/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080207.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 27 Headlines BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of 2003 Oil Spill Suit CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Appeal CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls Rakes for Lead Paint Standard Breach DRUG COS: Suit Filed in W. Va. Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Judges Recuse Themselves from Antitrust Case FIRESIDE BANK: Faces Calif. Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices HAWAII & ALASKA: Judge Dismisses Federal Workers' Pension Suit KYPHON INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Litigation in California MARYLAND: Judge Orders Board to Review In-State Tuition Denial OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Reaches $1.3M Settlement PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suits Over Marine Oil, Gas Hose REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces La. Litigation Over Speed Camera Program RIDLEY INC: Reaches CDN$6-Million Settlement for BSE Lawsuit SILVER STATE: Goes Bankrupt; Students Plan to Sue for Refund TITLE INSURERS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing UBS SECURITIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over $1.6 BB Genesco Acquisition UNION COUNTY: Settles Turner Lawsuit by Promising Jail Changes UNITRIN INC: Faces Hurricane-Related Litigation in La. & Tex. VERITAS SOFTWARE: Reaches Tentative Agreement in Del. Litigation VIRGINIA: Four Local Restaurants Sued to Become "Smoke-Free" WASTE MANAGEMENT: Residents Receive Windfall from $3M Settlement WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts WESTFIELD AMERICA: Faces CA Consumer Fraud Suit Over Gift Cards * Market Volatility Increases Class Lawsuits, Study Says New Securities Fraud Cases CELLCYTE GENETICS: Finkelstein Thompson Files WA Securities Suit CENTERLINE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit ********* BOUCHARD TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of 2003 Oil Spill Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bouchard Transportation Co. filed a motion to dismiss the class- action lawsuit that would require it to pay for restoration work at Leisure Shores Beach in Mattapoisett, Mass., Becky W. Evans of the Standard-Times reports. In 2004, Mattapoisett, Massachusetts land owners whose waterfront properties were damaged by an oil spill in Buzzards Bay filed the suit with the Plymouth Superior Court (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 4, 2004). The 55,000 gallon oil spill polluted 100 miles of shoreline, killed 450 birds and caused 90,000 acres of shellfishing grounds to shut down for months. Subsequently, according to Standard-Times, Bouchard sought to dismiss the class's request for payment of $86,500 -— the estimated cost of restoring the beach to its pre-spill condition by replenishing it with sand and repairing a protective rock wall, also known as a groin -- as well millions of dollars in total damages to property from the oil pollution caused. The report says that the defendant's lawyer, Robert G. Goulet, Esq., of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae LLP, said that Bouchard should not have to pay for additional cleanup efforts because the plaintiffs have "failed to pursue the available administrative remedies," such as seeking permits for the restoration work from the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission. The report relates that Martin E. Levin, Esq., of the Boston law firm Stern, Shapiro, Weissberg and Garin, LLP -- attorney for the Mattapoisett homeowners -– countered that his clients had approached the Conservation Commission about requiring the defendants to restore the beach. The commission was "ready and willing" to address the issue until it received a "threatening letter" from Bouchard, and "it ended right there," he said. Judge David McLaughlin, who is expected to issue a decision on the motion, had set dates for future status conferences that will move the case toward trial, the report adds. Representing the defendant is: Robert G. Goulet, Jr., Esq. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene and MacRae LLP, 260 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 748-6830 Fax: (617) 439-034 Representing the plaintiffs is: Martin E. Levin, Esq. Stern Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP 90 Canal Street Boston, MA 02114-2022 Phone: (617) 742-5800 Fax: (617) 742-5858 CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Forces Arbitration in Accreditation Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc., successfully forced arbitration in one of several lawsuits regarding the status of its accreditation with other colleges, according to company's Feb. 1, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. On March 8, 2004, the company was served with two virtually identical putative class-action complaints: -- "Travis v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc.," and -- "Florida Metropolitan University, and Satz v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University." On April 15, 2005, the company received another complaint captioned "Alan Alvarez, et al. v. Rhodes Colleges, Inc., Corinthian Colleges, Inc., and Florida Metropolitan University, Inc." The Alvarez first amended and supplemental complaint named 99 plaintiffs. Additionally, the court in the Alvarez case granted the plaintiffs' motion to add additional seven plaintiffs to the first amended and supplemental complaint. The named plaintiffs in these lawsuits are current and former students in the Company's Florida Metropolitan University campuses in Florida and online. The plaintiffs allege that FMU concealed the fact that it is not accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and that FMU credits are not transferable to other institutions. The Satz and Travis plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory damages and attorneys' fees under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act for themselves and all similarly situated people. The Alvarez plaintiffs seek damages on behalf of themselves under common law and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The arbitrator in the Satz case found for the Company on all counts in an award on the Company's motion to dismiss. The arbitrator also found that Satz breached his agreement with FMU by filing in court rather than seeking arbitration and is therefore responsible to pay FMU's damages associated with compelling the action to arbitration. The arbitrator also declared FMU the prevailing party for purposes of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Company is continuing to pursue its remedies against Mr. Satz related to these findings. Additionally, the Company affirmatively filed an arbitration action against Ms. Travis seeking damages for breach of her obligations to file in arbitration rather than in court and declaratory relief regarding her allegations. The arbitrator ruled against the Company in its affirmative claims against Ms. Travis and the Company has appealed that ruling. The Company has filed motions to compel arbitration in Alvarez, and the Travis court compelled that case to arbitration. Ms. Travis has lost her appeal regarding the order compelling the matter to arbitration, the arbitration process has begun, and another named plaintiff has also been added to the claim. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for- profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30, 2006. It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions in the U.S. and Canada. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Feb. 11 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit set a Feb. 11, 2008 hearing on an appeal with regards to the dismissal of the class action, "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," according to company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. From July 8, 2004, through Aug. 31, 2004, various putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by certain alleged purchasers of the Company's common stock against the Company and certain of its current and former executive officers, David Moore, Dennis Beal, Paul St. Pierre and Anthony Digiovanni. On Nov. 5, 2004, a lead plaintiff was chosen and these cases were consolidated into one action. A first consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2005. The consolidated case is purportedly brought on behalf of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during a specified class period from Aug. 27, 2003, through July 30, 2004. The consolidated complaint alleges that, in violation of Section 10(b) of the U.S.. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the Company's business and prospects during the putative class period, causing the plaintiffs to purchase the Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices. The plaintiffs further claim that Messrs. Moore, Beal, St. Pierre and Digiovanni are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act. The plaintiffs seek unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as well as other relief. On April 24, 2006, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's third consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument is currently scheduled to be heard on that appeal on Feb. 11, 2008. The suit is "Conway Investment Club v. Corinthian Colleges Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-05025-R-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Manuel L. Real presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Vahn Alexander, Esq. Faruqi and Faruqui LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-461-1426 e-mail: valexander@faruqilaw.com - and - Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. Barrack Rodos and Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 e-mail: dbacine@barrack.com Representing the defendants are: Robert L Dell Angelo, Esq. Munger Tolles & Olson 355 S Grand Ave, 35th Fl Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Phone: 213-683-9100 e-mail: dellangelorl@mto.com - and - Daniel Benjamin Levin, Esq. AUSA - Office of US Attorney Criminal Division 312 North Spring Street, 13th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213-894-5796 e-mail: USACAC.criminal@usdoj.gov CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Still Faces Suit by Bryman College Student --------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc. continues to face a putative class action filed by a former diagnostic medical sonography student from the company's Bryman College campus in West Los Angeles. The plaintiff, Michelle Sanchez, alleges the school violated California's education code and of California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 1, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. -- http://www.cci.edu-- is a for- profit, post-secondary education companies in the U.S. and Canada, with more than 64,500 students enrolled as of June 30, 2006. It offers a variety of diploma programs and associate's, bachelor's and master's degrees through five operating divisions in the U.S. and Canada. CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Faces FLSA Violations Lawsuit in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Corinthian Colleges, Inc. faces a purported class action in California that generally alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On Nov. 14, 2007, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned, "Hardwick, et al. v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc." The plaintiff is a former instructor at the Company's Merrionette Park, Illinois campus. Her complaint seeks certification of a class composed of all campus instructors nationwide, alleging wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as a class of Illinois instructors alleging violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act and Illinois' Eight-Hour Work Day Act. The complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, according to company's Feb. 1, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Paula Hardwick v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-07222-DDP-E," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Terrence Buehler, Esq. Touhy Touhy Buehler Williams 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-372-2209 e-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com - and - Peter M. Callahan, Esq. Callahan McCune & Willis 111 Fashion Ln Tustin, CA 92780-3397 Phone: 714-730-5700 Representing the defendants are: Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Payne & Fears 4 Park Plz, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: 949-851-1100 e-mail: jkb@paynefears.com - and - Mark Easton Earnest, Esq. Payne & Fears LLP 4 Park Plaza Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92675 Phone: 949-851-1100 e-mail: mee@paynefears.com DOWNEAST CONCEPTS: Recalls Rakes for Lead Paint Standard Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Downeast Concepts Inc., of Yarmouth, Maine, in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 400 toy gardening hand rakes. The company said the paint on the gardening tool hand rake contains excessive levels of lead, violating the federal standard on lead in paint on toys. No injuries have been reported. The recalled toy gardening tool hand rake has a wooden handle and a metal yellow bottom. "Backyard and beyond Garden Tools" is printed on the toy's tag which hangs from the toy's handle. These recalled toy rakes were made in China and were being sold at various home improvement and toy stores nationwide from June 2007 through November 2007 for about $2.50. Picture of the recalled toy gardening rakes are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08183.jpg Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy gardening rake away from children and return it to the store where purchased for a replacement toy hand rake. For additional information, contact: Downeast Concepts Toll-free at (800) 343-2424 (8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday) Web site: http://www.backyard-beyond.com e-mail: productsafety@downeastconcepts.com DRUG COS: Suit Filed in W. Va. Court vs. Vytorin, Zetia Makers -------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Dietzler, Esq., filed a class action lawsuit in Mason County, West Virginia on behalf of anyone in the state who has used the cholesterol drug Vytorin, WSAZ NewsChannel 3 reports. According to the report, Mr. Dietzler says the drug that claimed to help lower cholesterol was actually a sham. He says his clients were misled into believing the drug was their only option, when in fact, he says, the drug did the same thing as other similar drugs that were significantly cheaper. "This is one of those situations where the patient, whether me or the other people on the medications trust the physicians. The physicians trust the FDA, the FDA trusts the drug manufacturers and if somewhere along the chain of events someone lies, then that impacts everyone down the line innocently, and can do a lot of damage," WSAZ NewsChannel 3 cites Mr. Deitzler as saying. Similar lawsuits have been filed in federal courts across the country, including in California, Florida, New York and Ohio. Schering-Plough Corporation manufactures, markets, and sells the prescription drug Zetia. Zetia is a cholesterol-lowering drug, which acts by diminishing the absorption of cholesterol through the intestines. Merck Corporation, Inc., manufactures, markets and sells the prescription drug Vytorin which is Merck's brand-name composite drug consisting of a proprietary combination of Zetia and Zocor. The drug Zocor is a statin, which reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol in the blood. DUKE ENERGY: Ohio Judges Recuse Themselves from Antitrust Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Several judges of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio have recused themselves from an antitrust class action against Duke Energy International, Inc., Dan Horn of The Cincinnati Enquirer reports. Chief Judge Sandra Beckwith says a problem arises when judges from her jurisdiction are involved. According to her, every federal judge in town is a Duke customer, which makes them all potential parties to the class action. The suit, which was filed on Jan. 16, 2008, under the caption, "Williams et al v. Duke Energy International, Inc." Listed as plaintiffs in the matter are: -- Anthony Williams; -- BGR, Inc.; -- Munafo, Inc., and -- Aikido of Cincinnati. The plaintiffs are accusing the company, which has 680,000 electric customers in southern Ohio, of paying kickbacks to its biggest corporate customers in exchange for their support of a rate increase, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer report. In general, the lawsuit claims Duke signed "side deals" with big commercial and industrial customers in 2004 to secure their support for a proposed rate increase, which was later approved by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. The suit is seeking damages on behalf of residential customers, a group that also would include the judges. Judge Beckwith admits that just like her fellow judges in the area, she herself is a Duke customer, and as such she pointed out that a conflict of interest could arise. She adds, "No one around here could ethically handle the case." Since its filing, four judges have bowed out of the case. The first to recuse was Judge Herman Weber, who was then followed by Judges Michael Barrett, and Susan Dlott, and, finally, Judge Beckwith. Additionally, Judge Beckwith noted that Judge Dlott is married to Stan Chesley, one of the lawyers who filed the lawsuit against Duke. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that Judge Beckwith recently sent the case to Columbus, hoping to find a judge there who doesn’t buy gas, and electric service from Duke. She pointed out that the company does not serve Columbus. However, if else fails, Judge Beckwith told The Cincinnati Enquirer that she may have to assign the case to a visiting judge from out of state. The suit is "Williams et al v. Duke Energy International, Inc., Case No. 1:2008cv00046," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Stanley Morris Chesley, Esq. Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 e-mail: stanchesley@wsbclaw.cc Paul M. De Marco, Esq. Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley Co LPA 1513 Fourth & Vine Tower, One West Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-621-0267 e-mail: pauldemarco@wsbclaw.com - and - Randolph Harry Freking, Esq. Freking & Betz 525 Vine Street, Sixth Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Phone: 513-721-1975 Fax: 513-651-2570 e-mail: randy@frekingandbetz.com FIRESIDE BANK: Faces Calif. Suits Over Post-Repossession Notices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fireside Bank, an operating segment of Unitrin, Inc., faces two class actions filed with California state courts, which allege that its post-repossession notices to defaulting borrowers failed to comply with certain aspects of California law. The plaintiffs seek: -- compensatory damages, including a refund of deficiency balances collected from customers who received the allegedly defective notices; -- punitive damages; and -- equitable relief. A statewide class has been certified in one of these matters. Fireside Bank has successfully moved to have these two cases treated on a coordinated basis going forward, according to Unitrin's Feb. 4, 2008 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance services. The Company conducts its operations through six operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business Insurance. HAWAII & ALASKA: Judge Dismisses Federal Workers' Pension Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit commenced by federal workers in Hawaii and Alaska seeking to increase their pension benefits has been dismissed by visiting federal judge, Judge Philip Pro of Nevada, who ruled that the issue should be resolved by Congress, Jime Dooley writes for the Honolulu Advertiser. According to the Woodley & McGillivary Web site, the lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court in Hawaii on June 22, 2005, by federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska against the Federal Government, challenges "locality pay" policies that unfairly and irrationally discriminate against federal employees who work and reside in the two states. The lawsuit seeks locality pay for federal employees who work in those jurisdictions. The Advertiser explains that the 40,000 federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska receive cost-of-living allowances that represent up to 25% of their base pay. About 16,630 federal workers and 2,900 U.S. Postal Service employees get the allowances in Hawaii. However, the report notes, the so-called COLA payments, while free from federal income taxes, are not taken into account when calculating the workers' pensions, and that according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Hawaii in 2005, this results in substantially lower pension benefits for retirees in the two states than what is collected by their Mainland counterparts. The Advertiser says that the lawsuit challenged this system, which was created by Congress in the 1990s, and which excluded federal employees in Hawaii and Alaska from participating in "locality pay" salary hikes that are tied to prevailing wages in the private sectors where they work. Unlike COLA, the report points out, locality pay increases are subject to income taxes but are also used to compute higher pension benefits given to federal retirees. The W&M Web site wrote that the lawsuit is based, in part, on the fact that locality pay and COLA serve different purposes. It said that if the plaintiffs are successful with the lawsuit, federal employees in Alaska and Hawaii will be entitled to locality pay regardless of the fact that they receive COLA. Judge Pro ruled that he did not understand why Congress decided in 1990 to exclude Hawaii and Alaska from the locality pay system, The Advertiser relates. In his decision, Judge Pro wrote that "The court is puzzled by the legislative anomaly that here operates to the life-long disadvantage of federal employees in the excluded states." "That Congress may have discharged its legislative responsibilities imperfectly does not give this court fiat to rewrite the legislation to rectify the current disparity," Judge Pro ruled. The judge said that the case suggests that Congress instead correct the incongruity made, the report notes. The Advertiser explains that Judge Pro was brought in to hear the case after Hawaii federal judges disqualified themselves because they receive a COLA. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management has proposed an overhaul of the system to eliminate COLA payments for Hawaii and Alaska federal workers and instead have them receive locality pay, the report states. The proposal would gradually phase out COLA benefits and phase in locality pay over a seven-year period. This proposal, according to The Advertiser, is now being studied by a congressional workforce subcommittee chaired by Hawaii Senator Daniel K. Akaka. Woodley & McGillivary, The Advertiser notes, said it was "disappointed" by Judge Pro's ruling and that it might appeal the decision to the Ninth Circuit. The plaintiffs are represented by: Greg McGillivary, Esq. Woodley & McGillivary 1125 15th St. NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 833-8855 e-mail: info@wmlaborlaw.com - and - Margery Bronster, Esq. Bronster Hoshibata Suite 2300, Pauahi Tower 1003 Bishop Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: (808) 524-5644 Fax: (808) 599-1881 Web sites: http://www.hawaiitrialattorneys.com http://www.bhhawaii.net KYPHON INC: Faces Gender Discrimination Litigation in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyphon, Inc., faces a purported gender discrimination class action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In June 27, 2006, six of the company's current and former female U.S.-based sales employees filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against Kyphon. The suit, entitled, "Dodd-Owens et al v. Kyphon, Inc., Case No. 5:2006cv03988," is asking for injunctive relief and damages in excess of $100 million. It also seeks conversion into a class action, according to the company's Dec. 20, 2007 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006. Kyphon Inc. -- http://www.kyphon.com-- is a global medical device company specializing in the design, manufacture and marketing of medical devices to treat and restore spinal anatomy using minimally invasive technology. MARYLAND: Judge Orders Board to Review In-State Tuition Denial -------------------------------------------------------------- Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge M. Brooke Murdock ordered the Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland to review its denial of in-state tuition to certain students, the Associated Press reports. According to AP, Judge Murdock's ruling follows six years of litigation wherein the plaintiffs had been seeking an across- the-board refund of tuition paid in excess of the in-state rate. Caryn Tamber of the MD Daily Record writes that the ruling may mean some of the state university's students and alumni who were denied in-state tuition could be reimbursed for the difference between the in-state rate and the price they paid. AP says that attorneys for the state had argued for reviewing the questionable tuition payments individually. Case Background The Daily Record recounts that the lawsuit was initiated by Karyn Bergmann, a University of Maryland School of Law student, who argued that she was unfairly charged the out-of-state rate. Ms. Bergmann enrolled in the law school while she lived in Virginia, but ultimately, she moved to Maryland and petitioned the university to reclassify her as an in-state student -- a designation that comes with a significant tuition break. The Daily