/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080227.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 27, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 41
Headlines
A.G. EDWARDS: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Illinois
APEX OIL: Sued by Justice Dept. Over Underground Gas Plume
CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Certification of ONTC Case
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Reaches More Settlements with Shareholders
EQUITABLE RESOURCES: Faces W.Va. Lawsuit Over Royalty Payments
FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces N.Y. Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit
FIFTH THIRD: Parties Appeal Rulings in MA Security Breach Suit
FLORIDA: More Property Owners Join Legacy Trail Lawsuit
HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Hearing Set for Texas Securities Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Accused of Scamming Customers in Calif. Suit
HELEN OF TROY: $4.5M Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set June 19
HERCULES INC: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Dioxin Suit
KOPPERS INC: Somerville Residents' Suits in Pa., Tex. Dismissed
MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Litigation
NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Faces. Calif. Lawsuit for Defrauding Millions
OIL COMPANIES: Kansas Judge Gives "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit Go Signal
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Flat Glass Antitrust Lawsuits
PPG INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Approves $23M Antitrust MDL Settlement
RENAL CARE: Tenn. Court Considers Appeal in Dismissed Lawsuit
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Litigation Over Ky. Plant Pollution
ROHM & HAAS: Circuit Mulls Appeal in Plastics Additives Lawsuit
SOVEREIGN CORP: Faces Penna. Suit Over Workers' Retirement Funds
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settlement in "Waxler" Lawsuit Becomes Final
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: July 2008 Trial Set for MN Securities Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: MN Court Mulls Dismissal Bid v. "Zilhaver"
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Court Rejects Motions in Fla. Cases
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Lawsuit in Okla. Over Illegal Bundling
US AIRWAYS: Court Mulls Approving "Lap Children" Suit Settlement
WELLPOINT INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
New Securities Fraud Cases
MBIA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Coughlin Stoia Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
SIRF HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
*********
A.G. EDWARDS: Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Edwards, Inc., a recent acquisition of Wachovia Corp.,
faces a purported class action in Illinois that alleges that it
pays female stock brokers less than their male counterparts.
The suit, captioned, "Holder v. A.G. Edwards, Case No. 08-1090,"
was filed on Feb. 21, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
Also named as defendants in the case are:
-- Wachovia Corp.;
-- A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.; and
-- Wachovia Securities.
In the complaint, the plaintiff, 10-year employee Denise Holder,
48, of Indianapolis, said that A.G. Edwards and Wachovia
managers "regularly steer accounts, productive assets other
income-generating opportunities to male brokers and away from
female brokers."
Ms. Holder claims that the company discriminates against women
nationwide and she seeks class-action, or group, status, on
behalf of all similarly situated female employees regardless of
which company they worked for before the businesses were
combined.
The suit is "Holder v. A.G. Edwards, Case No. 08-1090," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Linda Debra Friedman, Esq. (lfriedman@sfltd.com)
Stowell & Friedman, Ltd.
321 South Plymouth Court, Suite 1400
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: 312-431-0888
APEX OIL: Sued by Justice Dept. Over Underground Gas Plume
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Justice Department has sued Apex Oil Co. in federal
court in an attempt to force the company to join the effort or
pay to remove the underground plume of gasoline that has allowed
dangerous vapors to get into the homes and the air around
northern Hartford, Red Orbit reports.
According to Red Orbit, the fumes and the problems rise during
wet weather, because the gasoline and vapors rest atop the
groundwater beneath the village. The plume once was estimated
at 4 million gallons.
Red Orbit explains that pipeline and refinery releases over
decades have created the underground mess. Lawyers point out
that the gasoline contains benzene and other toxic substances,
which can cause cancer. Homes in Hartford have burst into
flames during high-water periods and as recently as 2007, people
had to be evacuated from their homes when they became sick from
the fumes.
The EPA already has reached an agreement with other refiners to
start the cleanup process. That group is working under the name
of the Hartford Working Group, which consists of Atlantic
Richfield, Equilon Enterprises LLC (Shell) and Premcor Refining
Group.
Red Orbit cites Bob Miner, a spokesman for the Hartford Working
Group, as saying that the first phase of the cleanup is
completed. The group has been installing and operating vapor
recovery systems, sealing basements and other work to remove the
vapors under the village. Mr. Miner further told Red Orbit
that, so far, they have removed 350,000 gallons of vapor from
the soil and that they are working on another agreement to
remove liquid petroleum products.
The government claims that because Apex helped contribute to the
problem, it could be held responsible to clean up the entire
plume. However, Apex lawyers had argued that the company paid
its share of the cleanup and that it could not be held liable
for the entire cost of cleaning up the plume because it was in
bankruptcy during the time it owned and operated its refinery in
Hartford.
Red Orbit points out that Apex is just one oil refinery involved
in the dispute, and the cleanup issue is only part of the
controversy. The complaints about the plume have been going on
for years, but each refiner that has operated in the Hartford
area had said that the problem could be attributed to other
refiners.
Decades ago, Standard Oil, Shell and Sinclair owned and operated
three refineries in and around Hartford. All have undergone
changes of ownership, and all but the original Shell plant have
closed.
The case involved five weeks of testimony in a bench trial
before Chief U.S. District Judge David Herndon in U.S. District
Court in East St. Louis. Judge Herndon has given the parties
until March 31 to file post-trial motions and briefs.
"We're hoping to have a decision by May or June," Mike Joyce, a
spokesman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, told Red
Orbit.
Meanwhile, Red Orbit writes, Madison County Circuit Judge Dan
Stack has ordered the lawyers for two competing class action
lawsuits to try to work out a settlement with all the parties to
compensate people who may have been made sick by the underground
gas plume.
"The judge has asked us to get together to resolve all issues.
He would like a global settlement," Stan Faulkner, Esq., an
attorney for Goldenberg, Heller, Antognolie, Rowland, Short and
Gori, said. Goldenberg Heller filed 120 personal injury cases
against four of the refiners but converted them into a single
class action case. Apex Oil has settled out of court in that
suit.
CANADA: Supreme Court Won't Hear Certification of ONTC Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it would not hear the
plaintiffs' request for certification of their class-action suit
against former employer Ontario Northland Transportation
Commission, North Bay Nugget reports.
According to the report, former ONTC employees have been trying
to certify a class-action suit against the Crown corporation
alleging it improperly removed $80 million from their pension
fund to pay for retirements between 1996 and 2004. The
statement of claim says the pension plan was created in 1939 and
was held in trust by the ONTC for the benefit of all plan
members.
Don MacDougall, one of four ONTC pensioners who let their names
stand as plaintiffs in the suit on behalf of 1,369 beneficiaries
of the pension plan, admitted to Northern News that the Supreme
Court's decision brought a "tremendous amount of
disappointment." He said that some pensioners "have gotten a
bigger pension than the ones who retired prior to 1996," which
is unfair because "[t]he older pensioners who retired prior to
1996 made the same contributions into the plan [as] the people
who retired after that point."
The pensioners, he added, are now in a situation to try to
negotiate a deal with the ONTC, Northern News relates.
North Bay Nugget recalls that the pensioners first filed a suit
against the ONTC in 2002, and since then two lower courts have
turned down their attempt to certify it as a class action. Six
unions responding in the suit representing most of the 975
current ONTC workers also oppose certification.
"We've spent an awfully long time fighting about process. The
real issues have never been litigated, unfortunately," said
Michael Robb, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP in London, Ont.
Northern Bay explains that the plaintiffs' main frustration in
the legal battles had nothing to do with the issue at hand --
whether the ONTC was right to spend pension plan money to pay
for employee buyouts and severance packages.
Mr. Robb added that, "None of the courts have decided the merits
of the case. They haven't decided whether the allegations that
pensioners have made with respect to the operation of a pension
fund are valid or not. All the courts have decided is that the
case as it has been framed is not appropriate for certification
as a class action."
The lawyers, Mr. Robb told Northern Bay Nugget, will consult
with the pensioners to determine what to do next.
CROCUS INVESTMENT: Reaches More Settlements with Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Settlements have been reached with some defendants in the
CDN$200-million class-action lawsuit over the collapsed Crocus
Investment Fund, CBC News learns.
The named defendants in the class-action lawsuit are the
government of Manitoba, the Manitoba Securities Commission,
former auditors PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, and former
investment bankers BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., Wellington West
Capital, Inc., Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 24, 2008,
Justice Kenneth Hanssen of the Court of Queen's Bench of
Manitoba was expected to decide this week on whether the
purported class action by investors against the Crocus
Investment Fund will go ahead.
However, according to the Canadian Press, Judge Hanssen was told
that the fund's former directors and officers, PwC, the Manitoba
Securities Commission and the Manitoba government have agreed to
pay a total of CDN$12 million.
