/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080304.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 4, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 45 Headlines ALLCO FINANCE: Lawsuit Over Millions of Undisclosed Debts Looms ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Settlement in CO Securities Suit ARIZONA: Legislators Seek to Extend Looming Deadline in ELL Suit AURORA DAIRY: MDL Panel Sends Organic Milk Suits to St. Louis AVISTA CORP: Wash. Court Approves $9.5M Securities Settlement AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Sumitomo TakeOver Bid CANADA: Faces Suit Over Abuse of Aboriginal Students CHINESE DAILY: $5.19-Million Award Granted in Overtime Lawsuit ENDOSCOPY CENTER: NV Suit Accuses Clinic of Using Dirty Syringes FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Magnetic Dart Boards Posing Risks to Kids FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Litigation in Del. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anti-Depressant Medication HERCULES OFFSHORE: Still Faces Texas Lawsuit Over TODCO Purchase MASTERCARD: 30 Million Credit Card Users Get Offer to Join Suit MUNIRE FURNITURE: Recalls Cribs Failing Safety Standards ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Favors Defendants in Appeal of Nev. Suits ONEOK PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Certification in Price I, II PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Torcetrapib-Related Litigation PFIZER INC: Throws Questions About Celebrex and Bextra RX Bills PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Suit in Iowa R&G FINANCIAL: Settles Securities, Derivative Litigation in N.Y. SILICON IMAGE: Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal in Calif. Litigation SOLUTIA INC: Class Certified in Consolidated Pension Plan Case SOLUTIA INC: Parties Settle N.Y. Lawsuits Over SIP Plan SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Billing for Roaming Charges T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over $18 "Upgrade Fee" Charges VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in "Proctor" WORLDCOM INC: Carbon County Gets $49,000 as Settlement for Suit YAHOO! INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California YAHOO! INC: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer YAHOO! INC: Faces Del. Stockholder Lawsuits Over Microsoft Offer New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit SUNOPTA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Eric J. O'Bell Files LA Securities Fraud Suit ********* ALLCO FINANCE: Lawsuit Over Millions of Undisclosed Debts Looms --------------------------------------------------------------- A potential class action is looming against Allco Finance Group after it failed to disclose multi-millions of dollars in current liabilities, Sky Net Online reports. According to Sky Net, shares in Allco Finance have continued to tumble after the company announced that it has $3.5 billion in liabilities coming due this year. Sky Net notes that this figure is around half of Allco's total borrowings. Allco's 2007 annual report only reflected $200 million in liabilities. Lawyers say investors may be able to take legal action, given that the proper level of debt had not been disclosed, as is required by the Corporations Act. About Allco Finance Allco Finance Group Ltd. is an integrated global financial services business, specializing in asset origination, funds creation and funds management. The Company is a fund manager of alternative assets in its core asset classes, which include aviation, rail, shipping, infrastructure, property, private equity and financial assets. Its primary focus is on commercial property, predominately completed office buildings and select development opportunities. It also purchases new and existing commercial passenger and cargo aircraft for lease to commercial airlines. ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Reaches $2M Settlement in CO Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Allos Therapeutics Inc. reached a $2-million settlement in a securities class action filed in Colorado against the company and one of its former officers, according to the company's Feb. 27, 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 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in May 2004. The complaint was then amended in August 2004. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's securities during the period from May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004. It sought unspecified damages relating to the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the cancer drug EFAPROXYN during this period and subsequent declines in the company's stock price. On Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice. In an opinion dated Oct. 20, 2005, the District Court concluded that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to meet the legal requirements applicable to its alleged claims. On Nov. 20, 2005, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. In October 2006, the parties held talks to settle the matter, and on Feb. 6, 2008, they signed a stipulation of settlement, resolving the case for $2,000,000. The Court of Appeals accordingly has remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of the settlement. The