Record explains that, at the time, among the factors that went into the university's decision on a student's in-state status was whether the student was financially independent. To be considered financially independent, a student should demonstrate that he earned enough money annually to cover half of his school expenses. The Daily Record adds that Ms. Bergmann, a full-time student, could not meet the requirement and was denied in-state tuition, even though other factors indicated that she was a Maryland resident and was not in the state only for the purpose of getting an education. In 2002, the Daily Record relates, Ms. Bergmann sued the university and other plaintiffs joined her the following year. The plaintiffs then filed for class-action status. In a 2006 decision, according to the Daily Record, the Court of Special Appeals held that the university's policy was unconstitutional. The appellate court sent the case back to Judge Murdock with instructions to consider certifying the plaintiffs as a class and ordered that the Board of Regents establish criteria for rebutting a presumption of financial dependence. The board revised its policy. Subsequently, the Daily Record says, Judge Murdock in 2007 certified a class consisting of students at any state school who appealed their denials of in-state residency status because of the financial dependence presumption. The plaintiffs' lawyer, Anthony M. Conti, said that the class could consist of 250 to 1,000 students and alumni, and get in- state tuition. Mr. Conti also argued that all class members should get an automatic tuition refund, the Daily Record says. However, Judge Murdock disagreed and, on Jan. 31, 2008, ordered that each class member should have his or her petition for in- state status reviewed, the report says. If the student is reclassified, he or she will get a refund for the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for the semester they petitioned for in-state status and all subsequent semesters, Judge Murdock said. The Daily Record says Judge Murdock also found or ruled that: 1. although the Court of Special Appeals ordered the Board of Regents to consider school-related activities as community activities for the purpose of rebutting the financial dependent presumption, the board's policy continues to state that such activities do not count. 2. the board should adopt an explicit policy counting students' tuition toward expenses only in the amount the tuition exceeds the students financial aid. Until those two changes are implemented, Judge Murdock wrote, no state university may deny anyone in-state tuition. The Daily Record notes JoAnn Goedert, chief counsel for the educational affairs division of the Office of the Attorney General, as saying that the changes Judge Murdock directed are minor and will be presented to the board for its approval at its next meeting Feb. 15. She assured that the policy changes should be complete before the schools have to make their next round of in-state decisions. Ms. Goedert, the Daily Record relates, suggested that the sit down with the plaintiffs and begin to work on the logistics of reviewing class members' petitions. The plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony M. Conti, Esq. Conti Fenn & Lawrence LLC 36 South Charles Street, Suite 2501 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Phone: (410) 837-6999 Fax: (410) 510-1647 e-mail: tony@lawcfl.com The defendant is represented by: JoAnn G. Goedert, Esq. Chief Counsel Office of the Attorney General Educational Affairs Division Higher Education 200 St Paul Place Baltimore, MD 21202-2021 Phone: (410) 576-6454 e-mail: jgoedert@oag.state.md.us OSB ANTITRUST LITIGATION: Ainsworth Reaches $1.3M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Ainsworth Lumber Co. has entered into an agreement with the indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the OSB Antitrust Litigation, settling on a class-wide basis all claims asserted against it. Under the agreement, Ainsworth will pay US$1.3 Million to be distributed across the settlement class. The agreement is subject to court approval. Ainsworth continues to deny each and every one of the plaintiffs' claims and strongly asserts that it has not violated U.S. antitrust or any other laws. The decision to enter into the settlement agreement was based solely on the need to avoid prolonged, expensive litigation. Headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd. (TSE:ANS) -- http://www.ainsworth.ca/-- manufactures structural-engineered wood products, including oriented strand board, and specialty overlaid plywood. The company owns and operates six OSB manufacturing facilities, three in Canada and three in northern Minnesota. It has a 50% ownership interest in an OSB facility, located in High Level, Alberta. Ainsworth is also a manufacturer of specialty overlaid concrete-form plywood products in North America. Ainsworth's business is focused on the structural wood panels sector. It offers value-added products, such as OSB webstock, rimboard, radiant barrier OSB panels, jumbo OSB panels, export-standard OSB and specialty overlaid plywood. PARKER ITR: Faces Fla. Antitrust Suits Over Marine Oil, Gas Hose ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parker ITR, a subsidiary of Parker-Hannifin Corp., is seeking to dismiss several purported antitrust class actions in Florida with regards to its marine oil and gas hose business, according to Parker-Hannifin's Feb. 4, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 31, 2007. There are currently four class actions pending with the Southern District of Florida and one with the Southern District of New York alleging that Parker ITR and a number of other defendants engaged in violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The class action complaints allege that Parker ITR and the other defendants, for a period of at least eight years, conspired with competitors in unreasonable restraint of trade to artificially raise, fix, maintain or stabilize prices, rig bids and allocate markets and customers for marine oil and gas hose in the U.S. The Company, which is only named in one case in the Southern District of Florida, was served on July 13, 2007 and had filed its answer denying the allegations. Parker ITR has filed a motion to dismiss in each of the four cases in which it is a defendant. No decisions on such motions have been issued. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the case filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. As such, all pending lawsuits are now with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Parker-Hannifin Corp. -- http://www.parker.com-- is a worldwide full-line diversified manufacturer of motion control products, including fluid power systems, electromechanical controls and related components. REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces La. Litigation Over Speed Camera Program --------------------------------------------------------------- REDFLEX Traffic Systems, Inc., The Parish of Jefferson, The Jefferson Parish Council, are facing a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana over the Parish's speed camera program that used hidden speed limit signs to trap motorists, TheNewspaper.com reports. The suit was filed by Barry Sevin, Jr., and Edwin T. Bernard on Jan. 31, 2008. It is alleges that the program violates both procedural due process protected under the Fourteenth Amendment and a Louisiana state law that bans the mailing of traffic citations. Additionally, the suit argues that the 60,000 motorists who have been ticketed thus far deserve a full refund, TheNewspaper.com reports. The suit is "Sevin et al v. Parish of Jefferson et al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00802-SSV-SS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Sarah S. Vance, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joseph R. McMahon, III, Esq. Joseph R. McMahon, III, Attorney at Law 110 Ridgelake Dr. Metairie, LA 70001 Phone: 504-828-6225 e-mail: jrm@webdsi.com RIDLEY INC: Reaches CDN$6-Million Settlement for BSE Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Ridley Inc. has reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the BSE class action lawsuits filed against Ridley and the Government of Canada in four provinces of Canada. Under the settlement agreement, Ridley will pay CDN$6 million into a plaintiffs' settlement trust fund and will effectively cap its exposure to the claims made by the plaintiffs to the CDN$6 million. However, Ridley will remain a participant in the ongoing litigation as plaintiffs continue their claim against the Government of Canada. In April 2005, Ridley, along with its majority shareholder, Ridley