/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 10, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 7 Headlines 7-ELEVEN: Settles Goshen Gasoline Spill Lawsuit for $19.8M ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Calif. Labor Suit ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit AVIS BUDGET: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Deceptive "EZ Fuel Fee" BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification BIG LOTS: Cal. Court Mulls Appeal Against Labor Suit Settlement BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit BIG LOTS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Client Info. Request BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement in Tex. FLSA Violations Lawsuit BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court COPART INC: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Storage Liens Charges COPART INC: La. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss FCS Antitrust Suit CVR ENERGY: Kans. Oil Spill Suit Dismissed, One More Pending DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suits Over Server Banking Policy DE BEERS: $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 14 ELECTRONIC COS: Face Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing LOOKSMART LTD: Feb. 29 Hearing Set for $2M Click Fraud Suit Deal MACY'S INC: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuit MACY’S INC: Still Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Ohio MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion METLIFE INC: Fla. RICO Act Violations Suit Remains Stayed METLIFE LIFE: Settles Suit Over Structured Settlement Annuities METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Trailer Bicycles with Defective Coupler [Redacted] TENNESSEE: Faces Suit Over Theft of Voters' Registration Info TISHMAN SPEYER: Dismissal of Suit Over Market Rents Appealed T-N-T FARMS: Bean Pickers File Suit in Fla. Over Withheld Wages TRADITION VALET: Valets File Minn. Suit Over Tipping Policy New Securities Fraud Cases SECURITY CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* 7-ELEVEN: Settles Goshen Gasoline Spill Lawsuit for $19.8M ---------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action about the release of petroleum from a gas station at 1000 South Main Street in Goshen, Indiana. The lawsuit is “Larry Bowens v. 7-Eleven, Inc., The Southland Corp., MDK Corp., and ENSR Corp., Case No. 20D03-0209-CT-48,” filed in the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3. The lawsuit claims that 7-Eleven, Southland, MDK and ENSR Corp. are responsible for releases of petroleum from underground storage tanks at a gas station located at 1000 South Main Street, at the corner of Jackson Street and South Main Street in Goshen, Indiana. The petroleum releases allegedly entered the groundwater and soil in the neighborhood around the gas station and petroleum vapors also allegedly entered into surrounding properties. Additionally, plaintiffs claim that defendants did not notify, but should have notified, residents of the Jackson Street Neighborhood of the releases. The defendants deny all claims. The class includes all current and former owners, renters and occupants of certain properties and houses in the Jackson Street Neighborhood from January 1, 1996 to December 11, 2007. The addresses of these properties can be found at http://www.bowensv7elevensettlement.com. In 2006, Judge George Biddlecome of the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3 had ruled that the class action could go forward (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2006). The defendant's appealed, but the Indiana Court of Appeals denied their request to dismiss the suit. The proposed settlement provides for settlement payments and site investigation and remediation expenditures from the defendants in a total amount of up to $19.8 million. Payments will be made to Settlement Class Members who have evidence that benzene vapor from releases at the gas station entered their homes and who have medical symptoms consistent with exposure to benzene vapor. Payments will also be made to persons who lived at the eligible addresses at any time between January 1, 1996 and December 11, 2007 to compensate them for potential exposure to benzene vapor and payments to owners of the eligible properties to compensate them for past damage to their property. Finally, the proposed settlement also provides for clean-up of gasoline contamination of the Jackson Street Neighborhood. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on February 29, 2008 to consider whether the Proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses. The suit is “Larry Bowens v. 7-Eleven, Inc., The Southland Corp., MDK Corp., and ENSR Corp., Case No. 20D03-0209-CT-48,” filed in the Elkhart Superior Court No. 3, under Judge George Biddlecome. Representing plaintiffs is: John Ulmer Yoder, Ainlay, Ulmer & Buckingham, LLP 130 North Main Street P.O. Box 575, Goshen Indiana 46527-0575 (Elkhart Co.) Phone: 574-533-1171 Telecopier: 574-534-4174 ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles Certain Claims in Calif. Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abercrombie & Fitch Co., and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. settled some claims in a class action filed by Lisa Hashimoto, et al. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on June 23, 2006. Three plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of California store managers employed in Hollister and Abercrombie stores, that they were entitled to receive overtime pay as “non- exempt” employees under California wage and hour laws. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, equitable relief, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid benefits, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants filed an answer to the complaint on Aug. 21, 2006. The parties are engaging in discovery. On Dec. 10, 2007 the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs’ counsel to settle those claims in the action which are alleged to have arisen before April 30, 2004. The agreement in principle is subject to integration into a written agreement, notice, hearing, and court approval before it can become effective. The agreement in principle does not affect claims which are alleged to have arisen in the period commencing on April 30, 2004. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. -- http://www.abercrombie.com-- is a specialty retailer that operates stores selling casual apparel, such as knit shirts, graphic t-shirts, jeans, woven shirts, shorts, as well as personal care and other accessories for men, women and kids under the Abercrombie & Fitch, Abercrombie, Hollister and RUEHL brands. As of Jan. 28, 2006, the company operated 851 stores in the U.S. and Canada. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Denies Motion to Junk Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied a motion seeking for a dismissal of an amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Class A Common Stock of the company between June 2, 2005 and Aug. 16, 2005. The first suit, “Robert Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al.,” was filed on Sept. 2, 2005. The suit also named as defendants the company's officers. In September and October of 2005, five other purported class actions were subsequently filed against the company and other defendants in the same court. All six cases seek to allege claims under the federal securities laws as a result of a decline in the price of the company's Class A Common Stock in the summer of 2005. On Nov. 1, 2005, a motion to consolidate all these purported class actions into the first case was filed by some of the plaintiffs. The company joined in that motion. On March 22, 2006, the motions to consolidate were granted, and these actions were consolidated for purposes of motion practice, discovery and pretrial proceedings. A consolidated amended securities class action complaint was filed on Aug. 14, 2006. On Oct. 13, 2006, all defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. On Aug. 9, 2007, the Court denied the motions to dismiss. On Sept. 14, 2007, defendants filed answers denying the material allegations of the Complaint and asserting affirmative defenses. The suit is “Ross v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., et al. (2:05-cv- 00819-EAS-TPK),” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge Edmund A. Sargus with referral to Judge Terence P. Kemp. Representing the plaintiffs is: Keith W. Schneider, Esq. Maguire & Schneider 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-224-1222 Fax: 614-224-1236 E-mail: kwschneider@maguire-schneider.com Representing the defendants are: Philip Albert Brown, Esq. Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease 52 East Gay Street Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Phone: 614-464-6400 Fax: 614-464-6400 E-mail: pabrown@vssp.com Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter 65 E State Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-4294 Phone: 614-462-5400 Fax: 614-462-5422 E-mail: rsugarman@keglerbrown.com - and - Michael Roy Szolosi, Sr., Esq. McNamara and McNamara 88 East Broad Street, Suite 1250 Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-228-6131 E-mail: mrs@mcnamaralaw.us AVIS BUDGET: Faces N.J. Lawsuit Over Deceptive "EZ Fuel Fee" ------------------------------------------------------------ Avis Budget Group and Budget Rent-A-Car are facing a class- action complaint filed Jan. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging it deceptively charge customers a $9.50 "EZ Fuel fee" even though they return their rental car with a full tank, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Donna J. Davis say Budget admitted this in a Nov. 20, 2007 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission. According to the complaint, defendants traditionally have offered customers three options with respect to refueling their rental vehicle. Customers have been able to: (1) return the vehicle with as much fuel as was in the tank upon rental and not pay any fuel or service charge; (2) return the vehicle with less fuel than was in the tank upon rental, and pay the specified per-mile or per- gallon rate for the difference; or (3) prepay for a full tank of gas up-front at a discounted rate, and forego credit for any fuel still in the tank upon return. Plaintiff brings this action, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of herself and as representative of a Class of individuals and entities who rented vehicles from Budget and drove fewer than 75 miles. She wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Defendants made a misrepresentation and/or false promise, or concealed, suppressed or omitted any material fact with intent that consumers rely on such concealment, suppression or omission in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise, which is prohibited by the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1,et seq.; (b) whether Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered any ascertainable loss of money or property as a result of the false promise or misrepresentation, or concealment, suppression or omission of material fact; and (c) whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to recover damages, including refunds, treble the damages sustained, interest, attorneys’ fees, filing fees, and reasonable costs of suit for Defendants injury to them in contravention of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: -- an order certifying this action to be a proper class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, establishing an appropriate Class, and finding that Plaintiff is a proper representative of the Class; -- damages; -- costs and expenses in this litigation, including, but not limited to, expert fees, filing fees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees; and -- any further compensatory, injunctive, equitable or declaratory relief including refunds as may be just and proper. The suit is "Donna J. Davis et al. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Representing plaintiffs are: James E. Cecchi Lindsey H. Taylor Carella, Byrne, Bain, Gilfillan, Cecchi, Stewart & Olstein 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Phone:(973) 994-1700 - and - Mary Jane Fait Theodore B. Bell Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 1111 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 BIG LOTS: Still Faces Lawsuit Over Manager Misclassification ------------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed in September 2006 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that the company violated certain California wage and hour laws by misclassifying California store managers as exempt employees. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, damages for alleged unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, wages not paid upon termination, improper wage statements, missed rest breaks, missed meal periods, reimbursement of expenses, loss of unused vacation time, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states. Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other. BIG LOTS: Cal. Court Mulls Appeal Against Labor Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura has yet to rule on an appeal by two individuals in connection with the final order approving a settlement reached in a labor class action filed against Big Lots, Inc. In October 2005, a class action complaint was served upon the company for adjudication in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura. The suit alleged that the company had violated certain California wage and hour laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover, on her own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid wages and rest and meal period compensation, as well as penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In the third quarter of fiscal year 2006, the company and the plaintiff reached a tentative settlement of the California matter. On Nov. 6, 2006, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the tentative settlement. On April 30, 2007, the court entered the final order approving the class action settlement and judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Two class members whose objections to the settlement were overruled by the court have appealed the final order to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the settlement. The same two objectors also filed a separate putative class action in federal court in the Northern District of California alleging the same class claims that were tentatively settled through the California matter. The federal court stayed the federal action pending resolution of the appeal before the California Court of Appeal, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states. Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other. BIG LOTS: La. Court Denies Decertification Motion in FLSA Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A May 8, 2008 trial is scheduled for a class action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Big Lots, Inc. over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The civil putative collective action complaint was filed on November 2004 against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. It alleges that the company violated FLSA by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On July 5, 2005, the court issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all current and former assistant store managers who have worked for the company since Nov. 23, 2001. As a result of that order, notice of the lawsuit was sent to approximately 5,500 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Louisiana matter. As of Aug. 4, 2007, approximately 1,100 individuals had joined the Louisiana matter. The company has filed a motion to decertify the class and the motion was denied on Aug. 24, 2007. The Louisiana matter is scheduled to go to trial on May 8, 2008. The suit is “Johnson, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-03201-SSV-SS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under Judge Sarah S. Vance with referral to Judge Sally Shushan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Philip Bohrer, Esq. Bohrer Law Firm 8712 Jefferson Hwy, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Phone: 225-925-5297 E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com Representing the defendant is: Dominic J. Ovella, Esq. Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale One Galleria Blvd., P.O. Box 8288, Suite 1400 Metairie, LA 70011-8288 Phone: 504-836-6500 E-mail: novella@hmhlp.com BIG LOTS: Faces Consolidated Lawsuit Over Client Info. Request -------------------------------------------------------------- Big Lots, Inc. faces a consolidated class action in California alleging that the company violated state law by requesting certain customer information in connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to a credit card, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10- Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. In May 2007, two class-action complaints were filed against the company, * one in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange (Stary matter), and * one in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego (Christopher matter), wherein it was alleged that the company had violated California law by requesting certain customer information in connection with the return of merchandise for which the customer sought to receive a refund to a credit card. The plaintiffs seek to recover, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals who are similarly situated, statutory penalties, costs and attorneys' fees and seek injunctive relief. The company believe that substantially all of the purported class members of the Christopher matter are within the purported class of the Stary matter. The Stary matter has been transferred to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, where it will be coordinated with the Christopher matter before the same judge. Big Lots, Inc. -- http://www.biglots.com-- is a national broadline closeout retailer. As of Feb. 3, 2007, the Company operated a total of 1,375 stores in 47 states. Big Lots, Inc.’s merchandising categories include Consumables, Home, Seasonal and Toys, and Other. BIG LOTS: Reaches Settlement in Tex. FLSA Violations Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Big Lots, Inc. settled a class action filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In November 2004, a civil putative collective action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, wherein it was alleged that the company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations by misclassifying as exempt employees our furniture department managers, sales managers, and assistant managers. Subsequent to its filing, the plaintiffs in the matter amended the complaint to limit its scope to furniture department managers. The plaintiffs in the matter seek to recover, on behalf of themselves and all other individuals who are similarly situated, alleged unpaid overtime compensation, as well as liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 8, 2005, the District Court in Texas issued an order conditionally certifying a class of all current and former employees who worked for the company as a furniture department manager at any time between Nov. 2, 2001 and Oct. 1, 2003. As a result of that order, notice was sent to approximately 1,300 individuals who had the right to opt-in to the Texas matter. In the third quarter of 2006, the company reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs concerning the matter. The company recorded, in the third quarter of 2006, a pretax charge of $3.2 million included in selling and administrative expenses for the estimated settlement liability of the matter. On Jan. 17, 2007, the court approved the settlement, and in 2007, the company paid the settlement, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. The suit is "Hanks, et al. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 5:04-cv-00238-DF-CMC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas under Judge David Folsom with referral to Judge Caroline Craven. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. Fibich Hampton Leebron & Garth 1401 McKinney, Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77010 Phone: 713/751-0025 Fax: 17137510030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com Representing the defendant is: Paul E. Hash, Esq. Jackson Lewis – Dallas 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75219, Phone: 214/520-2400 Fax: 12145202008 E-mail: hashp@jacksonlewis.com BROWN SHOE: Redfield Suit New Trial Request Goes to High Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class action filed against Brown Shoe Co., Inc., in relation to operations of its Redfield, Colorado site, have filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s decision denying them a new trial. The suit was filed in March 2000 alleging claims for trespass, nuisance, strict liability, unjust enrichment, negligence, and exemplary damages arising from the alleged release of solvents contaminating the groundwater and indoor air in the areas adjacent to and near the site. In December 2003, the jury hearing the claims returned a verdict finding the company's subsidiary negligent and awarded the class plaintiffs $1.0 million in damages. The Company recorded this award along with estimated pretrial interest on the award and estimated costs related to sanctions imposed by the court related to a pretrial discovery dispute between the parties. The total pretax charge recorded for these matters in 2003 was $3.1 million. The Company recorded an additional $0.6 million in expense in 2004, related to pretrial interest, to reflect the trial court’s ruling extending the time period for which prejudgment interest applied. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the December 2003 jury verdict and in August 2007, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its decision of the appeal. The Court rejected plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain a new trial by affirming the trial court judgment. It also denied a cross- appeal by the Company seeking a reversal of a portion of the pretrial interest awarded to plaintiffs. The Court also reversed the trial court’s award of costs to the Company, and remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs related to the trial. The plaintiffs have filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Colorado seeking review of the Court of Appeal’s decision denying them a new trial, according to the company's Dec. 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Brown Shoe Co., Inc. -- http://www.brownshoe.com/-- operates in the footwear industry. The Company’s activities include the operation of retail shoe stores, and the sourcing and marketing of footwear for women, men and children. It operates in two segments: Retail Operations and Wholesale Operations. COPART INC: Still Faces Ga. Suit Over Storage Liens Charges ----------------------------------------------------------- Copart, Inc. continues to face a suit in the State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia over allegations it charges unreasonable amounts for storage liens. On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and expenses. The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31, 2007, and was denied. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of salvage vehicle sales services in the U.S. It also provides vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies with a range of services to process and sell salvage vehicles over the Internet through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2) Internet auction technology. COPART INC: La. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss FCS Antitrust Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana has yet to rule on motions seeking for a dismissal of a purported antitrust class action filed against Copart, Inc. On July 28, 2006, Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC (FCS) filed suit against Copart in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, originally alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices. Relief sought originally included class certification based on both unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages, fees, costs and expenses. On Jan. 5, 2007 the Magistrate required FCS to amend its complaint. A First Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended Complaint was submitted Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies simply on breach of contract claims. On Aug. 23, 2007, Copart filed: -- Motion to Dismiss Claims for Improper Venue; -- Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join Persons Needed for Just Adjudication; -- Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction; -- Motion to Dismiss Load Out Fee Class Action for Failure to State Claim; and -- Motion to Dismiss Load Out Fee Class Action for Lack of Diversity Jurisdiction. The court has the motions under consideration at this time, but no decision has been rendered, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv- 00535-FJP-SCR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana under Judge Frank J. Polozola with referral to Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq. 16137 Berryhill Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70817 Phone: 225-751-3775 Representing the defendants is: Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq. Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love 320 Somerulos Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: 225-387-6966 Fax: 225-387-8230 E-mail: cschutte@gmstl.com CVR ENERGY: Kans. Oil Spill Suit Dismissed, One More Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ A federal class action over an oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas, which had named CVR Energy Inc. as a defendant has been dismissed, however the company still faces a similar state court action, according to the company's Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Crude oil was discharged from the Company’s refinery on July 1, 2007 due to the short amount of time available to shut down and secure the refinery in preparation for the flood that occurred on June 30, 2007. More than 71,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from the refinery, far more than the 42,000 gallons that was initially reported. Due to widespread flooding that was occurring at the time of the oil spill, the crude oil reached and damaged a very large area. As a result of the crude oil discharge, two putative class actions (one federal and one state) were filed seeking unspecified damages with class certification under applicable law for all residents, domiciliaries and property owners of Coffeyville, Kansas who were affected by the oil release. The federal actions was filed by the law firms Parker Waichman Alonso LLP, Hutton & Hutton Law Firm LLC, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault and Becnel Law Firm LLC in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, on behalf of numerous individuals and business owners who have sustained losses as a result of the refinery oil spill. The company filed a motion to dismiss the federal suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On Nov. 6, 2007, the judge in the federal class action granted the company’s motion to dismiss. The state court action is still pending. The suit is “Dunham v. Coffeyville Resources, LLC et al., Case No. 6:07-cv-01186-JTM-DWB,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge J. Thomas Marten with referral to Judge Donald W. Bostwick. Representing plaintiffs is: Andrew W. Hutton Hutton & Hutton 8100 E. 22nd St., North-Bldg. 1200 P. O. Box 638 Wichita, KS 67201-638 Phone: 316-688-1166 Fax: 316-686-1077 E-mail: andrew.hutton@huttonlaw.com DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Settles Suits Over Server Banking Policy ------------------------------------------------------------ Darden Restaurants, Inc. paid $4 million to settle two class actions over its server banking policy, The Orlando Sentinel reports. Darden Restaurants -- http://www.dardenusa.com/-- is a casual dining restaurant company. The Company owns and operates the Red Lobster, Olive Garden, Bahama Breeze, Smokey Bones Barbeque & Grill, and Seasons 52 restaurant concepts located in the U.S. and Canada. In January 2004, a former food server filed a purported class action in California state court alleging that Red Lobster’s “server banking” policies and practices (under which servers settle guest checks directly with customers throughout their shifts, and turn in collected monies at the shift’s end) improperly required her and other food servers and bartenders to make up cash shortages and walkouts in violation of California law. The case was ordered to arbitration. As a procedural matter, the arbitrator ruled that class-wide arbitration is permissible under our dispute resolution program. In January 2007, plaintiffs’ counsel filed in California state court a second purported class action on behalf of servers and bartenders alleging that Olive Garden’s server banking policy and its alleged failure to pay split shift premiums violated California law. According to the company's Jan. 4 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Darden said that although the company believes that their policies and practices were lawful and that they have strong defenses to both cases, following mediation with the plaintiffs, they have reached a tentative resolution of the matters. As a result, they have accrued approximately $4 million of legal settlement costs for the quarter and six months ended November 25, 2007. According to company spokesman Bob McAdam, the company admitted no wrongdoing in settling the lawsuits, but decided they were too costly to pursue further in court. The allegations, he added, "are almost impossible to prove one way or the other." Darden has "redoubled" its management training to ensure compliance with the company's policy, he said. DE BEERS: $259M Antitrust Suit Settlement Hearing Set April 14 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District on New Jersey will hold a fairness hearing on April 14, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. for a proposed $259 million settlement in the matter, “Shawn Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-02819 (SRC).” The hearing will be in Courtroom 8, U.S. Post Office & Courthouse Building, Federal Square, Newark, New Jersey 07101. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before March 4, 2008. Deadline for the submission of a claim form is on May 19, 2008. Case Background In 2001, lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against De Beers and entities associated with De Beers. Other defendants are: -- De Beers S.A., -- DB Investments, Inc., -- De Beers Consolidated Mines, Ltd., -- De Beers A.G., Diamond Trading Company, Ltd., -- CSO Valuations A.G., -- Central Selling Organization, Central Holdings, Ltd., and -- De Beers Centenary A.G. Defendants are the largest supplier of rough diamonds in the world. The lawsuits claim that the Defendants unlawfully monopolized the supply of Rough Gem Diamonds, sponsored false and misleading advertising and unlawfully raised the prices of Gem Diamonds higher than they should have been, all of which violated certain federal and state antitrust, consumer protection and unfair competition laws. The following are the lawsuits being settled by the proposed settlement: -- “Sullivan, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04-02819 (SRC);” -- “Hopkins v. De Beers Centenary A.G., et al., San Francisco County, Ca. No. CGC-04-432954;” -- “Cornwell v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., Maricopa Co., Az. No. CV2005-2968;” -- “Null, et al. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 05-04849 (SRC);” -- “Leider, et al. v. Ralfe, et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 06-00908 (SRC);” -- “Anco Industrial Diamond Corp. v. DB Investments, Inc., et al., D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 01-04463 (SRC);” and -- “British Diamond Import Company v. Central Holdings Ltd., et al., USDC, D.N.J. Civil Action Index No. 04- 04098 (SRC).” Settlement People and business entities in the U.S. who purchased gem diamonds directly from De Beers and other diamond mining companies from Sept. 20, 1997 to March 31, 2006 (Indirect Purchaser Class) or who purchased loose gem diamonds, diamond jewelry or other products containing a gem diamond from a seller other than a mining company from Jan. 1, 1994 to March 31, 2006 (Direct Purchaser Class) are included in the settlement. Under the proposed settlement, defendants agreed to pay a total of $295 million to the plaintiffs. Additionally, they also agreed to pay up to $7 million to provide Notice of the Proposed Settlement to the Indirect Purchaser Class. Of the $295 million, $22.5 million has been allocated to the Direct Purchaser Class and $272.5 million has been allocated to the Indirect Purchaser Class. For more details, contact: Diamond Settlement Administrator Phone: 1-800-760-5431 or (612)-359-2002 E-mail: Administrator@diamondsclassaction.com Web site: https://diamondsclassaction.com/ ELECTRONIC COS: Face Calif. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------- NVIDIA Corp., ATI Technologies, and Advanced Micro Devices are facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging the companies conspired to fix prices for graphics processing units and cards, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Robert Cademy brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons and entities residing in the United States who, from Nov. 30, 2002 to the present, purchased computer Graphics Processing Units and Cards in the United States indirectly from the defendants for their own use and not for resale. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants formed and operated a combination or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the prices of, or allocate the market for, Graphics Processing Units and Cards; (b) whether the combination or conspiracy caused the price of Graphics Processing Units and Cards to be higher than they would have been in the absence of defendants' conduct; (c) the operative time period of defendants' combination or conspiracy; (d) whether defendants' conduct caused injury to the business or property of plaintiff and the members of the class; (e) the appropriate measure of the amount of damages suffered by the class; (f) whether defendants' conduct violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (g) whether defendants' conduct violates Sections 16720 and 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code; (h) whether defendants' conduct violates the antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer protection laws of the other states; and (i) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief. Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act, state antitrust law, and state consumer protection and/or unfair competition law claims alleged may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be: (1) a restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) an unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and/or concert of action in violation of the state antitrust laws; (3) violations of the state consumer protection and unfair competition law; (4) acts of unjust enrichment; -- that plaintiff and the class recover damages, as provided by federal and state antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiff and the class be entered against defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with such laws; -- that defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the sale of Graphics Processing Units and Cards, information concerning bids of competitors; -- that plaintiff be awarded restitution, including disgorgment of profits obtained by defendants as a result of their acts of unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment; -- that plaintiff and members of the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and that that interest be awarded to the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- that plaintiff and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiff and members of the class have such other, further and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Robert Cademy et al. v. Nvidia Corp. et al., Case No. CV 08 0055," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. David M. Watson, Esq. Krause, Kalfayan, Benink & Slavens, LLP 625 Broadway, Suite 635 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619)232-0331 Fax: (619) 232-4019 LOOKSMART LTD: Feb. 29 Hearing Set for $2M Click Fraud Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of Miller County, Arkansas will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 29, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for a proposed $2.54 million settlement of the matter, “Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles et al. v. LookSmart, Ltd. et al., Case No. CV-2005- 52-1.” The hearing will be held in the Hazel Street Courtroom of the Miller County Courthouse located at 500 Hazel St., Texarkana, Arkansas 71854. Deadline for the submission of a proof of claim is on Feb. 11, 2008. Case Background The suit names 11 search engines and Web publishers as defendants. It alleges breach of contract, restitution/unjust enrichment/money had and received, and civil conspiracy claims in connection with contracts allegedly entered into with plaintiffs for Internet pay-per-click advertising or “Click Fraud,” (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007). Plaintiffs Lane’s Gifts and Collectibles, Max Caulfield d/b/a Caulfield Investigations and Federal Tax Resolution LLC allege that LookSmart breached its contracts with class members, unjustly enriched itself, and engaged in a civil conspiracy by failing to adequately detect and stop “click fraud” or other invalid or improper clicks on online advertisements. Settlement The settlement covers all persons, together with any officer, employee or agent of the same that have purchased advertising on the Internet from LookSmart on or after Jan. 1, 2002, regardless of where the ad was displayed. The proposed settlement will provide advertising credits to class members who certify that they were the victims of “click fraud” or other invalid or improper clicks on online advertisements purchased from LookSmart on or after Jan. 1, 2002. Also, it will resolve claims that LookSmart breached its contracts with advertisers and violated other laws by failing to adequately detect and stop “click fraud” or other invalid or improper clicks on online advertisement. For more details, contact: LookSmart Click Charge Settlement Administrator Administar Services Group LLC P.O. Box 56636 Jacksonville, FL 32241-6636 Phone: (866) 756-5178 Web site: http://www.looksmartsettlement.com/ MACY'S INC: N.Y. Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York consolidated two securities fraud class actions filed against Macy's, Inc. f/k/a Federated Department Stores, Inc. over its integration of The May Department Stores Co. On June 4, 2007 and June 28, 2007, respectively, each of Robert L. Garber and Marlene Blanchard separately filed a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain members of its senior management on behalf of persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between Feb. 8, 2007 and May 15, 2007. Both complaints allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price during the relevant period, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court consolidated the two actions as, “In re Macy's, Inc. Securities Litigation,” and appointed Pinellas Park Retirement System (General Employees) as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action. The suit is “Robert L. Garber, et al. v. Macy's Inc., et al.,” was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Representing in the plaintiffs: Law Offices of Alfred G. Yates 519 Alleghany Bldg., 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA, 15219 Phone: 412.391.5164 - 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 MACY’S INC: Still Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- Macy’s Inc. continues to face a purported class action filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of its 401(k) and May Department Stores' retirement plans. The suit was filed by Cincinnati lawyer Stephen Imm with Katz Greenberger and Norton LLP on behalf of Ebrahim ShanehChian, who is identified as a resident of Texas who was a Macy's employee and plan participant during a purported class period. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against: * Macy's, Inc.; * officers and directors and plan committee members; * Terry J. Lundgren, chief executive; * Meyer Feldberg; * Plan Committee for the Macy's, Inc.; * Profit Sharing 401(K) Plan; * Plan Committee for the May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan; and * John Does 1 – 25 The suit was brought on behalf of persons who participated in the 401(k) Plan and The May Department Stores Company Profit Sharing Plan (May Plan) between Feb. 27, 2005 and the present. The complaint charges the Company, as well as members of the Company's board of directors and certain members of senior management, with breach of fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to participants in the 401(k) Plan and the May Plan. The suit is alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects in relation to the integration of the acquired May operations, resulting in supposed "artificial inflation" of the Company's stock price between Aug. 30, 2005 and May 15, 2007. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and costs. Macy's, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. The suit is "Shanehchian v. Macy's, Inc., Case No. 1:2007cv00828," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Judge S. Arthur Spiegel with referral to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hogan. Representing the plaintiffs is: Stephen E. Imm, Esq. Katz, Greenberger and Norton, LLP 105 East Fourth Street 4th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202-4056 Phone: (513) 721-5151 Fax: (513) 621-9285 MAY DEPARTMENT: Mo. Court Denies "Decristofaro" Dismissal Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri denied a motion that sought for a dismissal of a purported stockholder class action filed against The May Department Stores Co., which was acquired by Macy's, Inc. f/k/a Federated Department Stores, Inc. in a merger. On Jan. 11, 2006, Edward Decristofaro, an alleged former May stockholder, filed a purported class action on behalf of all former May stockholders against May and the former members of the board of directors of May. The complaint generally alleges that the directors of May breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith and candor to May stockholders in connection with the merger. The plaintiffs seek rescission of the merger or an unspecified amount of rescissory damages and costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. In July 2007, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the case. Macy's, Inc. reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 10, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Nov. 3, 2007. Macy's, Inc. -- http://www.fds.com-- formerly Federated Department Stores, Inc., operates departmental stores. Its retail stores sells a range of merchandise, including men’s, women’s and children’s apparel and accessories, cosmetics, home furnishings and other consumer goods, and are diversified by size of store, merchandising character and character of community served. METLIFE INC: Fla. RICO Act Violations Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- A tag-along order that indefinitely stayed a purported class action brought by the American Dental Association against MetLife Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida remained in force. In May 19, 2003, the American Dental Association and three individual providers filed a purported class action against MetLife Inc. and Cigna Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of in- network providers who allege that their claims are being wrongfully reduced by downcoding, bundling, and the improper use and programming of software. The complaint alleges federal racketeering and various state law theories of liability. The district court has granted in part and denied in part MetLife's motion to dismiss. MetLife has filed another motion to dismiss. The court has issued a tag-along order, related to a medical managed care trial, which will stay the lawsuit indefinitely. The suit is "American Dental Asso, et al. v. Cigna Corp., et al., Case No. 1:03-cv-21266-FAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida under Federico A. Moreno. METLIFE LIFE: Settles Suit Over Structured Settlement Annuities --------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the lawsuit, "Macomber, et al. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp., et al.," settled the case that was filed before the Connecticut Superior Court on April 7, 1999 . An amended putative class action complaint was filed against The Travelers Life and Annuity Co., now known as MetLife Life and Annuity Company of Connecticut (MLAC), Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and certain former affiliates. The amended complaint alleged Travelers Property Casualty Corp., a former MLAC affiliate, purchased structured settlement annuities from MLAC and spent less on the purchase of those structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants, and that commissions paid to brokers for the structured settlement annuities, including an affiliate of MLAC, were paid in part to Travelers Property Casualty Corp. On May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a nationwide class action involving the following claims against MLAC: violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy. On June 15, 2004, the defendants appealed the class certification order. In March 2006, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the trial court's certification of a class. In June 2007, the matter was settled as to all defendants. MetLife, Inc. -- http://www.metlife.com-- is a provider of insurance and other financial services with operations throughout the U.S. and the regions of Latin America, Europe, and Asia Pacific. Through its domestic and international subsidiaries and affiliates, MetLife offers life insurance, annuities, automobile and homeowners insurance, retail banking and other financial services to individuals, as well as group insurance, reinsurance and retirement & savings products, and services to corporations and other institutions. METROPOLITAN LIFE: Still Faces Suit Over