Manitoba taxpayers will bear part of the cost, as the province
and the securities commission's share works out to
CDN$2.75 million, Canadian Press adds.
Sources told the Winnipeg Free Press that the Province of
Manitoba and its lawyers estimated it would cost at least
CDN$3 million to continue fighting the civil proceeding, and
agreed to pay now rather than put taxpayers on the hook for a
larger legal bill down the road.
Winnipeg Press relates that a much larger settlement is also
expected from PwC. Sources confirmed to Winnipeg Press that PwC
has agreed in principle to a settlement payout in the range of
CDN$6 million in exchange for being stricken from the list of
remaining defendants.
A smaller settlement has also been reached with underwriter BMO
Nesbitt, Winnipeg Press adds. "We have agreed in principle to
settle expressly on the basis that there is no admission of
liability on the part of BMO Nesbitt Burns," Ron Monet, director
of corporate communications for BMO Financial Group, told
Winnipeg Press.
Canadian Press says that the only defendant not to have settled
so far is Wellington West, the fund's underwriters.
According to the previous CAR report, Chubb Insurance has
settled for CDN$3 million in January in exchange for
dropping officers and directors from the lawsuit.
Winnipeg Press writes that the court will ultimately decide how
much of the settlement money will be available to shareholders.
CBC News notes that are more than 34,000 of these shareholders,
who invested more than CDN$150 million in aggregate in the
labor-sponsored venture capital fund.
For the time being, the settlement proceeds will be held in
trust by Deloitte, the court-appointed receiver for the fund,
until the class-action suit is wrapped up, Winnipeg Press notes.
The report says that it is not yet known whether or not this
latest flurry of settlements is enough to close the class-
action.
The labor-sponsored investment fund went into receivership in
June 2005 -- the same year a report from the auditor general
said its value had been overstated, Canadian Press recalls.
Lead attorney for the investors is:
David Klein, Esq.
Klein Lyons
Suite 1100 - 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C. V6H 4C1
Phone: (604) 874-7171
Fax: (604) 874-7180
e-mail: info@kleinlyons.com
nhartigan@kleinlyons.com
EQUITABLE RESOURCES: Faces W.Va. Lawsuit Over Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Resources, Inc., and one of its subsidiaries face a
purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia, entitled, "Kay Company,
LLC et al v. Equitable Production Company et al."
On Sept. 13, 2006, several royalty owners who have entered into
leases with Equitable Production Co., a subsidiary of the
Company, filed a gas royalty action with the Circuit Court of
Roane County, West Virginia.
The suit was served on July 31, 2006, and alleges that Equitable
Production Co. has failed to pay royalties on the fair value of
the gas produced and marketed from the leases and has taken
improper post-production deductions from the royalties paid.
The suit seeks class certification, compensatory and punitive
damages, an accounting, and other relief based on alleged breach
of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent
concealment.
Equitable Production Co. removed the suit to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of West Virginia on Aug. 7,
2006.
The plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint naming the
Company as an additional defendant, according to the company's
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "The Kay Company, LLC et al v. Equitable Production
Company et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-00612," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Western Virginia,
Judge Joseph R. Goodwin presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Michael W. Carey, Esq. (mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com)
Carey Scott & Douglas
P. O. Box 913
Charleston, WV 25323
Phone: 304-345-1234
Fax: 304-342-1105
- and -
Marvin W. Masters, Esq. (mwm@themasterslawfirm.com)
The Masters Law Firm
181 Summers Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-342-3106
Fax: 304-342-3189
Representing the defendants are:
Richard L. Gottlieb, Esq. (rgottlieb@lgcr.com)
Lewis Glasser Casey & Rollins
P. O. Box 1746
Charleston, WV 25326-1746
Phone: 304-345-2000
Fax: 304-343-7999
- and -
W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Esq. (wmcgough@reedsmith.com)
Reed Smith
P. O. Box 2009
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-2009
Phone: 412-288-3131
Fax: 412-288-3063
FIFTH THIRD: Still Faces N.Y. Payment Card Interchange Fee Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp continues to face a consolidated antitrust
class action, captioned "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-
md-01720-JG-JO," which is pending with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York.
On April 26, 2006, the company was added as a defendant in the
consolidated lawsuit, which was originally filed against Visa,
MasterCard and several other major financial institutions.
The plaintiffs, merchants operating commercial businesses
throughout the U.S. and trade associations, claim that the
interchange fees charged by card-issuing banks are unreasonable
and seek injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant
Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1720, Case No. 1:05-md-01720-
JG-JO," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Judge John Gleeson presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Darla Jo Boggs, Esq. (djboggs@locklaw.com)
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P.,
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: 612-339-6900
Fax: 612-339-0981
Christopher M. Burke, Esq. (chrisb@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
- and -
Jason S. Cowart, Esq. (jasoncowart@yahoo.com)
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP
100 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-661-1100
Fax: 212-661-8665
Representing the company is:
Patrick F. Fischer, Esq. (pfischer@kmklaw.com)
Keating Muething & Klekamp
One East Fourth Street, Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-579-6400
Fax: 513-579-6457
FIFTH THIRD: Parties Appeal Rulings in MA Security Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties are appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit the rulings entered by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in the consolidated cases brought by
financial institutions that now fall under the caption, "In Re
TJX Security Breach Litigation," which names Fifth Third Bancorp
as one of the defendants, according to the company's Feb. 22,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Fifth Third was the transaction processor for the TJX companies,
and therefore responsible for ensuring security of the card
information.
Initially, several putative class-action complaints were filed
against the company in various federal and state courts. The
federal cases were consolidated by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation and are now known as "In Re TJX
Security Breach Litigation." The state court actions have been
removed to federal court and have been consolidated into that
same case.
The complaints relate to the alleged intrusion of The TJX
Companies, Inc.'s computer system and the potential theft of
their customers’ non-public information and alleged violations
of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Some of the complaints were filed by consumers and seek
unquantified damages on behalf of putative classes of persons
who transacted business at any one of TJX's stores during the
period of the alleged intrusion.
Another was filed by financial institutions and seeks
unquantified damages on behalf of other similarly situated
entities that suffered losses in relation to the alleged
intrusion.
The U.S. District Court has granted Fifth Third's motion to
dismiss certain of the claims, but additional claims remain
pending.
On Nov. 29, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts issued an order denying the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the consolidated cases brought by
financial institutions.
On Dec. 18, 2007, the District Court entered its final order in
the Financial Institution Track litigation:
-- denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend
their complaint, without prejudice;
-- dismissing the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction; and
-- transferring the case from the U.S District Court to
the Massachusetts Superior Court in and for the County
of Middlesex.
TJX Companies then filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit as to that portion of the Court's
order transferring the case to Massachusetts State Court and an
emergency motion to stay the Massachusetts State Court
proceedings pending the appeal.
On Dec. 19, 2007, the First Circuit granted the request for stay
until a further order by the Court.
On Dec. 20, 2007, Fifth Third likewise filed a notice of appeal
to the First Circuit solely as to that portion of the District
Court's Dec. 18, 2007 Order transferring the case to the
Massachusetts State Court.
On Dec. 21, 2007, the plaintiffs also filed a Notice of Appeal
in the First Circuit as to the entirety of the District Court's
Dec. 18, 2007 Order and also as to all other prior "adverse
rulings" including, without limitation, the District Court's
denial of class certification and dismissal of various claims.
Fifth Third Bancorp -- http://www.53.com-- is a diversified
financial services company. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Bancorp
operated 18 affiliates with 1,227 full-service banking centers,
including 102 Bank Mart locations open seven days a week inside
select grocery stores and 2,211 Jeanie automated teller machines
in Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Florida,
Tennessee, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. The
Bancorp operates through five business segments: Commercial
Banking, Branch Banking, Consumer Lending, Investment Advisors
and Fifth Third Processing Solutions.
FLORIDA: More Property Owners Join Legacy Trail Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
The St. Louis attorneys who are initiating a class-action
lawsuit in behalf of property owners whose land is next to or
under the Legacy Trail were back in Sarasota trying to locate
more owners in Venice, Nokomis, Laurel and Osprey to become
plaintiffs in the suit, the Venice Gondolier reports.
The suit aims to seek compensation from the federal government
for taking land for the recreational trail.
According to Venice Gondolier, the lawsuit originally had a
Feb. 11 deadline for all who wanted to be class members, but
because it was difficult to find all eligible owners, the
attorneys sought and obtained an extension to March 20 from the
U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The report notes that in two meetings at the Venice Community
Center last month, attorneys advised property owners of their
rights and how they could become involved in the suit.
Altogether, about 550 properties owned by individuals, Sarasota
County, a commercial parcel and the Mission Valley and Bird Bay
golf courses are eligible.