Corporation Limited of Sydney Australia, and the Government of Canada were named defendants in proposed class actions filed in four Canadian provinces. These lawsuits sought damages, including punitive damages, for losses allegedly incurred by Canadian cattle producers as a result of international bans on the importation of Canadian beef and cattle. These bans followed the May 20, 2004 announcement of a bovine spongiform encephalopathy diagnosis in an Alberta cow. None of the plaintiffs in any of the cases alleged any direct connection between them and Ridley. Representative plaintiffs seek to certify class actions in Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec to include all Canadian cattle farmers who allegedly suffered damage as a result of international bans. In October 2005, Ridley disclosed that it had filed and argued preliminary motions seeking early dismissal of the BSE lawsuit filed in the Ontario Superior Court for failure to state actionable claims under Canadian law. Ridley had asserted strong legal arguments supporting its request that the Court strike the claims in advance of class certification hearings or commencement of discovery. In 2006, Ridley reported that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice denied its motion for early dismissal of the proposed class action (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9, 2006). In its June 21, 2007 decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the January 2006 decision of the Ontario Superior Court. In 2007, Ridley filed an application with the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal denying Ridley's motion to strike claims of economic losses by cattle producers affected by an international meat ban in 2004 (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 7, 2007). Ridley requested leave to appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision because it believes the decision conflicts with Supreme Court of Canada case law and other court decisions, and because the proposed appeal raises issues of national importance. "In entering into this agreement, Ridley makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing in the matter and we will continue to contest any allegation we were responsible for the plaintiffs' damages," said Steve VanRoekel, President and CEO of Ridley Inc. "Resolving these lawsuits now minimizes the costs associated with defending an already lengthy litigation, eliminates the uncertainty, and allows us to move our business forward," added Mr. VanRoekel. Counsel for the plaintiffs will apply to the Canadian courts for approval of the settlement agreement and Ridley will consent to certification of the class actions. The settlement class will then be notified of their right to opt out of the settlement. The settlement agreement will be finalized and Ridley will pay the settlement funds provided the number of class member opt- outs is below an agreed threshold. Ridley will continue to incur legal expenses as a result of the settlement approval process and its continuing involvement in the actions. Ridley will continue to fund these expenses out of earnings. "At all times Ridley fully complied with applicable laws and regulations and good sense in the manufacturing and labelling of our products," VanRoekel continued. "Nonetheless, we are pleased to resolve this so that we can focus on continuing to manufacture high-quality animal nutrition products and grow our business." Ridley Inc. -- http://www.ridleyinc.com/-- headquartered in Mankato, Minnesota and Winnipeg, Manitoba, is one of North America's leading commercial animal nutrition companies. Ridley manufactures and/or distributes a full range of animal nutrition products under a number of highly regarded trade names. SILVER STATE: Goes Bankrupt; Students Plan to Sue for Refund ------------------------------------------------------------ Silver State Helicopters, a private helicopter school chain based in Las Vegas, Nevada, filed a petition with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for relief under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code. According to a company press release, Silver State closed all operations on Feb. 3, 2008, at 5:33 p.m. PST. This action followed a rapid, unprecedented downturn in the U.S. credit markets, which severely curtailed the availability of student loans for the company's flight academy students and resulted in a sharp and sudden downturn in new student enrollment. "The decision to shut down operations was made only after the company explored its other available alternatives," said Elizabeth Trosper, company spokesperson. "Information for former employees and students will be disseminated as it becomes available." ABC 4 News writes that thousands of Silver State students nationwide worry that they will never get their money back. Silver State students, King5 News explains, were required to pay their $70,000 tuition up front for helicopter training that would certify them as flight instructors and commercial pilots. Most of these students took out loans to pay for the school. Several students and employees told ABC 4 that Silver State management had informed them the company was negotiating with new financial backers and that classes would be canceled for a week or two. However, ABC 4 relates, the school shut down its propellers for good, leaving the certification and financial fate of thousands of students and employees up in the air. Student Garett Oberg and his lawyer, Dan Reed, Esq., are filing a class action lawsuit, ABC 4 says. According to ABC 4, Mr. Oberg, who took out $70,000 in school loans and paid it to Silver State for an 18-month training, said that the company "closed all the doors and took all the students' money and just basically left them out in the cold. They've got all our money and no training." Silver State also fired all of its employees on Sunday, ABC 4 notes. A Silver State spokesman told ABC 4 that information regarding how and when students can file a claim against the company is now listed on its Web site at http://www.ssheli.com/ ABC 4 also wrote that Silver State Helicopters students who would like to speak to Mr. Reed regarding the class lawsuit may call at: 801-495-9711. TITLE INSURERS: Faces N.Y. Lawsuit Over Alleged Price Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ The nation's four largest title companies are facing a class- action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York that alleges them of fixing prices for title insurance, costing homebuyers millions of dollars a year, CourtHouse News Service reports. The case challenges the illegal price-fixing agreement by defendants of the rates that consumers pay for title insurance in New York. Under the New York State Insurance Law, title insurance rates may be collectively set through a rate setting organization comprised of the state's title insurers. Pursuant to this law, defendants formed Title Insurance Rate Service Association, Inc. (TIRSA) in 1991. TIRSA collects from defendants and TIRSA's other members revenue and cost information and annually submiuts it in aggregate form along with collectively set title insurance rates to the New York Insurance Department. Under this rate setting regime, defendants have charged identical and collectively fixed rates to consumers since TIRSA's inception. The defendants named in the suit are: -- Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, -- First American Title Insurance Company of New York, -- LandAmerica Financial Group, and -- Stewart Title Insurance Company These title companies and their affiliates are accused of fixing rates in New York through the TIRSA, which they formed with other, smaller conspirators in 1991, the complaint states. According to CourtHouse News, the complaint asserts that: -- The "Fidelity family" of title insurers controls 31% of the New York market ($361 million) and 27% of the national market ($4.6 billion). It include defendants Fidelity Title, Chicago Title, Ticor Title Insurance and their affiliates. -- The "First American family" controls 25% of the New York Market ($290 million) and 29% of the national market ($4.8 billion). It includes defendants First American Title and United General Title. -- The "LandAmerica family" controls 22% of the New York market ($258 million) and 19% of the national market ($3.15 billion). It includes defendants Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. and Lawyers Title Insurance Corp. and affiliates. -- The "Stewart family" controls 14% of the New York market ($168 million) and 12% of the national market ($2 billion). It includes defendants Stewart Title and Monroe Title and their affiliates. The plaintiffs bring the suit as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1 on behalf of all consumers who purchased title insurance in New York from defendants or TIRSA's other members during the fullest period permitted by the applicable statute of limitations. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants have engaged in the alleged illegal price-fixing activity; (b) the duration and scope of defendants' alleged illegal price-fixing activity; (c) whether defendants' alleged illegal price-fixing has caused higher prices to plaintiffs and other purchasers of title insurance in New York; and (d) whether the Insurance Department has actively supervised defendants' collective rate-setting activity. The plaintiffs also request the following relief: -- that the court declare, adjudge, and decree that defendants have committed the violations of federal law alleged; -- that defendants, their directors, officers, employees, agents, successors, and assigns be permanently enjoined and restrained from, in any manner, directly or indirectly, unlawfully fixing or maintaining their title insurance rates at supracompetitive levels, and committing any other violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act or of other statutes having a similar purpose and effect; -- that there be an award for damages sustained by class members from defendants' violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act in an amount to be proven at trial, to be trebled according to law, plus interest (including prejudgment interest), to compensate them for the overcharges they incurred; and -- that the court award the class attorney's fees and costs of suit, and such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Brendan Dolan et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company et al., Case No. CV 08 466," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gordon Schnell, Esq. Jean Kim, Esq. Gerard J. Britton, Esq. 450 Lexington Avenue, 17th Floor New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 350-2700 Fax: (212) 350-2701 UBS SECURITIES: Faces N.Y. Suit Over $1.6 BB Genesco Acquisition ---------------------------------------------------------------- UBS Securities LLc and UBS Loan Finance LLC are facing a class- action complaint filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County accusing it of interfering with Finish Line's $1.6 billion acquisition of Genesco, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint states that on June 17, 2007, Finish Line -- an athletic apparel and footwear retailer -- entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to acquire retail competitor Genesco for consideration of $54.50 per share in cash for all of the outstanding common stock of Genesco held by plaintiffs. According to CourtHouse News, UBS Securities tortiously interfered with Finish Line's $1.6 billion acquisition of Genesco, costing Genesco shareholders their promised $54.50 per share, because the mortgage-inspired credit crisis would have caused UBS to lose money on the deal. UBS also is accused of securities fraud: making false claims about Genesco and undermining the merger, the report said. Named plaintiff Howard Lasker brings this action as a class action pursuant to CPLR 901, on behalf of all Genesco common shareholders who were damaged by defendants' improper conduct. Mr. Lasker wants the court to rule on: (a) whether UBS was aware of Finish Line's obligation to pay Genesco shareholders $54.50 per share subsequent to Genesco's completion of closing conditions under the Merger Agreement; (b) whether UBS intended to cause a breach of Finish Line's obligation to timely pay Genesco shareholders $54.50 per share upon completion of the Merger; (c) whether increased costs to UBS due to tightening in the credit markets motivated UBS to interfere with Genesco shareholders' right to timely receive $54.50 in cash in exchange for their Genesco common shares; (d) whether UBS caused members of the class damages by wrongfully or improperly refusing to provide financing and prohibiting or delaying Genesco common shares; (e) whether UBS caused members of the class damages by its unsupported public accusations of fraud and other tortious conduct; and (f) the proper measure of damages suffered by members of the class caused by UBS' alleged tortious interference. Mr. Lasker requests: -- that this action be certified as a class action; -- that named plaintiff be certified as class representative and his counsel as class counsel; -- that judgment be entered against defendants, jointly and severally, and in favor of the plaintiff and the other members of the class, for defendants' violations of law; -- that plaintiff and the other members of the class be awarded compensatory damages, togehter with interest, cause to them by the defendants' violations of law; -- that plaintiff be awrded attorneys fees, expert fees and reasonable expenses; and -- for such other relief on behalf of the plaintiff and the class the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Howard Lasker et al. v. UBS Securities LLC et al.," filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Levin, Esq. Stull, Stull & Bordy 6 East 45th Street New York, New York 10017 Phone: (212) 687-7230 - and - David C. Katz, Esq. Weiss & Lurie The Fred French Building 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NEw York 10176 Phone: (212) 682-3025 UNION COUNTY: Settles Turner Lawsuit by Promising Jail Changes -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class action lawsuit filed against Union County by John Eldridge, Esq., Thomas Eickenberry, Esq., and Steve Sams, Esq., on behalf of inmate Kevin Turner prompted a settlement deal that promises an expansion of the Union County Jail, Knoxville News Sentinel reports. Jamie Satterfield of KnoxNews writes that under the settlement -- reached by Mr. Turney's attorneys and John Duffy, Esq., who represents Union County -– taxpayers will fork out legal fess of just more than $11,000 and a token $500 payment to Mr. Turner to put an end to the lawsuit. The settlement means, KnowNews relates, that the county will no longer be subject to further supervision by U.S. District Court Judge Tom Varlan or to the possibility of paying substantial damages and fines for future violations. The report, citing Union County Mayor Larry Lay, notes that the county will use a bond issue of roughly $1.1 million to fund the jail renovations promised by the settlement, as well as an unrelated school construction project. The renovations call for double bed space, an additional cell block dedicated solely to women, a cleaner environment for inmates, and a safer place for jailers to work, the report says. "The entire inmate-housing area of the facility will be pressure washed, sanitized and re-painted," the settlement stated, according to KnoxNews. "The kitchen counter tops and any rotting cabinetry around and underneath the kitchen sink will be replaced." Union County officials, according to the report, will transfer all current inmates to the newly constructed jail addition to allow the old facility to be cleaned. KnoxNews points out that the Union County Jail not only lacked space to house inmates, but it "was so nasty and unsafe that a state agency that inspects local detention facilities had refused to certify it as up to snuff." The existing jail was a fire hazard, with no sprinkler system, no mandatory exit lights, and a corridor wall that lacked "fire rating approved by the Tennessee Fire Marshall," the report adds. Moreover, the settlement agreement provides that inmates will receive "a uniform, mattress, blanket, sheet and daily access to a towel," and if an inmate is poor, he or she also will get soap, shampoo, toothbrush and toothpaste on the county dime, the report notes. "Sanitary supplies for women will be provided, as needed, without cost to the inmate," the settlement agreement promised. According to the report, the settlement further states that for one hour each day, inmates in each cell block will be allowed "use of cleaning supplies" to clean up their living quarters. The inmates, however, must not "misuse such cleaning supplies," the document says. Jailers, KnoxNews relates, are also getting a bit of relief under the settlement agreement, because until now, inmates were not classified based on dangerousness, nor were there enough jailers to keep the facility safe. Union County now promises to hire enough jailers to make sure that there are at least two manning the jail at all times and three on duty during the jail's busiest times. UNITRIN INC: Faces Hurricane-Related Litigation in La. & Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------- Unitrin, Inc. faces putative class actions in Louisiana and Texas, arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. During the course of 2007, Unitrin and certain of its subsidiaries, like many property and casualty insurers, were forced to defend a growing number of individual lawsuits, mass actions, and statewide putative class actions in Louisiana and Texas arising out of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In these matters, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief, according to Unitrin's Feb. 4, 2008 form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Unitrin, Inc. -- http://www.unitrin.