/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080213.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 31
Headlines
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: New Complaint Filed in Del. Buyout Lawsuit
APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
ASHLAND INC: Reaches $7.9M Settlement in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
BENJAMIN INTL: Recalls Pendants, Candles Posing Lead Exposure
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Groundwater Contamination
DEUTSCHE BANK: Cleveland Firm Slaps Lawsuit Over Foreclosure
DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of Receivers
GROUP HEALTH: Trial on Suit Over Abusive Doctor Continues
HANGZHOU ZHONGCE: Drops Dismissal Motion on Jurisdiction Issue
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Reservist's Reinstatement
IPO LITIGATION: Defendants Seek Dismissal of N.Y. IPO Litigation
KIA MOTORS: Superior Court Upholds $4.1M Fees in Sephia Suit
LUMENIS, LTD: Seeks Shareholders' OK for Securities Suit Deal
MET-RX USA: No Trial Set for Calif. Prohormone Supplements Suit
MET-RX USA: N.J. Suit Over Prohormone Supplements Remains Stayed
NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Judge to Give Final Approval for Settlement
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Consolidated Colo. Royalties Suit
POLO RALPH: Still Faces Several Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Mediation Fails to Produce Settlement for Suit
QUANTUM CORP: Wash. Court Grants Final OK to ADIC Suit Agreement
REAL ESTATE COS: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Appraisal Practices
REXALL SUNDOWN: Calif. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps File Suit in KS to Recover Commissions
STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit
STARBUCKS CORP: February 2008 Trial Slated for Tex. ERISA Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Face Suit Over Foreign Securities
TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Girls Bicycles Due To Frame Failure
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in OH Over House Foreclosures
New Securities Fraud Cases
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
ORION ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
*********
AFFILIATED COMPUTER: New Complaint Filed in Del. Buyout Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the class action captioned "In Re Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No.
2821-VCL," filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint in the matter, adding allegations of breach
of fiduciary duties.
Several lawsuits have been filed in connection with an attempted
buyout of the company by founder Darwin Deason and Cerberus
Capital Management LP. The suits generally allege claims
related to breach of fiduciary duty, and are seeking class
action status. The plaintiffs in each case purport to be ACS
stockholders bringing a class action on behalf of all of the
company's public stockholders.
Each plaintiff alleges that the proposal presented to the
company by Mr. Deason and Cerberus on March 20, 2007, to acquire
its outstanding stock is unfair to shareholders because the
consideration offered in the proposal is alleged to be
inadequate and to have resulted from an unfair process.
In the Delaware Chancery Court, six cases were filed:
-- "Momentum Partners v. Darwin Deason, Lynn R. Blodgett,
Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J. Livingston
Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Dennis McCuistion,
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus
Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2814-VCL,"
filed on March 20, 2007.
-- "Mark Levy v. Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, John
Rexford, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A. Rossi, J.
Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion, Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2816-VCL," filed on
March 21, 2007.
-- "St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
Darwin Deason, Lynn Blodgett, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank
A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., and Affiliated Computer
Services, Inc., Civil Action No. 2821-VCL," in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County, filed on March 22, 2007.
-- "Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement
System v. Darwin Deason, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank A.
Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
No. 2839-VCL," in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed on
March 26, 2007.
-- "Edward R. Koller v. Darwin Deason, Frank A. Rossi, J.
Livingston Kosberg, Robert B. Holland, Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., and Cerberus Capital
Management, L.P., Civil Action No. 2908-VCL," in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for
New Castle County, filed on April 20, 2007.
-- "Suzanne Sweeney Living Trust v. Darwin Deason, Lynn
R. Blodgett, John H. Rexford, Joseph P. O’Neill, Frank
A. Rossi, J. Livingston Kosberg, Dennis McCuistion,
Robert B. Holland, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.,
and Cerberus Capital Management, L.P., Civil Action
No. 2915-VCL," in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County, filed on
April 24, 2007.
On May 4, 2007, each of the six Delaware buy-out cases was
consolidated into one case, pending in the Delaware Chancery
Court, entitled, "In Re Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No. 2821-VCL."
Subsequently, on Oct. 30, 2007, Cerberus withdrew its offer to
acquire ACS.
On Nov. 2, 2007, a Consolidated Amended Class Action and
Derivative Complaint was filed by the plaintiffs, adding
allegations of breach of fiduciary duties related to the events
surrounding the resignation of the outside directors, according
to the company's Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. -- http://www.acs-inc.com--
provides business process outsourcing and information technology
services to commercial and government clients.
APPLERA CORP: Still Faces Antitrust Suit Over Taq DNA Polymerase
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applera Corp. and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., continue to face a
certified class action lawsuit filed by Molecular Diagnostics
Laboratories with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia over alleged anticompetitive practices.
Molecular Diagnostics filed the complaint against the defendants
on Sept. 23, 2004, which complaint was amended on July 5, 2006.
The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in
connection with the sale of Taq DNA polymerase. The
anticompetitive conduct is alleged to arise from the prosecution
and enforcement of U.S. Patent No. 4,889,818.
The patent is assigned to Hoffmann-La Roche, with whom Applera
has a commercial relationship covering, among other things, the
patent and the sale of Taq DNA polymerase.
The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, expenses,
injunctive relief, and other relief, as the court deems proper.
On July 5, 2006, the court certified the case as a class action.
The company reported no material development in the matter in
its Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Molecular Diagnostics Laboratories v. Hoffmann-La
Roche, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:04-cv-01649-HHK," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Henry H.
Kennedy presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Paul Thomas Gallagher, Esq.
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
1100 New York Avenue, NW West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005-3934
Phone: (202) 408-4600
Fax: (202) 408-4699
e-mail: pgallagher@cmht.com
- and -
Scott E. Gant, Esq.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner
5301 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 237-2727
e-mail: sgant@bsfllp.com
Representing the defendants are:
Joanne M. Guerrera, Esq.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, L.L.P.
1501 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202) 682-7153
Fax: 202-857-0939
e-mail: david.southard@weil.com
- and -
Heather Holden Brooks, Esq.
Arnold & Porter, LLP, 555 12th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-1206
Phone: (202) 942-6309
Fax: (202) 942-5999
e-mail: holden_brooks@aporter.com
ASHLAND INC: Reaches $7.9M Settlement in Ohio Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland, Inc., reached a $7.9 million settlement in the class
action titled "In Re: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA," which is pending with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, according to
the company's Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
In response to an investigation by the U.S. Department of
Justice that was closed in 2006 without criminal or civil
allegations being made by the government, several foundry owners
have filed lawsuits seeking class-action status for classes of
customers of foundry resins manufacturers such as Ashland (Class
Action Reporter, Jan. 7, 2008).
These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The suit
was filed before Judge Gregory L. Frost with referral to Mark R.
Abel.
The plaintiffs in the suit are:
-- Tri-Cast Ltd. Partnership,
-- Atchison Casting Corp.,
-- Amite Foundry & Machine Inc.,
-- Lancaster Foundry Supply Co.,
-- Port Shell Molding Co.,
-- Kore Mart, Ltd.,
-- Kulp Foundry, Inc.,
-- State Line Foundries Inc.,
-- Tri-Cast Limited Partnership, and
-- Caterpillar, Inc.
The defendants are:
-- Ashland Inc.,
-- Delta Ha Inc.,
-- Huttenes Albertus Chemische Werke Gmbh,
-- Borden Chemical Inc.,
-- Ashland Specialty Chemical Co.,
-- HA International LLC.
In May 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Ohio entered an order certifying a class for the civil
lawsuits.
In December 2007, Ashland and the class plaintiffs agreed to
settle the claims asserted in the litigation for $7.9 million.
The terms of the settlement agreement have been accepted by the
Court, and Ashland has funded the settlement.
The suit is "In Re: Foundry Resins Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 2:04-md-01638-GLF-MRA," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Stephen Eric Chappelear, Esq.
Hahn Loeser & Parks
265 E State Street, 14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-4224
Phone: 614-221-0240
Fax: 614-233-5148
e-mail: sechappelear@hahnlaw.com
Representing the defendant is:
Michael Karl Yarbrough, Esq.
Frost Brown Todd LLC
One Columbus, 10 W Broad Street, Suite 1000
Columbus, OH 43215-3467
Phone: 614-464-1211
Fax: 614-559-7245
e-mail: myarbrough@fbtlaw.com
BENJAMIN INTL: Recalls Pendants, Candles Posing Lead Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin International, of Middlebury, Conn., in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling
about 460,000 pendants and candle charms.
The company said the recalled pendants and charms contain high
levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and
can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been
reported.
The recalled pewter pendants were sold in eight collections of
12 pendants each. The pendant collections included Signs of the
Zodiac, Runes, Ritual, Goddess, Chinese Zodiac, and Celtic
Harmonies. The pendants were sold separately and on candles of
various colors and scents.
These recalled pendants and candle charms were manufactured in
Korea and were being sold at gift shops nationwide from January
2002 through November 2007 for between $6 and $8 for the
pendants and between $12 and $15 for the charms with candles.
Pictures of recalled pendants and candle charms are found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08187a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08187b.jpg
Consumers are advised to immediately stop using these
pendants/charms and contact Benjamin International to receive a
free replacement pendant/charm.
For additional information, contact Benjamin International toll-
free at (888) 249-7639 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. ET or
visit the firm's Web site: http://www.benjamininternational.com
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Groundwater Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group is facing a class-action lawsuit with
the Circuit Court for Baltimore for allegedly contaminating
water in the neighborhood.
According to the Washington Post, Gayle K. Queen and a group of
lawyers -- Murphy & Falcon, P.A. -- filed a class-action lawsuit
late last year on behalf of residents in Gambrills and Crofton
against Constellation Energy. The lawsuit claims that
Constellation knew for years that the fly ash it was dumping in
a Gambrills surface mine owned by BBSS Inc. was contaminating
the water of nearby homeowners, but failed to warn them.
Ms. Queen says that her husband, David, died of kidney failure
in 2006 because he drank water with traces of arsenic, lead, and
other pollutants. At least five other people have died from
suspicious reasons in the same area, weavers-world.com notes.
Weavers-World notes that for the last 12 years Constellation and
a contractor dumped billions of tons of waste ash from
smokestacks into an unlined former gravel mine pit located close
to the neighborhood where Ms. Queen resides. The waste ash,
also called fly ash, came from Constellation's coal-fired power
plant in Brandon Shores.
The complaint filed with the Baltimore circuit court is a class-
action lawsuit intending to represent dozens of residents
seeking unspecified damages from Constellation in personal
injuries and property value loss.
According to Weavers-World, before reports exposing the
contamination surfaced, Ms. Queen had been considering offers on
her house for up to $750,000. The offers disappeared once the
information about the contamination surfaced.
Tests conducted by Anne Arundel County discovered that 23 wells
tested positive for dangerous metals, including thallium,
arsenic, and cadmium, which are all components of waste ash.
