/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080114.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 14, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 9 Headlines AT&T INC: Sales Consultants File FSLA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. BRISTOL-MYERS: Canadian Court Approves Serzone Suit Settlement BRITISH TELECOM: I.Net Merger Could Spur Lawsuit, Report Says CALIFORNIA: 18 Nursing Homes Face Lawsuit Over False Promotions CALIFORNIA: L.A. School District Accused of Labor Law Violation CLA USA: Living Trusts Sellers Accused of Exploiting Seniors DHL: Settles Lawsuit Filed by Shipment Contractors for $25M DRDGOLD LTD: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit DYNAMEX INC: Opening Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers GEORGIA: Suit Against Valdosta Claims Routine Torture of Inmates INDONESIA: Pondok Indah Residents File Suit Over Busway Corridor INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Amend Cal. Securities Suit JACKSON HEWITT: April 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. “Hunter” Credit Act Suit in Discovery JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. RICO Act Violations Suit JACKSON HEWITT: N.J. Court OKs Motion to Junk Racketeering Suit KADANT INC: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Defective Products KAITLIN GROUP: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit in Ontario Court KEITH MACNALLY: Workers File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Underpayments MIRALUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Headache Drug NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Ut. Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit PANALPINA WORLD: Accused of Fixing Freight Forwarding Prices SAPPI LTD: Dismissed as Defendant in Paper Antitrust Lawsuits TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Complaint in Lawnmower Litigation Dismissed TENNESSEE VALLEY: $18M Settlement of Overcharging Suit Okayed TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suit Appealed New Securities Fraud Cases SMITH & WESSON: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* AT&T INC: Sales Consultants File FSLA Violations Lawsuit in Ga. --------------------------------------------------------------- Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP has brought a putative collective action unpaid wage and overtime lawsuit against AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corp. and BellSouth Corp. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on December 10, 2007. The defendants were served on December 20, 2007 and January 7, 2008. Plaintiffs allege that AT&T, formerly known as BellSouth, violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by refusing to compensate Sales Consultants, Sales and Service Consultants and Sales Associates, and those similarly situated, for all their time worked. The suit was started by a current Universal Sales Associate and a former Sales Consultant on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that they were denied pay for time worked before and after their shifts and during meal and rest breaks. A large portion of this time was spent booting-up computers, logging into computer systems and performing customer callbacks. Plaintiffs' attorney David Schlesinger explained, "Call center employees from a number of locations, in a number of states, appear to have been denied wages and overtime for work performed before and after their shifts and during meal and rest breaks. It looks like these companies' pay practices systematically denied call center workers compensation for time worked." Plaintiffs are represented by Michele Fisher, James Kaster and David Schlesinger from Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP, which is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. The case is “Brooks et al. v. AT&T, Inc., AT&T Corp. and Bellsouth Corporation, Civ. No. 1: 07-cv-3054,” N.D. Georgia. Individuals may find information about joining this action at http://www.overtimecases.comor by calling (877) 448-4092. Contacts: David Schlesinger 612-256-3277 Jim Kaster 612-256-3202 Plaintiffs counsel is: Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP 4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Phone: 612-338-1919 Fax: 612-338-4878 Website: http://www.nka.com BRISTOL-MYERS: Canadian Court Approves Serzone Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified as class action and approved a settlement of an Ontario proceeding over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s SERZONE drug. Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, in February 2006, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. executed an agreement in principle with respect to all of the SERZONE claims in Canada. The class actions were filed in 2002 against the Company in Canada alleging, among other things, that it knew or should have known about the hepatic risks posed by SERZONE, an antidepressant marketed by the company, and failed to adequately warn physicians and users of the risks. Pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, all claims will be dismissed, the litigation will be terminated, the defendants will receive releases and the Company committed to paying at least $1 million into funds for class members. The Approval Hearing for the Settlement in the Ontario Superior Court action brought on behalf of Class Members resident in Canada, excluding Quebec, occurred on April 24, 2007. The Approval Hearing in the Quebec Superior Court, District of Montreal action brought on behalf of Class Members resident in Quebec occurred on April 17, 2007. By order dated December 6, 2007, Mr. Justice Cullity of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action and approved the Serzone Settlement. As noted, the Settlement must be approved by the Quebec Superior Court for the Settlement to become effective. The decision of the Quebec Superior Court is pending. Serzone Settlement on the Net: http://www.serzonesettlement.ca/ Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. -- http://www.bms.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, licensing, manufacturing, marketing, distribution and sale of pharmaceuticals and other healthcare- related products. For more information, contact: Ontario National Class Counsel Rochon Genova LLP McPhadden, Samac, Merner, Barry Phone: 1 (866) 881-2292 Quebec Class Counsel Sylvestre Fafard Painchaud Phone: 514-937-2881 Claims Administrator Crawford Class Action Services Phone: at 1-866-640-0039 BRITISH TELECOM: I.Net Merger Could Spur Lawsuit, Report Says ------------------------------------------------------------- A judge's comment on a possible motive behind the merger between Italian business services provider I.Net SpA and British Telecom Group (BT) could spur I.Net minority shareholders to pursue what they perceive is rightly theirs through a class action, according to Il Sole 24 Ore. The Milan court cleared the transaction last month, but the approving judge has cast doubt on the business motivation behind the deal and on the share-swap ratio, according to the report. I.Net minority shareholders Tamburi Investments Partners SpA and hedge fund Trafalgar Asset Managers had claimed the takeover offer was too low, and they then opposed the merger. CALIFORNIA: 18 Nursing Homes Face Lawsuit Over False Promotions --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action was filed in Orange County Superior Court against Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., Sun Mar Management, and its 18 California skilled nursing homes on behalf of Warren Richardson, by and through his Attorney in Fact Marlene Miller. The suit was filed on Mr. Richardson's behalf and on behalf of all California citizens who resided in, or are residing in, one of the company's California facilities from Jan. 8, 2005 through Jan. 5, 2008. Named nursing homes in the complaint: -- California Sun Mar Facilities ANAHEIM Anaheim Healthcare Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 11 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. Sun-Mar Health Care, Inc. dba Sun Mar Nursing Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 10 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. DAVIS Courtyard Health Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 20 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 14 notices of deficiencies. EL MONTE Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital, Inc. dba Sunset Manor Convalescent Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 18 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. FONTANA Citrus Nursing Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 8 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 11 notices of deficiencies. Sun-Mar Nursing Centers dba Laurel Convalescent Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received multiple notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. FULLERTON Gordon Lane Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 19 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. GARDEN GROVE Garden Park Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 10 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. LA HABRA Park Regency Care, LLC dba Park Regency Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 29 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. LOS ANGELES (90019) Inland Medical Enterprises, Inc. dba Alcott Rehabilitation Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 11 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. 