/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080123.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, January 23, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 16 Headlines ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Suit Filed by Terminated Workers ASHWORTH INC: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Class in FCRA Suit ENRON CORP: High Court Refuses to Review UC Regents Suit Ruling INTERNATIONAL COAL: Class Period in Securities Suit Corrected ISRAELI BANKS: Court Allows $1.84 Million Price Fixing Lawsuit JOHN CHEZIK: Court Awards $7M Fees, Interest in Car Buyers Suit JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Checking Account “Bonus” L'OREAL PARIS: Recalls Bleach Kits Due to Misprinted Directions MASTERCARD INT'L: Refund Option in Conversion Fee Suit Provided MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Calif. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Certification Hearing in DRAM Suit Set 2008 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Several SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits MONSANTO CO: Hearing Held in W.Va. Lawsuit Over Dioxin NATIONAL BEEF: Awaits Final Ruling in Boxed Beef Price Suit PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Lawsuit Planned Over Parkinson's Drug POTTERY BARN: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard RC2 CORP: Settles Suit Over Thomas & Friends Toys for $30M SCOR SA: Feb. Fairness Hearing Set for Converium Suit Settlement SEARS: Recalls Play Stoves that can Tip Over Posing Injury Risk STEWART ENTERPRISES: Still Faces $1.5B Antitrust Damages Claim STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed SUN MARK: Courtyard Healthcare Dropped from False Ad Lawsuit SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif. SUPERVALU INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Cal. Over “Illegal” Message Fees WAL-MART STORES: Customer Files Fraud Suit Over Video Game WICK & PETAL: Recalls Jar Candles Posing Fire Hazard WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motion in Securities Suit Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals * Online Teleconferences ********* ALBERTSON'S INC: Settles Suit Filed by Terminated Workers --------------------------------------------------------- Albertson's Inc. reached a settlement in the class action, “Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertson's, Inc. et al.,” which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in California. The suit, filed on Oct. 13, 2000, alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky Stores, and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their final paychecks in an untimely manner. The suit sought statutory penalties. On Jan. 4, 2005, the case was certified as a class action. In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle this matter, subject to Court approval, according to company's Jan. 9, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2007. The owner of Albertson’s, Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. ASHWORTH INC: Calif. Court Refuses to Certify Class in FCRA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California declined to grant class-action status to a lawsuit against Ashworth, Inc., which is alleging that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by printing on credit or debit card receipts more than the last five digits of the credit or debit card number and/or the expiration date. The suit was filed Feb. 27, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorney's fees and injunctive relief on behalf of the purported class. The suit against Ashworth was one of hundreds of suits filed against different retailers nationwide. The proposed class representative for the putative class filed his motion to certify this matter as a class action. The Company filed an opposition to the motion and the court entered an order denying the class certification. On Nov. 13, 2007, the parties entered into a settlement on the record whereby Ashworth would pay the plaintiff $1,000 and the plaintiff would dismiss his individual claim with prejudice. The parties subsequently entered into a written stipulation to that effect and the court dismissed the complaint. The suit is "Burnis L. Simon Jr. v. Ashworth Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-01324-GHK-AJW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge George H. King with referral to Judge Andrew J. Wistrich. Representing the plaintiff is: Farris E. Ain, Esq. Herbert Hafif Law Offices 269 West Bonita Avenue Claremont, CA 91711-4784 Phone: 909-624-1671 E-mail: farris.ain@hafif.com Representing the defendants is: J. Scot Kennedy, Esq. Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 4 Park Plaza, 17th Floor Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949-451-3805 E-mail: skennedy@gibsondunn.com ENRON CORP: High Court Refuses to Review UC Regents Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied without comment a motion filed by Enron Corp. shareholders to review an appeals court ruling blocking a class action against investment banks and firms that did business with the energy company prior to its collapse, reports say. The suit, which was filed October 2001, names as defendants Merrill Lynch and Co. Inc. and Credit Suisse Group. It was filed by Enron investors seeking to recover $40 billion in losses from the bankruptcy of the energy company. Enron filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Dec. 2, 2001. In June 2006, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon certified the lawsuit as a class action. On March 19, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the suit was improperly certified as a class action (Class Action Reporter, March 22, 2007). It sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration. The shareholders then sought U.S. Supreme Court review of the ruling. In their Petition, the Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court: does liability exist under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b 5, where an actor knowingly employs deceptive devices and contrivances as part of a scheme to defraud investors in another public company, but makes no affirmative misrepresentations to the market? The Plaintiffs contended that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, which both prohibit any person from directly or indirectly using or employing a deceptive device or contrivance, clearly encompasses the banks' conduct in the Enron fraud case. Plaintiffs-Appellees are: -- Regents of the University of California; -- Washington State Investment Board; -- San Francisco City and County Employees' Retirement System; -- Employer-Teamsters Local Numbers 175 and 505 Pension Trust Fund; -- Hawaii Laborers Pension Plan; -- Staro Asset Management LLC; -- Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the Longview Collective Investment Fund; -- Robert V. Flint; -- John Zegarski; Mervin Schwartz, Jr.; -- Steven Smith; -- Archdiocese of Milwaukee; -- Greenville Plumbers Pension Plan; -- Nathaniel Pulsifer, as Trustee of the Shooters Hill -- Revocable Trust. Defendants-Appellants are: -- Credit Suisse First Boston (USA), Inc.; -- Credit Suisse First Boston LLC; -- Pershing LLC; -- Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.; -- Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.; Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital Inc. are also Appellants. The University of California is lead plaintiff in the case. It has so far reached these settlements: Arthur Andersen LLP, Sep. 2006, $72.5 million Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Sep. 2006, $13.5 million Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Aug. 2005, $2.4 billion JPMorganChase, June 2005, $2.2 billion Citigroup, June 2005, $2 billion Outside Directors, Jan. 2005, $168 million Lehman Brothers, Oct. 2004, $222.5 million Bank of America, July 2004, $69 million Andersen Worldwide SC, 2002, $32 million LJM2 bankruptcy recovery, 2004-05, $37 million Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP Phone: (415) 288-4545 E-mail: patc@lerachlaw.com Web site: http://www.lerachlaw.com INTERNATIONAL COAL: Class Period in Securities Suit Corrected ------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced that April 28, 2005 through June 8, 2006 is the correct class period for the class action lawsuit against International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of its Officers and Directors, filed in Federal Court in Charleston, West Virginia. Earlier, the law firm commenced the suit on behalf of all persons and entities who, during the Class Period of April 18, 2005, through June 6, 2006: (1) purchased securities in ICG, Inc.; or (2) exchanged ICG, Inc. securities for International Coal Group, Inc. (NYSE: ICG), pursuant to the November 2005 reorganization; or (3) purchased shares of International Coal Group, Inc. subsequent to November 21, 2005 (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008). The complaint charges International Coal Group, Inc., and certain of its Officers and Directors, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. International Coal Group, Inc. is a coal producer with coal mining operations in West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland and Illinois. The complaint alleges that statements made by International Coal Group, Inc., including representations contained in its registration statements filed in connection with the November 21, 2005 reorganization, and December 7-8, 2005 stock offering, and post-offering filings with the SEC were materially false and misleading in describing its business, including its capital requirements and equipment needs, the impact of their legally deficient safety and maintenance practices, and the historic foreseeable ongoing and current result of operations. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from January 9, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP The Koll Center 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: 619.238.1333 Fax: 619.238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com ISRAELI BANKS: Court Allows $1.84 Million Price Fixing Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nissim Yeshaya of the Tel Aviv District Court approved a $1.84 million class action against Israel's top three banks for allegedly colluding to fix interest rates, Noarm Sharvit of the Globes reports. The suit was filed against: -- Bank Hapoalim (TASE: POLI; LSE:80OA), -- Bank Leumi (TASE: LUMI), and -- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT). The suit claims the conduct raised interest rate spread in the shekel sector for current bank accounts, creating huge profits for the banks while harming the public and greatly damaging the economy. Clients were allegedly damaged by at least 4 percent of the interest rates the banks charged, or NIS1.8 billion ($412 million) annually (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 14, 2006). The banks allegedly charge the same prices for the prime interest rate, as well as extra payments on most current accounts, excess fees, credit allocation charges, and management fees for current debit accounts. The suit is seeking an order to dismantle the cartel, order the banks to set competitive and economic fees and interest rates, and keep reasonable interest spreads and set fair prices for the public. JOHN CHEZIK: Court Awards $7M Fees, Interest in Car Buyers Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Clay County (Missouri) Circuit Judge Rex Gabbert ordered payment of $7 million in attorney fees and interest in the settlement of a class action by people who bought vehicle service contracts from bankrupt car dealership John Chezik Homerun Inc., Dan Margolies of The Kansas City Star reports. In 2002, John Chezik Homerun, Inc., which operates John Chezik Honda faced a class action relating to a "100 percent money-back guarantee" that the company offered on its vehicle service contracts (Class Action Reporter, May 27, 2002). The class consisted of 1,186 customers who bought contracts from Jan. 1, 1997, to Dec. 22, 2003, and who got the money-back guarantees and made no claim under the contracts. Law firm Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP commenced the suit on behalf of named plaintiffs Keith and Deborah Shackelford, who bought a 1995 Honda Accord from the company. The Shackelfords bought a service contract, which said a customer would be refunded the entire cost of the contract if no claims were made on it. The Shackelfords said they made no claims. They returned to the dealership in April 2002 to request their refund but allegedly were told they could receive only credit toward another car purchase. The dealership offered to refund the Shackelfords' money after talks with their lawyers, but the company refused to pay legal fees and other costs. The case was certified as a class action and was settled for $8.4 million. Jurors returned two separate judgments for punitive damages for $5 million. In 2007, the Clay County Circuit Court jury awarded more than $3.4 million in actual damages to customers of John Chezik Homerun Inc. and A&L Holding Co. (Class Action Reporter, May 16, 2007). In a Jan. 16, report, Mr. Margolies said that after Judge Gabbert merged some overlapping damage awards this week, the total came to $7.3 million. Judge Gabbert awarded legal fees to the plaintiffs of $2.8 million and assessed $4.8 million in prejudgment interest against John Chezik and its parent, A&L Holding Co. He also awarded $100,000 in expenses to the plaintiffs, $35,000 apiece in “incentive” awards to the two lead plaintiffs and post-judgment interest of 10.25 percent as of May 9, 2007, when the jury returned its verdict. John Chezik Homerun filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in December. Robert O. Jester, Esq. Ensz & Jester, P.C. 2121 City Center Square 1100 Main Street Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: (816) 474-8010 Fax: (816) 471-7910 JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Checking Account “Bonus” ---------------------------------------------------------------- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging it promised but failed to give $100 to customers who opened a Chase Free Checking account with a balance of $100 or more, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Christopher L. Akinyemi brings this action pursuant to Illinois Code of Civil Procedure Article II, Part 8, on behalf of all consumers who received a coupon to receive cash deposited in the account and opened a checking account at Chase, but did not have the bonus credited to their account. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant engaged in unlawful practices as alleged; (b) whether defendant breached its contract with members of the putative class by refusing to provide class members with payment of the bonus in response to defendant's offer of a bonus; and (c) whether members of the class have been damaged and the proper measure of such damages. Plaintiff requests that the court grant these relief: -- an order certifying the proposed class and appointing plaintiff and his undersigned counsel of record to represent the class; -- actual and compensatory damages in favor of plaintiff and the other members of the class against defendant for the actual damages sustained as a result of defendant's wrongdoing together with interest; -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law; and the costs and disbursements incurred by plaintiff in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- such other and further relief as this court may deem proper. The suit is "Christopher L. Akinyemi et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 08CH02257," filed in the Circuit of Cook County, Illinois. Representing plaintiffs are: Norman Rifkind Amelia S. Newton Heidi VonderHeide Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. 350 North LaSalle St., Suite 1320 Chicago, Illinois 60610 Phone: (312) 634-0057 Fax: (312) 634-0059 L'OREAL PARIS: Recalls Bleach Kits Due to Misprinted Directions --------------------------------------------------------------- L'Oreal Paris, a division of L'Oreal USA, has initiated a voluntary recall from retail stores in the United States of the L'Oreal Paris Dream Blonde (Baby's Breath Blonde #100 Ultra Lightening) Bleach and Lightening care kit. The product was sold in retail outlets in the U.S. from January 1 through January 18, 2008. L'Oreal is voluntarily taking this action due to an error in the printing of the directions for the use of the Dream Blonde Bleach and Lightening care kit. All retailers have been notified and have removed the product from their shelves. Affected consumers, estimated at a few hundred, will receive a full refund for returned product. L'Oreal took immediate action following one customer complaint of the product causing irritation. The Dream Blonde Bleach and Lightening Care formula itself is safe. However, if used according to the current misprinted directions, complications such as irritation or sensitivity could result, so consumers should not use the product and should instead return it to their retailer for a refund. As with any product, if a consumer feels they are having any type of reaction or irritation, they should consultant their physician. This recall affects only the Dream Blonde Bleach and Lightening care kit in the Dream Blonde range of products. Any consumers looking for more information should call 888-241- 9504. MASTERCARD INT'L: Refund Option in Conversion Fee Suit Provided --------------------------------------------------------------- Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP, Co-Lead and Co-Class Counsel for the plaintiffs in the class action, "In re Foreign Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation (MDL 1409)” announced that all class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa, MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund. The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is chosen (only one claim form may be