Constellation just recently stopped burying ash in that area,
Weavers-World says.
Ms. Queen's lawsuit alleges that even though Constellation knew
as early as 1999 that the dump was contaminating the water in
the neighborhood, the power company did not warn local
residents. The lawsuit claims that Constellation even purposely
engaged in a campaign to prevent neighbors from knowing about
the waste materials.
County Asks State to Toughen Fly Ash Rules
HometownAnnapolis.com, in an update, reports that the chief of
the county Health Department recently called for tougher air-
quality protection and monitoring of fly ash dump sites.
HometownAnnapolis cites County Health Officer Frances B.
Phillips as saying that new regulations proposed by the Maryland
Department of the Environment does not go far enough to protect
public health and encouraged the agency to "adopt the most
protective regulations."
The MDE is proposing new rules on how fly ash is handled in the
state, HometownAnnapolis notes. The regulations follow a $1-
million fine against Constellation.
HometownAnnapolis recalls that from 1995 until the fall of 2007,
Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., and later Constellation, dumped
around 2.4 million tons of fly ash into the mine, eventually
contaminating groundwater and wells with a bevy of heavy metals,
some carcinogenic.
The new regulations, HometownAnnapolis says, would require fly
ash landfills to have a liner to separate the substance from the
ground, a leachate-collection system to drain water from the
site and a cap to prevent water seepage, which are all measures
designed to prevent groundwater contamination. Currently, fly
ash can be dumped into a site without taking any of those
precautions.
People who live near the fly ash pit have expressed concerns
that they may be inhaling the substance and may be exposed to
harmful chemicals, respiratory problems and some of the same
health risks found with contaminated water.
Ms. Phillips also encouraged the MDE to include a longer
timeframe for monitoring groundwater near filled fly ash sites.
The MDE's new rules would require groundwater monitoring for
five years after a fly ash dump is filled and abandoned. She
said it would be better if this period was extended to 30 years.
Ms. Phillips also asked that the new regulations keep neighbors
of existing and future dump sites better informed about
environmental problems.
Timothy R. Henderson, a lawyer representing BBSS, said that
there were generally no problems with the proposed regulations,
but he would prefer some "clarifications of ambiguous terms and
unintended consequences."
DEUTSCHE BANK: Cleveland Firm Slaps Lawsuit Over Foreclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Novak, Robenalt, and Pavlik has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of local homeowners who lost their
homes to foreclosure by Deutsche Bank.
"Most of the homeowners had never even heard of Deutsche Bank,"
Thomas Robenalt, Esq., said. "There was a rush to file, to sell
these mortgages because they were selling them at a profit."
Two Cleveland federal judges have dismissed all pending Deutsche
Bank foreclosures, and Robenalt's firm -- which is also working
with Cohen, Rosenthal, and Kramer -- has filed a class-action
lawsuit. The suit contends that the bank began foreclosure
action before it had legal standing to do so.
Mr. Robenalt believes that homeowners foreclosed upon by
Deutsche Bank may be entitled to recovery of substantial feeds
and damages, and in some cases, where the bank re-purchased the
homes at sheriff's sales, could actually recover their homes.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Thomas Robenalt, Esq.
Novak, Robenalt & Pavlik, L.L.P.
Skylight OfficeTower
Tower City Center
1660 West 2nd Street
Suite 950
Cleveland, OH 44113-1498
Phone: (216) 781-8700
(877) 851-8736 (Toll Free)
Fax: (216) 781-9227
(216) 348-7081
DIRECTV INC: Faces Calif. Suit Over Fraudulent Sale of Receivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
DirecTV, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 8, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California alleging that the company cheats its
customers, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The class action complaint seeks to remedy the unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent conduct of the defendants in connection with
their marketing and sale of DirecTV television receivers to the
public, the report says.
According to CourtHouse News, DirecTV fraudulently "sells" TV
receivers through Costco, Best Buy, Circuit City and other
national retailers to customers who find out only after purchase
that they have not bought the receivers, but only "leased" them,
and must pay monthly fees.
Named plaintiff Greg Masters brings the action pursuant to the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382,
and the procedural provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons in the United States
who paid money to DirecTV or a retailer for a DirecTV receiver
in the last four years.
Mr. Masters want the court to rule on:
(a) whether defendants marketed, advertised and sold its
receivers to the class using false, misleading and
deceptive statements or representations;
(b) whether defendants omitted material facts in connection
with their sale/lease of receivers to the class;
(c) whether defendants' conduct as described in the
complaint constitutes a violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act;
(d) whether defendants' conduct as described in the
complaint constitutes a violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500
et. seq.;
(e) whether defendants' lease is unconscionable;
(f) whether the class is entitled to restitution;
(g) whether the defendants' "lease" should be declared
unenforceable; and
(h) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to
rescission of the lease.
Mr. Masters request judgment as follows:
-- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
plaintiff and his counsel of record to represent the
class;
-- for restitution, disgorgement and/or other equitable
relief as the court deems proper;
-- that pursuant to sections 17203 and 17204 of the
Business and Professions Code, defendants be
permanently enjoined from performing or proposing to
perform any of the aforementioned acts of unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent business practices;
-- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
others similarly situated as a result of defendant's
unlawful acts and conduct;
-- for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code Section
1780(a)(4);
-- declaratory relief that:
(a) any purported lease between the class and
defendants as described in the complaint is void
and unenforceable;
(b) that at the election of individual class members,
the "lease" for the equipment may be rescinded;
(c) class members are the legal owners of the receivers
they purchased; and
(d) any purported arbitration agreement between the
class and defendants is void and unenforceable;
-- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from
engaging in the conduct and practices complained of;
-- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
including expert witness fees; and
-- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
just and proper.
The suit is "Greg Masters et al. v. DirecTV, Inc., Case No.
CV08-009006 ABC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Mark J. Tamblyn, Esq.
Wexler Toriseva Wallace LLP
1610 Arden Way, Suite 290
Sacramento, California 95815
Phone: (916) 568-1100
e-mail: mjt@wtwlaw.com
GROUP HEALTH: Trial on Suit Over Abusive Doctor Continues
---------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 12, 2007, Group
Health Cooperative is facing a lawsuit filed with the ierce
County Superior Court in Washington for hiring and retaining a
doctor who had been charged with sexually abusing his patients.
Group Health employed Dr. Jitesh Chawla, formerly of Providence
St. Peter, at its Tacoma, Olympia, and Federal Way clinics from
September 2005 to March 2006.
The class-action suit, filed by personal injury attorney
Thaddeus Martin, Esq., accuses Group Health of negligence and
ignoring reports of Dr. Chawla's behavior while he worked at
Tacoma Medical Center. The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Chawla was
hired before a background check could be conducted.
According to The Olympian, Dr. Chawla is already facing three
counts of indecent liberties in Thurston County. Each is a
Class B felony punishable to up to 10 years in prison.
The women, The Olympian relates, complained about Dr. Chawla in
December 2005, and he was fired on Dec. 23, 2005.
Dr. Chawla's medical license has been suspended by the state,
based on the allegations that he inappropriately touched the
women and that he "punctured a patient's lung while giving her
an injection and later failed to recognize signs and symptoms
indicating the serious complication," according to a news
release from the state Department of Health.
The Olympian says that the trial for the lawsuit continues.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Thaddeus P. Martin, Esq.
Thaddeus P. Martin - Attorney At Law
Bank of America Building
4002 Tacoma Mall Blvd., Suite #102
Tacoma, WA 98409
Phone: (253) 682-3420
e-mail: info@thadlaw.com
Representing the defendant is:
Richard Hansen, Esq.
Allen, Hansen & Maybrown, P.S.
One Union Square
Suite 3020
600 University St.
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 447-9681
Fax: (206) 447-0839
e-mail: Richard@ahmlawyers.com
HANGZHOU ZHONGCE: Drops Dismissal Motion on Jurisdiction Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Action Reporter reported on Nov. 12, 2007, that
Chinese tire company Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Co. filed a motion
with the U.S. District Court in Camden seeking for the dismissal
of a consumer suit filed against it. Hangzhou Zhongce said the
suit should be dismissed because it does not do business in New
Jersey or anywhere else in the U.S.
The other defendants in the suit are:
-- Tireco,
-- Strategic Import Supply,
-- Omni United USA, Inc.,
-- Oteck International, Inc.,
-- K&D Tire Wholesalers LLC,
-- Robinson Tire,
-- Foreign Tire Sales, Inc.,
-- Reliable Tire Company, and
-- John Does 1-50
A Pennsylvania man, Robert McCulley, who says he was exposed to
danger when he purchased a set of tires made by the company, is
suing Hangzhou Zhongce along with several importers.
Mr. McCulley is seeking class-action status for the lawsuit,
which was filed on June 27, 2007.
Hangzhou Zhongce's products are sold through U.S. distributors
and were subject to a recall last year. A U.S. distributor,
Foreign Tires Sales Inc., of Union, N.J., in August said that it
would recall 255,000 of Hangzhou Zhongce's tires. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration ordered the recall after
the distributor said some were made without a safety feature
that prevents treads from separating. Hangzhou Zhongce has said
it found no evidence of structural defects or missing safety
features.
In an update, the Associated Press says that Hangzhou Zhongce
withdrew its motion to dismiss after the judge decided to gather
evidence regarding jurisdiction. The issue is pending.
The suit is "Mcculley v. Hangzhou Zhonhce Rubber Company, Ltd.
et al., Case No. 1:2007-cv-02993," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey under Judge Joseph H.
Rodriguez with referral to Judge Joel Schneider.
Representing the defendants is:
Mitchell S. Berman, Esq.
Mitchell S. Berman LLC
1179 East Landis Ave.
Vineland, NJ 08362-1120
Phone: (856) 405-0900
e-mail: msb@bermanlawllc.com
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
Locks Law Firm, LLC
457 Haddonfield Road
Suite 500
Cherry Hill, N.J. 08002
Phone: (856) 663-8200
e-mail: mgalpern@lockslaw.com
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY: Faces Suit Over Reservist's Reinstatement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Justice filed class action against the Clerk
of the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, Fla., for failing
and refusing to reinstate a U.S. Army Reservist to her position.
The suit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Oct. 12, 2007, under the caption,
"Marshall v. Frank, Case No. 8:2007cv01862."
It was filed on behalf of Tracey Y. Marshall, a first sergeant
in the U.S. Army Reserve, alleging violations of the Uniformed
Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
The complaint alleges that Hillsborough County Clerk Pat Frank
violated USERRA by failing and refusing to reinstate Sgt.
Marshall to her civilian employment position as supervisor of
the Court Clerk II Section.
The Departments complaint alleges that Sgt. Marshall would have
been employed as supervisor of the Court Clerk II Section if her
continuous civilian employment with the Clerk had not been
interrupted by her activation to full-time military duty in
August 2005.
