/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080303.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 3, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 44 Headlines AMERICAN AIRLINES: Women Employees File Discrimination Lawsuit APEX OIL: Mediation Fails in Hartford Vapor Complaints CANADA: Gov't. Sued by U.S. Car Importers Over Excessive Fees CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Del. Suit Over Foreclosure Costs DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal EXXON MOBIL: Sup. Ct. Questions Lawyers on Exxon Valdez Case FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Tells Effectiveness of Investor Suit Deal GUAM: Gov't. Retirees to Receive $9 million More in COLA Payout HUNTSMAN CORP: Courts Consider Approving MOU Over $10.6B Buyout HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in Manganese Lawsuit MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity Litigation in N.Y. MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over French Fries, Hash Browns NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces Suit Over 99-Cent Charge in Online Game NEVADA: Las Vegas Clinic Faces Suit Over Hepatitis C Spread PECOWARE INC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry for Lead Exposure Risk QUEST SOFTWARE: To See Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit RIVERSIDE PULBISHING: Recalls Cards Failing Lead Paint Standards SANDISK CORP: CA Supreme Court Asked to Review "Vroegh" Ruling SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit by msystems Investors SANDISK CORP: Faces Consolidated Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuit SCANA ENERGY: Faces GA Suit Alleging Overcharged Natural Gas TJX COMPANIES: Privacy Breach Suit Deal Participants Notified WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated AWP Antitrust Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases ORION ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit ********* AMERICAN AIRLINES: Women Employees File Discrimination Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- American Airlines, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 27, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio after it forced 275 employees to take retirement or severance packages, 248 of them were women, including at least 30 older than 40, CourtHouse News reports. The action is brought based upon diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332 of the Judiciary and Judicial Procedure in that the parties to the action are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons in the United States and Greater Cincinnati Area who work for American Airlines, or its subsidiaries, at the Cincinnati Reservation Airlines location and all other Reservation locations in the United States as of the date of filing, who are over 40 years old, and have worked for American Airlines for over 10 years. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether during the employment of the class, defendants engaged in employment practices which discriminated against the class based on their age; (b) whether during the employment of the class, defendants engaged in employment practices which discriminated against the class based in their gender; and (c) whether such employment practices by defendants caused the class to suffer severe emotional distress. They request that the court grant the following relief: -- reinstatement to the plaintiffs' former position and compensation; -- a judgment for compensatory damages for plaintiffs' economic injuries including front pay, back pay and loss of employment benefits in an amount to be determined at trial; -- a judgment for compensatory damages for plaintiffs' non- economic injuries in an amount to be determined at trial; -- a judgment for an award of punitive damages or liquidated damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- a judgment for an award of plaintiffs' reasonable fees and costs; -- statutory prejudgment interest at the legal rate per annum from the date said amounts became due and owing; -- trial by jury; and -- a judgment for such other relief in law and equity which the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Karen Ranney et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:08CV137," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Dennis Alerding, Jr., Esq. 303 Greenup Street, Suite 300 Covington, Kentucky 41011 Phone: (859) 431-8100 - and - Eric C. Deters, Esq. (eric@ericdeters.com) 5247 Madison Pike Independence, Kentucky 41051 Phone: (859) 363-1900 Fax: (859) 363-1444 APEX OIL: Mediation Fails in Hartford Vapor Complaints ------------------------------------------------------ Nine months of mediation in lawsuits commenced by Hartford residents claiming damages from petroleum vapors brought the village to a dead end, the Madison St. Clair Record reports. According to the report, five oil companies – Apex Oil, Premcor Refining Group; Shell Oil subsidiary Equilon Enterprises; and BP Amoco; Sinclair Oil -- rejected a final settlement demand on Jan. 25. Plaintiff attorney Stan Faulkner, Esq., of Edwardsville, informed Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack about the news on Feb. 8, in a notice of termination of mediation. He also informed Judge Stack that discovery would resume. Madison Record explains that Hartford residents claim damage from vapors that rise on rainy days from an underground lake of hydrocarbons resulting from refinery operations. They are seeking compensation for economic and physical harm. As mentioned in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 27, Judge Stack 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. Judge Stack ordered mediation on May 1, 2008, appointing retired judge William Quinlan as mediator. Mr. Faulkner's notice stated that after formal mediation with Retired Judge Quinlan, the parties continued informal discussions. "Through many in-person conferences, telephone conferences and electronic mail exchanges, several demands and offers were discussed and exchanged between these parties," he wrote. Madison Record notes that oil companies have denied causing the problem and have pointed fingers of blame at each other. Madison Record points out that Mr. Faulkner and Mark Goldenberg, Esq., represent some Hartford residents, and Missouri attorneys represent others. The Missouri attorneys filed the first lawsuit in 2003, seeking to certify a class action, while Mr. Goldenberg sued in 2004, without asking for a class action. Judge Stack certified the first suit as a class action in 2005, but he granted a defense motion to reconsider. This swung the advantage to Mr. Goldenberg, who negotiated a settlement with oil companies on a class basis. The Missouri attorneys protested that they represented the class, but in 2006, Judge Stack granted preliminary approval to the Goldenberg settlement. Mr. Goldenberg's advantage vanished, however, when his deal broke down, and Judge Stack then ordered mediation. Defendants Koch Pipeline, St. Louis Pipeline, Illinois Petroleum Supply, Marathon Ashland Pipeline, Explorer Pipeline, Alberta Energy, Encana Corporation, Pan Canadian Energy, Conoco Phillips, Toscopetro, and Buckeye Pipeline did not participate in the mediation. The plaintiffs are represented by: Mark Goldenberg, Esq. (mark@ghalaw.com) Stan Faulkner, Esq. (stan@ghalaw.com) Goldenberg Heller Antognoli Rowland Short and Gori, P.C. 2227 S. State Route 157 P.O. Box 959 Edwardsville, Illinois 62025 Phone: (618) 656-5150 Fax: (618) 656-6230 CANADA: Gov't. Sued by U.S. Car Importers Over Excessive Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transport Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, BMW Canada Inc., Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC. The lawsuit alleges that Mercedes, BMW and the government have violated competition and consumer protection laws by forcing Canadians to pay excessive fees for unnecessary vehicle modifications and approvals when they imported cars from the United States. Many Canadians want to buy and import a car from the United States, where prices are lower. As long as specific laws and procedures are followed, a vehicle can be imported. The lawsuit alleges that Transport Canada made arrangements with Mercedes, BMW and others to impose additional procedures and costs on Canadians who import their brands of vehicles. The lawsuit was filed by Fournier Leasing Company Ltd. and Canadian Auto Associates Ltd. They allege that the government made them pay thousands of dollars to Mercedes and BMW for recall information and unnecessary vehicle modifications and import approvals. The lawsuit claims that these costs are not imposed on importers who bring other makes of vehicles into the country and are not required under Canadian law. Fournier Leasing and Canadian Auto Associates also allege that they were compelled to get modifications done at exorbitant prices by Mercedes and BMW dealerships instead of at competitive prices by the repair shop of their choice. They are represented by lawyers Glyn Hotz, Darrel Hotz and Brian Osler. "The government has one set of rules for Mercedes and BMW and another set of rules for everyone else," says Mr. (Glyn) Hotz. "You have to get authorization from Mercedes and BMW to import their cars and you even have to pay them a fee for their authorization, but you don't need authorization from other manufacturers." The lawsuit seeks recovery of the unnecessary and excessive fees the government forced Canadians to pay to Mercedes and BMW. The lawsuit also alleges that people have been paying artificially inflated prices for new Mercedes vehicles in Canada because the additional costs imposed on importers restricts competition in the Canadian market. "Lots of people want to buy a more competitively priced car from the U.S.," says Mr. Osler. "But the extra costs and uncertainty forced on importers by the government, Mercedes and BMW can prevent it from being worthwhile." For more information, contact: Brian Osler (brian@geodesic.ca) Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public Phone: (905) 882-7045 - and - Glyn Hotz (hotz@sympatico.ca) Barrister & Solicitor Phone: (416) 785-7883 CENTENE CORP: Mo. Court Junks Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in a consolidated class action against Centene Corp. are appealing the dismissal of the lawsuit, which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, according to 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 consolidated class action dismissed by the Court was originally two separate class actions filed in July 2006 and August 2006, respectively. Both class actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors, one in July, and one in August. Both were filed on behalf of purchases of the company common stock from June 21, 2006, through July 17, 2006. The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements prior to the announcement of the company's fiscal 2006-second quarter results. According to the suits, these allegedly materially false statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing the company's preliminary fiscal 2006- second quarter earnings and revised guidance. The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in January 2007. The consolidated class action alleges, on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2006, through July 17, 2006, that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements prior to the announcement of the company's fiscal 2006 second quarter results. According to suit, these allegedly materially false statements had artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing its preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance. At the company's request, the court dismissed the Consolidated Lawsuit on June 29, 2007. However, the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal order, and briefing on the appeal has been completed. Oral argument on the appeal has not yet been held. The company anticipates receiving a decision on the appeal within 2008. The suit is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1142," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Catherine D. Perry presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jill S. Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com) Abbey & Gardy 212 E. 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 - and - Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson@stlouislaw.com) Green & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 Representing the defendants are: Jason M. Bohm, Esq. (jbohm@sidley.com) Sidley & Austin 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-0526 Fax: 312-853-7036 - and - Edwin L. Noel, Esq. (enoel@armstrongteasdale.com) Armstrong Teasdale, LLP One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2740 Phone: 314-621-5070 Fax: 314-621-5065 CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces Stockholder Lawsuit Over Buyout Offer ------------------------------------------------------------- A stockholder class action lawsuit was filed this month against Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. and its board members over a recent offer by its former chief executive officer, Ezra Dabah, to buy the company, Reuters notes. The lawsuit claims that the price of Mr. Dabah's recent offer was unfair and timed to take advantage of a temporarily depressed market price of the company's stock, Reuters notes, citing a Children's Place filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The Reuters report recounts that on Feb. 7, 2008, Mr. Dabah said he was confident he could make a bid to buy the children's apparel company for $24 a share, a 35% premium to the shares at that time. Mr. Dabah's letter to the company prompted a 20% rise in its shares, which are down 64% as of the Feb. 27 closing since January 2007. Mr. Dabah also said that private equity firm Golden Gate Capital had shown interest in becoming a potential participant in the deal. Reuters explains that Mr. Dabah, who owns 17.2% of the company's shares, resigned in September 2007 after an internal investigation found that he had not complied with the company's securities-trading policies. Children's Place told Reuters that the lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey, claimed that any forthcoming approval by the board of the acquisition by Mr. Dabah would constitute unfair dealing. The complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Children's Place from approving the acquisition. Children's Place said it "intends to contest the allegations and the claims made in this complaint." Secaucus, N.J.-based The Children's Place Retail Stores, Inc. is a specialty retailer of children's merchandise under its proprietary, The Children's Place and licensed Disney Store brand names. COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL: Faces Del. Suit Over Foreclosure Costs ------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit was filed against Countrywide Financial Corp., asserting that the company has charged "inflated, unverifiable or false" fees in foreclosure actions that threaten hundreds of thousands of homeowners, the Associated Press reports. The lawsuit, filed on Monday with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accuses Countrywide Financial of unjustly profiting from inflated fees charged to homeowners whose loans were delinquent or in foreclosure to compensate for huge subprime loan losses, Reuters relates. The lawsuit seeks class-action status. The suit was filed by New Jersey plaintiff Gregory O'Gara. AP relates that Mr. O'Gara's mother, Tamara Portnick, died after an illness during which she missed some payments on her Boynton Beach, Fla. Home. Mr. O'Gara called Countrywide while clearing up his mother's estate and was told how much he would have to pay to bring the mortgage up to date. Mr. O'Gara said that investigation showed "Countrywide had done virtually nothing" to justify the extra charges it imposed on the deceased woman's estate. The lawsuit, Reuters says, comes amid scrutiny by federal and state law enforcement agencies, including the Office of the U.S. Trustee and the Florida attorney general, of Countrywide's loan servicing practices. Reuters notes that Countrywide is currently facing numerous lawsuits by investors contending that the company issued false and misleading statements to inflate its share price, and at least one other action by homeowners claiming it conducted false appraisals to artificially drive up faltering home prices. While Countrywide mortgage agreements allow it to charge delinquent homeowners for the costs of bringing their loans current, they do not allow the lender to tack on "excessive, unverified and unreasonable costs, fees and expenses," the lawsuit states. Moreover, "[t]he mortgage note says the lender shall be 'paid back' -- those are the critical words, 'paid back' -- for its costs of enforcement, so you would think that the borrower would have to reimburse their actual out-of-pocket expenses," said Jeffrey Norton, Esq., of Harwood Feffer in New York, one of the attorneys who filed the suit. "We're alleging padded attorney fees, charges for appraisals that never happened, all kinds of made-up fees," Mr. Norton added. The lawsuit asserts that Countrywide frequently charges $300 to $500 for appraisals that are not done at all, or that are mere "drive-by" inspections by appraisers who do not even stop their cars when passing mortgaged properties. Countrywide has $300 to $500 "flat-fee" arrangements with law firms that handle foreclosures, the lawsuit adds. Yet it hits homeowners with legal bills of $1,200 to $2,000. Mr. Norton wrote that Countrywide's mortgage is a contract that entitles it to recoup its costs if the loan starts to go south. When Countrywide charges more than it costs to enforce the loan, that's a breach of the contract, according to the complaint. "The law firms are making a bundle," Mr. Norton contended. "They frequently have a few attorneys who can go to court and a fleet of law clerks or paralegals who fill out forms. The law firms are probably the biggest beneficiaries of this wave of foreclosures." According to AP, if certified as a class action, the suit could force Countrywide to prove the extra charges it added in "enforcement actions," from collection activities to foreclosure, were real, or give the money back to hundreds of thousands of homeowners. With mortgage defaults at record levels and expected to rise, AP writes, the case is one that will be closely watched by the law firms and others that are poised to profit from foreclosures that analysts predict will affect millions of homeowners in the coming years. The plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Norton, Esq. (jnorton@hfesq.com) Harwood Feffer 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor New York, New York 10022 Phone: (877) 935-7400 DENTSPLY INT'L: Continues to Face Multiple Trubyte-Related Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. still faces several lawsuits that accuse the company of engaging in a conspiracy to violate antitrust laws in relation to the sale of Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. Subsequent to the Department of Justice's filing of a complaint in 1999, several private party class actions were filed based on allegations similar to those in the Department of Justice case, on behalf of dental laboratories, and denture patients in seventeen states who purchased Trubyte teeth or products containing Trubyte teeth. These cases were transferred to the United States District Court in Wilmington, Delaware. The private party suits seek damages in an unspecified amount. At the Company's behest, the Court declared the lack of standing of the laboratory and patient class actions to pursue damage claims. The plaintiffs in the laboratory case appealed this decision to the Third Circuit and the Court largely upheld the decision of the District Court in dismissing the plaintiffs' damages claims against DENTSPLY, with the exception of allowing the plaintiffs to pursue a damage claim based on a theory of resale price maintenance between the Company and its tooth dealers. The plaintiffs' also asked the United States Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit's decision, but the request was denied. The plaintiffs in the laboratory case filed an amended complaint asserting that DENTSPLY and its tooth dealers, and the dealers among themselves, engaged in a conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws. Dentsply and the dealers have filed motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' new claims, except for the resale price maintenance claims. Additionally, manufacturers of two competitive tooth lines and a dealer, as a putative class action, have filed separate actions seeking damages alleged to have been incurred as a result of the Company's tooth distribution practice found to be a violation of the antitrust law. 