C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, February 29, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 43 Headlines ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif. KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif. TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped * Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y. MORGAN KEEGAN: Schiffrin Barroway Files TN Securities Fraud Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Firm Files CA Securities Fraud Suit SWISS REINSURANCE: Coughlin Stoia Files NY Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has 90,322 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Cites $172M Defense, Resolution Costs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Has $467M Receivable at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodrich, Units Still Face Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Claims v. Trane Rise to 105,023 at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Still Pursuing Coverage Claim in N.J. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trane Inc. Has $628.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: A.O. Smith Faces Suits with 66,072 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers' Liabilities Rise to $19.3M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Records 5,084 Pending Cases at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Philips Unit Accrues EUR315M for Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Veterans Appeals Court Remands Nix's Suit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court Affirms New Trial in Whitlock ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Units Still Face Pending Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TPC Still Has Cases Involving AcandS, Inc. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Travelers Cites $3.73B Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Morton Still Faces Cases from La. Facility ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Enbridge Energy Has $3.4M in Liabilities ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NewMarket Has $11.11M for Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Cleared in 3,839 Cases in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Reserves $16.72M Net for Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Navigators Case Agreement Entered Last Nov. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Continues to Face "Premises" Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Halliburton Has $29M Receivables at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Records 10,998 Open Claims at Dec. 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,450 Abex Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd, Units Continue to Face Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $23M Costs for N.Y. Explosion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Faces Unresolved Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Orchard has 8T Suits from Vapor Corp. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Ruling to Favor Pharmacia ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $1M for Abatement at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tube City Faces Claims from Old Operations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Has 28,362 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 29T Claims Pending Against FMC at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pipefitter Sues 52 Companies in Texas Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: V.I. Contractor Indicted for CAA Violations ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minnesotan Sues 65 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Eyre Widow Seeks Workmates' Help in Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Trial on Whisnat v. DuPont Suit Proceeding ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Coroner Links Worker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Faces 114T Open Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeal Court Favors Foster Wheeler to Danos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Eagle, OneBeacon in Thibodeaux ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Has $1.322B Claim Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurer Parties to Appeal A.P. Green Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Pursues Action v. Keasbey in N.Y. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Involved in Burns & Roe Coverage Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Continues to Face Cases in Tex. Courts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mont. Action Stayed Due to Grace Bankruptcy ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Grants ASARCO, Creditors Tolling Deal ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Holy Cross Owners Sued for Exposing Workers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxnard School in Calif. Settles $25T Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Jury Awards $30.3M to Worker's Family ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HSE Issues Warnings to NHS Trust on Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Firm Seeks to Override Emissions Laws ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Worker Pleads Guilty in Cleanup Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Authorities Probe Claims v. CFMEU Official ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Gets More Appeal Time in Libby Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ThunderSky Urges Gov't. to Warn of Dangers ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Victorian Gov't. Defends v. Workers' Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie Asbestos Cost Covered in $17M Charge ********* ALABAMA: City of Florence Faces Civil Rights Violations Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The City of Florence (Ala.) is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for Civil rights Violations, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Matthew Dendy claims that the City of Florence unconstitutionally imprisons indigent people who cannot pay traffic fines or court costs, and makes them serve out their unpaid fines at $15 a day rather than the statutory $25 a day. Mr. Dendy brings the action because of the defendants': -- failure to provide adequate counsel to indigent arrestees; -- failure to conduct a sufficient hearing to determine indigency before imposing fines and costs; -- automatically incarcerating indigent people for failure to pay fines and costs; -- imposing terms of incarceration beyond the statutory maximum; and -- other civil rights violations and conduct. Mr. Dendy seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages and punitive damages pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of all persons who are, who have been, or who will be incarcerated at the Lauderdale County Detention Center in whole or in part for failure to pay fines or court costs or whose sentences include a period of incarceration derived from a failure to pay fines and court costs ordered by the Municipal Court of Florence, Alabama. Mr. Dendy wants the court to rule on: (i) whether the defendants' policy and practice of automatically converting unpaid fines and costs to days of incarceration, without any determination concerning an individual's ability to pay, is illegal; (ii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of converting fines and costs to days of incarceration at the rate of $15 per day rather than the statutory rate of $25 per day is illegal; (iii) whether the defendants' policy and practice of rounding up when converting unpaid fines and costs to days of incarceration is illegal; and (iv) whether the defendants' policy and practice of ignoring due process requirements before incarcerating individuals for failure to pay fines and costs is illegal. Specifically, the defendants failed to appoint counsel for indigent arrestees, failed to give adequate notice of the nature of the hearing, failed to make written findings concerning the reasons for revoking probation or work release and the evidence relied upon, and failed to make written findings concerning an individuals willful nonpayment of fines and costs before imposing incarceration for nonpayment. The plaintiff requests: -- that the Court adjudge and decree that the defendants have engaged in certain violations of laws; -- that the plaintiff recover such actual damages as the Court will find the plaintiff has sustained, together with double, treble, punitive, or exemplary damages as the law will permit; -- that the Court enter an injunction which prohibits the defendants from engaging in the violations of law set forth; -- that the plaintiff recover the costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable attorneys fees as provided by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, §1988, and the common law; and -- that the plaintiff have such other and further relief as the Court will deem just and appropriate. The suit is "Matthew Dendy et al. v. City of Florence, Alabama," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Representing the plaintiffs is: Elizabeth G. Messer, Esq. Gonce, Young, Collum-Butler & Messer 109 North Court Street Florence, Alabama 35630 Phone: (256) 767-7411 Fax: (256) 767-0320 e-mail: contactus@alalawyers.com AMERICAN FAMILY: Lawyers Want New Class Rep in Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Lakin Law Firm attorneys who have kept a Madison County class action against American Family Insurance alive for four years are proposing to replace a dead class representative with a band of chiropractors, Madison County Record reports. In its sixth amended complaint filed on Feb. 1, 2008, the firm introduced chiropractors who claim that American Family improperly reduced payouts on medical bills from car crashes. None of these plaintiffs, however, live in Madison County. Jeff Millar, Esq., of Lakin Law Firm, specofocally introduced these