C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, January 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 3 Headlines APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J. BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11 GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status UNITED RENTALS: Asks Cerberus for $100M Merger Termination Fee Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana's Future Liability Costs Not Disclosed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Management Plan to Start in Jan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DEP Investigates Possible Breaches by Posen ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bldg. w/ Asbestos May Be Demolished in Jan. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Halts Demolition of Bldg. in Florida ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Linked to U.K. Const. Worker's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Slows Demolition of S.C. Building ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Forces Closure of Hospital in Wales ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owners of Mass. Building to Pay for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Forces Closure of Aussie Warehouse ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ind. Town Granted $25T for Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ex-Rail Worker's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Winona State to be Fined $24.5T for Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Indian Workers Deal w/ Asbestos From Canada ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentence Termination Motion in Kay Denied ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Conn. Court Flips Ruling to Favor Hartford ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Board Ruling in Earls Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Favors Plaintiff in ConEd Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in John Crane’s Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Plaintiffs' Petition in Snyder Case Granted ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Flips Ruling in Slaughter Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADFU Calls for Cleanup in Australian Homes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Upholds Ruling in Ill. Cleanup Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KFSD, EPA Probe Kuwait Site Housing Bldgs. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alimta Drug Added to Aussie Benefits Scheme ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Balfour, Jordan Penalized for OSHA Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Drug to be Tested as Mesothelioma Treatment ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Exits Bankruptcy Protection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bar Urges Court to Suspend Lawyer's License ASBESTOS LITIGATION: $110,000 Hazard Overcharges Found at School ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Locals Wary of Fire in Abandoned Club ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fire Destroys West Sussex Barns in New Year ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Bldg. with Hazard Destroyed by Fire ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACandS to Emerge From Bankruptcy Protection ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NHS Trust Deals w/ Hazard at Welsh Hospital ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Flytippers Dump Hazard in U.K. Countryside ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tex. City to Decide on Best Western Removal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Files Witness and Exhibit Lists ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Lawyer Says Reports Meet "Fit" Test ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Split Ruling Issued in Weyerhaeuser Action New Securities Fraud Cases BASIN WATER: Schiffrin Barroway Files Cal. Securities Fraud Suit SANOFI-AVENTIS: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* APPLE COMPUTER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over iTunes-iPod Tie-up --------------------------------------------------------------- Apple Computer, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that accuses it of illegally tying iTunes music and iPods sales. Charoensak Litigation Plaintiff filed the suit "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc.," formerly “Slattery v. Apple Computer, Inc.,” on Jan. 3, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music purchased on the iTunes Music Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2), California Business and Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (the Cartwright Act), California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition), common law unjust enrichment and common law monopolization. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The company filed a motion to dismiss on Feb. 10, 2005. A hearing on the motion took place on June 6, 2005. On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Sept. 23, 2005 and the company filed an answer on Oct. 11, 2005. On May 8, 2006, the court heard plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to substitute two new plaintiffs for "Slattery." In August 2006, the court dismissed Slattery without prejudice and allowed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint naming two new plaintiffs (Charoensak and Rosen). On Nov. 2, 2006, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Tucker Case Plaintiff filed the "Tucker v. Apple Computer, Inc." case as a purported class action on July 21, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging various claims including alleged unlawful tying of music and videos purchased on the iTunes Store with the purchase of iPods and vice versa and unlawful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly market power. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California Business & Professions Code Section 16700 et seq. (Cartwright Act), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 (unfair competition) and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff sought unspecified damages and other relief. On Nov. 3, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On Dec. 20, 2006, the Court denied the motion to dismiss. On Jan. 11, 2007, the Company filed an answer denying all material allegations and asserting numerous defenses. Consolidation of Cases On March 20, 2007, the Court consolidated the two cases. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on April 19, 2007. On June 6, 2007, the Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint denying all material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. Black Litigation A related class action complaint, “Black v. Apple Inc.,” was filed on August 27, 2007 in the Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, alleging that the Company is attempting to maintain a monopoly by precluding customers from using non-iTunes downloads on iPods and from using iTunes music on non-iPod MP3 players. Plaintiff alleges that the Company's alleged monopolization violates the Florida Antitrust Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The Company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Sept. 28, 2007, and filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California on Oct. 12, 2007. The Company's motion to transfer was granted on Oct. 17, 2007. The suit is "Charoensak v. Apple Computer, Inc., Case No. 5:05- cv-00037-JW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs are: Michael David Braun, Esq. Braun Law Group, P.C. 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 920 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: 310-442-7755 Fax: (310) 442-7756 E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com Roy A. Katriel, Esq. The Katriel Law Firm, P.L.L.C. 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-625-4342 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - John J. Stoia, Jr., Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jstoia@lerachlaw.com Representing the company is: Caroline N. Mitchell, Esq. Jones Day, 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415 875 5712 Fax: 415 875 5700 E-mail: cnmitchell@jonesday.com BECTON DICKENSON: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Co. faces a consolidated antitrust class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. Direct Purchaser's Litigation Becton, Dickinson is named as a defendant in five purported class actions brought on behalf of direct purchasers of BD’s products, such as distributors, alleging that Becton, Dickinson violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for BD’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: -- “Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc., et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Civil Action No. 05- 1602, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on March 25, 2005; -- “SAJ Distributors, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton Dickinson & Co.” (Case 2:05-CV-04763-JD, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Sept. 6, 2005; -- “Dik Drug Company, et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-04465, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Sept. 12, 2005; -- “American Sales Company, Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson & Co.” (Case No. 2:05-CV-05212-CRM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 3, 2005; and -- “Park Surgical Co. Inc. et. al. vs. Becton, Dickinson and Company” (Case 2:05-CV-05678-CMR, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania), filed on Oct. 26, 2005. The actions brought by Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company and Dik Drug Company in New Jersey have been consolidated under the caption “In re Hypodermic Products Antitrust Litigation.” Indirect Purchaser's Litigation Becton, Dickinson is also named as a defendant in four purported class actions brought on behalf of indirect purchasers of Becton, Dickinson’s products, alleging that Becton, Dickinson violated federal antitrust laws, resulting in the charging of higher prices for Becton, Dickinson’s products to the plaintiff and other purported class members. The cases filed are as follows: -- “Jabo’s Pharmacy, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson & Company” (Case No. 2:05-CV-00162, U.S. District Court, Greenville, Tennessee) filed on June 7, 2005; -- “Drug Mart Tallman, Inc., et. al. v. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 2:06-CV-00174, U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on Jan. 17, 2006; -- “Medstar v. Becton Dickinson” (Case No. 06-CV-03258- JLL (RJH), U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey), filed on May 18, 2006; and -- “The Hebrew Home for the Aged at Riverdale v. Becton Dickinson and Company” (Case No. 07-CV-2544, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York), filed on March 28, 2007. A fifth purported class action on behalf of indirect purchasers, captioned “International Multiple Sclerosis Management Practice v. Becton Dickinson & Company, Case No. 2:07-cv-10602,” filed on April 5, 2007 in the U.S. District Court, Newark, New Jersey, was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs in each of the antitrust class actions seek monetary damages. All of the antitrust class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation in federal court in New Jersey. Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general public. BECTON DICKINSON: Continues to Face Healthcare Workers' Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Co., along with another manufacturer and several medical product distributors, still faces three product liability lawsuits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, but have not become infected with any disease. Generally, these actions allege that healthcare workers have sustained needlesticks using hollow-bore needle devices manufactured by Becton, Dickinson and, as a result, require medical testing, counseling and/or treatment. In some cases, these actions additionally allege that the healthcare workers have sustained mental anguish. Plaintiffs seek money damages in all of these actions. Becton, Dickinson had previously been named as a defendant in eight similar suits relating to healthcare workers who allegedly sustained accidental needlesticks, each of which has either been dismissed with prejudice or voluntarily withdrawn. Regarding the three pending suits: (1) In Ohio, “Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98CVB075616, Franklin County Court),” on Sept. 21, 2006, the Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of class certification. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for a determination of whether the class can be redefined. In Oklahoma and South Carolina, cases have been filed on behalf of an unspecified number of healthcare workers seeking class action certification under the laws of these states in state court in Oklahoma, under the caption, (2) “Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. CJ-98- 685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on Oct. 27, 1998, and in state court in South Carolina, under the caption, (3) “Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et. al.” (Case No. 98-CP- 40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed on Nov. 25, 1998. Becton, Dickinson continues to oppose class action certification in these cases, including pursuing all appropriate rights of appeal, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. Becton, Dickinson and Co. -- http://www.bd.com-- is a medical technology company engaged principally in the manufacture and sale of a range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, industry and the general public. BODISEN BIOTECH: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated securities fraud class actions filed against Bodisen Biotech, Inc.. In late 2006, various shareholders of the company filed eight purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain of its officers and directors, asserting claims under the federal securities laws. The complaints contain general and non-specific allegations about prior financial disclosures and the company's internal controls and a prior, now-terminated relationship with New York Global Group. The eight actions are: -- "Stephanie Tabor v. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13220 (filed November 2006)," -- "Fraser Laschinger vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13254 (filed November 2006)," -- "Anthony DeSantis vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13454 (filed November 2006)," -- "Yuchen Zhou vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 13567 (filed November 2006)," -- "William E. Cowley vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-13739 (filed December 2006)," -- "Ronald Stubblefield vs. Bodisen, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-14449 (filed December 2006)," -- "Adam Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06- 15179 (filed December 2006)," and -- "Lawrence M. Cohen vs. Bodisen, Inc., et. al., Case No. 06-15399 (filed December 2006)." The court has consolidated each of the actions into a single proceeding. The time for the Company to respond formally to these lawsuits has not come and thus, the Company has not done so. The complaints do not specify an amount of damages that plaintiffs seek. The suit is "Tabor v. Bodisen Biotech, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-13220-VM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs is: Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, PA Phone: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com Representing the defendants is: Judd Burstein, Esq. Burstein & McPherson, L.L.P. 1790 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 974-2400 Fax: 212-974-2944 E-mail: jburstein@burlaw.com CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Sued Over “Unauthorized” Cell Phone Billings ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cellco Partnership and Mobile Messenger Americas, a "secondary aggregator," are facing a class action filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida accusing them of charging customers for services they do not want, never ordered, and did not authorize, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Lisa Gray brings this action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220 seeking to stop defendants' unlawful practice of charging cellular phone customers for products and services the customer have not authorized, a practice which has resulted in defendants unlawfully collecting money from consumers statewide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following classes: (1) the "Carrier Class": a class consisting of all Verizon wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who suffered losses or damages as a result of Verizon billing for mobile content products and services not authorized by the subscriber; (2) the "Mobile Content Provider Class": a class consisting of all wireless telephone subscribers in Florida who suffered losses or damages as a result of incurring charges on their cellular telephone bills from or on behalf of Mobile Messenger not authorized by the subscriber. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Verizon's conduct is in breach of contract (b) whether Mobile Messenger has unjustly received money belonging to plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider class and whether under principles of equity and good conscience, Mobile Messenger should not be permitted to retain it; and (c) whether Mobile Messenger tortiously interfered with contracts between plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider class, on the one hand, and their wireless carriers, on the other hand, by causing them to be charged for products and services by their carrier that were unauthorized. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- certify this case as a class action on behalf of the classes and appoint Jennifer Baker class representative; -- declare that the actions of Verizon, constitute a breach of contract; -- enter judgment against Verizon for all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused by its conduct, and if its conduct is proved willful, award plaintiff and the Carrier Class exemplary damages; -- declare that the actions of Mobile Messenger constitute unjust enrichment and tortious interference with a contract; -- enter judgment against Mobile Messenger for all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused by defendants' conduct, and if its conduct is proved willful award plaintiff and the Mobile Content Provider Class exemplary damages; -- award plaintiff and the classes reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; -- award plaintiff and the classes pre- and post-judgment interest; -- enter judgment for injunctive, statutory and/or declaratory relief as is necessary to protect the interests of plaintiff and the classes; and -- award such other and further relief as equity and justice may require. The suit is "Lisa Gray et al. v. Cellco Partnership et al. Case No. 0736302," filed in the Circuit Court for the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. Representing plaintiffs is: David P. Healy 2846-B Remington Green Cr. Tallahassee, FL 32308 Phone: (850) 222-5400 Fax: (850) 222-7339 CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Court Vacates Dismissal of “Graden” ERISA Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated an order dismissing a purported class action that alleges Conexant Systems, Inc. violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ERISA. On February 2005, the company and certain of its current and former officers and the company's Employee Benefits Plan Committee were named as defendants in the lawsuit. It was filed on behalf of all persons who were participants in the company's 401(k) Plan during a specified class period. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA, as amended, to the Plan and the participants in the Plan. The defendants believe these charges are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the litigation. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on Aug. 11, 2005. On Oct. 12, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case. The plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss on Dec. 30, 2005, and the defendants' reply was filed on Feb. 17, 2006. On March 31, 2006, the judge dismissed this case and ordered it closed. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on April 17, 2006. The appellate argument was held on April 19, 2007. On July 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s order dismissing Graden’s complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings. The company reported no development in the matter in its Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 28, 2007. The suit is “Graden v. Conexant Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00695-SRC-TJB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Stanley R. Chesler with referral to Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni. Representing the plaintiffs is: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards, LLP 8 Kings Highway West Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Phone: (856) 795-9002 E-mail: lisa@trrlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Gregory B. Reilly, Esq. Lowenstein Sandler, PC 65 Livingston Ave. Roseland, NJ 07068-1791 Phone: (973) 597-2500 E-mail: greilly@lowenstein.com CREDIT COS: Face Suit in Cal. Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ The nation's leading creditors are facing a class-action complaint filed Dec. 28 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit alleges that defendants created a "credit counseling" industry "to use third-party, ostensibly nonprofit organizations to facilitate their collections while concurrently attempting to shield the creditors from any direct liability for wrongs committed against consumers." Named defendants include: -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. -- Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A. -- Money Management International, Inc. -- Money Management By Mail, Inc. and -- Money Management International Financial Education Foundation Plaintiffs demand damages for money lost to defendants' "credit repair" and "debt management" services. They bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of two overlapping class that consists of: (1) all individuals nationwide who, like them, have paid fees to MMI for a debt management plan (DMP) since the MMI commenced doing business as an ostensibly non- profit organization (the MMI class); and/or (2) all individuals nationwide who had accounts with Chase, Bank One or any of their predecessors, which accounts were serviced under a DMP for which the individual paid initial or monthly fees to any of the DebtWorks, Inc., including AmeriDebt Inc. (DW CCAs), DebtWorks and/or MMI (the Chase class). They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Chase, the MMI defendants, DebtWorks and the the DW CCAs are "credit repair organizations" within the meaning of the Credit Repair Organizations Act; (b) whether more than an insubstantial part of MMI's activities are not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. More particularly: (i) does MMI operate for the substantial non-exempt purpose of conducting a commercial business? (ii) do MMI's operations inure to the private benefit of MMI executives and management? (iii) do the operations of MMI serve to further the private financial interests of Chase, Bank One, their predecessors and other creditors? (c) whether the operations of the DW CCAs inured to the private benefit of DebtWorks and/or Andris N. Pukke; (d) whether MMI and the DW CCAs were organizations described; (e) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' public claims concerning their tax-exempt or non-profit statuses, and self- descriptions as "community service" organizations constitute unfair, misleading, deceptive and fraudulent statements in violation of 15 USC Section 1679b(a)(3) and (4) of CROA; (f) whether MMI's and the DW CCAs' assertions concerning their independence, their "negotiating" services, their interest in the individual consumer and in properly identifying his or her best interests and providing appropriate services, constitute false, deceptive and/or misleading representations of credit repair services; (g) whether MMI and the DW CCAs are or were the partners or agents of, or joint ventures with Chase, Bank One, their predecessors and other creditors in performing the "services" they perform; (h) whether MMI, Chase, Bank One and their predecessors or any of them are "persons" within the meaning of the CROA; (i) whose actions, practices or courses of business resulted in a fraud or an attempt to commit a fraud in connection with the sale of a credit repair organization's services; (ii) who made or used any untrue or misleading representation of the services of a credit repair organization's services so as to render them liable under the CROA; (j) whether any of the defendants were unjustly enriched; (k) whether defendant MMI violated fiduciary duties to its clients; (l) whether defendant MMI violated 15 USC Sections 1679c- 1679e; and (m) whether the MMI defendants violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs request judgment as follows: -- that the court order that MMI is not entitled to rely on, or otherwise assert its administrative grant of tax- exempt or non-profit status as defense to any claim in this action; -- judgment against defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of all fees paid by plaintiffs and by each class member at any time to MMI, DebtWorks and the DW CCAs; -- as punitive damages, an amount equal to at least 90% of all retained earnings in MMI, or such other amounts as the court may deem appropriate; -- accrued interest on plaintiffs' and class members' damages awarded at the legal rate from the date of the filing of the original complaint; -- reasonable attorney's fees and costs determined by the court; and -- all such other relief as the court may deem necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. The suit is "Janice J. Abat et al. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., et al., Case No. SACV07-1476AHS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Niall P. McCarthy Justin T. Berger Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 692-3606 David J. Vendler, Esq. Morris Polich & Purdy LLP 1055 W. Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 891-9100 Fax: (213) 488-118 Gregory S. Duncan, Esq. Law Offices of Gregory R. Duncan 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 979-8556 Fax: (434) 979-9766 - and - Garrett M. Smith, Esq. Gary W. Kendall, Esq. Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen & Tweel PLLC 500 Court Square, Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone: (434) 951-7200 Fax: (434) 951-7218 DELPHI CORP: Deloitte Settles Securities Fraud Claims for $38M -------------------------------------------------------------- An agreement in principle has been reached with Delphi Corp.'s former outside auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, to settle claims against the auditing firm for $38,250,000 in cash. The announcement of the agreement was made by the law firms of Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP, who are court-appointed co-lead counsel for the Lead Plaintiffs in the securities class action litigation involving Delphi, the U.S. auto parts maker now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The case arises out of alleged accounting improprieties at Delphi that forced the Company, on June 30, 2005, to restate its financial results for all fiscal periods dating back to 1999 and to reverse hundreds of millions of dollars in reported earnings during those periods. Lead Plaintiffs -- Teachers' Retirement System of Oklahoma, -- Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, -- Raiffeisen Kapitalanlage Gesellschaft m.b.H., and -- Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP were appointed by a federal court in June 2005 to represent a proposed class of investors who acquired Delphi securities between March 7, 2000 and March 3, 2005. The Complaint filed by those institutional Lead Plaintiffs asserted claims under the federal securities laws against Delphi, Deloitte, who was Delphi's outside auditor during the Class Period, certain officers and directors of Delphi, the banks that underwrote Delphi's offerings of securities, and certain other entities. Judge Gerald E. Rosen, the federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan before whom the case is pending, appointed a retired federal judge, Layn R. Phillips, to serve as a Special Master to conduct settlement discussions. Following an extensive mediation conducted by Judge Phillips, Deloitte and Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement whereby Deloitte will pay to the Class $38,250,000 to settle all claims asserted against Deloitte in the action. The settlement is one of the larger settlements obtained from an accounting firm to settle claims of securities fraud. The settlement is conditioned on approval by Judge Rosen, who will pass on the settlement after the members of the Class are given appropriate notice of the settlement and an opportunity to be heard. This settlement follows an earlier settlement in the case, also arising out of a mediation conducted by Judge Phillips, whereby Lead Plaintiffs obtained a settlement potentially worth at least $284 million from Delphi and its insurance carriers and its former banks to resolve all claims against Delphi and certain other defendants. That settlement is contingent upon final approval by Judge Rosen as well as approval of Delphi's plan of reorganization in Delphi's Chapter 11 proceeding. For more information about this settlement, please contact co- lead counsel for Lead Plaintiffs: Stuart Grant, Esq. Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 1201 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 622-7000 Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq. Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP 205 Linda Drive Daingerfield, Texas 75638 Phone: (903) 645-7333 John "Sean" P. Coffey, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Michael Yarnoff, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: (610) 667-7706 Allan Ripp Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. Phone: 212-262-7477 E-mail: arippny@aol.com DIAMOND PET: Settles Tenn. Suit Over Tainted Pet Food for $3.1M --------------------------------------------------------------- Diamond Pet Foods, Inc. reached a settlement in a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee over the sale of dog food that led to the deaths of more than 100 dogs. A settlement fund, worth up to $3.1 million, will be established and pay consumers who purchased recalled Diamond Pet Food products, and compensate dog owners whose dogs were injured as a result of eating recalled Diamond Pet Food products. In December 2005, Diamond Pet Foods issued a recall on some of their dog food products. The lawsuit alleges that many consumers have not received a refund for the recalled food. Subsequently, the suit, "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et al.," was filed on Dec. 27, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 23, 2007). According to the complaint, the plaintiff, Nicole D. Bass, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons, brings the lawsuit against the named defendants for offering for sale and selling dog food contaminated with a toxin, aflatoxin, for consumption by her pet. The suit accuses the companies of negligence. With regards to Diamond Pet, it also claims breach of warranties and unfair trade practices. Under the recent settlement, Diamond denies any wrongdoing and contends that they have not violated any laws. Diamond will create a settlement fund of up to $3.1 million to provide compensation for valid claims. Attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses will also be covered by the settlement as determined by the court. The complete settlement agreement, describes all the details of the settlement. People who reside in the following states and purchased recalled Diamond Brand or Country Value Brand Pet Food products in 2005, and did not return the food for a refund are included in this settlement: Alabama, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia. The court has not made any decisions regarding the facts of the case, however, a settlement has been reached to resolve the issues and avoid costly time-consuming litigation. Deadline to file for objections is on February 26, 2008. Deadline to file for exclusions is on March 16, 2008. Deadline to file claims is on April 15, 2008. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee will hold a fairness hearing on March 26, 2008 at 1:30 p.m. The suit is "Bass v. Schell and Kampeter, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00586," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Thomas A. Varlan with referral to Judge H. Bruce Guyton. Representing plaintiffs is: A. James Andrews A. James Andrews, Attorney at Law 905 Locust Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-660-3993 Fax: 865-523-4623 E-mail: andrewsesq@icx.net Representing defendants are: W. Kyle Carpenter Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter P.O. Box 900 Knoxville, TN 37901-0900 Phone: 865-215-1000 Fax: 865-215-1001 E-mail: kylew@wmbac.com R. Brad Morgan Lewis, King, Krieg, Waldrop & Catron P.C. (Knox) P O Box 2425 Knoxville, TN 37901-2425 Phone: (865) 546-4646 Fax: (865) 523-6529 E-mail: bmorgan@lewisking.com - and - William A. Young O'Neil, Parker & Williamson P.O. Box 217 Knoxville, TN 37901-0217 Phone: 865-546-7190 Fax: 865-546-0789 E-mail: byoung@opw.com EMBARQ CORP: Health Benefits Cuts Violate ERISA, Kan. Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Embarq Corp. is facing a class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas accusing it of illegally terminating health-care benefits, including medical and prescription drug coverage and life insurance, for all Medicare-eligible employees, the CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges Embarq then immediately told its shareholders that the terminations would save the company $40 million a year. This is an action for declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief, as well as damages and other monetary relief, to redress the deprivation of rights secured to plaintiffs and the members of the class and sub-class by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et. seq. Plaintiffs are retired employees of various national, regional and local telecommunications operating and supply companies, which are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Embarq. They seek relief for the following unlawful actions of defendants: (1) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid medical and prescription drug coverage and coverage subsidies provided to Medicare-eligible retirees and their Medicare-eligible dependents; and (2) the elimination of company-sponsored and company-paid life insurance coverage provided to retirees and their dependents, including such coverage provided to retirees of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company who are participants in the Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association Plan (VEBA), also known as the Sickness Death Benefit Plan. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons, including all plan participants and all eligible spouse and dependent plan beneficiaries, whose rights to medical, prescription drug, and/or life insurance benefits or premium subsidies have been adversely affected by the terminations, reductions and changes in retiree benefits which were announced by Embarq on July 26, 2007. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether the members of the class have been or will be unlawfully excluded from and deprived of their rights under defendants' ERISA benefit plans and whether defendants breached the terms of these plans and breached their strict ERISA fiduciary duties to plaintiffs and the members of the class; (b) whether defendants violated ERISA by cutting off Grand-fathered Life Insurance benefits to the members of the class who have a right to participate in the VEBA; and (c) whether plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to the relief prayed for. Plaintiffs pray the court grant the following relief: -- declare that the actions of defendants are in violations of ERISA and issue a preliminary and permanent injunction reinstating and restoring to plaintiffs and the members of the class the subject, medical, prescription drug and life insurance benefits and compelling defendants to provide these benefits to them for the remainder of their lifetimes; -- order equitable reformation of the plans described in the lawsuit to reinstate these benefits and provide that these benefits shall not be reduced below the levels provided to plaintiffs and the members of the class on July 25, 2007; -- order an accounting of all profits and savings realized by the fiduciary defendants and attributable either to their misrepresentation or omission of material information about the benefits, or to their elimination of retiree medical, prescription drug, and life insurance benefits, or to their inducement of plaintiffs and the members of the class to retire early, including all such profits and savings relating to salary, compensations, pension benefits, fringe benefits, and all other payroll and overhead costs that were avoided by the fiduciary defendants as a result of inducing them to retire early; -- order a surcharge on the fiduciary defendants, and grant restitution and other monetary relief, to make plaintiffs and the members of the class whole for all losses caused by the unlawful actions of the fiduciary defendants, including payment of all medical benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and life insurance benefits, including death benefits, that have been improperly withheld from plaintiffs and the members of the class as of the time of judgment; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are vested in the retiree medical and prescription drug benefits provided by defendants at the time of their retirements, or that these benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or terminated; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are vested life insurance benefits provided by defendants at the time of their retirements, or that theses benefits cannot