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. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. DENTSPLY INT'L: Still Faces Suit Over Declared Uses of Cavitron --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International, Inc., continues to face a purported class action alleging that the company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers was sold in breach of contract and warranty. The company allegedly misrepresented the potential uses of the product because it cannot deliver potable or sterile water. On Dec. 12, 2006, Carole Hildebrand, D.D.S., and Robert Jaffin, D.D.S., filed a complaint against the company wih the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint seeks a refund of the purchase price paid for Cavitron scalers and asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs have requested class certification. 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 "Hilderbrand, et al. v. Dentsply International, et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-05439-RBS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge R. Barclay Surrick presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Alan Klein, Esq. (aklein@duanemorris.com) Duane Morris LLP 30 South 17th St. Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Phone: 215-979-1000 Fax: 215-979-1020 Representing the defendants is: Richard G. Placey (rplacey@mmwr.com) Montgomery, Mccracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad St., 24th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: 215-772-7424 Fax: 215-772-7620 DENTSPLY INT'L: Decertification of Cavitron Suit Still on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeals has yet to rule on an appeal with regards to the decertification of a purported class action that accuses DENTSPLY International, Inc., of misrepresenting its Cavitron ultrasonic scalers. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, D.D.S., and Richard Nathan, D.D.S., filed a class action in San Francisco County, California. The complaint, which has been amended twice, seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The court certified the case as a class action on June 15, 2006, with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class is defined as California dental professionals who purchased and used one or more Cavitron ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients. The company filed a motion for decertification of the class, which was granted. The plaintiffs have appealed the decertification of the class to the California Court of Appeals. 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. DENTSPLY International, Inc. -- http://www.dentsply.com/-- is a designer, developer, manufacturer and marketer of a range of products for the dental market. EXXON MOBIL: Sup. Ct. Questions Lawyers on Exxon Valdez Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The Supreme Court justices questioned on Feb. 27, 2008, the lawyers for Exxon Mobil Corp. and nearly 33,000 victims of the massive oil spill in Alaska nearly 19 years ago, various reports say. According to Mercury News, the Supreme Court seemed inclined to let Exxon Mobil off the hook for some of the amount the company was ordered to pay as punishment for the Exxon Valdez disaster. The justices, the report notes, made only one passing reference to Exxon Mobil's record profits. Mercury News explains that the $2.5-billion award represents less than three weeks' worth of Exxon profit, which was $11.7 billion in the last three months of 2007. U.S. News recounts that Exxon Mobil is fighting a lower court's decision that it should pay $2.5 billion in punitive damages for the largest oil spill in U.S. waters. Lawyers Face Questioning by Justices Justice Stephen Breyer, U.S. News notes, asked Exxon Mobil lawyer Walter Dellinger, Esq., how he answered those who note the company's ample resources to pay the judgment. Mr. Dellinger maintained that the $3.5-billion that Exxon Mobil has already spent -- including cleanup and state and federal fines for environmental damages, plus the $15,000-per-person compensation to victims -- was punishment enough. "That amount is enough to deter anyone from anything," Mr. Dellinger said. "This was a tragic and terrible event, and one for which the company paid dearly." Mercury News says that Justice Breyer, who has voted to overturn damages awards, said he worried how the court's decision in this case would play in other maritime accidents. "This is a very dramatic accident. It involves oil spills, and they cause an enormous amount of trouble . . . But there are accidents every day, and ships are filled with accidents like automobiles in other places. And there are all kinds of things that go wrong . . . What principles do you have to suggest, if any, for creating a fair system that isn't just arbitrary?" Justice Breyer said. The New York Times relates that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also subjected Mr. Dellinger to a rapid-fire series of questions about his central arguments. Justice Ginsburg suggested at one point that the jury that heard the case would have been justified in concluding that Exxon was a "grave wrongdoer" itself, not just vicariously through the negligence of the ship's captain, Joseph J. Hazelwood, who company officials left in charge of the ship despite having been informed that he was an alcoholic who had resumed drinking. NY Times relates that one of Exxon's arguments on appeal is that the Supreme Court's precedents foreclose awarding punitive damages against a ship's owner for the misdeeds of the captain. Mr. Dellinger told the justices that the appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "erred in overturning a maritime-law rule that has been settled for 200 years," under which the owner can be liable only for actions that it directed, ratified or participated in. However, the plaintiffs' lawyer, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Esq., told the justices that the question of precedent was "more or less an open issue before you today." Mr. Fisher said that "you have a smattering of a few old cases that lean in different directions." The question of whether precedent dictated an outcome for one side or the other appeared to be a draw, NY Times says. NY Times writes that Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia seemed sympathetic to Exxon. At one point, the report relates, when Mr. Fisher said Exxon should not benefit from a particular argument because the company had not raised it, Justice Scalia said, "They don't have to make every tiny little argument." Justices Kennedy and David Souter, according to Mercury News, suggested that perhaps a reasonable number would be twice the amount of money the company has paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also appeared sympathetic to Exxon, NY Times observes. "I don't see what more a corporation can do" to protect itself from employees who violate explicit company policy, like a no-drinking rule, he told Mr. Fisher. When the justices agreed in October to hear Exxon's appeal, they limited their review to questions of maritime law and excluded a more general question about the constitutionality of the punitive damage award, NY Times points out. Consequently, the eventual decision is not likely to affect punitive damages in non-maritime cases. NY Times points out that with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. not participating -- as a result of his ownership of Exxon Mobil stock -- the possibility of a 4-to-4 tie was clearly present. A tie, the report explains, would affirm the appeals court's judgment in favor of a class of 32,000 fishermen and business ownerswho stand to receive about $75,000 each from the $2.5-billion award. NY Times further observes that "it was abundantly clear to everyone in the crowded courtroom that if the plaintiffs could just hold on to four votes, they would win the case." Financial Times, on the other hand, says that several justices appeared "troubled by the size of the award in the case, which has dragged on for nearly 20 years. But it was not clear whether a majority of the closely divided court would be able to agree on a way to reduce the damages -- though one justice mentioned trimming the award to about $1 billion." The case is "Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, Case No. 07-219" Case Background U.S. News recalls that on March 24, 1989, the supertanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. Wind and waves spread oil across 600 miles of coast and 10,000 square miles of marine ecosystem -- forever changing the lives of the Native Alaskans and fishermen who relied on the sea. Among 32,000 of the fishermen took Exxon Mobile to court. Exxon Mobile, according to Mercury News, has vigorously fought to knock down or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alaska in 1994 for the accident. The verdict has been cut in half once by a federal appeals court. The class-action suit is "Sea Hawk Seafoods Inc. et al. v. Exxon Corp. et al. (3:89-cv-00095-HRH)," filed with the U.S. District