About 300 owners have become plaintiffs and another 200 could
qualify, lead attorney Mark Hearne, Esq., told Venice Gondolier.
Mr. Hearne said that, despite inaccurate information and
outdated addresses, his firm had located 65 more eligible
owners, and signed them on as plaintiffs in the past three
weeks.
All plaintiffs must be identified to the federal court by
March 12, according to Arthur Menke of Lathrop & Gage L.C. The
class will be closed eight days later. Counsel for the
government must file challenges to the eligibility of plaintiffs
by May 23.
Background
Venice Gondolier explains that the track right of way was
established by easements from Bertha Palmer and her brother,
Adrian Honore, in 1903 to the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Under
federal law, once a railroad goes out of business, it
relinquishes its right to the land under the rails. The
property never belonged to the railroad.
Mr. Hearne said that he will argue that the land reverts to
whoever owned the land on April 2, 2004. The easement
establishing the railroad's right of way was taken under the
National Trails System Act, he said.
If Mr. Hearne succeeds in the lawsuit, the plaintiffs would
receive a settlement consisting of the appraised value
determined by the government, plus interest, less attorneys'
fees.
A U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1990 found that owners whose
property was taken for use as recreational trails by a
government were entitled to "just compensation," the report
notes.
For more information, contact:
Mark "Thor" Hearne, II, Esq. (mhearne@lathropgage.com)
Lathrop & Gage L.C.
10 South Broadway - Suite 1300
St. Louis, MO 63102-1708
Phone: (314) 613-2522
Fax: (314) 613-2550
HALLIBURTON CO: July 2009 Hearing Set for Texas Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A July 2009 trial is scheduled for a securities fraud lawsuit
pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas against Halliburton Co.
The class action was filed in June 2002 against the company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
the period starting approximately May 1998 until approximately
May 2002. The suit alleges violations of the federal securities
laws in connection with the accounting change and disclosures
involved in the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
investigation.
In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the company overstated
its revenue from unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not
reasonably estimable or probable of collection. In the weeks
that followed, approximately 20 similar class actions were filed
against the company.
Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants Arthur
Andersen LLP, the company's independent accountants for the
period covered by the lawsuits, and several of the company's
present or former officers and directors: David J. Lesar,
Douglas L. Foshee, Gary V. Morris, and Robert Charles Muchmore,
Jr.
The class actions were later consolidated, and the amended
consolidated class action complaint, "Richard Moore, et al. v.
Halliburton Co., et al.," was filed and served upon the company
in April 2003.
As a result of a substitution of lead plaintiffs, the case is
now styled, "Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund (AMSF) v.
Halliburton Company, et al."
In June 2003, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.
In addition to restating the original accounting and disclosure
claims, the second amended consolidated complaint included
claims arising out of Halliburton's 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc., including that the company failed to timely
disclose the resulting asbestos liability exposure.
Settlement Attempts
A memorandum of understanding contemplated settlement of the
Dresser claims as well as the original claims.
In June 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily approving
the settlement. Following the transfer of the case to another
district judge, the court held that evidence of the settlement's
fairness was inadequate, denied the motion for final approval of
the settlement, and ordered the parties to mediate. The
mediation was unsuccessful.
Motion to Dismiss
In April 2005, the court appointed new co-lead counsel and named
AMSF the new lead plaintiff, directing that it file a third
consolidated amended complaint and that the company file a
motion to dismiss. The court held oral arguments on that motion
in August 2005, at which time the court took the motion under
advisement.
In March 2006, the court entered an order in which it granted
the motion to dismiss with respect to claims arising prior to
June 1999 and granted the motion with respect to certain other
claims while permitting AMSF to replead some of those claims to
correct deficiencies in its earlier complaint.
In April 2006, AMSF filed its fourth amended consolidated
complaint. The company filed a motion to dismiss those portions
of the complaint that had been replead.
A hearing was held on that motion in July 2006, and in March
2007 the court ordered dismissal of the claims against all
individual defendants other than the company's CEO.
The court ordered that the case proceed against the company's
CEO and Halliburton. In response to a motion by the lead
plaintiff, on Feb. 26, 2007, the court ordered the removal and
replacement of their co-lead counsel.
Most recently, upon becoming aware of a U.S. Supreme Court
opinion issued near the end of its most recently completed term,
the court allowed further briefing on the motion to dismiss
filed on behalf of the company's CEO.
That briefing is complete, but the court has not yet ruled. In
September 2007, AMSF filed a motion for class certification. The
company's response to the motion is due on Nov. 1, 2007. The
case is set for trial in July 2009.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "The Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.,
et al. v. Halliburton Co., et al., Case No. 3:02-cv-01152,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Richard S. Schiffrin, Esq. (rschiffrin@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin & Barroway
280 King of Prussia Rd.
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706
Fax: (610) 667-7056
Marc R. Stanley, Esq. (mstanley@smi-law.com)
Stanley Mandel & Iola
3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750
Dallas, TX 75205
Phone: (214) 443-4301
Fax: (214) 443-0358
- and -
Thomas Burt, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
270 Madison Ave, Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 545-4600
Representing the company is:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq. (tbilek@hb-legal.com)
Hoeffner & Bilek
1000 Louisiana St., Suite 1302
Houston, TX 77002
Phone: (713) 227-7720
Fax: (713) 227-9404
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Junk Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a
consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Harley-
Davidson, Inc., and certain of its officers.
Initially, a number of shareholder class actions were filed
between May 18, 2005 and July 1, 2005. On Feb. 14, 2006, the
court consolidated all of the actions into a single case,
captioned, "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-00547," and appointed lead plaintiffs.
Pursuant to the Oct. 2, 2006 deadline set by the court, the lead
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which
names the company and officers Jeffrey L. Bleustein, James L.
Ziemer, and James M. Brostowitz, as defendants.
The consolidated complaint alleges securities law violations and
seeks unspecified damages relating generally to the company's
April 13, 2005 announcement that it was reducing short-term
production growth and planned increases of motorcycle shipments
from 317,000 units in 2004 to a new 2005 target of 329,000 units
(compared to its original target of 339,000 units).
On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint in its entirety. Briefing of the motion
to dismiss was completed in April 2007.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re Harley-Davidson, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 05-CV-00547," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (RRobbins@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 750-3000
(888) 262-3131
Fax: (561) 750-3364
- and -
Jacques C. Condon, Esq. (jcc@halewagner.com)
Hale & Wagner SC
205 E Wisconsin Ave - Ste 300
Milwaukee, WI 53202-4207
Phone: 414-278-7000
Fax: 414-278-7590
Representing the defendants are:
Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. (salamuddin@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
77 W Wacker Dr - 5th Fl
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-324-1158
Fax: 312-324-1001
- and -
Rebecca Wickhem House, Esq. (rwickhemhouse@foley.com)
Foley & Lardner LLP
777 E Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
Phone: 414-297-5681
Fax: 414-297-4900
HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Wis. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
has yet to rule on a motion seeking the dismissal of a purported
class action alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 against Harley-Davidson, Inc.
On Aug. 25, 2005, a class action alleging violations of ERISA
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin.
On Feb. 15, 2006, the court ordered the ERISA action
consolidated with the federal derivative and securities actions
for administrative purposes.
Pursuant to the schedule set by the court, on Oct. 2, 2006, the
ERISA plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, which
named as defendants:
-- the company,
-- the Harley-Davidson Motor Company Retirement Plans
Committee,
-- the company's Leadership and Strategy Council, and
-- current or former company officers or employees:
* Harold A. Scott,
* James L. Ziemer,
* James M. Brostowitz,
* Gail A. Lione,
* Joanne M. Bischmann,
* Karl M. Eberle,
* Jon R. Flickinger,
* Ronald M. Hutchinson,
* James A. McCaslin,
* W. Kenneth Sutton, Jr., and
* Donna F. Zarcone.
In general, the ERISA complaint includes factual allegations
similar to those in the shareholder class actions and alleges on
behalf of participants in certain Harley-Davidson retirement
savings plans that the plan fiduciaries breached their ERISA
fiduciary duties.
On Dec. 18, 2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
ERISA complaint in its entirety. Briefing of the motion to
dismiss was completed in April 2007.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Bosman v. Harley-Davidson Inc., et al., Case No.
2:05-cv-00912-CNC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, Judge Charles N. Clevert, Jr.
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Noah M. Golden-Krasner, Esq.
(noah@mainstreetjustice.com)
Law Offices of Noah Golden-Krasner
354 W. Main St.
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-441-8924
Fax: 608-442-9494
- and -
Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gainey & McKenna
485 5th Ave., 3rd Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-983-1300
Representing the defendants are:
Charles C. Jackson, Esq.