settlement is subject to various conditions, including without limitation approval of the District Court. The suit is "Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01030-RPM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Judge Richard P. Matsch presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq. (jberens@dyershuman.com) Dyer & Shuman, LLP 801 East 17th Avenue Denver, CO 80218-1417 Phone: 303-861-3003 Fax: 303-830-6920 Representing the defendants are: Tara L. Acton, Esq. (tacton@bw-legal.com) Berenbaum, Weinshienk & Eason, P.C. 370 - 17th Street, Republic Plaza #4800 Denver, CO 80202-5698 Phone: 303-825-0800 Fax: 303-629-7610 - and - Paul Howard Schwartz, Esq. (schwartzph@cooley.com) Cooley Godward, LLP 380 Interlocken, Crescent #900 Broomfield, CO 80021-8023 Phone: 720-566-4000 Fax: 720-566-4099 ARIZONA: Legislators Seek to Extend Looming Deadline in ELL Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- As reported in the Class Action Reporter on July 25, 2007, Tim Hogan, Esq., filed a motion asking a federal judge to fine the Arizona Legislature and declare it in contempt of a court order to spend more on English language programs. Mr. Hogan proposes a daily fine on the Legislature's failure to adequately fund programs that teach English to Arizona students who speak it as a second language. The fine would be $500,000 a day for the first month that it fails to act, $1 million a day for the next month, $1.5 million a day for the next month, and so on. According to the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins had set a March 4, 2008 deadline for lawmakers to increase funding for instruction of students learning English. The judge ruled in October 2007 that the 2006 law revamping English Language Learning programs to use new instruction models does not do enough to satisfy federal mandates for equal opportunities in education. He also ruled that several provisions violate federal laws. Judge Collins, AP notes, has threatened to impose unspecified sanctions if the Legislature does not meet the deadline he set in the 16-year-old class-action case challenging the adequacy of Arizona's ELL programs. He previously imposed $21 million of daily fines against the state in the same case, though the fines later were erased on appeal. Against this backdrop, the legislative leaders asked Judge Collins to extend for six weeks -- until April 18 -- the looming deadline. This after a federal appeals court upheld Judge Collins' October Order. "The relatively brief extension is necessary because of delays caused by a number of school districts that submitted inflated and incomplete funding requests," the extension motion stated. "Moreover, at least half of the requests were submitted at the last possible minute, congesting the review process." The state Department of Education is still processing 247 funding requests and has not told the Legislature how much additional funding that districts and charter schools should get to implement the new models, the motion said. That means the Legislature won't know how much money is needed before the March 4 deadline, the motion said. The delays were outside the control of the legislative leaders and "were unforeseen" when Judge Collins issued his October Order, the motion further added. However, Mr. Hogan said that the six-week extension requested is too much time and is unfounded because state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has already estimated that the cost figure will range between $30 million to $50 million. "So they're in a position to comply with the court order. It's not impossible. If that's his estimate, then appropriate the money and they reconcile it after all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed," Mr. Hogan asserted. Mr. Hogan also said the lawmakers were aware of circumstances surrounding the late development of the models and the Feb. 8 deadline for districts to submit funding request. Mr. Hogan said he was willing to accept only a two-week delay. "The issue is getting the money out there so that school districts can hire teachers to implement these models," he said. "That has to be done as quickly as possible." AP points out that consideration of the ELL funding issue comes at a tough time for lawmakers because the state faces a revenue shortfall approaching $1.2 billion in the current $10.6 billion budget and an even larger projected deficit in the next fiscal year, which starts July 1. Case Background The state was ordered to improve its offering to students learning English after Judge Collin's predecessor ruled in 2000 that the state's programs for approximately 150,000 students were inadequately funded. The order was part of a ruling in a class action, which was originally filed in 1992 and led by Mr. Hogan on behalf of Nogales Unified students and parents. The deficiency was declared a violation of a federal law that guarantees equal opportunities in education. The state was fined $500,000 in January 2006 for missing a deadline to draft ways to improve the program. The fine was increased to $1 million, resulting to a $21 million in total fines. The fines were stopped when the latest version of a Republican bill seeking to revamp the English learning programs was passed into law in March 2006. In April 2006, Judge Collins ruled that