USERRA requires that reservists who are called to active duty be
re-employed by their civilian employers in the same positions
that the reservist would have held had he or she not been called
to active duty.
The complaint also alleges that the Clerk violated USERRA by
transferring Sgt. Marshall from the Courts Felony Department to
its Traffic Department at a lower rate of pay because Sgt.
Marshall took action to enforce a protection afforded her under
USERRA.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?27f8
The suit is "Marshall v. Frank, Case No. 8:2007cv01862," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Judge James D. Whittemore.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
William B. Fenton, Esq.
U.S. Dept. of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Employment Litigation Section
950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Patrick Henry Bldg., Room 4035
Washington, DC 20530
Phone: (202) 514-9694
Fax: (202) 514-1005
- and -
James R. Klindt, Esq.
U.S. Attorney
Middle District of Florida
400 N. Tampa St., Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602
Phone: (813) 274-6335
Fax: (813) 274-6200
IPO LITIGATION: Defendants Seek Dismissal of N.Y. IPO Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants in "Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation," have filed a motion to dismiss the six focus cases
in the matter as well as an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.
Case Background
On Oct. 13, 2004, six selected focus cases, among the more than
300 coordinated cases in the IPO allocation litigation, were
certified as class actions. The actions are coordinated for
pretrial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York.
The six focus cases are that against:
1. Corvis Corp.
2. Engage Technologies, Inc.
3. Firepond, Inc.
4. iXL Enterprises, Inc.
5. Sycamore Networks, Inc.
6. VA Linux Corp.
The IPO Litigation consists of 309 class actions involving more
than 300 IPOs marketed between 1998 and 2000. The defendants
include the companies brought public, certain of their officers
and directors and 55 of the investment banks that brought them
public and underwrote various follow-on offerings.
The lawsuits allege that the IPO offerings were manipulated by
the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of
those securities and to reap excessive compensation and that
their conduct was concealed from the public, in violation of the
federal securities laws. There are also allegations that they
misused their securities analysts to hype the stock.
In June 2006, The Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced that
a proposed settlement between the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers and the plaintiffs has been structured in
the IPO Securities Litigation which would guarantee at least (or
the first) $1 billion dollars to investors who are class members
from the insurers of the issuers.
Decertification of Focus Cases
On Dec. 5, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
issued a decision reversing the court's ruling certifying six of
the cases in the consolidated proceedings as class actions.
On Dec. 14, 2006, the court agreed to stay all proceedings,
including consideration of the settlement, pending a decision
from the 2nd Circuit on whether it will hear further argument on
the class certification issue.
In seeking for a review, the plaintiffs argued that the initial
decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted
incorrect standards that a district court must apply in
determining whether to grant class certification, according to
Law.com.
They also said the circuit erred in concluding that the
criterion for certification set out in Rule 23(b)(3) of the
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure could not be satisfied with
respect to their class, and argued that a remand was appropriate
to enable the district court to reconsider the class
certification motion under the standards set forth by the
circuit.
Denial to Hear Rehearing of Decertification
On April 6, 2007, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiffs'
petition for rehearing, but allowed them to request that the
district court certify a more limited class. On April 23, 2007,
the plaintiffs requested 30 days to report to the District Court
on how they wish to proceed regarding class certification.
The District Court indicated that a new class definition was a
priority for the issuers' proposed settlement agreement, and met
on May 30, 2007, to discuss this as well as other issues.
During the May 30, 2007 conference, the plaintiffs orally moved
for revised class certification and stated that they will seek
mixed class and merits discovery in advance of their opening
brief on class certification. The plaintiffs also indicated
that they may seek discovery from issuers in cases other than
the six focus cases.
On June 25, 2007, the parties submitted a stipulation to
terminate the settlement, which was granted by Court Order. On
June 26, 2007, plaintiffs served a document request on all
issuer defendants. On June 27, 2007, the Court held a
conference with counsel for all three groups in the case. The
parties agreed that the plaintiffs had until July 31, 2007, to
file any Amended Complaints.
In addition, the Court set the following briefing schedule for
class certification:
* opening briefs due by Sept. 27, 2007,
* responses due by December 21, 2007, and
* reply briefs due by Feb. 15, 2008.
Finally, the plaintiffs had until July 11, 2007, to respond to
the underwriters' motion, joined by the issuers, regarding the
statute of limitations.
There was a conference with the Court to address discovery
issues on July 25, 2007; however, the conference was adjourned
at the request of the parties, and has not been rescheduled.
On July 31, 2007, the plaintiffs requested that the Court extend
the deadline to Aug. 14, 2007, for filing any Amended
Complaints.
On Aug. 14, 2007, the plaintiffs filed amended complaints in the
six focus cases. The amended complaints include a number of
changes, such as changes to the definition of the purported
class of investors, and the elimination of the individual
defendants as defendants.
On Sept. 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification in the six focus cases, and to appoint class
representatives and class counsel in those cases.
The focus case issuers filed motions to dismiss the claims
against them in November 2007 and an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in December 2007.
Both motions are pending.
Issuer Begin Date End Date
------ ---------- --------
724 Solutions, Inc. 01/27/00 12/06/00
Accelerated Networks, Inc. 06/22/00 12/06/00
ACLARA BioSciences, Inc. 03/20/00 12/06/00
Aether Systems, Inc. 10/20/99 12/06/00
AGENCY.COM, Ltd. 12/08/99 12/06/00
Agile Software Corp. 08/20/99 12/06/00
Agilent Technologies, Inc. 11/17/99 12/06/00
AirNet Communications 12/06/99 12/06/00
Airspan Networks, Inc. 07/19/00 12/06/00
Akamai Technologies, Inc. 10/28/99 12/06/00
Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc. 02/03/00 12/06/00
Alloy Online, Inc. 05/14/99 12/06/00
Antigenics Inc. (named as
Antigenics, Inc.) 02/03/00 12/06/00
Apropos Technology, Inc. 02/17/00 12/06/00
Ariba, Inc. 06/23/99 12/06/00
Ashford.com, Inc. 09/22/99 12/06/00
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. 03/03/00 12/06/00
Ask Jeeves, Inc. 07/01/99 12/06/00
Audible, Inc. 07/15/99 12/06/00
Autobytel.com, Inc. 03/26/99 12/06/00
AutoWeb.com, Inc. 03/23/99 12/06/00
Avanex Corporation 02/03/00 12/06/00
AvantGo, Inc. 09/27/00 12/06/00
Avenue A, Inc. 02/28/00 12/06/00
Avici Systems Inc. (named as Avici
Systems, Inc.) 07/27/00 12/06/00
BackWeb Technologies Ltd. 06/07/99 12/06/00
Be Free, Inc. 11/03/99 12/06/00
Blue Martini Software, Inc. 07/24/00 12/06/00
Bookham Technology PLC 04/11/00 12/06/00
Bottomline Technologies, Inc. 02/12/99 12/06/00
Braun Consulting, Inc. 08/10/99 12/06/00
Breakaway Solutions, Inc. 10/05/99 12/06/00
Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. 05/24/99 12/06/00
BSQUARE Corporation 10/19/99 12/06/00
Buy.com, Inc. 02/07/00 12/06/00
CacheFlow, Inc. (now Blue Coat Systems) 11/19/99 12/06/00
Caldera International, Inc. 03/20/00 12/06/00
Calico Commerce, Inc. 10/06/99 12/06/00
Caliper Technologies Corp. (now Caliper
Life Sciences, Inc.) 12/14/99 12/06/00
Capstone Turbine Corp. 06/28/00 12/06/00
Carrier1 International SA 02/23/00 12/06/00
Centra Software, Inc. 02/03/00 12/06/00
chinadotcom corporation 07/12/99 12/06/00
Choice One Communications, Inc. 02/16/00 12/06/00
Chordiant Software, Inc. 02/14/00 12/06/00
Clarent Corporation 06/30/99 12/06/00
CNET Networks (named as successor-in
-interest to Ziff-Davis) 03/30/99 12/06/00
Cobalt Networks, Inc. 11/05/99 12/06/00
Commerce One, Inc. 07/01/99 12/06/00
Concur Technologies, Inc. 12/16/98 12/06/00
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. 05/12/99 12/06/00
Corio, Inc. 07/21/00 12/06/00
Corvis Corp. 07/27/00 12/06/00
Cosine Communications, Inc. 09/25/00 12/06/00
Covad Communications Group, Inc. 01/21/99 12/06/00
Critical Path, Inc. 03/29/99 12/06/00
CyberSource Corporation 06/23/99 12/06/00
Daleen Technologies, Inc. 09/30/99 12/06/00
Data Return Corp. 10/27/99 12/06/00
deCODE Genetics, Inc. 07/17/00 12/06/00
Delano Technology Corporation 02/09/00 12/06/00
deltathree, Inc. 11/22/99 12/06/00
Dice, Inc. (named as EarthWeb, Inc.) 11/10/98 12/06/00
Digimarc Corporation 12/01/99 12/06/00
Digital Impact, Inc. 11/22/99 12/06/00
Digital Insight Corp. 09/30/99 12/06/00
Digital Island Corporation (now
Cable & Wireless plc) 06/29/99 12/06/00
Digital River, Inc. 08/11/98 12/06/00
DigitalThink, Inc. 02/24/00 12/06/00
Digitas, Inc. 03/13/00 12/06/00
Diversa Corp. 02/14/00 12/06/00
DoubleClick, Inc. 12/11/98 12/06/00
Drugstore.com, Inc. 07/28/99 12/06/00
Epiphany, Inc. 09/21/99 12/06/00