(charles.jackson@morganlewis.com)
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP
77 W. Wacker Dr. - 5th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-324-1156
Fax: 312-324-1001
- and -
Nancy J. Sennett, Esq. (nsennett@foley.com)
Rebecca E. Wickhem, Esq. (rwickhem@foley.com)
Foley & Lardner, LLP
777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53202-5300
Phone: 414-297-5522 and 414-297-5681
Fax: 414-297-4900 and 414-297-4900
HEALTHMARKETS INC: Accused of Scamming Customers in Calif. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Healthmarkets Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the Superior Court in Los Angeles claiming that the company
defrauded more than 100,000 consumers that availed of health
insurance policies by offering them affordable group rates but
concealing its control of the only firms it endorses, CourtHouse
News Service reports.
Also named defendants are:
* Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee,
* The Alliance for Affordable Services, and
* Specialized Association Services.
Named plaintiff Bonnie Parco claims that the defendants settled
a class-action lawsuit making similar allegations for the period
Aug. 1, 1998, to May 14, 2004, but that the "Defendants continue
to maintain this fraudulent marketing scheme."
Ms. Parco also sued Elizabeth Soloman, who allegedly sold her a
$1-million policy. Ms. Parco claims that when she filed a
claim, "Mid-West advised that it intended to rescind based on
post-claim underwriting, which is prohibited in California."
She further claims, "The sales pitch that plaintiff fell for is
the same sales pitch more than 100,000 U.S. insurance consumers
have fallen for in joining Alliance, and paying membership fees,
in order to obtain so-called negotiated affordable group rates
on medical insurance."
HealthMarkets, Inc. (NYSE:UCI) offers health and life insurance
through its MEGA Life and Health Insurance, Chesapeake Life
Insurance Company, and other subsidiaries. Its targeted
customers are the self-employed, association groups, and small
businesses. Other services include third-party administrative
and distribution services for health care providers and other
insurers.
The company changed its name from UICI to Health Markets in 2006
after being acquired by a consortium led by the Blackstone
Group.
HELEN OF TROY: $4.5M Securities Suit Deal Hearing Set June 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas has scheduled a hearing on June 19, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. for
the approval of a $4.5-million settlement deal in a securities
fraud class action filed against Helen of Troy, Ltd.
The class consists of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Helen of Troy common stock between Oct. 12, 2004, and
Oct. 10, 2005.
The deadline to file proofs of claim is on May 27, 2008, while
the deadline to file for exclusion is on June 5, 2008.
The class action is a consolidation of several suits against the
company, Gerald J. Rubin, the company's chairman of the board,
president, and chief executive officer, and Thomas J. Benson,
the company's chief financial officer, on behalf of purchasers
of publicly traded securities of the company.
The plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 10 (b) and 20(a)
of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, on the grounds that the company and the
two officers engaged in a scheme to defraud the company's
shareholders through the issuance of positive earnings guidance
intended to artificially inflate the company's share price so
that Mr. Rubin could sell almost 400,000 of the company's common
shares at an inflated price.
The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, interest, fees,
costs, an accounting of the insider trading proceeds, and
injunctive relief, including an accounting of and the imposition
of a constructive trust and asset freeze on the defendants'
insider trading proceeds.
An agreement in principle has been reached to settle the
consolidated class action. The proposed settlement remains
subject to a number of conditions, including the negotiation of
final settlement documents and court approval following notice
to class members (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2008).
Under the proposed settlement, the lawsuit would be dismissed
with prejudice in exchange for a cash payment of $4.5 million.
The suit is "In Re: Helen of Troy, Ltd., Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:05-cv-00431-DB," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Texas under Judge David Briones.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Ariel Acevedo, Esq.
Tower One, 5200 Town Center Circle, #600
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Phone: (561) 361-5000
- and -
Daniel R. Malone, Esq.
The Malone Law Firm
300 East Main, #1100
El Paso, TX 79901
Phone: (915) 533-5000
Fax: 915/533-5009
Representing the defendants are:
Nicholas Even, Esq. (nick.even@haynesboone.com)
Noel M. Hensley, Esq. (noel.hensley@haynesboone.com)
Haynes Boone, LLP
901 Main St., Ste. 3100
Dallas, TX 75202-3789
Phone: (214) 651-5000
Fax: (214) 651-5940 and (214) 200-0470
- and -
H. Christopher Mott, Esq. (cmott@gordonmottpc.com)
Krafsur Gordon Mott, PC
4695 North Mesa Street
El Paso, TX 79912-6103
Phone: (915) 545-1133
Fax: 915/545-4433
HERCULES INC: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Dioxin Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld on
Feb. 22 the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against major U.S.
chemical companies brought by Vietnamese plaintiffs over the use
of the defoliant "agent orange" during the Vietnam War, Reuters
reports.
The ruling concluded that the plaintiffs could not pursue their
claims against nearly 30 chemical companies.
The chemical companies are alleged to be directly accountable
for supplying the U.S. military with "agent orange" during the
Vietnam War and causing widespread dioxin poisoning.
Guardian.co.uk explains that U.S. warplanes dumped about
18 million gallons of the defoliant on Vietnamese forests
between 1962 and 1971 to destroy Vietnamese sources of food and
cover. The Vietnamese plaintiffs seek damages from dioxin
poisoning, which decades later they say has caused cancer,
deformities and organ dysfunction.
The Class Action Reporter mentioned in its Aug. 9, 2007 report
that in January 2004, Hercules Inc. was named as defendant in
the purported class action, which was filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and
several individuals who claim to represent 2-4 million
Vietnamese who allege that agent orange caused them or their
families to sustain personal injuries. The suit also alleges
violations of international law and war crimes, as well as
violations of the common law for products liability, negligence
and international torts.
Reuters notes that the chemical companies also include Dow
Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co.
Reuters recounts that Judge Roger Miner of the U.S. District
Court in Brooklyn, New York, ruled in March 2005 that the
plaintiffs failed to show that use of agent orange, a plant
killer supplied to the U.S. military in Vietnam, violated a ban
on the use of poisonous weapons in war and that the lawsuit did
not prove the plaintiffs' health problems were linked to the
chemical.
"Although the herbicide campaign may have been controversial,
the record before us supports the conclusion that agent orange
was used as a defoliant and not as a poison designed for or
targeting human populations," Judge Miner had written for the
three-judge appeals court panel.
Reuters says that the Appeals Court also upheld two other agent
orange rulings, including one in a case that was brought by
veterans and their families who said their health problems did
not become apparent until after a 1984 class-action settlement
was reached with a group of veterans. In that case, the Second
Circuit found that, as government contractors, the chemical
companies could be shielded from liability.
"These decisions mean that, if these decisions are not reversed
by the Supreme Court, the era of agent orange litigation has
ended," Jonathan Moore, Esq., an attorney for the Vietnamese
plaintiffs, told Reuters. He said his clients were "deeply
disappointed" in the ruling and would appeal.
The United States has maintained there is no scientifically
proven link between the wartime spraying and the claims of
dioxin poisoning by more than 3 million people in Vietnam. The
U.S. government, which claimed sovereign immunity, was not sued.
The plaintiffs had sought class-action status for millions of
Vietnamese people in a case that, if successful, could have
resulted in billions of dollars in damages and the costs of
environmental cleanup in Vietnam.
Hercules Inc. -- http://www.herc.com-- is a manufacturer and
marketer of specialty chemicals and related services for a range
of business, consumer and industrial applications. The
company's principal products include chemicals used by the paper
industry, water-soluble polymers and specialty resins. The
primary markets served by Hercules include pulp and paper,
paints and adhesives, construction materials, food,
pharmaceutical and personal care, and industrial specialties,
including oilfield, textiles and general industrial.
KOPPERS INC: Somerville Residents' Suits in Pa., Tex. Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class actions that were brought on behalf of
residents of Somerville, Texas against Koppers, Inc., have been
dismissed, according to the company's Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Pennsylvania Litigation
Koppers was named defendant in a putative class action that
sought the establishment of a medical monitoring program and the
costs of periodic health screening and diagnostic testing for a
class of approximately 7,500 people who have lived or currently
live in Somerville, but who have not experienced any diseases.
The case was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania in October 2007.
The plaintiffs alleged that they have been exposed to harmful
levels of various toxic chemicals from the Somerville wood
treatment plant. They sought unspecified damages, equitable
relief, attorneys' fees and costs.
In November 2007, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case.
Texas Litigation
A separate complaint was filed with the District Court of
Burleson County, Texas in October 2007. The complaint was a
putative class action filed on behalf of current and former
residents of Somerville, Texas who live or lived within a one
mile radius of the Somerville wood treatment plant.
The plaintiffs estimate the putative class to number in excess
of 2,500 people. Koppers and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway Co. were named defendants.
