/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080129.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 20 Headlines AMERIPRISE: Former Advisor Franchisees Sue for Contract Breach AVX CORP: Wants Two Myrtle Beach Environmental Suits Joined BEST BUY: Former Workers Allege N.Y. State Labor Laws Violations BIG BURRITO: Settles “Reed” FACTA Violations Suit in Penn. CALIFORNIA: SCIF Accused of Diverting $25M of Workers Money CALIFORNIA: Alameda County, Sheriff Face Strip-Search Lawsuit CELEBRATION STUDIOS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Undelivered Mementos CHOICEPOINT INC: Agrees to Settle Investors' Suit for $10M CITIGROUP INC: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: New York City Expands Shareholder Suit FEDERAL HOME: Ohio Attorney General Files Securities Fraud Suit FOX COLLISION: Goes Bankrupt; Suit by Former Workers on Hold GRAND TRAVERSE: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Labor Litigation HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Say Units Lack Driver Support KINGS FAMILY: Offers Vouchers to Settle FACTA Lawsuit in Penn. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Aussie Councils Might Sue Over Losses in CDOS LOJACK CORP: “Rutti” Litigation Removed to Calif. Federal Court LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Certifies “Chalona” Policyholders Suit MILAN RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in Va. Over Alleged FLSA Violations MODINE MANUFACTURING: Settles Environmental Lawsuit in Ill. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Accused of Illegal Foreclosures in Minn. MTN NIGERIA: Lawyers Plan to Sue Over Poor Service to Customers NU HORIZONS: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California Dismissed QUANEX CORP: Investors File TRO to Block Spin-off to Gerdau RESPIRONICS INC: Faces Investor Suit in Del. Over $5.1B Sale SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Customer Privacy Breach Suit in Illinois T-MOBILE USA: Court Allows Wash. Consumer Lawsuit to Proceed New Securities Fraud Cases TELETECH HOLDINGS: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ********* AMERIPRISE: Former Advisor Franchisees Sue for Contract Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Zimmerman Reed law firm filed a class action in Hennepin County District Court, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The case was filed on behalf of current and former Ameriprise investment advisor franchisees. The Franchisees allege that when American Express Financial Advisors was "spun off" from The American Express Company, they as franchisees were deprived of the use of a well-recognized brand name, as required by their franchise agreements. The class action seeks remedies as a result of the breach of contract and violations of the Minnesota Franchise Act. Specifically, the complaint alleges that AEFA breached its franchise agreements when it replaced the American Express brand affiliation with the new "Ameriprise" brand, an unknown in the marketplace. The lawsuit further alleges that The American Express Company unlawfully interfered with the franchise agreements when, in "spinning off" AEFA, it disallowed the use of its brand name, and that AEFA and Ameriprise have violated the Minnesota Franchise Act. The American Express brand was an essential component of the franchise agreement. According to the complaint, "The switch to operations under 'Ameriprise' robbed Plaintiff and the Class of the benefit of their bargain and left them with only an unbranded trade name. By analogy, McDonald's could not inform its franchisees that it was spinning off its fast-food operation, and prohibiting their further use of the 'Golden Arches,' when its franchisees paid for use of the McDonald's trade name." For more information, contact: Carolyn Anderson Zimmerman Reed Phone: (612) 341-0400 AVX CORP: Wants Two Myrtle Beach Environmental Suits Joined ----------------------------------------------------------- The lawyer representing Myrtle Beach residents in an environmental lawsuit against AVX Corp. has asked a judge to dismiss a request by the company to have residents pay part of the costs to clean up contamination at the site, the Myrtle Beach Sun News reports. Gene Connell of Surfside Beach (S.C.) filed a class action on behalf of all home and business owners in a neighborhood near AVX Corp. facility in Myrtle Beach where toxic contamination has been found. The suit follows that of Horry Land Co., which claims trichloroethylene contamination has migrated onto its property from AVX. Horry Land wants the manufacturer to pay $5.4 million in damages. Mr. Connell wants AVX to pay those property owners the fair- market value for their contaminated land, an amount that could top tens of millions of dollars. That is because S.C. law requires property sellers to disclose all defects and dangerous conditions to prospective buyers. In recent developments, AVX asked a federal judge to order residents of that neighborhood to help pay for testing and cleanup costs. Kevin Dunlap, a Spartanburg lawyer, filed the request for AVX in a proposed amended complaint. AVX, in that court filing, wants to add the Myrtle Beach residents as plaintiffs in the suit filed by Horry Land. According to the report, AVX asked a judge to hold Horry Land and the residents responsible for attorney's fees, expert fees, the costs of conducting environmental investigations and "containment, removal or mitigation of the contamination at the properties." AVX also wanted Horry Land and residents to pay interest on those debts "at the maximum rate allowable by law." Mr. Connell argued that homeowners had nothing to do with the company's contamination and the manufacturer's request should be dismissed. No hearing has been scheduled on either request, according to the report. Mr. Connell's suit was originally filed in state court. AVX moved it to federal court because the manufacturer said the case should be tried under federal environmental laws. Mr. Connell is asking the court to move the case back to state court. A third lawsuit was filed last week against AVX on behalf of property owners along Beaver Roadm, according to the report. For more information, contact: Gene M. Connell Jr., Esq. Kelaher, Connell & Connor, P.C. P.O. Box 14547 1500 Us Hwy 17 N Surfside Beach, SC 29587-4547 Phone: (843) 238-5648 (843) 238-1033 (843) 238-5017 Fax: (843) 238-5050 Kevin A. Dunlap, Esq. Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 206 Spartanburg, South Carolina 29306 (Spartanburg Co.) Phone: 864.591.2030 Fax: 864.591.2050 http://www.parkerpoe.com BEST BUY: Former Workers Allege N.Y. State Labor Laws Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed in the Supreme Court of New York on behalf of a class of current and former Best Buy employees who are alleging violations of New York state labor laws against the company. The lawsuit contends that employees at 33 New York Best Buy stores are subjected to off-the-clock security checks at the end of each shift which can take up to 15 minutes. It also accuses the Richfield, Minnesota-based company of forcing employees to work through meal and rest breaks without compensation. The suit was filed by Gerald Lawrence of Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Eric Young of Kenney Egan McCafferty & Young, and alleges that after clocking out, employees are required to wait in line at a security checkpoint along with customers and submit to a search. Employees who work the closing shift are subjected to the longest waits since store policy dictates that all employees gather at the front of the store before beginning security checks. "Workers are not being paid for mandatory searches which frequently add up to a half hour or more a week per employee," said Lawrence. The suit also maintains that employees are routinely required to work during paid meal and/or rest breaks. For more information, contact: Gerald Lawrence Lowey Dannenberg Cohen, P.C. Phone: 610-941-2760 - and - Eric Young Kenney Egan McCafferty & Young Phone: 610-940-9099 BIG BURRITO: Settles “Reed” FACTA Violations Suit in Penn. ---------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in the suit "Reed v. Whole Enchilada, Inc. d/b/a Big Burrito Restaurant Group, et al., Case No. cv 07- 