Court of Alaska under Judge H. Russel Holland. Representing the defendants are: John F. Clough, III, Esq. Clough & Associates POB 211187 Auke Bay, AK 99821 Phone: 907-790-1912 Fax: 907-790-1913 - and - Douglas Serdahely, Esq. (dserdahely@pattonboggs.com) Patton Boggs LLP 601 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: 907-263-6300 Fax: 907-263-6345 Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeffrey D. Fisher, Esq. (jefffisher@dwt.com) Davis Wright Tremaine LLP Suite 2200 1201 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101-3045 Phone: (206) 622-3150 Fax: (206) 757-7700 Charles W. Coe, Esq. (charlielaw@gci.net) Law Office of Charles W. Coe 805 W 3rd Avenue, #10 Anchorage, AK 99501 U.S. Phone: 907-276-6173 Fax: 907-279-1884 - and - Lloyd B. Miller, Esq. (lloyd@sonosky.net) Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller & Munson, LLP 900 West 5th Avenue, Suite 700 Anchorage, AK 99501, U.S. Phone: 907-258-6377 Fax: 907-272-8332 FARMERS & MERCHANTS: Tells Effectiveness of Investor Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach (OTCBB:FMBL) announced the effectiveness of the settlement of the class action and derivative litigation brought by shareholder Marcus D. Walker against certain present and former officers and directors of the Bank and the Bank as a nominal defendant. On December 6, 2007, the Bank's shareholders approved a proposal authorizing the Bank to repurchase shares of the Bank's common stock, which approval was also a condition to the effectiveness of the proposed Settlement (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 20, 2007). As part of the settlement, the Bank would commence a tender offer after the effective date of the proposed settlement whereby the Bank would offer to purchase up to 14,720 shares of its common stock at a price of $7,300 per share. If the proposed Tender Offer does not proceed or close for any reason other than as a result of the termination of the settlement, then the Bank would instead commit to make distributions to its shareholders in the aggregate amount of $86,000,000 (including the amounts required to be used by the Bank to repurchase shares from Marcus D. Walker and his related and affiliated parties pursuant to the Standstill Agreement). Pursuant to the Settlement, the litigation was dismissed with prejudice, and the Bank and the other defendants were released from any and all claims that were or could have been asserted in the litigation. As previously announced, plaintiff Marcus D. Walker, members of his immediate family, and certain of his related and affiliated parties entered into a Standstill Agreement whereby they agreed to sell to the Bank all of their 5,827 shares of Bank common stock. This repurchase was completed earlier and effectively reduced the number of the Bank's issued and outstanding shares of common stock to 145,648 as of February 28, 2008. Also pursuant to the Settlement, Roger Molvar and Frank O'Bryan each resigned as directors of the Bank. Farmers & Merchants Bank of Long Beach -- http://www.fmb.com-- offers personal and business banking services in California. It provides business banking products and services, such as business checking accounts, money market accounts, investment accounts, merchant card services, small business loans, real estate and construction loans, commercial loans, church and nonprofit loans; and personal banking services, including personal checking accounts, personal money market accounts, personal savings accounts, and personal and home loans. The bank operates 20 branches in Long Beach and Orange County. Farmers & Merchants Bank was founded in 1907 and is based in Long Beach, California. GUAM: Gov't. Retirees to Receive $9 million More in COLA Payout --------------------------------------------------------------- Retirees of the government of Guam pursuing a class action for denied cost-of-living (COLA) increases will get $9 million in promissory note from the proceeds of the sale of GTA to Teleguam Holdings, the Pacific News Center reports. The suit was filed in 1993 by government retirees arguing they have been denied cost-of-living increases based on inflation as required by a law that was in effect between 1988 and 1995. Judge Janet Weeks certified the suit as a class action on behalf of all Guam retirees in August 1994. In March 2005, Superior Court of Guam Judge Arthur Barcinas takes over the case. In December 2005, the retirees' attorney renews motion for a court order stating the COLA must be paid. In April 2006, Judge Barcinas rules in retirees' favor. In May 2006, the government's attorneys asked the court to reconsider decisions made in the case. The parties were in arguments regarding the base year for the computation of payments. The government's legal adviser, which drafted a proposed order for the award, said it is 1990. On the other hand, the retirees' attorney said it should be 1988 as ordered by the court. Judge Barcinas, in an oral ruling, determined that the formula for most of the payout would be based on the consumer price index of 1988. The lawsuit was filed in 1993 and based on a law that was implemented in 1988 but repealed in 1995. Oct. 6, 2006, Judge Barcinas rejects most of the governor's arguments and orders that eligible retirees be paid the amount calculated by the Retirement Fund, which he said was $91 million, minus the $32 million retirees were paid in cost-of- living allowances during the years in question. On Nov. 19, Judge Barcinas finally made a decision to order a $123.5 million payout to retirees (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 6, 2006). According to the report, the retirees were supposed to get $10 million in promissory note but COLA class Attorney Mike Phillips announced the Bank of Guam intends to purchase the note for $9 million before it matures. The note will be worth $15 million, including interest, by 2013. Mr. Phillips said the Attorney General's Office will finalize the necessary paperwork and anticipates this to be completed soon. HUNTSMAN CORP: Courts Consider Approving MOU Over $10.6B Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- A memorandum of understanding to settle lawsuits against Huntsman Corp. that seek to stop the pending $10.6-billion acquisition by private-equity company Apollo Management LP, has yet to receive approval from the courts. On July 12, 2007, Hunstman agreed to be acquired by private- equity firm Apollo Management for $28 a share, or $10.6 billion, including debt. Huntsman will be combined with Apollo's Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc. (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2007) From July 5 to July 13, 2007, four shareholder class-action complaints were filed against the Company and its directors alleging breaches of fiduciary duty over the deal. Three actions were filed with the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware: -- "Cohen v. Archibald, et al., No. 3070," (filed July 5, 2007); -- "Augenstein v. Archibald, et al., No. 3076," (filed July 9, 2007);" and -- "Murphy v. Huntsman, et al., No. 3094," (filed July 13, 2007). The fourth action, entitled, "Schwoegler v. Huntsman Corp., et al., Cause No. 07-07-06993-CV," was filed with the 9th Judicial District Court of Montgomery County, Texas on July 6, 2007. As subsequently amended, these lawsuits together allege that we and our directors breached fiduciary duties to the stockholders by, among other things, engaging in an unfair sales process, approving an unfair price per share for the Merger with Hexion, and making inadequate disclosures to stockholders, and that Basell, Hexion, and MatlinPatterson entities aided and abetted these breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought to enjoin the stockholder vote on the Merger. On Sept. 20, 2007, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs' counsel in the Delaware and Texas actions to settle these four lawsuits. The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Huntsman Corp. -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- manufactures chemical products and formulations that are marketed in more than 100 countries to a group of consumer and industrial customers. HUNTSMAN INT'L: Still Faces Urethane Antitrust Suits in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman International, LLC, and certain other firms remain defendants in putative antitrust class actions in Canada, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries. The suits were filed with the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada, on May 5, 2006, and with the Superior Court in Quebec, Canada, on May 17, 2006. The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 22, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Huntsman International, LLC -- http://www.huntsman.com/-- is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical products. The company manufactures these products at facilities located in North America, Europe, Asia and Africa, and these products are sold throughout the world. The company's products are divided into two categories differentiated and commodity chemicals. Huntsman International has four segments: Polyurethanes, Performance Products, Pigments and Base Chemicals. Its Polyurethanes and Performance products businesses mainly produce differentiated products, and its Pigments and Base Chemicals businesses mainly produce commodity chemicals. HUNTSMAN INT'L: Discovery Ongoing in Urethane Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Discovery is ongoing in a consolidated antitrust class action filed against Huntsman International, LLC, and several other defendants for alleged conspiracy to fix prices in the methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, oluene di-isocyanate, and polyether polyols industries. The suits are now consolidated as the "Polyether Polyols Cases" in multidistrict litigation known as "In re Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," by virtue of an initial order transferring and consolidating