8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 12 notices of deficiencies. MONTEREY PARK Heritage Manor Healthcare dba Heritage Manor 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 13 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. Monterey Park Convalescent Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received multiple notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. PARAMOUNT Paramount Convalescent Group, Inc. dba Paramount Convalescent Hospital 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received multiple notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. RIVERSIDE F & B Health Care dba Extended Care Hospital of Riverside 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 19 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. ROSEMEAD Gibraltar Convalescent Hospital, Inc. dba Del Mar Convalescent Hospital 8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received multiple notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. SANTA ANA Bartlett Care Center LLC dba French Park Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 21 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 34 notices of deficiencies. 8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 20 notices of deficiencies. SAN DIEGO Villa Rancho Bernardo Health Care, LLC dba Villa Rancho Bernardo Care Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 14 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 18 notices of deficiencies. 8/1/04 - 7/31/05: received 16 notices of deficiencies. SANTA MONICA P.C. Care, LLC dba Pacific Convalescent Center 8/1/06 - 10/31/07: received 11 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. TUJUNGA Wyngate Nursing Center dba North Valley Nursing Center 8/1/05 - 7/31/06: received 16 notices of deficiencies by the California Department of Health for providing substandard care and violating residents' rights. The complaint alleges that Sun Mar Health Care, Inc. promotes itself to people who are elderly and to their families by falsely claiming to provide superior and attentive skilled nursing care. Sun Mar's promotional materials claim the facilities provide skilled nursing care services of a particular standard and quality that will meet the needs of prospective and current residents. The suit alleges that the corporate officers and managers of the individual homes deliberately keep the budgets so tight that appropriate staffing and training of staff cannot be provided and, therefore, residents do not receive the care they need and should be getting, and for which they are paying. "In our opinion, Sun Mar facilities have a long record of excessive and repeated citations for substandard patient care and violations of residents' rights, according to California Department of Health records," says Long Beach, Calif., plaintiff attorney Stephen M. Garcia of The Garcia Law Firm. "It is a fact, accepted by the entire long-term care community, that there is a direct correlation between the conduct that leads to abuse of an elder and insufficient staffing levels in these long-term facilities. In our opinion, residents of Sun Mar facilities are elder abuse victims waiting to happen as the result of the inappropriate operations in the Sun Mar facilities as alleged in our complaint. It's just a matter of whose parents or grandparents are going to be the victims." "Simply stated," says Mr. Garcia, "the lawsuit alleges that Sun Mar misrepresents the quality and nature of the services it provides to their residents in order to entice them to pay good money for services Sun Mar does not provide. This lawsuit seeks to change corporate attitudes of greed over proper care, of promoting profits over the needs of the elder and vulnerable adults the long-term communities serve." Mr. Garcia points to French Park Care Center in Santa Ana as an example. Records indicate that as far back as Aug. 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005, this Sun Mar facility was cited for 20 deficiencies by the California Dept. of Health. The facility continued to deteriorate from Aug. 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006, when it received a mind-boggling 34 deficiencies. And most recently, Aug. 1, 2006 to Oct. 31, 2007, the facility is still hovering at an unacceptable level of 21 notices of deficiencies. The lawsuit alleges that substandard care and neglect of residents' rights was a corporate-wide strategy and policy mandated by its parent corporation, officers, managers, and the principals of Sun Mar Health Care. The suit specifically names: -- Irving Bauman, president and principal of Sun Mar Health Care, Inc., and -- the administrators and managing agents of each of the 18 facilities, including: * Robert Koontz, * Hanh Ta, * Pat Chase-Lyle, * David Ormiston, * Chris Stottlemyer, * Ron Ofer, * Sandra Faay, * Andrew Litchman, * Fernando Rodriguez, * Janie Chen-Campos, * Martin Hipschman, * Smita Muir, * Carmen Hernandez, * Robert Furbin, * Bertha Noble, and * John Baldwin The suit alleges that the company and its principals, deliberately understaffed its facilities by forcing each facility to operate under a budget, approved and directed by Mr. Bauman and the directors of the individual facilities, that charged for services not provided, thereby enriching themselves at the expense of their elderly residents. "When Sun Mar residents put down their deposits and pay their fees, they do so with the expectation that they will receive the care they were being promised and which was advertised," says Mr. Garcia. "We believe the facts clearly show that the promised services were not and are not being delivered, that Sun Mar management knew this to be true, and yet it continues making the same misrepresentation to the public. At a minimum, our parents and grandparents, who have lived long and served well, deserve the truth from those who would take their money. This lawsuit is about that truth being told about Sun Mar facilities in California." For more information, contact: Geri Wilson The Jonathan Group Phone: 626.403.6741 Mobile: 626.487.2235 E-mail: gerij9@yahoo.com CALIFORNIA: L.A. School District Accused of Labor Law Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Deloitte Consulting, the district's payroll contractor, are facing a class action filed by two LAUSD high school employees for alleged underpayment, City News Service reports. The suit seeks class-action status. It was filed by Elizabeth Forsberg, a teacher, and Dawn Amenta, an aide, who works at El Camino Real High School. The suit claims the employees earned less than minimum wage by being underpaid. "Defendant LAUSD has failed and refused, and continues to fail and refuse, to pay for all hours worked as required by California wage and hour laws," the suit claims. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, including unpaid wages and general and punitive damages. The district has been plagued by payroll difficulties for nearly a year already, the report said. CLA USA: Living Trusts Sellers Accused of Exploiting Seniors ------------------------------------------------------------ Texarkana residents filed on Dec. 19 a class action in Miller County Circuit Court (Ark.) against sellers of living trust documents accusing the salesmen of exploiting senior citizens, Michelle Massey of the Southeast Texas Record reports. Defendants named are: -- John R. Vermillion, -- John Vermillion and Associates L.L.C., -- CLA USA Inc., -- CLA USA Insurance Services, -- CLA Marketing, CLA Estate Services, -- CLA Insurance Services, -- Charles Loper Jr., -- Charles Loper III., -- Steven Morgan, -- Robert Reese, and -- The Estate Plan Inc. The living trust sellers are facing allegations of "masquerading as qualified financial advisers, estate planners, lawyers, and paralegals" to "exploit and prey" upon senior citizens with the creation and selling of "unnecessary and often useless" living trusts, according to the report. Defendants are accused of fraud, unauthorized practice of law, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and conspiracy. The suit alleges that the defendants created and sold the living trusts as part of a scheme to gain access to senior citizens' financial information in order to sell annuities and other financial products. The plaintiffs accuse Vermillion of violating rules of professional conduct, failing to advise clients, engaging in unsolicited contact with clients and practicing law in Arkansas while unlicensed. Plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants made misrepresentations to entice potential class members to purchase living trusts and other products; (b) whether defendants fraudulently concealed material omissions; (c) whether defendants engaged in unauthorized practice of law; (d) whether there was conspiracy among the defendants to commit fraud; (e) whether defendants breached fiduciary duties; (f) whether defendants' conduct was intentional; (g) whether plaintiffs are entitled to rescission, refund, or restitutionary damages and; (h) whether plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. The suit seeks disgorgement of defendants' gains and