00357,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The settlement will benefit all persons who were provided electronically printed credit or debit card receipts from any of these restaurants affiliated with and/or managed or operated by Whole Enchilada, Inc. d/b/a Big Burrito Restaurant Group: Eleven, Kaya, Casbah, Cafe Phipps*, Warhol Cafe*, Soba, Umi, Big Catering or any Mad Mex Restaurant at the point of sale or transaction, in a transaction occurring between the dates indicated below may be eligible to receive a Settlement Relief Card redeemable at any Mad Mex Restaurant. Class Period Restaurant October 1, 2005 - March 31, 2007 Mad Mex Columbus, OH January 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007 Mad Mex Philadelphia, PA May 1, 2006 - March 31, 2007 Mad Mex Monroeville, PA January 1, 2005 - December 7, 2007 Cafe Phipps December 4, 2006 - March 31, 2007 Eleven, Kaya, Casbah, Warhol Cafe , Soba, Umi, Big Catering and any other Mad Mex Restaurant not listed above * Cafe Phipps and Warhol Cafe are managed by big Burrito under management agreements. The settlement resolves a lawsuit over whether the Defendants violated certain requirements imposed by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. Specifically, plaintiff claims that the Defendants, at the Eleven, Kaya, Casbah, Café Phipps, Warhol Cafe, Soba, Umi, Big Catering and Mad Mex restaurants printed more than the last five digits of the card numbers and/or the expiration date of their customers’ credit or debit cards on receipts presented to them at the store, in violation of FACTA Deadline to file proofs of claim is March 10, 2008. The Court will hold a hearing on March 20, 2008, to decide whether to approve the settlement. For more information, visit: http://secure.bigburrito.com/settlement/ CALIFORNIA: SCIF Accused of Diverting $25M of Workers Money ----------------------------------------------------------- Businesses in California filed a class-action complaint against the State Compensation Insurance Fund and its directors alleging the defendants unnecessarily diverted more than $25 million of workers' comp payments to SCIF insiders and former board members," the CourtHouse News Service reports. Defendants include: -- Collecto Inc., dba Collection Company of America; -- SCIF's former President James C. Tudor; -- its former Vice President Renee Koren; -- its General Counsel Charles Savage; -- former board members and Safety Group Administrators Frank Del Re and Kent Dagg; -- Mr. Del Re's company, Western Insurance Administrators; -- Dagg's companies Shasta Builder's Exchange and Shasta Builder's Exchange Community Fund; and -- John Dunlop, who administered a Safety Group for the California Restaurant Association. Notis Enterprises filed the suit on behalf of all California employers insured by SCIF in the past four years. The complaint alleges "that on or about March 30, 2007, State Compensation Insurance Commissioner Steve Polzner reported that SCIF executives mislabeled costs related to administrative fees to groups run by former Board Members on financial reports submitted to the Board of Directors. The complaint states that according to (state) Senator Dean Flores, SCIF 'may have paid as much as $25 million in administrative fees to organizations controlled by two former Board Members, Del Re and Dagg, who resigned from the Board last year. Further, it stated that “although defendants knew that the administrative services had little or no value, payments were made to Messers. Del Re, Dagg, Dunlop and their affiliated entities in a sum not less than $25 million during the four years preceding the filing of this complaint." Representing plaintiffs are: Y. Gina Lisitsa Payman Taheri Lisitsa Law Corporation 1717 S Brand Blvd Glendale, CA 91204 Phone: (323) 876-7535 CALIFORNIA: Alameda County, Sheriff Face Strip-Search Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The County of Alameda, California, and Sheriff Greg Ahern face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that accuses defendants of conducting strip searches without evidence that detainees are hiding weapons or contraband, Henry K. Lee of The San Francisco Chronicle reports. The suit was filed on Jan. 14, 2008 by Ron Charles Roth, an Oakland man, who says he was strip searched at a county-run jail after a drunken-driving arrest. Attorney Mark Merin of Sacramento, who is representing Mr. Roth, said that on Feb. 3, 2007, a California Highway Patrol officer arrested Mr. Roth in front of his home, for allegedly being under the influence when he moved his car. Mr. Roth, 47, was taken to the Glenn E. Dyer Detention Facility, a jail in downtown Oakland run by the Alameda County sheriff's office. While at the facility, he was ordered to take his clothes off for an inspection, according to the suit. However, according to the suit, it would later be learned that Mr. Roth had a warrant for an outstanding ticket for fishing without a license from San Mateo County, and transferred him there. To that end, the suit accuses county jailers of routinely conduct strip searches and visual body-cavity searches without having a “reasonable suspicion that the search will be productive of contraband or weapons.” Mr. Roth's complaint claims the county violated privacy rights under state law and the U.S. Constitution. He is thus seeking damages of at least $5,000 for everyone subjected to similar searches since Jan. 1, 2007. The suit is “Roth v. County of Alameda et al., Case No. 3:08-cv- 00236-BZ,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Bernard Zimmerman Representing the plaintiff is: Mark E. Merin, Esq. Law Offices of Mark E. Merin 2001 P Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-443-6911 Fax: 916-447-8336 E-mail: mark@markmerin.com CELEBRATION STUDIOS: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Undelivered Mementos -------------------------------------------------------------- Celebration Studios faces a purported class action in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, New York for failing to deliver the photos or video of clients, Tina Kelley of The New York Times reports. The suit was filed on December 2007 by attorney Nathaniel Burney of The Burney Law Firm, LLC. Mr. Burney is seeking a class- action certification for the case. The wedding photography firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, closed this month and is filing for bankruptcy, according to its attorneys. Jeffrey Herrmann, a lawyer for Celebration Studios, provided a copy of a company statement to The New York Times, which read: “The primary intent of Celebration Studios has been and remains to preserve the memories of its customers. Unforeseen financial difficulties have made it impossible to continue our business operations and deliver photos and videos in a timely manner.” The statement added that “to our knowledge, no photos or videos have been lost or destroyed.” Mr. Herrmann reiterated that the copyrights of the images currently belonged to Celebration Studios. Mr. Herrmann also said that Celebration Studios would be filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey within the month. Citing problems at least two years old, Mr. Burneyalleges stated in the suit: “As of 2005, obviously Celebration Studios knew that people were not getting their pictures, and since then they continued soliciting and taking people’s money.” For more details, contact: Nathaniel Burney, Esq. The Burney Law Firm, LLC 747 Third Ave., 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: 1.212.797.2975 Fax: 1.800.341.7752 E-mail: info@burneylawfirm.com CHOICEPOINT INC: Agrees to Settle Investors' Suit for $10M ---------------------------------------------------------- Choicepoint Inc. said it a regulatory filing it has entered into a Letter of Understanding pursuant to which parties would, subject to notice to the class, court approval and certain other conditions, settle a class action filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between March 12, 2004, and March 5, 2005. Under the terms of the Letter of Understanding, the Company will pay $10 million to the plaintiffs, subject to court approval. The settlement will be funded through a combination of insurance proceeds and cash on hand. The Company anticipates filing a definitive settlement agreement with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by March 31, 2008. The Company and the other defendants in the Litigation do not admit to any liability by the Company or such defendants. The Company anticipates that the settlement as outlined in the Letter of Understanding will have no effect on the Company’s financial results as the Company had previously reserved funds to pay for the portion of the settlement amount not covered by insurance. ChoicePoint (NYSE: CPS) -- http://www.ChoicePoint.com-- provides businesses, government agencies and non-profit organizations with technology, software, information and marketing services to help manage economic and physical risks as well as identify business opportunities. CITIGROUP INC: Faces N.Y. Litigation Alleging ERISA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Citigroup, Inc. faces a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the ERISA. The suit is “Woodward et al v. CitiGroup, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-11207-SHS,” which was filed on Dec. 13, 2007. Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Patricia Woodward, -- William Woodward, and -- Stephen Gray, who was recently appointed lead plaintiff in the case. Aside from Citigroup, others that were named as defendants in the case are: -- Charles Prince -- Robert E. Rubin -- Michael C. Armstrong -- Alain J.P. Belda -- George David -- Kenneth T. Derr -- John M. Deutch -- Roberto Hernandez Ramirez -- Andrew N. Liveris -- Ann Mulcahy -- Richard D. Parsons -- Judith Rodin -- Robert L. Ryan -- Franklin A. Thomas -- Ann Dibble Jordan -- Klaus Kleinfeld -- Dudley C. Mecum -- John Does -- Jane Does -- Alan Stevens -- Mark Geroulo -- Shaun Rose The suit was brought on behalf of the Citigroup 401(k) Plan, and the Citibuilder 401(k) Plan for Puerto Rico (“Plans”), pursuant to Sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) of ERISA. Plaintiffs' claims arise from the failure of defendants, who are fiduciaries of the Plans, to act solely in the interest of the participants, and beneficiaries of the Plans, and to exercise the require skill, care, prudence and diligence in administering the Plans, and the Plans' assets from Jan. 1, 2007 to the present (Class Period). Plaintiffs allege that defendants allowed the heavy, imprudent investment of the Plans' assets in Citigroup common stock throughout the Class Period, despite the fact that they clearly knew or should have known that such investment was unduly risky and imprudent due to Citigroup's serious mismanagement and improper business practices, including, among other practices: -- Citigroup's rapid expansion into high-risk financial products without corresponding risk management controls; -- Citigroup's failure to limit its exposure to losses from subprime mortgages and mortgage-backed securities; -- Citigroup's failure accurately to account for subprime-related assets; and -- Citigroup's misrepresentations regarding its financial condition. This practices caused Citigroup's financial statements to be misleading and which artificially inflated the value of shares of Citi stock, andCitigroup Common Stock Fund in the Plans. In short, during the Class Period, Citigroup was seriously mismanaged and faced deteriorating financial circumstances that rendered Citigroup stock an unduly risky and inappropriate options for Plan participants retirement savings. The complaint alleges four counts of causes of action. They are: -- Count I = Failure to Prudently and Loyally Manage the Plans and Assets of the Plans -- Count II = Failure to Monitor Fiduciaries -- Count III = Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate Information to the Plans' Participants and Beneficiaries -- Count IV = Co-Fiduciary Liability The suit seeks a class that includes all persons, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plans at any time between Jan. 1, 2007, and the present, and whose accounts included investments in Citigroup stock. The complaint lists the following as plaintiffs' prayer for relief: -- A declaration that defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties to the participants; -- A declaration that defendants are not entitled to the protection of ERISA; -- An order compelling defendants to make good to the Plans all losses to the Plans resulting from defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties, including losses to the Plans resulting from imprudent investment of the Plans' assets, and to restore to the Plans all profits the defendants made through use of the Plans' assets, and to restore to the Plans all profits which the participants would have made if defendants had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations; -- Imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by which any defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of the Plans as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty; -- An Order requiring defendants to appoint one or more independent fiduciaries to participate in the management of the Plans' investment in Citi stock. -- Actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plans suffered, to be allocated among participants' individual accounts in proportion to the accounts' losses; -- An order awarding costs pursuant to ERISA; -- An order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to the common doctrine of ERISA, and other applicable law; and -- An order for equitable restitution, and other appropriate equitable, and injunctive relief against defendants. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2775 The suit is “Woodward et al. v. CitiGroup, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-11207-SHS,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge Sidney H. Stein. Representing the plaintiffs are: Tyler L. Farmer, Esq. Keller Rohrback, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-1900 Fax: (206) 623-3384 James Clayton Kelly, Esq. Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212)-451-9635 Fax: (212)-486-2093 E-mail: jkelly@wolfpopper.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 150 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-907-0700 Fax: 212-883-7057 E-mail: lgrant@cmht.com Representing the defendants is: Susanna Michele Buergel, Esq. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (NY) 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-3553 Fax: 212-492-0553 E-mail: sbuergel@paulweiss.com COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: New York City Expands Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- New York City and the state have expanded a shareholder class action filed against Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) and have named additional company officers and directors, 26 underwriters and two accounting firms as defendants. The underwriters sued include: -- ABN Amro Inc. (NYSE: ABN), -- AG Edwards & Sons, Inc. (NYSE: AGE), -- Banc of America Securities LLC (NYSE: BAC), -- Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (NYSE: C), -- Countrywide Securities Corporation, -- Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. (NYSE: DB), -- Goldman, Sachs & Co. (NYSE: GS), -- HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. (NYSE: HBC), -- J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (NYSE: JPM), -- Lehman Brothers Inc. (NYSE: LEH), -- Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. (NYSE: MER), -- Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MS) and -- UBS Securities LLC (NYSE: UBS). New York City comptroller William Thompson, who helps run the New York City Pension Funds, said that executives of Countrywide cashed out to the tune of almost $700 million while borrowers lost homes and the value of investors' shares fell sharply. Thompson and New York state comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who oversees the New York State Common Retirement Fund, jointly disclosed the expansion of the lawsuit. The New York City and state pensions in November were named as co-lead plaintiffs for the five class actions accusing Countrywide of inflating earnings and overstating its ability to weather the housing slump. The two accounting firms added to the suit, which seeks to recover millions of dollars, are Grant Thornton LLP and KPMG LLP. About Countrywide Financial Based in Calabasas, California, Countrywide