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing property and casualty insurance, life and health insurance, and consumer finance services. The Company conducts its operations through six operating segments: Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct, Unitrin Business Insurance, Life and Health Insurance and Consumer Finance. Unitrin's property and casualty insurance business operations are conducted through Kemper Auto and Home, Unitrin Specialty, Unitrin Direct and Unitrin Business Insurance. VERITAS SOFTWARE: Reaches Tentative Agreement in Del. Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- VERITAS Software Corp., which was acquired by Symantec Corp., reached a tentative settlement in the consolidated securities fraud class action filed against it with a Delaware federal court. On July 7, 2004, a purported class action complaint, "Paul Kuck, et al. v. Veritas Software Corp., et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with company's announcement on July 6, 2004, that it expected results of operations for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, to fall below earlier estimates. It generally seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Subsequently, additional purported class action complaints have been filed in Delaware federal court, and, on March 3, 2005, the court entered an order consolidating these actions and appointing lead plaintiffs and counsel. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 27, 2005, expanding the class period from April 23, 2004, through July 6, 2004. The consolidated amended complaint also named another officer as a defendant and added allegations that the company and the named officers made false or misleading statements in the company's press releases and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings regarding the company's financial results, which allegedly contained revenue recognized from contracts that were unsigned or lacked essential terms. The defendants to this matter filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in July 2005; the motion was denied in May 2006. In November 2007, a tentative agreement was proposed to resolve the matter, subject to several conditions, according to Symantec Corp.'s Feb. 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended Dec. 28, 2007. The suit is “Kuck v. Veritas Software, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 00831-SLR,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Carmella P. Keener, Esq. Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess Citizens Bank Center, Suite 1401, P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Phone: (302) 656-4433 e-mail: CKeener@rmgglaw.com Representing the defendants are: Erica Niezgoda Finnegan, Esq. Cross & Simon, LLC 913 North Market Street, 11th Floor, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 777-4200 and (302) 777-4224 e-mail: efinnegan@crosslaw.com - and - Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esq. Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 Phone: (302) 984-6037 Fax: (302) 658-1192 e-mail: pwalsh@potteranderson.com VIRGINIA: Four Local Restaurants Sued to Become "Smoke-Free" ------------------------------------------------------------ Four local restaurants in Virginia are facing a purported federal class action that seeks to force them to become smoke- free, Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs.Com reports. The suit was filed on Nov. 20, 2007, with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by James Bogden, a public health educator and anti-smoking activist, who filed his claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act. The restaurants named in the lawsuit, which is seeking class- action status, are: -- Clyde's at Mark Center, Inc.; -- C & S Restaurant Group, Inc.; -- Harry's Clarendon, L.L.C.; and -- Mike's American Grill, L.L.C. Mr. Bogden seeks to require the restaurants to become smoke- free, arguing that they must accommodate Bogden's disability, coronary artery disease, and eliminate secondhand smoke so he can eat at them. Each of the restaurants allows smoking in designated areas, ConsumerAffairs.Com reports. In his suit, Mr. Bogden pointed out that he does not seek monetary damages beyond his court costs. His claim was filed under ADA, because according to him, a restaurant should not discriminate against a person with a disability. The suit is "Bogden v. Clyde's at Mark Center, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01178-LO-TRJ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Judge Liam O'Grady presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: John Paul Szymkowicz, Esq. Szymkowicz & Szymkowicz LLP 1220 19th St NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 862-8500 e-mail: jp@szymkowicz.com Representing the defendants are: Attison Leonard Barnes, III, Esq. Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K St, NW Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 719-7000 Fax: 202-719-7049 e-mail: abarnes@wileyrein.com Edward Lee Isler, Esq. Isler Dare Ray & Radcliffe PC 1919 Gallows Rd., Suite 320, Tysons Corner Vienna, VA 22182 Phone: (703) 748-2690 Fax: (703) 748-2695 e-mail: eisler@islerdare.com - and - Bryan Kendall Short, Esq. Law Offices of Andrew J. Kline 1225 19th St, NW Suite 320 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-686-7600 Fax: 202-293-3130 e-mail: bshort@klinelawdc.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Residents Receive Windfall from $3M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 700 residents in the Old Forge, Taylor, and Ransom Townships have received at least $1,300 as part of a $3 million settlement of a class action over noise, dust and odor pollution at the Alliance Sanitary Landfill, which is owned by Waste Management, Inc., Erin L. Nissley of The Scranton Times-Tribune reports. The suit was filed by William and Cynthia Toman, of Old Forge, and Joseph and Maureen Labrosky, of Taylor, in 2003, accusing the owner of the landfill of causing willful public and private nuisances. It also claims the operation of the landfill has decreased surrounding property values (Class Action Reporter, July 12, 2007). The plaintiffs are asking the judge to award them up to $25,000 each, while plaintiffs' lawyers are asking the judge for up to $100,000 for costs, and fees. In the middle of 2007, parties involved in the litigation reached a proposed $3 million settlement. The settlement will compensate anyone who lived in or owned a home within three- quarters of a mile of the landfill between Jan. 1, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2003. The Scranton Times-Tribune reports that on December 2007, Lackawanna County Common Pleas Judge Robert Mazzoni approved that settlement, after several hearings where residents who lived within three-quarters of a mile of the landfill between Jan. 