the law still does not adequately fund English-learning programs, fails to spell out the costs of providing those programs, and does not explain the basis for funding that it does provide. The 9th Circuit panel heard arguments in the case in San Francisco on July 25, 2006. In August 2006, it vacated orders by Judge Collins, blocked the distribution of the fines to public schools, and allowed the state to return the money to the general fund. The circuit court ordered Judge Collins to review whether the state has made improvements to its programs in light of changes in education funding and related circumstances since the original 2000 ruling. The August 2006 ruling of the appellate court did not rule directly on the latest law regarding the program. Judge Collins finished on Jan. 25, 2007, a hearing to determine whether the state has already improved the program. In March 2007, he issued a ruling stating that the system is still deficient. He ordered lawmakers to resolve the issue by the end of their current session. Meanwhile, the Legislature adjourned in 2007 without any discussion of revamping English language learning to comply with Judge Collins' judgment. Instead, Republican lawmakers and the state schools chief asked the 9th Circuit to put Judge Collins' ruling on hold. The appeals court rejected that request on June 25, 2007, saying Judge Collins has not yet found the Legislature in contempt for ignoring his earlier ruling to boost the programs. The class action is "Flores, et al. v. Arizona, State of, et al., Case No. 4:92-cv-00596-RCC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under Judge Raner C. Collins. Representing the plaintiffs is: Timothy Michael Hogan, Esq. (thogan@aclpi.org) Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest 202 E. McDowell Rd., Ste. 153 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Phone: 602-258-8850 Fax: 602-258-8757 Representing the defendants are: Lynne Christensen Adams, Esq. (ladams@lrlaw.com) Jose A. Cardenas, Esq. (jcardenas@lrlaw.com) Lewis & Roca, LLP 40 N. Central Ave., Phoenix AZ 85004-4429 Phone: 602-262-5372 602-262-5790 Fax: 602-734-4015 602-734-3852 AURORA DAIRY: MDL Panel Sends Organic Milk Suits to St. Louis ------------------------------------------------------------- The Judicial Panel of Multi-District Litigation decided that at least 15 lawsuits accusing Aurora Dairy Corp. and retailers of selling milk mislabeled as organic will be grouped together in a federal court in St. Louis, AZ Central relates. The report explains that Target Corp., Costco Wholesale Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Safeway Inc., and Whole Foods Market Inc. are alleged to have sold milk produced by closely held Aurora Dairy that did not meet organic standards set by the United States Department of Agriculture. The suits seek for damages and an injunction not to sell milk mislabeled as organic. As of December last year, the Class Action Reporter stated on Dec. 14, 2007, five lawsuits against the retailers have been filed so far. And law firms based in Seattle, St. Louis, New York and other cities have filed at least eight lawsuits against Aurora, representing plaintiffs in over 30 states. The MDL Panel decided on Feb. 20 to assign all the litigation to Judge E. Richard Webber of the Eastern District of Missouri after lawyers argued last month over the appropriate court for the lawsuits. "Given the geographic dispersal of the constituent actions and the potential tag-along actions, the Eastern District of Missouri offers a relatively convenient forum for this litigation," the judges said in their ruling. The panel, AZ Central explains, oversees case consolidations when a company is sued in different U.S. federal courts over the same product. "We argued for the cases to be consolidated in Denver because we are based here, but the location has no bearing on the outcome of the case," Aurora's spokeswoman, Sonja Tuitele, told AZ Central in a telephone interview. AZ Central points out that in order for dairy milk to get USDA organic certification, the cows must have access to pasture, their feed must be pesticide-free and they must not be given bovine-growth hormones or antibiotics, according to federal legislation enacted in 1990. However, the plaintiffs say that Aurora claimed its milk was organic after willfully violating federal certification requirements. The USDA notified Aurora in April 2007 that the company was found to have violated the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, according to a letter from USDA National Organic Program Associate Deputy Administrator Mark A. Bradley. AZ Central recounts that the agency entered into a consent agreement with Aurora in August addressing inconsistencies in regulations between state and federal agencies. Aurora agreed to make eight specific changes to its organic system plans and address all the issues raised by the agency, according to the consent agreement. At the end of the one-year review period, Aurora must verify that it has made all the changes, the report relates. The USDA may withdraw from the consent agreement if the terms of the agreement are not reasonably met. "The cornerstone of our defense is the fact that the USDA has confirmed that our milk has been produced under continuous valid organic certifications," Ms. Tuitele