cases filed Aug. 23, 2004. The case is currently pending with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. Other defendants named in the "Polyether Polyols Cases" are Bayer, BASF, Dow, and Lyondell. Bayer recently announced that it entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs, which is subject to approval by the court. Class certification discovery is underway in these consolidated cases. The company reported no development in the case at 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 Urethane Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1616, Civil No. 2:04-md-01616-JWL-DJW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge John W. Lungstrum presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mario Nunzio Alioto, Esq. (malioto@tatp.com) Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP 2280 Union Street San Francisco, CA 94123 Phone: 415-563-7200 Fax: 415-346-0679 - and - Arthur N. Bailey, Esq. (artlaw@alltel.net) Arthur N. Bailey & Associates 111 West Second Street, Suite 4500 Jamestown, NY 14701 Phone: 716-664-2967 Fax: 716-664-2983 Representing the defendants are: Floyd R. Finch, Jr., Esq. (ffinch@blackwellsanders.com) Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP 4801 Main Street, Ste. 1000, P.O. Box 219777 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: 816-983-8128 Fax: 816-983-8080 - and - James S. Jardine, Esq. (jjardine@rqn.com) Ray, Quinney & Nebeker 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Phone: 801-323-3337 Fax: 801-532-7543 LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Ohio Court Denies Motion in Manganese Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied a motion that sought to certify a class in one of several lawsuits involving claims of manganese-induced illness that names Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., as one of the defendants, according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Up to eight class actions seeking medical monitoring have been filed in state courts, six of which have been removed and transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In addition, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint seeking medical monitoring on behalf of current and former welders in eight states, including three states covered by the single-state class actions, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. This case was also transferred to the MDL Court in Ohio. A motion to certify a medical monitoring class related to the case was denied on Sept. 14, 2007. Cleveland, Ohio-based Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.lincolnelectric.com/-- is a full-line manufacturer and reseller of welding and cutting products. Welding products include welding power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages, fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The Company's welding product offering also includes regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding and cutting. MCDONALD'S CORP: Continues to Face Obesity Litigation in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------- McDonald's Corp. continues to face a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by minors who became obese or developed other adverse health conditions allegedly from eating the company's products, according to 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 was filed in behalf of Ashley Pelman, a child under the age of 18 years, by her mother and natural guardian, Roberta Pelman, and in behalf of Jazlen Bradley, a child under the age of 18 years, by her father and natural guardian, Israel Bradley. On or about Feb. 17, 2003, the two minors, by their parents and guardians, filed an amended complaint against the company. The suit is seeking class-action status on behalf of individuals in New York under the age of 18 (and their parents and/or guardians), who became obese or developed other adverse health conditions allegedly from eating the company's products. On Sept. 3, 2003, the court dismissed all counts of the complaint with prejudice. On Jan. 25, 2005, following an appeal by the plaintiffs, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit Court vacated the court's decision to dismiss alleged violations of Section 349 of the New York Consumer Protection Act as set forth in Counts I- III of the amended complaint. On Dec. 12, 2005, the plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint. In this complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the company: -- engaged in a deceptive advertising campaign to be perceived to be less nutritionally detrimental-than-in- fact; -- failed adequately to disclose its use of certain additives and ingredients; and -- failed to provide nutritional information about its products. The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages; an order directing defendants to label their individual products specifying the fat, salt, sugar, cholesterol and dietary content; an order prohibiting marketing to certain individuals' funding of an educational program to inform children and adults of the dangers of eating certain foods' sold by defendants; and attorneys' fees and costs. The suit is "Ashley Pelman, et al., v. McDonald's Corp., et al., 02 Civ. 7821," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Robert W. Sweet presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Samuel Hirsch, Esq. Samuel Hirsch & Associates, P.C., Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2418 New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 947-3800 Fax: (212) 947-9374 e-mail: info@samuelhirschesq.com Web site: http://www.samuelhirschesq.com/ Representing the company are: Bruce Roger Braun, Esq. (bbraun@winston.com) Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 558-5600 Fax: (312) 558-5700 Theresa L.F. Levings, Esq. Badger & Levings, LLC 1101 Walnut St., Suite 1207 Kansas City, MI 64106 e-mail: info@badgerlevings.com Web site: http://www.badgerlevings.com/ - and - Thomas P. Battistoni, Esq. (tbattistoni@schiffhardin.com) Balber Pickard Battistoni Maldonado & Vandertuin, PC 1370 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019-4602 Phone: (212) 246-2400 MCDONALD'S CORP: Faces Ill. Suit Over French Fries, Hash Browns --------------------------------------------------------------- McDonald's Corp. faces a consolidated class action alleging fraudulent use of gluten in its french fries and hash browns, 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 plaintiffs have filed several complaints against the Company (and in some instances its franchisee or a franchisee's operating company), alleging that McDonald's misrepresented its french fries and hash browns as free of wheat, gluten and milk, when the french fries and hash browns allegedly contain derivatives of wheat, gluten and milk. Eight of the cases have been consolidated into one action that seeks to form a national class of consumers, generally defined as individuals who purchased McDonald's french fries and hash browns and who have allergies or sensitivities to consumption of wheat and dairy products. The first case of this type, "Debra Moffatt v. McDonald's Corporation, MDL Case No. 06-cv-4467," was filed on Feb. 17, 2006, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Currently, 14 cases, including Moffatt, have been transferred and consolidated for pretrial purposes, and are pending as multi-district litigation with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District court of Illinois. The complaints include claims for violation of state consumer fraud acts, unfair competition or deceptive trade practices acts, strict liability, failure to warn, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud and fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation and concealment, unjust enrichment, and false advertising. They seek to recover unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement of profits, and attorneys' fees. The suit is "In Re: McDonald's French Fries Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-04467," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Larry Daniel Drury, Esq. (ldrurylaw@aol.com) Larry D. Drury, Ltd. 205 West Randolph, Suite 1430 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 346-7950 - and - Francis Richard Greene, Esq. (fgreene@edcombs.com) Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 120 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200 Representing the company is: Michael A. Pope, Esq. (mpope@mwe.com) McDermott, Will & Emery LLP 227 West Monroe Street #4400 Chicago, IL 60606-5096 Phone: (312) 372-2000 NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces Suit Over 99-Cent Charge in Online Game ------------------------------------------------------------ NBC Universal and the producer of Howie Mandel's hit program, "Deal or No Deal," is facing a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of a proposed class of people who participated in the Lucky Case Game, which is an interactive feature of the show, according to the Daily Report. Daily Report says that the Supreme Court of Georgia was asked to interpret Georgia law for a federal judge overseeing the case, which was filed by Columbus lawyers -- Buchanan & Land and Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown. The current version of the law, found at O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3, is at the center of the case. The plaintiffs' lawyers say that the game -- in which viewers, like the contestants on the show, try to pick a lucky suitcase -- ran afoul of Georgia law because participants were charged 99 cents to play through their cell phones. NBC Universal and the other defendants argue that they are not obligated to return the 99 cent fees because viewers could play for free on the Internet. They also contend that they were not winners in a gambling contract. The winners, they say, were the participants who picked the right suitcase and were then chosen from a random drawing to get at least $10,000. Daily