otherwise be reduced or terminated; -- declare that plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to receive in the future retiree medical benefits, prescription drug benefits and subsidies, and life insurance benefits, unreduced from those promised to them at the time of their retirements; -- award reasonable attorney's fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 29 USC Section 1132(g); -- award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and -- grant such other relief as the court deems equitable and just. The company is a telecom created in 2006 as a spinoff of Sprint- Nextel's local carriers. The suit is "William Douglas Fulghum et al. v. Embarq Corp. et al., Case No. 07-CV-2602 KHV/JPO," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Representing plaintiffs are: Diane A. Nygaard Jason M. Kueser The Nygaard Law Firm 4501 College Boulevard, Suite 260 Leawood, Kansas 66211 Phone: (913) 469-5544 Fax: (913) 469-1561 E-mail: diane@nygaardlaw.com or jason@nygaardlaw.com Alan M. Sandals Scott M. Lempert Sandals & Associates, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 825-4000 Fax: (215) 825-4001 E-mail: asandals@sandalslaw.com Stewart W. Fisher Glenn, Mills & Fisher, P.A. Post Office Drawer 3865 Durham, NC 27702 Phone: (919) 683-2135 Fax: (919) 688-9339 E-mail: sfisher@gmf-law.com - and - Richard T. Seymour Law Office of Richard T. Seymour, PLLC 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 862-4320 Fax:(800) 805-1065 E-mail: rick@rickseymourlaw.net FLIGHT SAFETY: Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut has set a hearing on April 15, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. for a $1.2 million settlement of the class action "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175." The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock, warrants or units of Flight safety during the period from Jan. 14, 2003 through and including but not limited to stock and warrants of Flight Safety as a unit at $6.00 per unit in Flight Safety's February 2, 2004 public offering, and were damaged thereby. Deadline to file for objections and exclusions is on February 18, 2008. Deadline to file claim is on March 21, 2008. Case Background The suit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased company securities during the period between Jan. 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004. The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector. On Oct. 19, 2005, the court entered the order signed by Judge Christopher F. Droney appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 23, 2005, a consolidated amended complaint was filed. In Nov. 2007, Flight Safety reached a settlement in principle with the plaintiffs (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 19, 2007). Under the terms of the agreement in principle, all claims against all of the defendants will be dismissed without presumption or admission of liability or wrongdoing. A one time settlement payment of $1.2 million will be made to the plaintiff class by or on behalf of the defendants. Under the settlement, the company has agreed to contribute $135,000 of the $1.2 million settlement. The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including negotiation and execution of appropriate settlement documents between the parties, preliminary and final court approval and other factors. The reference complaint is "In Re: Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-01175," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut under Judge Christopher F. Droney. Plaintiff firms named in complaint: Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr. New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 E-mail: email@murrayfrank.com The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY, 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 Fax: 212-202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY, 10016 Phone: 212-545-4600 Fax: 212-686-0114 E-mail: newyork@whafh.com For more information, contact: Flight Safety Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/o Strategic Claims Services P.O. Box 230 Media, PA 19063 Tel: (866) 274-4004 Website: http://www.strategicclaims.net GORILLA INC: Recalls Body Safety Harnesses Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Gorilla Inc., of Flushing, Mich., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 60,000 Full Body Safety Harnesses. The company said the harnesses could fail during use, resulting in a hunter falling from the tree stand and suffering serious injuries or death. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves the Pullover Style Full Body Safety Harnesses model SP40300 that were included as an accessory with Gorilla 2007 ladder stands. The harnesses bear batch code numbers 020507, 030507 and 040507. The model and batch code number is printed on the label affixed to the harness. These recalled full body harnesses were manufactured in China and are being sold at Sporting goods retailers nationwide from April 2007 through October 2007 for between $80 and $300. Picture of recalled full body harnesses: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08139.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled safety harness immediately and contact Gorilla for a free replacement harness. For additional information, contact Gorilla at (877) 685-7817 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.gorillatreestands.com. KEYSTONE FOOD: Faces Penna. Suit Over Mislabeled Low-Fat Snacks --------------------------------------------------------------- Keystone Food Products and Robert's American Gourmet Foods are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging it deceptively mislabeled their "Pirate's Booty" and "Veggie Booty" as "low fat" snacks. The snacks were labeled as containing 2.5 grams of fat and 120 calories per serving, though they actually contain 8.5 grams of fat and 127 calories. Named plaintiff Rachelle Levy brings this action under Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on behalf of all residents and domiciliaries of the United States who purchased defendant's Pirates Booty and/or Veggie Booty snacks food during such time that it was mislabeled as containing 2.5 grams of fat when in fact it contained more fat. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants misrepresented the nutrition facts on the products and otherwise mislabled them so as to have the consumer believe that the products were low- fat and healthy snack foods; (b) whether defendant Keystone knowingly, negligently and/or recklessly manufactured said products in a manner such that the products did not conform to RAGF formulas and labeling; (c) whether the actions and activities of defendants violated the misbranding provisions of the Pennsylvania Food Act, Act 1994-70 codified at 31 PS Section 20.1 et seq.; (d) whether the actions and activities of defendants violated the Consumer Protection Law, 73 PS Section 201-1 et seq.; (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that the labeling was false when issued; (f) whether RAGF breached its warranties to consumers concerning the product; and (g) whether defendants were unjustly enriched by the sale and distribution of the misbranded or mislabeled product to consumers. Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- an order certifying the purposed class and appointing plaintiff and her counsel of record to represent the class; -- compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as permitted by law; -- treble damages and/or enhanced damages pursuant to the applicable Consumer Protection laws; -- reasonable attorneys fees, costs, pre and post judgment interests, expert witness fees and expenses; and -- any and all such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Rachelle Levy et al. v. Keystone Food Products, Inc. et al.," filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing plaintiffs are: Steven E. Angstreich Michael Coren Carolyn L. Lindheim Amy R. Brandt Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, PC 1616 Walnut Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 735-1616 KYMCO USA: Recalls ATVs with Pivot Bolts that can Become Loose -------------------------------------------------------------- KYMCO USA, of Spartanburg, S.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,350 006-2008 Model Year MXU 500 All Terrain Vehicles. The company said the pivot bolts holding the rear suspension onto the frame can become loose, causing the rear swing arm to detach from the chassis posing a risk of injury or death to the operator. KYMCO has received six reports of incidents, including two reports of minor injuries. This recall involves all model year 2006-2008 MXU 500 ATVs. The vehicle is identified by a label on the front as KYMCO and the model is determined by a label located on each side of the fuel tank as MXU 500. These recalled ATVs were manufactured in Taiwan and are being sold by KYMCO dealers nationwide from November 2006 through December 2007 for between $6,000 and $6,500. Picture of recalled ATVs: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08532.