eBenX Inc. 12/09/99 12/06/00
eGain Communications Corp. 09/23/99 12/06/00
El Sitio, Inc. 12/10/99 12/06/00
E-Loan, Inc. 06/28/99 12/06/00
Eloquent, Inc. 02/16/00 12/06/00
Engage Technologies, Inc. 07/20/99 12/06/00
Equinix, Inc. 08/10/00 12/06/00
eToys, Inc. 05/20/99 12/06/00
Evolve Software, Inc. 08/09/00 12/06/00
Exchange Applications, Inc. 12/09/98 12/06/00
EXFO Electro Optical Engineering, Inc. 06/29/00 12/06/00
Expedia, Inc. 11/09/99 12/06/00
Extensity, Inc. 01/26/00 12/06/00
Extreme Networks, Inc. 04/08/99 12/06/00
F5 Networks, Inc. 06/04/99 12/06/00
Fairmarket, Inc. 03/14/00 12/06/00
Fatbrain.com 11/19/98 12/06/00
Finisar Corp. 11/11/99 12/06/00
FirePond, Inc. 02/04/00 12/06/00
FlashNet Communications, Inc. 03/16/99 12/06/00
Focal Communications 07/28/99 12/06/00
Foundry Networks, Inc. 09/27/99 12/06/00
FreeMarkets, Inc. 12/09/99 12/06/00
Gadzoox Networks, Inc. 07/19/99 12/06/00
Gigamedia Ltd. 02/17/00 12/06/00
Global Crossing Ltd. 08/13/98 12/06/00
GlobeSpan, Inc. (now
GlobeSpanVirata, Inc.) 06/23/99 12/06/00
GoTo.com (now Overture Services, Inc.) 06/18/99 12/06/00
GRIC Communications 12/14/99 12/06/00
GT Group Telecom, Inc. 03/09/00 12/06/00
Handspring, Inc. (now PalmOne, Inc.) 06/20/00 12/06/00
High Speed Access Corp. 06/04/99 12/06/00
Hoover's, Inc. 07/20/99 12/06/00
iBasis, Inc. 11/10/99 12/06/00
iBeam Broadcasting Corporation 05/17/00 12/06/00
iManage, Inc. 11/17/99 12/06/00
Immersion Corp. 11/12/99 12/06/00
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Informatica Corp. 04/28/99 12/06/00
InforMax, Inc. (now Invitrogen Corp.) 10/02/00 12/06/00
Inforte Corp. 02/17/00 12/06/00
Inrange Technologies Corp. 09/21/00 12/06/00
InsWeb Corp. 07/22/99 12/06/00
Integrated Information Systems, Inc. 03/17/00 12/06/00
Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. 08/18/00 12/06/00
InterNAP Network Services Corporation 09/29/99 12/06/00
Internet Capital Group 08/04/99 12/06/00
Internet Initiative Japan, Inc. 08/03/99 12/06/00
Intersil Holding Corp. 02/24/00 12/06/00
InterTrust Technologies Corp. 10/26/99 12/06/00
interWAVE Communications
International Ltd. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Interwoven, Inc. 10/08/99 12/06/00
Intraware, Inc. 02/25/99 12/06/00
iPrint.com, Inc. (now iPrint
Technologies, Inc.) 03/07/00 12/06/00
ITXC Corporation 09/27/99 12/06/00
iVillage, Inc. 03/18/99 12/06/00
iXL Enterprises, Inc. 06/02/99 12/06/00
Jazztel PLC 12/08/99 12/06/00
JNI Corp. 10/26/99 12/06/00
Juniper Networks Inc. 06/24/99 12/06/00
Kana Software, Inc. 09/21/99 12/06/00
Keynote Systems Inc. 09/24/99 12/06/00
Korea Thrunet Co. Ltd. 09/16/99 12/06/00
Lante Corporation 02/10/00 12/06/00
Latitude Communications, Inc. 05/06/99 12/06/00
Lexent Inc. 07/27/00 12/06/00
Liberate Technologies (named as
Liberate Technologies, Inc.) 07/27/99 12/06/00
Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. 08/20/99 12/06/00
Liquid Audio, Inc. 07/08/99 12/06/00
Loudeye Technologies, Inc. 03/15/00 12/06/00
Manufacturers Services Ltd. 06/22/00 12/06/00
Marimba, Inc. 04/29/99 12/06/00
MarketWatch.com, Inc. 01/15/99 12/06/00
Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. 10/18/99 12/06/00
Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. 06/27/00 12/06/00
MatrixOne, Inc. 03/01/00 12/06/00
Maxygen, Inc. 12/15/99 12/06/00
McAfee.com Corp. 12/01/99 12/06/00
McData Corporation 08/09/00 12/06/00
MCK Communications, Inc. 10/22/99 12/06/00
Mediaplex, Inc. 11/19/99 12/06/00
MedicaLogic, Inc. 12/10/99 12/06/00
MetaSolv Software, Inc. 11/17/99 12/06/00
Metawave Communications Corp. 04/26/00 12/06/00
Microtune, Inc. 08/04/00 12/06/00
Modem Media, Inc. 02/05/99 12/06/00
MP3.com, Inc. 07/21/99 12/06/00
Multex.com, Inc. 03/17/99 12/06/00
NaviSite, Inc. 10/22/99 12/06/00
Neoforma.com, Inc. 01/24/00 12/06/00
Net Perceptions, Inc. 04/22/99 12/06/00
Net2000 Communications, Inc. 03/06/00 12/06/00
Net2Phone, Inc. 07/29/99 12/06/00
Netcentives, Inc. 10/13/99 12/06/00
NetRatings, Inc. 12/08/99 12/06/00
Netro Corporation (now SR Telecom Inc.) 08/18/99 12/06/00
NetSilicon, Inc. 09/15/99 12/06/00
NetSolve, Inc. 09/29/99 12/06/00
Network Engines Inc. 07/13/00 12/06/00
Network Plus Corporation 06/29/99 12/06/00
NetZero, Inc. 09/23/99 12/06/00
New Focus, Inc. 05/17/00 12/06/00
Next Level Communications 11/09/99 12/06/00
NextCard, Inc. 05/14/99 12/06/00
Nextel Partners, Inc. 02/22/00 12/06/00
Niku Corp. 02/28/00 12/06/00
Northpoint Communications Group Inc. 05/05/99 12/06/00
Nuance Communications, Inc. 04/12/00 12/06/00
OmniSky Corp. 09/20/00 12/06/00
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. 07/14/00 12/06/00
ON Semiconductor Corporation (named as
ON Semiconductor Corp.) 04/27/00 12/06/00
ONI Systems Corp. (now CIENA Corp.) 06/01/00 12/06/00
Onvia.com, Inc. 02/29/00 12/06/00
Onyx Software Corp. 02/11/99 12/06/00
OpenTV Corp. 11/23/99 12/06/00
Openwave Systems Inc. (named as Openwave
Systems, Inc.) (f/k/a Phone.com, Inc.)06/11/99 12/06/00
Oplink Communications, Inc. 10/03/00 12/06/00
Optio Software, Inc. 12/15/99 12/06/00
OraPharma, Inc. 03/09/00 12/06/00
Oratec Interventions, Inc. 04/04/00 12/06/00
Orchid Biosciences, Inc. 05/04/00 12/06/00
Organic, Inc. 02/09/00 12/06/00
OTG Software, Inc. 03/10/00 12/06/00
Pacific Internet Ltd. 02/05/99 12/06/00
Packeteer, Inc. 07/27/99 12/06/00
Pac-West Telecomm, Inc. 11/03/99 12/06/00
Palm Inc. 03/01/00 12/06/00
Paradyne Networks, Inc. 07/15/99 12/06/00
pcOrder.com, Inc. (named as PCOrder.com,
Inc.) (now Trilogy Software, Inc.) 02/25/99 12/06/00
Perot Systems Corp. 02/01/99 12/06/00
PlanetRX.com 10/06/99 12/06/00
Portal Software, Inc. 05/05/99 12/06/00
Predictive Systems, Inc. 10/27/99 12/06/00
Preview Systems, Inc. 12/07/99 12/06/00
priceline.com Inc. (named as
Priceline.com, Inc.) 03/30/99 12/06/00
Primus Knowledge Solutions Inc. 07/01/99 12/06/00
Prodigy Communications Inc. 02/10/99 12/06/00
Proton Energy Systems, Inc. 09/28/00 12/06/00
PSi Technologies Holdings, Inc. 03/16/00 12/06/00
PurchasePro.com, Inc. 09/13/99 12/06/00
Quest Software, Inc. 08/13/99 12/06/00
Quicklogic Corp. 10/14/99 12/06/00
Radio One, Inc. 05/06/99 12/06/00
Radio Unica Communications Corp. 10/19/99 12/06/00
Radware Ltd. 09/30/99 12/06/00
Ravisent Technologies, Inc. 07/16/99 12/06/00
Razorfish, Inc. 04/26/99 12/06/00
Red Hat, Inc. 08/11/99 12/06/00
Redback Networks, Inc. 05/17/99 12/06/00
Regent Communications Inc. 01/24/00 12/06/00
Register.com, Inc. 03/02/00 12/06/00
Repeater Technologies, Inc. 08/08/00 12/06/00
Resonate, Inc. 08/02/00 12/06/00
Retek Inc. 11/17/99 12/06/00
Rhythms NetConnections, Inc. 04/06/99 12/06/00
Rowecom, Inc. 03/09/99 12/06/00
Saba Software, Inc. 04/06/00 12/06/00
Satyam Infoway, Inc. 10/18/99 12/06/00
SciQuest.com, Inc. 11/19/99 12/06/00
Selectica, Inc. 03/09/00 12/06/00
Sequenom, Inc. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Silicon Image, Inc. 10/05/99 12/06/00
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. 03/24/00 12/06/00
SilverStream Software, Inc. 08/16/99 12/06/00
Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. (f/k/a
Stanford Microdevices) 05/24/00 12/06/00
SmartDisk Corporation 10/05/99 12/06/00
SMTC Corp. 07/20/00 12/06/00
SonicWALL, Inc. 11/11/99 12/06/00
Sonus Networks, Inc. 05/24/00 12/06/00
Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. 10/27/99 12/06/00
Stamps.com, Inc. 06/24/99 12/06/00
StarMedia Network, Inc. (now
CycleLogic, Inc.) 05/25/99 12/06/00
StorageNetworks, Inc. 06/29/00 12/06/00
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. (now known as
Stratos International, Inc.) 06/26/00 12/06/00
Support.com, Inc. (now SupportSoft, Inc.)07/18/00 12/06/00
Switchboard, Inc. 03/02/00 12/06/00
Sycamore Networks, Inc. 10/21/99 12/06/00
Talarian Corporation 07/20/00 12/06/00
Telaxis Communications Corp. (now YDI
Wireless, Inc.) 02/01/00 12/06/00
TeleCommunication Systems Inc. 08/07/00 12/06/00
TeleCorp PCS, Inc. 11/23/99 12/06/00
TenFold Corp. 05/21/99 12/06/00
Terra Networks, S.A. 11/15/99 12/06/00
TheGlobe.com, Inc. 11/12/98 12/06/00
TheStreet.com, Inc. 05/10/99 12/06/00
TIBCO Software, Inc. 07/13/99 12/06/00
Ticketmaster Online-CitySearch, Inc. (now
Ticketmaster) 12/02/98 12/06/00
Tickets.com, Inc. 11/03/99 12/06/00
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc. 03/17/00 12/06/00
TiVo, Inc. 09/29/99 12/06/00
Transmeta Corporation (named as
Transmeta Corp.) 11/06/00 12/06/00
Triton Network Systems, Inc. 07/12/00 12/06/00
Turnstone Systems, Inc. 01/31/00 12/06/00
Tut Systems, Inc. 01/29/99 12/06/00
UAXS Global Holdings Inc. (now Universal
Access Global Holdings Inc.) 03/16/00 12/06/00
United Pan-European Communications NV 02/11/99 12/06/00
Usinternetworking, Inc. 04/08/99 12/06/00
UTStarcom, Inc. 03/02/00 12/06/00
VA Linux Systems Inc. (now VA Software
Corp.) 12/09/99 12/06/00
ValiCert, Inc. 07/27/00 12/06/00
Valley Media, Inc. 03/26/99 12/06/00
Value America, Inc. 04/08/99 12/06/00
Variagenics, Inc. 07/21/00 12/06/00
Ventro Corporation (now NexPrise, Inc.) 07/26/99 12/06/00
Verado Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a First World
Comm. Inc.) 03/08/00 12/06/00
VerticalNet, Inc. 02/10/99 12/06/00
VIA Net.Works, Inc. 02/11/00 12/06/00
Viador, Inc. 10/25/99 12/06/00
Viant Corporation 06/17/99 12/06/00
Vicinity Corporation 02/09/00 12/06/00
Vignette Corp. 02/19/99 12/06/00
Virage, Inc. 06/29/00 12/06/00
Vitria Technology, Inc. 09/16/99 12/06/00
Vixel Corp. (now Emulex Corp.) 10/01/99 12/06/00
WebMD Corporation 02/10/99 12/06/00
webMethods, Inc. (named as WebMethods,
Inc.) 02/10/00 12/06/00
Webvan Group, Inc. 11/04/99 12/06/00
Wink Communications 08/19/99 12/06/00
Wireless Facilities, Inc. 11/04/99 12/06/00
Women.com Networks, Inc. 10/14/99 12/06/00
World Wrestling Federation Entertainment,
Inc. 10/18/99 12/06/00
XCare.net, Inc. (now Quovadx, Inc.) 02/09/00 12/06/00
Xpedior, Inc. 12/15/99 12/06/00
Z-Tel Technologies, Inc. 12/15/99 12/06/00
For more details, visit http://www.iposecuritieslitigation.com/.