said. "That means our milk has been properly labeled with the USDA organic seal." Aurora's violations were inconsistencies in interpretations of USDA regulations and not done willfully, she said. Headquartered in Boulder, Colorado, Aurora Dairy Corporation -- http://www.auroraorganic.com/-- provides milk that is sold as organic and packaged as store-brand products for many of the nation's biggest chains. Besides Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, and Safeway, Aurora serves as supplier to 15 other national and regional chains. AVISTA CORP: Wash. Court Approves $9.5M Securities Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington gave final approval to the proposed $9.5-million settlement of the lawsuit titled, "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW." Case Background Several class action complaints were filed in September through November 2002 with the same court against the company, its former chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer, current chairman of the board and chief executive officer; and former senior vice president and chief financial officer (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 23, 2007). In February 2003, the court issued an order consolidating the suits and in August 2003, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. On Oct. 19, 2005, at the company's request, the court dismissed the amended complaint. The dismissal order was issued without prejudice, and allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The second amended complaint, which was filed on Nov. 10, 2005, alleged approximately $2.6 billion in damages due to the decrease in the total market value of the company's common stock during the class period. These alleged losses stemmed from violations of federal securities laws through alleged misstatements and omissions of material facts with respect to the company's energy trading practices in western power markets. The plaintiffs asserted that alleged misstatements and omissions regarding these matters were made in the company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other information made publicly available by the company, including press releases. The class action asserted claims on behalf of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the company's common stock between Nov. 23, 1999, and Aug. 13, 2002. In January 2006, the company again requested to have the second amended class action dismissed, asserting deficiencies in it, including the plaintiffs' failure to adequately allege loss causation. On June 2, 2006, the District Court entered an order denying the company's dismissal motion. Settlement negotiations subsequently began and the sides made progress with a federal mediator in January 2007. A second round of mediation in April 2007 led to an agreement in principle to settle the suit. During the time period in question, Messrs. Matthews, Ely and Eliassen were not trading large amounts of stock, according to court records, a factor that showed the executives did not enrich themselves by cashing in before the stock price tanked. Settlement On June 1, 2007, Avista entered into a $9.5-million settlement agreement with respect to the class action . That settlement agreement was filed submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on June 4, 2007. In January 2008, the Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement, and entered an order certifying the class and dismissing the claims in the lawsuit with prejudice, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "The Hackett Group, et al. v. Avista Corp., et al., Case No. 2:00-cv-00262-RHW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Judge Robert H. Whaley presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Karl P. Barth, Esq. (kbarth@lmbllp.com) Lovell Mitchell & Barth LLP 11542 NE 21st Street Bellevue, WA 98004 Phone: (425) 452-9800 Fax: (425) 452-9801 - and - Steve W Berman, Esq. (steve@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1301 Fifth Avenue Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-7292 Fax: 206-623-0594 Representing the defendants are: David M. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson.david@dorsey.com) Dorsey & Whitney LLP - SEA U.S. Bank Center 1420 5th Avenue Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-903-8800 Fax: 206-903-8820 - and - Louis David Peterson, Esq. (ldp@hcmp.com) Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson 1221 Second Avenue Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 Phone: 206-623-1745 Fax: 206-623-7789 AXCELIS TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Del. Suit Over Sumitomo TakeOver Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Axcelis Technologies Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Delaware Chancery Court in Wilmington claiming that the company's directors breached their fiduciary duty by rejecting a $532-million takeover bid from Japanese firm Sumimoto Heavy Industries Ltd, various reports say. Reuters recounts that Sumitomo, earlier this month, made an unsolicited bid to buy Axcelis, which had rebuffed requests for merger talks for about 18 months. U.S. private equity firm TPG Group [TPG.UL] would be a minority partner with Sumitomo in making the bid. Bloomberg News cites Axcelis -- based