restitution. It is also seeking: -- temporary and permanent injunction against the defendants to cease and desist the sales of living trusts while telling the consumers they will avoid estate taxes; -- for the defendants to explain in every meeting that the living trusts is unnecessary to avoid estate taxes because of federal estate tax exemptions; -- for the defendants to notify members of the proposed class with regard to the potential restitutionary relief and any other activities to prevent future fraud. The suit is case no. cv-2007-474-2 filed in Miller County Circuit Court under Judge Jim Hudson. Plaintiffs' counsel: Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw, L.L.P. Century Plaza, Suite 400, 2900 St. Michael Drive, P.O. Box 6128 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6128 Phone: 903-334-7000 Fax: 903-334-7007 Website: http://www.pattonroberts.co DHL: Settles Lawsuit Filed by Shipment Contractors for $25M ----------------------------------------------------------- International shipper DHL has settled a $25 million class action over a glitch in its computer system that resulted to some contractors not being paid, David Bertola of Business First of Buffalo reports. DHL's computer system has prevented certain types of shipments from being processed resulting to some contractors not being paid. The suit was filed on behalf of a class of contractors who handled shipments. Plaintiffs' law firm Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham & Coppola LLC says the total number of contractors involved in the suit numbers 1,400 nationwide. These include present and previous DHL contractors dating back to 1994. Rupp Baase Pfalzgraf Cunningham & Coppola LLC on the Net: http://www.ruppbaase.com/. DRDGOLD LTD: N.Y. Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a consolidated securities fraud class action pending against DRDGOLD, Ltd. On June 13, 2005, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and two of its former officers. Since then, four nearly identical securities class action complaints were filed against the company and the same officers. The cases were consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint was filed. The actions were allegedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's shares during two purported class periods spanning from Oct. 23, 2003, to Feb. 25, 2005. The complaints alleged generally that the company and the individual defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding, among other things: -- the restructuring of the company's North West Operations in South Africa; -- the company's ability to reduce the negative impact of the increasing value of the South African Rand; and -- the strength of the company's balance sheet. The company defended the lawsuits brought against the company and its officers named in the complaints. Its attorneys filed an application to dismiss the plaintiffs' case and on Jan. 31, 2007, the Court issued an order directing the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment dismissing the class actions. The suit is “In Re: DRDGOLD Securities Litigation Case No. 05- CV-05542,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Victor Marrero. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 East Layton Ave. Cudahy, WI, 53110 Phone: 866-264-3995 Fax: 414-482-8001 E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631.367.7100 Fax: 631.367.1173 E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com Stull, Stull & Brody (New York) 6 East 45th Street New York, NY, 10017 Phone: 310.209.2468 Fax: 310.209.2087 E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com Wechsler Harwood LLP 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor New York, NY, 10022 Phone: 212.935.7400 Fax: info@whhf.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 DYNAMEX INC: Opening Brief Filed in Appeal of Calf. Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a purported labor class action against Dynamex, Inc. filed an opening brief in his appeal against a decision by the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County to refuse certification to the suit. A company driver filed the suit on April 15, 2005. It alleges that the company unlawfully misclassified its California drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees. It asserted, as a consequence, entitlement on behalf of the purported class claimants to overtime compensation and other benefits under California wage and hour laws, reimbursement of certain operating expenses, and various insurance and other benefits and the obligation of the company to pay employer payroll taxes under federal and state law. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on Nov. 2, 2006. The company responded in a memorandum of points and authorities in support of defendants' opposition to plaintiff's motion for class certification on Nov. 29, 2006. A hearing was held on Dec. 12, 2006, and on Dec. 14, 2006, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification was denied. The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on Jan. 5, 2007. During the summer of 2007, Plaintiff associated additional counsel for the Appeal. Plaintiff requested and was granted various extensions in which to file his Opening Brief. The Brief was filed on Oct. 18, 2007. A Stipulation between the parties had given Dynamex until Jan. 11, 2008, to file its answering brief. Plaintiff will have 30 days following that in which to file a rebuttal brief. Thereafter the Court will schedule an Oral hearing. Dynamex, Inc. -- http://www.dynamex.com-- is a provider of same-day delivery and logistics services in the U.S. and Canada. Through its network of business centers, the Company provides same-day, on-demand, door-to-door delivery services utilizing its ground couriers. DYNAMEX INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Misclassification of Drivers -------------------------------------------------------------- Dynamex, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York over an alleged misclassification of its drivers as independent contractors instead of employees. On Oct. 17, 2007, two former independent contractor drivers in New York filed a purported class action/collective action against the Company, alleging that the Company had unlawfully misclassified its drivers in New York and in the U.S. as independent contractors rather than as employees, and the Company had unlawfully failed to comply with the “Truth In Truck Leasing” and “Leasing Regulations” under U.S. Transportation Statutes. The Complaint seeks relief under the New York Labor and Wage Statutes and the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act including payment of wages for all hours worked plus overtime, as well as for reimbursement of business expenses and improper deductions made from driver wages. The truck leasing claims seek unspecified amounts by which plaintiffs were underpaid and amounts for which the Company had over deducted. Injunctive relief to prevent further violations is sought. The suit is “Berrios et al v. Dynamex, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-09293-RJS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Richard J. Sullivan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 838-3333 Fax: (212) 838-3735 E-mail: frudich@lockslawny.com - and - Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Berger & Gottlieb 150 E. 18 St. New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212)-228-9795 Fax: (212)-982-6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com Representing the defendants: Jeffrey W. Brecher, Esq. Jackson Lewis LLP 58 South Service Road Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-247-0404 Fax: 631-247-0417 E-mail: brecherj@jacksonlewis.com GEORGIA: Suit Against Valdosta Claims Routine Torture of Inmates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Atlanta attorney McNeil Stokes filed a class action against guards and officials at Valdosta State Prison and the Georgia Department of Corrections. The suit names 25 prison guards, officers, supervisors, wardens, medical personnel and corrections officials allegedly involved in routine beatings and torture of restrained inmates and subsequent cover-up of the abuse. The complaint details gruesome attacks in which prisoners are allegedly bound and restrained while guards and members of the special Correctional Emergency Response Team (CERT) kick them with hard-toe combat boots, beat them with gloves especially designed for assaults known as "beating gloves," and choke them with night sticks. Two young men have been beaten to death since these series of cases were initially filed. Abuses in other Georgia prison systems include guards inflicting torture methods known as the "Georgia Motorcycle" whereby an inmate is stripped of clothing and strapped in four or five point restraints to an iron bed or chair for as much as 48 hours without food, water or bathroom facilities; and a method known as the "Georgia G-string" whereby inmates are stripped and a chain is cinched around their testicles for hours at a time, leaving them in excruciating pain. A former guard from Rogers State Prison has described these beatings as a "sport" throughout the correctional system. Inmates listed as Level IV mental health prisoners are often targeted because of the behavior caused by their mental