KIA MOTORS: Superior Court Upholds $4.1M Fees in Sephia Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld $4.1 million in
plaintiffs' attorney fees awarded by a Philadelphia judge in a
suit over Kia Motors America, Inc., sedans with defective
braking systems, Amaris Elliott-Engel, The Legal Intelligencer
reports.
Case Background
In 2004, the Philadelphia law firm Donovan Searles revealed that
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, in the case of "Samuel-
Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2199, Jan. Term 2001,"
ordered that Notice of Pendency of Class Action be provided to
all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased
or leased a model year 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000 Kia Sephia
between Jan. 17, 1997, and Jan. 17, 2001 (Class Action
Reporter, Nov. 22, 2004).
In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed the Sephia 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000 model automobiles have defects in their braking system.
The plaintiffs claim that this is a breach of warranty and a
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act.
The plaintiffs had sought to recover money damages from
defendant, which may include the costs of repairs and
compensation for the reduction in vehicle value.
In May 2005, a jury awarded $5,641,200 or $600 a piece, to 9,402
class members (Class Action Reporter, June 2, 2005). The
verdict was rendered following a two-week trial in which the
jurors found that there was a common defective design of the
brake system of the 1995-2001 Kia Sephia.
The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas then confirmed the jury's
verdict on behalf of a class of 9,402 Pennsylvania consumers
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 2, 2007). The case then proceeded
to the appellate court.
Superior Court's Ruling
In Oct. 2007, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the
verdict in a nonprecedential decision (Class Action Reporter,
Oct 31, 2007). According to the report, the court made these
opinions in response to Kia Motors' arguments:
(1) Kia argued that some of the class members might not be
individually entitled to an award and that it was in error
to assess $600 for each class member.
The court said class representative Shamell Samuel-Bassett's
total cost for brake repairs during the warranty was
$596.16, and it was reasonable to multiply $600 for the
9,402 class members to reach the verdict of $5,641,200.
"Regardless of whether an individual class member had his or
her brakes repaired under warranty by Kia, all class members
were entitled to have good brakes on their cars that did not
require repeated trips to the dealership for replacement in
order to avoid brake failure," the opinion said.
(2) Kia argued that the class was improperly certified because
it was not certain that each class member relied upon the
warranty or that Kia refused to conduct repairs, the opinion
said.
The Superior Court said the class was properly certified
because trial evidence demonstrated that the 1995-2001 Kia
Sephias had a defective brake system design, that expert
testimony would be needed to prove each claim and that it
would strain the court system to litigate each claim
individually.
(3) Kia also argued that Judge Mark I. Bernstein erred in his
jury instructions, but the Superior Court noted that Kia
either "won on the issue or failed to object to the charge."
(4) The Superior Court also ruled that Judge Bernstein must
issue a supplemental 1925(a) opinion to support why he
awarded $4.125 million in counsel fees and $267,513 in
expenses in January 2006.
The Superior Court said both parties would have 30 days
after Judge Bernstein issues his 1925(a) opinion to file
supplemental briefs in the appellate court.
(5) The appellate court also rejected the plaintiff cross-appeal
of Judge Bernstein's order denying class certification under
the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Judge Bernstein ruled that Samuel-Bassett met the requirement
for class certification under the commonwealth's rules of civil
procedure for her breach of warranty claims but not her consumer
protection claim.
He found that Samuel-Bassett had met all the requirements of
class certification under Pennsylvania's rules of civil
procedure for the breach of warranty claims but not consumer
protection claims because the commonality requirement was not
met and there were not questions of law or fact common to the
individual class members.
The Superior Court panel -- comprised of Judges John T. Bender,
Susan Peikes Gantman and Richard B. Klein -- said in its recent
decision that there was no palpable abuse of discretion by Judge
Bernstein in his award decision and that it should be upheld.
The panel echoed Judge Bernstein's reasoning that the plaintiffs
attorneys' award was reasonable considering the rates the
defense counsel charged.
"As noted by the trial court, the time records produced by
defense counsel, although incomplete, demonstrated that defense
counsel had expended over 7,100 hours defending the case, and
partners had billed at rates ranging from $560 to $595 per hour,
higher than the rates requested by plaintiffs' counsel," the
unpublished memorandum opinion said, as reported by The Legal
Intelligencer.
The panel also echoed Judge Bernstein's dismissal of the chief
defense witness used to challenge the plaintiffs attorney fees
as dishonest: John Marquess of Legal Cost Control Inc., a
Haddonfield, N.J., firm that helps entities reduce and manage
legal and accounting fees.
Mr. Marquess said that the plaintiffs' fee request should be
reduced by 86 percent to $662,667.15 for a case that was
litigated for five years, during which it was removed to federal
court, remanded to state court and tried, The Legal
Intelligencer previously reported.
"We conclude that the record supports Judge Bernstein's
findings. We need not repeat the detailed findings of Judge
Bernstein explaining why he did not credit Mr. Marquess'
testimony," the memorandum opinion said. "Just as an example,
Mr. Marquess refused to concede that Michael D. Donovan,
Esquire, plaintiffs' lead counsel from the inception of the
case, should receive a fee for his trial work. It goes without
saying that someone has to be in court to try the case and
should be compensated for the time and work expended."
"The Superior Court's decision was well-reasoned as was the
underlying decision of Judge Bernstein," Donovan of Donovan
Searles said told The Legal Intelligencer.
The suit is "Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America Inc."
Trial counsel for plaintiffs and the class of Pennsylvania
consumers are:
Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
Donovan Searles, LLC
Phone: +1-215-732-6067 or
Toll- +1-800-619-1677
Fax: +1-215-732-8060
e-mail: mdonovan@donovansearles.com
Alan M. Feldman, Esq.
Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock,
1845 Walnut Street, 25th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215.567.8300 or 1.888.275.0296
Fax: 215.567.8333
e-mail: afeldman@feldmanshepherd.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Francis & Mailman, P.C.
19th Floor Land Title
Building, 100 South Broad St.
Philadelphia, PA 19110,
Phone: (215) 735-8600
Fax: (215) 940-8000
e-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
LUMENIS, LTD: Seeks Shareholders' OK for Securities Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumenis(R) Ltd. has scheduled a special general meeting of
shareholders to seek approval and authorization, in accordance
with the Israeli Companies Law, of a proposed settlement of the
securities class action litigation that has been pending against
the Company in the federal court in New York since 2002.
The Company (then known as ESC Medical Systems, Ltd.) acquired
the assets of the Coherent Medical Group (CMG) on April 30,
2001, for the fraudulent purpose of taking very large one-time
charges and write-downs claimed to be associated with the
acquisition but which were really intended to write down
receivables or other assets which should have been written-off
or written-down earlier.
In 2002, Lumenis faced a consolidated complaint alleging a class
period from October 2, 2000 to May 16, 2002, and alleging the
Company's financial statements, and the related press releases
announcing or pre- announcing such results, from the third
quarter of FY 2000 to the first quarter of FY 2002, overstated
revenues for the applicable quarter due to alleged violations of
GAAP.
The suit further alleged improper revenue recognition on sales
to distributors which the CAC characterizes as channel stuffing.
It also alleged that the Company fraudulently overstated the
progress or success of ongoing efforts to integrate CMG with the
Company, and the benefits or synergies expected to be achieved
by that combination.
In 2004, Lumenis planned to file a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of its securities, for failure to state a claim,
failure to plead fraud with particularity as required by the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and Rule 9(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and on the grounds that
certain of the claims asserted are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 4, 2003).
The lawsuit named as defendants the Company, and:
(1) Prof. Jacob A. Frenkel (Chairman, Board of Directors)
(2) Yacha Sutton, (former Exec. Vice President)
(3) Sagi Genger (former Business Operations Officer), and,
(4) Asif Adil (acting Chief Financial Officer)
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, which has been
agreed to in principle by Lumenis and the lead plaintiffs on
behalf of the class, a total of $20.1 million would be
contributed to a settlement fund for the benefit of the class.
While Lumenis itself would contribute a portion of this fund,
the major portion would be paid on behalf of the defendants by
the Company's insurers.
Assuming shareholder approval is forthcoming, the settlement
will still be subject to a number of conditions, including the
execution and preliminary court approval of a definitive
stipulation of settlement, and final court approval after there
has been notice to the members of the class and a hearing as to
the fairness of the proposed settlement.
If the settlement is finally approved by the court, the class
action litigation will be dismissed with prejudice against
Lumenis and the former Lumenis officers and directors who have
been named as defendants.
Lumenis is Israel's largest medical device company with more
than 1,000 employees worldwide. The Company invests heavily in
R&D and holds a leading position in the markets in which it
serves. Lumenis has over 250 patents worldwide, over 75 FDA
clearances, worldwide presence in over 100 countries, and an
installed base of over 70,000 systems. In December 2006, a group
led by a private equity consortium LM Partners LP and Ofer Hi-
Tech Group invested approximately $150 million in the Company.
