the U.S. model, while Germany and Austria have test-case procedures and France allows representative actions. New Securities Fraud Cases BIGBAND NETWORKS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of BigBand Networks, Inc. between March 14, 2007 through September 27, 2007 inclusive. The Complaint alleges that BigBand misled the investing public throughout the Class Period through their representations in the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed in connection with the Company's IPO. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that BigBand failed to inform the public at the time of the IPO and during the Class Period that the Company was having a number of issues customizing and integrating its switched digital video services with a number of its customers. In addition, BigBand failed to disclose to investors that one if its major customers had been unable to work off excessive amounts of inventory and this would substantially affect BigBand's revenues. The truth regarding the Company's operational status was revealed on September 27, 2007. On that date, BigBand announced that the Company expected to post an operating loss for the third quarter 2007 and would have to dramatically revise its revenue outlook. The Company stated that it expected to report revenue for the third quarter in the range of $35 to $39 million, well below the Company's previous guidance of $54 to $58 million. The Company revealed for the first time the issues its customers were having customizing the Company's switched digital video technology and that the Company's Telco-TV revenue experienced a slowdown due to a "major customer" having to "work[] through previously purchased inventory." As a result of Defendants' false and misleading Class Period statements and omissions, BigBand's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period. Once the Company's true financial condition was revealed, BigBand shares fell 28% in value, to close at $6.40 per share on September 28, 2007, a 51% drop from the $13 per share price during the Company's IPO. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. For more information, contact: Finkelstein Thompson LLP Washington, DC Office Toll-free: (877) 337-1050 E-mail: contact@finkelsteinthompson.com Website: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com CITIGROUP INC: Gardy & Notis Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gardy & Notis, LLP has filed a securities fraud class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Citigroup Inc. securities between January 1, 2004 and November 5, 2007. The complaint charges that Citigroup misled shareholders by falsely reporting financial statements that failed to consolidate the results and liabilities of certain highly- leveraged special investment vehicles, as required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or "GAAP." The mortgage-backed securities owned by these special investment vehicles (sold to them by Citigroup) have tumbled in value, forcing Citigroup to bail out the special investment vehicles, to the tune of billions of dollars in additional liability. Purchasers of Citigroup securities between January 1, 2004 and November 5, 2007 who wish to serve as lead plaintiff must file a motion with the Court by January 7, 2008. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. For more information, contact: Dustin Mansoor Gardy & Notis, LLP Phone: 201-567-7377 Fax: 201-567-7337 E-mail: dmansoor@gardylaw.com Website: http://www.gardylaw.com COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Countrywide Capital V NYSE:CFC-PB), and Countrywide Financial Corporation and certain of Countrywide's officers and directors. The suit alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the preferred stock CCV pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with its November 1, 2006 initial public offering, through August 9, 2007. The Complaint alleges that on November 1, 2006, CCV completed its IPO of 52,000,000 preferred shares at $25.00 per share for estimated proceeds of $1.3 billion to CCV pursuant to the Registration Statement. The Complaint further alleges that at the time of the Offering: (i) Countrywide told investors that its lending practices were materially different from other mortgage banks because, through its experience in the mortgage lending business, the Company knew how to originate, underwrite, manage, and service loans and adequately evaluate credit risks; (ii) that Countrywide represented that its loan origination standards and procedures were "designed to produce high quality loans" and that it was different from and could do better than other mortgage companies; and (iii) that only a small percentage of the loans it originated -- approximately 10% -- were subprime loans and that Countrywide principally produced "prime" loans in accord with industry standards. However, as alleged in the Complaint, these representations were materially false as it has now been revealed that that the percentage of subprime loans was, in reality, materially higher than represented by Countrywide. The Complaint further alleges that on July 24, 2007, Countrywide disclosed that it would record an impairment charge of $417 million and stated that the impairment charges were attributable to accelerated increases in "delinquency levels and increases in the estimates of future defaults and loss severities on the underlying loans." In addition, it is alleged that the announced provision for losses on loans held for investment was $293 million "driven primarily by a loan loss provision of $181 million on prime home equity" loans. On July 24, 2007, CCV shares declined from a closing price of $24.46 per share on July 23, 2007, to close at $23.52 per share, a decline of $0.94 per share or approximately 4%. It is further alleged that on August 9, 2007, Countrywide filed its quarterly