submitted), the amount of total claims, the dollar value of the claim, the bank that issued their card, and the amount of money available to pay claims. Class members might only get a partial refund. Class members may select one of three claim form options: -- Refund Option 1 is an Easy Refund of $25 and is recommended if you had foreign transactions of less than $2,500 using your eligible cards during the class period. -- Refund Option 2 is a Total Estimation Refund that is based on typical spending during travel and answers to the few questions listed on the claim form. This option is recommended if you had foreign transactions of more than $2,500 using your eligible cards during the class period. -- Refund Option 3 is the Annual Estimated Refund option. It is recommended if you had extensive foreign travel or foreign transactions and are willing to provide year-by- year information. However, if the volume of claims is unexpectedly high, it may be necessary to adjust the refund amounts. The lawsuit claims that Visa, MasterCard, their member banks, and Diners Club conspired to set and hide the price of foreign transactions (including fees, typically 1-3%) in violation of federal and state law, and that Visa and MasterCard inflated their base exchange rates before applying these fees. The Defendants are: -- Visa, -- MasterCard, -- Bank of America, -- Bank One/First USA, -- Chase, -- Citibank, -- Diners Club, -- HSBC/Household, -- MBNA and Washington Mutual/Providian In Dec. 2007, Berger & Montague, P.C. and Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that parties to the suit reached a $336,000,000 settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 5, 2007). The settlement will benefit people and entities who were Visa-, Mastercard- and Diners Club-branded Credit and Debit/ATM Cardholders who made made a foreign transaction between Feb. 1, 1996 and Nov. 8, 2006. The settlement applies to those persons or entities even if they did not make a foreign transaction, and they will benefit from it. Settlement Terms The settlement provides $336,000,000 to pay claims, the costs of administering the settlement and notice, and court-awarded attorneys' fees (up to 27.5% of the estimated $313,000,000 expected to remain in the settlement fund after deducting costs for administration and notice, plus interest and expenses) and awards for the class representatives. The Defendants also agree to certain disclosure-related practices. If approved, the settlement will bind class members. If persons and entities are eligible to make a claim and do not opt out, they will release all claims related to any foreign transaction, or the subject matters of the lawsuit, against the Defendants, the member banks, and related entities and individuals. Claims in other cases involving foreign transactions will also be extinguished, but they can still make a claim here, if eligible for a refund. Settlement agreements have also been signed in some of these other cases. These agreements include payment of fees and expenses to attorneys, some of whom have represented the Plaintiff in “Schwartz v. Visa (CA).” These payments will not reduce the $336,000,000 settlement. Class members do not need to go to court but may if they want to. Class members may also hire an attorney, at their own cost, if they want to. The court hearing to decide whether to approve the settlement is on March 31, 2008 at 11:00 a.m. at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY, 10007-1581. If class members plan to go, they are advised to check with the court to confirm the time and date. All class members who made a foreign transaction with a Visa, MasterCard, or Diners Club credit or debit/ATM card between February 1, 1996 and November 8, 2006 are eligible for a refund. The amount of the refund will depend on which claim form is chosen, the amount of total claims, the dollar value of the claim, the bank that issued their card, and the amount of money available to pay claims. Class members might only get a partial refund. Class members also have other options. They may: -- Object. Class members must file a written objection and proof of class membership with the court. They do not have to go to court or hire an attorney. But can if they want to, at their own cost. The deadline is February 14, 2008. -- Opt out. If class members are eligible for a refund from the settlement but do not want one, and they want to keep their right to sue for money, they must opt out by sending the opt-out form letter (available at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling: 1-800-945- 9890) to: P. O. Box 280, Philadelphia, PA 19105. If they opt out, they cannot get money from the settlement. Class members cannot opt out of the part of the settlement involving agreed disclosure-related practices. The deadline is February 14, 2008. For more information, visit: http://www.ccfsettlement.com. For recorded information, call: 1-800-945-9890. To ask for a refund, class members must file a claim for a refund online at: http://www.ccfsettlement.com.Or file by mail (get a claim form at http://www.ccfsettlement.com,or by calling 1-800-945-9890). The deadline is May 30, 2008. Case Background A number of federal putative class actions that allege, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency conversion "fee," were filed against: -- MasterCard International, Inc., -- Visa U.S.A., Inc., -- Visa International Corp., -- several member banks including: * Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., * Chase Manhattan Bank USA, N.A., * Bank of America, N.A. (USA), * MBNA, and * Citicorp Diners Club Inc. Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints were consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corp. and MBNA America Bank, N.A. as defendants. This pleading asserted two theories of antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act: -- an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and frequently more;" and -- two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to have conspired with its members to fix currency conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to facilitate and encourage institution-and collection-of second tier currency conversion surcharges." The MDL Complaint also asserted that the alleged currency conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z. On July 20, 2006, MasterCard and the other defendants in the MDL action entered into agreements settling the MDL action and related matters. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, MasterCard has paid $72,480 to be used for defendants' settlement fund to settle the MDL action. On Nov. 8, 2006, Judge William H. Pauley, III, granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreements. The settlement agreements were subject to final approval by Judge Pauley, and resolution of all appeals. The suit is "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litigation, Master Docket No. 1:01-md-1409," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge William H. Pauley, III. Representing the plaintiffs are: David J. Bershad, Esq. Michael Morris Buchman, Esq. Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Phone: (212) 594-5300 and 212-946-9387 Fax: 212-868-1229 E-mail: mbuchman@milbergweiss.com Christopher Burke, Esq. Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq. Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP Suite 1800, 600 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 231-1058 Fax: (619) 231-7423 - and - Sheldon V. Burman, Esq. Law Offices of Sheldon V. Burman, PC 110 East 59th Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 935-1600 MEADE INSTRUMENTS: Calif. Court OKs Securities Suit Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California gave final approval to a proposed settlement in the matter, “Grecian v. Meade Instruments Corp., et al., SA CV 06-908 AG (JTLx).” The complaint, filed on Sept. 27, 2006, asserted claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company's option granting practices. On Jan. 8, 2007, the court granted the “Grecian” plaintiffs’ motion to be appointed lead plaintiffs. On Feb. 22, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint, which asserted claims for violations of Section 10 (b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act in connection with the Company’s option granting practices. On May 23, 2007, the parties in both this action participated in a mediation session. As a result of this mediation, the parties in both actions reached a preliminary settlement understanding, which included corporate governance reforms and an amount to cover plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The parties submitted the settlement agreement and related paperwork for the court's approval, which was obtained in December 2007. The suit is “Bill Grecian et al. v. Meade Instruments Corp. et al., Case No. 8:06-cv-00908-AG-JTL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Andrew J. Guilford with referral to Judge Jennifer T. Lum. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy J. Burke, Esq. Stull Stull and Brody 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-209-2468 E-mail: service@ssbla.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Finkelstein Thompson and Loughran 1050 Thirtieth Street Northwest, The Duvall Foundry Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Certification Hearing in DRAM Suit Set 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is to hear on the first half of 2008, a motion to certify a consolidated antitrust complaint filed against Micron Technology, Inc. and other suppliers of dynamic random access memories (DRAM). U.S. Litigation Four cases have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM from various DRAM suppliers during the time period from April 1, 1999 through at least June 30, 2002. The complaints allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. In addition, at least 64 cases have been filed in various state and federal courts (five of which have been dismissed) asserting claims on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers of DRAM. Cases have been filed in the following states: -- Arkansas, -- New Jersey, -- Arizona, -- New Mexico, -- California, -- Nevada, -- Florida, -- New York, -- Hawaii, -- Ohio, -- Iowa, -- Pennsylvania, -- Kansas, -- South Dakota, -- Massachusetts, -- Tennessee, -- Maine, -- Utah, -- Michigan, -- Vermont, -- Minnesota, -- Virginia, -- Mississippi, -- Wisconsin, and -- Montana, -- West Virginia, and -- North Carolina, -- North Dakota, -- Nebraska, -- New Hampshire, -- also in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The complaints purport to be on behalf of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased DRAM and/or products containing DRAM in the respective jurisdictions during various time periods ranging from April 1999 through at least June 2002. They allege violations of various jurisdictions' antitrust, consumer protection and/or unfair competition laws relating to the sale and pricing of DRAM products and seek treble monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest and attorneys' fees. A number of these cases have been removed to federal court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) for consolidated proceedings. On June 1, 2007, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Plaintiffs subsequently have filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a response. A motion for class certification has been filed and is expected to be heard in the first half of 2008. Canadian Litigation Additionally, three purported class action DRAM lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the cases filed in the U.S. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Several SRAM Antitrust Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc., along with other Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) suppliers, continues to face a number of purported antitrust class actions in the U.S. and Canada over the sale of SRAM, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2007. U.S. Litigation At least eighty purported class actions have been filed against the Company and other SRAM suppliers in various federal courts on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers alleging price- fixing in violation of federal and state antitrust laws, violations of state unfair competition law, and/or unjust enrichment relating to the sale and pricing of SRAM products during the period from January 1998 through December 2005. The complaints seek treble monetary damages sustained by purported class members, in addition to restitution, costs, and attorneys’ fees. Canadian Litigation Three purported class action SRAM lawsuits also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the SRAM cases filed in the United States. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MICRON TECHNOLOGY: Still Faces Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------------- Micron Technology, Inc. continues to face several purported antitrust class actions in relation to the sale of flash memory products, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2007. U.S. Litigation At least 34 purported class actions have been filed against the Company and other suppliers of flash memory products in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and other federal district courts. These cases assert claims on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that purchased Flash memory directly or indirectly from various Flash memory suppliers during the period from Jan. 1, 1999 through the date the various cases were filed. The complaints generally allege price fixing in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust and unfair competition laws and seek monetary damages, restitution, costs, interest, and attorneys' fees. Canadian Litigation Three purported class actions also have been filed in Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the Flash cases filed in the U.S. Micron Technology, Inc. -- http://www.micron.com/-- is a provider of advanced semiconductor solutions. Through its worldwide operations, Micron manufactures and markets DRAMs, NAND flash memory, CMOS image sensors, other semiconductor components, and memory modules for use in leading-edge computing, consumer, networking and mobile products. MONSANTO CO: Hearing Held in W.Va. Lawsuit Over Dioxin ------------------------------------------------------ A class certification hearing was held in a purported class action filed by 15 plaintiffs in Putnam County, West Virginia state court against Monsanto Co. and several other defendants over dioxins/furans contamination. The suit, "Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al.," also names as defendants Pharmacia Corp. and seven others. The company is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. Akzo Nobel and Flexsys are named defendants in the case, but Solutia is not, due to its pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property clean up costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human contamination and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys group of defendants tendered their cases to Monsanto for indemnification and defense. Monsanto agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group. The class certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007, according to the company's Jan. 7, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007. For more details, contact: W. Stuart Calwell, Esq. Alex McLaughlin, Esq. The Calwell Practice P.O. Box 113, Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-343-4323 and 304-291-5223 Fax: 304-344-3864 and 304-291-2240; - and - James F. Humphreys, Esq. J. David Cecil, Esq. Thomas G. Wilson, Esq. James F. Humphreys & Associates United Center, Suite 800, 500 Virginia Street East Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-347-5050 Fax: 304-347-5055 NATIONAL BEEF: Awaits Final Ruling in Boxed Beef Price Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- A final judgment has yet to be issued in the matter, “Schumacher v. Tyson Foods, et al.,” which names National Beef Packing Company, the beef processor owned by U.S. Premium Beef, LLC, as a defendant. On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was filed against: -- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the predecessor to NBP [National Beef Packing Company LLC]), -- ConAgra Beef Co., -- Tyson Foods, Inc., and -- Excel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota seeking certification of a class of all persons who sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period from April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up to two weeks thereafter. The case was filed by three named plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class that plaintiffs estimate is comprised of hundreds or thousands of members. The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef price information generated by the U.S.D.A. to purchase cattle offered for sale by the plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period. Plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under a theory of unjust enrichment. The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004. The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and court costs. The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the number of class members who have opted out of the class. Trial began March 31, 2006. On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC but against the other defendants. The other defendants have filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appeal was argued on Nov. 14, 2007. No decision has been made. The plaintiffs did not appeal the verdict for the Company but no final judgment will be entered until after the appeal is decided, according to U.S. Premium Beef's Jan. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 24, 2007. The suit is “Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01027-CBK,” filed in the U.S. District Court of South Dakota under Judge Charles B. Kornmann. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq. David F. Herr, Esq. Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand 3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St. Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140 Phone: (612) 672-8200 Fax: (612) 672-8397 Representing the defendants are: William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq. Sidley Austin LLP One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 853-7000 Fax: (312) 853-7036 E-mail: wbaumgartner@sidley.com - and - Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq. McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO 1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower Omaha, NE 68102-1627 Phone: (402) 341-3070 Fax: (402) 341-0216 PFIZER AUSTRALIA: Lawsuit Planned Over Parkinson's Drug ------------------------------------------------------- A Melbourne law firm is planning to file a class action on behalf of Parkinson's patients who were prescribed the drug Cabaser to manage the disease, Lisa Whitehead of ABC Online reports. Drug users claim they suffered impulsive and destructive behavior as a result of using the drug. The report cited three people who took cabergoline, a class of drug called a dopamine agonist, which is sold under the brand name Cabaser in Australia. One of them is Andrew, according to the report. Lawyer Anne Shortall from Arnold Thomas & Becker is representing Andrew in a class action she is launching against the two drug companies that market commonly prescribed dopamine agonists in Australia. Two of Ms. Shortall's other clients took a similar drug to Cabaser called pergolide, marketed in Australia under the brand name Permax, the report said. Cabaser is made by Pfizer Australia. Permax is marketed by Aspen Pharmacare Australia. POTTERY BARN: Recalls Decorative Candles Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Pottery Barn of San Francisco, Calif., in cooperation with U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 185,000 round and egg-shaped decorative candles. The company said the candle's exterior coating can ignite, posing a fire hazard. Pottery Barn has received two reports of the gold paint on the candle exterior igniting. No injuries or property damage have been reported. This recall involves egg-shaped and large and small round candles sold in three sizes. The candles were sold in green, red and white with gold glitter and leaf designs. The recall includes all styles of this candle, including style numbers 9444811, 9444928, 9444936, 9444944, 9444944, 9445214, 9445222, 9445222, and 9445313. The style number for the candles can be found on the price ticket under the candle. These recalled candles were manufactured in Hong Kong and were being sold at Pottery Barn stores nationwide from September 2007 through December 2007 for between $10 and $20. Picture of recalled candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08168.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled candles and return them to any Pottery Barn store for a full refund. For additional information, contact Pottery Barn toll-free at (888) 922-9245 between 7 a.m. and 12 a.m. ET Monday through Sunday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.potterybarn.com RC2 CORP: Settles Suit Over Thomas & Friends Toys for $30M ---------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois court granted preliminary approval to a nationwide class action settlement, resolving the claims of hundreds of thousands of people who bought Thomas & Friends toys allegedly contaminated with lead paint. The settlement, which is valued at over $30 million, also guarantees that RC2 Corporation – the manufacturer of the popular children’s toys – will implement a battery of safeguards to ensure that its toys are suitable for children to play with in the future. “In recent months, moms and dads from around the country have learned that they cannot assume that their children’ s toys are safe simply because they came from the shelves of large retailers. This settlement is an important step towards ensuring that this is a problem of the past,” explained Jay Edelson of KamberEdelson, LLC, who, along with his partner Scott A. Kamber, and William Audet of Audet & Partners, LLP, were appointed to represent the class as lead counsel. The settlement was joined by lawyers who filed similar class actions in Florida, California, New Jersey and Tennessee. The Court also appointed Gino L. DiVito of Tabet, DiVito, and Rothstein, LLC as part of the leadership group representing the class. Mr. DiVito formerly served as both a circuit court and appellate judge in Illinois and, prior to that, was a Cook County assistant state's attorney. Under the settlement agreement, eligible class members can receive full cash refunds or replacement toys with an additional “bonus” toy. The settlement also provides for $100,000 to go to an appropriate not-for-profit organization. The parties have established a website at http://www.thomastrainsettlement.comto provide additional details about the settlement. That site will be operational by no later than January 25, 2008. For more information, contact: Jay Edelson KamberEdelson, LLC Phone: 312-589-6370 E-mail: jedelson@kamberedelson.com SCOR SA: Feb. Fairness Hearing Set for Converium Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing on Feb. 8, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. for the proposed settlement in the matter, “Neil L. Sclater-Booth, et al. v. SCOR, S.A., and PATINEX AG, Case No. Civil Action No. 07-CV-3476 (GEL).” The hearing will be held in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York, 10007. Factual Background On Feb. 17, 2007, SCOR S.A. proposed an offer for the acquisition of the Company to Converium AG's Board of Directors. The next day, Converium's Board unanimously rejected the offer, concluding that it fundamentally failed to recognize the value of Converium's franchise and growth prospects, and therefore it was not in the best interest of the Company, its shareholders, or its customers. On February 26, 2007, SCOR formally pre-announced a tender offer to acquire certain Converium shares and on April 5, 2007, SCOR issued a Swiss Offer Prospectus relating to the Offer. The Offer Prospectus stated, in relevant part, among other things, that for each Converium share tendered, SCOR offers: -- 0.5 New SCOR Shares with nominal value of EUR 7.8769723 each; -- CHF 4 in cash; -- the Offer would not apply to the Company's American Depository Shares; -- SCOR's offer would be subject to a number of conditions, including valid acceptances for shares representing at least 50.01% of the Company?s share capital; and -- the Offer would not be made in or into the U.S. On May 1, 2007, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned, “Neil L. Sclater-Booth v. SCOR S.A. and Patinex AG, Civil Action No. 07 CV 3476 (GEL).” The suit is alleging that SCOR and defendant Patinex AG failed to comply with certain disclosure requirements imposed by the U.S. securities laws in connection with SCOR's public tender offer in Switzerland for all publicly held registered shares of Converium. More specifically, the suit alleges that: -- the Offer has triggered the application of the provisions of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 governing tender offers, and that SCOR has violated Section 14(d) of the Exchange Act, which requires certain disclosures in connection with tender offers, and Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act, which prohibits fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative acts in connection with tender offers; and -- SCOR and Patinex violated Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act, by failing to disclose that SCOR and Patinex “acted as a group” in connection with the Offer. On May 25, 2007, parties reached a tentative settlement in the matter. On Nov. 13, 2007, the Court entered a Scheduling Order in which, among other things, the Court preliminarily certified the class, preliminarily determined that the suit was properly brought as a class action, and preliminarily found that plaintiff was an adequate representative of the Class. The class consists of all U.S. persons holding shares of Converium and holders of Converium's American Depository Shares. For more details, contact: Joseph H. Weiss, Esq. James E. Tullman, Esq. Weiss & Lurie 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176 Phone: (212) 682-3025 Web site: http://www.weisslurie.com/ Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 919 North Market Street, Suite 980 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 295-5310 Web site: http://www.rigrodskylong.com/ Joseph N. Sacca, Esq. Gary J. Hacker, Esq. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 735-3000 Web site: http://www.skadden.com/ - and - Converium Holding AG Litigation Settlement c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 N Jackson Street ? Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 Phone: 866.274.4004 and 610.565.9202 Fax: 610.565.7985 Web site: http://www.strategicclaims.net/ SEARS: Recalls Play Stoves that can Tip Over Posing Injury Risk --------------------------------------------------------------- Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Kmart Corp., of Hoffman Estates, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, are recalling about 17,000 “My First Kenmore” Play Stoves. The company said a metal bracket connecting the door to the stove can cause a tip-over when the door is opened. This poses a risk of injury to young children. Sears has received one report of the product tipping over, resulting in bruises to a child. The self-assembled, wooden play stove is painted pink with six white knobs and a timer. The dimensions of the stove when assembled are 11 1/2” W x 13 3/4” D x 32 7/8” H. These recalled play stoves were manufactured in Taiwan and were being sold at Sears and Kmart stores nationwide from September 2007 through November 2007 for about $100. Picture of recalled play stoves: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08166.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately remove and discard the bracket that connects the door to the stove to eliminate the hazard. Consumers may obtain updated assembly instructions by contacting Sears/Kmart or by visiting either firm?s Web site. In some products, the updated assembly instructions are already included and replacement instructions are not required. For additional information, contact Sears/Kmart at (800) 659- 7026 between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Saturday, or visit either http://www.sears.comor http://www.kmart.com STEWART ENTERPRISES: Still Faces $1.5B Antitrust Damages Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Stewart Enterprises, Inc. continues to face a consolidated antitrust class action seeking a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for an award of damages ranging from $99 million to $1.5 billion. Funeral Consumers Alliance Case One of the purported class actions was filed by Funeral Consumers Alliance, Inc., et al. against: * Service Corporation International, * Alderwoods Group, Inc., * Stewart Enterprises, Inc., * Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and * Batesville Casket Co. The Case, No. H-05-3394, was originally filed on May 2, 2005, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all consumers who purchased a Batesville casket from the funeral home defendants at any time. The court consolidated it with five subsequently filed and substantially similar cases. The matter was known as the Consolidated Consumer Cases. The Consolidated Consumer Cases allege that the defendants acted jointly to reduce competition from independent casket discounters and fix and maintain prices on caskets in violation of the federal antitrust laws and California's Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek treble damages, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. At the defendants' request, in late September 2005, the court transferred the Consolidated Consumer Cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Texas. On Nov. 10, 2006, after the court denied defendants' motions to dismiss, the company answered the first amended consolidated class action complaint, denying liability and asserting various affirmative defenses. Discovery is underway. The court conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification on Dec. 4-7, 2006, and has taken the motion under advisement. Fact discovery has been completed, and expert discovery is ongoing. In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants would be in the range of approximately $950 million to approximately $1.5 billion, before trebling. Pioneer Valley Case On July 8, 2005, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by Pioneer Valley Casket Co., Inc., and others against: -- Service Corp. International, -- Alderwoods Group, Inc., -- Stewart Enterprises, Inc., -- Hillenbrand Industries, Inc., and -- Batesville Casket Co. The Pioneer Valley Case involves the same claims asserted in the Consolidated Consumer Cases, except that it was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include only independent casket retailers. On July 15, 2005, the defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to plead facts sufficient to establish viable antitrust and unfair competition claims. On Sept. 9, 2005, the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, but ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended and consolidated complaint that satisfies the objections raised in the motions to dismiss. At the defendants' request, the court also issued orders in late September 2005 transferring the Consolidated Consumer Cases and the Pioneer Valley Case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The transferred Consolidated Consumer Cases have been consolidated before a single judge in the Southern District of Texas. The Pioneer Valley Case has been consolidated with these cases for purposes of discovery only. On Oct. 12, 2005, the consumer plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss the first amended complaint. On Oct. 21, 2005, Pioneer Valley filed a first amended complaint. Defendants then filed motions to dismiss. Discovery is underway in both cases. On Sept. 14, 2006, the magistrate recommended that all motions to dismiss be denied. The parties have 10 days to file written objections with the district court judge. A hearing on whether the matters may proceed as class actions was scheduled for Dec. 5, 2006. In April 2007, the plaintiffs filed an expert report indicating that the damages sought from all defendants would be approximately $99.0 million, before trebling. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. The suit is “Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc. et al. v. Service Corporation International., Case No. 4:05-cv-03394,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt with referral to Judge Calvin Botley. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jonathan S. Abady, Esq. Emery Celli Brinckerhoff 545 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-763-5000 Fax: 212-763-5001 E-mail: jabady@ecbalaw.com Gordon Ball, Esq. Ball & Scott, 550 W. Main Ave., Ste. 750 Knoxville, TN 37902 Phone: 865-525-7028 Fax: 865-525-4679 E-mail: gball@ballandscott.com - and - Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. Hoeffner and Bilek, LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 1302 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: 713-227-7720 Fax: 713-227-9404 E-mail: tbilek@hb-legal.com Representing the company is: Mark A. Cunningham, Esq. Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre 201 St. Charles Ave New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504.582.8536 Fax: 504.589.8536 Web site: http://www.joneswalker.com STEWART ENTERPRISES: Nixing of SCI Affiliate from Case Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a class action against Stewart Enterprises, Inc. over its funeral goods and services operations are appealing the dismissal by the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles of an affiliate of Service Corp. International (SCI) from the case. The suit, "Henrietta Torres and Teresa Fiore, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and the General Public v. Stewart Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. BC328961," was filed on Feb. 17, 2005 against the company and several other defendants. The purported class action was brought on behalf of a nationwide class defined to include all persons, entities and organizations who purchased funeral goods and/or services in the U.S. from defendants at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. The suit named the company and several of its Southern California affiliates as defendants. It sought to assert claims against a class of all entities located anywhere in the U.S. whose ultimate parent corporation has been the company at any time on or after Feb. 17, 2001. In May 2005, the court ruled that this case was related to similar actions against SCI and Alderwoods Group, Inc., and designated SCI case as the lead case. In response, on Aug. 29, 2005, the plaintiffs in each of the three cases filed amended complaints. SCI has filed a demurrer in its case, and the company joined in that demurrer on October 6, 2005. The case against the company effectively has been held in abeyance while the court tests plaintiff's legal theories in the lead case. Rulings on legal issues in the lead case will apply equally in the case against the company, and the court has allowed the company to participate in hearings and briefings in the lead case. As a result of demurrers, the plaintiff in the lead case has amended her complaint twice. On Jan. 31, 2006, however, the court overruled SCI demurrer to the third amended complaint and established a schedule leading to hearing on a motion for summary judgment in early July to test the viability of the named plaintiff's claim against SCI. On Aug. 14, 2006, the court heard oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment. The cross-motions are pending. The third amended complaint in the lead case alleges that the SCI defendants violated the "Funeral Rule" promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission by failing to disclose that the prices of certain goods and services they obtained from third parties specifically on the plaintiff's behalf exceeded what the defendants paid for them. Plaintiff alleges that by failing to comply with the Funeral Rule, defendants: -- breached contracts with the plaintiffs; -- were unjustly enriched; and -- engaged in unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices in violation of a provision of California's Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks restitution damages, disgorgement, interest, costs and attorneys' fees. In September and October 2006, the court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the SCI affiliate with whom the plaintiff had contracted and entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of that SCI affiliate. On Dec. 8, 2006, the plaintiff noticed an appeal of this judgment. The company reported no development in the matter in its Dec. 21, 2007 Form 10-K Filing in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, 2007. Stewart Enterprises, Inc. -- http://www.stewartenterprises.com/ -- is a provider of funeral and cemetery products and services in the death care industry in the U.S. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides a range of funeral merchandise and services, along with cemetery property, merchandise and services, both at the time of need and on a pre- need basis. SUN MARK: Courtyard Healthcare Dropped from False Ad Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Long Beach attorney Stephen Garcia, who filed a class action against Sun Mar Health Care Inc. chain of nursing homes over patient care, dropped Courtyard Healthcare Center from the suit, the Central Valley Business Times reports. According to Mr. Garcia, the Davis facility was incorrectly included in the class action. Sun Mar sold 100 percent of the facility in April 1999. The lawsuit 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 (Class Action Reporter, Jan 14, 2008). 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. 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. 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. To contact Mr. Garcia: Stephen Garcia One World Trade Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, California 90831 Phone: (562) 216-5270 Toll Free: 1-800-281-8515 Fax: (562) 216-5271 Website: http://www.lawgarcia.com SUPERVALU INC: Still Faces Assistant Managers' Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu, Inc. and its acquisition, Albertson's Inc. continue to face a consolidated class action filed by assistant managers in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2008 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 1, 2007. Gardner Litigation In April 2000, a class-action complaint was filed against Albertson's, as well as American Stores Co., American Drug Stores, Inc., Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and Lucky Stores, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of Albertson's, in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. The suit, “Gardner, et al. v. American Stores Company, et al.,” was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of overtime based on plaintiffs’ allegation that they were improperly classified as exempt under California law. In May 2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers. Rocher Litigation A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers and operating managers, was also filed in April 2000 against Albertson's, Inc.'s subsidiary Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, California. The suit, “Rocher, Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.,” was certified as a class action in June 2001 with respect to assistant managers and operating managers. The two cases were consolidated in December 2001. New Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006. Plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties, other statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. SUPERVALU INC: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Labor Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Supervalu, Inc. agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging that it failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its non-exempt employees employed in key carrier positions. Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint in California Superior Court in and for the County of San Diego in August 2004. It was later certified as a class action. The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide itemized wage statements as required by California law and that Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned employees as required by California law. It further alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or penalties owed the members of the class certified, including compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period violations and wages for all time worked while employees were clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the premises during meal periods. It further seeks to recover all past due compensation and penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for members of the class certified with interest from Aug. 6, 2000 to time of trial. In December 2007, the parties agreed to settle this matter, subject to Court approval. Supervalu Inc. -- http://www.supervalu.com/-- is a U.S. grocery channel that conducts its retail operations under three retail food store formats: combination stores (defined as food and drug), food stores and limited assortment food stores. The Company’s business is classified into two segments: Retail food and Supply chain services. T-MOBILE USA: Faces Suit in Cal. Over “Illegal” Message Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ T-Mobile USA Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging it charges fraudulent message fees, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Gernot Trolf alleges T-Mobile cheats customers by billing them $2.99 for every voicemail message to their phones outside the United States, even if they don't accept or check the calls, and charging them again if they do check them. He brings this action for deceptive business practices in violation of the California Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, and the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all customers of T-Mobile in the United States who were charged roaming fees for voicemail messages while traveling outside of the United States. He wants the court to rule on: (a) whether T-Mobile adequately disclosed its roaming charges for the voicemail its customers receive while traveling outside the Untied States; (b) whether T-Mobile's practices constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation of California and/or Washington state law; and (c) whether plaintiffs and the other members of the class were damaged as a result of T-Mobile's practices. Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows: -- declaring this action to be a proper class action and certifying plaintiffs as a representative of the class under rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- declaring the class action waiver in T-Mobile's T&C unconscionable and unenforceable; -- enjoining T-Mobile from charging for unanswered calls and/or voicemail notifications absent adequate disclosure; -- ordering T-Mobile to disgorge all profits made as a result of its practices described; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class damages; -- awarding plaintiffs and the class restitution; -- awarding plaintiffs costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of all reasonable expenses incurred in prosecuting this action; and -- granting pre-judgment interest and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Gernot Trolf et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 08 CV 0112BTM WMc," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: David C. Parisi Parisi & Havens LLP 15233 Valleyheart DRive Sherman Oaks, california 91403 Phone: (818) 990-1299 Fax: (818) 501-7852 E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com - and - Oren Giskan Giskan Solotaroff & Anderson LLP 11 Broadway -- Suite 2150 New York, New York 10004 Phone: (212) 847-8315 Fax: (646) 520.3237 WAL-MART STORES: Customer Files Fraud Suit Over Video Game ---------------------------------------------------------- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed Jan. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas accusing it of cheating customers, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Ross M. Hooks, IV claims Wal-Mart breached contracts to sell a video game, "Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii," for $23.43, "by sending out an email to class members acknowledging their 'request' to cancel contract [though] no class member made any such request." This is a class action for damages based upon Wal-Mart's breach of contract in its failure to honor on-line sales of a pre- release video game called Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all persons who contracted for and purchased a Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii video game from Wal-Mart from its on- line sales service on a pre-order special, and whose order was then unilaterally canceled by Wal-Mart. Mr. Hooks wants the court to rule on: (a) whether Wal-Mart breached its contracts by failing to honor its offered and accepted terms to provide the Super Smash Brothers Brawl Wii video game to consumers; and (b) whether plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of such damages. Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment as follows: -- certifying the proposed class, and appointing plaintiff and his counsel to represent the plaintiff class; -- entering judgment in favor of plaintiff and members of the class against defendant; -- awarding money damages, with interest, to plaintiff and members of the class; -- awarding attorneys' fees to plaintiff and members of the class; and -- for such other and further relief as the court deems just. The suit is "Ross M. Hooks, IV v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. A08CA052 LY," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Representing plaintiffs are: Stephen W. Stewart The Stewart Law Firm, PLLC 3000 South IH-35, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78704 Phone: (512) 326-3200 Fax: (512) 326-8228 E-mail: sws@thestewartlawfirm.net - and - Austin Tighe Vic Feazell Feazell & Tighe LLP 6300 Bridgepoint Parkway Bridgepoint 2, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78730 Phone: (512) 372-8100 Fax: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com WICK & PETAL: Recalls Jar Candles Posing Fire Hazard ---------------------------------------------------- The Wick & Petal Co. of Indianapolis, Ind., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 1,300 jar candles. The company said the candles can burn with a high flame, posing a fire hazard. Wick & Petal has received seven reports of the candles burning with high flame, some resulting in minor property damage. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves all Wick & Petal jar candles. The candles have a cylindrical shape and a chrome lid. The lid has a white label with a picture of the fragrance, the fragrance name, and “Wick & Petal Co.” printed on it. These recalled jar candles were manufactured in the United States and were being sold at select candle retailers and craft fairs in Indiana from October 2007 through December 2007 for between $8 and $18. Picture of recalled jar candles: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08167.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled candles and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. For additional information, contact Wick & Petal at (317) 441- 8008 between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the company's Web site: http://www.wickandpetal.com.The company will accept collect calls on their main line number. WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Considers Motion in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion for judgment on the pleadings in a securities fraud class action filed against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer. On or about Aug. 10, 2005, a class action was filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares during the period from Jan. 14, 2005 to and including April 14, 2005. It alleges, among other things, that management provided the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis. The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees and costs. In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the allegations contained in the complaint. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied. Defendants have answered the amended complaint, denying its material allegations. The Court has certified the case as a class action and has approved notice to the class. Defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery has expired, but plaintiffs have asked the Court for additional time to pursue discovery. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued on Sept. 28, 2007 and is awaiting decision, according to the company's Jan. 11, 2007 Form 10-Q Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2007. The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v. Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Charles L. Brieant. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com Ralph M. Stone, Esq. Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 E-mail: rstone@lawssb.com Representing the defendants is: David M. Doret, Esq. H. Robert Fiebach, Esq. Cozen and O'Connor 45 Broadway Atrium New York, NY 10006-3792 Phone: 212-509-9400 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars * Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals ------------------------------------------------- January 23-24, 2008 EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 January 29-30, 2008 CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS AND LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 7-8, 2008 DAMAGES IN EMPLOYMENT CASES ALI-ABA Washington, DC Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 11-12, 2008 MEALEY'S REINSURANCE LITIGATION AND ARBITRATION CONFERENCE Mealey's Seminars The Westin, Washington, DC Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 14-16, 2008 LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS ALI-ABA San Diego Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 February 27-28, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION American Conference Institute New York Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 February 28-29, 2008 FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION American Conference Institute Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: https://www.americanconference.com; 1-888-224-2480 March 27-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION ALI-ABA Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 April 9-12, 2008 MEALEY'S 15TH ANNUAL INSURANCE INSOLVENCY & REINSURANCE Mealey's Seminars The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale, Arizona Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 10-11, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Wynn, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 May 1-2, 2008 SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES ALI-ABA Boston, Massachusetts Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 May 29-31, 2008 MASS LITIGATION ALI-ABA Charleston, South Carolina Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 June 25-28, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION ALI-ABA Boulder, Colorado Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614 July 10-11, 2008 CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute New York Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu July 30, 2008 MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES Practising Law Institute Chicago, Illinois Contact: 1-800-260-4PLI; info@pli.edu October 23-24, 2008 MASS TORTS MADE PERFECT SEMINAR Mass Torts Made Perfect Bellagio, Las Vegas Contact: 1-800-320-2227 * Online Teleconferences ------------------------ January 23, 2008 MOORE'Sâ„¢ RULES OF FEDERAL PRACTICE TELECONFERENCE: TUTORIAL OF PROCEDURAL FEDERAL PRACTICE IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT RULE CHANGES Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 7, 2008 MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR PRODUCT RECALLS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 13, 2008 LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com February 27, 2008 MEALEY'S ASBESTOS GASKETS TELECONFERENCE: EXPOSURE AND STATE OF THE ART Mealey's Seminars Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800; mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com April 16, 2008 CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS IN BUSINESS LITIGATION American Bar Association Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 24TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 25TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 COMPLEX LITIGATION CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 DIRECT AND CROSS-EXAMINATION OF EXPERTS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING MOTIONS TO COMPEL CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2006) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 TORTS PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2007) CEB Online Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444 ________________________________________________________________ The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged. ********* 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 * * *