Financial Corporation (NYSE: CFC) -- http://www.countrywide.com/-- is a diversified financial services provider and a member of the S&P 500, Forbes 2000 and Fortune 500. Through its family of companies, Countrywide originates, purchases, securitizes, sells, and services residential and commercial loans; provides loan closing services such as credit reports, appraisals and flood determinations; offers banking services which include depository and home loan products; conducts fixed income securities underwriting and trading activities; provides property, life and casualty insurance; and manages a captive mortgage reinsurance company. FEDERAL HOME: Ohio Attorney General Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann has filed a securities fraud class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., more commonly known as Freddie Mac. The suit alleges that Freddie Mac secretly and intentionally participated in one of the largest housing investment deceptions in modern U.S. economic times. It names a s defendants: -- Freddie Mac; -- Richard F. Syron; -- Patricia L. Cook; -- Anthony S. Piszel; -- Eugene M. McQuade; and -- the directors who served on Freddie Mac's Audit, Finance and Risk Oversight Committees. The suit was filed on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) and all other purchasers of Freddie Mac common stock from Aug. 1, 2006 through Nov. 23, 2007. The lawsuit alleges that despite repeated public denials and assurances to the contrary, Freddie Mac was deeply invested in the sub-prime mortgage industry and failed to disclose that it was not protecting itself from the billion-dollar risks it incurred. In addition to Freddie Mac and its officers, the lawsuit seeks to hold Freddie Mac committee directors personally responsible for their recklessness and secrecy about Freddie Mac's investments and resulting losses in the sub-prime housing mortgage industry. The complaint alleges that Freddie Mac and its top executives, and directors, artificially inflated the company's publicly traded common stock through false public financial statements and other public statements, including denials of Freddie Mac's billion dollars of exposure to the sub-prime mortgage industry. In violation of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission rules, the complaint alleges that Freddie Mac and its officers and directors intentionally hid the essential facts that: -- Freddie Mac had invested billions of dollars in sub- prime based securities; -- Freddie Mac had failed to establish adequate internal controls, checks and balances to identify the types and amounts of risks it had taken on; -- Freddie Mac had failed to disclose its inability to determine the amount of its loan guarantee exposure, the inadequacy of its loan loss reserves, and the failure of its insurers and counterparties to meet their obligations to Freddie Mac. OPERS losses as a result of the alleged fraud could be as high as $27.2 million. It has asked the court to appoint it the Lead Plaintiff for all of the class members who have been harmed. In a press release issued by his office, Mr. Dann said, “I would like to commend the trustees and staff at OPERS for supporting my effort to hold Freddie Mac accountable for the role the company and its top executives played in bilking investors and fueling the foreclosure crisis that is destroying neighborhoods across our state and the entire nation.” He adds, “By authorizing me to bring this suit on their behalf they are protecting the interests of the pension plan, the workers and retirees who depend upon it, and the taxpayers whose hard-earned dollars fund it. And they are also sending a loud and clear message to Wall Street that this type of fraud and manipulation will not be tolerated by the people who live on the Main Streets that are being devastated by what Freddie Mac has done.” The suit is “Ohio Public Employees Retirement System v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-00160-JRA,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge John R. Adams, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marc E. Dann, Esq. Office of the Attorney General - East Broad Street State of Ohio 30 East Broad Street Columbus, OH 43215 Phone: 614-728-5454 Fax: 614-995-0246 E-mail: nmiller@ag.state.oh.us - and - Stanley M. Chesley, Esq. Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 Fax: 513-621-0262 E-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc FOX COLLISION: Goes Bankrupt; Suit by Former Workers on Hold ------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan put on hold a class action filed by several former employees of auto repair company Fox Collision Center after the company filed for bankruptcy, Associated Press reports. Troubled Company Reporter reports that Fox Collision Center and Fox Real Estate filed for protection under chapter 11 with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas on Jan. 23, 2008. According to documents filed with the court, Fox has assets and debts between $1 million and $10 million. Former workers of the Debtors are asked to file proofs of claims for unpaid salaries. The class action against the company was filed against the company and company president Todd Fox and other family operations. Mr. Fox closed his 18 auto-repair shops in three states in October leaving many employees without jobs. The suit was filed by Dustin Jeffries, Brandon Harris and Jessica Lovelady against Fox Collision Center, Inc., Fox Body Shop, LLC, Fox Family Body Shop, LLC and Todd Fox on Nov. 20, 2007. Charles C. Vaught, Esq., represents the Debtor's former employees, numbering about 50, who filed the class action, according to the Troubled Company Reporter. The case is "Jeffries et al. v. Fox Collision Center, Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma under Chief Judge Claire V. Eagan with referral to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Cleary. GRAND TRAVERSE: Reaches Tentative Settlement in Labor Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Grand Traverse Resort and Spa reached a proposed settlement with about 150 employees in a class action that accuses it of violating labor laws and employees’ rights, Victor Skinner of Record Eagle reports. Parties involved in the matter declined to disclose details of the settlement until a judge formally approves the deal. Attorney Mark Clark, one of two lawyers who represent about 150 current and former employees, told The Traverse City Record Eagle that a settlement was reached through mediation in December 2007. Mr. Clark explains, "Until the court approves it we have agreed that it will remain confidential. Because it is a class-action the court has to approve the settlement." He adds, "We have the framework for an agreement, it just needs to be approved by the court." Case Background The class action was filed in July 2007 in 13th Circuit Court. It claims that the Acme, Michigan-based resort violated state employment and wage laws for imposing $150 paycheck deductions on several spa workers to help fund marketing efforts for the last six years (Class Action Reporter, July 6, 2007). According to the plaintiffs’ attorney, Enrico Schaefer, the employees started raising their grievances last year. As a result, the Grand Traverse disclosed that it has been unilaterally and without the employees’ knowledge, deducting $150 from their paychecks as a marketing expense. He added that a Michigan statute “makes it unlawful for employers to deduct amounts from an employee's paycheck without their full, free, and written consent. This particular deduction was never disclosed to employees and they never even knew about it.” According to reports, KSL Recreation Inc., the resort’s former owner, started this practice when it first opened in 1999. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians acquired the spa in March 2003 and put an end to the policy in December 2006. For more information, contact: Enrico Schaefer, Esq. Mark Clark, Esq. Traverse Legal, PLC 810 Cottageview Drive Unit G-20 Traverse City, MI 49684 Phone: (231) 668-4633 Fax: (231) 932-0636 Web site: http://tcattorney.typepad.com/ HTC USA: HTC Smartphone Owners Say Units Lack Driver Support ------------------------------------------------------------ A Web site http://HTCClassAction.orghas been set up to spread awareness about problems with recent HTC Smartphones and PocketPCs, and gather information for a possible class action. According to the site, HTC neglected to include the necessary drivers needed for its latest SmartPhone and PocketPC devices to come to their full potential. Those affected are all HTC devices based on the MSM7200 and MSM7500 chipsets from Qualcomm. The site states: None of these devices seem to use the hardware acceleration provided by it's ATi Imageon based technology, or the QTV or Q3Dimension technologies. These devices include, but are not necessarily limited to: * HTC TyTN II (MSM7200) * HTC Touch Dual (MSM7200) * HTC Touch Cruise (MSM7200 * HTC Wings (MSM7200). * HTC Titan (MSM7500), * HTC Vogue (MSM7500), * HTC Libra (MSM7500), * HTC Iris (MSM7500) KINGS FAMILY: Offers Vouchers to Settle FACTA Lawsuit in Penn. -------------------------------------------------------------- Kings Family Restaurants settled a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western Pennsylvania that accused it of violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The suit was filed Michael V. Palamara on March 14, 2007. In it, he claims that Kings Family Restaurants violated certain requirements imposed by FACTA by printing the expiration date of its customers credit or debit cards on receipts presented to them at the restaurant. FACTA requires that the expiration date be deleted from the credit card receipts presented to customers at the point of sale. Though Kings officials disagreed with the allegations in the suit, they decided it would be better to offer vouchers to the affected customers rather than go to court. Under the settlement, the company will be offering settlement vouchers to customers who used their credit or debit cards at any Kings restaurant, except Bentleyville, between Dec. 4, 2006, and March, 9, 2007, or at Bentleyville between Feb. 7, 2005, and March 9, 2007. The terms of the settlement dictated that any eligible customers will be entitled to a voucher for one of the following: -- a free appetizer and mini-sundae; -- a free homemade bowl of soup and a slice of apple or pumpkin pie; -- a free cup of soup and appetizer; -- or a free dinner salad and scoop of Kings premium ice cream. The suit is “Palamara v. Kings Family Restaurants, Case No. 2:07-cv-00317-GLL,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge Gary L. Lancaster. Representing the plaintiff is: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Carlson Lynch P.O. Box 367, 231 Melville Lane Sewickley, PA 15143 Phone: (412) 749-1677 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com Representing the defendant is: Wendelynne J. Newton, Esq. Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney 301 Grant Street One Oxford Centre, 20th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Phone: (412) 562-8932 E-mail: wendelynne.newton@bipc.com LEHMAN BROTHERS: Aussie Councils Might Sue Over Losses in CDOS -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Robins of The Sydney Morning Herald reports on Jan. 26 that there is a speculation of a class action being taken against Lehman Brothers over investments by councils in high- risk "collateralized debt obligations." Most councils, though, are still negotiating with Lehman Brothers to buy back their investments while legal action remains under study, according to Mr. Robins. On a Jan. 15 report, the Morning Herald stated that several councils are considering a suit against the Australian subsidiary of the Wall Street bank that sold them CDOs linked to the failed U.S. subprime mortgage market. Wingecarribee Shire Council has already filed a federal court action against Lehman Brothers over what its council's general manager estimated as a potential loss of AU$3 million in capital. The suit alleges misleading and deceptive conduct in the management of its investment portfolio. The councils that have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in CDOs include Newcastle, Gosford, Manly, Woollahra and Tumbarumba. LOJACK CORP: “Rutti” Litigation Removed to Calif. Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for LoJack Corp. have removed the purported class action, “Mike Rutti et al. v. Lojack Corporation, Inc. et al.,” from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, E.B. McCoy of Legal News Line reports. Generally, the suit accuses the company, which employs technicians in California to install stolen vehicle recovery systems, of ripping off employees. The suit was originally filed on November 2007 by Mike Rutti and Gerson Anaya in a California state court. The plaintiffs alleged that LoJack violated various California labor, business and professional codes, and demanded that the issue be heard before a jury. The two are represented by the Reghetti Law Firm of San Francisco. The complaint alleges that employees were routinely required to work through both meal and rest breaks, improperly charged for damages done to company vehicles and mandated to purchase tools without reimbursement. On Jan. 2, 2008, attorneys for the law firm of McDermott, Will and Emery, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, arguing that the claim arises under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). CAFA can be invoked when the putative class consists of more than 100, and any member of the class is from a different state than defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. According to the complaint, the 228 class members seek damages totaling $8,010,912. That amount was reached after adding: -- $1,686,024 for failure to provide rest breaks, -- $1,947,284 for missed meal periods, -- $3,894,568 for minimum wage violations, -- $438,060 for failure to pay wages in full upon separation of company, -- $819,000 for failure to provide accurate and timely wage statements, and -- $912,000 for failure to indemnify employees for expenses. The suit is “Mike Rutti et al v. Lojack Corporation, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2008cv00006,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John Glugoski, Esq. Righetti Law Firm P C 456 Montgomery Street Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-983-0900 E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com Representing the defendant is: Dan Chammas, Esq. McDermott Will & Emery LLP 2049 Century Park East 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208 Phone: 310-277-4110 E-mail: dchammas@mwe.com LOUISIANA CITIZENS: Court Certifies “Chalona” Policyholders Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert A. Buckley of the 34th Judicial District Court in St. Bernard Parish (La.) certified as class action a suit filed against Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. over the timeliness of settlement offers on hurricane claims, Rebecca Mowbray of The Times-Picayune reports. The suit is "Adrian P. Chalona Sr. et al. v. Louisiana Citizens." The resolution of the action could potentially affect 76,000 Citizens policyholders with claims from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They were policyholders who remained unpaid after the 2005 storms. Plaintiffs' attorney Madro Bandaries said the suit deals with policyholders who did not get a settlement offer from Citizens within 60 days of providing proof of damage at their home, regardless of when Citizens began investigating the claim. Judge Buckley's opinion says "Chalona" will exclude anyone who already fits into the class action, "Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens," filed in the 24th Judicial District Court in Jefferson Parish or who has already reached an individual settlement with Citizens. MILAN RESTAURANT: Faces Suit in Va. Over Alleged FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Milan Restaurant, Inc., and its owner Charanjeet Ghotra face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), The C-Ville Weekly reports. The suit was filed on Jan. 9, 2008 by the Virginia Legal Aid Justice Center on behalf of former employee Sandeep Dias, a resident of Virginia, but a native of Bombay, India. In his complaint, Mr. Dias charges that the Indian restaurant, specifically owner Charanjeet Ghotra, failed to pay proper minimum wage by retaining tips left by patrons for the waiters, as well as failing to pay proper