The complaint sought certification as a class action,
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, relocation
expenses, injunctive relief, punitive damages in an unspecified
amount, the costs of developing a notice plan to notify members
of the putative class and attorneys' fees.
The complaints contained counts relating to private nuisance,
trespass, negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence
arising from alleged emissions of toxic chemicals from the
Somerville plant.
The plaintiffs also filed an application for a temporary
injunction seeking, among other things, temporary injunctive
relief from alleged further releases of chemicals from the
Somerville plant, the temporary relocation of all class members
and reimbursement for certain personal and relocation expenses.
On Oct. 26, 2007, Koppers filed a notice pertaining to the
removal of the case from the District Court of Burleson County,
Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.
On Jan. 31, 2008, the Court dismissed the second case without
prejudice.
Koppers Inc. -- http://www.koppers.com/-- is an integrated
global provider of carbon compounds and commercial wood
treatment products. The Company's products are used in various
applications in a range of end markets, including the aluminum,
railroad, specialty chemical, utility, rubber and steel
industries. The Company operates two principal businesses:
Carbon Materials and Chemicals, and Railroad and Utility
Products. In the Carbon Materials and Chemicals business,
Koppers is engaged in distilling coal tar in North America,
Australia, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia. In the Railroad
and Utility Products business, the Company provides various
products and services to railroads, supplies treated wood poles
to electric and telephone utilities and provides products to,
and performs various wood treating services for, vineyards,
construction and other commercial applications.
MTC TECHNOLOGIES: Signs MoU to Settle Shareholder Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
MTC Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq Global Select Market: MTCT), an
industry-recognized provider of aircraft modernization and
sustainment, professional services, C4ISR, and logistics
solutions to the Department of Defense and national security
agencies, announced today that it has entered into a memorandum
of understanding with regard to a proposed settlement of
outstanding litigation.
On January 25, 2008, Superior Partners, an alleged MTC
stockholder, filed a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
all MTC stockholders against MTC, all of the members of the
board of directors of MTC, and BAE Systems.
The settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding
is subject to the execution by the parties of a definitive
settlement agreement, and the approval of that agreement by the
Court after notice to shareholders.
The settlement is also conditioned upon the consummation of the
proposed merger of MTC Technologies, Inc. with a wholly owned
subsidiary of BAE Systems, Inc.
MTC Technologies, Inc. -- http://www.mtctechnologies.com/--
delivers Warfighter solutions involving systems engineering,
information technology, intelligence, and program management
services primarily to the Department of Defense.
NETWORK SOLUTIONS: Faces. Calif. Lawsuit for Defrauding Millions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet
domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a
scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a lawsuit
filed with the U.S. District Court, Central District of
California by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states.
"Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black
convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them.
Would you get a good deal? Each time someone asks Network
Solutions about a domain name, the firm creates a monopoly for
itself, forcing consumers to pay the price they demand," said
Brian Kabateck, lead counsel in the class action and Kabateck
Brown Kellner's Managing Partner.
Whenever someone searches for the availability of a domain name
through Network Solutions' website, the company immediately
registers the name for itself, preventing other companies from
selling it and forcing consumers to pay Network Solutions'
expensive fees.
If a consumer were to go to another, cheaper site to register
the name, they would find the name is "unavailable." Consumers
are never informed that inquiring as to a name's availability
through Network Solutions results in the company holding a
monopoly on selling that name.
This allows Network Solutions to continue charging substantially
higher prices for domain name registration. Network Solutions
charged $34.99 to register the name sought by this suit's lead
plaintiff. A competitor would have charged $9.99.
Network Solutions' scheme is made possible by ICANN. ICANN
allows companies that sell domain names to avoid paying
registration fees for names cancelled within five days. Thus,
Network Solutions can defraud customers at no cost to itself.
ICANN is aware that Network Solutions is abusing this policy and
yet continues to facilitate its actions.
ICANN is the international organization, headquartered in Marina
Del Rey, CA, that regulates domain names and other Internet
protocols.
For more information, contact:
Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, California 90017
Tel: 213.217.5000
Fax: 213.217.5010
OIL COMPANIES: Kansas Judge Gives "Hot Fuel" Lawsuit Go Signal
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil allowed a potential class-
action lawsuit claiming that U.S. oil companies have knowingly
overcharged customers when gas station fuel temperatures rise to
go ahead, SFGate reports.
The report relates that Judge Vratil rejected the oil companies'
request to dismiss the lawsuit, saying that they had not proven
that the plaintiffs would not prevail in court. The ruling now
allows both sides to begin collecting more information on the
way to trial.
According to SFGate, dozens of lawsuits filed by consumers in 26
states were centralized in Judge Vratil's federal court in
Kansas City, Kan., in 2007. The lawsuits center on the oil
industry's century-old practice of pricing gasoline on a
standard of 60 degrees. As temperatures rise during warmer
months, the gasoline expands, meaning customers get less energy
per gallon. The plaintiffs claim that gasoline sold in the
states where lawsuits have been filed is an average of 10
degrees warmer than the industry standard.
SFGate points out that members of Congress have estimated the
changes in temperature have cost consumers $1.5 billion a year,
and they considered forcing oil companies to install pumps that
adjust for temperature changes. In fact, the industry uses
temperature-adjusting technology at every step of fuel sales
except retail, although many companies do use temperature-
adjusted pumps in Canada, where the temperature falls below the
industry standard, meaning consumers get more for their money.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
George A. Zelcs, Esq. (gzelcs@koreintillery.com)
Korein Tillery
205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 641-9750
Fax: (312) 641-9751
PPG INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Flat Glass Antitrust Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc., faces several purported federal class
actions in various jurisdictions over alleged antitrust
violations related to the sale of flat glass, according to the
company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Five purported antitrust class actions naming PPG and other flat
glass producers were filed in three different federal courts.
The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price and the terms and
conditions of sale of flat glass in the U.S. in violation of
federal antitrust laws.
PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- is a global
supplier of protective and decorative coatings. The Company
operates in five segments: Performance Coatings, Industrial
Coatings, Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals
and Glass. The Performance Coatings and Industrial Coatings
segments supply protective and decorative finishes for customers
in a range of end use markets, including industrial equipment,
appliances and packaging; factory-finished aluminum extrusions
and steel and aluminum coils; marine and aircraft equipment;
automotive original equipment; and other industrial and consumer
products. In addition to supplying finishes to the automotive
original equipment market, PPG supplies automotive refinishes to
the aftermarket.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Pa. Court Approves $23M Antitrust MDL Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
approved a $23-million settlement reached by PPG Industries,
Inc., in a suit alleging it violated antitrust rules in its
operation in the U.S. automotive refinish industry, according to
the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry have been filed in various state
and federal jurisdictions. Approximately 55 of these federal
cases have been consolidated as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Certain of the defendants in the federal automotive refinish
case have settled. The automotive refinish cases in state
courts have either been stayed pending resolution of the federal
proceedings or have been dismissed.
Neither PPG's investigation conducted through its counsel of the
allegations in these cases nor the discovery conducted in the
case has identified a basis for the plaintiffs' allegations that
PPG participated in a price-fixing conspiracy in the U.S.
automotive refinish industry.
PPG's management continues to believe that there was no
wrongdoing on the part of the company and that it has
meritorious defenses in the federal automotive refinish case.
Nonetheless, it remained uncertain whether the federal court
ultimately would dismiss PPG, or whether the case would go to
trial.
On Sept. 14, 2006, PPG agreed to settle the federal class action
for $23 million to avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted
case, as well as the risks and uncertainties associated with
complex litigation involving jury trials. PPG recorded a charge
for $23 million.
This amount was held in escrow and, on Dec. 28, 2007, the
federal court approved the class action settlement agreement.
In January 2008, the $23 million was released.
The suit is "In re Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust
Litigation, MDL-1426," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge Richard Barclay
Surrick.
RENAL CARE: Tenn. Court Considers Appeal in Dismissed Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Tennessee has yet to issue a ruling on an
appeal by plaintiffs in a lawsuit against former officers and
directors of Renal Care Group, Inc., an acquisition of Fresenius
Medical Care AG & Co. KgaA, in connection with the dismissal of
their case.
RCG was named as a nominal defendant in a second amended
complaint filed on Sept. 13, 2006, with the Chancery Court for
the State of Tennessee Twentieth Judicial District at Nashville
against former officers and directors of RCG that purports to
constitute a class action and derivative action relating to
alleged unlawful actions and breaches of fiduciary duty in
connection with the RCG Acquisition and in connection with
alleged improper backdating and timing of stock option grants.
The amended complaint was styled, "Indiana State District
Council of Laborers and Hod Carriers Pension Fund, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated and derivatively on
behalf of RCG, Plaintiff, vs. RCG, Gary Brukardt, William P.