disabilities. Medical treatment is either denied to the victims or, if administered, is not reported to prevent an official record of the abuse. Mr. Stokes, who recently won a case against Rogers State Prison in Georgia, thereby ending inmate abuse at that facility, is determined to protect prisoners' rights throughout the state. "These beatings are a blood-sport among the correctional officers involved," explains Stokes. "The victims (men and women) are shackled with their hands behind their backs or otherwise restrained while the CERT officers inflict the most horrendous torture. The Georgia correctional system, including Internal Affairs and the Attorney General, think they can continue covering this up, but it is going to stop. It must stop. It's that simple." The claim describes a pattern and practice of torturing restrained inmates that serves no penological purpose utilizing premeditated violence including but not limited to: -- slamming inmates on the ground and running their heads into walls and doors; -- using profanity with racial and sexual innuendos; -- not following Standard Operating Procedures on use of video camera; -- beating prisoners in surreptitious locations such as showers, alcoves, and empty rooms; -- covering up beating in use of force reports; -- instructing medical staff to cover up beatings; -- covering up and condoning beatings by wardens and deputy wardens of security; -- covering up of beatings by internal affairs; -- putting inmates who have been beaten in lockdown segregation facilities to avoid observation of their injuries; -- not allowing inmates who have been beaten to see their families or to have picture taken of their injuries; -- thwarting prison grievance procedure to cover up beatings and prevent exhaustion of grievances by inmates who have been beaten so that they cannot maintain causes of action in court. Defendants in the Valdosta Class Action suit include Commissioner James Donald; Rick Jacobs; Sarah Draper; Sr. Sharon Lewis, MD; Warden Hart; Deputy Warden McLaughlin; Albert Jones; Captain Morris; Lt. Maine; Officer Powell; Officer Jesse Howell; Officer T. Brown; Officer Yancey; Officer Cannon; Officer Snake; Officer Smith; Officer Shane; Officer Grainger; Officer Radcliff; Sergeant Bond; Officer Page; Officer Bates; Officer John Doe No.1; and Officer John Doe No. 2; all of the Valdosta State Prison system. Plaintiffs are listed as: Astainiel Jarvis Mann; Pip Heng; Elijah Adcock; Rickie Lee Fox; Jodrph Daniel Fincher; and Shedrick D. Ross. The suit is "Mann et al. v. Donald et al., Case No. 7:08-cv- 00005-HL-RLH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia under Hugh Lawson with referral to Judge Richard L. Hodg. Representing the plaintiffs is: McNeill Stokes, Esq. 1040 Peachtree Battle Avenue Atlanta, GA 30327 Phone: 404-352-2144 E-mail: mcstokes@bellsouth.net INDONESIA: Pondok Indah Residents File Suit Over Busway Corridor ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in a suit over the construction of a busway corridor in Pondok Indah, South Jakarta opened Jan. 8 and will resume Jan. 21, The Jakarta Post reports. Residents of upscale Pondok Indah, South Jakarta, Indonesia filed suit in the South Jakarta District Court against: -- the city administration, -- Governor Fauzi Bowo, -- the public works agency, -- the transportation agency, -- the planning agency, -- the City Environment Management Board and -- two busway lane contractors. PT Metropolitan Kencana, the developer of Pondok Indah area, is also being sued for allegedly failing to notify residents of the city administration's plans, the report said. According to the report, the construction of busway corridor 8, which connects Harmoni in Central Jakarta with Lebak Bulus Terminal in South Jakarta through Jl Metro Pondok Indah, met resistance from residents of the neighborhood in September. Seven plaintiffs claiming to represent 9,300 residents said the defendants built the corridor illegally. "The project was carried out without an environmental impact analysis report," plaintiff Louis Mario Pakaila said, according to the report. Plaintiffs argued it would destroy the local environment by chopping down palm trees and green areas along the street, and cause major traffic jams. They demanded the defendants stop further development of the corridor and pay more than US$75,000 in compensation. INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs Amend Cal. Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Infineon Technologies AG have filed a third amended complaint in the matter. Between September and November 2004, seven securities class action complaints were filed against the company and current or former officers in U.S. federal district courts, later consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our publicly-traded securities who purchased them during the period from March 2000 to July 2004. The consolidated amended complaint alleges violations of the U.S. securities laws and asserts that the defendants made materially false and misleading public statements about the company's historical and projected financial results and competitive position because they did not disclose its alleged participation in DRAM price-fixing activities and that, by fixing the price of DRAM, defendants manipulated the price of our securities, thereby injuring its shareholders. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. In September 2006, the court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. In October 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. In March 2007, pursuant to a stipulation agreed with the defendants, the plaintiffs withdrew the second amended complaint and were granted a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in July 2007, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "In Re:Infineon Technologies AG Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:04-cv-04156-JW," filed in the U.S. Disctrict Court for the Northern District of California under Judge James Ware with referral to Judge Patricia V. Trumbull. Representing the plaintiffs are: Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA, 92101 Phone: 619.231.1058 Fax: 619.231.7423 - and - 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 Representing the defendants are: Mark R.S. Foster, Esq. Mia A. Mazza, Esq. Morrison & Foerster LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-268-6335 or 415-268-7000 Fax: 415-268-7522 E-mail: mfoster@mofo.com mmazza@mofo.com JACKSON HEWITT: April 30 Hearing Set for Calif. RALs Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- An April 30, 2008 class certification hearing was set for a lawsuit filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc., Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (SBB&T), and Cendant Corp. in relation to Refund Anticipation Loans (RALs). On March 18, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California Seniors brought the purported class action in the Superior Court of California (San Francisco), subsequently adding Cendant, in the Superior Court of California (Santa Barbara, following a transfer from San Francisco). The suit seeks declaratory relief in connection with the provision of RALs, as to the lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, as to the validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection provision and as to whether the method of disclosure to customers with respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent. It is also seeking injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and expenses. The company is a party in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB&T. The trial court granted a motion by Santa Barbara and third- party bank defendants on federal preemption grounds, and stayed all other proceedings pending appeal. The California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's preemption decision. The California Supreme Court denied review. SBB&T and third-party banks moved in the California Court of Appeal to stay remittitur pending certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 4, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, and the purported class action suit is proceeding in the trial court. A class certification hearing has been scheduled for April 30, 2008, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. -- http://www.jacksonhewitt.com/ -- provides computerized preparation of federal, state and local individual income tax returns through a network of franchised and company-owned tax offices operating under the brand name Jackson Hewitt Tax Service in the U.S. The Company provides its customers with accurate tax return preparation services and electronic filing. JACKSON HEWITT: 6th Circuit Considers Appeal in Credit Act Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal by Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. against a decision denying its bid to reverse an order remanding the purported class action, “Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-02632-PAG” to the to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County. Initially, on Sept. 26, 2006, Willie Brown brought a purported class action complaint against the company in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, in connection with an alleged failure to comply with Ohio's Credit Services Organization Act, and for alleged unfair and deceptive acts in violation of Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, and seeking damages and injunctive relief. On Oct. 30, 2006, the company filed a notice removing the complaint to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On Nov. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss, and a motion to stay proceedings and to compel arbitration. On Dec. 8, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, which the company opposed on Jan. 16, 2007. On Feb. 27, 2007, the Court entered an order remanding the case to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, without ruling on the other pending motions. On March 6, 2007, the Company filed for permission to appeal the remand decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On Sept. 7, 2007, the Court denied the Company’s petition. On September 21, 2007 the Company filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to request a rehearing by the Court panel that denied the petition and to request that the full Court hear the matter. A decision by the Court is currently pending, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is "Brown v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv- 02632-PAG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio under Judge Patricia A. Gaughan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. The Law Office of Ronald I. Frederick Ste. 1300, 55 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-502-1055 Fax: 216-781-1749 E-mail: RonF@ClevelandConsumerLaw.com - and - Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Dworken & Bernstein Painesville, 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: 440-352-3391 Fax: 440-352-3469 E-mail: pperotti@dworkenlaw.com Representing the defendant is: G. Karl Fanter, Esq. Baker & Hostetler 3200 National City Center, 1900 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: 216-861-7918 Fax: 216-696-0740 E-mail: kfanter@bakerlaw.com JACKSON HEWITT: W.Va. “Hunter” Credit Act Suit in Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia over alleged violations of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act. On Oct. 30, 2006, Linda Hunter brought a purported class action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia, for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty, for breach of West Virginia's Credit Service Organization Act, for breach of contract, and for unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and seeking damages. On Nov. 22, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss. A decision by the court is currently pending, and during such time the case is in its discovery stage. On November 22, 2006, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. On Nov. 6, 2007, the Court partially granted the Company’s motion to dismiss. On Nov. 21, 2007, the Company answered the complaint. The case is in its discovery stage, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is "Hunter v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv- 00919," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia under Judge Robert C. Chambers. Representing the plaintiff is John W. Barrett, Esq. Bailey & Glasser 227 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301-1386 Phone: 304/345-6555 Fax: 304/342-1110 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com Representing the defendants are: Michael P. Kelly, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom 1440 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202/371-7000 Fax: 202/393-5760 E-mail: mikelly@skadden.com - and - Debra Lee Hovatter, Esq. Spilman Thomas & Battle P.O. Box 615 Morgantown, WV 26504-0615 Phone: 304/291-7935 Fax: 304/291-7979 E-mail: dhovatter@spilmanlaw.com JACKSON HEWITT: Seeks to Dismiss Ill. RICO Act Violations Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has yet to rule on a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in a purported class action filed against Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. with regards to the company’s tax return preparation services. On April 20, 2007, Brent Wooley brought the purported class action complaint against the company and certain unknown franchisees on behalf of customers who obtained tax return preparation services that allegedly included false deductions without support by the customer. The practice allegedly resulted in penalties being assessed by the IRS against the taxpayer. The suit was brought for alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, and the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act. It sought compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, and attorneys’ fees. The alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act relate to representations regarding tax return preparation and Gold Guarantee coverage and denial of Gold Guarantee claims. On Aug. 1, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss which, on Sept. 5, 2007, was denied without prejudice to permit the plaintiff to further amend the complaint. On Oct. 5, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint to add additional parties. On Nov. 20, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. A decision by the Court is currently pending, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Wooley v. Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-02201,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Ruben Castillo. Representing the plaintiffs is: Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Krislov & Associates, Ltd. 20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1350 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 606-0500 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com Representing the defendants is: Christina M. Tchen, Esq. Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 407-0700 Fax: (312) 407-0411 E-mail: ttchen@skadden.com JACKSON HEWITT: N.J. Court OKs Motion to Junk Racketeering Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved a joint stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties in the case, “Chapman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv- 02910-KSH-PS.” On June 22, 2007, James Chapman brought a purported class action complaint against Jackson Hewitt Inc. and certain unknown franchisees on behalf of customers whose returns were deemed improper by the IRS and then were denied Gold Guarantee claims for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment. On Oct. 31, 2007, the Court approved a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, according to the company's Dec. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Chapman v. Jackson Hewitt Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02910-KSH-PS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Katharine S. Hayden with referral to Judge Patty Shwartz. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Hagens Berman, P.S. 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 - and - Simon B. Paris Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, P.C. One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 496-8282 Fax: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com KADANT INC: Faces Lawsuit in Mass. Over Defective Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Kadant Inc. was served with a purported class action complaint on January 7, 2008 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products manufactured by its discontinued operation between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint, filed December 26, 2007, alleges that decking and railing products manufactured by Kadant Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003 were defective and claims, among other things, breach of express and implied warranties and violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and similar consumer protection statutes of other states. The complaint seeks compensatory damages for the class in an unspecified amount over $5 million, together with punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Kadant Composites LLC sold the assets comprising the composites decking and railing products business to an unrelated third party in October 2005, but retained the liabilities associated with warranty claims for products manufactured prior to the sale. The buyer's parent company has also been named as a defendant. Kadant Inc. is reviewing the allegations set forth in the complaint and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Kadant Inc. is a leading supplier to the global pulp and paper industry, with a range of products and services for improving efficiency and quality in pulp and paper production, including paper machine accessories and systems for stock preparation, fluid handling, and water management. For more information, contact: Thomas M. O'Brien - Investor contact Wes Martz - Media contact Kadant Inc. Phone: 978-776-2000 or 269-278-1715 KAITLIN GROUP: Faces Marketing Fraud Suit in Ontario Court ---------------------------------------------------------- Real estate developers The Kaitlin Group Ltd., 1138337 Ontario Inc. and CCCC Durham West Ltd., all of Ontario, are facing a suit in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for allegedly falsely advertising that its Port of Newcastle subdivision will have a nine hole executive golf course. Jean-Marc Haddad, a resident of the