overtime wages, which is in violation of FLSA. During his two year stint with Milan, his suit alleges that the restaurant required him and others to turn over the tips they received from restaurant patrons. In addition, the complaint states that Mr. Dias regularly worked more than 40 hours a week but was not paid the overtime rate of one and a half times the regular wage. The suit is seeking an award of monetary damages and declaratory relief on behalf of Mr. Dias and all others similarly situated. The suit is “Dias v. Milan Restaurant, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:08-cv-00004-nkm,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon. Representing the plaintiff is: James Melvin Knoepp, Esq. Erin Margaret Trodden, Esq. Legal Aid Justice Center Suite A, 1000 Preston Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22903 Phone: 434-977-0553 Fax: 434-977-0558 E-mail: jim@justice4all.org erin@justice4all.org MODINE MANUFACTURING: Settles Environmental Lawsuit in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------- Modine Manufacturing Company (NYSE: MOD) jointly announced with plaintiffs’ counsel -- Aaron Freiwald of Layser & Freiwald, PC -- that Modine and plaintiffs have reached a settlement in principle in connection with litigation against Modine, alleging environmental contamination in McCullom Lake Village, McHenry County, Illinois, where Modine operates a manufacturing facility. The case, “Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co., et al., Case No. 06-1743,” involves allegations of personal injury from exposure to solvents that were allegedly released to groundwater and air for an undetermined period of time (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 21, 2007). It seeks damages for medical monitoring and property value diminution for a putative class of residents of a community that are allegedly at risk for personal injuries as a result of exposure to this same allegedly contaminated groundwater and air. Under an agreement reached with Plaintiffs, 22 personal injury cases filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas and an alleged class action lawsuit that was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, were settled. Litigation against other named companies in the lawsuits continues. In addition to a payment to the various plaintiffs of a fixed amount in the state court cases, representative plaintiffs, plaintiffs’ counsel, Aaron Freiwald, and Modine will be proposing to the federal court a class settlement that will involve specified funds for medical monitoring and property claims for appropriate individuals who lived or owned property in the McCullom Lake Village area. Specific terms of the settlement were not disclosed and Modine has not admitted liability in any way by the settlement. Settlement is contingent on execution of a mutually agreeable settlement agreement and approval by the various courts in each case. Commenting on the settlement, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Aaron Freiwald, said, “Modine, which was not a primary target in this litigation, has defended itself both vigorously and responsibly. We have identified no substantiated scientific link between Modine’s McHenry facility and the groundwater contamination in McCullom Lake Village, therefore, we believe it is in the best interests of the plaintiffs to settle this matter and pursue no further litigation against Modine. We further commend Modine and its representatives for the proactive manner in which the company has approached and settled this matter.” Mr. Freiwald added, “We are especially gratified that, as a result of the settlement with Modine, we will soon be able to offer medical monitoring to certain current and former residents of the Village.” Modine Vice President – Americas, James R. Rulseh, commented, “This agreement makes sense for our company because it is an opportunity to end a long and difficult litigation that has spanned nearly two years and that could continue to stretch on for many more years.” Mr. Rulseh continued, “Modine takes its environmental responsibilities very seriously. We consider the settlement fair and reasonable to all concerned and in keeping with our long- standing commitment to conduct business in an environmentally responsible manner and according to the highest standards of business conduct. Although we are convinced that the scientific evidence indicates that we are in no way responsible for any of the illnesses or damages alleged to have resulted from the asserted environmental contamination, we believe it is both appropriate and in the best interest of our shareholders, employees and global business operations to settle this matter at this time.” Plaintiffs requesting additional information should contact Layser & Freiwald, PC at 215.875.8000. The suit is “Gates, et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company, et al., Case No. 06-1743,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Gene E.K. Pratter. Representing the plaintiffs is: Aaron J. Freiwald, Esq. Layser & Freiwald PC 1500 Walnut St., 18th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-875-8000 E-mail: ajf@layserfreiwald.com Representing the defendants is: Albert G. Bixler, Esq. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 1515 Market Street, 9th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-851-8412 E-mail: abixler@eckertseamans.com MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Accused of Illegal Foreclosures in Minn. ------------------------------------------------------------- As the economy continues to suffer from fall-out from subprime mortgage foreclosures, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is accused of skipping legally required steps to remove people from their homes in Minnesota. A group of Hennepin County homeowners with subprime mortgages filed a class action to stop illegal foreclosures by MERS, a Virginia-based company. The suit alleges that MERS, which handles 40% of the foreclosures in the seven-county metropolitan area, violates Minnesota law by expediting foreclosures without following mandatory procedures. Some states require mortgage lenders to file a lawsuit before they can foreclose. In Minnesota, lenders have an alternative that is often called 'foreclosure by advertisement' because it allows a party to foreclose after publishing a notice of foreclosure in the newspaper. For lenders, it is faster, easier, and less expensive than going to court. However, the law requires the foreclosing party to meet certain basic requirements before forcing homeowners out of the home. "Foreclosure by advertisement is a privilege, not a right," said Amber Hawkins, an attorney for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs. "If a mortgage lender wants to use a quick and easy process to take someone's house, at the very least they should have to follow the steps that Minnesota law requires." The central issue is whether MERS routinely initiates foreclosures without listing all loan "assignments" - that is, all changes in ownership that occur with the mortgage in question, since mortgages often go through a chain of "assignees." A basic requirement on Minnesota's books is that mortgage assignments must be recorded with the county if the mortgage is no longer held by the original lender. Additionally, assignments must also be listed in the Notice of Mortgage Foreclosure Sale, published in the newspaper. and delivered to the homeowner prior to the sale. The lawsuit alleges that MERS systematically ignores these requirements and routinely forecloses upon mortgages that have been assigned without recording those assignments or listing them in the published foreclosure notice. Ironically, MERS was established for the very purpose of tracking loan assignments privately, rather than recording them with government officials. In the midst of the subprime foreclosure crisis, this case highlights the lack of accountability among subprime lenders, who often aggressively marketed subprime loans without properly underwriting them, then avoided assuming any risk by selling the loan to investors. The result is that homeowners can be left homeless, but all too often it is difficult to even ascertain who is responsible for the mortgage. Among the families MERS