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2003, were allowed to voice objections to the proposal. All together, 1,225 people were eligible for the settlement, and about 766 people opted in, according to court records obtained by The Scranton Times-Tribune. Since, the Tomans and the Labroskys filed the suit, they received $15,000 each, while their attorneys, including George A. Reihner, Esq., received $1 million plus $96,552.63 for expenses. Everyone else who opted in received payments between $1,300 and $2,730. The payments were recently mailed to recipients, according to Mr. Reihner. For more details, contact: George A. Reihner, Esq. Wright & Reihner, P.C. 148 Adams Avenue Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503 Phone: 570-961-1166 Fax: 570-961-1199 Web site: http://www.wrightreihner.com WEIS MARKETS: Recalls Fruit Miniatures Due to Undeclared Walnuts ---------------------------------------------------------------- Weis Markets has initiated the voluntary recall of its Weis Baker's 18-count Fruit Miniatures and two pound platters of Mini-Fruit Diamonds in four varieties – Nut Diamond, Cheese Raspberry, Apricot and Mixed assortment. These products are being recalled because they may contain walnuts which are not identified on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. These products, which were sold in Weis Markets' Bakeries, have been removed from store shelves and destroyed. The 18-count Fruit miniatures come in clear plastic containers and the two pound Mini Fruit Diamonds are packaged in a platter with a clear top. The UPC and code dates are listed below. This problem came to the company's attention after a customer complaint. Concerned customers may return this product to Weis Markets for a full refund. Customers with concerns or questions about this recall may contact Weis Markets' customer hotline at 866-999-9347, Extension 3, which is open Monday through Friday, at 8:00 a.m. To 5:00 p.m. Weis Baker's 18-count and two pound platters of Fruit Miniatures – Nut Diamond, Cheese Raspberry and Apricot are sold at Weis Markets including its Mr. Z's, King's and Scot's Lo-Cost units. Weis Markets operates 156 stores in five states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey and West Virginia. The UPC Codes for the recalled product with a sell by date up to 1/5/08 are: -- UPC 210100-00000 18 Ct Fruit Miniatures -- UPC 210112-00000 2 lb Fruit Miniature Platters WESTFIELD AMERICA: Faces CA Consumer Fraud Suit Over Gift Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP has launched a class action lawsuit against Westfield America, Inc., in the Superior Court for San Diego County, California saying that the Los Angeles-based company wrongfully imposes a monthly charge against the outstanding account balance of its Westfield Gift Cards sold both online and at its Westfield shopping centers starting one year after the date of issuance. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all California residents who purchased or received a Westfield America Gift Card on or after January 11, 2004. For more information, contact: Jeffrey R. Krinsk Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP The Koll Center 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.238.1333 Fax: 619.238-5425 e-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com * Market Volatility Increases Class Lawsuits, Study Says -------------------------------------------------------- Stock market volatility increases the likelihood of class action suits against U.S. businesses and their senior executives, the Financial Times relates, citing a new study by Carpenter Moore, an insurance brokerage owned by the Nasdaq stock market. FT's Anuj Gangahar writes that in a finding that underscores the potentially litigious nature of doing business in the U.S., the study found a direct correlation between financial market volatility as measured by the CBOE's Vix index and the number of class actions filed in the U.S. over a period of 11 years from 1996 to the end of last year. The study found that financial services, technology, and life sciences faced a greater threat of legal action than other businesses, FT notes. FT cites Lauri Floresca, senior managing director and author for the report, as saying that regardless of the market cap segment, these three industry sectors pay the most for D&O insurance. "This is in line with data on securities class action filing rates, which consistently ranks those three industries as the most likely to face litigation. In 2007, the bulk of the 166 cases filed were brought against companies in those three industry sectors," the report quotes Ms. Floresca. According to the report, energy and manufacturing were at less risk. FT says that stock market volatility has been a feature of recent times, and in some cases has become an asset class in its own right, with traders taking implicit bets on volatility of the equity market as a whole, or parts of it. The trend of volatility levels being matched by the number of class actions can be seen in individual sectors, the study said, according to FT. New Securities Fraud Cases CELLCYTE GENETICS: Finkelstein Thompson Files WA Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein Thompson LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with the United State District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CellCyte Genetics Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: CCYG.OB) between April 6, 2007, and January 9, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint alleges that CellCyte misled the investing public throughout the Class Period by publishing false information about the history and experience of the company's chief executive officer Gary A. Reys. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that CellCyte misrepresented Reys' credentials on the Company's website and in SEC filings, particularly regarding Reys' educational background, his status as a certified public accountant in the state of Washington, and his prior role in the initial public offerings of var2ious pharmaceutical companies. According to the Complaint, CellCyte made false and misleading statements about Reys to the SEC and potential investors. The truth regarding Reys' credentials began to surface in early January after news media inquiries into Reys' background. Shortly after these inquiries, CellCyte removed numerous claims regarding Reys' credentials from the Company's website. As a result of Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, CellCyte's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class Period. Once the truth behind Reys was revealed, CellCyte shares plunged 55% in unusually heavy trading on Jan. 8 and 9. The stock fell as low as $2.15 on Jan. 9, 2008, down from a high of $7.02 just days before. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 14, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Finkelstein Thompson LLP The Duvall Foundry 1050 30th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 337-8000 or (877) 337-1050 (toll free) Fax: (202) 337-8090 Web site: http://www.finkelsteinthompson.com CENTERLINE HOLDING: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Centerline Holding Company during the period between March 12, 2007 through December 28, 2007. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Centerline, and certain of its officers and directors, violated the federal securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading statements about Centerline's business model and financial condition, which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's common stock. The Complaint alleges that the Company misrepresented and failed to disclose that: (i) it was in the process of disposing of its tax-exempt revenue bond portfolio, which had provided the Company with substantial revenues and enabled it to pay a sizable dividend; (ii) it was contemplating a large, related-party transaction that would require the Company to pay 11% interest per year to insiders; and (iii) defendants' positive statements about the Company's performance and prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis at all relevant times. Centerline is a publicly owned investing holding firm, and through its subsidiaries, operates as a real estate finance and investing company. On December 28, 2007, the Company issued a press release announcing that: (i) it had sold its $2.8 billion tax-exempt affordable housing bond portfolio to Freddie Mac, which will result in one-time charges of $45 million to $55 million in the fourth quarter of 2007; (ii) the Company issued 12.2 million shares of newly-issued convertible stock with an 11% dividend annual distribution rate, in exchange for a $131 million investment from an affiliate of The Related Companies L.P. (the "Related Companies"), which is owned and controlled by Stephen M. Ross, Chairman of the Board of Centerline and the founder and Chairman of the Related Companies, and Jeff T. Blau, a managing trustee of both Centerline and the Related Companies; (iii) the Company was repositioning itself as an alternative asset manager; (iv) the Company would be reducing its dividend to $0.60 per share; and (v) the Company would be reducing its 2008 earnings guidance to between $1.00 per share and $1.10 per share. Following this announcement, shares of Centerline's stock fell $2.57 per share, representing a 25% decline, to close at $7.70 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Centerline common stock during the Class Period. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 18, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Arthur J. Chen, Esq. Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, New York 10119 Phone: (212) 279-5050 ********* 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, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and Peter Chapman, 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 * * *