Johnston, Harry R. Jacobson, Joseph C. Hutts, William V. Lapham,
Thomas A. Lowery, Stephen D. McMurray, Peter J. Grua, C. Thomas
Smith, Ronald Hinds, Raymond Hakim and R. Dirk Allison,
Defendants."
The complaint sought damages against the former RCG officers and
directors and did not state a claim for money damages directly
against the company.
On Aug. 30, 2007, the suit was dismissed by the trial court
without leave to amend.
The plaintiffs subsequently appealed and the matter remains
pending with the appellate court of Tennessee, according to the
Fresenius Medical Care AG & Co. KgaA's Feb. 21, 2008 form 20-F
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
period ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Renal Care Group, Inc. -- http://www.renalcaregroup.com-- is a
provider of dialysis services to patients with chronic kidney
failure, also known as end-stage renal disease.
ROHM & HAAS: Still Faces Litigation Over Ky. Plant Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Rohm & Haas Co. continues to face a purported class action filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky captioned, "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Co.,
Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH."
The complaint was filed on Nov. 9 2006, by individuals alleging
that their persons or properties were invaded by particulate and
air contaminants from Rohm's Louisville plant. The complaint
seeks class action certification as there are hundreds of
potential plaintiffs residing in neighborhoods within two miles
of the plant.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is the "Donaway et al. v. Rohm and Haas Company,
Louisville Plant, Case No. 3:06-cv-00575-JGH," filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky under
Judge John G. Heyburn, II.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Mark K. Gray, Esq. (mkgrayatty@aol.com)
Gray & White
500 W. Jefferson Street, Suite 1200 PNC Plaza
Louisville, KY 40202
Phone: 502-585-2060
Fax: 502-581-1933
Representing the defendant is:
Hiram Ely, III, Esq. (he@gdm.com)
Greenebaum Doll & McDonald PLLC
3500 National City Tower, 101 South Fifth Street
Louisville, KY 40202-3103
Phone: 502-587-3562
Fax: 502-540-2159
ROHM & HAAS: Circuit Mulls Appeal in Plastics Additives Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has yet to rule
on a motion appealing the class certification of a consolidated
lawsuit against Rohm & Haas Co., and several others, which is
alleging antitrust violations over the sale of plastics
additives, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Direct Purchaser Cases
Nine private federal court civil antitrust actions were later
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, including one that originally had been filed in
State Court in Ohio and another involving an individual direct
purchaser claim that was filed in federal court in Ohio.
These actions have been brought against the Company and other
producers of plastics additives products by direct purchasers of
these products and seek civil damages as a result of alleged
violations of the antitrust laws.
The named plaintiffs in all but one of these actions are seeking
to sue on behalf of all similarly situated purchasers of
plastics additives products.
Federal law provides that persons who have been injured by
violations of Federal antitrust law may recover three times
their actual damages plus attorneys' fees.
In the fall of 2006, the Court issued an order certifying six
subclasses of direct purchasers premised on the types of
plastics additives products that have been identified in the
litigation.
On April 9, 2007, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to
hear an appeal from the Court's certification order. As a
result of the appeal, the lower court has stayed the
consolidated direct purchaser cases indefinitely.
Indirect Purchaser Cases
In addition, in August 2005, a new indirect purchaser antitrust
class-action complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, consolidating all but
one of the indirect purchaser cases that previously had been
filed in various state courts, including Tennessee, Vermont,
Nebraska, Arizona, Kansas and Ohio.
The Court has dismissed from the consolidated action the claims
arising from the states of Nebraska, Kansas and Ohio, and
allowed the claims from Arizona, Tennessee and Vermont to
continue.
Because of the significant effect that the decision of the Third
Circuit on the appeal of class certification in the direct
purchaser cases may have on the indirect purchaser class, the
parties agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the
appeal. The only remaining state court indirect action is the
one filed in California which is dormant.
Rohm & Haas Co. -- http://www.rohmhaas.com/-- is a global
specialty materials company whose portfolio of global businesses
includes specialty materials, electronic materials and salt. The
Company’s products enable the creation of consumer goods and
other products found in a segment of dynamic markets, including
building and construction, electronics, packaging and paper,
industrial and other, transportation, household and personal
care, water and food. It has operations with approximately 100
manufacturing and 33 research facilities in 27 countries.
SOVEREIGN CORP: Faces Penna. Suit Over Workers' Retirement Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sovereign Bancorp is facing a class-action complaint filed with
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
alleging that it over-invested its workers' retirement funds in
company stock without warning them of its self-serving conflicts
of interest that cost them millions of dollars, CourtHouse News
Service reports.
Named plaintiff Emanuel Schmalz brings the action pursuant to
Sections 502(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 USC Sections 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3), against
plan fiduciaries.
The plaintiff alleges that the defendants, as fiduciaries of the
Plan, breached their duties to him and to the other Plan
participants in violation of ERISA, particularly with regard to
the Plan's holdings of Sovereign stock
The Plaintiff also brings the action as a class action pursuant
to Rules 23(a), (b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan at any time during
the Class Period, i.e., between January 1, 2007, and the
present, and whose accounts included investments in Sovereign
stock.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendants each owed a fiduciary duty to
the plaintiff and members of the class;
(b) whether the defendants breached fiduciary duties to
the plaintiff and class members by failing to act
prudently and solely in the interests of the Plan's
participants and beneficiaries;
(c) whether the defendants violated ERISA; and
(d) whether the members of the class have sustained damages
and, if so, what is the proper measure of damages.
The plaintiff requests for the following relief:
-- a declaration that the defendants have each breached
their ERISA fiduciary duties to the participants;
-- a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to
the protection of ERISA Section 404(c)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C.
Section 1104(c)(1)(B);
-- an order compelling the defendants to make good to the
Plan all losses resulting from their breaches of
fiduciary duties, including losses resulting from
imprudent investment of the Plan's assets, and to
restore to the Plan all profits they made through use of
the Plan's assets, and to restore to the Plan all
profits which the participants would have made if they
had fulfilled their fiduciary obligations;
-- imposition of a Constructive Trust on any amounts by
which any Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense
of the Plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty;
-- an Order enjoining the defendants from any further
violations of their ERISA fiduciary obligations;
-- actual damages in the amount of any losses the Plan
suffered, to be allocated among the participants'
individual accounts in proportion to the accounts'
losses;
-- an order that the defendants allocate the Plan's
recoveries to the accounts of all participants who had
their account balances invested in the common stock of
Sovereign maintained by the Plan in proportion to the
accounts' losses attributable to the precipitous decline
in the stock of Sovereign equity;
-- an order awarding costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(g);
-- an order awarding attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 1132(g) and the common fund doctrine; and
-- an order for equitable restitution and other appropriate
equitable and injunctive relief against the defendants,
including appropriate modifications to the Plan to
ensure against further violations of ERISA.
The suit is "Emanuel Schmalz et al v. Sovereign Bancorp et al.,"
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Representing plaintiff are:
Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross. P.C.
Suite 450, John Wanamaker Building
100 Penn Square East
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Phone: (215) 561-3600
Fax: (215) 561-3000
Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
Harwood Feffer LLP
488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Phone: (212) 935-7400
Fax: (212) 753-3630
- and -
Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP
One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805
New York, NY 10119
Phone: (212) 279-5050
Fax: (212) 279-3655
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Settlement in "Waxler" Lawsuit Becomes Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action against Trinity
Industries, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Trinity
Marine Products, Inc., with regards to barges it sold that were
allegedly applied with defective coatings was approved on a
final basis.
Trinity Industries, Trinity Marine, and certain material
suppliers and others, are co-defendants in a class action filed
in April 2003 entitled, "Waxler Transportation Company, Inc. v.
Trinity Marine Products, Inc., et al.," pending in Suit No. 49-
741, Division "B" with the 25th Judicial District Court in and
for the Parish of Plaquemines, Louisiana.
The plaintiff and class representative owned four tank barges on
which allegedly defective coatings were applied.
To avoid a continuing commitment of management and executive
time as well as the legal, expert, and transactional costs
associated with litigating the claims alleged, the Company and
TMP reached a preliminary settlement agreement in the Waxler
Case that was preliminarily approved by the court.
Pursuant to that agreement, the court certified the class for
settlement purposes on Aug. 20, 2007. Thereafter, notice of the
approved preliminary settlement agreement was provided to the
class.
The preliminary settlement agreement requires each class member
whose individual claims will be settled via the class settlement
to elect one of three, mutually exclusive settlement options.
At the court-scheduled fairness hearing held Nov. 29, 2007, no
objections by class members were proffered and the court
approved the preliminary settlement agreement.
The court's judgment became final on Feb. 9, 2008 at which time
no appeals or other challenges to the preliminary settlement had
been filed, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Trinity Industries, Inc. -- http://www.trin.net-- is a holding
company of diversified industrial companies. Trinity
manufactures and sells railcars and railcar parts, inland
barges, concrete and aggregates, highway products, beams and
girders used in highway construction, tank containers and
structural wind towers.
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: July 2008 Trial Set for MN Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A tentative July 2008 trial is slated for the consolidated
securities fraud class action pending with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group,
Inc.
On May 5, 2006, the first of seven putative class actions
alleging a violation of the federal securities laws was brought
by an individual shareholder against certain of the company's
current and former officers and directors with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed on Dec. 8, 2006,
consolidating the actions into a single case. The action is
captioned, "In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA
Litigation." The appointed lead plaintiff is California Public
Employees Retirement System.
The consolidated amended complaint alleges that the defendants
made misrepresentations and omissions during the period between
Jan. 20, 2005, and May 17, 2006, in press releases and public
filings that artificially inflated the price of the company's
common stock. The complaint also asserts that during the class
period, certain defendants sold shares of the company's common
stock while in possession of material, non-public information
concerning matters set forth in the complaint.
It alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20(a) and 20A of
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The action also seeks
unspecified money damages and equitable relief.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint. However, dismissal motion was denied by
court, thus allowing discovery process.
On July 18, 2007, the lead plaintiff moved for, and was later
denied partial summary judgment on the Company's liability on
the Section 11 claim.
The parties are currently engaged in discovery and the case is
currently scheduled to be ready for trial in July 2008,
according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re UnitedHealth Group Inc. PSLRA Litigation,
Case No. 06-cv-01691-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum
presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Ramzi Abadou, Esq. (ramzia@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 W. Broadway Ste. 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
-and -
Carolyn Glass Anderson, Esq. (cga@zimmreed.com)
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP
651 Nicollet Mall Ste 501
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4123
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
Representing the defendants is:
Gretchen A. Agee, Esq. (agee.gretchen@dorsey.com)
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: (612) 492-6741
Fax: (612) 340-8856
- and -
Charles E. Bachman, Esq. (cbachman@omm.com)
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Phone: (212) 408-2421
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: MN Court Mulls Dismissal Bid v. "Zilhaver"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has yet to
rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of the lawsuit,
"Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 0:06-cv-
02237-JMR-FLN."
On June 6, 2006, the purported class action was filed against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.
The suit was filed on behalf of participants in the company's
401(k) defined contribution retirement plan (UnitedHealth Group
Inc. 401 (k) Savings Plan) for whose individual accounts the
Plan purchased and held shares of UnitedHealth Group Inc. common
stock at any time from Dec. 21, 2005, through May 24, 2006.
The case alleges that UnitedHealth Group Inc. and other Plan
fiduciaries concealed from Plan participants important
information concerning:
-- long-standing, improper practices at the company
relating to executive stock options, including those
awarded to former chief executive William McGuire and
current chief executive Stephen Hemsley; and
-- whether UnitedHealth Group Inc. common stock was a
prudent and suitable retirement investment for the
Plan.
On May 1, 2007, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. That
amended complaint alleges that the fiduciaries to the Company-
sponsored 401(k) plan violated ERISA by allowing the plan to
continue to hold company stock.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 22, 2007. A
hearing on the motion to dismiss took place on Jan. 8, 2008.
Yet, the dismissal motion remains under consideration by the
court, according to the company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Zilhaver v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc. et al., Case
No. 0:06-cv-02237-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota, Judge James M. Rosenbaum
presiding.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Edwin J. Mills, Esq. (ssbny@aol.com)
Stull Stull & Brody
6 E. 45th St., Ste. 500
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-687-7230
- and -
James B. Hovland, Esq. (jhovland@krauserollins.com)
David E. Krause, Esq. (dkrause@krauserollins.com)
Krause & Rollins
310 Groveland Ave.
Minneapolis, MN 55403
Phone: 612-874-8550
Fax: 612-874-9362
Representing defendants are:
Peter W. Carter, Esq. (carter.peter@dorsey.com)
Thomas P. Swigert, Esq. (swigert.tom@dorsey.com)
Dorsey & Whitney LLP
50 S. 6th St., Ste. 1500
Minneapolis, MN 55402-1498
Phone: 612-340-2600
Fax: 612-340-2868
- and -
David M. Brodsky, Esq. (david.brodsky@lw.com)
Blair Connelly, Esq. (blair.connelly@lw.com)
Alexandra A. E. Shapiro, Esq.
(alexandra.shapiro@lw.com)
Latham & Watkins
885 3rd Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-906-1628, 212-906-1658 and 212-906-1670
Fax: 212-751-4864
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Appeals Court Rejects Motions in Fla. Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied all pending motions
without prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions
in connection with the recent decision it has issued in the
class action, entitled, "Shane v. Humana," which was filed by a
group of physicians against a unit of the UnitedHealth Group,
Inc., and several other health benefits businesses.
Beginning in 1999, a series of class actions were filed against
both UnitedHealthcare and PacifiCare Health Systems, and
virtually all major entities in the health benefits business.
In December 2000, a multi-district litigation panel consolidated
several litigation cases involving the company and its
affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
Court of Florida.
The health care provider plaintiffs alleged statutory
violations, including violations of the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act in connection with alleged undisclosed
reimbursement policies. Other allegations included breach of
state prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for
failure to timely reimburse health care providers for medical
services rendered.
The consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory and
equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.
The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the
class action status of certain of the RICO claims, but reversed
as to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment and prompt
payment claims. Most of the co-defendants have settled.
On Jan. 31, 2006, the trial court dismissed all claims against
PacifiCare, and on June 19, 2006, the trial court dismissed all
claims against UnitedHealthcare brought by the lead plaintiffs.
On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
those decisions. Included in the multidistrict litigation are
tag-along lawsuits which contain claims against the Company
similar to the claims dismissed in the lead case.
The tag-along cases were stayed pending resolution of the lead
case. That stay has not been lifted, but it is anticipated that
the trial court will now lift the stay and address the
continuing viability of the tag-along claims.
The plaintiffs in a number of the tag-along cases have sought to
remand the cases to alternate forums. The company opposed these
efforts and have asked the court to apply its June 2006 summary
judgment ruling, and its other applicable pretrial rulings, to
those cases.
On Feb. 12, 2008, the court denied all pending motions without
prejudice and set a briefing schedule for future motions,
including motions for summary judgment, according to the
company's Feb. 21, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. -- http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com--
is a diversified health and well-being company that offers a
broad spectrum of products and services through six operating
businesses: UnitedHealthcare, Ovations, AmeriChoice, Uniprise,
Specialized Care Services and Ingenix. Through its family of
businesses, UnitedHealth Group serves approximately 70 million
individuals nationwide.
UNITED PARCEL: Faces Lawsuit in Okla. Over Illegal Bundling
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Services is facing a class-action complaint filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma accusing it of illegal bundling, CourtHouse News
Service reports.
Named plaintiff Thermal Technologies, Inc., brings the action
for the ground shipment of parcels withing the United States
valued at up $100.00.
According to the CourtHouse report, UPS abuses its market power
to illegally tie insurance on packages worth up to $100 with
delivery services, and to charge customers for insurance whether
they want it or not.
Specifically, for ground shipping within the United States of
parcels valued at up to $100.00, UPS bundles its pricing for its
shipping service with the offering of insurance for the package,
such that a customer is also required to obtain insurance
coverage from UPS for the shipment, regardless of whether the
customer would have preferred to forego the insurance coverage
or would have preferred to obtain insurance coverage from a
different provider. That is, even if the customer would prefer
not to obtain insurance at all or not to do so from UPS, UPS
still charges the customer the same bundled or tied price that
includes insurance coverage provided by UPS.
In this manner, UPS has unlawfully exploited its market power in
the relevant U.S. market for ground shipments in order to thwart
competition in the separate market for insurance coverage for
such parcel shipments.
The plaintiff brings the action against UPS for violations of
the federal antitrust laws to seek monetary, injunctive, and
declaratory relief for UPS' anticompetitive conduct.
The plaintiff also brings the action pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23, on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons and entities as the conduct alleged ceases, directly
paid money to UPS for the ground shipment of packages within the
U.S. valued at up to $100.00.
The plaintiff wants the court to rule on:
(a) the definition of the relevant market (s);
(b) UPS' market power within these relevant market(s);
(c) whether UPS unlawfully restrained competition in any or
all of these relevant markets;
(d) whether any unlawful restriction of competition caused
by UPS caused injury to the business or property of
plaintiff and the class members;
(e) the extent of any such injury; and
(f) the appropriate remedy for any such injury.