seeks to remove without taking proper steps include single mothers and a man who is caring for a family member with terminal cancer. According to Eric Halperin, director of the Washington office of the Center for Responsible Lending, "When lenders or other foreclosing parties neglect to identify the entities that support bad loans, the public is deprived of critical information about who the real players are in this foreclosure mess. The attorneys representing the plaintiffs are from the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, the Center for Responsible Lending, and Crowder Teske, PLLP. For more information, contact Kathleen Day at the Center for Responsible Lending, (202) 349-1871. Minnesota Homeowners who are being or have been foreclosed upon by MERS can call the following number for more information: (612) 746-3740. If an interpreter is needed, please call (612) 332-1441. MTN NIGERIA: Lawyers Plan to Sue Over Poor Service to Customers --------------------------------------------------------------- A group of lawyers plan to file a class action against mobile company MTN Nigeria and its rival players over pervasive network congestions suffered by subscribers across the country, Shina Badaru of This Day (Africa) reports. According to the report, the suit may involve hundreds, thousands or millions of subscribers and may set a major legal landmark in the nation's judicial system. A source told This Day that the lawyers are studying the appropriate legal instruments, including the Nigerian Communications Act 2003, and the enabling laws of the Nigerian Communications Commission and other relevant provisions of the nation's consumer protection laws. The lawyers, according to the source, hope to claim damages over alleged contractual breach by operators that continue to take up subscribers, "even though they have inadequate capacity to handle the increased traffic." The practice amounts to deception of the marketplace, according to him. Of 41, 512, 449 active lines in Nigeria at the end of December 2007, GSM operators account for the highest number at 39,534,296 lines. The top GSM operators are MTN, Glo Mobile, Celtel, and Mtel, the report states, citing statistics from the NCC. NU HORIZONS: Securities Fraud Lawsuit in California Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action against Nu Horizons Electronics Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Titan Supply Chain Services Corp. (as co-defendant), which was previously commenced by a group of Vitesse shareholders, has been dismissed against both defendants. On or about Oct. 4, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint for Securities Fraud was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of California in the matter filed by Louis Grasso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against: -- Vitesse Semiconductor Corp., -- Louis Tomasetta, -- Yatin Mody, -- Eugene F. Hovanec, -- Silicon Valley Bank, -- Nu Horizons Electronics Corp., -- Titan Supply Chain Services, Corp. (formerly Known as Titan Logistics Corp.), and -- KPMG LLP Pursuant to the Amended Complaint, Nu Horizons, Titan, Silicon Valley Bank, and KPMG LLP were added as defendants to the putative class action which had been commenced by certain purchasers of Vitesse common stock. In the Amended Complaint, plaintiff alleges that Nu Horizons and Titan violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seeks rescission or unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class which purchased Vitesse common stock during the period from Jan. 27, 2003 to and including April 27, 2006. As of Jan. 4, 2008, a class has not been certified in the matter. Nu Horizons and Titan moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim under the federal securities laws (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 22, 2008). Under the judges recent ruling, the judge cited the recent Supreme Court decision in “Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific- Atlanta, Inc. et al.” as controlling and foreclosing the plaintiff's attempt to plead liability on the part of Nu Horizons and Titan for Vitesse's alleged financial misstatements. The action was dismissed with prejudice, although the plaintiffs have the ability to appeal the court's decision. Nu Horizons Electronic Corp. -- http://www.nuhorizons.com/-- is engaged in the distribution of, and supply chain services for, high technology active and passive electronic components. QUANEX CORP: Investors File TRO to Block Spin-off to Gerdau ----------------------------------------------------------- Quanex Corporation (NYSE:NX) announced that a motion for temporary restraining order has been filed by plaintiff in a putative stockholder derivative and class action lawsuit, “Momentum Partners v. Raymond A. Jean, et al., Cause No. 2008- 01592,” filed in the 25th Judicial District of Harris County, Texas. The motion asks the court to enter a temporary restraining order and seeks to enjoin the proposed spin-off by Quanex of its building products division and the subsequent merger of Quanex into a subsidiary of Gerdau S.A. The original lawsuit named Quanex as a "nominal defendant," as is customary in putative derivative lawsuits, and did not claim money damages or seek to institute a restraining order or enjoin the transactions. Quanex believes that the effort to enjoin the spin-off and the merger is without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. No hearing or trial has yet been set. Quanex does not expect this to delay its previously announced anticipated closing of the transaction by the end of the first calendar quarter. For more information, contact: Valerie Calvert Quanex Corporation Phone: 713-877-5305 E-mail: http://www.quanex.com RESPIRONICS INC: Faces Investor Suit in Del. Over $5.1B Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ A shareholder of Respironics, Inc. filed a purported class action in Delaware Chancery Court over the company's $5.1 billion acquisition by Royal Philips Electronics, Rick Stouffer of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reports. Made public on Dec. 21, 2007, the deal will make medical device maker Respironics' Murrysville headquarters the U.S. base for Philips' Home Healthcare Solutions unit. Philips agreed to pay $66 in cash for each Respironics share, a 24 percent premium. The suit was filed on Jan. 8, 2008 by Respironics shareholder Vera Guttman. She is alleging that the $66 a share was too low for Respironics shares, and that company directors and executives, Respironics itself, along with Royal Philips Electronics, and various subsidiaries breached their fiduciary duty to all Respironics shareholders. Ms. Guttman's is represented in the case by, Joseph A. Rosenthal with the Wilmington, Delaware-based law firm, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess. For more details, contact: Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esq. Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A. 919 Market Street, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Phone: (302) 656-4433 Fax: (302) 658-7567 SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces Customer Privacy Breach Suit in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- Sears, Roebuck and Co. faces a purported class action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois for violating customer privacy on their site. The suit, “Christine Desantis, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,” alleges that the lack of privacy protections at Sears’s http://www.managemyhome.comweb site violated its own privacy promises to consumers, and in so doing ran afoul of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, which prohibits “unfair and deceptive practices.” It was filed by Christine Desantis, a New Jersey resident, on Jan. 4, 2008. Attorney Jay Edelson of KAMBEREDELSON, LLC, an Illinois law firm, is representing Ms. Desantis in the matter. According to the complaint, in an effort to promote its website and increase sales, Sears has established a web-based system to allow customers to view their purchase history on-line at http://www.managemyhome.com. The complaint alleges though that Sears' system is fatally flawed and was designed in such a way as to significantly compromise the private information of its