/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/071126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 26, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 234 Headlines AMERICAN MEDICAL: Still Faces Patient Overcharging Suit in Wash. ATLAS ENERGY: Settles Royalty “Underpayments” Suit for $300T BC HYDRO: B.C. Residents Plan to Sue Over Power Surge Damages BLUE PLANET: Recalls Pie Crusts Containing Undeclared Content CARRIER ACCESS: $7M Col. Securities Suit Deal Yet to be Approved CHARLEMAGNE CHOCOLATIERS: Recalls Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk CONNECTICUT: Thames River Tenants' Lawsuit Gets Certification DISCOUNT SCHOOOL: Recalls Brushes on Paint's High Lead Content ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Upholds $137M Securities Suit Settlement ELECTRONIC DATA: Tex. Court to Hear Motions in ERISA Litigation EL PASO: Tex. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit EL PASO: Colo. Court Nixes Claims in ERISA, Age Bias Litigation EL PASO: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Natural Gas MDL Remains Pending EL PASO: Kans. “Price” Antitrust Suit Awaits Certification GENTA INC: March Hearing Set for N.J. Securities Suit Settlement GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit HERBALIFE INT'L: $7M TCPA Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval HEWLETT-PACKARD: Exclusion Deadline Set for “Grider” Lawsuit KENTUCKY: Final Payments in Covington Diocese Abuse Case Out LA FEMME: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Set on High Lead Content PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Craft" Lights Suit Set January 2009 PHILIP MORRIS: “Curtis” Lights Lawsuit Sent to State Court PHILIP MORRIS: Court Keeps Ruling Dismissing “Price” Lights Suit PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces “Watson” Lights Case in Ark. Court PURE ALLURE: Recalls Crystal Jewelry on High Lead Content ROYAL AHOLD: Hakon Invest Receives $19.5M from Settlement Fund SAILING INT'L: Recalls Flashing Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard SOUTHERN CO: Ga. Court Gives Final OK to ERISA Suit Settlement New Securities Fraud Cases DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit VIRGIN MOBILE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. ********* AMERICAN MEDICAL: Still Faces Patient Overcharging Suit in Wash. ---------------------------------------------------------------- American Medical Response, Inc., a subsidiary of Emergency Medical Services Corp., continues to face a purported class action in Spokane County Superior Court in Washington, which accuses the company of engaging in an ongoing practice of overcharging patients under a contract sanctioned and monitored by city government. The suit was filed on Dec. 13, 2005 on behalf of Lori E. Davis- Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon, all residents of Spokane. It was certified as a class action in June 2006. The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at higher rates than contractually permitted. The suit alleges that patients picked up within the city of Spokane are billed for more-expensive “advanced life support” (ALS) services when they only need cheaper “basic life support” (BLS). The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate of $348. Though the court has certified a class, the size and membership of said class has not been determined, according to the company's Nov. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. For more details, contact: [Plaintiffs] D. Roger Reed, Esq. Reed & Giesa, P.S. 222 North Wall, Suite 410 Spokane, Washington 99201 Phone: 509-838-8341 Fax: 509-838-6341 - and - [Defendant] Paul J. Dayton, Esq. Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC Wells Fargo Center, 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington 98104-4088 Phone: 206-682-3333 Fax: 206-340-8856 ATLAS ENERGY: Settles Royalty “Underpayments” Suit for $300T ------------------------------------------------------------ Atlas Energy Resources, LLC and its subsidiary have settled a purported class action in New York over royalty revenues with respect to natural gas produced from properties it had leased, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Initially, one of the Company’s subsidiaries, Resource Energy, LLC, together with Resource America, Inc., (the former parent of Atlas America, Inc)., was a defendant in a class action originally filed in February 2000 in the New York Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, by individuals, putatively on their own behalf and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, who leased property to the Company. The complaint alleged that the Company was not paying landowners the proper amount of royalty revenues with respect to natural gas produced from the leased properties. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged difference between the amount of royalties actually paid and the amount of royalties that allegedly should have been paid. In April 2007, a settlement of this lawsuit was approved by the court. Pursuant to the settlement terms, the Company paid $300,000 in May 2007, upgraded certain gathering systems, and capped certain transportation expenses chargeable to the land owners. Headquartered in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, Atlas Energy Resources, LLC -- http://www.atlasenergyresources.com/-- is a limited liability company focused on the development and production of natural gas and, to a lesser extent, oil principally in the Appalachian Basin. BC HYDRO: B.C. Residents Plan to Sue Over Power Surge Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action is being planned by Gold Bridge, British Columbia residents whose appliances were destroyed because of a power surge on Nov. 15, Larry Pynn of Vancouver Sun reports. The residents are claiming that BC Hydro and Power Authority refused to accept blame for the power surge. The power surge to Gold Bridge and a nearby recreational destination, Gun Lake, blew out all electrical devices and appliances in the area, the report said. The company has blamed what happened on weather and not corporate negligence. Hydro spokeswoman Gillian Robinson said in an interview that Hydro is not responsible for losses or injuries as a result of problems, failures or defects in the delivery of electricity. BC Hydro and Power Authority, a provincial crown corporation, is the third largest electric utility in Canada. It serves over 1.5 million customers in an area containing more than 94% of BC's population. BLUE PLANET: Recalls Pie Crusts Containing Undeclared Content ------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Planet Foods Inc., of Collegedale, Tenn., is recalling 3,898 individual retail units of Heartland brand Graham Pie Crusts because they contain undeclared almonds, milk and coconut. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds, milk or coconut run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The Heartland brand Graham Pie Crusts were distributed through retail stores nationwide. The Heartland brand Graham Pie Crust is a ready-to-eat pie crust, packaged in a foil pie tin with clear plastic cover and labeled “Heartland Graham Pie Crust.” The pie crust has a net weight of 6 oz. (170g). Affected pie crusts are limited to those with freshness dates reading: “Best By Oct 27 2008 1” or “Best By Oct 27 2008 3.” No illnesses have been reported. For most consumers, there is no safety issue with the pie crusts. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product containing almonds, milk and coconut was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of almonds, milk and coconut. Subsequent investigation indicates that the problem was caused by a temporary application of an incorrect label. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to contact the company’s consumer affairs department toll-free at 1-877- 885-6650 for a full refund. CARRIER ACCESS: $7M Col. Securities Suit Deal Yet to be Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to approve a proposed settlement of a securities class action filed in June 2005 against Carrier Access Corp., and certain of its executive officers and directors upon the company's announcement that it would restate financial statements. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Carrier Access would pay $7.4 million in satisfaction of the claims, all of which would be funded by proceeds of the company's directors and officers insurance policy. Case Background Beginning on June 2, 2005, three purported shareholder class actions were filed against the company and certain company officials. The cases were: -- "Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-1011-LTB," -- "Chisman v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No. 05-cv-1078-REB," and -- "Sved v. Carrier Access Corp., et al, Case No. 05-cv-1280-EWN." On Jan. 17, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of those who purchased the company's publicly traded securities between Oct. 21, 2003 and May 20, 2005. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading statements, purported to assert claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and sought unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The complaint was primarily based upon allegations of wrongdoing in connection with the company's announcement of the company's intention to restate previously issued financial statements for the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004 and certain interim periods in each of the years ended Dec. 31, 2003 and 2004. On March 17, 2006, the company moved to dismiss on numerous grounds, including: -- failure to state a claim; -- failure to adequately plead a claim based upon purported failure to disclose "saturation" and product development delays; -- failure to plead specific facts giving rise to a strong inference that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing that the 2003 and 2004 Annual Reports on Form 10-K and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q contained materially false financial statements; and -- failure to plead motive for defendants to commit fraud and failure to plead a violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. Section 78t-1(a)). On July 18, 2006, the Court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On Feb. 6, 2007, the parties reached an agreement to settle the consolidated class actions for a payment of $7.4 million. The settlement will be funded in its entirety by the proceeds of the Company’s directors and officers’ insurance policy. The parties’ agreement must be documented and submitted to the court for its approval. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Croker v. Carrier Access Corp., et al., Case No. 1:05-cv-01011-LTB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Lewis T. Babcock. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kip Brian Shuman, Esq. Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80218-1417 Phone: 303-861-3003 Fax: 303-830-6920 E-mail: Shuman@DyerShuman.com Matthew M. Wolf, Esq. Allen & Vellone, P.C. 1600 Stout Street, #1100 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-534-4499 E-mail: mwolf@allen-vellone.com - and - Karen Jean Cody-Hopkins, Esq. Charles Walter Lilley, Esq. Lilley & Garcia, LLP 1600 Stout Street #1100 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-293-9800 Fax: 303-298-8975 E-mail: kcody-hopkins@lilleygarcia.com clilley@lilleygarcia.com Representing the company is: Karen Thomas Stefano, Esq. Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: 650-493-9300 Fax: 650-493-6811 E-mail: kstefano@wsgr.com CHARLEMAGNE CHOCOLATIERS: Recalls Choco Bars for Undeclared Milk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charlemagne Chocolatiers of Belgium is voluntarily recalling its dark chocolate organic bars currently on the U.S. market because it may contain undeclared milk protein. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Charlemagne Organic Bars are distributed in the US by Belgium’s Best Chocolates, Inc. and were shipped to retail stores in the following states: -- Michigan, -- California, -- New Jersey, -- New York and -- Massachusetts Approximately 5000 units of dark Charlemagne organic chocolate bars were distributed. The following chocolate bars are affected: - Charlemagne Dark with Coffee 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204038) - Charlemagne Dark with Cinnamon 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204052) - Charlemagne Dark with Orange 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204021) - Charlemagne Dark with Green tea 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204045) - Charlemagne Plain Dark with Belize Chocolate. 50 gr.(1.75 oz.) (UPC= 5 425001 204014) No illnesses have been reported to date in the US. The Charlemagne Organic dark chocolate bars were tested for milk protein in the US by FDA after a recall was initiated in Canada. The organic dark chocolate bars were distributed in packaging that did not list milk protein in the ingredients or allergen statement. Consumers that have purchased Charlemagne Organic Dark chocolate products can return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the U.S. distributor at 1-877-INDULGE. CONNECTICUT: Thames River Tenants' Lawsuit Gets Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- Superior Court Judge Robert E. Beach Jr. granted partial class- action status to a lawsuit filed by tenants of the Thames River housing complex. The suit was filed against the New London Housing Authority and city officials over what the tenants say are deplorable living conditions at the high rise apartments on Crystal Avenue, Karen Florin of TheDay reports. The tenants have complained about a number of safety and sanitation issues, including drug addicts in the hallways, urine in the elevators, pests like cockroaches and skunks on the premises, and an inoperable security system. Tenants further claim that for the past several months, only one of the complex's three laundry rooms has been operating, forcing tenants of all three buildings to share six washing machines and six dryers. In a 17-page decision Judge Beach Jr. granted class-action status that enables the tenants to seek injunctive relief but not compensatory damages. According to the report, New London attorney Robert I. Reardon Jr., who is representing the low-income tenants pro bono, said the ruling gives more impact to the lawsuit, which will now proceed on behalf of the approximately 280 people who live in Thames River Apartments. “We can put pressure on the city and its housing authority to take some action now,” Mr. Reardon said. He said he was not seeking monetary damages, just safe and habitable housing for the residents of the high-rise. DISCOUNT SCHOOOL: Recalls Brushes on Paint's High Lead Content -------------------------------------------------------------- Discount School Supply, of Monterey, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 20,000 of shaving paint brushes. The company said surface paint on the brush handles can contain excessive levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard. No incidents/injuries have been reported so far. The recall involves a set of six "shaving-style" brushes, which are about 4-inches long. The brushes' handles are painted blue, purple, orange, yellow, lime green, and pink. The item number #SHVBRSH is printed on the product's packaging. Brush sets with handles in brown, dark blue, red, green, blue, and black are not included in this recall. The recalled brushes were also included with the "BioColor(r) Foam Paint Starter Kit" and "Colorations(r) Foam Paint Starter Kit." The brushes were made in China and sold by Discount School Supply's catalog and Web site from May 2004 through August 2007 for about $5. The BioColor(r) kits were sold from May 2004 through June 2006 for about $60. The Colorations(r) kits were sold from July 2006 through August 2007 for about $60. Consumers are advised to stop using the brushes immediately and contact Discount School Supply to receive a free replacement brush set. For more information, contact Discount School Supply at (800) 293-9314 between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; visit http://www.discountschoolsupply.comor e-mail the firm at brushrecall@discountschoolsupply.com ELECTRONIC DATA: Court Upholds $137M Securities Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the sole remaining appeal that challenges the approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas of a $137.5 million settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action, “Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) Securities Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512 + Lead Case 6:03-CV-110.” Electronic Data Systems, Inc. and certain of its former officers are defendants in numerous shareholder class actions filed from September through December 2002 in response to its Sept. 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity hedging transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in the price of EDS common stock. The cases allege violations of various federal securities laws and common law fraud based upon purported misstatements or omissions of material facts regarding the company's financial condition. On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities action filed a consolidated class action complaint. The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that the company and certain of its former officers made false and misleading statements about the financial condition of EDS, particularly with respect to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet contract and the accounting for that contract. On Nov. 1, 2005, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding with the lead plaintiff and class representative to settle the consolidated securities action, subject to final approval of the settlement by the District Court. The District Court approved that settlement on March 7, 2006. The terms of the settlement provide for a cash payment of $137.5 million, substantially all of which was paid during the first quarter of 2006. The amount paid by the Company aggregated $77.5 million, with the remainder paid by its insurers (in addition to amounts paid by such insurers in respect of legal fees related to this action). The Company recorded incremental reserves of $24 million in 2005 in connection with this settlement. The remaining cost of the settlement was recognized in the Company's financial statements prior to 2004. Two appeals were filed with respect to the District Court's approval of this settlement. One appeal, which was dismissed in June 2007, challenged the amount of attorneys fees awarded to the counsel for plaintiffs. The other appeal, which challenged the approval of the settlement on the grounds that there is a subclass who receives no economic benefit, the release is overbroad, and the claims form was overly burdensome, was dismissed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in September 2007. For more details, contact: EDS Corp. Securities Litigation c/o Poorman-Douglas Corporation, Claims Administrator P.O. Box 3560 Portland, OR 97208-3560 Phone: 888-230-9850 Fax: 503-350-5890 E-mail: edssecuritieslitigation@poorman-douglas.com Web site: http://www.edssecuritieslitigation.com Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Third Floor San Diego, CA 92130 Web site: http://www.blbglaw.com - and - Lowenstein Sandler P.C., 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Web site: http://www.lowenstein.com ELECTRONIC DATA: Tex. Court to Hear Motions in ERISA Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is expected to hear plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in the lawsuit, “In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) ERISA Litigation, Case Mo. 6:03-MD-1512,” on January 2008. Initially, five class action suits were filed on behalf of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and, in some cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and made misrepresentations to the class regarding the value of EDS shares. All of the foregoing cases have been centralized in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated ERISA action filed a consolidated class action complaint. The consolidated complaint alleges violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the U.S. Securities Act by selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants. The defendants in the ERISA claims are EDS, certain current and former officers of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board of Directors, and certain current and former members of the two committees responsible for administering the plan. On Nov. 8, 2004, the District Court certified a class in the ERISA action on certain of the allegations of breach of fiduciary duty, of all participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose accounts the plan made or maintained investments in EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund between Sept. 7, 1999 and Oct. 9, 2002. The court also certified a class in the ERISA action on the allegations of violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of all participants in the Plan and their beneficiaries, excluding the defendants, for whose accounts the Plan purchased EDS stock through the EDS Stock Fund between Oct. 20, 2001 and Nov. 18, 2002. On Jan. 18, 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal issued its decision vacating the district court's class certification decision and remanding the matter to the district court to re- evaluate whether the action may be maintained as a class certification in light of the Fifth Circuit's opinion and instructions. The district court is expected to hear the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consistent with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in January 2008, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 6:03-MD-1512,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Leonard Davis. Representing the plaintiffs is: Barry C. Barnett, Esq. Susman Godfrey LLP 901 Main Street, Suite 4100 Dallas, Texas 75202-3775 Phone: 214-754-1900 Fax: 214-754-1933 Representing the defendants are: David J. Bailey, Esq. Michael McConnell of Jones Day 1420 Peachtree Street Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 Phone: 214/969-3700 Fax: 12149695100 E-mail: djbailey@jonesday.com mmcconnell@jonesday.com - and - Richard P. Keeton, Esq. Nickens Keeton Lawless Farrell & Flack 600 Travis Suite 7500 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713/571-9191 Fax: 713/571-9652 E-mail: rkeeton@nickenskeeton.com EL PASO: Tex. Court Considers Motions in ERISA Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has yet to rule on various motions made in the class action, “William H. Lewis, III v. El Paso Corp., et al.” The suit was filed in December 2002, alleging generally that the company's direct and indirect communications with participants in the El Paso Corp. Retirement Savings Plan included misrepresentations and omissions that caused members of the class to hold and maintain investments in El Paso stock in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Various motions have been filed, and the company is awaiting the court’s ruling, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Lewis, et al. v. EL Paso Corp., et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-04860,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Lynn N. Hughes. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner and Bilek LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com - and - Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. Schiffrin & Barroway LLP Three Bala Plz E., Ste. 400 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-667-7706 Representing the company is: Stephen D. Susman, Esq. Susman Godfrey, 1000 Louisiana Ste 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Phone: 713-651-9366 Fax: 713-654-6670 E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com EL PASO: Colo. Court Nixes Claims in ERISA, Age Bias Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed certain claims in the purported class action, “Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES.” In December 2004, the purported class action lawsuit entitled Tomlinson, et al. v. El Paso Corp. and El Paso Corp. Pension Plan was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The lawsuit alleges various violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a result of its change from a final average earnings formula pension plan to a cash balance pension plan. Certain of the claims that said the company's cash balance plan violated ERISA were recently dismissed by the trial court, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is “Tomlinson et al. v. El Paso Corp. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-02686-WDM-OES,” filed in the U.S. District Court in Denver, Colorado under Judge Walker D. Miller. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. Stephen R. Bruce, Law Offices 805 15th Street, NW #210 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-371-8013 Fax: 202-371-0121 E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net - and - Barry Douglas Roseman, Esq. Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC 1120 Lincoln Street #1607 Denver, CO 80203-2141 Phone: 303-839-1771 Fax: 861-9214 E-mail: broseman@nela.org Representing the company are: Raymond W. Martin, Esq. Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP 1801 California Street #3600 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-244-1863 Fax: 303-244-1879 E-mail: martin@wtklaw.com - and - Christopher James Rillo, Esq. Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal 685 Market Street, Sixth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-882-5000 Fax: 415-543-5472 EL PASO: Motion to Dismiss Nev. Natural Gas MDL Remains Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- El Paso Corp., and certain of its affiliates, along with other energy firms, continue to seek the dismissal of several lawsuits accusing it of natural gas price manipulations. The company is facing a set of cases filed on behalf of certain purchasers of natural gas. These include purported class actions: -- "Leggett et al. v. Duke Energy Corporation et al." (filed in Chancery Court of Tennessee in January 2005); -- "Ever-Bloom Inc. v. AEP Energy Services Inc. et al." (filed in U.S. District for the Eastern District of California in June 2005); -- "Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in July 2005); -- "Learjet, Inc. v. Oneok Inc." (filed in state court in Wyandotte County, Kansas in September 2005); -- "Breckenridge, et al v. Oneok Inc., et al." (filed in state court in Denver County, Colorado in May 2006); -- "Arandell, et al v. Xcel Energy, et al." (filed in the Circuit court of Dane County, Wisconsin in December 2006); and -- “Heartland, et al. v. Oneok Inc., et al.” (filed in the circuit court of Buchanan County, Missouri in March 2007). The Leggett case was dismissed by the Tennessee state court and has been appealed. The remaining cases have all been transferred to a multi-district litigation proceeding (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for Nevada and styled “In re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.” Cases within these MDL proceeding were dismissed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, reversed the dismissal and ordered that these cases be remanded to the trial court. Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration of that ruling. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company that provides natural gas and related energy products. EL PASO: Kans. “Price” Antitrust Suit Awaits Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion seeking class certification of a second class action filed against a number of El Paso Corp. subsidiaries and other natural gas companies. The suit “Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines and Their Predecessors, et al.” was originally filed in 1999, alleging that the defendants mis-measured natural gas volumes and heating content of natural gas on non-federal and non-Native American lands. Plaintiffs currently seek certification of a class of royalty owners in wells on non-federal and non-Native American lands in Kansas, Wyoming and Colorado. The suit is seeking an unspecified amount of monetary damages in the form of additional royalty payments (along with interest, expenses and punitive damages) and injunctive relief with regard to future gas measurement practices. Motions for class certification have been briefed and argued in the proceedings and the parties are awaiting the court’s ruling. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. El Paso Corp. -- http://www.elpaso.com/-- is an energy company that provides natural gas and related energy products. GENTA INC: March Hearing Set for N.J. Securities Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey set a March 3, 2008 final fairness hearing for a proposed settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Genta, Inc. In 2004, numerous complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Genta and certain of its principal officers on behalf of purported classes of the company's shareholders who purchased its securities during several class periods. The complaints were consolidated into a single action and allege that the company and certain of its principal officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements regarding Genasenser for the treatment of malignant melanoma that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the company's securities. The shareholder class action complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount and recovery of plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees. The Company reached an agreement with plaintiffs to settle the class action litigation in consideration for the issuance of 2.0 million shares of common stock of the Company (adjusted for any subsequent event that results in a change in the number of shares outstanding as of Jan. 31, 2007) and $18.0 million in cash for the benefit of plaintiffs and the shareholder class. The cash portion of the proposed settlement will be covered by the Company’s insurance carriers. Effective June 25, 2007, the Company and plaintiffs executed a written Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement which was filed with the Court on Aug. 13, 2007, seeking preliminary approval. The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement was granted on Oct. 30, 2007, and the Settlement Fairness Hearing is scheduled for March 3, 2008. The suit is “In re: Genta, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 2:04-cv-02123-JAG-MCA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr. with referral to Judge Madeline C. Arleo. Representing the plaintiffs are: Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP 10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 800.217.1522 E-mail: info@bernlieb.com Brodsky & Smith, LLC 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39 Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004 Phone: 610.668.7987 Fax: 610.660.0450 E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 825 Third Avenue - 30th Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.838.7797 Fax: 212.838.7745 E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com - and - Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Herrmann & Knopf Park 80 Plaza West-One Saddle Brook, NJ 7663 Phone: 201845.9600 E-mail: info@njlawfirm.com GOODMAN GLOBAL: Faces Lawsuit in Tex. Over $2.65B Sale to H&F ------------------------------------------------------------- Goodman Global, Inc. faces a purported class action in Harris County District Court, Texas over an agreement wherein it agreed to be acquired by affiliates of Hellman & Friedman LLC (H&F). On Oct. 21, 2007, the Company signed a definitive agreement to be acquired by affiliates of H&F in an all-cash transaction valued at approximately $2.65 billion, on an enterprise value basis. The suit, styled, “Call4U Ltd. v. Carroll, Case Number 2007- 66888,” was filed on Oct. 26, 2007 on behalf of all similarly situated stockholders of the Company. It names as defendants the Company, all of its directors and H&F, and it asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors and aiding and abetting such breaches against H&F. The Company has not received service of process for this lawsuit as of the date hereof. The plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the closing of the merger, reimbursement of associated attorneys’ and experts’ fees and other relief that the court deems proper. Goodman Global, Inc. -- http://www.goodmanglobal.com/-- is a domestic manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air conditioning products for residential and light commercial use. HERBALIFE INT'L: Still Faces Calif. Unfair Trade Practices Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its independent distributors continue to face a class action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. On Feb. 17, 2005, a suit, “Minton v. Herbalife International, et al.,” was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. The suit was served on the company on March 14, 2005. The company moved to transfer the case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit is challenging the marketing practices of certain Herbalife International independent distributors and the company under various state laws prohibiting “endless chain schemes,” insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit. Plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by certain independent distributors of Herbalife International products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials by distributors. Plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group pressured distributors to disseminate misleading promotional materials. Plaintiff seeks to hold the company vicariously liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking damages and injunctive relief. The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is seeking damages and injunctive relief. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is known for its weight loss products. Herbalife also makes dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products. Its weight management products include dietary shakes, protein snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive supplements. The company also offers a variety of supplements that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support immune system function. Herbalife sells its plethora of products through a network of more than 1 million independent distributors located in more than 60 countries. HERBALIFE INT'L: $7M TCPA Suit Settlement Awaits Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia has yet to grant final approval to a settlement of a purported class action filed against Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint, “Mey v. Herbalife International, Inc., et al.,” alleges that certain telemarketing practices of certain company distributors violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint seeks to hold the company vicariously liable for the practices of its distributors. More specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that several of the company's distributors used pre-recorded telephone messages and autodialers to contact prospective customers in violation of the TCPA's prohibition of such practices. The company's distributors are independent contractors and, if any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also violated the company's policies, which require its distributors to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws. On Apr. 21, 2006, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter, May 25, 2006). The Company and the other defendants have reached a binding settlement with the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the settlement the defendants collectively will pay $7 million into a fund to be distributed to qualifying class members. The settlement has received the preliminary approval of the Court and final approval is expected to be received in January 2008. Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is known for its weight loss products. Herbalife also makes dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products. Its weight management products include dietary shakes, protein snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive supplements. The company also offers a variety of supplements that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support immune system function. Herbalife sells its plethora of products through a network of more than 1 million independent distributors located in more than 60 countries. HEWLETT-PACKARD: Exclusion Deadline Set for “Grider” Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ The District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma set a Jan. 21, 2008 deadline for requesting exclusion from the class that was certified in the class action, “Grider, et al. v. Compaq Computer Corp., Case No. CJ-03-969 L.” The suit was filed by Stephen and Beverly Grider on June 2003, accusing Compaq, now a part of Hewlett-Packard Co., of selling defective computers that it then refused to repair. It generally seeks among other things, specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. On Sept. 23, 2005, the District Court granted the “Grider” plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class action, which the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on Oct. 13, 2006. On Nov. 5, 2006, defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking reversal of the lower courts' decisions. Defendants argued in court papers filed with the Supreme Court that a virtually identical lawsuit was brought in Texas in 2000, which was captioned, “LaPray v. Compaq.” That suit was filed in the District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. The basic allegation is that HP and Compaq sold computers containing floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk controller errors. That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data corruption. In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification and remanded to the trial court in May 2004. In “Grider,” the Oklahoma Supreme Court not only certified the class, but said that Texas law should be applied in the case because, among other things, Compaq was headquartered in Texas. The class has been defined as all persons who on or before Oct. 31, 1995, purchased any one or more of the following Compaq model computers: PRESARIO DESKTOPS -- 2266 -- 2275 -- 2281 -- 2285V -- 2286 -- 2412ES -- 2416ES -- 5070 -- 5148 -- 5185 -- 5301 -- 5304 -- 5304B -- 5340 -- 5345 -- 5360 -- 5365 -- 5410 -- 5440 -- 5441 -- 5451 -- 5452 -- 5460 -- 5461 -- 5465 -- 5710 PRESARIO LAPTOPS -- 17XL266 -- 17XL274 -- 17XL264 -- 17XL260 -- 17XL261 -- 17XL262 -- 17XL275 -- 17XL265 -- 1700T[CTO] For more details, contact: Gary Neale Reger, Esq. Orgain Bell & Tucker, LLP 470 Orleans Street, P.O. Box 1751 Beaumont, TX 77704-1751 Phone: (409) 838-6412 Fax: (409) 838-6959 - and - Jimmy K. Goodman, Esq. Crowe & Dunlevy 20 North Broadway, Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-235-7717 Fax: 405-272-5272 Web site: http://www.crowedunlevy.com KENTUCKY: Final Payments in Covington Diocese Abuse Case Out ------------------------------------------------------------ Final payments are going out to plaintiffs in a sex abuse class action filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Covington, Brett Barrouquere of The Associated Press reports. In 2003, Cincinnati-based attorney Stan Chesley filed the class action in Boone County Circuit Court, claiming that 21 priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials did nothing to stop the misconduct (Class Action Reporter, February 18, 2003). According to court filings, from about 1956, information on the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been concealed from the public, including parents of children in schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the diocese. The suit accuses the diocese of a 50-year cover-up of sexual abuse by priests and others. In July 2005, a judge granted approval to a settlement between victims of sexual abuse and the Diocese of Covington (Class Action Reporter, November 8, 2005). The settlement announced in June 2005 calls for the Northern Kentucky diocese to contribute $40 million to the fund. The diocese's insurance carriers would contribute up to $80 million. It would compensate victims who were fondled, raped or sodomized by priests and other church employees. The amounts paid out to plaintiffs will depend on the size of the settlement fund, the number and nature of claims and the severity of each victim's abuse. In recent development, lawyer Stan Chesley, who represents the victims in the case said the settlement master in the case approved the final payments. According to Mr. Barrouquere, the settlement is between the diocese and more than 350 people abused by priests and diocese employees since the 1950s in 57 counties across a large swath of Kentucky. It calls for victims to receive from $5,000 to $1 million based on the severity and duration of the abuse they suffered. Some money has also been set aside to pay for counseling for abuse victims. David Clohessy, national director of SNAP, said the payments do compensate victims, but are also a business decision by the church to "prevent embarrassing trials.," Mr. Barrouquere said. LA FEMME: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Set on High Lead Content -------------------------------------------------------- La Femme NY 2 Inc., of Brooklyn, N.Y., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling 4,500 La Femme NY Children's Necklace and Earring Sets. The company said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No incidents/injuries has been reported so far. The recalled necklace and earring sets have a silver metal chain and a round pendant with a light blue jewel and three jeweled dangling charms. The necklace and earring sets were made in China and sold at various dollar stores nationwide from October 2005 to April 2007 for about $1. Consumers are advised to stop using this product immediately and return it to the store where it was purchased to receive a full refund. For additional information, please contact La Femme NY 2 Inc. at (866) 667-5369 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit http://www.lafemmeny.comor e-mail the firm at corp@lafemmeny.net PHILIP MORRIS: Trial in "Craft" Lights Suit Set January 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ A January 2009 trial is set in the lights suit, "Craft v. Philip Morris USA Inc., No. ED85142, 2005 WL 1944333," which is pending in Missouri court. The suit filed in 2000 alleged that Missouri consumers did not receive "the qualities and economic value of low-tar, low- nicotine cigarettes." It said light cigarettes, when used normally, actually deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine than demonstrated in machine testing conditions. Judge Michael David of the St. Louis Circuit Court certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of state "residents who had purchased [Philip Morris brand] lights in Missouri since 1971 but who do not have a claim for personal injury relating to smoking." . . . In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order. In September 2005, PM USA removed Craft to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in another lights suit "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas state. In March 2006, the federal trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion and remanded the case to the Missouri state trial court. In May 2006, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s class certification decision. Trial has been set for January 2009. PHILIP MORRIS: “Curtis” Lights Lawsuit Sent to State Court ---------------------------------------------------------- A district court has remanded the light/ultra lights case, “Curtis, et al. v. Philip Morris Companies Inc., et al.” to Minnesota state court. The suit was filed November 28, 2001 in the Fourth Judicial District Court, Hennepin County, Minnesota. In general, the Lights/Ultra Lights class actions, allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms “Lights” and/or “Ultra Lights” constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law fraud, or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against Philip Morris USA and, in certain instances, Altria Lights Group and Philip Morris International Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury, and damages, the statute of limitations, express preemption by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act and implied preemption by the policies and directives of the Federal Trade Commission, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. In January 2004, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and defendants’ motions for summary judgment. In November 2004, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and ordered the certification of a class. In April 2005, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied defendants’ petition for interlocutory review. In July 2005, the trial court granted defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal of the dismissal of the lights case, “Dahl. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.” In September 2005, PM USA removed Curtis to federal court based on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas, which upheld the removal of a Lights case to federal court based on the federal officer jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission. In February 2006, the federal court denied plaintiffs’ motion to remand the case to state court. The case was stayed pending the outcome of “Dahl v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,” which was argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in December 2006. In February 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling in Dahl, and reversed the federal district court’s denial of plaintiffs’ motion to remand that case to the state trial court. On October 17, 2007, the district court remanded the Curtis case to state court. PHILIP MORRIS: Court Keeps Ruling Dismissing “Price” Lights Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Illinois Supreme Court granted Philip Morris USA’s motion for supervisory order in the “lights” class action “Price v. Philip Morris, Inc.,” and a trial court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to vacate judgment dismissing the case. The case was filed on February 10, 2000, in the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois. Trial in the Price case commenced in state court in Illinois in January 2003, and in March 2003, the judge found in favor of the plaintiff class and awarded approximately $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages against PM USA. In April 2003, the judge reduced the amount of the appeal bond that PM USA must provide and ordered PM USA to place a pre- existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from Altria Group Inc. (ALG) to PM USA in an escrow account with an Illinois financial institution. The judge’s order also required PM USA to make cash deposits with the clerk of the Madison County Circuit Court in the following amounts: -- beginning October 1, 2003, an amount equal to the interest earned by PM USA on the ALG note ($210 million every six months), -- an additional $800 million in four equal quarterly installments between September 2003 and June 2004 and the payments of principal on the note, which are due in April 2008, 2009 and 2010. Plaintiffs appealed the judge’s order reducing the bond. In July 2003, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court had exceeded its authority in reducing the bond. In September 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the reduced bond set by the trial court and announced it would hear PM USA’s appeal on the merits without the need for intermediate appellate court review. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions that the case be dismissed. In May 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for rehearing. In June 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court ordered the return to PM USA of approximately $2.2 billion being held in escrow to secure the appeal bond in the case and terminated PM USA’s obligations to pay administrative fees to the Madison County Clerk. In November 2006, the United States Supreme Court denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari and, in December 2006, the Circuit Court of Madison County entered final judgment in favor of PM USA and dismissed the case with prejudice. In December 2006, the pre-existing 7.0%, $6 billion long-term note from ALG to PM USA that was in escrow pending the outcome of plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was returned to PM USA. Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate or withdraw the Price decision based upon the United States Supreme Court’s grant of the petition for writ of certiorari in another lights class action, "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas. In May 2007, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify certain questions to the Illinois Fifth District Appellate Court, and plaintiffs petitioned the Fifth District to review the certified questions. In May 2007, PM USA filed applications for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus with the Illinois Supreme Court seeking an order compelling the lower courts to deny plaintiffs’ motion to vacate and/or withhold final judgment. In June 2007, the appellate court granted PM USA’s motion to stay plaintiffs’ appeal pending resolution of related matters before the Illinois Supreme Court. In August 2007, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA’s motion for supervisory order and the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s motion to vacate or withhold final judgment. The suit is "Sharon Price and Michael Fruth, et al. v. Philip Morris Incorporated, No. 00-L-112." Class counsel is: Stephen Tillery, Esq. Korein Tillery 10 Executive Woods Court Belleville, IL 62226 Phone: (618) 277-1180 Fax: (618) 222-6939 E-mail: contact@koreintillery.com PHILIP MORRIS: Still Faces “Watson” Lights Case in Ark. Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Morris USA continues to face the lights class action, "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284" in Arkansas state court. The suit was filed by two Little Rock women, Lisa Watson and Loretta Lawson in 2003 in Pulaski County Circuit Court in Arkansas. In June 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed rulings by lower federal courts in the case and remanded it to Arkansas state court (Class Action Reporter, June 12, 2007). The Supreme Court rejected defendants’ contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the “federal officer” statute. In considering the issue of federal jurisdiction in the Watson case, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit earlier had ruled that because Philip Morris USA tested and marketed its “Lights” cigarettes under the Federal Trade Commission’s “direct and comprehensive control,” a federal court should hear the case. On June 11, 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that the company’s compliance with federal regulations did not confer exclusive jurisdiction on federal courts. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to reverse rulings by lower federal courts in the Watson case and remand it to state court does not negatively affect the ultimate outcome of the case or that of other “Lights” cases, Philip Morris USA had said in a statement. “[The] ruling is narrow and merely determined whether the Watson case should be heard in federal court or state court. We have compelling defenses to the Watson claim that have been advanced in state courts,” said William S. Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate general counsel. Mr. Ohlemeyer added that the Watson case will have minimal effect on “Lights” or other class actions filed against the company after enactment of the Class Action Fairness Act in 2005, which requires most class actions to be heard in federal court. The decision clarified the procedural issue of when defendants, who are acting under a federal agency like the FTC and sued in state court, can remove the case to federal court. While [Mon]day’s decision does not directly address the issue of whether the federal labeling act or agency regulation of a defendant's advertising and marketing activities prevents plaintiffs from suing under state consumer fraud laws, the Court did note that Philip Morris USA was acting pursuant to “...considerable regulatory detail and supervision...” Philip Morris USA has long maintained that Congress and the FTC created a comprehensive regulatory scheme for marketing "low tar" and "Lights" cigarettes and, that these types of class actions are pre-empted by federal law or exempted from state consumer fraud laws. Many courts have so held and this recent decision adds further support to those rulings. Altria Group Inc., the parent of Philip Morris, reported no development in the case at its Nov. 6 10-Q filing for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Watson v. Philip Morris, Case No. 05-1284." The plaintiffs' lawyer is: Steven E. Cauley, P.A. Cypress Plaza Suite 218 2200 Rodney Parham Rd Little Rock, AR 72212-4155 Fax: (501) 312-8505 PURE ALLURE: Recalls Crystal Jewelry on High Lead Content --------------------------------------------------------- Pure Allure, of Oceanside, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 200,000 Crystal Innovations jewelry. The company said the recalled metal jewelry contains high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No incidents/injuries has been reported so far. The recalled products are metal jewelry components. The SKU numbers can be located on the products' packaging above the barcode. The following Crystal Innovations products are included in the recall: Butterfly Charm SKU# 10369903 Flip Flop Charm SKU# 10369909 Heart Crystal Closure SKU# 10391027 Heart Princess Closure SKU# 10391029 Seabreeze Clasps SKU# 10391040 Flower HK Crystal/AB Closure SKU# 10391046 Flower HK Princess Closure SKU# 10391048 Flower Rope Seabreeze Toggle SKU# 10391050 Toggles w/Heart Crystal AB SKU# 10391052 Toggles w/heart Princess SKU#10391054 Princess Earring Set SKU# 10391076 Slider Metal Rectangle Abalone SKU#10369900 Charm Open Flower SKU# 10370038 Earring Set Drop Crystal/AB SKU# 10391065 Earring Set Drop Seabreeze SKU# 10391067 Flower Charm SKU# 10369907 Purse-Sunglasses Charm SKU# 10369910 Heart Seabreeze Closure SKU#10391028 Crystal/AB Clasps SKU# 10391039 Princess Clasps SKU# 10391041 Flower HK Seabreeze Closure SKU# 10391047 Flower Rope Crystal/AB Toggle SKU# 10391049 Flower Rope Princess Toggle SKU# 10391051 Toggles w/heart Seabreeze SKU# 10391053 Crystal/AB Earring Set SKU# 10391074 Seabreeze Earring Set SKU# 10391075 Toggle Bracelet SKU# 10370037 Charm Open Cross SKU# 10370039 Earring Set Drop Princess SKU# 10391066 No other Crystal Innovations products or SKU numbers are included in this recall. The jewelry were made in China and sold at Michaels Stores nationwide from April 2006 to September 2007 for about $5. Consumers are advised to immediately take these jewelry pieces away from young children and return it to the store where purchased for a full refund. For additional information, contact Pure Allure at (800) 536-6312 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through Friday; visit http://www.pureallure.com/recallor e-mail the firm at info@pureallure.com ROYAL AHOLD: Hakon Invest Receives $19.5M from Settlement Fund -------------------------------------------------------------- Swedish investor Hakon Invest AB has received payment from a settlement fund that was set up in connection with a settlement of a class action against the Dutch company Royal Ahold in the U.S. The amount reportedly paid to Hakon Invest was $19.5 million and corresponds to approximately 95% of the company's total claim in the settlement. The remaining 5% is expected to be paid out within twelve months, the company added. Hakon Invest, headquartered in Solna, Sweden, invests mainly in unlisted companies in the Nordic retail sector. The company's main investment is its 40% ownership in the retail group ICA AB. Hakon Invest is listed on the Nordic Exchange in Stockholm. Case Background The lawsuit stems from a 2003 accounting scandal that forced the company to restate earnings by $1.1 billion over three years. Most of the problems were related to inflated earnings at the company's U.S. Foodservice subsidiary in Columbia. It alleged that Ahold N.V. misled investors by presenting an inaccurate financial picture of the company to stockholders and inflating the price of its common stock. It alleged claims against Ahold and Ahold USA, Inc., Ahold USA Holdings, Inc., U.S. Foodservice, Inc., Cees Van der Hoeven, Michiel Meurs, Henny de Ruiter, Cor Boonstra, James L. Miller, Mark Kaiser, Michael Resnick, Tim Lee, Robert G. Tobin, William J. Grize, Roland Fahlin, Jan G. Andreae, ABN AMRO Rothschild, Goldman Sachs International, Merrill Lynch International, ING Bank N.V., Rabo Securities N.V., and Kempen & Co. N.V. based upon the matters that Ahold first announced on Feb. 24. The settlement of the suit covers Ahold, its subsidiaries and affiliates, the individual defendants and the underwriters. It resolves all securities law claims against Ahold, and all other defendants, other than Deloitte & Touche entities. The settlement is global in nature and is designed to provide a recovery to all persons who purchased Ahold common stock and/or American Depository Receipts from July 30, 1999 through Feb. 23, 2003, regardless of where such persons live or purchased their Ahold shares. The settlement must be approved by at least 180 million shares from about 800 million qualifying shares. The average payment is estimated to be $1.51 per Fund A share and 40 cents per share for Fund B shares, according to court documents. Claims are to be made about 12 months after the court's final approval (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 10, 2006). The company denies any wrongdoing in the settlement. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, issued an order on Oct. 3 authorizing Lead Counsel and the Claims Administrator to begin making Settlement payments to Class Members of the class action against Royal Ahold N.V. in the U.S. (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 15, 2007). For more information, contact the Claims Administrator by calling one of the numbers provided below or writing to the address below: In re Royal Ahold N.V. Securities and Erisa Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. Claims Administrator P.O. Box 9000 #6378 Merrick, NY 11566-9000 U.S.A. Country Toll Free Number Australia 0011-800-1020-4060 Austria 0800-296107 Belgium 00-800-1020-4060 Canada 1-888-410-0027 Denmark 00-800-1020-4060 England 00-800-1020-4060 Finland 00-800-1020-4060 France 00-800-1020-4060 (France Telecom) 40-800-1020-4060 (TELE 2) 50-800-1020-4060 (Omnicom) 70-800-1020-4060 (Le 7 Cegetel) 90-800-1020-4060 (9 Telecom) Germany 00-800-1020-4060 Hong Kong 001-800-1020-4060 Ireland 00-800-1020-4060 Italy 00-800-1020-4060 Japan 010-800-1020-4060 Liectenstein 809-2288, ask to be connected to 800-467-8208 Luxembourg 00-800-1020-4060 Netherlands 00-800-1020-4060 Norway 00-800-1020-4060 Portugal 00-800-1020-4060 Scotland 00-800-1020-4060 Singapore 001-800-1020-4060 (Singtel IDD) 002-800-1020-4060 (MobileONE IDD) 008-800-1020-4060 (Starhub IDD) 013-800-1020-4060 (Singtel Budget Call) 018-800-1020-4060 (Starhub I-Call) 019-800-1020-4060 (Singtel V019) Spain 00-800-1020-4060 Sweden 00-800-1020-4060 Switzerland 00-800-1020-4060 United States 1-888-410-0027 International Toll Number +1-941-906-4864 SAILING INT'L: Recalls Flashing Pacifiers Due to Choking Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- Sailing (U.S.) International Corp., of Hackensack, New Jersey, in connection with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 8,000 flashing pacifiers or 2-in-1 flashing pacifiers with whistle necklaces. The company said the nipple can detach from the base, posing a choking hazard to young children. No injuries have been reported. The recalled pacifier necklace has a 28-inch multicolored cord with a 3- inch plastic pacifier that comes in assorted colors. A hole at the tip of the nipple is used as a blow hole for the whistle. The pacifier handle operates as the on-off button for the flashing light on both pacifiers. ?Flashing Pacifier? or ?2- in-1 Flashing Pacifier with Whistle Necklace? is printed on the packaging of the pacifiers. These recalled pacifiers were manufactured in China and are being sold at various retail stores nationwide during the month of June 2007 for about $5 per dozen. Pictures of the recalled flashing pacifiers: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08099b.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the pacifiers and return them to the store where purchased to receive a full refund or discard the pacifiers. For additional information, contact Sailing (U.S.) International Corp. at (800) 643-6134 between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.sailingusintl.com SOUTHERN CO: Ga. Court Gives Final OK to ERISA Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta gave final approval to a proposed settlement of the ERISA class action, “Spivey v. Southern Co. et al.” The suit was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and a class of all persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southern Company Employee Savings Plan from April 2, 2001 to July 26, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class members by: -- failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan’s assets; -- failing to provide participants with complete and accurate information regarding Mirant stock sufficient to advise participants of the true risks of investing their retirement savings; and -- failing to properly monitor the performance of their fiduciary appointees, and remove and replace those whose performance was inadequate. Not all claims were brought against every Defendant. On Oct. 4, 2005, the District Court issued an order in this matter in which it denied Southern Company’s motion to dismiss the three claims alleged in the Southern ERISA Complaint. The Court also allowed the Plaintiff to proceed with the lawsuit against all of the Defendants named in the Southern ERISA Complaint. By order entered June 12, 2007, Judge Richard W. Story of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia preliminarily certified Plaintiff’s claims as a Class Action, preliminarily approved a Settlement Agreement that was reached, and appointed Mark T. Spivey as Class Representative of the Settlement Class. Judge Story certified the following Settlement Class: “All persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Southern Company Employee Savings Plan at any time between April 2, 2001 and July 26, 2006 and whose Plan accounts held Mirant Stock in the Plan’s Mirant Stock Fund, excluding the Southern Defendants and the Immediate Family, beneficiaries, alternate payees, Representatives, or Successors-in-Interest in connection with their accounts in the Plan.” On Aug. 14, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued a final order and judgment approving the December 2006 settlement agreement. The Southern Co. -- http://www.southerncompany.com/-- owns all the common stock of Alabama Power Co., Georgia Power Co., Gulf Power Co., Southern Power Co., and Mississippi Power Co., each of which is an operating public utility company. New Securities Fraud Cases DYADIC INTERNATIONAL: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly situated purchasers of Dyadic International, Inc. (AMEX: DIL - News) common stock between April 5, 2006 through and including April 23, 2007. The complaint charges Dyadic and one of its officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). It is alleged that defendants omitted or misrepresented material adverse facts about the Company's financial condition, business prospects, and revenue expectations during the Class Period. Dyadic is a biotechnology company with operations in the U.S. and abroad. The Company purports to use its patented and propriety technologies to conduct research and development activities for the discovery, development, and manufacture of products enabling solutions to the bioenergy, industrial enzyme, and pharmaceutical industries, and was actively traded on the American Stock Exchange. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants issued numerous materially false and misleading statements which caused Dyadic's securities to trade at artificially inflated prices. More specifically, the complaint alleges operational and financial improprieties perpetrated by the Company and its Asian subsidiaries, and knowingly and/or recklessly 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 and the Company's stock, which was artificially inflated as a result of the material omissions and misstatements contained within the Company's publicly-filed financial statements and reports, has not been publicly-traded since April 24, 2007 and is at risk of being delisted, resulting in total loss of equity for owners of Dyadic's securities. According to the complaint, on April 24, 2007, the Company shocked the market and announced that it discovered potentially material operational and financial improprieties at its Asian subsidiaries. As a result of these findings, the complaint alleges that the Company began an independent investigation and placed the Company's Chief Executive Officer and Chairman on leave. The complaint also alleges that the Company announced that its "previously filed financial statements, including those contained in its Annual Reports on Forms 10-KSB and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-QSB, as filed with the SEC, should no longer be relied upon." Finally, the complaint alleges that all trading in the Company's securities was halted because of the alleged improprieties. Thus, the complaint alleges that the Company's shares have still not yet had an opportunity to lose their artificial inflation. Interested parties may move the court no later than December 11, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Robert Smits Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com VIRGIN MOBILE: Kahn Gauthier Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC has filed the first class action against Virgin Mobile USA, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of VM USA in connection with the Company's IPO on or about October 11, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter in the open market. VM USA, certain of its officers and directors, certain controlling majority shareholders, and the Company's underwriters are charged with including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The Complaint charges that VM USA raised over $412.5 million through the issuance of 27.5 million shares, despite the Registration Statement's false and misleading statements. Specifically, defendants each failed to conduct an adequate due diligence investigation into the Company prior to the IPO, and they also each failed to reveal, at the time of the IPO, that Virgin Mobile was also not performing according to plan and that results for the third quarter of 2007 -- the period ended a full 2 weeks prior to the VM USA IPO -- showed growing losses as expenses rose and business slowed, indicating that the Company would be forced to revise downward its near-term forward financial and operational guidance. On November 16, 2007, approximately one month after the IPO, investors learned the truth about VM USA's financial and operational condition, after defendants revealed that the Company had suffered a widening loss for the third quarter, the period ended September 30, 2007, as a result of rising expenses -- a loss of $7.3 million, or ($0.15) per share, compared with a loss of only $5.1 million, or ($0.10) per share, in the same period the prior year. These results also contrasted the $28.9 million in net income, and profits of $0.55 per share reported in the first six months of 2007, reported prior to the IPO. Further, Defendants also revealed that fourth-quarter 2007 outlook called for between 350,000 and 400,000 net customer additions, an anemic amount analysts described as "weak," and that 4Q:07 guidance would be what was described as "well below" expectations. On this news, shares of VM USA fell nearly 30% in intra-day trading, from an opening trading price of $11.09 per share to a trading low of $8.07 per share before closing the trading day at $9.10 per share, on exceedingly high volume of 6.512 million shares. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 E-mail: lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.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 * * *