For more information, contact:
Michelle Maydan
Director of Corporate Communications
Phone: 1-866-569-0597 or +972-4-959-9004
e-mail: mmaydan@lumenis.com
MET-RX USA: No Trial Set for Calif. Prohormone Supplements Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date has been set for a class action pending in
California against MET-Rx USA, Inc., an indirect subsidiary of
Rexall Sundown, Inc., in connection with the advertising and
marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements.
On July 25, 2002, a putative consumer class-action was filed
with the California state court against MET-Rx, claiming that
the advertising and marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements
were false and misleading, or alternatively, that the pro-
hormone products contained ingredients that were controlled
substances under California law. The plaintiffs seek equitable
and monetary relief.
On June 18, 2004, the case was coordinated with several other
class actions brought against other companies relating to the
sale of products containing androstenediol, one of the pro-
hormones contained in MET-Rx products. The coordinated
proceedings have been assigned to a coordination judge for
further pretrial proceedings.
The plaintiff has moved for class certification and the motion
is currently pending. MET-Rx recently filed a motion to dismiss
the lawsuit based upon the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the
case diligently.
No trial date has been set, according to the NBTY, Inc.'s
Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
MET-RX USA: N.J. Suit Over Prohormone Supplements Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action pending in New Jersey against MET-Rx USA, Inc.,
an indirect subsidiary of Rexall Sundown, Inc. in connection
with the advertising and marketing of certain prohormone
supplements has been stayed.
In March 2004, a putative class action was filed in New Jersey
against MET-Rx, claiming that the advertising and marketing of
certain prohormone supplements were false and misleading and
that plaintiff and the putative class of New Jersey purchasers
of these products were entitled to damages and injunctive
relief.
Because these allegations are virtually identical to allegations
made in a putative nationwide class-action previously filed in
California, the company moved to dismiss or stay the New Jersey
action pending the outcome of the California action.
The motion was granted, and the New Jersey action is stayed at
this time, according to the NBTY, Inc.'s Feb. 8, 2008 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
NAVARRE CORP: Minn. Judge to Give Final Approval for Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Magistrate Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota indicated that she would recommend the Court to
grant final approval to a settlement of a consolidated
securities fraud class action filed against Navarre Corp. and
certain of its officers and directors.
Several purported class-action lawsuits were commenced in 2005
by various plaintiffs against Navarre Corp. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
The actions are identified as:
-- "AVIVA Partners, Ltd. v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case
No. 05-1151 (PAM/RLE);"
-- "Vivian Oh v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-01211
(MJD/JGL);" and
-- "Matthew Grabler v. Navarre Corp., et al., Case No. 05-
1260 (DWF/JSM)."
The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sec. 10(b) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)(5), promulgated
under the Act, and as to the individual defendants only,
violation of Sec. 20(a) of the Act.
The plaintiffs sought certification of the actions as a class
action lawsuit, compensatory but unspecified damages allegedly
sustained as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, plus costs,
counsel fees and experts fees.
By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 12, 2005, the
Court appointed "The Pension Group" -- comprised of the
Operating Engineers Construction Industry and Miscellaneous
Pension Funds and Ms. Grace W. Lai -- as the Lead Plaintiff, and
appointed the Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield law firm as
liaison counsel and the Lerach, Coughlin law firm as lead
counsel. The Court also ordered that the cases be consolidated
under the caption, "In re Navarre Corporation Securities
Litigation," and further directed that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed.
The Consolidated Amended Complaint reiterates the allegations
made in the plaintiffs' individual complaints and extends these
allegations to the Company's restatements of its previously
issued financial statements that were made in November 2005.
Subsequently, at the defendants' request, the Court dismissed
the complaint, without prejudice, on June 27, 2006, for failure
to state a claim. Thus, on July 28, 2006, the plaintiffs filed
their Second Consolidated Amended Complaint, which were again
subject to the defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that
the new complaint had not sufficiently cured the defects present
in the first Consolidated Amended Complaint.
By Memorandum and Order dated Dec. 21, 2006, the Court granted
the defendants' motion in part and denied it in part, and
specifically removed Cary L. Deacon, Brian M.T. Burke and
Charles Cheney as individual defendants.
The remaining defendants answered the Complaint on Jan. 26,
2007, and typical disclosure requirements and discovery
proceeded. Eventually, the company and the plaintiffs agreed in
principle to settle the matter.
A hearing for final approval of the settlement took place on
Feb. 7, 2008, wherein the Magistrate Judge indicated that she
would recommend to the Court that the settlement be approved.
The suit is "In re Navarre Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
0:05-cv-01151-PAM-RLE," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota, Judge Judge Paul A. Magnuson
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Laura M. Andracchio, Esq.
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 W Broadway Ste 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-338-3829 or 619-231-1058 or 619-338-3858
e-mail: lauraa@lerachlaw.com
- and -
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr. Esq.
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield
332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250,
St. Paul, MN 55101
Phone: 651-287-2100
e-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
Representing the defendants is:
David A. Davenport, Esq.
Winthrop & Weinstine, PA
225 S. 6th St., Ste. 3500,
Mpls, MN 55402-4629
Phone: 612-604-6716
Fax: 612-604-6816
e-mail: ddavenport@winthrop.com
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT: Faces Consolidated Colo. Royalties Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Petroleum Development Corp. faces a consolidated class action
lawsuit pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado. The lawsuit alleges that the company underpaid
royalties on natural gas produced from wells it operated in the
State of Colorado, according to Rockies Region 2006 Private
Limited Partnership's Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Jan 30, 2008. Petroleum Development is the designated Managing
General Partner of Rockies Region.
State Court Case
The class action lawsuit was filed with the District Court Weld
County, Colorado, on May 29, 2007, by Glen Droegemueller,
individually and as representative plaintiff on behalf of all
others similarly situated, against Petroleum Development,
alleging that the company underpaid royalties on natural gas
produced from wells it operated in the State of Colorado.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and to recover an
unspecified amount of compensation for underpayment of royalties
paid by Petroleum Development pursuant to leases.
Petroleum Development had the case removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado on June 28, 2007, and later
filed its responses and affirmative defenses.
Federal Litigation
A second similar Colorado class action was filed against
Petroleum Development with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado on Dec. 3, 2007, by Ted Amsbaugh, Donald L.
Kretsch and Barbara H. Kretsch, as co-trustees of the Kretsch
Living Trust; and Buddy Baker, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated.
The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and to recover an
unspecified amount of compensation for alleged royalty
underpayments made by Petroleum Development for the wells in
which it has a working interest in Colorado.
Subsequently, on Jan. 28, 2008, at the plaintiffs' request, the
Court entered an order consolidating the second Colorado action
with the Droegemueller Lawsuit.
The suit is "Droegemueller v. Petroleum Development Corporation,
Case No. 1:2007cv01362," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado, Judge John L. Kane presiding.
POLO RALPH: Still Faces Several Labor-Related Lawsuits in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. continues to face purported class
actions in California that are generally alleging violations of
the state's wage and hour laws by improperly classifying
employees as exempt and by failing to pay overtime work and
granting meal breaks to workers.
State Court Action
The first lawsuit was filed on March 2, 2006, by a former
employee at the company's Club Monaco store in Los Angeles,
California, against the company with the San Francisco Superior
Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. The
plaintiff purports to represent a class of Club Monaco store
employees who allegedly have been injured by being improperly
classified as exempt employees and thereby not receiving
compensation for overtime and not receiving meal and rest
breaks.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive relief.
Federal Action
On May 30, 2006, four former employees of Ralph Lauren stores in
Palo Alto and San Francisco, California, filed another lawsuit
with the San Francisco Superior Court alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of employees who
allegedly have been injured by not being properly paid
commission earnings, not being paid overtime, not receiving rest
breaks, being forced to work off of the clock while waiting to
enter or leave the store and being falsely imprisoned while
waiting to leave the store.
The second complaint seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, damages for emotional distress, disgorgement of
profits, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive and
declaratory relief.
The company has filed a cross-claim against one of the
plaintiffs for his role in allegedly assisting a former employee
misappropriate company property. Subsequent to answering the
complaint, the company had the action moved to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
The company reported no further development in the matter in its
Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007.
Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. -- http://www.ralphlauren.com-- is a
global player in the design, marketing and distribution of
lifestyle products, including men’s, women’s and children’s
apparel, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings. The
Company operates in three segments: Wholesale, Retail and
Licensing.
PRESTIGE BRANDS: Mediation Fails to Produce Settlement for Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed against
Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc., that entered into mediation in
an effort to settle the case, failed to reached a resolution.
The first of the six cases that were later consolidated was
filed against the company and certain of its officers and
directors on Aug. 3, 2005. The cases were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of stockholders of
the company that purchased shares between Feb. 9, 2005, and
Nov. 15, 2005.
The plaintiffs also named as defendants the underwriters in the
company's initial public offering and a private equity fund that
was a selling stockholder in the offering. The district court
has appointed a lead plaintiff, who, on Dec. 23, 2005, filed a
consolidated class action complaint asserting claims under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
The lead plaintiff generally alleged that the company issued a
series of materially false and misleading statements in
connection with its initial public offering and thereafter in
regard to:
-- the accounting issues described in the company's press
release issued on or about Nov. 15, 2005; and
-- the alleged failure to disclose that demand for certain
of the company's products was declining and that the
company was planning to withdraw several products from
the market.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.
Pursuant to the company's request, the court, in a pretrial
ruling on July 10, 2006, dismissed claims that management acted
fraudulently. The Court also dismissed all claims against the
company and the individual defendants arising under the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Sept. 4, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York certified a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the common stock of the company pursuant to, or
traceable to, the Company's initial public offering on or about
Feb. 9, 2005, through Nov. 15, 2005.
On Jan. 8, 2008, the parties to the action engaged in mediation
to explore the terms of a potential settlement of the pending
litigation. However, no settlement agreement was reached during
mediation, according to the company's Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 7:05-cv-06924-CLB," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge
Charles L. Brieant presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. And
Mario Alba, Jr., Esq.
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
50 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY 11747
Phone: 631-367-7100
Fax: 631-367-1173
e-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com
malba@lerachlaw.com
Representing the defendants are:
Todd R. David, Esq.
Alston & Bird, L.L.P.
One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
Phone: (404) 881-7357
Fax: (404) 527-8717
e-mail: todd.david@alston.com
QUANTUM CORP: Wash. Court Grants Final OK to ADIC Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court in Seattle, Washington, granted
final approval to a proposed settlement in a purported class
action filed against Quantum Corp. over its acquisition of
Advanced Digital Information Corp.
The lawsuit, which was filed on May 18, 2006, with the King
County Superior Court in Seattle, Washington, named ADIC and its
directors as defendants. The lawsuit is a purported class
action, filed by Richard Carrigan on behalf of an alleged class
of ADIC's shareholders. The plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties in approving the proposed acquisition of ADIC by Quantum,
publicly announced on May 2, 2006.
The suit sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating the
proposed acquisition and other relief.
On Aug. 22, 2006, the company completed its acquisition of ADIC.
Though the acquisition has since been consummated, the lawsuit
remained pending and the company has continued discussions with
the plaintiffs to reach a resolution.
In January 2007, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the litigation. The Court granted
preliminary approval in May 2007.
The company received final approval of the terms of settlement
during the second quarter of fiscal 2008, according to the
company's Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Quantum Corp. -- http://www.quantum.com-- offers storage,
delivery of reliable backup, recovery and archive solutions that
meet demanding requirements for data integrity and availability.
REAL ESTATE COS: Faces Suit Over Real Estate Appraisal Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two couples are suing companies over real estate appraisal
practices claiming the companies schemed with real estate
appraisers to inflate prices paid for homes as the housing
market started to crumble, the Ventura County Star reports.
The complaint names as defendants:
-- KB Home Mortgage Co.
-- Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
-- a joint venture between the two, Countrywide KB Home
Loans, and
-- two real estate appraisers.
The couples claim that homebuyers were presented false or
misleading data on previously sold homes to justify higher
asking prices on new homes. Customers were given sales data for
homes that were dissimilar, in a different location or had not
been sold, according to the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status to cover KB Home
customers in California who were financed thorough Countrywide
and closed on their homes between Aug. 1, 2005 and July 31,
2006.
Los Angeles-based KB Home builds single-family homes and
develops commercial and residential projects.
Countrywide Home Loans Inc., based in Calabasas, is the nation's
largest mortgage lender. Bank of America has announced it plans
to purchase Countrywide.
REXALL SUNDOWN: Calif. Court Stays Lawsuit Over Nutrition Bars
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California court stayed a class action brought in 2002 against
Rexall Sundown, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries, on behalf
of all California consumers who bought various nutrition bars,
according to the NBTY, Inc.'s Feb. 8, 2008 form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The plaintiffs allege misbranding of nutrition bars and
violations of California unfair competition statutes, misleading
advertising and other similar causes of action. They are
seeking restitution, legal fees and injunctive relief.
In December 2006, while Rexall's and the other defendants'
renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending, the
Court again stayed the case for all purposes, pending rulings on
relevant cases before the California Supreme Court.
SPRINT NEXTEL: Sales Reps File Suit in KS to Recover Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nichols Kaster & Anderson, PLLP has brought a putative
nationwide class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas on behalf of commissioned employees
against Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint/United Management
Co.
Tue suit, filed on Feb. 7, was brought by current and former
employees who either worked, or currently work, as sales
representatives in Sprint Nextel's retail stores in Louisiana.
These employees assert that since the merger of Sprint and
Nextel, these companies have failed to pay them all the
commissions they were due because of computer issues Sprint
Nextel failed to resolve. These employees claim they were
shorted approximately $100 to more than $500 per month in
commissions for products and services they sold for Sprint
Nextel.
Plaintiffs' attorney Michele Fisher explained, "Sprint Nextel's
failure to pay these employees the proper commissions was a
systematic problem of which the company was aware yet failed to
resolve. Employees have been reporting these problems to the
company for years, but the company continues to deny them their
pay."
The plaintiffs filed their claims in the Kansas District Court
due to choice of law and venue provisions in their commissions
contract that designated Kansas law and the State of Kansas.
The suit is "Sibley et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al,
Civ. No.2:08-cv-02063," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Michele Fisher, Esq.
Nichols Kaster & Anderson
4600 IDS Center
80 S. Eighth St.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: 612-256-3229
e-mail: fisher@nka.com
STARBUCKS COFFEE: No Trial Date Fixed for Fla. Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set yet for an overtime lawsuit against
Starbucks Coffee Co. that was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida.
The suit, "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al., Case
No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," which was filed on June 3, 2004, is part
of a national debate over whether many managers are improperly
classified as exempt from overtime laws.
It was filed on behalf of 900 Starbucks store managers who
claimed they are glorified "baristas" and should be eligible for
overtime. The plaintiffs argue that their daily duties are
virtually the same as the hourly workers they supervise.
The plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated U.S. current and former store managers of the Company.
they seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs.
The plaintiffs also filed on June 3, 2004, a motion for
conditional collective action treatment and court-supervised
notice to additional putative class members under the opt-in
procedures in Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
On Jan. 3, 2005, the district court entered an order authorizing
nationwide notice of the lawsuit to all current and former store
managers employed by the Company during the three years before
the suit was filed. The Company's initial motion for summary
judgment was denied without prejudice. The Company plans to
file another motion for summary judgment with the court.
There is currently no trial date, according to the company's
Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007.
The suit is "Pendlebury, et al. v. Starbucks Coffee, et al.,
Case No. 9:04-cv-80521-KAM," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Kenneth A. Marra
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robin Ilene Cohen, Esq.
Shapiro Blasi Wasserman & Gora PA
7777 Glades Road, Suite 400
Boca Raton, FL 33434
Phone: 561-477-7800
Fax: 561-477-7722
e-mail: ricohen@sbwlawfirm.com
Representing the defendant are:
Susan Nadler Eisenberg, Esq.
Akerman Senterfitt
Suntrust International Ctr., 1 SE 3rd Ave., 28th Flr.
Miami, FL 33131-1714
Phone: 305-374-5600
Fax: 305-374-5095
e-mail: susan.eisenberg@akerman.com
- and -
Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310-552-6435
Fax: 310-552-6746
e-mail: cconway@akingump.com
STARBUCKS CORP: February 2008 Trial Slated for Tex. ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A February 2008 trial date is scheduled for the purported class
action against Starbucks Corp. pending with the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. The suit claims that
the company violated requirements of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
On March 11, 2005, a former employee of the Company filed a
lawsuit, entitled "James Falcon v. Starbucks Corporation and
Does 1 through 100." Specifically, the plaintiff claims that
the company misclassified its retail assistant store managers as
exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and that each
assistant manager therefore is entitled to overtime compensation
for any week in which he or she worked more than 40 hours during
the three years before joining the suit as a plaintiff, and for
as long as they remain an assistant manager thereafter.
On Aug. 18, 2005, the plaintiff amended his complaint to include
allegations that he and other retail assistant store managers
were not paid overtime compensation for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek after they were re-classified
as non-exempt employees in September 2002.
In both claims, the plaintiff seeks to represent himself and a
putative class of all current and former assistant store
managers employed by the company in the United States from
March 11, 2002, until the present.
The plaintiff also seeks, on behalf of himself and the class,
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On Sept. 13, 2005, the plaintiff filed a motion for conditional
collective action treatment and court-supervised notice to all
putative class members under the opt-in procedures in section
16(b) of the FLSA. On Nov. 29, 2005, the court entered an order
authorizing notice to the class of the existence of the lawsuit
and their opportunity to join as plaintiffs.
Trial is currently set for February 2008, according to the
company's Feb. 7, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007.
The suit is "Falcon v. Starbucks Corp. et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-
00792," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Judge Keith P. Ellison presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Robert R. Debes, Jr., Esq.
The Debes Law Firm
17 South Briar Hollow Lane, Ste. 302
Houston, TX 77027
Phone: 713-623-0900
Fax: 713-623-0951
e-mail: bdebes@debeslaw.com
Representing the defendant is:
Fraser A. McAlpine, Esq.
Akin Gump et al.
1111 Louisiana St., 44th Floor
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: 713-220-8129
Fax: 713-236-0822
e-mail: fmcalpine@akingump.com
STARBUCKS CORP: No Trial Date Set for Calif. Suit on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
No trial date was set for an employment-related lawsuit against
Starbucks Corp. that is on appeal with the California Court of
Appeals.
On June 30, 2005, three individuals -- Erik Lords, Hon Yeung,
and Donald Brown -- filed the lawsuit with the Orange County
Superior Court in California. The plaintiffs allege that the
Company violated the California Labor Code section 432.8 by
asking job applicants to disclose at the time of application
convictions for marijuana related offenses more than two years
old. They also seek attorneys' fees and costs.
On Nov. 1, 2007, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiffs representing a class of
all persons who have applied for employment with Starbucks
Coffee Co. in California since June 23, 2004, who cannot claim
damages in excess of $200.
On Nov. 15, 2007, the court denied the Company's motion for
summary judgment. Starbucks has appealed the denial of its
motion for summary judgment and the California Court of Appeals
has agreed to hear the appeal.
No trial date has been set, according to the company's Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 30, 2007.
Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, a variety of complementary food items,
coffee-related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium
teas and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-
operated retail stores.
T ROWE PRICE: Continues to Face Suit Over Foreign Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc., and its affiliates
continue to face a purported class action with the Circuit Court
for the Third Judicial Circuit of Madison County, Illinois over
its failure to use the latest prices from international markets.
The purported class action, entitled "T.K. Parthasarathy, et
al., including Woodbury, v. T. Rowe Price International Funds,
Inc., et al.," was filed in September 2003.
Named as defendants in the complaint are:
-- T. Rowe Price International Funds, Inc.
-- T. Rowe Price International, Inc.;
-- Artisan Funds, Inc.;
-- Artisan Partners Limited Partnership;
-- AIM International Funds, Inc.; and
-- AIM Advisors.
Named plaintiffs -- T.K. Parthasarathy, Edmund Woodbury, Stuart
Allen Smith and Sharon Smith -- bring the complaint as a class
action pursuant to Section 5/2-801 et seq. of the Illinois Code
of Civil Procedure individually and on behalf of all persons in
the U.S. who have owned shares of T. Rowe Price International,
Artisan International and Aim European Growth for more than 14
days from the date of purchase to the date of sale (redemption)
or exchange (long term shareholders) (Class Action Reporter,
Oct. 25, 2007).
The basic allegations in the case were that the T. Rowe Price
defendants did not make appropriate price adjustments to the
foreign securities owned by the T. Rowe Price International
Stock Fund prior to calculating the Fund's daily share prices,
thereby allegedly enabling market timing traders to trade the
Fund's shares in such a way as to disadvantage long-term
investors.
Following years of procedural litigation in State and Federal
courts, the case has been remanded to the State Court.
The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 7,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "TK Parthasarathy et al. v. T. Rowe Price
International Funds, Inc. et al., Case No. 05-CV-302-DRH," filed
with the Circuit Court for the Third Judicial Circuit in Madison
County, Illinois.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
10 Executive Woods Court
Swansea, IL 62226
Phone: (618) 277-1180
Fax: (618) 241-3525
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Three First National Plaza
70 West Madison, Suite 660
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 641-9750
Fax: (312) 641-9751
e-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
- and -
Klint Bruno, Esq.
SimmonsCooper LLC
707 Berkshire Blvd.
P.O. Box 521
East Alton, IL 62024
Phone: (618) 259-2222 or (866) 468-8631
Fax: (618) 259-2251
Web site: http://www.simmonscooper.com
e-mail: kbruno@simmonscooper.com
TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Girls Bicycles Due To Frame Failure
---------------------------------------------------------
Trek Bicycle Corp., of Waterloo, Wis., in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about
49,000 Trek MT220 girls bicycles.