report for the period ended June 30, 2007 on Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission that stated, in part, that "(t)he secondary mortgage markets are also currently experiencing unprecedented disruptions resulting from reduced investor demand for mortgage loans and mortgage-backed securities and increased investor yield requirements for those loans and securities ... our capacity to retain mortgage loans and mortgage backed securities is not unlimited. As a result, a prolonged period of secondary market illiquidity may reduce our loan production volumes and could have an adverse impact on our future earnings and financial condition." On August 9, 2007, CCV shares declined from a closing price on August 8, 2007 of $21.22 per share to close at $20.70 per share, a decline of $0.52 per share of approximately 2%. Interested parties may move the court no later than November 19, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Saxena White Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. filed a suit, on November 9, 2007, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of shareholders of Dyadic International, Inc. The complaint alleges operational and financial improprieties perpetrated by the Company and its Asian subsidiaries approved by the Defendants, which culminated in an internal investigation and subsequent firing of the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Mark A. Emalfarb. As a result of the improprieties in the Company's Asian subsidiaries and the subsequent internal investigation, the Company has abandoned its Asian operations. The Company's stock was artificially inflated as a result of the material omissions and misstatements contained within the Company's publicly filed financial statements and reports. Its stock is currently suspended for trading on the American Stock Exchange and is at risk of being delisted, resulting in total loss of equity for owners of Dyadic's securities. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 11, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Joseph White, Esq. Greg Stone Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway, Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Website: http://www.saxenawhite.com FLAMEL TECHNOLOGIES: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Flamel Technologies, SA American Depository Receipts between March 23, 2007 and August 22, 2007. The complaint charges Flamel and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, defendants made a series of false and misleading statements regarding the prospects for COREG CR. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants were in possession of undisclosed clinical trial data showing that Coreg CR was no more effective than Coreg IR, the twice-daily version of the drug. On August 23, 2007, in an article entitled "Flamel Technologies Shares Dive on Disappointing Coreg Study Results," the Associated Press reported that a study of its once-daily heart disease drug failed to show any benefit over the twice-daily version. On this news, Flamel's ADR price dropped from $12.68 to $9.56 per share. This decrease in Flamel's ADR price was a result of the artificial inflation caused by defendants' misleading statements coming out of the ADR price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Flamel ADR's between March 23, 2007 and August 22, 2007. Flamel is a biopharmaceutical company that develops polymer- based delivery technologies for medical applications. Its lead product is COREG CR for use in the treatment of moderate to severe congestive heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction following myocardial infarction and hypertension. For more information, contact: Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP Phone: 800-449-4900 E-mail: djr@csgrr.com MEDTRONIC INC: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action against Medtronic, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of investors who purchased Medtronic common stock on the open market from June 25, 2007 through October 15, 2007. The Complaint charges that during the Class Period, Medtronic misrepresented the true facts concerning its Sprint Fidelis defibrillation leads ("Fidelis leads") until October 15, 2007, when the Company disclosed that it would voluntarily suspend distribution of Fidelis leads. Fidelis leads were introduced to the market in September 2004 and, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal on October 30, 2007, by early 2007 "about 90% of new Medtronic defibrillators used Fidelis leads." By January 2007, Medtronic had received 679 reports of injuries caused by fractures in the Fidelis leads. The number of lead failures grew from a total of 795 injuries reported by April 30, 2007, to a total of 1,053 injuries reported by June 30, 2007. Notwithstanding this increased evidence of severe problems with the leads, Medtronic stated (falsely) in its Form 10-K for fiscal year end April 27, 2007 (filed with the SEC on June 25, 2007) that the Fidelis lead had experienced "strong market acceptance" and "increasing clinical data ... supports these devices." From July 2007 through September 2007, Medtronic continued to receive increasingly frequent reports of lead failures, with the number of reported failures reaching 1,661 by September 30, 2007. Finally, on October 15, 2007, Medtronic belatedly acknowledged that the increasingly frequent adverse reports were the result of manufacturing defects and suspended distribution of Fidelis leads because of the high incidence of lead fractures. The Company further admitted that it had "identified five patient deaths in which a Sprint Fidelis lead fracture may have been a possible or likely contributing factor." Upon the release of this information, Medtronic's stock dropped $6.33 per share, or 11.2%, on volume of approximately 62.9 million shares. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 7, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. Phone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Hagens Berman Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a proposed class action against Washington Mutual claiming the company violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and committed securities fraud by artificially inflating the Company's financial results through inflation of property appraisals to support risky loans. "With the mortgage industry having made so much money in recent years, it is disappointing to hear that these profits were made by inflating loan appraisals that put both the shareholders of Washington Mutual and homeowners across the nation at risk of defaults and foreclosures, while the executives took home handsome paychecks for what was believed to be a real and legitimate performance," said lead attorney and HBSS partner Reed Kathrein. "We intend to pursue aggressive legal action to protect the rights of investors." Insight into WaMu's alleged mortgage loan mishandlings came in early November when the Attorney General of the State of New York filed a lawsuit against First American Corporation and eAppraiseIT, alleging their complicity in a scheme to provide inflated appraisals to Washington Mutual. According to the complaint, WaMu told investors in mid-October 2007 that the company had suffered a 72 percent drop in net income during the third quarter of 2007 and would have to set aside up to $1.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 2007 to cover its losses. These write downs were caused, at least in part, by the impairment of loan assets that were based on the inflated appraisals fraudulently orchestrated by WaMu and eAppraiseIT, the complaint alleges. WaMu's officers had a duty to the relay accurate and truthful information regarding the company's financial standing, which they failed to do on numerous occasions, and to correct any previously-issued statements that had become materially misleading or untrue so the value of company stock would not suffer, the complaint alleges. According to the filed complaint these individuals participated in the drafting, preparation and approval of many public and shareholder reports and were aware of, or chose to disregard any misstatements. Washington Mutual is one of the nation's largest residential and commercial banks operating in retail banking, card services, commercial and home loans. The company's home loans segment provides a range of services including originating and servicing home loans, offers real estate secured residential loan products and services consisting of fixed-rate home loans, adjustable- rate home loans, hybrid home loans and mortgage loans to higher risk borrowers. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle claims Washington Mutual, in cooperation with its appraisal firm, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and as a result has damaged stock holders and company investors. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 4, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Reed Kathrein Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro Phone: 510-725-3000 E-mail: Reed@hbsslaw.com WSB FINANCIAL: Klafter & Olsen Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Klafter & Olsen LLP has filed a securities class action complaint against WSB Financial, Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of investors who purchased the common stock of WSB issued pursuant to the December 2006 Registration Statement and Prospectus during the period December 14, 2006 through October 23, 2007. The Complaint alleges that defendants, including the Company's top executives and the underwriter of WSB's initial public offering ("IPO"), D.A. Davidson & Co., violated the federal securities laws by issuing a materially misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with WSB's December 14, 2006 IPO. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus misrepresented: (i) the adequacy of the Company's accounting policies, including that the Company's allowances for loan losses were adequate; (ii) that the Company maintained "a high quality loan portfolio"; and (iii) that the Company had complied "with all of the laws and regulations" relevant to its operations. Due to the Company's misleading statements, WSB stock traded as high as $21 per share during the Class Period. The truth about the Company's accounting policies and compliance with applicable laws and regulations began to be revealed when, on September 21, 2007, WSB announced that it would eliminate 33 jobs in the mortgage division of the company, and that WSB's Executive Vice President of Sales and Lending at Westsound Bank was leaving the Company. As a result, WSB's stock price fell from $15.30 to $12.40. Then, after the market closed on October 23, 2007, WSB belatedly revealed that state and federal regulators were looking into possible fraud and misconduct in its real estate lending practices and that its CFO would be taking a leave of absence. Due to this announcement, the Company's stock collapsed to close at $4.73 on October 25 -- a drop of nearly 60 percent. Afterwards, WSB revealed that in the spring of 2007 the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions ("WSDFI") had identified a number of high end home construction loans -- now totaling at least 146 loans valued at $90 million -- for which WSB Financial had not obtained proper income documentation. As a result, the Company stopped making these loans as of April 2007 but never disclosed these facts until October 29, 2007. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 31, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Klafter & Olsen LLP Phone: 202/261-3553 E-mail: http://www.klafterolsen.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 * * *