The plaintiff requests for an order from the court as follows:
-- entering judgment for plaintiff and the class and
against defendant on all counts;
-- certifying this action as a class action on behalf of
the class, and designating plaintiff and its counsel as
class representative and class counsel, respectively;
-- directing that notice of this action be disseminated to
the absent class members at defendant's expense;
-- awarding plaintiff and the class members their
compensatory and statutory money damages, including
trebled damages and punitive damages where appropriate;
-- awarding plaintiff's counsel their reasonable attorneys'
fees, expenses, and costs of suit;
-- declaring defendant's actions to be violations of the
federal antitrust laws, and the common law, and
enjoining defendant from carrying on such conduct;
-- requiring defendant to disgorge its ill-gotten gains,
and awarding the proceeds of this disgorgement to
plaintiff and the class members; and
-- requiring defendant to establish a common fund from
which compensation can be made to plaintiff and the
class members, and from which plaintiff's counsel may
recover their reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and
costs of suit.
The suit is "Thermal Technologies, Inc. et al. v. United Parcel
Service, Inc., Case No. 08 CV-102GKF FHM," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Gerald Lovoi, Esq.
Law office of Gerald Lovoi
324 South Main Street, Suite 900
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Phone: (918) 622-0031
- and -
Jerry Williams, Esq.
Balogh, Cherry, Mitchell & Williams
324 South Main Street, Suite 601
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Phone: (918) 699-9007
US AIRWAYS: Court Mulls Approving "Lap Children" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court has yet to approve a settlement
reached in a purported class action filed on Feb. 9, 2007,
against U.S. Airways Group, Inc., by passengers Daphne Renard
and Todd Robins.
The complaint alleges that U.S. Airways breached its contract of
carriage by charging additional fares and fees, after the
purchase of tickets on the usairways.com Web site, for
passengers under two years of age who travel as "lap children,"
meaning that the child does not occupy his or her own seat but
travels instead on the lap of an accompanying adult.
The plaintiffs allege that they purchased international tickets
through the Web site for themselves and a lap child. They say
that after initially receiving an electronic confirmation that
there would be no charge for the lap child, they were later
charged an additional $242.50.
The complaint alleges a class period from Feb. 9, 2002, to the
present.
The company was served with an amended complaint in early March
2007 that continued the same allegations, but dropped Ms. Renard
as a class representative.
On May 1, 2007, U.S. Airways filed an answer to the complaint
and also asked the court for a "complex case" designation, which
the court granted on May 11, 2007.
On September 25, 2007, the parties reached a settlement for an
immaterial amount. That agreement must be approved by the court
in order to become final, according to the company's Feb. 20,
2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
U.S. Airways Group, Inc. -- http://www.usairways.com-- serves
as the holding company for its direct and indirect wholly owned
subsidiaries, US Airways, Inc. (US Airways) and America West
Airlines, Inc. (AWA).
WELLPOINT INC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint for unpaid overtime was filed on Feb. 21, 2008, with
the United States District Court for Northern District of New
York by current and former employees against WellPoint, Inc.
WellPoint is headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana and operates
call centers in states all over the country.
The plaintiffs work or worked as utilization review nurses, case
management nurses, and medical management nurses in these call
centers, answering telephone calls from hospitals, members, and
providers. The plaintiffs seek overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York state wage and hour law. The
complaint is brought as a purported collective and class action.
Rachhana T. Srey of the law firm of Nichols Kaster & Anderson,
PLLP explained, "These call center nurses allege that they
should be treated as non-exempt workers and paid overtime. They
spend the majority of their work day answering telephone calls
and entering data into WellPoint's computer system. A nursing
degree does not automatically make them exempt from overtime
under federal and state laws. The law requires us to look at
their actual job duties."
The suit is "Ruggles et al v. WellPoint, Inc., Case Number:
1:2008cv00201," filed with the United States District Court for
Northern District of New York, Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn,
presiding with referral to Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Donald H. Nichols, Esq. (nichols@nka.com)
Paul J. Lukas, Esq. (lukas@nka.com)
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. (srey@nka.com)
Nichols Kaster & Anderson PLLP
4600 IDS Center
80 S. Eighth St.
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Phone: 612-256-3239
New Securities Fraud Cases
MBIA INC: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional
investor in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MBIA, Inc.
(NYSE:MBI) common stock during the period between October 26,
2006 and January 9, 2008.
The complaint charges MBIA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
MBIA, through its subsidiaries, is a leading financial guarantor
and provider of specialized financial services.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business and financial results related to its
insurance coverage on collateralized debt obligation contracts.
As a result of defendants' false statements, MBIA stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period,
reaching an all-time high of $73.31 per share in December 2006.
On January 9, 2008, the Company announced it would incur a total
of $737 million in loss and loss adjustment expenses for the
fourth quarter of 2007, and had cut the quarterly shareholder
dividend from $.34 per share to $.13 per share. On this news,
MBIA's stock price declined to as low as $11.11 per share before
closing at $13.40 per share on January 9, 2008, on volume of 32
million shares, a two-day decline of 24%.
According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
the defendants but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:
(a) the Company lacked requisite internal controls to
ensure that the Company's underwriting standards and
its internal rating system for its CDO contracts were
adequate;
(b) the Company concealed its exposure to CDOs containing
subprime debt;
(c) the Company's financial statements were materially
misstated due to its failure to properly account for
its mark-to-market losses;
(d) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in
the mortgage market, the Company would be forced to
tighten its underwriting standards related to its
asset-backed securities, which would have a direct
material negative impact on its premium production
going forward;
(e) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
losses and defaults related to its CDO contracts
containing subprime loans than it had previously
disclosed; and
(f) the Company had far greater exposure to a potential
ratings downgrade from one of the credit ratings
agencies than it had previously disclosed.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of MBIA common stock during the Class Period.
For more information, contact:
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Coughlin Stoia Files N.J. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP announced that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of
Schering-Plough Corporation securities during the period between
July 24, 2006, and January 14, 2008.
The complaint charges Schering-Plough and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
Schering-Plough is a pharmaceuticals company engaged in the
discovery, development, manufacture, and marketing of medical
therapies and treatments worldwide.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements about Schering-
Plough's drug Zetia, used to lower cholesterol, Zetia's sister
drug, Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and the statin
Zocor, and a clinical trial about those drugs called ENHANCE.
On January 14, 2008, defendants released the results of the
ENHANCE trial, which had been delayed for eighteen months. The
ENHANCE trial found that high cholesterol patients did no better
taking Vytorin over the generic form of Zocor and that patients
on Vytorin actually had more heart attacks, cardiovascular
deaths and heart procedures than those who were on Zocor. As a
result, Schering-Plough's stock price dropped $2.21 in one day.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Schering-Plough securities during the Class Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than 60 days from
January 18, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (djr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058
SIRF HOLDINGS: Wolf Haldenstein Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. between October 31,
2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive against the Company and
certain officers and directors, alleging fraud pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. ss.ss.
78j(b) and 78t(a)) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
SEC (17 C.F.R. ss. 240.10b-5) .
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous, positive press releases, statements
and quarterly financial reports filed with the SEC that
described the Company's financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among
others:
(a) that the Company's purchase of Centrality
Communications, Inc. was having an adverse impact on
SiRF's financial results due to an overlap in product
lines;
(b) that SiRF's major customers were not placing sufficient
orders for the Company to meet its targets;
(c) that Centrality's product line had lower gross margins
than the Company's products and though Centrality's
acquisition would help SiRF increase revenue it would
also significantly lower SiRF's gross margins;
(d) that the Company's customers were moving to cellular-
enabled products which SiRF could not compete with;
(e) that downward pricing pressures were accelerating and
would lead to lower margins in the future; and
(f) that as a result of these factors defendants had no
basis for making statements suggesting that the
Company's earnings per share would remain steady in
their fourth fiscal quarter.
The defendants' false and misleading statements during the Class
Period caused the Company's stock to trade at artificially
inflated prices.
Finally, on February 4, 2008, the Company issued a press release
announcing its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007.
When the truth about the Company was revealed SiRF's stock price
plunged $8.91 per share, losing approximately 55% of its value,
to close at $7.36 per share.
In ignorance of the false and misleading nature of the
statements described in the complaint, and the deceptive and
manipulative devices and contrivances employed by said
defendants, plaintiff and the other members of the Class relied,
to their detriment, on the integrity of the market price of SiRF
securities. Had the plaintiff and the other members of the
Class known the truth, they would not have purchased said
securities, or would not have purchased them at the inflated
prices that were paid.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8,
2008 for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Jeffrey G. Smith, Esq.
Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
Martin Restituyo, Esq.
Derek Behnke
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Phone: 800-575-0735
e-mail: classmember@whafh.com
Web site: http://www.whafh.com
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
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 * * *