The company said the bicycle's frame can break during use,
causing the rider to lose control and suffer injuries.
Trek has received 13 reports of frames breaking, including four
minor injuries.
This recall involves Trek girls’ bicycles model MT220 and model
years 2005 (light metallic blue), 2006 (metallic silver and
metallic purple or pink and pearl white), and 2007 (pink and
white pearl or metallic purple).
The model name is printed on the frame of the bicycle. Model
year 2008 bicycles re not included in this recall.
These recalled girls bicycles were manufactured in China and
Taiwan and were being sold at authorized Trek dealers nationwide
from April 2004 through June 2007 for about $300.
Pictures of the recalled girls bicycles are found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08186a.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08186b.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08186c.jpg
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08186d.jpg
Consumers are advised to take the recalled bicycle away from
children immediately and return it to a Trek dealer for a free
replacement MT220 girl's bicycle or a $100 discount on a
different size Trek bicycle.
For additional information, consumers can contact Trek at (800)
373-4594 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday and between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. CT Saturday, or visit
the firm's Web site: http://www.trekbikes.com
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Faces Lawsuit in OH Over House Foreclosures
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Mutual Bank is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
alleging it repeatedly tries to foreclose on houses whose owners
do not owe Washington Mutual any money, CourtHouse News Service
reports.
This is an action challenging defendants' customary use of
false, deceptive and unconscionable debt collection practices,
in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 USC
Section 1692, et seq., and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act,
RC Section 1345.01.
Named plaintiff Vevie Graham claims WaMu regularly employs co-
defendant Columbus attorneys Manley Deas Kochalski LLC and Kevin
Williams to collect money from, and foreclose upon property of
people who, like her, has never had any business relationship
with WaMu whatsoever.
The plaintiff brings the action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), on behalf of all
individuals who, on or after Jan. 31, 2006, were or will be
named as a borrower liable to pay any promissory note, or upon
any mortgage, in a foreclosure complaint or other communication
concerning a debt allegedly secured by a personal residence in
Ohio, as sent by:
-- Washington Mutual,
-- Manley Deas Kochalski LLC, and/or
-- Kevin L. Williams,
when that complaint or communication names as the party to which
that debt is allegedly owed a party who is not the owner and
holder of that note or mortgage identified by the county
recorder's records for that personal residence on the business
day immediately prior to the date of that complaint or other
communication.
Ms. Graham requests that the court enter judgment as follows:
-- an award of actual damages to the class under RC Section
1345.09(B), and an order of injunctive relief under RC
Section 1345.09(D);
-- an award of statutory damages to the subclass pursuant
to 15 USC Section 1692k(2)A of the FDCPA;
-- a separate and independent award of actual damages to
the subclass as recoverable under the FDCPA;
-- an award of plaintiff's litigation costs and reasonable
attorney fees under 15 USC Section 1691k(3) and Section
1345.09(F);
-- an award of compensatory and punitive damages to
plaintiff individually under her action for malicious
prosecution; and
-- the recovery of such other and further relief in law or
equity as may be just and proper.
The suit is "VEvie Jennine Graham et al. v. Manley Deas
Kochalski LLC, Case No. 0:08 cv 120," filed with the U.s.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Judith B. Goldstein, Esq.
Equal Justice Foundation
88 East Broad St., Suite 1590
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: (614) 221-9800
Fax: (614) 221-9810
e-mail: jgoldstein@equaljusticefoundation.org
New Securities Fraud Cases
MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a
class action with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (PINKSHEETS:
MMAB) between January 30, 2003 through January 28, 2008,
inclusive.
The Complaint charges MuniMae and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
MuniMae and its subsidiaries arrange debt and equity financing
for developers and owners of real estate and clean energy
projects.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
(1) that the Company's financial statements were materially
overstated;
(2) that the Company failed to properly account for its
interest in certain entities;
(3) that the Company overstated the fair value of its bond
portfolio by failing to take timely write-downs;
(4) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls; and
(6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On January 28, 2008, after the market closed, MMA shocked
investors when it announced that the Company was being delisted
on the New York Stock Exchange due to the fact that it had
failed to file financial reports after numerous time extensions.
The Company announced that it would be restating its 2004 and
2005 financial statements, and had yet to report its 2006
financial results. As a result, it would begin trading on the
over-the-counter market.
Moreover, the Company announced that, partially due to its
seemingly endless attempts and failures in restating and filing
financial reports, it was cutting dividends from $0.525 per
share to $0.33 per share.
Then, on Jan. 29, 2008, before the market opened, the Company
announced that it would be implementing additional "changes" to
its accounting policies. There were a multitude of changes
including the way the Company would recognize revenue for their
low income housing tax credit business, the way it would account
for loans, recognition of additional obligations as liabilities
and changes to the estimated fair value of certain bonds. Upon
the release of this news, the Company's shares declined $8.01
per share, or 46.57 percent, to close on January 29, 2008 at
$9.19 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or 1-610-667-7706
e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com
ORION ENERGY: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Jacobs & Associates commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired the common shares of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. in the
Initial Public Offering on Dec. 18, 2007, or in the open market
from Dec. 18, 2007, through Feb. 6, 2008.
With respect to the IPO, Orion realized over $78 million in
proceeds, while Chief Executive Officer Neal R. Verfuerth
("Verfuerth") and family sold 600,000 shares for proceeds of
approximately $7 million.
On Feb. 6, 2008, just weeks after its IPO, Orion revealed news
concerning the Company which completely surprised analysts and
investors, and caused the stock to drop approximately 43%, to a
price of $8.51 per share.
Orion is a manufacturer of efficient lighting and energy systems
to businesses.
The Prospectus for its IPO described a Company that was quickly
growing revenues from existing product lines, and briefly
described product line extensions. After the close of trading on
Feb. 6, 2008, Orion revealed that revenues in its current fiscal
quarter would decline as the Company took aggressive measures to
promote a "new business model," a change in focus that is
alleged not to have been adequately disclosed or described in
the IPO Prospectus. During the February 6, 2008 conference call,
Orion executives, including Verfuerth, appeared unable to
explain to the satisfaction of securities analysts this
surprising news about the business model change on the heels of
the IPO, or its impact on revenues.
The complaint charges Orion, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters who sponsored the IPO with
violation of the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with the IPO
which was materially false or misleading due to omissions. The
law generally imposes strict liability on defendants responsible
for a materially false Registration Statement and Prospectus,
including for purchases made in the open market after the IPO;
no fraud need be proved to recover.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Roy L. Jacobs, Esq.
Roy Jacobs & Associates
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: 1-888-884-4490
e-mail: rjacobs@jacobsclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jacobsclasslaw.com
SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Bernard Gross Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. has commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California on behalf of purchasers of the securities of SiRF
Technology Holdings, Inc. between October 30, 2007 and February
4, 2008, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint charges SiRF and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws.
SiRF is the leading supplier of global positioning system chips.
As alleged in the complaint, defendants concealed from the
investing public that:
(i) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communication was
having an adverse impact on SiRF's results due to the
similar products sold by Centrality which cannibalized
SiRF's sales and had lower gross margins;
(ii) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at
sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive
targets set by and for the Company; and
(iii) competitive pressures were having a much larger adverse
impact on the Company than acknowledged as SiRF's
customers were moving to cellular-enabled products
which SiFR could not adequately compete in. During this
same time period, defendant Banateo sold 400,000 shares
of his SiRF stock.
On Feb. 4, 2008, after the markets closed, SiRF reported an 89%
decrease in fourth-quarter profits to $0.7 million from $9.1
million the year before. Upon this news, the price of SiRF's
stock collapsed $8.91 per share to close at $7.36 per share, a
one day decline of 54% on volume of 63 million shares, 30 times
the average three month volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those who
purchased the common stock of SiRF between Oct. 30, 2007, and
Feb. 4, 2008.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Susan R. Gross, Esq.
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C.
Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
Juniper and Market Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: 866-561-3600 (toll free) or 215-561-3600
e-mail: susang@bernardmgross.com or
debbie@bernardmgross.com
Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
February 13, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: WEATHERING MASS TORT
AND CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS & NEGOTIATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 14, 2008
LEXISNEXIS LAW PRACTICE MANAGEMENT TELECONFERENCE
SERIES: WHEN TO MERGE FIRMS AND HOW TO SURVIVE IT
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 14-16, 2008
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
San Diego
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-16, 2008
ERISA LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 14-15, 2008
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Coronado
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 21-22, 2008
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE: THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 26, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: MAXIMIZING COVERAGE - ANTICIPATING
YOUR CLIENT'S INSURANCE NEEDS BEFORE THE CLAIM HAPPENS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 27, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CLIMATE CHANGE AND
INSURANCE EXPOSURES
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 27-28, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
February 28, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION WEBINAR: THE
KEYS TO SUCCESSFUL RAINMAKING
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
February 28-29, 2008
FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Scottsdale
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
February 28-29, 2008
LITIGATING TRADEMARK, INTERNET, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CASES
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 28-29, 2008
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS
ALI-ABA
Newport Beach
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
February 28-29, 2008
TRIAL OF A PATENT CASE
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 3-5, 2008
MEALEY'S EMERGING TRENDS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
A PLAINTIFF/DEFENSE FORUM & DEBATE
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 4-5, 2008
SUBPRIME LITIGATION AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
American Conference Institute
Dallas
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
March 5, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE IN CLASS ACTIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 6, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME-BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CHALLENGES OF THE MANAGING
GENERAL AGENT MODEL
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S PRODUCT LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: DIACETYL LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES
ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE
WHO'S SUING, WHO'S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH?
Mealeys Seminars
Loews Philadelphia Hotel
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13-14, 2008
PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 26, 2008
MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 31 - April 1, 2008
FDA BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
April 2, 2008
LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
HARD CONVERSATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 3-4, 2008
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-320-2227
April 14-15, 2008
MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 15, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 16, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 16, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Gleacher Center, Chicago
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 30 - May 1, 2008
ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
April 30 - May 1, 2008
WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, MA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 5-6, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 7, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 8, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 8, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
Mealeys Seminars
The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 13-14, 2008
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
May 15, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 19-20, 2008
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 20-21, 2008
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 29-30, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, SC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
June 23-24, 2008
MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 25, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 10-11, 2008
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-320-2227
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE
-- FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION,
INSURANCE & CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
HBA PRESENTS: "HOW TO CONSTRUE A CONTRACT IN BOTH CONTRACT AND
TORT CASES IN TEXAS"
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
February 1-28, 2008
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
DEFECT LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Phone: 512-778-5665
e-mail: info@cleonline.com
December 13, 2008
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Phone: 800-285-2221
e-mail: abacle@abanet.org
*********
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 * * *