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and contact an authorized KYMCO dealer in their area to schedule a free repair. Registered owners were sent direct mail notification of this recall. For additional information, consumers can contact KYMCO USA at (888) 235-3417 anytime or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.kymcousa.com. MARYLAND: Ex-officials Remain in Anne Arundel Impact Fees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Arundel County Circuit Judge Paul F. Harris Jr. denied a request by the county Ethics Commission to oust two former county officials from a class action over impact fees, The Baltimore Sun reports. Judge Harris ruled that former County Attorney Phillip F. Scheibe and Robert J. Dvorak, a former top administrator with the county can stay in the suit without sanctions. Mr. Dvorak served as planning and zoning chief, among other administrative jobs in the county. Mr. Dvorak used to work on the department that was involved in the impact fee program. Mr. Scheibe, who oversaw the law office of the government, sued the county in 2001 on behalf of homebuyers in Seven Oaks (Odenton) community. The class action claimed the county should refund as much as $27 million to property owners because it misspent impact fees collected or improperly gave itself an extension on the time limit by which the county should return money left unspent for roads and other improvements. Mr. Dvorak, together with Mr. Scheibe’s law partner, John R. Greiber Jr., won a $4.7 million judgment in the case. The Ethics Commission ruled in 2006 that Messrs. Scheibe and Dvorak had used inside knowledge of the impact fee program in the suit. In the latest ruling, Judge Harris also refused a motion to levy fines against Messrs. Scheibe and Dvorak of up to $1,000 a day since the start of the case in 2001 and to withhold attorney fees from Mr. Scheibe and witness fees from Mr. Dvorak. Judge Harris rejected the motions in part on grounds that the panel waited years after the lawsuit against the county was brought in 2001 to claim a conflict of interest. NEW HAMPSHIRE: Settles Suit Over Medicaid Application Delays ------------------------------------------------------------ Three New Hampshire residents have settled a class action against the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The settlement requires DHHS to make timely disability decisions about Medicaid eligibility. New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities Rights Center brought suit on behalf of individuals who were going without needed medical benefits due to the long delays in DHHS’s determination process. The residents sued DHHS in Federal District Court in February 2007. NHLA said that under federal law, DHHS is supposed to make decisions about a person’s Medicaid eligibility within 90 days unless there are unusual circumstances. However, it would often take over a year to make a decision about these vital benefits. Individuals may go without medical treatment or prescription medications during this time, or use money needed for basic necessities such as housing, food, or utilities. The three Plaintiffs waited, respectively, over 273 days, 188 days, and 170 days to hear whether they qualified for benefits. After the lawsuit was filed, DHHS acknowledged that it had not complied with federal law and asked the Court to grant judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. The parties filed a proposed joint final order with the Court on November 5. On December 21, 2007, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed order which requires DHHS to notify disabled Medicaid applicants about the proposed settlement. If approved by the Court, the order would give DHHS 180 days to start making disability decisions within 90 days or to explain what unusual circumstances prevented a timely determination. DHHS would report back about its progress and share monitoring information with lawyers for the Plaintiffs who brought the case. DHHS would notify Medicaid disability applicants about their right to an administrative fair hearing whenever decisions take longer than 90 days. “This outcome is a victory for all disabled New Hampshire residents who need help,” says Ben Mortell, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. “I’m very pleased we were able to settle this case quickly so that DHHS can move forward on resolving the delays and quickly grant benefits to people in desperate need. The class action settlement also allows us to make sure that the delay problem is really fixed.” New Hampshire Legal Assistance (NHLA) and the Disabilities Rights Center (DRC) represented the three NH residents who filed this case. NHLA is a statewide non-profit law firm which provides civil legal services to low-income and elderly residents of New Hampshire. DRC is a statewide non-profit law firm which provides civil legal services to disabled residents of New Hampshire. NEW YORK: N.Y. Judge Dismisses Albion Sexual Abuse Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy dismissed a class action filed against the New York state Department of Correctional Services over alleged sexual abuses of prisoners at Albion Correctional Facility and other allwomen prisons, Buffalo News reports. The suit was filed by the Legal Aid Society Prisoners Rights Project based in New York city in 2003. The suit claimed the department failed to do enough to prevent corrections officers from rape, sexual molestation and voyeurism aimed at female prisoners in the state system. It asked the state for added protection of female prisoners from male corrections officers. The lawsuit alleged sexual abuse by 15 corrections officers, including six who work or have worked at Albion. According to the lawsuit, the state receives about 200 complaints a year of sexual misconduct, and the large majority of those complaints do not result in criminal prosecutions. Judge Duffy did not rule on whether women prisoners have been subjected to widespread mistreatment. He only ruled that the women involved in the lawsuit did not make exhaustive use of the prison system's grievance system before taking their complaint to federal court. The organization's lawyers have asked Judge Duffy to reconsider his recent ruling dismissing the lawsuit, according to the report. Buffalo attorney Joseph M. La- Tona represents veteran Albion facility corrections officer Charles Davis who was accused of sexual abuse in the lawsuit. For more information, contact: Joseph M. La Tona, Esq. (716) 842-0416 403 Main St Ste 716 Buffalo, N.Y. NU HORIZONS: Vitesse Shareholders File Securities Suit in Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. faces a purported securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On or about Oct. 4, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California in the matter filed by Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against: -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., -- Louis Tomasetta, -- Yatin Mody, -- Eugene F. Hovanec, -- Silicon Valley Bank, -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp., -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as Titan Logistics Corp.), and -- KPMG LLP Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Nu Horizons, Titan, Silicon Valley Bank, and KPMG LLP were added as defendants to the putative class action which had been commenced by certain purchasers of Vitesse common stock. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Nu Horizons and Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from Jan. 27, 2003 to and including April 27, 2006. As of Nov. 21, 2007, a class has not been certified. Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for, high technology active and passive electronic components. PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Considers Appeals in “Wheeler” Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal in two versions of similarly titled class actions, “Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.” Original Wheeler Litigation On July 1, 2002, three individuals, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of chicken growers, filed their original class action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, styled "Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp." In their lawsuit, plaintiffs initially alleged that the Company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192) and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff growers. The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers and Stockyards Act alleging, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties and breach of contract. On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant. Two additional former chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit. This amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's initial filing, virtually re-wrote most of the allegations. Now the plaintiffs contend that the Company and Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws. The plaintiffs' initial allegations, although still contained in the amended lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case. On Jan. 3, 2006, the Court entered an Order severing the plaintiffs' Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims. The Court ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their Packers and Stockyards Act claims as set forth in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint. The Court also ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their respective antitrust claims asserted against the Company and Tyson in a separate cause of action styled "Cody Wheeler, et al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al." On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in the original lawsuit. Pilgrim's Pride attacked the plaintiffs' class certification brief on several grounds, and ultimately the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Motion for Class Certification on May 26, 2006. As a result, the Court canceled the class certification hearing and on June 2, 2006 the Court entered an Order withdrawing Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and prohibiting the plaintiffs from filing any additional class-action claims against Pilgrim's Pride in this lawsuit. Additionally, the two former growers who joined the