customers. The system works as follows: -- A user goes to Managemyhome website, creates an account and logs-in. -- The user then need only enter in publicly-available information (such as the name, phone number and street address) of a Sears customer in order to view the customer's history of on-line and even in-store purchases. The Managemyhome website provides detailed histories of past purchases, including model numbers, purchase dates, warranty information, and protection plans. However, according to complaint, the Managemyhome website will provide purchase history of all residents of a particular address, regardless of whether the residents are still living there. For instance, a Sears customer querying the Managemyhome website with their current address will receive not only their purchase history, but also the purchase history of prior residents at that address. Additionally, the Managemyhome website will provide information about third-party warranties, even where a Sears customer purchased the item only from Sears (and not the warranty), the complaint states. Plaintiffs alleges that there are staggering consequences to customers with regards to Sears' system. Such consequences, according to the complaint include: -- Anyone can now access Sears's customers private purchase history, meaning that a nosy person can find out how much his neighbor spent on a new washing machine or lawnmower. -- Marketing companies can mine the Managemyhome website for data about Sears customers, in order to transmit detailed advertisements for additional products and/or warranties. -- Hackers can systematically access this data for much more insidious purposes. They can use the data to commit fraud by, for example, sending e-mails or making phone calls purporting to be from Sears alerting individuals to a recall of a specific product. They then can use the information they have obtained from Sears's website to gain trust over the unsuspecting victim and obtain access to a person's credit information, social security numbers or even a person's house. It is alleged that “Sears has known about this problem and has, to date, done nothing to fix it.” The complaint alleges two counts of violations: -- COUNT I = Breach of Contract -- COUNT II = Breach of Fiduciary Duty = Violation of the Consumer Fraud Act Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over questions affecting individual members of the Class. Common questions include: -- Does Sears' conduct constitute a breach of contract? -- Does Sears' conduct violate its fiduciary duties to the Class? -- Is the Class entitled to an accounting? -- Did Sears violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act? -- Is the Class entitled to injunctive relief? The suit was filed by the KamberEdelson, LLC law firm on behalf of Christine Desantis, a New Jersey resident. It was brought on behalf of Ms. Desantis and a class of similarly situated individuals. The class consists of Ms. Desantis and all other individuals whose purchase history is available to the public through the http://www.managemyhome.comweb site, according to the complaint. It seeks class-action status, and more than $5 million in damages, including attorneys’ fees. In essence, Plaintiff prays for the following relief: -- An order certifying the class as defined above; -- An award of the aggregated actual damages of the members of the Class; -- An injunction requiring Defendant to secure the private information it has obtained from the Class and to notify the Class of the possibility of security breaches; -- An accounting to determine whether any security breaches occurred; -- Reasonable Attorney's fees and costs; and -- Such further and other relief the Court deems appropriate. A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at: http://researcharchives.com/t/s?2758 The suit is “Christine Desantis, et al. v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.,” filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois Representing the plaintiff is: Jay Edelson, Esq. Ethan Preston, Esq. KAMBEREDELSON, LLC 53 West Jackson Blvd; Suite 1530 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-589-6370 Web site: http://www.kamberedelson.com/ T-MOBILE USA: Court Allows Wash. Consumer Lawsuit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed consumers to proceed with a class action against T-Mobile USA, Inc., ruling that the wireless carrier's service contract compelling mandatory arbitration can't be enforced under state law, Phuong Cat Le of The Seattle Post Intelligencer. Specifically, the court concluded that “T-Mobile's arbitration provision is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable under Washington state law.” The decision was in connection to a lawsuit on appeal that was filed by T-Mobile customers Kathleen Lowden and John Mahowald in King County Superior Court in 2005. The suit alleged the wireless carrier wrongly charged the plaintiffs for roaming, long distance, night time and other fees that should have been free. The plaintiffs also claim that T-Mobile charged them for fees, such as "a universal service fund fee," which weren't advertised. T-Mobile removed the case to federal district court and tried to compel mandatory arbitration, arguing that the customers had agreed to resolve their disputes in this manner. Last year, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that former Cingular Wireless, now AT&T, cannot enforce a waiver in its service contract prohibiting customers from pursuing a class action. Citing that court's decision, the Ninth Circuit Court concluded that T-Mobile's class action waiver couldn't be enforced. In explaining the decision, Daniel F. Johnson, Esq., who is representing the plaintiffs in the case said, “It means that the company cannot avoid consumer claims against it by forcing consumers to bring their claims in individual arbitration, rather than group litigation.” Mr. Johnson also explains, "What these cases are about are large, national and international companies using arbitration clauses to avoid class actions." He adds, "There are a lot of consumer claims that are just too small to pursue individually." The suit is “ Case No. CV-05-01482-MJP,” filed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Judge Marsha J. Pechman, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Daniel F. Johnson, Esq. Breskin Johnson & Townsend 999 Third Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: 206-652-8660 Fax: 206-652-8290 Web site: http://www.bjtlegal.com Representing the defendant is: Fred B. Burnside, Esq. Davis Wright Tremaine LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-3045 Phone: (206) 628-7691 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Web site: http://www.dwt.com New Securities Fraud Cases TELETECH HOLDINGS: KGS Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC filed a class action against TeleTech Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company between February 8, 2007 and November 8, 2007, inclusive. TeleTech and certain of the Company's officers and directors are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In addition, defendants and its underwriters for the Company's March 30, 2007 Secondary Offering are charged with issuing a materially false and misleading Registration Statement and joint Proxy-Prospectus in violation of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"). On November 8, 2007, defendants shocked investors by announcing that TeleTech was conducting a "review of equity-based compensation practices and likely restatement of previous issued financial statements" would be required -- possibly as far back as 1999. At that time, investors learned that TeleTech would likely be forced to take millions of dollars in charges and reserves, and that the Company would be forced to restate almost a full decade of financial results to account for the Company's true employment costs, expenses, reserves, payroll taxes, fines and penalties. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 25, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC Poydras Center, 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Phone: 866-467-1400, ext. 100 E-mail: Lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice Mendoza, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *