C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 22, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 38 Headlines ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Calif. Suits Over Norvir Re-Pricing ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass. CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Tariffs Increase Lawsuit Dismissed CENTERPOINT ENERGY: AR Court Orders Dismissal of "Johnson" Case CIGNA CORP: Cash Balance Plan Not Discriminatory, Court Rules COMCAST CORP: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Peer-to-Peer Traffic DOEREN MAYHEW: Faces Big Property Scam Allegations in Michigan E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused of Unfair Charges in Calif. Lawsuit FORD MOTOR: City of Florence Joins Suit Over Ambulance Troubles HANCOCK FABRICS: Reaches Settlement in Ill. FACTA Litigation ISRAEL: Big Retailers Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Eggs MERCK FROSST: Seeks Appellate Review of Vioxx Case Certification PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. Securities Suit PELLA CORP: Dismissal Request in ProLine Windows Suit Junked QANTAS AIRWAYS: Large Travel Agents Opt Out of Price-Fixing Suit ROO HD: Denies Wrongdoing to Wurld Media Workers in Buyout ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari in "Lopez" Case ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Arbitration Order in CA Suit ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Still Pending SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces MI Suit Over 3rd-Party Text Messages Fees U.S. FINANCIAL: Sued in CA Over Loans with Negative Amortization U.S. SECRET SERVICE: Inspector Admits Destroying Original Proof WASTE MANAGEMENT: Still Faces Stockholder Litigation in Illinois WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuits in California WINN-DIXIE: Securities Suit vs. Individual Defendants Dismissed WINN-DIXIE STORES: Settlement Reached in Fla. ERISA Litigation WINN-DIXIE STORES: No Ruling Yet on Fla. Bias Case Removal Bid New Securities Fraud Cases CHARYS HOLDING: Vianale & Vianale Files GA Securities Fraud Suit MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit OPNEXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Has 400 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Central Hudson Has 1,183 Claims at Jan. 15 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple Files Suit v. 46 Defendants in W.Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Case v. DuPont, Chevron Filed in Tex. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Ind. Expenses Drop to $68.4M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Records $437.5M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker's Kin Sues Nippon Express, Nichias ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 117,400 Claims Pending v. Goodyear at 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Spends $3.5M for Cleanup in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: BorgWarner Still Has 42T Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Action Still Pending v. BorgWarner Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Links Drop in Expenses to 2007 Payments ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG States No Further Obligations to Trust ASBESTOS LITIGATION: USG Pays $40M for Damage Settlements in '07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk Southern Faces Occupational Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Accrues $250M Liabilities at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $939M NARCO Receivable ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Suit v. Honeywell Ongoing in N.Y. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 51,658 Bendix Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO, Bendix Had $1.65B Liabilities in '07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 10,300 Injury Cases Pending v. Corning Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,781 Claims Pending v. Burlington Northern ASBESTOS LITIGATION: "Premises" Lawsuits Ongoing v. Alcoa, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $121M Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Local Fined $8T for Abatement Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitter's Kin Blames BAE for Wrongful Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Priory Could Pay Fines for Cleanup Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Asbestos Delays New Orleans Parish Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Plumber's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Scotland Gov't. to Launch GBP1.9M Inquiry ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Family Seeks Repairman's Former Colleagues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Court Issues Split Ruling in Employers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Housewife Files Action v. 10 Firms in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Overturns Travelers $500M Settlement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shipyard Worker Awarded $2.25M in N.Y. Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Perth Mechanic Gets AUD840T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Fines ERL, Clarks for Safety Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE to Carry Out More Tests in U.K. Schools ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. School Worker's Death Linked to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Barking and Dagenham Group Calls On Victims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wash. Firefighters May be Exposed to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Appeals Court Rules in Hammock's Favor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Vacates Ruling in Fobbs Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wyo. Worker Sues 64 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sentencing of N.Y. County Worker Postponed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ford Mulls Appeal to Lo Presti Case Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCATT Campaigns v. House of Lords Decision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dock Worker Sues Law Brothers for GBP250T ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CLC Delays Call for Ban on Asbestos Mining ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25T Claims Still Pending v. Fairmont Supply ASBESTOS ALERT: Salton Defends v. 3 Suits over Applica Products ********* ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and Laboratoires Fournier, S.A. remain defendants in several lawsuits that were filed either with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware or with the Central District of California, alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims in connection with the sale of fenofibrate formulations. One of the purported class actions was filed by Paul T. Regan with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in July 2005. The other 14 purported class actions and five individual actions are pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and were filed by: Filing Date ----------- Alberto Litter August 2005 Allied Services Division Welfare Fund and Hector Valdes June 2005 Cindy Cronin July 2005 Diana Kim June 2005 Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers July 2005 Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. June 2005 Meijer, Inc. June 2005 Painters District Council No.30 Health and Welfare Fund June 2005 Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund June 2005 Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund July 2005 Elaine M. Pullman June 2005 Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. June 2005 Charles M. Shain July 2005 Vista Healthplan, Inc. June 2005 CVS Pharmacy, Inc. August 2005 Impax Laboratories June 2005 Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. August 2005 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. June 2005 Walgreen Co. June 2005 The plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble damages and other relief, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of a diversified line of healthcare products. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill. -------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories continues to face a class action pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that was filed by employees who alleged that the spin- off of Hospira, Inc., from the Company adversely affected their employee benefits, according to the Company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc.," generally alleges that the Company's action is in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 The plaintiffs are former Abbott employees who assert that their transfer to Hospira, as part of the spin-off, adversely affected their employee benefits in violation of the ERISA, and that in their transfer, Abbott breached a fiduciary duty to them involving employee benefits. The plaintiffs seek reinstatement as Abbott employees, or reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly lost. Abbott filed a response denying all substantive allegations. The court had granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification of the breach of fiduciary claim. The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Steven M. Sprenger, Esq. Sprenger & Lang, PLLC 1400 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-265-8010 e-mail: contact@sprengerlang.com Web site: http://www.sprengerlang.com/ - and - Michael M. Mulder, Esq. (mmmulder@mmmglaw.com) Meites, Mulder, Mollica and Glink 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-263-0272 Fax: 312-263-2942 Representing the defendant is: James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com) Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive, 41st Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-558-5230 ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Calif. Suits Over Norvir Re-Pricing -------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories faces several purported class actions that are all pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and which generally allege antitrust violations in connection with the 2003 Norvir re-pricing, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. A consolidated class action on behalf of individual consumers, John Doe 1 (filed in April 2004), and third party payors, Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare Fund (filed in October 2004), is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Several additional cases, including three purported class actions on behalf of direct purchasers, have been filed by: -- Rite Aid, Inc. (filed in December 2007), -- Louisiana Wholesale Drug Company, Inc. (filed in December 2007), -- GlaxoSmithKline (filed in November 2007), -- Meijer, Inc. (filed in November 2007), -- Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. (filed in November 2007), and -- Safeway, Inc. (filed in October 2007). Those suits are also pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs seek actual damages, treble and punitive damages, injunctive, and other relief. Abbott Laboratories -- http://www.abbott.com/-- is engaged in the discovery, development, manufacture and sale of a diversified line of healthcare products. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces AWP-Related Litigation in Mass. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Abbott Laboratories continues to face a purported class action titled, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456," according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actions or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors are pending. These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state government entities, generally seek monetary damages and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each case denying all substantive allegations. The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456." MDL 1456 includes: -- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003); -- seven state Attorneys General and two state county suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City of New York suit (filed in June 2005); -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in May 2006); and -- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc., unsealed against Abbott in August 2007 and in which the U.S. declined to intervene. The MDL Court is transferring the case brought by the Montana Attorney General back to the Montana federal court for a ruling on defendants' motion for summary judgment. The consolidated suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed with the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Judge Patti B. Saris presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marjory P. Albee, Esq. (malbee@magergoldstein.com) Mager & Goldstein LLP 1818 Market Street, Suite 3710 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-640-3280 Fax: 215-640-3281 - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101-1090 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants: Toni-Ann Citera, Esq. (tcitera@jonesday.com) Jones Day 222 East 41st Street New York, NY 10017-6702 Phone: 212-782-3939 Fax: 212-755-7306 - and - Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq. (sbirnbau@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: 212-735-3000 CELLCOM ISRAEL: Unlawful Tariffs Increase Lawsuit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- A purported class action lawsuit filed with the District Court of Tel-Aviv against Cellcom Israel Ltd. was dismissed with prejudice on February 18, 2008. Filed in April 2007, the plaintiffs -- claiming to be subscribers of the defendants -- contend that the Company raised its tariffs unlawfully and in violation of its license, in pricing plans that include a commitment to purchase certain services for a fixed period (Class Action Reporter, May 22, 2007). Had the dismissed lawsuit been certified as a class action, the amount claimed from the Company was estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately $219.48 million. For more information, contact: Shiri Israeli Investor Relations Coordinator Phone: +972-52-998-9755 e-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il - and - Ehud Helft (ehud@gkir.com) Ed Job (ed.job@ccgir.com) Investor Relations Contact CCGK Investor Relations Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) +1-646-213-1914 CENTERPOINT ENERGY: AR Court Orders Dismissal of "Johnson" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Arkansas Supreme Court ordered Judge James Hudson Jr. of Miller County Circuit Court to dismiss the class action, "Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, et al. v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-2," which alleges that Centerpoint, and several other firms were involved in a fraudulent natural gas selling scheme, Michelle Massey of The Southeast Texas Record reports. The ruling, issued on Feb. 14, 2008, affirms and enforces an earlier decision that ruled the state regulatory agencies including the Arkansas Public Service Commission and the Texas Railroad Commission has exclusive jurisdiction and sole authority over gas rates, according to The Southeast Texas Record. It came after defendants petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court, seeking an extraordinary writ to stop the Miller County Circuit Court from continuing with proceedings. The Southeast Texas Record reports, Centerpoint argued that the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to recognize or obey the Arkansas Supreme Court's early opinion of June 7, 2007, in which the higher court ruled that the Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the rate issues alleged in the case. After the first opinion was released, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case with the circuit court. However, the plaintiffs responded arguing that the Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion did not dismiss any parties or any claims. They further held that the opinion did not change the essence of the case, which the plaintiffs contend was about rates and not about fraud. Thus, Judge Hudson denied the motions to dismiss, but stayed all Arkansas claims pending the public service commission's decision. However, as reported by The Southeast Texas Record, the judge "explicitly refused to dismiss" the Arkansas plaintiff, and stated that venue was proper based the retention of the Arkansas residents' claims. In the recently issued opinion by the Arkansas Supreme Court, the defendants were asking for the higher court to enforce its early decision and order the lower court to dismiss the case, The Southeast Texas Record reports. Case Background The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004. Miller County, Ark., resident Weldon Johnson and Bowie County, Texas, resident Guy Sparks (later replaced by Angela Engledowl) filed the original complaint with the Miller County Circuit Court. Named as defendants in the matter are (Class Action Reporter, April 27, 2007): -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.; -- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; -- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.; -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.; -- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC; -- Tejas Gas, LLC; -- Midcon Corp.; and -- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. It purports to bring a class action on behalf of those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1, 1994 to the date of class certification. In general, the suit accuses defendants of fraudulently fixing the price of natural gas, conspiring to artificially inflate the cost of natural gas, and passing the cost to residential and commercial customers as a regular "add on" to their base charges (Class Action Reporter, June 27, 2006). The scheme allegedly allowed defendants to buy cheaper gas to sell at greater profits to manufacturers, industrial users and oil refineries. Representing the plaintiffs are: Phillip N. Cockrell, Esq. (pcockrell@pattonroberts.com) Patton, Roberts, McWilliams & Capshaw Century Plaza Suite 400, 2900 St. Michael Drive P.O. Box 6128 Texarkana, Texas 75505-6128 Phone: 903-334-7000 Fax: 903-334-7007 Web Site: http://www.pattonroberts.com Representing the defendant is: B. Daryl Bristow, Esq. (d.bristow@bakerbotts.com) Baker Botts L.L.P. One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana Houston, Texas 77002 Phone: 713-229-1400 Fax: 713-229-2800 Web site: http://www.bakerbotts.com/ CIGNA CORP: Cash Balance Plan Not Discriminatory, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Mark R. Kravitz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled after conducting a seven- day non-jury trial that CIGNA Corp.'s cash balance plan did not run afoul of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's anti-backloading prohibition, Plan Adviser reports. Plan Adviser recalls that CIGNA converted its traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan in 1998. A group of participants filed a lawsuit in 2001 contending that the cash balance program was age discriminatory, violated ERISA's anti- backloading rule, and resulted in the forfeiture of accrued benefits. The participants further alleged that CIGNA's notice of the plan conversion did not comply with ERISA. The district court certified the lawsuit as a class action consisting of approximately 25,000 CIGNA employees and retirees in December 2002. What the plaintiffs saw as age discrimination, Judge Kravitz stated in his order, was only the transition from a traditional pension plan that was heavily age-favored to a cash balance plan that was "still age-favored but less so." In terms of an ERISA Section 204(b)(1)(H) violation, Judge Kravitz agreed with CIGNA that in determining the "rate of benefit accrual," courts should focus on what an employer puts into a plan, rather than what an employee takes out of the plan at retirement. Judge Kravitz pointed out that while federal courts have differed on the issue of how to define "rate of benefit accrual," the large majority of courts that have found that the phrase should be defined by looking at employer "inputs" rather than employee "outputs." Also, Judge Kravitz admitted, when there is wear away, even though the employee continues to work for CIGNA and continues to receive benefit credits, the employee's expected retirement benefits have not grown beyond what the employee was entitled to before the conversion. According to Plan Adviser, the court next rejected the participants' argument that the plan violated ERISA's anti- backloading rule, which prohibits employers from pushing the bulk of retirement benefits to their employees' pensions until late in the employees' careers. As for CIGNA's notice of the plan conversion, Judge Kravitz said that it was improper, Business Insurance relates. The Philadelphia-based insurer did not give a key notice to employees as required by ERISA, and its summary plan descriptions and other materials were inadequate under the federal statute and in some cases "downright misleading," the judge ruled. Judge Kravitz pointed out that ERISA emphasizes the importance of disclosing details of a company's pension plan to enable employees to prepare for retirement. This, he said, is where CIGNA failed to fulfill its obligations; the company did not provide its employees with the information they needed to understand the conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan and its effect on their retirement benefits. CIGNA's statements, the ruling contained, misled plan participants to believe that significant reductions in the rate of future benefit accruals were not a component or a possible result of the cash balance plan. Business Insurance notes that Judge Kravitz ordered the parties to file briefs by March 17, 2008, regarding potential damages. The ruling in Amara v. Cigna Corp., D. Conn., No. 3:01CV2361 (MRK), 2/15/08 can be viewed at: http://www.plansponsor.com/uploadfiles/cignacashbalruling.pdf The plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Bruce, Esq. (stephen.bruce@prodigy.net) Stephen R. Bruce Law Offices 805 15th St. NW # 210 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 371-8013 Fax: (202) 371-0121 COMCAST CORP: Faces D.C. Lawsuit Over Peer-to-Peer Traffic ---------------------------------------------------------- The law firm Gilbert Randolph LLP filed a class action with the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against Comcast Corp.'s D.C. operations for false advertising related to the speed of its Internet service, Erin Killian of the Washington Business Journal reports. According to Business Journal, at issue is whether an Internet service provider has the right to manage the flow of Internet traffic. Peer-to-peer files often take up a lot of bandwidth that can slow down networks during peak times. Named plaintiff Sanford Sidner brings the lawsuit on behalf of D.C. residents who have subscribed to Comcast's high-speed Internet service during the past three years. The complaint alleges that Comcast (Nasdaq:CMCSA) does not have the "fastest Internet connection" as it advertises because it "intentionally blocks or impedes its customer's access to peer- to-peer file sharing." It further alleges that Comcast sends forged "reset packets" telling the transmitting computers attempting to share files to stop sending data. According to the report, Philadelphia-based Comcast denies blocking or impeding its service. "To be clear, Comcast does not, has not, and will not block any Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services, and no one has demonstrated otherwise," Comcast spokesman Charlie Douglas told Business Journal. He said that a minority of their customers use peer-to-peer. "Sometimes we have to delay [the sharing] because of the volume of it," Mr. Douglas said, so that the rest of the company's customers aren't affected by the network being bogged down by peer-to-peer. According to Business Journal, Mr. Douglas would not comment specifically on the D.C. Lawsuit. To contact the law firm: Gilbert Randolph LLP 1100 New York Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 772-2200 Fax: (202) 772-3333 Web site: http://www.gilbertrandolph.com DOEREN MAYHEW: Faces Big Property Scam Allegations in Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------- Doeren Mayhew and Co., P.C. -- doing business as Doren Mayhew -- is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 12, 2008, with the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland in the State of Michigan alleging that the company defrauded 500 to 1,200 investors of $74 million to $450 million for ostensible property investments from 1998 until 2007, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the report, plaintiffs claim that Ed May took their money by lying that several LLCs had contracts to install telecommunications equipment into hotels and casinos, and that Mr. May's partners or agents, defendants James O'Rilley and Tom Fox, participated in the frauds by "plac(ing) their respective wives in charge of bookkeeping of the LLCs formed by May." The plaintiffs request that the court enter a monetary judgment equal to the actual damages suffered by class members, together with reasonable attorney fees, interest and costs. The suit is "Kenneth Huff et al. v. Doeren Mayhew & Co., PC, Case No. 08-089299-NM," filed with the Circuit Court for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan. Representing plaintiffs are: Sheldon L. Miller, Esq. (smiller@sheldonmiller.com) Law Office of Sheldon L. Miller, PC 31731 Northwestern, Ste. 280W Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Phone: (248) 538-3400 Hans G. Poppe, Esq. The Poppe Law Firm 6004 Brownsboro Park Blvd. Ste. E Louisville, KY 40207 Phone: (502) 895-3400 - and - William Shepherd, Esq. Shepherd Smith & Edwards, LLP 1010 Lamar, Ste. 900 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 227-2400 E*TRADE SECURITIES: Accused of Unfair Charges in Calif. Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Discount broker E*Trade Securities, LLC, is facing a class- action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego accusing it of unfair charges, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Josh Mangini claims that E*Trade breaches contracts by charging customers a quarterly "account services fee" though their Brokerage Customer Agreements, which state that no such fees will be charged in the first year. Mr. Mangini brings this action to recover damages and other relief available at law and in equity on behalf of all persons or entities who were charged the full quarterly account services fee when part or all of the quarter was within the account's first year anniversary. The plaintiff requests that the court grant the following relief: -- certification of the proposed class and notice thereto to be paid by defendant; -- adjudge and decree that defendant has engaged in the conduct alleged; -- for compensatory and general damages according to proof on certain causes of action; -- for both pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate on any amounts awarded; -- costs of the proceedings; -- reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute; and -- any and all such other and further relief that this court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Josh Mangini, et al., vs. E*Trade Securities, LLC, Case No. 37-2008-00077999-CU-BC-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. (bsk@kbklawyers.com) Richard L. Kellner, Esq. (rlk@kbklawyers.com) Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. (at@kbklawyers.com) Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 FORD MOTOR: City of Florence Joins Suit Over Ambulance Troubles --------------------------------------------------------------- Recurring engine problems in two ambulances led the city of Florence and its fire department to join a class action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. on Feb. 12, 2008, Community Press reports. According to Local12.com, a federal court in Texas is handling the Ford Lawsuit and dozens, potentially hundreds, of fire departments are signing on. Local 12's Lauren Bercarich notes that constant engine trouble means that the ambulances people rely on are too often out of service. Chief Marc Muench told Community Press that the city's two six- liter diesel ambulances have been a constant headache since they were purchased in 2005. "They have been problematic to say the least, especially in the configuration of these ambulances," Mr. Muench said. "Thankfully, we've been fortunate to have a reserve ambulance to cover ourselves." Community Press relates that the Florence Fire Department currently has four ambulances for its more than 5,000 annual service runs, but only two are Ford's six-liter model, which debuted in 2003. Local 12 cites Mr. Muench as saying that all the problems with the two Ford ambulances can be traced to their diesel engine. The chief said that the vehicles have been off a combined 140 days in three years, which means 140 days in the shop, thanks to a long list of repairs the department has documented. Mr. Muench also told Local 12 that in times of crisis, they have put an older engine to use, even borrowed an ambulance, and that when the exhaust pipe pumped out smoke, they hobbled into the hospital. Mr. Muench said he just wants the problem to be fixed by Ford. Community Press says that, according to Dan Pederson, Esq., of Page, Wolfberg, and Wirth LLC, in Pennsylvania, departments across the country have been experiencing engine problems such as blown gaskets, radiator hoses and sensors. The firm, which specializes in the ambulance industry, was hired by the law firm Weller, Green, Toups and Terrell to seek out departments for the class-action lawsuit filed in Texas. Florence's two ambulance engines are under warranty until January 2009 and the lawsuit will not cost the city of Florence, the reports note. HANCOCK FABRICS: Reaches Settlement in Ill. FACTA Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Hancock Fabrics, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in the matter, "Kathy Aliano v. Hancock Fabrics, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-C-4109," which generally alleges violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. On July 20, 2007, a putative class action was commenced against the Company, and others including the Company's officers, directors, employees, and agents with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violation by the Company of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which prohibits the printing of more than the last five digits of a credit card number or the expiration date on customer receipts. It seeks: -- statutory damages; -- attorneys� fees, litigation expenses, and costs; and -- other relief the court may deem proper. The Company has reached a settlement in the matter, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Feb. 3, 2007. The suit is "Kathy Aliano v. Hancock Fabrics, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-C-4109," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Joan H. Lefkow. Representing the plaintiff is: Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. (tom@attorneyzim.com) Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C. 100 West Monroe, Suite 1300 Phone: Chicago, IL 60603 Fax: (312) 440-0020 ISRAEL: Big Retailers Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Over Eggs ----------------------------------------------------------- A motion to accept a class action suit for consumer fraud relating to the sale of eggs branded "Super Fresh" has been filed with the Central District District Court in Tel-Aviv, against a series of retail chains and distributors, Nurit Roth of the Haaretz Daily reports. The defendants named in the suit are: -- Tnuva retail chains, Super-Sol, AM:PM and Mega, and -- egg distributors including Tnuva Named plaintiff Eli Osteron claims that retail chains have conspired to force Israeli consumers to buy eggs at exaggerated prices, by causing normal, price-regulated eggs to disappear from the shelves of stores all over the country and selling these same eggs under a new name: "Super Fresh." According to the motion, marketers and retail chains added on about ILS1.1 billion between 2004 and 2007 as a result of allegedly fraudulent sale of Super Fresh eggs. Mr. Osteron asserts that he has often been unable to find standard eggs on store shelves, and instead offered only the choice of 'Super Fresh' eggs -- at the cost of about 70% more than standard, price-regulated eggs. According to Mr. Osteron, there is no difference between the two, aside from their different packaging and the exaggerated price of 'Super Fresh' eggs. Mr. Osteron claims that even if there were justification for the sale of 'Super Fresh' eggs, there is no justification for allowing egg distributors to sell these for an average price of 60% to 70% higher than standard eggs. According to the plaintiff, egg marketers' claim that "Super Fresh" eggs are taken off store shelves eight days after they are laid is unfounded, since retailers do not know when the eggs were laid. In addition, the plaintiff alleges that on various occasions he has seen store shelves offering eggs that were laid more than eight days prior. In the report, Super-Sol says that it has not yet received the statement of claim. MERCK FROSST: Seeks Appellate Review of Vioxx Case Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. has learned that the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench has decided to certify class proceedings in a lawsuit regarding VIOXX(R). The Company intends to seek appellate review of the decision because it believes that each plaintiff's case should be tried separately. "Our legal strategy remains the same," said Maurice Laprairie, Esq., of MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman LLP, Saskatchewan counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc. "Although we argued against the creation of a class, the Court's decision still requires that each plaintiff must prove his or her claims on an individual basis because each plaintiff's case is unique and depends on an individual set of facts. Heart attacks, for example, are unfortunately common in the population and caused by many different risk factors." "The Company intends to defend these cases vigorously over the coming years, and we are confident that the courts will decide these cases based on sound science," said Mary M. Thomson, Esq., of Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP, Canadian national counsel for Merck Frosst and Merck & Co., Inc. "We will continue to argue that centralized judicial management of individual cases, not a class action, is the preferable procedure for trying each case in a fair and expeditious manner." Merck acted responsibly -- from researching VIOXX prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market -- to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when we did. Filed in early 2007, the suit alleges the painkiller Vioxx caused serious, even fatal, side effects including heart problems (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 29, 2007). On Nov. 9, 2007, Merck & Co., Inc entered into a resolution agreement concerning individual product liability claims against the Company in the United States. That agreement does not admit fault or causation and does not apply to Canada. VIOXX lawsuits outside the United States are in various stages of the legal process in different countries with different rules and judicial processes. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. -- http://www.merckfrosst.com-- is a research-driven pharmaceutical company. Merck Frosst discovers, develops and markets a broad range of innovative medicines to improve human health. The Merck Frosst Centre for Therapeutic Research, one of the largest biomedical research facilities in Canada, has the mandate to discover new therapies for the treatment of respiratory diseases, inflammatory diseases, diabetes and osteoporosis. Contact: Maurice Laprairie, Esq. (mlaprairie@mlt.com) MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman LLP 1500 Hill Centre I 1874 Scarth Street Regina, SK S4P 4E9 Phone: (306) 347-8422 Fax: (306) 352-5250 Web site: http://www.mlt.com/ PAINCARE HOLDINGS: Court Denies Dismissal Bid v. Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied a motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class action filed against Paincare Holdings, Inc. On March 21, 2006, Roy Thomas Mould filed a complaint under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the company, as well as the company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer. The complaint is "Mould v. PainCare Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00362-JA-DAB." Mr. Mould alleges material misrepresentations and omissions in connection with the company's financial statements, which appear to relate principally to the Paincare Holdings' previously announced intention to restate certain past financial statements. Ten additional complaints were filed shortly afterward before the same court, which recite similar allegations. Subsequently, a lead counsel was selected, a consolidated complaint was filed, the company moved to dismiss, and an oral argument on the motion was held on Jan. 17, 2007, before the Magistrate Judge. In the consolidated complaint, the lead plaintiff seeks unspecified damages and purports to represent a class of shareholders who purchased the company's common stock from March 24, 2003 and March 15, 2006. On March 26, 2007, the Federal Magistrate recommended that the District Court dismiss all outstanding claims with leave to amend. On April 25, 2007, the District Court signed an order adopting the Magistrate�s report and dismissed the Securities Litigation, with leave to amend. An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed on May 23, 2007. By motion filed June 7, 2007, the Company again moved to dismiss the action. The defendants, the corporate issuer, and its two top executives, moved to dismiss on the ground that, among other things, the complaint failed to adequately allege scienter. The court held a hearing regarding the Company's dismissal motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the matter was taken under submission by the court on Aug. 15, 2007. In 2008, the motion to dismiss was denied. In denying the defendants' motion, the Court held that a plaintiff alleging fraud in a Section 10(b) action must plead facts rendering an inference of scienter at least as likely as any plausible opposing inference, according to an article by Alan Friedman & Jean Chung at http://www.mondaq.com/. The suit is "Mould v. Paincare Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:06-cv-00362-JA-DAB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge John Antoon II with referral to Judge David A. Baker. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. Vianale & Vianale, LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 561/392-4750, ext. 107 Fax: 561/392-4775 e-mail: e-file@vianalelaw.com Representing the company is: Bruce J. Berman, Esq. (bberman@mwe.com) McDermott, Will & Emery 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33131-4336 Phone: 305/358-3500 Fax: 305/347-6500 PELLA CORP: Dismissal Request in ProLine Windows Suit Junked ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit against Pella Corporation that alleges Pella's ProLine series of windows suffer from a design flaw that has resulted in widespread failures. The lawsuit, filed in August 18, 2006, also covers the "250 Series" and "450 Series" windows sold through major retailers such as Lowe's. Specifically, the suit alleges that Pella ProLine aluminum-clad windows are prone to water penetration resulting in rotting of the internal wood frame beneath the aluminum cladding. Wood rot requires replacement of the window sash and frame. Because of the aluminum cladding, such damage is not always visible to the homeowner. The suit is "Saltzman v. Pella Corporation et al., Case Number: 1:2006cv04481," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Honorable James B. Zagel, presiding. For more information, contact: Freed & Weiss 111 West WAshington, Suite 1331 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 220-0000 e-mail: info@freedweiss.com QANTAS AIRWAYS: Large Travel Agents Opt Out of Price-Fixing Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action against several major airlines over fuel surcharges is likely to be scaled down after large travel agents decided to opt out of the case, News.com.au relates. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 11, 2008, law firm Slater & Gordon launched the action in December 2006 against six airlines on behalf of travel agents in an attempt to recover commission on fuel surcharges. The six airlines are: 1. Qantas Airways 2. Air New Zealand 3. British Airways 4. Cathay Pacific 5. Singapore Airlines 6. Malaysian Airlines Slater & Gordon asserts that the six airlines have short-changed travel agents by up to AU$80 million by failing to include fuel surcharges when calculating agents' fees. It also alleges that the airlines breached the Trade Practices Act by forcing travel agents to record fuel surcharges as a tax rather than part of the fare. According to News.com, the parties were in court on Feb. 20, to finalize the version of an opt-out notice that is to be placed in travel publications. The notice informs agents about the case and allows them to withdraw from it. However, Justice Moore was told that in effect, "all national chain managers and all state managers will be opting out of the proceedings." The Australian relates that a number of travel agents have signed contracts with Qantas in which they have agreed to pull out of or never be involved in future legal action relating to the $80-million class action. However, Qantas said that it would not discuss its commercial contracts and denied that it had tried to force travel agents to opt out of the case. Travel agents opting out of the case means that hearings will be shorter as a number of witnesses would no longer be required to give evidence. Qantas barrister James Lockhart said that the airline would be "staggered" if all agencies opted out of the proceedings, and substantial legal issues would still have to be decided. Up to 1,400 agencies could be involved in the case. Mr. Lockhart told News.com that Qantas had spent about AU$134,000 preparing for an interlocutory hearing that did not eventuate, and Slater and Gordon agreed to provide AU$100,000 in seven days as security for legal costs. The matter will return to court in May. The plaintiffs are represented by: Steven Lewis, Esq. Slater & Gordon 11th Floor, 51 Druitt Street Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: 8267 0626 Fax: 8267 0650 Legal help line: 1800 555 777 Web site: http://www.slatergordon.com.au/ ROO HD: Denies Wrongdoing to Wurld Media Workers in Buyout ---------------------------------------------------------- ROO HD Inc. was sued in November 2007 by former employees of Wurld Media who claim that ROO HD's acquisition of Wurld Media assets was structured in a way that would keep ROO HD from paying their salaries and benefits. In an update, Timesunion.com says that ROO HD, which is a subsidiary of ROO Group Inc. of New York City, responded to the class-action lawsuit in a court filing with the Supreme Court in Saratoga County. In its filing, ROO HD denied that the Wurld Media deal was designed to avoid giving employees back pay and retirement benefits. Timesunion's Larry Rulison writes that ROO HD argued that the class-action lawsuit is without merit. ROO HD also stated that it deposited $456,087 into escrow to pay former Wurld Media employees. "Wurld retained sufficient assets to cover all outstanding claims of all creditors," ROO's attorneys wrote in its Jan. 10, 2008 filing. "Defendant is not responsible for any of Wurld's outstanding debts or obligations to the plaintiffs." The report recounts that ROO HD acquired Wurld Media assets in July 2007 and then opened an office with about a dozen former Wurld Media employees in Clifton Park. Wurld Media, Timesunion explains, was once a high-flying Saratoga Springs online music and video sharing service and e-commerce business that fell on hard times in 2006. ROO, on the other hand, sells online video software and content. However, ROO HD abruptly shut the Clifton Park office in January 2008, two months after Wurld Media's co-founder Gregory Kerber was indicted along with former Wurld Media financial officer Richard Saxton on felony grand larceny and money laundering charges, in addition to other financial crimes. Wurld media's former employees claim in two different class- action lawsuits that Wurld Media management failed to issue paychecks starting in March 2006 and unlawfully deducted 401(k) contributions from salaries without putting the money into the company's retirement plan. The first lawsuit, Timesunion recalls, was filed in late 2006 against Wurld Media with the federal court in Albany. That case has since gone to arbitration, Timesunion relates. The class action against ROO HD is the second lawsuit, filed with the state court in Saratoga County in November 2007. ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Sup. Ct. Denies Certiorari in "Lopez" Case ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition requesting that it grant certiorari jurisdiction over a purported class action Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. and one of its cruise brands that was dismissed. The suit, "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159- MGC," was filed in April 2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. It alleges that the company's Celebrity Cruises Lines improperly requires its cabin stewards to share guest gratuities with assistant cabin stewards. The suit seeks payment of damages including penalty wages under 46 U.S.C. Section 10113 of U.S. law and interest. In March 2006, the Southern District of Florida dismissed the suit and held that the case should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Celebrity's collective bargaining agreement. In June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order dismissing the suit, and subsequently denied the plaintiff�s petition for re-hearing and petition for re-hearing enbanc. In January 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's petition requesting that the Court grant certiorari jurisdiction over the action, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Lopez v. Royal Caribbean, Case No. 1:05-cv-21159- MGC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge Marcia G. Cooke presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: James Madison Walker, Esq. (jwalker@cruiselaw.com) Walker & O'Neill PA 7301 SW 57th Court Plaza 57, Suite 430 South Miami, FL 33143 Phone: 305-995-5300 Fax: 305-995-5310 Representing the defendant is: Keith Steven Brais, Esq. (gcraft@braislaw.com) McAlpin & Brais 80 SW 8th Street, Suite 2805 Miami, FL 33130 Phone: 305-810-5400 Fax: 305-810-5401 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Plaintiffs Appeal Arbitration Order in CA Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in the matter captioned "Michael Rogers et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW- E," are appealing an arbitration order in their case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In July 2006, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that the company failed to timely pay crew wages and failed to pay proper crew overtime. The suit seeks payment of damages, including penalty wages under the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act and equitable relief damages under the California Unfair Competition Law. In December 2006, the District Court granted the company's motion to dismiss the claim and held that it should be arbitrated pursuant to the arbitration provision in Royal Caribbean's collective bargaining agreement. In January 2007, the plaintiffs appealed the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The suit is "Michael Rogers et al v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-04574-SVW-E," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Stephen V. Wilson presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Joseph S. Farzam, Esq. (farzam@lawyer.com) Farzam and Associates 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1345 Los Angleles, CA 90067 Phone: 310-226-6890 Representing the defendant is: Sanford L. Bohrer, Esq. (sandy.bohrer@hklaw.com) Holland & Knight 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: 305-374-8500 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Motion to Transfer Copyright Suit Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- A motion by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. to transfer an intellectual rights class action filed against it with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida remains pending. The suit was filed on January 2006. It alleges that the company infringed rights in copyrighted works and other intellectual property by presenting performances on company cruise ships without securing the necessary licenses. The suit seeks payment of damages, disgorgement of profits and a permanent injunction against future infringement. In April 2006, the company filed a motion to sever and transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The motion is pending, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Jacobs et al. v. Carnival Corp., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00606-DAB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Deborah A. Batts presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Howard J. Schwartz Porzio, Esq. (hjschwartz@pbnlaw.com) Bromberg & Newman, P.C. 156 West 56th St. New York, NY 10019-3800 Phone: (212) 265-6888 Representing the defendants is: Frank W. Ryan, Esq. (fryan@nixonpeabody.com) Nixon Peabody, LLP 437 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 940-3129 Fax: (866) 947-2289 SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces MI Suit Over 3rd-Party Text Messages Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that it cheats customers and breaches contract by charging them for unwanted third-party text messages, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Mitchell Witkowski challenges the reasonableness of defendants' rates that are charged for air time, but alleges only a breach of contract. The plaintiff brings the action pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all individual persons or entities in Michigan and all other states who were billed by defendants for third-party text message charges, in breach of contract, at any time during the relevant time period (which shall be the subject of discovery but at least six years prior to the dates of filing). The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants are wrongfully charging and collecting fees for text messages; (b) the amount of additional revenue and profit unjustly derived by defendants from the conduct complained of; (c) the appropriate nature of class-wide equitable relief; and (d) whether plaintiff and the class sustained damages and the appropriate measure thereof. The plaintiff and the class request judgment in their favor in an amount to be determined, plus costs, interest and attorneys' fees, punitive and exemplary damages, and permanent and injunctive relief. The suit is "Mitchell Witkowski et al. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., Case No. 2:08-cv-10676," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Judge John Feikens, presiding. Representing plaintiffs are: Gerard V. Mantese, Esq. (gmantese@manteselaw.com) Mark C. Rossman, Esq. (mrossman@manteselaw.com) Mantese and Rossman PC 1361 E. Big Beaver Road Troy, MI 48083 Phone: (248) 457-9200 U.S. FINANCIAL: Sued in CA Over Loans with Negative Amortization ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Financial Mortgage Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging that U.S. Financial deceives the public by concealing information in mortgage loans with negative amortization, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Ann s. Hill alleges: -- violations of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC Section 1601, et seq.; -- violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. -- "Unlawful" Business Practices (TILA); -- fraudulent omissions; -- violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. - "Unfair" and "Fraudulent" Business Practices; -- breach of contract; -- tortiuous breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and -- violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. -- "Unalawful" Business Practices (Fin. Code Section 22302). According to the complaint, the instant action arises out of residential mortgage loan transactions in which Defendants failed to disclose pertinent information in a clear and conspicuous manner to Plaintiffs and the Class members, in writing, as required by law. This action also concerns the defendant's unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business acts or practices. The defendant engaged in a campaign of deceptive conduct and concealment aimed at maximizing the number of consumers who would accept this type of loan in order to maximize profits, even as it knew the conduct would cause many of its consumers to lose their homes through foreclosure. The plaintiff brings the action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rules 23(a), and 23(b), on behalf of the following classes: * The California Class: All individuals who, within the four year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff � Complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class, received an Option ARM loan through Defendant on their primary residence located in the State of California. * The National Class: All individuals in the United States of America who, within the four year period preceding the filing of Plaintiff � complaint through the date notice is mailed to the Class, received an Option ARM loan through Defendant on their primary residence located in the United States of America. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (1) whether the defendant's acts and practices violate the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1601, et seq; (2) whether the defendant's conduct violated 12 C.F.R. Section 226.17; (3) Whether the defendant's conduct violated 12 C.F.R. Section 226.19; (4) Whether the defendant engaged in unfair business practices aimed at deceiving Plaintiff and the Class members before and during the loan application process; (5) Whether the defendant, by and through their officers, employees, and agents failed to disclose that the interest rate actually charged on these loans was higher than the rate represented and promised to Plaintiff and the Class members; (6) Whether the defendant, by and through their officers, employees and agents concealed, omitted and otherwise failed to disclose information they were mandated to disclose under TILA; (7) Whether the defendant failed to disclose the true variable nature of interest rates on adjustable rate mortgage loans and adjustable rate home equity loans; (8) Whether the defendant failed to properly disclose the process by which negative amortization occurs, ultimately resulting in the recasting of the payment structure over the remaining lifetime of the loans; (9) Whether the defendant's failure to apply the plaintiff's and the Class members� payments to principal as promised in the standardized form Note(s) constitutes a breach of contract, including a tortiuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (10) Whether the defendant's conduct in immediately raising the interest rate on consumers' loans so that no payments were applied to the principal balance constitutes a tortiuous breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (11) Whether the defendant's marketing plan and scheme misleadingly portrayed or implied that these loans were fixed rate loans, when Defendant knew that only the periodic payments were fixed (for a time) but that interest rates were not, in fact, "fixed;" (12) Whether the terms and conditions of the defendant's Option ARM home loan are unconscionable; (13) Whether the plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages; (14) Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to punitive damages; and (15) Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to rescission. The plaintiff and all Class members pray for: -- an order certifying this case as a class action and appointing Plaintiff and their counsel to represent the Class; -- actual damages according to proof; -- compensatory damages as permitted by law; -- consequential damages as permitted by law; -- punitive damages as permitted by law; -- rescission; -- equitable relief, including restitution; -- restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Defendant obtained as a result of their unfair competition; -- interest as permitted by law; -- Declaratory Relief; -- a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to permanently include in every Option ARM loan and disclosure statement: (i) clear and conspicuous disclosure of the actual interest rate on the Note(s) and disclosure statement(s) as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 226.17 by; (ii) clear and conspicuous disclosure in the Note(s) and the disclosure statement(s) that payments on the variable interest rate loan during the initial period at the teaser rate will result in negative amortization and that the principal balance will increase as required under 12 C.F.R. Section 226.19; and (iii) clear and conspicuous disclosure that the initial interest rate provided is discounted and does not reflect the actual interest that Plaintiff and Class members would be paying on the Note(s); -- reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and -- such other relief as is just and proper. The suit is "Ann S. Hill et al. v. U.S. Financial Mortgage Corporation," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Representing plaintiffs are: David M. Arbogast, Esq. Spiro Moss Barness LLP 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, Fifth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683 Phone: (310) 235-2468 Fax: (310) 235-2456 e-mail: info@spiromoss.com Jonathan Shub, Esq. (jshub@seegerweiss.com) Seeger Weiss LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 564-2300 Fax (215) 851-8029 Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. (kiesel@kbla.com) Patrick Deblase, Esq. (deblase@kbla.com) Michael C. Eyerly, Esq. (eyerly@kbla.com) Kiesel Boucher Larson LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California 90210 Phone: (310) 854-4444 Fax: (310) 854-0812 Jeffrey K. Berns, Esq. Law Offices of Jeffrey K. Berns 19510 Ventura Blvd, Suite 200 Tarzana, California 91356 Phone: (818) 961-2000 Fax: (818) 867-4820 - and - Marcus J. Jackson, Esq. 751 Center Dr., Suite 108-456 San Marcos, CA 92069 Phone: (760) 291-1755 Fax: (760) 432-6109 U.S. SECRET SERVICE: Inspector Admits Destroying Original Proof --------------------------------------------------------------- Senior U.S. Secret Service inspector Carrie Hunnicutt admitted on Feb. 20, 2008, that she destroyed original evidence sought in a long-standing lawsuit alleging that the service routinely discriminates against African American agents, Austin American- Statesman reports. According to American-Statesman, the team of assistant U.S. attorneys representing the Secret Service told U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson that they did not know that the inspector got rid of the documents just two days before she was scheduled to testify in the case. Ms. Hunnicutt testified that she questioned more than 150 senior service officials under an order from Judge Robinson about their search for all paper documents related to the promotion of black agents in a civil lawsuit filed in federal court eight years ago. The report recalls that nearly 60 African Americans allege in sworn statements that they were leapfrogged by white agents who scored lower on promotional exams and forced to endure the use of the word "nigger" on the job. They are seeking certification for a class-action lawsuit, but so far have not made it past the discovery stage. Ms. Hunnicutt testified that she destroyed surveys from 50 high ranking officials; a statistical report; fax sheets and documents that showed who was contacted during the service's search for paper documents in the case. The senior inspector said she placed the documents in a "burn bag" on Jan. 30, 2008. American-Statesman relates that the Feb. 20 hearing was the 7th hearing held by Judge Robinson to determine whether to sanction the service again for failing to produce credible testimony and evidence in the lawsuit. Judge Robinson has already sanctioned the service three times. Judge Robinson told the lawyers that she was "shocked" that a Secret Service agent would destroy documents. The Secret Service's own counsel has ordered the agency's employees to retain all documents relevant to the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Marina Utgoff Braswell told Judge Robinson that she and the rest of the legal team did not learn about the extent of the destruction until Ms. Hunnicutt testified. "We are all learning for the first time what happened here," Ms. Braswell said. Ms. Hunnicutt's supervisor told the government lawyers that there were some "scraps of paper" that were destroyed but he did not elude to the destruction of the original surveys. Ms. Braswell said that she will find out more information about the destroyed documents in advance of the hearing because of a court order forbidding Ms. Hunnicutt from talking to anyone about the case. The team of lawyers from Hogan & Hartson and Relman & Dane, representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit pro bono, said that the burning of the documents is an "outrageous act" and in defiance of the service's own order to preserve all documents in the case. Under questioning by assistant U.S. attorney Michelle Johnson, Ms. Hunnicutt said she destroyed the documents because she wanted the most accurate ones to be sent to court. Ms. Hunnicutt said she noticed that some of the surveys, about 50, were misnumbered in January, so she "transferred" the correct information to the newly numbered surveys. However, during the cross-examination, E. Desmond Hogan, Esq., who represents the plaintiffs, argued that by destroying the original documents, the court would have no way to independently verify her work as accurate. The suit is "Moore, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Secret Service), Case No. 00-0953," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Richard W. Roberts, with referral to U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah A. Robinson. Representing the plaintiffs are: E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. (edhogan@hhlaw.com) Hogan & Hartson LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 637-5493 Fax: (202) 637-5910 - and - Relman & Dane PLLC 1225 Nineteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2456 Phone: (202) 728-1888 Web site: http://www.relmanlaw.com/ WASTE MANAGEMENT: Still Faces Stockholder Litigation in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Management Holdings, Inc., continues to face a stockholder class action filed with an Illinois State Court, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In December 1999, an individual brought an action against Waste Management Inc., five former officers of WM Holdings, and WM Holdings' former independent auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, in Illinois state court on behalf of a proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common stock before Nov. 3, 1994, and who held that stock through Feb. 24, 1998. The action is for alleged acts of common law fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of integrated waste services in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer, recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services. WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Wage and Hour Lawsuits in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Waste Management, Inc., faces two separate wage and hour lawsuits pending in California, which are each seeking class- action status, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Both actions make the same general allegations that the defendants failed to comply with certain California wage and hour laws, including allegedly failing to provide meal and rest periods, and failing to properly pay hourly and overtime wages. Waste Management, Inc. -- http://www.wm.com-- is a provider of integrated waste services in North America. Through its subsidiaries, the Company provides collection, transfer, recycling, disposal and waste-to-energy services. WINN-DIXIE: Securities Suit vs. Individual Defendants Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted a motion that sought for the dismissal of a consolidated securities class action filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. In February 2004, several putative class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie and certain present and former executive officers alleging claims under the federal securities laws. By way of a court order, the securities laws claims were consolidated and directed to proceed as a single consolidated action. As a result of Winn-Dixie's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in the class action from proceeding against the Company. Any claim against the Company were subordinated under the Plan pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same manner as the Company's existing shares, which were canceled without any distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company. The discharge injunction imposed by Winn-Dixie's Restructuring Plan will protect the Company from the assertion of any claim in the future. As to the individual co-defendants in the securities class- action suit, on May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying the suit as to all parties and all issues in light of the Company's Chapter 11 filing. On April 5 and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders lifting the stays in the suit. Thus, in June 2007, the plaintiffs in the securities class-action lawsuit filed an amended and consolidated complaint against the individual defendants, who, in turn, requested for it to be dismissed. On Dec. 4, 2007, the District Court granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss the securities litigation, according to the Company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008. The suit is "In Re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-00071," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jack Reise, Esq. (jreise@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, LLP Suite 500, 120 E. Palmetto Pk. Rd. Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-750-3000 Fax: 561-750-3364 - and - Martin D. Chitwood, Esq. (MChitwood@chitwoodlaw.com) Chitwood & Harley 2300 Promenade Two, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30309-3574 Phone: 404-873-3900 Fax: 404-876-4476 Representing the defendants are: Jason R. Edgecombe, Esq. (jedgecombe@kslaw.com) King & Spalding, LLP 1180 Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 Fax: 404-572-5100 - and - Robert Bruce George, Esq. (rgeorge@lgcglaw.com) Liles, Gavin, Costantino & George Suite 1500, 225 Water St. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-634-1100 Fax: 904-634-1234 WINN-DIXIE STORES: Settlement Reached in Fla. ERISA Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- A settlement was reached in a consolidated class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. In March and April 2004, three other putative class action lawsuits were filed with the District Court against the Company and certain of its present and former executive officers and employees, alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, related to the Company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan. By way of a court order, the ERISA claims were consolidated and were to proceed as a single and consolidated action. However, as a result of Winn-Dixie's Chapter 11 filing, the automatic stay prevented the plaintiffs in the class action suit from proceeding against the Company. Any such claims against the Company were subordinated under the Reorganization Plan pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. Section 510(b) and were treated in the same manner as the Company's existing shares, which were canceled without any distribution, and such claims were discharged as against the Company. The discharge injunction imposed by the Plan will protect the Company from the assertion of these claims in the future. As to the individual co-defendants in the class-action suit, on May 10, 2005, the District Court entered an order staying the suit as to all parties and all issues in light of the Company's Chapter 11 filing. On April 5 and May 1, 2007, the District Court entered orders lifting the stays in the suit. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended, and consolidated complaint against the individual defendants, who asked for it to be dismissed. On or about Nov. 6, 2007, the individual defendants and applicable insurers reached agreements with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008. The suit is "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brian D. Brooks, Esq. (bbrooks@murrayfrank.com) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP Suite 801, 275 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1982 - and - William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave., Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405-235-1560 Fax: 405-239-2112 Representing the defendants are: William A. Clineburg, Jr., Esq. (bclineburg@kslaw.com) King & Spalding, LLP 1180 Peachtree St. NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: 404-572-4600 - and - Robert Bruce George, Esq. (rgeorge@lgcglaw.com) Liles, Gavin, Costantino & George Suite 1500, 225 Water St. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Phone: 904-634-1100 Fax: 904-634-1234 WINN-DIXIE STORES: No Ruling Yet on Fla. Bias Case Removal Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- A decision has yet to be issued with regards to a motion that seeks for the removal from a state court in Florida to the bankruptcy court of a purported class action filed against Winn- Dixie Stores, Inc. In December 2007, 26 current and former employees filed a putative class action lawsuit with the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Florida, against Winn-Dixie. The suit is alleging company-wide systemic age discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment and that of others who were similarly-situated. The Company denies all allegations raised in the lawsuit and has answered the complaint and filed motions asserting various defenses to the claims. It has also sought to remove the case to the bankruptcy court on the ground that the action is, either partially or in its entirety, barred by the Company's Plan of Reorganization. To date, these motions remain pending with the state and bankruptcy courts, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 9, 2008. Winn-Dixie -- http://www.winn-dixie.com-- operates supermarkets throughout the Southeastern U.S. with stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The company also operates distribution centers in Jacksonville, Miami and Orlando, FL; Montgomery, AL; and Hammond, LA. In addition, Winn- Dixie's manufacturing plants produce or process a variety of products including coffee, tea, spices, carbonated and non- carbonated drinks, frozen pizza, ice cream, sherbet and milk. New Securities Fraud Cases CHARYS HOLDING: Vianale & Vianale Files GA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vianale & Vianale LLP filed a class action lawsuit on Feb. 20, 2008, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Charys Holding Company (PINKSHEETS: CHYS) between March 30, 2006, and August 14, 2007. The complaint charges that Charys' officers, Billy V. Ray, Jr. and Raymond J. Smith violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Charys operates two segments: Remediation and Reconstruction and Wireless Communications and Data Infrastructure. Charys' Remediation segment provides services to respond to catastrophic losses, like hurricanes; its Wireless segment offers telecommunication services to large service providers. According to the complaint, defendants engaged in an elaborate accounting fraud in connection with several companies Charys acquired. In the closing months of 2005, Charys acquired Viasys Network Services, Inc. and Viasys Services, Inc., as well as Method IQ, Inc. The sellers of Viasys and MIQ were to receive "earn out" payments if, after the acquisitions, Charys achieved certain goals for revenue and earnings. The complaint alleges that the pre-acquisition revenues of Viasys and MIQ should have been properly recorded on the books of those companies. Instead, they were improperly deferred and recorded on the books of Charys after it acquired those companies. In addition, the post-acquisition expenses of Viasys and MIQ should have been recorded on the books of Charys, but were instead improperly accrued and recorded on the books of Viasys and MIQ. As a result, Charys' revenue and gross profit were overstated during the Class Period, and it expenses were understated. On June 8, 2006, Charys acquired Crochet & Borel Services, Inc., using artificially inflated stock as currency. Defendants engaged in the same accounting scheme: the reported C&B revenue and income from operations were materially overstated because Charys had fraudulently included pre-acquisition C&B revenues and had omitted C&B post-acquisition expenses. In addition, during the Class Period, defendants knew or recklessly ignored that C&B's goodwill was materially impaired by well over $100 million, but failed to disclose this fact. Charys, however, continued to request extensions of time from the SEC in which to file its annual report on Form 10-KSB. On August 14, 2007, the end of the Class Period, when no large catastrophic-loss contracts for C&B were announced, the investment community knew that a large write-down of C&B's goodwill was imminent. The stock price dropped, and continued to decline thereafter. On November 5, 2007, Charys announced a $202.5 million write-down of goodwill attributable to C&B. Charys also finally filed its fiscal 2007 form 10-KSB on that date, confirming that C&B had been an unprofitable business whose goodwill should have been written down as of October 31, 2006. On February 14, 2008, Charys filed for bankruptcy and announced that defendant Billy V. Ray, Jr. had resigned. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 21, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. Julie Prag Vianale, Esq. Vianale & Vianale LLP 2499 Glades Road, Suite 112 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: 888-657-9960 (Toll Free) 561-392-4750 e-mail: info@vianalelaw.com MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and a proposed class of persons who purchased and/or acquired the common stock of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (OTC:MMAB.PK) between May 3, 2004 and January 29, 2008, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division. The complaint charges MuniMae and six of the Company's officers and directors: -- Chief Executive Officer, Michael L. Falcone; -- Chairman and former CEO, Mark K. Joseph; -- former Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, William S. Harrison; -- former CFO, Melanie M. Lundquist; -- Chief Operating Officer and interim-CFO, Charles M. Pinckney; and -- CFO, David Kay, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly knowingly or recklessly issued false and misleading statements that materially misrepresented MuniMae's earnings and financial results, causing the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated throughout the class period. According to the Complaint, on March 10, 2006, MuniMae issued a press release disclosing that the Company would be restating more than three years of earnings and that the Company would delay the filing of its Form 10-K for fiscal 2005. According to this press release, the restatement was needed to correct accounting errors related to: 1) recognition of syndication fees, 2) application of equity method accounting, 3) recognition of interest income, and 4) amortization of mortgage servicing rights. However, Defendants assured investors that the restatement would "not impact cash available for distribution," and would actually result in an increase in "previously reported net earnings" for certain periods. The complaint further alleges that, after obtaining numerous extensions to complete its restatement of financial results from the SEC and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on January 28, 2008, MuniMae disclosed that it would not complete its restatement of financial results by the March 3, 2008 deadline imposed by the NYSE, and therefore, Defendants expected the Company's stock to be delisted. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped from $17.20 per share to close at $9.19 per share on January 29, 2007, representing a 47% single-day decline. The following day, on January 29, 2008, MuniMae filed with the SEC a report on Form 8-K that provided additional details regarding the restatement, including the fact that the Company was required to consolidate on its balance sheet approximately 200 "variable interest entities" in which it holds minority interests, and the Company would be writing-down the fair value of impaired assets "held-for-sale" including loans, bonds, derivatives, guarantee obligations, and mortgage servicing rights. On this news, the price of MuniMae stock dropped an additional 22%, to close at $7.13 per share on January 30, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com) Laura Armstrong (larmstrong@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (888) 240-0775 (202) 408-4600 OPNEXT INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm has filed a class action with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Opnext, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPXT) stock from the date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on February 14, 2007, through February 13, 2008. The complaint charges that Opnext and certain of its present and former officers, directors, and control persons violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus (collectively the "Registration Statement") in connection with the Company's IPO. According to the Complaint, on or about February 14, 2007, the Opnext commenced its IPO priced at $15.00 per share for over 16 million shares of stock. The Complaint asserts that Opnext's Registration Statement was materially false because: (i) the Company's reported net income for the quarter and six months ended December 31, 2007 was overstated; and (ii) the Company's reported net loss for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 was understated. The Complaint further alleges that on February 13, 2008 the Company announced, among other things, the Company's previously issued financial statements could no longer be relied upon and that it had to restate them. As a result of these adverse disclosures, Opnext's stock price dropped, damaging investors. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 21, 2008. For more information, contact: Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com) Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com) The Rosen Law Firm P.A. 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425 Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a Class Action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIRF) between October 30, 2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges SiRF and certain of the Company's executive officers with violations of federal securities laws. Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' material omissions and dissemination of materially false and misleading statements concerning the Company's business and prospects caused SiRF's stock price to become artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. SiRF, through its subsidiaries, engages in the development and marketing of semiconductor and software products that are designed to enable location-awareness utilizing global positioning system and other location technologies worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning SiRF's business, financial position and future prospects were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose the truth about demand for the Company's products and the effect of the Company's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. on SiRF's business and financial performance. As a result of defendants' false statements and failures to disclose, SiRF stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. On February 4, 2008, SiRF shocked the market when it issued a press release announcing disappointing and surprising financial results for the Company's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007. This news caused shares of SiRF to plummet $8.91 per share -- a 54% drop from the previous day's closing price of $16.27 -- to close on February 5, 2008, at $7.36 per share on extremely heavy volume of more than 63 million shares traded. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Michael Goldberg, Esq. Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311 Los Angeles, California 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll Free: (888) 773-9224 e-mail: info@glancylaw.com Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Zenith National Has 400 Claims at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Zenith National Insurance Corp., at Dec. 31, had about 400 open asbestos-related wor