chiropractors: * Kruse and Manley Clinic of Sioux City, Iowa, who claim that the insurer cheated them out of a dollar, paying $39 on a $40 bill; * Matthew Chenault of Greenville Rehab and Pain Clinic in Greenville, Illinois, who alleges an improper $4 reduction, from $60 to $56; * Anthony Wolf of Indianapolis and Breann Moddes of Tempe, Ariz., who allege improper $4 reductions, from $40 to $36; * Kent Marshall of Henderson, Nevada, who alleges an improper $22 reduction, from $60 to $38; and * Charles Vifquain of Lees Summit, Mo., who alleges an improper $26 reduction, from $75 to $49. They claim breach of contract but they can't begin to prove it. The Class Action Reported reported on Jan. 31, 2007, that the lawsuit was originally filed against the company by Manuel Hernandez in 2000, who also claimed that the insurer improperly reduced a payout on a medical claim resulting from an auto accident. In 2002, Circuit Judge Daniel Stack, as associate judge, certified Mr. Hernandez as representative of a class in 17 states, Madison Record recounts. As circuit judge, Judge Stack trimmed the class to 11 states in 2005. According to CAR, early in 2007, the company discovered that Mr. Hernandez has been dead since January 2004, and therefore asked the court to dismiss the case on this basis. The Lakins tried to substitute the deceased plaintiff's wife, Nora, but Judge Stack rejected her because she did not belong to the class. Mrs. Hernandez is now suing along with the chiropractors in Mr. Millar's amended complaint as her husband's personal representative. However, Mr. Millar wrote to Circuit Judge Daniel Stack that the class plaintiffs "lack copies of those individual policies and thus cannot attach them to this pleading." Madison Record relates that Mr. Millar figures the defense should supply the evidence. According to Mr. Millar, American Family carried out a scheme with software contractors Mitchell International and ADP Claims Solution Group. "AFI purchased, leased and used the Mitchell and ADP software to systematically underpay Medpay claims," he stated. "AFI uses/used Mitchell and ADP reports as a subterfuge, for their true purpose is to intentionally reduce AFI's first-party medpay claims payouts, and to increase profits." American Family rewards claims adjusters for low payments and instructs them in adversarial use of Mitchell and ADP reports, Mr. Millar added. "Thus, from the beginning of the claims process, the claims adjuster's interests conflict with the insured's." Mr. Millar urged Judge Stack to disregard arbitration clauses, arguing that arbitration would be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Millar argued that American Family designed the clause to prevent the class from effectively vindicating statutory and common law causes of action and that it is part of the insurer's fraudulent scheme. "Absent a class action," he wrote, "AFI will continue in its deceptive course of conduct and will retain its ill-gotten profits," Mr. Millar, who estimated the class in the tens of thousands, said. The class definition covers claims from 1990 to the date of final judgment, and includes Illinois, Missouri, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Arizona, Nevada and Idaho, Madison Record notes. In addition to breach of contract, Mr. Millar claims consumer fraud for each class member under the law of his or her own state. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey Millar, Esq. Brad Lakin, Esq. Jonathan Piper, Esq. The Lakin Law Firm, P.C. 300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229 Wood River, Illinois 62095-0229 (Madison Co.) Phone: (618) 254-1127 Fax: (618) 254-0193 Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com/ American Family is represented by: Anthony Martin, Esq. (amartin@spvg.com) Timothy Sansone, Esq. (tsansone@spvg.com) Sandberg, Phoenix and Von Gontard One City Centre, 15th Floor 515 North 6th Street St. Louis, MO 63101-1880 Phone: (314) 231-3332 (800) 225-5529 Fax: (314) 241-7604 AMKOR TECHNOLOGY: Dismissal of Ariz. Securities Suit Appealed ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal regarding the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action against Amkor Technology, Inc. On Jan. 23, 2006, a purported securities class action entitled, "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc., et al.," was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Amkor and certain of its current and former officers. Subsequently, other law firms filed two similar cases, which were consolidated with the initial complaint. In August 2006 and again in November 2006, the plaintiffs amended the complaint. The plaintiffs added additional officer, director and former director defendants and alleged improprieties in certain option grants. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants improperly recorded and accounted for the options in violation of generally accepted accounting principles and made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in its disclosures in violation of the federal securities laws, during the period from July 2001 to July 2006. The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 23, compensatory damages, costs, and expenses, and such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On Dec. 28, 2006, pursuant to a motion by the defendants, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania transferred the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. On Sept. 25, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice. On Oct. 23, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Nathan Weiss et al. v. Amkor Technology, Inc. et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq. (jgoldberg@faruqilaw.com) Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP P.O. Box 30132 Elkins Park, PA 19027 Phone: 215-782-8235 - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. (esmith@brodsky-smith.com) Brodsky & Smith, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-667-6200 Representing the defendants are: Patrick Loftus, Esq. (loftus@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris, LLP 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396 Phone: 215-979-1367 - and - Karen T. Stefano, Esq. (kstefano@wsgr.com) Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-3405 BLUE SQUARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Sale of "Super Fresh Eggs" ---------------------------------------------------------- Blue Square-Israel Ltd. was served with a claim and a request for approval as a class action, in which the Company is being sued together with other defendants, including companies involved in the marketing of eggs and also other food marketing chains. The Claim alleges that the defendants are marketing and displaying for purchase eggs that are classified as "Super Fresh Eggs" which are not subject to Israeli regulatory price controls, and are thus minimizing the shelf space and display of eggs that are subject to regulatory price controls. According to the claim, the defendants allegedly derive a higher profit margin from the sale of such "Super Fresh Eggs" instead of the regulated eggs. The claim alleges that the defendants coordinated their actions among each other, and that the defendants and the companies involved in the marketing of eggs are misleading consumers in violation of applicable consumer protection laws. The plaintiff's personal claim is estimated at $66.57 and if the Claim is approved as a class action, the approximate claim against all the defendants is estimated at $305 million. The Claim requests relief in the form of monetary compensation and a mandatory injunction to stop the current actions that are allegedly misleading the consumers. The Company is currently reviewing the Claim, and at this preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is unable to evaluate its likelihood of success in the proceedings, including the likelihood that the Claim will be certified as a class action. Blue Square-Israel Ltd. is a leading retailer in Israel. A pioneer of modern food retailing in the region. Blue Square currently operates 186 supermarkets under different formats, each offering varying levels of services and prices. CINRAM INTERNATIONAL: Faces AL Suit Over Alleged RICO Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cinram International, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 19 USC Section 1961 et seq., 42 USC Section 1981, and 42 USC Section 2000e, the CourtHouse News Service reports. Cinram -- based in Richmond, Ind. -- is "one of the world's largest manufacturers of pre-recorded DVD, CD-Audio and DC-ROM technology." It employs 1,100 hourly workers at its manufacturing plant in Huntsville, Ala. Blair Staffing and Tri Staffing operate out of Madison, Ala. The Job Center works out of an unknown address in Alabama, the complaint states. Named plaintiff Saul Cruz accuses Cinram of depressing labor costs by hiring undocumented aliens to work for it, and paying Tri Staffing, Blair Staffing and Logistics, and The Job Center to find and recruit the workers. Mr. Cruz further claims that the defendants harbor the illegal workers, help them get fake employment documents and help them evade law enforcement officials. The complaint states, among other things, that after Cinram knowingly and recklessly hires aliens with bogus documents and helps them evade detection, "Cinram has fired unauthorized workers for complaining about on-the-job injuries and not meeting production demands and then rehired, via the above-named staffing agencies, those same individuals weeks later with new and different fake documents. In addition to establishing that Cinram's hiring of unauthorized workers is done with full knowledge and with complete disregard of the law, this shows that Cinram's intent is to send a message to other unauthorized workers that they are to work hard and not complain about conditions, or else they will be fired." The plaintiff claims that this systematic abuse has been continuous since 2004. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all qualified persons who are legally authorized to be employed in the United States who were employed by Cinram or who were referred for employment by any of the staffing agency defendants at any time from Feb. 22, 2004, to the present. The plaintiff demands judgment and order relief as follows: -- certification of a class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; -- judgment in an amount equal three times the actual damages sustained by the class, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); -- reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1964(c); -- judgment in an amount to be proven at trial that requires defendants to disgorge any unlawful profits or otherwise return the full amount of its unjust enrichment; -- trial by jury; and -- such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Saul Cruz et al. v. Cinram International, Inc. et al, Case No. Cv-08-0342-M," filed with the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Alabama. COMCAST CORP: Fast Internet Connection Ads Prompts DC Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Comcast Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Dr. Sanford Sidner and all DC citizens who have subscribed to Comcast's high-speed Internet service over the course of the past three year, the CT Reports says. According to the report, the complaint accuses Comcast of false advertising stemming from the company's claims that it provides the "fastest Internet connection" and "unfettered access to all the content, services, and applications that the Internet has to offer." The plaintiffs, represented by the law firm of Gilbert Randolph, assert that Comcast's representations of its service are allegedly false owing to Comcast's "intentional blocking or impeding of subscriber access to peer-to-peer file-sharing applications." "There's a growing interest on behalf of consumers in DC that they're not getting the service that they've paid for," Gilbert Randolph attorney August Mattias, Esq., said. The complaint contends that Comcast surreptitiously impersonates the computers of users attempting to share files and sends "forged reset packets" that instruct the transmitting computers to stop sending data. Thus, the plaintiffs allege, the users of peer-to-peer applications are denied full access to the Internet despite paying for a service that Comcast promises is "unfettered" and the "fastest" possible, the report relates. The plaintiffs charge "Comcast's clandestine techniques are similar to those use by totalitarian governments to censor the use of the Internet." Pennsylvania-based Comcast Corp. -- http://www.comcast.com-- is a cable operator in the U.S. and offers a variety of consumer entertainment and communication products and services. DHB INDUSTRIES: N.Y. Court Mulls Approving Lawsuit Settlements -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has yet to grant final approval to settlements entered into in a securities class action against DHB Industries, Inc., and certain individual defendants, as well as the related shareholder derivative action, according to the company's Feb. 19, 2008 form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Securities Litigation During the third and second quarters of 2005, a number of purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities during various periods from Nov. 18, 2003, though Aug. 29, 2005. The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the Company's public disclosures were false or misleading. The suits alleged that the Company's body armor products were defective and failed to meet the standards of its customers, and that these alleged facts should have been publicly disclosed. They were ultimately consolidated into a single class action. Derivative Litigation During the same time frame, a number of derivative complaints were filed, also in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, against certain officers and directors of the Company, and in certain cases the Company's former auditors. The complaints, which were substantially similar to one another, allege, among other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, misappropriation of corporate information, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and unjust enrichment. They were ultimately consolidated into a single shareholder derivative action. The Settlement On July 13, 2006, the Company signed a Memorandum of Understanding to settle the class action and the derivative action. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, the class action would be settled, subject to court approval, for $34,900 in cash and 3,184,713 shares of the Company's common stock. The derivative action also would be settled, subject to court approval, in consideration of the adoption of certain corporate governance provisions and the payment of $300 in legal fees and expenses to the lead counsel in the derivative action. As previously reported, these settlements are subject to review and approval of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Class Action Reporter, July 19, 2007). On Dec. 15, 2006, a stipulation of settlement was filed with the court (U.S. District Court, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, 11722-4438). This stipulation, which was signed on behalf of the Company, the plaintiffs' representatives and individual defendants, represents the definitive documentation of the settlement. Under the settlement documents, the class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired DHB shares on or after Nov. 18, 2003 until and including Nov. 30, 2006. In July of 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted a motion for preliminary approval of the above-described settlements of the class action and derivative shareholder lawsuits. In July of 2007, the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, granted the lead plaintiffs motion for preliminary approval of the above-described settlements of the class action and derivative action. The court held a hearing on Oct. 5, 2007, to consider and determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement. The Court took no action at the hearing, and indicated that it would issue a decision no sooner than 45 days after the hearing (or Nov. 17, 2007) in order to allow the Commercial Litigation Division of the U.S. Justice Department, which had been notified of the settlement pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, to determine if it wished to make an objection to the settlement. DHB Industries, Inc. -- http://www.dhbt.com/-- through its subsidiaries, Point Blank Body Armor, Inc., and Protective Apparel Corporation of America is in the protective body armor industry and is focused on the design, manufacture, and distribution of bullet resistant and protective body armor for military, law enforcement, and corrections in the U.S. and worldwide. GETTY IMAGES: Faces Wash. Lawsuit Over Cheap Sale to Hellman ------------------------------------------------------------ Getty Images Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 25, 2008, with the Superior Court for the State of Washington in and for the County of King as shareholders want more from the sale to Hellman & Friedman, CourtHouse News Service reports. Earlier, Getty announced the acquisition, at $2.4 billion or $34 a share, the report states. Getty, which owns an archive of 70 million still photos and 30,000 hours of film, reported $858 million in revenue in FY 2007, up 6% from the year before. According to the report, shareholders complain that Getty Images sold itself too cheaply to Hellman & Friedman, and that Getty's directors "acted quickly for their own benefit and the benefit of Hellman" but to shareholders' detriment. Named plaintiff Kaye Davenport, owner of Getty Images common stock, brings the action on behalf of all holders of Getty Images stock who are being and will be harmed by the defendants' actions. Ms. Davenport wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the proposed transaction is unfair to the class; (b) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class would be irreparably damaged were the transaction complained of consummated; (c) whether defendants have breached their fiduciary and other common law duties owed by them to plaintiff and the other members of the class; and (d) whether the class is entitled to injunctive relief or damages as a result of the wrongful conduct committed by defendants. Ms. Davenport asks the court to enter an order: -- declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a class action; -- declaring and decreeing that the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable; -- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating the proposed transaction, unless and until the company adopts and implements a fair sales process; -- directing the individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the best interest of Getty Images' shareholders; -- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the proposed transaction or any of the terms thereof; -- imposing a constructive trust, in favor of plaintiff, upon any benefits improperly received by defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct; -- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and -- granting such other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and proper. Representing the plaintiff are: Duncan Turner, Esq. (duncanturner@badgleymullins.com) Allysa J. white, Esq. (awhite@badgleymullins.com) Badgley-Mullins Law Group Columbia Center 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: 206-621-6566 HYGIENE PRODUCTS: Manufacturers Face Ill. Price Fixing Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Manufacturers of hygiene products are facing an antitrust class- action complaint filed with the U.S. District court for the Northern District of Illinois for conspiring to fix prices of hygiene products -- including toothpaste, toothbrushes, and shampoo, liquid hand