Town of Newcastle in the province of Ontario, commenced proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act of 1992 on Dec. 17, 2007. The suit was filed on behalf of people who purchased freehold homes on land planned, marketed and/or developed by some or all of the defendants within a residential community known as the Port of Newcastle, located in Newcastle, in the Municipality of Clarington in the Region of Durham, Ontario on or before Oct. 5, 2007. The suit excludes condominium purchasers within the Subdivision and purchasers of homes and/or properties on land developed by Kylemore. The suit Kaitlin's marketing efforts include promoting the Subdivision as a Golf Course Community with a nine hole executive golf course within the Subdivision. The subdivision was given draft approval by the municipality on or about Oct. 19, 1999 In and around 2003, Kaitlin sold a portion of the Subdivision to Kylemore Homes Ltd. and/or Kylemore Communities (West Village) Ltd. and/or Kylemore By the Lake Ltd. and/or another related company operating under the name Kylemore Communities. The property sold included the land which was originally marketed by Kaitlin as the location where the nine hole executive golf course was going to be developed. In and around 2007, the area of the Subdivision that was originally marketed by Kaitlin as the location of the nine hole executive golf course area began to be developed for residential use by Kylemore. The suit claims Kaitlin's marketing information was inaccurate, incomplete, false, deceptive and/or misleading. The class members state that Kaitlin negligently breached their duty of care, are strictly liable, are liable for breach of express and/or implied warranty and are liable for deceit or negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation, as a result of which the Representative Plaintiff suffered damages. The plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf of each member of the class seeks, among others: (a) restitution in an amount to be determined based on the defendants' revenue and/or profit resulting directly or indirectly from the sale of a portion of defendant's land in the Port of Newcastle to Kylemore Homes Ltd. and/or Kylemore Communities (West Village) Ltd. and/or Kylemore By The Lake Ltd. and/or another related company operating under the name of Kylemore Communities in lieu of using such land for a community golf course, plus the financial savings to the defendants associated with their failure to develop a golf course and other amenities within the Port of Newcastle community and the financial benefit to the defendants relating to the increased revenues from the sale of homes and/or properties resulting from their misrepresentations; (b) in the alternative to (a), general and special damages in the amount of CA$25,000,000; (c) punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages in the amount of $10,000,000; (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Court of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c, C. 43; (e) any goods and services tax which may be payable on any amounts pursuant to Bill C-62, The Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, as amended or any other legislation enacted by the Government of Canada; For more information, contact plaintiff's attorney: Thomson, Rogers Suite 3100 390 Bay Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 1W2 L. Craig Brown Alan Farrer Darcy R. Merkur Phone: 416-868-3176 Fax: 416-868-3134 KEITH MACNALLY: Workers File N.Y. Lawsuit Over Underpayments ------------------------------------------------------------ Three former waiters at the Keith McNally restaurants -- Pastis and Balthazar -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan alleging the restaurants failed to pay minimum wage and overtime while letting non-tipped employees share in their tips, Larry Neumeister of the Associated Press reports. The restaurant workers sought class-action status, which would let them include as plaintiffs any worker who claimed to have been cheated of pay during the last six years, the report said. The suit accuses the restaurants and McNally of setting corporate-wide policies that caused workers to suffer financially, including a requirement that waiters repay the amount of a bill whenever a customer walked out without paying. The restaurants also deducted money from a waiter's pay if his cash submitted at the end of a shift was short and took out another $5 per shift to cover the pay of the person who folds napkins on the tables, the lawsuit said. The suit seeks to recover unspecified damages and to require a change in the way the restaurants treat their workers. It estimates that there are potentially 100 people who can become member of the class. Pastis, a French bistro located in Manhattan's meatpacking district, opened in 1999. Balthazar opened in 1997. The suit was filed by lawyer Maimon Kirschenbaum. For more information, contact: Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP Toll Free: 866-348-7394 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com MIRALUS HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Headache Drug ----------------------------------------------------------- Miralus Healthcare is facing a class-action complaint filed in Superior Court in California accusing it of falsely selling several "HeadOn" headache remedies, the CourtHouse News Service Reports. The complaint alleges that these "HeadOn" headache remedies are neither safe nor effective, and contain chemicals that may be carcinogenic, including potassium bichromate and the "noxious weed" white bryony. Miralus Healthcare is a company that is best known for its homeopathic headache remedy HeadOn. The product has gained some fame because it uses a simple television commercial, that thrice repeats the phrase "HeadOn: Apply directly to the forehead!" without claims about the product's intended use or efficacy. Plaintiffs' counsel is: Pearson, Simon, Soter, Warshaw & Penny, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Phone: 818-788-8300 Fax: 818-788-8104 Website: http://www.psswplaw.com NATURE'S SUNSHINE: Ut. Securities Suit Survives Dismissal Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- The securities fraud class action filed in April 2006 against Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. (Pink Sheets:NATR) and certain of its officers and directors has survived a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of Nature's Sunshine Products, Inc. formerly (NASDAQ: NATRE) stock during the period between May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, Apr. 11, 2006). The Rosen Law Firm's complaint was the first complaint that has been filed to expand the Class Period to include all purchasers of Nature stock from May 13, 2002 to March 20, 2006. Although several other law firms have since announced class actions against Nature, the Rosen Law firm was the first law firm to announce an investigation concerning the Company. The Complaint charges that on March 20, 2006 the Company shocked the market when it announced that it was withdrawing its financial statements and warned that it could be delisted from the NASDAQ. The company disclosed that an internal investigation revealed "certain internal control weaknesses and outline potential violations of law." The company also revealed that the internal investigation recommended "the termination of certain employees and senior officers." The recent court ruling has the effect that the Class Period was shortened. The Amended Complaint initially sought to represent all investors purchasing Nature's stock from April 23, 2002 through April 5, 2006. Due to the Court's ruling, purchases of Nature's common stock prior to March 14, 2005 are not included in the proposed Class action. A motion for certification of a class including all investors that purchased Nature's common stock during the period from March 14, 2005 through April 5, 2006 is currently pending in U.S. District Court. If the Court denies that motion, then investors would have to bring cases on their own or as a group. As it currently stands, investors who purchased prior to March 14, 2005 are not included in the proposed class action. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm P.A. Phone: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com or pkim@rosenlegal.com Website: http://www.rosenlegal.com OVERSTOCK.COM INC: Ill. Judge Dismisses FCRA Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge J. Phil Gilbert of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois dismissed a class action against Overstock.com that alleged the online retailer violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by including the last four digits customers' credit cards and their expiration dates, Steve Gonzalez of the Madison County Record reports. On Sept. 18, 2007, Shandie Deaton filed the suit claiming Overstock.com violated FCRA by printing the expiration date and/or printed more than the last five digits of class members' credit card or debit card numbers on the receipts provided at the point of a sale or transaction between Overstock.com and the class members. After the case was filed, Overstock filed a motion to dismiss the suit arguing the case is a dispute governed by the mandatory arbitration clause to which Ms. Deaton had contractually agreed when she made her purchase. The arbitration should be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. Ms. Deaton argued that the mandatory arbitration clause is unenforceable because arbitration would be so expensive as to effectively preclude her from vindicating her federal rights under the FCRA and it unconscionably prevents consumers from joining together in a class action, which may be their only effective way of protecting their FCRA rights. Judge Gilbert said this argument fails because, for one, the American Arbitration Association provides pro bono arbitrations for individuals who cannot afford it and notes that Overstock has agreed to pay Ms. Deaton's portion of the arbitration costs. However, while the clause at calls for arbitration in Salt Lake City, Judge Gilber said he has no authority to order arbitration outside of the Southern District of Illinois. "Therefore, while the Court could stay the instant proceedings, it cannot compel the parties to proceed in the arbitration forum," the judge wrote. Given that fact, it is unclear what purpose a stay of the instant action would serve," he added. "Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to dismiss, rather than stay, the instant proceedings." The suit is “Deaton v. Overstock.com, Inc. et al., Case Number: 3:2007cv00643,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under Judge J. Phil Gilbert. Representing plaintiffs is: John R. Patchett Patchett Law Office 104 West Calvert Marion, IL 62959 Phone: (618) 997-1984 PANALPINA WORLD: Accused of Fixing Freight Forwarding Prices ------------------------------------------------------------ Panalpina World Transport and other "third party logistics providers," or freight forwarders are facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging antitrust conspiracy against Mail Boxes Etc. and others, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Also named in the complaint: -- Panalpina, Inc. -- Kuhne + Nagel International AG -- Kuehne + Nagel, Inc. -- Expeditors International of Washinton, Inc. -- EGL, Inc. -- EGL Eagle Global Logistics, LP -- Deutsche Bahn AG -- Schenker AG -- Schenker, Inc. -- Deutsche Post AG -- DHL EXpress (USA), Inc. -- UTI Worldwide, Inc. and -- Spedlogswiss a/k/a The Association of Swiss Forwarders Plaintiffs Precision Associates, Inc., James Barnes and Anything Goes LLC d/b/a Mail Boxes Etc., bring this action under the provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons (excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries and affiliates, and their co-conspirators) who directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services in the United States from any of the defendants or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, or any co- conspirator, at any time during the period from Jan. 1, 2001 to the present. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a contract, conspiracy or combination to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain the prices of Freight Forwarding Services sold in the United States; (b) whether the alleged contract, conspiracy or combination violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (c) the duration and extent of the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (d) whether the defendants and their co-conspirators took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, conspiracy or combination; (e) whether each of the defendants was a participant in the contract, conspiracy or combination alleged; (f) whether the defendants' conduct caused the prices of Freight Forwarding Services to be set at an artificially high and non-competitive level; (g) the effect of defendants' contract, conspiracy or combination upon interstate commerce; (h) the appropriate measure of damages; and (i) whether plaintiffs and class members are entitled to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. Plaintiffs pray: -- that the court determine that the Sherman Act claim contained 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 contract, conspiracy or combination alleged be adjudged and decreed to be a per se restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; -- that plaintiffs and the class recover damages, as provided by law, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the class be entered against the defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with the antitrust 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 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 of 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 distribution or sale of Freight Forwarding Services, information concerning prices or other terms or conditions of sale of any such products except to the extent necessary in connection with bona fide sale transactions between the parties to such communication; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest and that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the initial complaint in this action; -- that plaintiffs and members of the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs 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 "Precision Associates, Inc. et al. cv. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. et al., Case No. CV 08 0042," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing plaintiffs is: Christopher Lovell Craig M. Essenmacher Imtiaz A. Siddiqui Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 500 Fifth Avenue, Floor 58 New York, NY 10110 Phone: (212) 608-1900 Fax: (212) 719-4677 SAPPI LTD: Dismissed as Defendant in Paper Antitrust Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- Sappi Ltd. and Sappi Fine Paper North America have been dismissed as defendants in certain lawsuits, including class actions over an alleged price fixing conspiracy with other manufacturers of publication paper. Since May 2004, a number of class and individual actions have been filed in federal and state courts alleging that Sappi Limited and Sappi Fine Paper North America participated in a price fixing conspiracy with other manufacturers of publication paper. The cases assert violations of the federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition statutes. These lawsuits seek treble damages and injunctive relief, as well as other costs associated with the litigation. In November 2006, the plaintiffs in the class action case brought on behalf of most direct purchasers dismissed Sappi Limited and Sappi Fine Paper North America without prejudice. The cases brought by certain of the individual direct purchasers and the indirect purchasers were also dismissed without prejudice during fiscal 2007, according to the company's Dec. 14, 2007 Form 20-F Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Sappi Limited -- http://www.sappi.com-- is a producer of coated fine paper and chemical cellulose. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Complaint in Lawnmower Litigation Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- A court has dismissed a suit that accuses Tecumseh Products, Inc. of printing inaccurate horsepower labels on certain of its lawnmowers. The plaintiffs in the suit seeks certification of a class of all persons in the U.S. who, beginning Jan. 1, 1995 through the present, purchased a lawnmower containing a two stroke or four stroke gas combustible engine up to 20 horsepower that was manufactured by defendants. The complaint seeks an injunction, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. No orders have been entered in the case, and there has been limited discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend this case, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission. On March 30, 2007, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint subject to the ability to re-plead certain claims, pursuant to a detailed written order to follow, according to the company's Nov. 14, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the period ended Sept. 30, 2007. Tecumseh Products Co. -- http://www.tecumseh.com-- is a manufacturer of hermetic compressors for residential and commercial refrigerators, freezers, water coolers, dehumidifiers, window air conditioning units, and residential and commercial central system air conditioners and heat pumps. TENNESSEE VALLEY: $18M Settlement of Overcharging Suit Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama gave final approval to an $18 million settlement by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) of a suit that claims the utility overcharged industrial customers during a heat wave in 1998. On Aug. 31, 1999, suit was filed against TVA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by Birmingham Steel Corp., on behalf of itself and a class of TVA industrial customers that contracted for economy surplus power. While Birmingham Steel Corp. was the original class representative, it filed for bankruptcy and was excluded from the class. Johns Manville Corp. was substituted as the class representative. The lawsuit alleged that TVA overcharged for economy surplus power during the summer of 1998 by improperly including some incremental costs when calculating the price of economy surplus power, and the class members sought over $100 million in damages. The parties engaged in mediation in December 2006 and reached a settlement agreement under which TVA agreed to pay approximately $18 million to resolve the case. Because the settlement was required to be approved by the court to be effective, the settlement was submitted to the court on May 21, 2007. The court preliminarily approved it on June 6, 2007. On Aug. 20, 2007, the court conducted a hearing on the fairness of the settlement, after which it approved the settlement in the amount of $18 million, according to TVA's Dec. 12, 2007 Form 10- K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Johns Manville, Inc. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, Case No. 2:99-cv-02294-VEH-HGD," filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Alabama under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins with referral to Judge Harwell G. Davis, III. Representing the plaintiffs is: Julie Wilson Pittman, Esq. Burr & Forman, LLP 3100 SouthTrust Tower 420 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Phone: 205-458-5239 Fax: 205-458-5100 E- mail: jpittman@burr.com Representing the defendant is: A. Jackson Woodall, Esq. Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, TN 37902-1401 Phone: 1-865-632-4301 E-mail: ajwoodall@tva.gov TENNESSEE VALLEY: Dismissal of Hurricane-Related Suit Appealed -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in the matter, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," which names Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), as a defendant, are appealing the dismissal of the case. The suit is generally accusing the TVA and several oil companies of helping increase Hurricane Katrina's destructive force. In April 2006, 14 residents of Mississippi allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina added TVA as a defendant to a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In general, plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal, including TVA and other utilities. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. They are seeking monetary damages among other relief. TVA has moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that TVA’s operation of its coal-fired plants is not subject to tort liability due to the discretionary function doctrine. On Aug. 30, 2007, the district court heard oral arguments on whether the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is a political matter which should not be decided by the court. The district court then dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The dismissal has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to TVA's Dec. 12, 2007 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007. The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi under Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. with referral to Judge Robert H. Walker. Representing the plaintiffs are: F. Gerald Maples, Esq. Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. F. Gerald Maples, PA 902 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Phone: 504/569-8732 E-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com mmayberry@geraldmaples.com Randall Allan Smith, Esq. Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. Smith & Fawer 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504/525-2200 Fax: 504/525-2205 E-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net smwiles@smithfawer.com - and – Carlos A. Zelaya, Esq. Maples & Kirwan, LLC 902 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Phone: 504-569-8732 Fax: 504/525-6932 New Securities Fraud Cases SMITH & WESSON: 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 District of Massachusetts on behalf of all purchasers of securities of Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. from June 15, 2007 through December 6, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Smith & Wesson and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Smith & Wesson is the parent company of Smith & Wesson Corp., a manufacturer of firearms and firearm safety/security products, and the parent company of Thompson/Center Arms, Inc., a designer and manufacturer of firearm rifles. 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's reported sales figures were in fact inventory stocking transactions, as opposed to true representations of growth; (2) that the Company's subsequent quarterly sales would decrease as customers worked through overstocked inventory levels; (3) that the Company had observed market saturation in various product lines, which would have the effect of customers postponing or reducing orders and purchases; (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On October 29, 2007, the Company shocked investors when it announced its preliminary second quarter financial results, indicating therein that gross margins for the quarter would be lower than previously projected. The Company stated that it had observed softness in certain product markets, low consumer demand, and "a buildup of pre-season retail inventories." The Company further announced that it expected sales of $325 million for fiscal 2008, lower than its previous projection of $330 million. Additionally, the Company significantly lowered its earnings guidance for fiscal 2008 to $23.5 million, or $0.53 per share, compared to its previous guidance of between $28.5 million, or $0.63 per share. On this news, the Company's shares fell $7.97 per share, or 39.6 percent, to close on October 29, 2007 at $12.12 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. Then on December 6, 2007, the Company further shocked investors when it announced its final second quarter financial and operational results, painting an even more dismal picture than was presented in its preliminary results for the quarter. The Company disclosed that its reduced retail sales activities were "compounded by the fact that inventory in the channel was at an extremely high level," which had the effect of impacting product pricing in order to clear out built-up inventory. Additionally, the Company further lowered its sales forecast for fiscal 2008, down to $300 million for the year against its previously reduced guidance of $325 million for the year. On this news, the Company's shares fell an additional $1.84 per share, or 20.6 percent, to close on December 7, 2007 at $7.08 per share, again on heavy trading volume. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than February 11, 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 UNITED RENTALS: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (BLBG) has filed a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against United Rentals, Inc. (URI) and the members of its board of directors. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an institutional investor and all other persons who purchased shares of URI from August 29, 2007 through and including November 14, 2007. The lawsuit alleges that the URI Board violated the securities laws by refusing to disclose that affiliates of Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. were seeking to renegotiate the terms of their now-cancelled merger with URI for months before URI finally disclosed the collapse of the deal on November 14, 2007. The case is pending before the Hon. Vanessa L. Bryant, under the docket number 3:07CV1893 (VLB). On July 23, 2007, defendant URI publicly announced its entry into a definitive merger agreement with Cerberus, which would provide URI shareholders with $34.50 in cash for each URI share they held. On August 31, 2007, while the public still believed that the deal would likely close, Cerberus sent a letter to URI expressing its intent to renegotiate the deal. On September 6, 2007, URI refused to renegotiate and rejected Cerberus's asserted basis for revisiting the terms of the deal. On September 19, 2007, URI disseminated a final proxy statement omitting any reference to Cerberus's effort to renegotiate the deal while touting the availability of specific performance to assure closing of the deal. The parties' prior dispute remained hidden from the investing public until November 14, 2007, when Cerberus sent another letter refusing to close the deal as negotiated. URI's stock price promptly plunged 31% from $34.01 to $23.50, its largest single-day drop since it went public in 1997. On December 21, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that despite URI's prior public statements regarding its ability to seek specific performance of the merger agreement, it was not entitled to any remedy other than a $100 million termination fee. The Complaint asserts that URI's failure to disclose the August 31 and September 6 letters (as well as oral communications surrounding those letters) prior to and in the September 19, 2007 proxy statement materially misled investors and caused URI's stock price to trade at artificially high levels. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the URI Board violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, that all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that all Defendants except URI violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. BLBG seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired URI securities during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than January 22, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Gerald H. Silk Blair Nicholas Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP Phone: 212-554-1400 or 858-793-0070 ********* 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 * * *