Proprietary Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. continues to face a purported class action in relation to the sale of certain proprietary products by its distributors. The suit, "Thomas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al.," was filed Jan. 31 against Metropolitan Life, MetLife Securities, Inc. and MetLife Investment Advisors Company, LLC. Plaintiff asserts legal theories of violations of the federal securities laws and violations of state laws with respect to the sale of certain proprietary products (as opposed to non- proprietary products) by the company's agency distribution group. They seek rescission, compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and expenses. The suit is "Thomas et al v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., Case No. 5:07-cv-00121-F," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under Judge Stephen P. Friot. Representing the plaintiffs is: William B. Federman, Esq. Federman & Sherwood 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405-235-1560 Fax: 405-239-2112 E-mail: wfederman@aol.com Representing the defendants is: Emiline T. Ebrite, Esq. David L. Kearney, Esq. Gable & Gotwals 211 N Robinson Ave., 15th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-235-5500 Fax: 405-235-2875 E-mail: tebrite@gablelaw.com dkearney@gablelaw.com PACIFIC CYCLE: Recalls Trailer Bicycles with Defective Coupler -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Cycle Inc., of Madison, Wis. is recalling about 7,000 InStep "Pathfinder," Schwinn "Run About," and Mongoose "Alley Cat" Trailer Bicycles. The company said the coupler connecting the children's trailer bike to the adult's bicycle has welds that can fail, posing a fall hazard to children. Pacific Cycle has received one report of the coupler failing, resulting in a fall and abrasions to the rider. The "Pathfinder," "Run About," and "Alley Cat" are single- wheeled, children's bicycles that connect to an adult's bicycle by a coupler. The recall includes model numbers: 12-PF250, 13- SC250, 13-SC350 and M5101. The model number is located on the lower seat tube of the frame. The affected couplers have welded plates; bicycles that have couplers with cast parts are not included in this recall. The bicycles were made in China and sold at bicycle stores and retailers nationwide from January 2007 through August 2007 for between $80 and $120. Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled wagon away from children and contact Tricam Industries for instructions on how to return the wagon and obtain a refund. For additional information, contact Pacific Cycle toll-free at (877) 564-2261 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.instep.net, http://www.schwinnbikes.com,or http://www.mongoose.com. To see this recall on CPSC's web site, including pictures of the recalled product, please go to: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08156.html. [Redacted] TENNESSEE: Faces Suit Over Theft of Voters' Registration Info ------------------------------------------------------------- A class-action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court for Davidson County, Tennessee in relation to the theft of computers containing voting registration information at the Nashville- Davidson County Courthouse in December. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the provisions of Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals whose encrypted personal information and computerized data was held and was meant to be secured by Defendants on Davidson County Election Commission's (DCECs) computers, computer system, computer hard drives, computer discs and other likely repositories of such information and was subject of unauthorized disclosure resulting in the mental compromise of the security confidentiality and integrity of that personal information. They want the court to rule on whether: (a) defendants' legal responsibility to prevent the unauthorized requisition of unencrypted data that materially compromised the security confidentiality or integrity of personal information maintained by defendants; (b) defendants' and DCEC's failure to disclose any breach of the security of the system following discovery or notification was or reasonably believed to have been required by an unauthorized person in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay as required by law; (c) defendants' and DCEC's failure to notify the class of the personal information of any breach of the security of the computerized data immediately following discovery of unauthorized acquisition as required by state law; (d) defendants' and DCEC's failure to properly secure the class' personal information by taping passwords and usernames on the computers, unplugging security cameras, listening to music rather than guarding the data and neglecting to encrypt the data on the computer equipment; (e) defendants' and DCEC's failure to notify without unreasonable delay all consumer reporting agencies and credit bureaus that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis as defined by federal law of the timing distribution and content of the notices as required by state law; and (f) such other legal and factual issues as may develop during the course of discovery in this case moving forward. Plaintiffs demand the following relief: -- that process by issued requiring the defendants to answer the complaint within the time required by law; -- that the court enter an order determining that the actions involving claims common to all class members may be maintained as a class action as contemplated by Rule 23 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that plaintiffs be awarded such damages as will fully compensate plaintiffs for all injustices caused by the defendants' actions in violation of Tennessee common and statutory law; -- that defendants be required by mandatory injunction to notify each plaintiff including every member of the class of the breach of the security system caused by its conduct; -- that defendants procure a credit report for each plaintiff from each credit bureau and credit reporting agency; -- that the defendants procure monitoring of credit reports of each person whose personal information has been compromised for not less than 90 days; -- that the defendants indemnify and hold harmless each voter whose personal information has been compromised; -- that all monetary damages proven at trial be trebled pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; -- that the plaintiffs' attorneys be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of this action; and -- that the plaintiffs be awarded other damages as may be shown by the proof. The suit is "Raymond T. Throckmorton et al. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et al., Case No. 08C43," filed in the circuit Court for the Davidson County, Tennessee. Plaintiffs' counsel: Blackburn & McCune PLLC 201 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 1700 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 254-7770 Fax: (615) 251-1385 Web site: http://www.blackburnandmccune.com TISHMAN SPEYER: Dismissal of Suit Over Market Rents Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a suit over market rents at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village filed a notice of appeal against a ruling dismissing the case. (1) “Roberts, et al. v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et al.” (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed January 22, 2007). This lawsuit was filed by a putative class of “market rate” tenants at Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village against parties including Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company and Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company. Metropolitan Life was initially a named defendant but the action has been discontinued as to Metropolitan Life since it did not own the properties during the time period in question. This group of tenants claim that the MetLife entities, and since the sale of the properties, Tishman Speyer as current owner, improperly charged market rents when only lower regulated rents were permitted. The allegations are based on the impact of so-called J-51 tax abatements. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief and damages. A second purported class action, originally titled (2) “Carroll v. Tishman Speyer Properties, et. al” (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County, filed February 14, 2007), was filed against the same defendants alleging similar claims as in the Roberts case and, in addition, includes a claim of unjust enrichment and purported violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. The Carroll action was consolidated into the Roberts action. A motion to dismiss was filed in the consolidated lawsuit and oral argument was heard on May 15, 2007. By decision dated August 16, 2007, the court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. In September 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. For more details, contact: Stuart M. Saft, Esq. Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-4710 Fax: (212) 686-0114 Web site: http://www.whafh.com T-N-T FARMS: Bean Pickers File Suit in Fla. Over Withheld Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- T-N-T Farms, Inc. and Quality Kid Produce Inc. are facing a lawsuit seeking class-action status in a U.S. District Court in Florida, Houston Chronicle reports. Seasonal farmworkers Borel Venant, and Claircina Sinois filed the suit on behalf of about 1,000 others. They are asking for back wages and damages totaling more than $1 million. The lawsuit alleges the two companies failed to pay the workers on time, failed to pay them for all the hours they were in the field and did not report all the workers' earnings to the U.S. Representing the workers is: Gregory S. Schell, Esq. Florida Legal Services Migrant Farmers Justice Project P.O. Box 2110 Belle Glade, FL 33430-7110 Fax: (561) 992-5040 TRADITION VALET: Valets File Minn. Suit Over Tipping Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- Tradition Valet, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in the Fourth Judicial District in the State of Minnesota for, allegedly, unlawfully withholding earned gratuities by valets in violation of Minnesota law. Named plaintiff Dan Ryan bring this action pursuant to Rules 23.01 and 23.02 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who were employed as valets by defendant from December XX, 2004 through the present, worked at events where customers purchased a "pre-paid gratuity," and were denied full value of that gratuity. The causes of action raised by plaintiffs are violation of Minnesota Stat 177.24, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows: -- for class certification and for designation of plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel; -- that the conduct of defendant be determined and adjucated to constitute conversion and unjust enrichment; -- that the conduct of defendant be determined and adjucated to be in violation of Minn. Stat. Section 177.24 for damages in the amount of plaintiffs' and each member of the Minnesota class' unlawfully retained gratuities, plus an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, all costs, disbursements, witness fees, and attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of this claim, for all available civil penalties, and all other legal and equitable relief of this claim, for all available civil penalties, and all other legal ad equitable relief available pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 177.24, Minn. Stat. 177.27 and other applicable law; -- for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages; -- for all reasonable damages available at common law or pursuant to Minnesota Statutes flowing from defendant's conduct in an amount greater than $50,000 and for all other available legal and equitable relief; -- that plaintiffs and members of the Minnesota class be awarded all attorney's fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action; and -- for all such further relief as the court deems just and equitable. The suit is "Dan Ryan et al. v. Tradition Valet, Inc.," filed in the Fourth Judicial District Court in the State of Minnesota. Representing plaintiffs are: Steven Andrew Smith E. Michelle Drake 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (612) 256-3200 Fax: (612) 338-4878 New Securities Fraud Cases SECURITY CAPITAL: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Security Capital Assurance Ltd. from April 23, 2007 through December 10, 2007, including those who purchased shares in the Company's Secondary Public Offering of June 6, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Security Capital and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Security Capital is a Bermuda-domiciled holding company whose operating subsidiaries provide credit enhancement and protection products to the public finance and structured finance markets throughout the United States and internationally. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them: (1) that the Company failed to fully disclose the extent of its exposure to collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs") and other residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS"); (2) that the Company failed to adequately reserve for losses as conditions in the housing and credit markets deteriorated; and (3) that the Company improperly valued its credit default swaps. On July 23, 2007, Security Capital shocked investors when it reported its second quarter 2007 financial and operational results. For the quarter, the Company reported net income of $25.9 million, or $0.40 per share, compared to $36.4 million, or $0.79 per share, reported in the second quarter of 2006. The quarterly decline in net income was principally due to a decline in refunding activity, and a significant increase in losses on derivative instruments. On this news, the Company's shares declined $4.38 per share, or 15.19 percent, to close on July 24, 2007 at $24.26 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on October 25, 2007, the Company reported its third quarter 2007 financial and operational results. For the quarter, the Company reported a net loss of $89.9 million, or $1.40 per share, compared to net income of $28.4 million, or $0.49 per share, reported in the third quarter of 2006. This quarterly loss was due to a $143 million mark-to-market loss. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.20 per share, or 8.3 percent, to close on October 25, 2007 at $13.25 per share, on heavy trading volume. Then on December 11, 2007, Fortune published an article suggesting that Security Capital may be facing ratings downgrades. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.23 per share, or 15 percent, to close on December 11, 2007 at $6.97 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, Fitch Ratings put Security Capital on ratings watch "negative," which caused the Company's shares to decline an additional $1.52 per share, or 21.8 percent, to close on December 12, 2007 at $5.45 per share. Finally, on December 13, 2007, the Company issued a press release responding to the Fitch Ratings report in an attempt to reassure investors of its solvency. On this news, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.22 per share, or 22.4 percent, to close on December 13, 2007 at $4.23 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than February 5, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706 E-mail: info@sbtklaw.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 2008. 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 * * *