lawsuit on Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case. On March 30, 2007, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the Company’s pending motion for summary judgment. In the order, the Court ruled that plaintiffs do not have to demonstrate an adverse effect on competition in order to prevail under the PSA. This ruling is inconsistent with many other jurisdictions’ interpretation of the PSA. The Court issued an order staying the lawsuit until the issue is decided by the U.S. Court for Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 29, 2007, the Fifth Circuit accepted the appeal. The matter is currently being briefed by the parties. New Wheeler Litigation On Jan. 3, 2006, an action styled, "Cody Wheeler, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," arising out of the original Wheeler litigation described above, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit was filed by the three original plaintiffs and a former grower, both in their individual capacities and on behalf of a putative class of chicken growers. In the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs allege that the Company and Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws. On Sept. 28, 2007, the court issued an order denying plaintiffs’ request to certify a class action. Plaintiffs filed the Petition for Permission to Appeal the District Court’s Order on Oct. 15, 2007 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a producer of poultry in the U.S., Mexico and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., the Company produces prepared and fresh chicken, and turkey while in Mexico and Puerto Rico, it produces only fresh chicken. Through vertical integration, it controls the breeding, hatching and growing of chickens, and the processing and preparation, packaging and sale of its product lines. PLEXUS CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------------- Plexus Corp. and company officers and/or directors face two purported class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007. Two securities class actions were filed against the company, and several of the company's current or former officers and/or directors during June 2007. The lawsuits allege securities law violations and seek unspecified damages relating to our July 26, 2006 announcement of the company's fiscal fourth quarter earnings outlook and that its manufacturing facility in Maldon, England would be closed. One of the suits is “Western Pennsylvania Electrical Employees Pension Trust, et al. v. Plexus Corp., et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Representing the plaintiffs is: Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: 866-264-3995 Fax: 414-482-8001 E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com - and - Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 RADIAN GROUP: Shareholder Opposing Merger Withdraws Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported class action filed against Radian Group, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County has withdrawn her complaint against a planned merger of the company with MGIC Investment Corp. after the transaction was terminated. On Feb. 8, 2007, a purported stockholder filed a class action related to the company’s pending merger with MGIC Investment Corp. was filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Trial Division in the State of Pennsylvania by Catherine Rubery against Radian and its directors. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the merger consideration to be received by Radian stockholders was inadequate and that the individual defendants, among other things, breached their duties of care, loyalty, good faith and independence to the stockholders in connection with the merger. The complaint seeks class action status as well as injunctive, declaratory and other equitable relief. On March 19, 2007, defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and on March 26, 2007, defendants moved to dismiss the suit, or, in the alternative, for a briefing schedule in connection with any potential motion by the plaintiff to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas. On April 18, 2007, plaintiff moved to remand the suit to the Court of Common Pleas, which motion defendants opposed. On May 31, 2007, the motion to remand was granted, and the case is now back in the Court of Common Pleas, where the parties are preparing initial pleadings. On Sept. 4, 2007, the company, and MGIC agreed to mutually terminate its pending merger. The plaintiff in this matter withdrew her complaint on Sept. 20, 2007. The suit is “Rubery v. Radian Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-01068-PD,” originally pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Paul S. Diamond. Representing the plaintiffs is: Debra S. Goodman, Esq. The Weiser Law Firm 121 N. Wayne Avenue Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: 610-225-0273 Fax: 610-225-2678 E-mail: dsg@weiserlawfirm.com Representing the defendants is: Joel Mchugh, Esq. Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP 1600 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7286 Phone: 215-751-2437 Fax: 215-751-2205 E-mail: jmchugh@schnader.com RADIAN GROUP: Faces Pa. Securities Fraud Suits Over C-BASS ---------------------------------------------------------- Radian Group, Inc. faces two purported securities fraud class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In August and September 2007, two purported stockholder class actions were filed against Radian Group and individual defendants. The suits are: -- “Cortese v. Radian Group Inc.,” and -- “Maslar v. Radian Group Inc.” The complaints, which are substantially similar, allege that Radian Group was aware of and failed to disclose the actual financial condition of C-BASS prior to Radian Group’s declaration of a material impairment to its investment in C- BASS. Two motions have been filed seeking appointment as lead Plaintiff, the first on behalf of the Institutional Investors Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund and the City of Ann Arbor Employees’ Retirement System and the second on behalf of the Tulare County Employees Retirement Association. The suit is “John Cortese, et al. v. Radian Group Inc., et al.,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiffs are: Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross 1515 Locust Street, 2nd Floor Philadelphia, PA, 19102 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 E-mail: bmgross@bernardmgross.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 - and - Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA, 19087 Phone: 610.667.7706 Fax: 610.667.7056 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.com SASOL NORTH: Faces Suit Over EDC Pipeline Rupture at U.S. Dock -------------------------------------------------------------- Sasol North America, Inc., which is part of South African diversified chemical giant Sasol Ltd.'s Olefins and Surfactants unit, faces a purported class action as a result of a 1994 rupture of the ConocoPhillips ethylene dichloride (EDC) pipeline connecting their dock to Sasol's vinyl chloride monomer plant in the U.S. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages as a result of alleged exposure to EDC. As of June 30, 2007 there is a class action and 29 lawsuits pending, brought by over 800 plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege various personal injuries resulting from exposure to EDC while the plaintiffs were employed as contractors of ConocoPhillips to clean up the EDC or to perform other projects on the ConocoPhillips refinery where the rupture occurred. The plaintiffs seek recovery of unspecified compensating and punitive damages. Sasol Ltd. -- http://www.sasol.com-- is an integrated oil and gas company with substantial chemical interests. Based in South Africa and operating worldwide, Sasol is listed on the NYSE and JSE stock exchanges. The company is a provider of liquid fuels in South Africa and a major international producer of chemicals. SEARCH ENGINES: Sued in Cal. for Advertising Gambling Sites ----------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court against Google and Yahoo! and several other popular websites. The class action relates to the search engines running adverts from online gambling sites, which HBSS claims made them hundreds of millions of dollars while violating California law. The case is to be heard on February 11 and will test the liability of these companies in California as HBSS is to ask the Court to further restrict their ability to advertise in the future. “We believe these companies have been profiting from this illegal practice for more than a decade and we believe the agreement with the Government does not go far enough,” said Reed Kathrein, Lead Attorney for HHBS. “The settlements are a great victory and a tacit admission by these online advertisers but there is still more work to do in holding these companies accountable for the harm they have done to Californians and to keep them and others from continuing these practices. “Given the amounts the huge profits we believe they made, we believe these relatively small forfeiture penalties will not deter them or others in the future.” Mr. Kathrein stated that the lawsuit calls for the websites to pay relief and acknowledge that the practice of advertising online casinos in the state is illegal. The complaint also calls for disgorgement of profits earned from online advertisers, a figure that could exceed hundreds of millions of dollars and benefit education and rehabilitation efforts aimed at gambling addiction. This latest lawsuit follows late-December’s $31.5 million settlement with the Federal Government by Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft over claimed online gambling advertising infringements. TALON INT'L: Appellate Brief Filed in Calif. Shareholder's Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported shareholder class action filed against Talon International Inc, formerly Tag-It Pacific, Inc., has filed his opening appellate brief in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with regards to a summary judgment favoring the company. On Oct. 12, 2005, a shareholder class action complaint, "Huberman v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. CV05-7352," was filed against the company and certain of the company's current and former officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The action is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the company's publicly traded securities during the period from Nov. 14, 2003 to Aug. 12, 2005. On Jan. 23, 2006, the court heard competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff/counsel and appointed Seth Huberman as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2006. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements about the company's financial situation and its relationship with certain of its large customers during a purported class period between Nov. 13, 2003 and Aug. 12, 2005. It purports to state claims under Section 10(b)/Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which motion was denied by the court on July 17, 2006. On Dec. 21, 2006, the Court established a trial date of May 1, 2007 and ordered completion of discovery by March 19, 2007. On Feb. 20, 2007, the Court denied class certification. Plaintiff has moved the court to reconsider the ruling, and also to intervene a new plaintiff to pursue class certification. Both of those motions were denied on April 2, 2007. In addition, the same day the Court granted the company’s and the other defendants' motion for summary judgment, and on or about April 5, 2007, the Court entered judgment in favor of all defendants. On or about April 30, 2007, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, and his opening appellate brief was filed on Oct. 15, 2007. The suit is “Seth Huberman, et al. v. Tag-It Pacific, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-7352,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Manuel L. Real with referral to Judge Charles F. Eick. Representing the plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Peter A. Binkow, Esq. Glancy Binkow and Goldberg 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 311 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-201-9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - Jules Brody, Esq. Stull Stull & Brody 6 E. 45th St., 4th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-687-7230 Representing the defendants is: Panteha Abdollahi, Esq. Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker 695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-668-6200 E-mail: pantehaabdollahi@paulhastings.com TYSON FOODS: Discovery Ongoing in Del. Shareholder Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated shareholders’ complaint filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. in the Delaware Chancery Court, according to the company's Nov. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 29, 2007. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated two previously filed lawsuits, "Amalgamated Bank v. Tyson" and "Meyer v. Tyson," and captioned the consolidated action "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Consolidated Shareholder's Litigation." The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Tyson Limited Partnership and certain present and former directors of the company. The company is also named as a nominal defendant, with no relief sought against it. The lawsuit contains five derivative claims alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by: -- approving consulting contracts for Don Tyson and Robert Peterson in 2001 and for Don Tyson in 2004 (Count I); -- approving and inadequately disclosing certain "other compensation" paid to Tyson executives from 2001 to 2003 (Count II); -- approving certain option grants to certain officers and directors with alleged knowledge the company was about to make announcements that would cause the stock price to increase (Count III); -- approving and not adequately disclosing various related- party transactions from 2001 to 2004 that plaintiffs allege were unfair to the company (Count IV); and -- making inadequate disclosures that resulted in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission consent decree (Count V). The consolidated complaint asserts three additional derivative claims for: -- breach of the 1997 settlement agreement in "Herbets v. Tyson, et al., No. 14231 (Del. Ch.)" (Count VI); -- civil contempt of the court's order and final judgment in "Herbets v. Tyson" (Count VII); and -- unjust enrichment regarding the benefits obtained by the defendants through the various transactions challenged in the consolidated complaint (Count IX). The consolidated complaint also makes a putative class action claim that the company's 2004 proxy statement contained misrepresentations regarding certain executive compensation (Count VIII). On March 2, 2006, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs' filed a response on May 8, 2006, and defendants filed a reply brief on June 9, 2006. On Feb. 6, 2007, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants’ motion, including dismissing in whole the claims pertaining to the consulting contracts, contempt of the court’s final order in “Herbets v. Tyson, et al.,” and the putative class action claim, and dismissing in part certain of plaintiffs' claims regarding the approval and disclosure of executive compensation and the related-party transactions, but declining to dismiss the remaining claims. On May 16, 2007 the outside director defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding the count dealing with option grants. The court denied the outside directors motion on Aug. 15, 2007. Discovery in the case is ongoing. Tyson Foods, Inc. -- http://www.tyson.com/-- produces, distributes and markets chicken, beef, pork, prepared foods and related allied products. TYSON FOODS: March Trial Set for "Trollinger" RICO Act Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A March 3, 2008 trial is set in the class action, "Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-23," which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. On April 2, 2002, four former employees of the company's Shelbyville, Tennessee chicken-processing plant filed the case. It was filed as a putative class action against the company, raising allegations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act. It specifically alleged that the company, in conjunction with employment agencies and recruiters, engaged in a scheme to hire illegal immigrant workers in 15 of its processing plants to depress wages paid to hourly wage employees at those plants. On July 16, 2002, the court dismissed the case. Following appeal, on June 3, 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. Discovery has been ongoing since September 2004. In June 2005, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint included different plaintiffs, narrowed the list of plants at issue to eight and added the allegation the company conspired with certain Hispanic civil rights groups to hire illegal immigrant workers. In addition, the second amended complaint added the following, all of whom are current or former officers or managers of the company, as defendants in the case: -- John Tyson, -- Richard Bond, -- Greg Lee, -- Archibald Schaffer III, -- Kenneth Kimbro, -- Karen Percival, and -- Tim McCoy, and Ahrazue Wilt. On Aug. 5, 2005, plaintiffs sought certification of a putative class of all hourly wage employees at the eight company plants since 1998 who were legally authorized to be employed in the U.S., which the defendants opposed. On Oct. 10, 2006, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On Oct. 24, 2006, defendants filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a petition for interlocutory review of the District Court’s class certification decision. That petition is pending. Discovery continues in the case, and a trial date of March 3, 2008, has been set by the District Court. The suit is "Trollinger, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., Case No. 4:02-cv-00023," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee under Judge Curtis L. Collier with referral to Judge William B. Carter. Representing the plaintiffs are: Howard W. Foster, Esq. Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 33 East Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60603-5404 Phone: 312-372-0770 Fax: 312-372-9818 E-mail: fosterh@jbltd.com - and - William G. Colvin, Esq. Shumacker, Witt, Gaither & Whitaker, P.C. 736 Market Street, Suite 1100 Chattanooga, TN 37402 Phone: 423-425-7000 E-mail: bcolvin@swgwlaw.com Representing the defendants are: Roger W. Dickson, Esq. Miller & Martin 832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 1000, Volunteer Building Chattanooga, TN 37402-2289 Phone: 423-756-6600 E-mail: rdickson@millermartin.com - and - Thomas C. Green, Esq. Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, LLP 1501 K. Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-736-8000 UNION PACIFIC: Texarkana Derailment Suit Denied Class Status ------------------------------------------------------------ Arkansas District Judge Harry Barnes refused to certify as class action a suit filed against Union Pacific Railroad Co. over a 2005 railroad accident, Associated Press reports. At about 5 a.