soaps, dishwashing liquid and deodorants, CourtHouse News Service reports. The defendants named in the suit are: -- Sara Lee Corporation -- Colgate-Palmolive Company -- Henkel Chemie Verwaltungsgesellschaft MBH -- Henkel Corp. -- Unilever N.V. -- Unilever PLC -- Unilever United States, Inc. Lead plaintiff Commercial Street Express claims that the defendants have admitted collusion and anti-competitive conduct in Europe and have been fined EUR37 million in Germany alone. Commercial Street further claims that the Federal Cartel Office of Germany announced on Feb. 20 that Henkel, Sara Lee and Unilever were fined EUR37 million "for price-fixing and illegally passing on information on price talks with retailers." Commercial Street says the Federal Cartel Office said the conspiracy that had begun by early 2006 hiked by 5% the price of Pril and Palmolive dish detergents, Duschdas and Palmolive shower gels and Signal, Dentagard, and Colgate toothpaste. Commercial Street brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of all persons or entities who acquired in the United States oral, personal and home care products manufactured and distributed by one or more of the Defendants, their agents or entities under their control, at any time between Jan. 1, 2006, and the present. Commercial Street wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy to fix the prices of oral, personal and home care products; (b) whether defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 USC Section 1); (c) the existence, duration, and illegality of the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein; (d) whether defendants and each of them was a participant in the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged; (e) whether the prices charged for oral, personal and home care products during the Class Period were artificially inflated as a result of Defendants' contract, combination or conspiracy alleged; (f) the amount by which defendants' illegal, unfair or deceptive trade practices have inflated the price of oral, personal and home care products over the amount that would have for in a competitive market unaffected by Defendants illegal acts; (g) the effect upon and the extent of injuries sustained by Plaintiffs and members of the Class and the appropriate type and measure of damages; (h) whether defendants took affirmative steps to conceal the contract, combination or conspiracy alleged herein; and (i) whether the plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs request: -- that the Court determine that the Sherman Act, state antitrust law, and state consumer protection and unfair competition law claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be adjudged and decreed to be: i. a restraint of trade or commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as alleged and injunctive relief be awarded; ii. an unlawful combination, trust, agreement, understanding, and concert of action in violation of the state antitrust laws identified; iii. violations of the state consumer protection and unfair competition laws identified; and iv. acts of unjust enrichment; -- that the plaintiffs and the Class recover damages, as provided by federal and state antitrust laws, and that a joint and several judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class be entered against the Defendants in an amount to be trebled in accordance with such laws; -- that the defendants, their affiliates, successors, transferees, assignees, and the officers, directors, partners, agents, and employees thereof, and all other persons acting or claiming to act on their behalf, be permanently enjoined and restrained from in any manner: (1) continuing, maintaining, or renewing the conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein, or from entering into any other conspiracy alleged, or from entering into any other contract, conspiracy or combination having a similar purpose or effect, and from adopting or following any practice, plan, program, or device having a similar purpose or effect; and (2) communicating or causing to be communicated to any other person engaged in the sale of oral, personal and home care products, information concerning bids of competitors; -- that the plaintiffs be awarded restitution, including disgorgement of profits obtained by Defendants as a result of their acts of unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment; -- that the plaintiffs and the class be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest, and that interest be awarded at the highest legal rate from and after the date of service of the class action complaint; -- that the plaintiffs and the class recover their costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees as provided by law; and -- that plaintiffs and the class have such other, further, and different relief as the case may require and the court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. The suit is "Commercial Street Express, LLC et al v. Sara Lee Corporation et al.," filed with U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. (mmiller@millerlawllc.com) Lori A. Fanning, Esq. (lfanning@millerlawllc.com) Matthew E. Van Tine, Esq. (mvantine@millerlawllc.com) Miller Law LLC 115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 332-3400 Fax: (312) 676-2676 - and - Guri Ademi, Esq. (gademi@ademilaw.com) Shpetim Ademi, Esq. (sademi@ademilaw.com) David Syrios, Esq. (dsyrios@ademilaw.com) Corey M. Mather, Esq. (cmather@ademilaw.com) Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP 3620 E. Layton Cudahy, WI 53110 Phone: (414) 482-8000 Fax: (414) 482-8001 INDYMAC BANK: Faces Calif. Lawsuit Over Racial Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Indymac Bank, F.S.B., is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the bank racially discriminates in mortgage lending, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff David Ulloa brings the complaint for: -- violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act; and -- violations of the Fair Housing Act. The class action challenges IndyMac's racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices. IndyMac established a specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing Policy," authorized an unchecked subjective surcharge of additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate. These subjective, additional finance charges directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all minorities who have entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or purchased by IndyMac, and who have been subjected to racial discrimination. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) the nature and scope of IndyMac's policies and procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans it funds; (b) whether defendant IndyMac is a creditor under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, it participates in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to consumers; (c) whether IndyMacs policies and procedures regarding yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees are a facially neutral credit pricing system that has effected racial discrimination in violation of the ECOA; (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on minorities and the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on Caucasians that are unrelated to creditworthiness; (e) whether IndyMac has any legitimate business justification for its policies and procedures; (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and procedures; (g) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and (h) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief. The plaintiff requests the following relief: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of IndyMac's ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and the class have an effective remedy; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages according to proof; -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such injunctive and declaratory relief; and -- a judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "David Ulloa et al v. IndyMac Bank, F.S.B., Case No. CV08-1312SVW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com) Wendy J. Harrison, Esq. (wharrison@bffb.com) Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C. 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: (602) 274-1100 JARDEN CORP: N.Y. Court Considers Class Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the certification of a class in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the Jarden Corp. in relation to its plan to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. In January and February 2006, purported class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company and certain company officers alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The actions were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period from June 29, 2005, through Jan. 12, 2006. The company announced the signing of the agreement to acquire The Holmes Group, Inc. on June 29, 2005. Joint lead plaintiffs were appointed on June 9, 2006. No class has been certified in the actions. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on Aug. 25, 2006, against the company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and certain officers of the company. The suit is alleging, among other things, that the plaintiffs were injured by reason of certain allegedly false and misleading statements made by the company relating to the expected benefits of the THG Acquisition. The company, Jarden Consumer Solutions, and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Oct. 20, 2006. Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on Feb. 2, 2007. On May 31, 2007, the Court issued an opinion denying the defendants' motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2007, the defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying their dismissal request. The defendants answered the amended consolidated complaint on July 10, 2007. On Sept. 5, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion for reconsideration, but reaffirmed its May 31, 2007 dismissal order. On Sept. 10, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. That motion has been fully briefed and the Court held oral argument on January 11, 2008. The Court has not yet issued a decision, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Ernesto Darquea, et al. v. Jarden Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-00722," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. (gray@cjgraylaw.com) Law Office of Christopher J. Gray, P.C 460 Park Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 838-3221 Fax: (212) 508-3695 Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. (classattorney@aol.com) Paskowitz & Associates 60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212)-685-0969 Fax: (212)-685-2306 - and - Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@csgrr.com) Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Stephen William Greiner Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Phone: (212) 728-8000 Fax: (212) 728-8111 e-mail: maosdny@willkie.com JARDEN CORP: April 9 Hearing Set for K2, Inc. Lawsuit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court scheduled an April 9, 2008 final approval hearing for the proposed settlement in the matter, "City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System v. K2 Inc., et al.," which names Jarden Corp., as a defendant. The case was filed on May 4, 2007, by a shareholder of K2 on behalf of itself and a putative class of shareholders against K2 and the members of its Board of Directors. It is seeking to enjoin the merger transaction between K2 and a wholly owned subsidiary of Jarden Corp. on the purported grounds that the members of the Board of Directors of K2 allegedly breached fiduciary duties to the K2 shareholders in connection with the negotiation and structure of the Merger as well as the disclosures made by K2 to shareholders in its proxy. On July 30, 2007, K2 announced that it and the City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System agreed to a settlement in principle of the pending litigation pursuant to which K2 made certain disclosures regarding the transaction in its proxy materials sent to shareholders and reports filed with the SEC and amended the merger agreement to reduce from $27.5 million to $24 million the termination fee that would have been payable by K2 to the Company under certain circumstances in the event that the merger agreement had been terminated. The agreement includes full releases of all the defendants as well as the Company. The settlement was approved preliminarily by the California Superior Court on Feb. 8, 2008, and a hearing on final approval is scheduled for April 9, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Jarden Corp. -- http://www.jarden.com/-- is a provider of consumer products. Jarden's three primary business segments: Outdoor Solutions, Consumer Solutions and Branded Consumables, manufacture or source, market and distribute a number of brands, including Outdoor Solutions, Abu Garcia, Adio, Berkley, Campingaz, Coleman, Fenwick, Gulp!, JT, K2, Marker, Marmot, Mitchell, Penn, Planet Earth, Rawlings, Shakespeare, Sevylor, Stearns, Stren, Trilene, Ugly Stik and Volkl; Consumer Solutions, Bionaire, Crock-Pot, FoodSaver, Health o meter, Holmes, Mr. Coffee, Oster, Patton, Rival, Seal-a-Meal, Sunbeam and VillaWare, and Branded Consumables, Ball, Bee, Bicycle, Crawford, Diamond, Dicon, First Alert, Forster, Hoyle, Java-Log, Kerr, Lehigh, Leslie-Locke, Loew-Cornell and Pine Mountain. KFC US: Faces CA Labor Violations Suit by Managers, Supervisors --------------------------------------------------------------- KFC U.S. Properties, Inc., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., faces a putative class action in California, styled, "Baskall v. KFC U.S. Properties, Inc.," according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit was filed with San Diego County Superior Court on Dec. 21, 2007. It was brought on behalf of all current and former Restaurant General Managers, Assistant Unit Managers, and Shift Supervisors who worked at KFC's California restaurants since Dec. 18, 2003. The suit alleges violations of California's wage and hour and unfair competition laws, including denial of sufficient meal and rest periods, improperly itemized pay stubs, and delays in issuing final paychecks, and seeks unspecified amounts in damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China (China Division). NEWSDAY INC: Settles Fraud & Antitrust Suit with 40 Car Dealers --------------------------------------------------------------- More than 40 regional car dealers who sued Newsday in 2004 on fraud and antitrust charges tied to the newspaper's circulation improprieties settled the class-action case this week, a lawyer for the dealers said. Newsday spokeswoman Deidra Parrish Williams confirmed the settlement, whose terms were not disclosed. Leonard Bellavia, Esq., a Bay Shore attorney who filed the case on behalf of the dealers, said that settlement talks accelerated in recent weeks. He said he believes the movement was prompted by his firm's offer of experts to help a federal judge determine the financial impact of the Newsday circulation fraud in criminal cases against former executives. The report on the Newsday newspaper relates that a separate federal class-action suit against Newsday filed by advertisers who first brought the claims of falsified circulation, remains unresolved. While declining to discuss the settlement amount in his case, Mr. Bellavia indicated the award his clients had sought was substantial. "We felt that if the case went to trial we could recover from $50 million to $100 million" if the dealers got a favorable judgment, he said. The suit initially led to a level of acrimony after Newsday refused to accept advertisements from the dealers. Newsday later agreed to carry the ads after the dealers agreed that future ads would be exempt from damage claims. Mr. Bellavia said the newspaper's initial refusal to accept his clients' ads was a tactical error. "It was gangster-style tactics and it caused a lot of attention to be drawn" to the case, he said. "I'm sure if they had to do it again they would rethink having blacklisted us." Most of the dealers have returned to Newsday, Mr. Bellavia said, but some have not. He added that he is forming an Internet advertising co-operative for the car dealers to provide an online forum to reach buyers. SHOP-VAC CORP: Faces Calif. Suit Over Falsely Advertised Vacuums ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shop-Vac Corp. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for falsely advertising its vacuum cleaners as "Made in the USA," CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Richard A. Silber files the suit for: -- violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code Section 1750 et seq); -- violation of Business & Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. (California Unfair Competition Law); and -- violation of Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7 (False "Made in the USA" claim). This is a class action case brought on behalf of all purchasers of wet/dry vacuum products manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold by Shop-Vac through a fraudulent, unlawful, deceptive and unfair course of conduct. The "Made in the USA" claim is printed on the products' packaging and typically includes prominent pictures of the USA flag. Despite true facts to the contrary, the Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuums are substantially made, manufactured or produced from component parts that are manufactured outside the United States, in violation of California law. The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated in the State of California who purchased defendant's Shop-Vac wet/dry vacuum. The plaintiff requests for the following relief: -- damages according to proof; -- for a judgment declaring this action to be a proper class action; -- declaring that defendant violated the provisions of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17204, Civil Code Section 1780, and pursuant to the equitable powers of the court, enjoining defendant, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and their successors, agents, servants, officers, directors, employees and all persons acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct violative of California law; -- pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 17204, requiring defendant to provide restitution to compensate, and to restore all persons in interest, including all class members, with all ill-gotten monies acquired by means of defendant's unfair competition; -- a declaration that defendant violated Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7; -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees; -- for costs of suit incurred; and -- for such other and further relief as the court finds just, equitable and proper, including, but not limited to, the remedy of disgorgement. The suit is "Richard A. silber et al. v. Shop-Vac, Corp., Case No. 37-2008-00078687-CU-BT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of California - County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: John H. Donboli, Esq. JL Sean Slattery, Esq. Del Mar Law Group LLP 322 8th Street, Suite 101 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (858) 793-6244 Fax: (858) 793-6005 SMITH & WESSON: Faces Nev. Lawsuit Over Inflated Stock Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Smith & Wesson Corp. is facing a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging it dumped "millions of dollars" of their stock at inflated prices while concealing the company's financial condition, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a shareholder derivative action brought by plaintiff Cary Green and shareholders of Smith & Wesson against certain current or former officers and directors of the company seeking to remedy Smith & Wesson's violations of state law, including breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment and negligence that occurred from June 15, 2007 through the present, and that have caused substantial losses to the company. The plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows: -- Against the Individual Defendants and in favor of the Company for the amount of damages sustained by the Company as a result of the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment; -- Extraordinary equitable and injunctive relief as permitted by law, equity and state statutory provisions sued hereunder, including attaching, impounding, imposing a constructive trust on or otherwise restricting the proceeds of the Individual Defendants' trading activities or their other assets so as to ensure that Plaintiff has an effective remedy; -- Awarding to Smith & Wesson restitution from the Individual Defendants, and each of them, and ordering disgorgement of all profits, benefits and other compensation obtained by these Defendants; -- Awarding to Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, accountants' and experts' fees, costs, and expenses; and -- Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The suit is "Cary Green et al. v. Barry M. Monheit et al.