Report notes that, according to NBC's Web site, The Lucky Case Game, is "taking a short break." The federal judge overseeing the case, Senior Judge William C. O'Kelley, has suggested that "probably" tens of millions of dollars are at stake in the case. The case, Daily Report recounts, was initiated by Forsyth County residents Michael and Michele Hardin, who say that they are regular viewers of "Deal or No Deal" and have played the Lucky Case Game multiple times. The Hardins want to represent a class of Georgians who played the game from Georgia cell phone numbers, as well as those who played other games promoted on NBC. The Hardins allege that there are similar legal problems with games that have been televised as part of NBC's "1 vs. 100" game show, "America's Got Talent" and the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes horse races. The Hardins are relying on O.C.G.A. § 13-8-3. Along with voiding gambling contracts, the said law provides that "[m]oney paid or property delivered upon a gambling consideration may be recovered from the winner by the loser by institution of an action for the same within six months after the loss." Later suits also can recover money but have to share the proceeds with county education funds. A lottery is considered gambling under Georgia law, the plaintiffs stated in their filings, and only the state can operate one. The Lucky Case Game is a lottery because people pay money -- the 99 cents text message fee -- for a chance to win a bigger prize, they say. "If NBC had not charged Georgians premium text message charges to play," explained one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, J. Clay Fuller, Esq., "there would have been no lawsuit." A set of similar cases challenging the Lucky Case Game and other NBC games is pending before a California federal judge, Daily Report notes. Most of the named plaintiffs in those cases also are Georgia residents, and Atlanta lawyers William A. Pannell, Esq., and Kevin T. Moore, Esq., are among the plaintiffs' counsel team that includes lawyers at Milberg Weiss' Los Angeles office. NBC Universal show producer Endemol USA and game administrator VeriSign moved to dismiss the suit pending before Judge O'Kelley in August 2007. Represented by lawyers at King & Spalding in Atlanta and Arnold & Porter in Washington, NBC cited several problems with the plaintiffs' theory. In considering the dismissal motion, Judge O'Kelley indicated that he wasn't ready to buy the defendants' argument that the game was just an advertising promotion and therefore exempt from the state law's definition of a lottery. He noted that the games likely generate millions in revenue. Judge O'Kelley however directed a "looming, unresolved question" to the state high court – whether the loser of an illegal lottery can sue to recover his losses. Two Georgia Court of Appeals decisions from the 1940s concluded that the statute under which plaintiffs are suing did not apply to lotteries, Judge O'Kelley noted, but the statute since has been revised. He also asked the state Supreme Court to look at the question of whether the defendants can be considered "winners" of the Lucky Case Game under the civil recovery statute. NBC says in its appellate brief that the changes to the civil recovery statute do not help the plaintiffs. Moreover, the defendants argue, the game was not gambling because the defendants took no risk—regardless of the outcome, they had to award the prize at a predetermined amount. They say they're not the "winners," either. The defendants say in their brief that "the true 'winners' of the Lucky Case Game received prizes every time that the promotion was aired." The plaintiffs counter that NBC and the other defendants are the winners because "[w]here Defendants constructed a game to make huge profits by retaining money paid to play, they have obtained, earned and won that money." The case at the state Supreme Court is "Hardin v. NBC Universal, No. S08Q0323." The plaintiffs are represented by: Jerry A. Buchanan, Esq. (jab@buchananland.com) Buchanan & Land Post Office Box 2848 1425 Wynnton Road Columbus, Georgia 31902 Phone: (706) 323-2848 Fax: (706) 323-4242 - and - J. Clay Fuller, Esq. (clay@dcfblaw.com) Daughtery, Crawford, Fuller & Brown 1430 Wynnton Road P.O. Box 1118 Columbus, GA 31902 Phone: (706) 320-9646 The defendants are represented by: L. Joseph Loveland Jr., Esq. (jloveland@kslaw.com) King & Spalding 1180 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309-3521 Phone: (404) 572-4783 Fax: (404) 572-5100 NEVADA: Las Vegas Clinic Faces Suit Over Hepatitis C Spread ----------------------------------------------------------- The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is facing a class action suit over alleged spreading of hepatitis C, the Associated Press reports. The suit, filed by patient Charles Anthony Rader, Jr., alleges gross negligence and is seeking punitive damages. According to the report, Southern Nevada health officials say six cases of Hepatitis C have been traced to the clinic. Nearly 40,000 patients are being notified they too may have been exposed. The clinic had been reusing syringes and vials of medication for nearly four years, the report contends. Mr. Rader claims he could have been exposed to Hepatitis and HIV through unsafe practices at the center, where he received treatment at that time. PECOWARE INC: Recalls Kids' Metal Jewelry for Lead Exposure Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pecoware Co. Inc., of Chino, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,900 children's metal necklaces. The company said the children's necklaces contain high levels of lead. Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse health effects. No injuries have been reported. The recalled necklaces include a cat with silver and pink rhinestones, a heart and lock with pink rhinestones, a silver colored heart with a rhinestone crown, and a silver colored lock and key. The necklaces hang from silver colored chains. These recalled children's jewelry were manufactured in china and were being sold at department and specialty stores nationwide from January 2006 through July 2007 (cat necklace), and from July 2007 through November 2007 (heart, heart and key, and lock and key necklaces) for about $13. Picture of the recalled children's jewelry is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08200.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled necklaces away from children and contact Pecoware for instructions on returning the necklaces for a full refund. For additional information, contact Pecoware at (800) 456-7326 between 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.pecoware.com QUEST SOFTWARE: To See Dismissal of CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Quest Software, Inc., will be seeking for the dismissal of the second amended complaint in a securities fraud class action filed against it, which case remains pending 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. The suit, filed in October 2006, alleges that Quest Software, Inc., and certain of its executives violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by failing to disclose and concealing through various false statements and omissions that they did not properly account for issuing stock option grants at prices which were below fair market value on the actual grant date. Consequently, the price of Quest stock was artificially inflated during the period starting Nov. 9, 2001, through July 3, 2006. In January 2007, the Court appointed Middlesex Retirement System as lead class plaintiff and entered a stipulated order establishing a pleading schedule for the plaintiffs' first amended complaint and the defendants' response. The first amended class action complaint was filed with the Court in March 2007. In October 2007, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) with respect to Michael Lambert, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and the plaintiffs' claims under Section 20(a) with respect to the Company and to Doug Garn, the Company's president, which claims have been dismissed without prejudice. The Court also held in abeyance the plaintiffs' claims under Section 20A pending their filing of an amended complaint due Dec. 1, 2007. Otherwise, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss as it related to the Company and other individual defendants. Subsequently, the Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion with the U.S. District Court requesting certification of the Court's order for interlocutory appellate review. This request was denied bu the court. The plaintiff then filed a second amended class action complaint in February 2008. Discovery proceeding remains stayed pending the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended class action complaint, which is expected to be filed in March 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. The suit is "Middlesex Retirement System v. Quest Software Inc. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-06863-DOC-RNB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge David O. Carter presiding. Representing plaintiffs are: Patricia I. Avery, Esq. (pavery@wolfpopper.com) Wolf Popper 845 3rd Ave., 12th Fl. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-451-9619 - and - Blake M. Harper, Esq. (bmh@hulettharper.com) Hulett Harper Stewart 550 West C Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-338-1133 Representing the defendants are: Koji F. Fukumura, Esq. (kfukumura@cooley.com) Cooley Godward Kronish 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Phone: 858-550-6000 - and - Richard J. Cutler, Esq. (richard.cutler@dechert.com) AUSA - Office of US Attorney 411 W 4th St., Ste. 8000 Santa Ana, CA 92701-4599 Phone: 714-338-3500 RIVERSIDE PULBISHING: Recalls Cards Failing Lead Paint Standards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Riverside Publishing Co., of Rolling Meadows, Ill., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 5,300 Memory Testing Cards (sold as part of educational testing kits). The company said the recall involves the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test-Symbolic Memory Cards. The memory testing cards are part of a kit used to test children's physical and mental abilities. They are white with green figures, measure 1" x 1", and were sold as part of a kit (model number 922782), or were sold in packages of 10 cards (model number 922775). The model numbers are located on the packaging. These recalled memory cards were made in China and were being sold by Riverside Publishing to testing facilities and administrators nationwide from January 2003 through November 2007 for about $550. Picture of the recalled memory cards is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08546.jpg Purchasers are advised to immediately stop using the recalled memory cards and return them to Riverside Publishing for free replacement cards. The firm is contacting purchasers directly. For additional information, contact Riverside Publishing at (800) 323-9540 between 8:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. CT, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.riverpub.com SANDISK CORP: CA Supreme Court Asked to Review "Vroegh" Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- The California Supreme Court is being asked to review a decision by the First District of the California Court of Appeal that affirmed the final approval of a settlement in the matter, "Willem Vroegh, et al. v. Dane Electric Corp. USA, et al.," which is a class action suit against SanDisk Corp., and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products. The consumer class action was filed with the Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County of San Francisco on Feb. 20, 2004. It alleged false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of flash memory products, claimed that the defendants overstated the size of the memory storage capabilities of such products. It sought restitution, injunction and damages in an unspecified amount. The parties have reached a settlement of the case, which received final approval from the Court on Nov. 20, 2006. Four objectors to the settlement filed appeals of the Court's final approval order. However, on Nov. 30, 2007, the First District of the California Court of Appeal affirmed in full the trial court's judgment and final approval of the settlement. The objectors then filed petitions for the Court of Appeal to rehear the matter en banc, which petitions were denied on Dec. 21, 2007. The objectors have now filed petitions with the California Supreme Court, currently pending under Case No. S159760, asking the Supreme Court to review of the decision of the Court of Appeal, 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. 30, 2007. SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops, markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware technologies. SANDISK CORP: Calif. Court Dismisses Suit by msystems Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County dismissed a consolidated class actions filed against SanDisk Corp. by shareholders of msystems Ltd., a venture partner of the company, 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. 30, 2007. The company and msystems each own 50% of U3, LLC -- an entity established to develop and market a next generation platform for universal serial bus flash drives. On Aug. 7, 2006, two purported shareholder class and derivative actions were filed with the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara County, California. They are: -- "Capovilla v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068760," and -- "Dashiell v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068759," In August 2006, two additional purported shareholder class and derivative actions were filed: -- "Lopiccolo v. SanDisk Corp., No. 106 CV 068946," and -- "Sachs v. SanDisk Corp., No. 1-06-CV-069534." These four lawsuits were subsequently consolidated as "In re: msystems Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, No. 106 CV 068759." On Oct. 27, 2006, a consolidated amended complaint was filed that supersedes the four original complaints. The consolidated suit is brought by purported shareholders of msystems. It names as defendants the company and each of msystems' directors, including its president and chief executive officer, and its former chief financial officer (now its chief operating officer), and names msystems as a nominal defendant. The lawsuit asserts purported class action and derivative claims. The alleged derivative claims assert, among other things, breach of fiduciary duties, abuse of control, constructive fraud, corporate waste, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement with respect to past stock option grants. The alleged class and derivative claims also assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty by msystems' board, which the Company is alleged to have aided an abetted, with respect to allegedly inadequate consideration for the merger, and allegedly false or misleading disclosures in proxy materials relating to the merger. The complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief, including enjoining the proposed merger, and compensatory and punitive damages. In January 2008, the court granted, without prejudice, the Company's and msystems' motion to dismiss. SanDisk Corp. -- http://www.sandisk.com/-- designs, develops, markets and manufactures products and solutions in a variety of form factors using its flash memory, controller and firmware technologies. SANDISK CORP: Faces Consolidated Flash Memory Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- SanDisk Corp. faces a consolidated class action that is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086." Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 14, 2007, the Company, along with a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products, was sued with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in eight purported class action complaints. On Feb. 7, 2008, all of the civil complaints were consolidated into two complaints, one on behalf of direct purchasers and one on behalf of indirect purchasers, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a purported class action captioned, "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086." The plaintiffs allege that the Company and a number of other manufacturers of flash memory products conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of NAND flash memory in violation of state and federal laws. The lawsuits purport to be on behalf of purchasers of flash memory between Jan. 1, 1999, through the present. The lawsuits seek an injunction, damages, restitution, fees, costs, and disgorgement of profits, 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. 30, 2007. The suit is "In re Flash Memory Antitrust Litigation, Civil Case No. C07-0086," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christine Pedigo Bartholomew, Esq. (cbartholomew@finkelsteinthompson.com) Finkelstein Thompson LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-398-8700 Fax: 415-398-8704 C. Donald Amamgbo, Esq. (Donald@Amamgbolaw.com) Amamgbo & Associates, APC 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4900 Oakland, CA 94621 Phone: 510-615-6000 Fax: 510-615-6024 - and - Robert M. Bramson, Esq. (rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com) Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP 2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Phone: 925-945-0200 Fax: 925-945-8792 Representing the company is: Amy Elise Keating, Esq. (amy.keating@bingham.com) Bingham McCutchen LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-393-2000 x2262 Fax: 415-393-2286 SCANA ENERGY: Faces GA Suit Alleging Overcharged Natural Gas ------------------------------------------------------------ SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 26, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging it overcharged for natural gas and customer service in Georgia since March 2007, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of all individuals or entities who during the period from march 2007 to the present were Georgia residents and Legacy SCANA Customers who were charged by SCANA a price for natural gas and customer service charges that exceeded SCANA's published price effective at the beginning of their monthly billing cycles. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether SCANA unlawfully charged Legacy SCANA Customers prices for natural gas and customer service charges that exceeded SCANA's published price in effect at the beginning of such consumers' billing cycles in violation of OCGA Section 46-4-160(h) and Commission Rule 515-7-6-02(a)(5); (b) whether SCANA modified the methodology used to compute the price Legacy SCANA Customers paid for a natural gas that resulted in excessive payments by Legacy SCANA Customers; (c) whether SCANA failed to provide at least 25 days notice to Legacy SCANA Customers prior to the implementation of the new methodology in violation of Commission Rule 515-7-6-01(a)(9); (d) whether the activities of SCANA served or could serve to mislead, deceive, or work a fraud upon plaintiffs and the class members in violation of OCGA Section 46- 4-153(e); (e) whether SCANA violated plaintiffs and class members rights pursuant to the Consumers' Bill of Rights set forth in OCGA Section 46-4-151(b)(9)(A)-(I); and (f) whether plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to an award of damages against SCANA, and, if so, in what amount. The plaintiffs demand judgment as follows: -- determining that the action is a proper class action and certifying an appropriate plaintiff class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- awarding all actual damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs against SCANA in an amount to be determined at trial; and -- granting such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "David K. Weiskircher et