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Representing plaintiff are: William M. O'Mara, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. David C. O'Mara, Esq. The O'Mara Law Firm, P.C. 311 East Liberty Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Telephone: 775/323-1321 Fax: 775/323-4082 SPRINT NEXTEL: Raytown Gets $500,884 in Back Taxes as Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raytown will receive $500,884 in back business taxes from Sprint Nextel as part of a settlement following a class-action lawsuit against wireless carriers, The Kansas City Star. City Attorney Nancy Thompson told Kansas City Star that the amount represents 26 months of back taxes. In addition, the city would begin receiving up to $19,000 a month in business-tax payments from Sprint. Ms. Thompson further said that Raytown already has settled with AT&T Mobility for $404,260 and with Verizon Wireless for $320,872. Funds from the actual settlements will be subject to approval by a circuit judge in St. Louis County, where the class-action lawsuit was filed. The wireless carriers first contested paying the taxes on the grounds that the taxes did not apply to them because their technology was different from telephone companies that provide land-line services, Kansas City Star recounts. SOUTHERN CO: Dismissal in Mirant IPO Suit Still Under Appeal ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against The Southern Co. in relation to Mirant Corp.'s initial public offering are seeking reconsideration of the court order dismissing certain claims in the case. In November 2002, Southern Co., certain former and current senior officers of Southern Co., and 12 underwriters of Mirant's initial public offering were added as defendants in a class action that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002. Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into this litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant. The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002. In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. The remaining claims do not allege any improper trading and marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the part of Southern Co. but seek to impose liability on Southern Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date. Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in September 2003. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification. During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery. Since Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay has been lifted. On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs have also stated that they intend to request that the court grant leave for them to amend the complaint to add allegations based upon claims asserted against Southern Co. in the MC Asset Recovery litigation. Under certain circumstances, Southern Co. will be obligated under its bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former Southern Co. officers who served as directors of Mirant at the time of its initial public offering through the date of the spin-off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit. The final outcome of this matter cannot now be determined, according to the company's Feb. 25, 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 Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge Richard W. Story. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com) Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-724-9990 Fax: 404-724-9986 - and - Nichole Tara Browning, Esq. (nba@classlaw.com) Chitwood & Harley 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Representing the defendants are: Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. (jcorley@alston.com) Alston & Bird 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 404-881-7000 - and - Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., Esq. (ggarrett@jonesday.com) Jones Day-Atlanta 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 Phone: 404-521-3939 STANDARD PACIFIC: Officers Still Face Securities Suit in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Certain officers of Standard Pacific Corp. continue to face a purported securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 16, 2007, a securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Andrew H. Parnes, the company's Executive Vice President-Finance and Chief Financial Officer, by putative plaintiff Vinod Patel. The company was not named in the complaint. The complaint alleges a breach of fiduciary duties to the company's stockholders, as well as violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, during the period between Oct. 27, 2005 and Aug. 2, 2007. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company: -- issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our finances, business and prospects; -- lacked requisite internal controls over lending practices; and -- misrepresented the extent of risk in the Company's loans. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages (including interest), reasonable costs and attorneys' fees, as well as equitable, injunctive or other relief that the court may deem just and proper. The complaint has not been served. On Dec. 3, 2007, the Court appointed Pinellas Park Retirement System, Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund, and the City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs. On or about Jan. 23, 2008, the lead plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws. The Consolidated Complaint names Andrew Parnes and Stephen Scarborough, Standard Pacifics Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board, as defendants. It does not name the Company as a defendant. In the Consolidated Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Standard Pacific between Oct. 27, 2005, and Aug. 2, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the price of Standard Pacifics common stock was artificially inflated during this period because Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough provided false and misleading earnings and sales guidance to the public that lacked a reasonable basis due to the adverse impact of rising interest rates, slowing housing markets and other macro-economic factors affecting Standard Pacific. The plaintiffs assert claims against Mr. Parnes and Mr. Scarborough for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against Mr. Parnes for violation of Section 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit is "Vinod Patel v. Andrew H Parnes., Case No. 2:07-cv- 05364-MMM-SH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Margaret M. Morrow presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com) Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 - and - Joon M. Khang, Esq. (jkhang@lhlaw.com) Lee Hong Degerman Kang & Schmadeka 660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-623-2221 Fax: 213-623-2211 Representing the defendants are: Kristopher Price Diulio, Esq. (kdiulio@gibsondunn.com) Matthew E. Lilly, Esq. (mlilly@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 3161 Michelson Dr. Irvine, CA 92612-4412 Phone: 949-451-3907 and 949-451-3800 TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor-Related Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is under way in a a consolidated class action in California that was filed by a Restaurant General Manager (RGM) against Taco Bell Corp., a division of YUM! Brands, Inc., according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. On Aug. 4, 2006, a putative class action lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. styled, "Rajeev Chhibber vs. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in Orange County Superior Court. On Aug. 7, 2006, another putative class action styled, "Marina Puchalski v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Both lawsuits were filed by an RGM purporting to represent all current and former RGMs who worked at corporate-owned restaurants in California from August 2002 to the present. The lawsuits allege violations of California's wage and hour laws involving unpaid overtime and meal and rest period violations and seek unspecified amounts in damages and penalties. As of Sept. 7, 2006, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the Orange County case and both cases have been consolidated in San Diego County. Discovery is underway, with pre-certification discovery cutoff set for June 2, 2008, and a July 1, 2008 deadline for plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. YUM! Brands, Inc. -- http://www.yum.com/-- is a quick service restaurant (QSR) with over 34,000 units in more than 100 countries and territories. YUM consists of six operating segments: KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, Long John Silver's (LJS) and A&W All-American Food Restaurants (A&W), YUM Restaurants International (YRI or International Division) and YUM Restaurants China (China Division). TACO BELL: Discovery Underway in Calif. Labor Violations Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is underway in a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District California against Taco Bell Corp., Yum! Brands, Inc., and other related entities, and was brought on behalf of all hourly employees who have worked for the defendants within the last four years. The suit, "Sandrika Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp.," was filed on Sept. 10, 2007. It alleges numerous violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to pay wages on termination, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. The Company was dismissed from the case without prejudice on Jan. 10, 2008, and discovery is underway, according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit is "Medlock v. Taco Bell Corp., et al., Case No. 1:07- cv-01314-OWW-DLB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Judge Oliver W. Wanger presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Joseph Cho, Esq. (josephcho@initiativelegal.com) Initiative Legal Group LLP 1800 Century Park East, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-5637 Fax: (310) 861-9051 Representing the defendants are: Heather Mactavish Freelin, Esq. (hfreelin@irell.com) Irell and Manella 840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949-760-0991 Fax: 949-760-5200 TACO BELL: Parties in Calif. ADA Suit Discuss Possible Mediation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the matter "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02-cv-05849," are in discussions intended to get to mediation. The purported class action remains pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It named Taco Bell Corp. as a defendant on Dec. 17, 2002. On Aug. 4, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that alleges, among other things, that the company discriminated against the class of people who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility by failing to make its approximately 220 company-owned restaurants in California accessible to the class. The plaintiffs contend that queue rails and other architectural and structural elements of the Taco Bell restaurants relating to the path of travel and use of the facilities by persons with mobility-related disabilities –- including parking spaces, ramps, counters, restroom facilities and seating -- do not comply with the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Disabled Persons Act. The plaintiffs have requested: -- an injunction from the District Court ordering Taco Bell to comply with the ADA and its implementing regulations; -- that the District Court declare Taco Bell in violation of the ADA, the Unruh Act, and the CDPA; and -- monetary relief under the Unruh Act or CDPA. The plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, are seeking the minimum statutory damages per offense of either $4,000 under the Unruh Act or $1,000 under the CDPA for each aggrieved member of the class. They contend that there may be in excess of 100,000 individuals in the class. For themselves, the four named plaintiffs have claimed aggregate minimum statutory damages of no less than $16,000, but are expected to claim greater amounts based on the number of company outlets they visited at which they claim to have suffered discrimination. On Feb. 23, 2004, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory injunctive relief class of all individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or electric scooters for mobility who, at any time on or after Dec. 17, 2001, were denied, or are currently being denied, on the basis of disability, the full and equal enjoyment of the California Restaurants. The class includes claims for injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages. Pursuant to the parties' agreement, on or about Aug. 31, 2004, the district court ordered that the trial of this action be bifurcated so that stage one will resolve plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and stage two will resolve plaintiffs' claims for damages. The parties are currently proceeding with the equitable relief stage of this action. During this stage, the company filed a motion to partially decertify the class to exclude from the Rule 23(b)(2) class claims for monetary damages. The district court denied the motion. The plaintiffs filed their own motion for partial summary judgment as to liability relating to a subset of the California Restaurants. The district court denied that motion as well. On May 17, 2007, a hearing was held on the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment seeking judicial declaration that Taco Bell was in violation of accessibility laws as to three specific issues: indoor seating, queue rails and door opening force. On Aug. 8, 2007, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to dining room seating. In addition, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion in part with regard to door opening force at some restaurants (but not all), and denied the motion with regard to queue lines. At a status conference on Sept. 27, 2007, the court set a trial date of Nov. 10, 2008, with respect to not more than 20 restaurants to determine the issue of liability and common issues. Discovery related to the subject of the mini-trial is underway. The parties are in discussions intended to get to mediation, according to the YUM! Brands' Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Jan. 28, 2008. The suit is "Moeller, et al. v. Taco Bell Corp., Case No. 3:02- cv-05849," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy P. Fox, Esq. (tfox@foxrob.com) Fox & Robertson, P.C. 910-16th Street, Suite 610 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-595-9700 Fax: 303-595-9705 - and - Brad Seligman, Esq. (bs@impactfund.org) The Impact Fund, 125 University Ave. Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-845-3473 ext. 304 Fax: 510-845-3654 Representing the defendant are: Gregory A. Eurich, Esq. (geurich@hollandhart.com) Jimmy Goh, Esq. (jgoh@hollandhart.com) Holland & Hart, LLP 555 17th Street, Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-295-8000 - and - Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. (sautters@gtlaw.com) Greenberg Traurig, LLP 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1700 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-708-6564 Fax: 714 708-6501 TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Still Faces FACTA Violations Suits in Pa., Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Texas Roadhouse, Inc. continues to face two purported class actions in Pennsylvania and Illinois that generally allege violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act. The suits are: -- "Nicole M. Ehrheart v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. CA 07-54," which was filed against the Company with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March 26, 2007; and -- "Mario Aliano v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC, Texas Roadhouse, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 07cv4108," which was filed against the Company with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on July 20, 2007. Ehrheart Litigation The suit alleges liability under FACTA based on the alleged practice of unlawfully including more information on the electronically printed credit or debit card receipts provided to customers than is permitted. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction against the alleged unlawful practice. Statutory damages range from $100 to $1,000 for each willful violation. The Company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint. Discovery has not yet begun. Aliano Litigation The case alleges liability under FACTA. The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs. The company has filed an answer to the complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint. Discovery has not yet begun. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2007. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. -- http://www.texasroadhouse.com-- is a full-service, casual dining restaurant chain. It offers an assortment of seasoned and aged steaks hand-cut daily on the premises and cooked to order over open gas-fired grills. The Company also offers its guests a selection of ribs, fish, seafood, chicken and vegetable plates, and an assortment of hamburgers, salads and sandwiches. TRANSKARYOTIC THERAPIES: Mass. Court Approves $50M Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to a $50,000,000 settlement in consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. In January and February 2003, various parties filed purported class actions against: -- TKT, which was acquired by Shire, PLC, on July 27, 2005; and -- Richard Selden, TKT's former chief executive officer. The complaints generally allege securities fraud during the period from January 2001 through January 2003. Each of the complaints asserts claims under Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. They allege that TKT and its officers made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning the status and progress for obtaining U.S. marketing approval of TKT's REPLAGAL product to treat Fabry disease during that period. On March 25, 2003, motions were filed with the court to appoint lead plaintiff, lead counsel and for consolidation of all related cases. The court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel on April 9, 2003 and, subsequently, consolidated all cases into one class action lawsuit entitled, "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation." In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended class action complaint against: -- TKT; -- Dr. Selden; -- Daniel Geffken, TKT's former chief financial officer; -- Walter Gilbert, Jonathan S. Leff, Rodman W. Moorhead, III, and Wayne P. Yetter, then members of TKT's board of directors; -- William R. Miller and James E. Thomas, former members of TKT's board of directors; and -- SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc. and Leerink Swann. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss the amended complaint on Sept. 17, 2003, which lead plaintiffs opposed Oct. 31, 2003. On Dec. 4, 2003, the court heard oral arguments regarding the motions to dismiss and took these motions under advisement. Thereafter on May 26, 2004 the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the defendants motions to dismiss. Defendants then filed their answers to the amended complaint on July 16, 2004. On July 23, 2004 lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which defendants opposed. Both parties have provided briefs to the court regarding class certification. In November 2005, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2005, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against SG Cowen Securities Corp., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Pacific Growth Equities, Inc., and Leerink Swann & Company. On June 5, 2006, the court entered judgment on all claims alleged against Messrs. Gilbert, Leff, Moorhead, Yetter, Miller, and Thomas. On Nov. 9, 2006, Mr. Geffken filed an Agreement for Judgment on all claims alleged against him. In October 2007, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Class Action Shareholder Suit, subject to court approval, for $50 million. Shire will contribute $27 million toward the settlement and its insurance companies will contribute the remaining $23 million. The $27 million settlement cost has been provided for within SG&A during this quarter. In February 2008, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement, according to the company's Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 25, 2007. The suit is "In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc., Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 03-10165-RWZ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Judge Rya W. Zobel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Robert Finkel, Esq. (RFinkel@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 - and - Darren Check, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 Representing the defendants are: Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. (michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com) Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02115 Phone: 617-526-6145 Fax: 617-526-5000 Michael K. Fee, Esq. (MFEE@ropesgray.com) Ropes & Gray, LLP One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-951-7000 Fax: 617-951-7050 - and - Thomas J. Dougherty, Esq. (dougherty@skadden.com) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Beacon Street Boston, MA 02108 Phone: 617-573-4800 Fax: 617-573-4822 VIRGINIA: DNA Lawsuit Against Charlottesville Police Dropped ------------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit against the city of Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo and Officer James Mooney involving charges in DNA sampling have been dismissed, Charlottesvillenewsplex.com reports. According to the Daily Progress, Charlottesville resident Larry Monroe, who filed the suit claiming that city police violated his rights in their search for a serial rapist, has agreed to dismiss his case. Charlottesvillenewsplex recalls that the lawsuit claimed that Mr. Monroe's constitutional rights were violated when he was asked to voluntarily provide a DNA sample as a part of the serial rapist investigation. Daily Progress points out that Mr. Monroe initially filed a $15,000-suit in state court naming the city, Police Chief Longo and police Detective Mooney. That suit was dismissed in 2004, but was later filed in federal court on Dec. 16, 2005. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 9, 2007, Mr. Monroe and nearly 190 other men were approached by Charlottesville city police to submit to a cheek-swab DNA test in 2003 and 2004 in the search for the serial rapist. According to CAR, the suit alleges two violations of constitutional rights: (1) the policy of asking Mr. Monroe and other black men to provide their DNA for tests violates their constitutional right to equal protection because the same policy wasn't applied to all white men after unsolved sexual assaults made by white assailants; and (2) the policy constituted unreasonable seizures. Daily Progress says that the rapist, Nathan Antonio Washington, was arrested in August 2007 and sentenced just this week to more than four life terms in prison. Charlottesvillenewsplex relates that U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon has already dismissed several of the original claims, including Mr. Monroe's attempt to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of individuals who had been asked to provide a sample. Judge Moon also dismissed the part of Mr. Monroe's suit that alleged that his right to equal protection under the law had been violated because police asked him for a DNA sample based on his race, Daily Progress says. However, Mr. Monroe, according to Charlottesvillenewsplex, retains the right to pursue an appeal to the Fourth Circuit on Judge Moon's earlier rulings. Mr. Monroe's attorney, Deborah C. Wyatt told Daily Progress that her client agreed to drop the remaining portion of the lawsuit in U.S. District Court so that his equal-protection claim could proceed to an appeal. "Instead of waiting for a trial on the remaining claim that was going to be this summer, we wanted to go ahead with the issues that are more important to our client and to us," Ms. Wyatt said. Mr. Monroe has 30 days to file his appeal, which had not been entered on Wednesday in federal appeals court in Richmond. Mr. Monroe may also be seeking a review of the class-certification issue, Ms. Wyatt said. The suit is "Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, Virginia et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-00074-nkm," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia under Judge Norman K. Moon with referral to Judge B. Waugh Crigler. Representing the plaintiff are: Neal L. Walters, Esq. (nwalters@scottkroner.com) Scott & Kroner, PC P.O. BOX 2737, Charlottesville, VA 22902-2737 Phone: 434-296-2161 Fax: 434-293-2073 - and - Deborah Chasen Wyatt, Esq. (DWESQ@aol.com) Wyatt & Armstrong, 300 Court Square, Charlottesville, VA 22902-5160 Phone: 434-296-4130 Fax: 297-3083 Representing the defendants is: Richard Hustis Milnor, Esq. (rmilnor@cstone.net) Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter, Ltd. 414 Park Street, Charlottesville VA 22902 Phone: 434-977-0191 Fax: 434-977-0198 * Oklahoma Appeals Court Says Class-Action Tactic Won't Work ------------------------------------------------------------ Filing similar class-action lawsuits in multiple venues in the hope that one will get allowed is an attorney tactic that won't work in Oklahoma, the state Court of Civil Appeals stated last week, according to The Journal Record. The appeals court cited a ruling issued by the federal 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which precluded unnamed members of one class action from filing a new class-action lawsuit based on the same claims in a different venue. "The (federal) Court . . . recognized the filing of multiple suits suggested the plaintiffs' lawyers had adopted a strategy of filing in as many courts as necessary until a nationwide class was certified, thereby rendering insignificant all the no- certification decisions of other courts," the Court of Civil Appeals found. The appeals court applied the "issue of preclusion" to prevent unnamed members of one class from filing multiple similar lawsuits. The federal appeals court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the preclusion denied them due process. Even those unnamed class members who opt out of a class-action lawsuit still have the right to litigate individually. "A person who opts out receives the right to go it alone, not to launch a competing class action," the court found. Journal Record points out that the state appeals court dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed in LeFlore County by Paul Rees against BP America Production Co., asserting the oil and gas company had underpaid royalties. Mr. Rees sought to bring action against BP on behalf of "all similarly situated persons and entities who have received royalty payments from BP on gas substances produced from the Red Oak-Norris Field" in LeFlore County. "Watts v. Amoco Production Company (now BP)" had been filed in 2001 on behalf of royalty owners in oil and gas drilling in LeFlore and six other counties in Oklahoma, the court found. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals had found the Watts case unsuitable for class-action disposition due to the need for individualized inquiry to deduce the costs involved. The Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to take up the case. The appeals court ruled that Mr. Rees' new class-action lawsuit was precluded by the court's refusal to certify the class in Watts, though Mr. Rees is free to file an individual claim against the company. WEYERHAEUSER CO: Faces WA Suit Over ChoiceDek Decking Products -------------------------------------------------------------- A consortium of law firms filed a nationwide class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle on behalf of all purchasers of Weyerhaeuser ChoiceDek(R) decking products. The plaintiffs filed their suit against: -- Weyerhaeuser Company (NYSE:WY) (ChoiceDek(r) seller); -- Advanced Environmental Recycling Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:AERT) (ChoiceDek(r) manufacturer); and -- Lowe's Companies, Inc. (NYSE:LOW) (ChoiceDek(r) retailer). ChoiceDek(R) is a composite material, primarily composed of wood fibers and recycled plastic, used in residential decking throughout the United