al. v. SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc., Case No. 1:08-CV-0640," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jason R. Doss, Esq. Samuel T. Brannan, Esq. Page Perry, LLC 1040 Crown Pointe Parkway, Suite 1050 Atlanta, GA 30338 Phone : (770) 673-0047 Fax: (770) 673-0120 TJX COMPANIES: Privacy Breach Suit Deal Participants Notified ------------------------------------------------------------- A notification program began in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to alert people who made a purchase or return to a TJX store about a proposed settlement reached with The TJX Companies, Inc., and Fifth Third Bancorp in a class action lawsuit against them about the computer system intrusions into personal and financial information at TJX retail stores. In 2007, putative class actions have been filed against TJX in state and federal courts in Alabama, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio and Puerto Rico, and in provincial Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of customers, including all customers in the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada, whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by computer intrusions, and putative class actions have also been filed against TJX in federal court in Massachusetts putatively on behalf of all financial institutions which issued credit and debit cards purportedly used at TJX stores during the period of computer intrusions (Class Action Reporter, July 3, 2007). The actions assert claims, generally, for negligence and related common-law and statutory causes of action stemming from the Computer Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief including damages, related injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. In Sept. 2007, TJX Companies (NYSE: TJX) entered into a Settlement Agreement with respect to the customer class actions in the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 25, 2007). The Settlement Agreement, which is subject to court approval and other conditions, includes the following provisions: -- Those customers who returned merchandise without a receipt to our stores and to whom TJX sent letters reporting that their drivers' license or other identification information may have been compromised in the intrusion(s), will be offered three years of credit monitoring along with identity theft insurance coverage (two years for those who previously accepted TJX's credit monitoring/identity theft insurance offer), paid for by TJX; -- TJX will also reimburse these customers for the documented cost of certain drivers' license replacements and, if their drivers' license or other ID numbers were the same as their social security number, for certain losses from identity theft; -- For any customers who show they shopped at TJX stores located in the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico (excluding Bob's Stores) during the relevant periods and incurred certain costs as a result of the intrusion, TJX will offer vouchers for use in these TJX stores in the country in which they reside. The settlement is contingent on completion of an evaluation by plaintiffs' independent security expert on the computer security enhancements made and planned by TJX and acceptance by the plaintiffs' counsel of these enhancements. Estimated costs to TJX related to this settlement were reflected as part of the $107 million (after tax) reserve for estimated potential losses from the intrusion(s) recorded in the Company's fiscal 2008 second quarter and previously reported estimated future non-cash charges of $21 million (after tax) anticipated to be taken in fiscal 2009. This settlement covers all customer class actions in the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada with respect to the intrusion(s) and is subject to satisfaction of various conditions and final court approval after notice to the plaintiff class and expiration of the time for appeal from any order of the court approving the settlement. While TJX denies the claims and allegations underlying the putative class actions, TJX has concluded that further legal activity would be time consuming and expensive, making it desirable that the actions be settled. The settlement provides benefits to those shoppers who may have been damaged in some way. Notices informing members of a portion of the settlement Class about their legal rights will be mailed, and otherwise are scheduled to appear in newspapers and/or magazines all over the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico leading up to a hearing on July 15, 2008, when the Court will consider whether to approve the settlement. The Court has appointed Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates, P.C. of Chicago, Illinois; Lester L. Levy, Wolf Popper LLP of New York, New York; and Sherrie R. Savett, Berger & Montague, P.C., of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania as Settlement Class Co-Lead Counsel to represent the Class. Deadline to file claims is on May 29, 2008. Deadline to file for exclusions and objections is June 24, 2008. The settlement agreement is available at http://www.tjx.com. The TJX Companies, Inc. is the leading off-price retailer of apparel and home fashions in the U.S. and worldwide. The Company operates 841 T.J. Maxx, 767 Marshalls, 278 HomeGoods, and 128 A.J. Wright stores, as well as 34 Bob's Stores, in the United States. In Canada, the Company operates 186 Winners and 70 HomeSense stores, and in Europe, 214 T.K. Maxx stores. The suit is "In re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, Civil Action, No. 07-10162, MDL No. 1838," filed with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Consolidated AWP Antitrust Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries face a consolidated class action, alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices of certain products, according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Beginning in July 2002, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, were named defendants in various state and federal court actions alleging improper or fraudulent reporting practices related to the reporting of average wholesale prices and wholesale acquisition costs of certain products, and that the defendants committed other improper acts in order to increase prices and market shares. Some of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under the caption, "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1456." The consolidated amended Class Action complaint in this case alleges that the defendants' acts improperly inflated the reimbursement amounts paid by various public and private plans and programs. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a purported class of plaintiffs that paid any portion of the price of certain drugs, which price was calculated based on its average wholesale price, or contracted with a pharmacy benefit manager to provide others with such drugs. The Company filed an Answer to the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on April 9, 2004. Defendants in the consolidated litigation have been divided into two groups. The Company and its named subsidiaries are contained in a large group of defendants that is currently awaiting a ruling on the plaintiffs' request for certification of classes of plaintiffs to maintain a class action against the drug company defendants. Certain other defendants, referred to as the "Track One" defendants, have proceeded on a more expedited basis. Classes were certified against these defendants, a trial has been completed with respect to some of the claims against this group of defendants, the presiding judge has issued a ruling granting judgment to the plaintiffs, that judgment is being appealed, and many of the claims have been settled. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. -- http://www.watson.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical company engaged in the development, manufacture, marketing, sale and distribution of brand and generic (off-patent) pharmaceutical products. It operates through three business segments: Generic, Brand and Distribution. New Securities Fraud Cases ORION ENERGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP, filed a class action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OESX) pursuant or traceable to the Company's December 18, 2007 Initial Public Offering. The Complaint charges Orion and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Orion is a power technology enterprise that designs, manufactures and implements energy management systems, consisting primarily of high-performance, energy efficient lighting systems, controls and related services, for commercial and industrial customers. The Complaint alleges that, in connection with the Company's IPO, defendants failed to disclose or indicate that the Company was planning to drastically alter its business model in a way that would have significant adverse affects on earnings and revenues. On December 18, 2007, the Company conducted its IPO. The IPO was a financial success for the Company, as it was able to raise $100 million by selling 7.69 million shares of stock to the public at a price of $13 per share. On February 6, 2008, the Company announced that it was significantly altering its business model to involve the sale of products which had not yet gained market acceptance. This involved far greater risk than the business model set forth in the Registration Statement issued just weeks before and would result in a reverse of sequentially high revenue trends. In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined $6.39 per share, or 42.89 percent, to close on February 7, 2008 at $8.51 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 11, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. (dcheck@sbtklaw.com) Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. (rmaniskas@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 ********* 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 * * *