in Beverly, Mass. -- as saying that it rejected Sumitomo's offer because it undervalues the company and its prospects for reclaiming market share. The deal was not in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, Axcelis said in a statement. Axcelis' revenue declined 27% from its peak in the fourth quarter of 2006 and the company recorded losses in the past two quarters. Shareholders then filed a class action lawsuit against the company, alleging that it did not act in the best interest of shareholders when it rejected the merger bid, the Boston Business Journal says. The lawsuit seeks a court order to force Axcelis "to engage in a proper process to maximize value for the class and enjoin defendants from unlawfully entrenching themselves in their positions of control." "In addition to painting Sumitomo as a predator seeking to take advantage of the company's vulnerable position . . . (Axcelis Chairman Mary) Puma reiterated the company's bright future prospects as an excuse for the board's entrenchment," the complaint says. Axcelis and its board "have not and are not exercising independent, fully informed business judgment and have acted and are acting to the detriment" of shareholders, the lawsuit contends. The lawsuit was filed by Axcelis shareholder Shirley Simon. The suit, however, did not detail how many shares Ms. Simon owns. CANADA: Faces Suit Over Abuse of Aboriginal Students ---------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been commenced against the Canadian federal government based on allegations of abuse of Aboriginal students at a residential school in Labrador, The Western Star reports. The lawsuit is seeking class action status. The lawsuit was filed with the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador by the firm Kiosk Minsky of Toronto as lead counsel, the report notes. Ches Crosbie Barristers is acting as local counsel. According to Western Star, the statement of claims targets Yale School in Northwest River which was established in 1948 and ceased operation as a residential school in 1979. The class action, however, extends to 1996. The school accommodated aboriginal children aged six to 16. "During the class period, children at the school were subjected to systemic child abuse, neglect and maltreatment. They were forcibly confined in the school and were systematically deprived of the essential components of a healthy childhood," the statement of claim alleges. "They were subjected to physical, emotional, psychological, cultural, spiritual and sexual abuse by those who were responsible for their well being." The claim further alleges that the Canadian government not only failed to respond appropriately or at all to disclosure of abuses, but "conspired" with the operators to suppress information about the abuses taking place at the school. "Canada knew, or ought to have known, that as a consequence of its mistreatment of children at the school, these plaintiffs and class members would suffer significant mental, emotional, psychological and spiritual harm which would adversely affect their relationships with the families and their communities," the statement of claim asserts. The complaint contends that the accommodations were crowded, cold and sub-standard and the children underfed and forbidden to speak their native language. The lawyers also say that the federal government failed to inspect or audit the school adequately or at all. "The funding provided by Canada was inadequate to meet the costs of operating and maintaining the school, and in particular, to meet the daily and educational needs of the students at the school," the complaint states. It also alleges that children were removed from their homes without the permission of their parents. The lawyers further assert that staff at the school were unskilled and unsuitable for dealing with children. The complaint, according to Western Star, named two students -- one attended the school from 1972-76 and the other, from 1969-77 -- who were not only abused physically and verbally, but were "repeatedly sexually abuse[d] by dorm supervisors, supposed caregivers and other students." The action seeks payment of more than $700 million in damages and seeks compensation for family members. CHINESE DAILY: $5.19-Million Award Granted in Overtime Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered The Chinese Daily News to pay an aggregate of $5.19 million to 200 employees who were denied years of overtime pay and subjected to other labor law violations, Rebecca Cathcart writes for The New York Times. NY Times recounts that employees at the Chinese Daily News have been fighting for fairness and a union voice since 2001 but had been blocked by a long management campaign of intimidation, illegal firings and other fear tactics. In 2004, the employees brought the class-action lawsuit charging that the paper withheld overtime pay and denied workers rest and meal breaks during shifts of 12 hours and longer. According to the employees' lawyer Randy Renick, Esq., the paper owes its employees overtime wages dating to 2000, adding that many employees who joined the suit "have either been fired or forced to quit." The NY Times explains that the $5.19-million award includes penalties for violating labor laws as well as 10% interest on the original $2.5-million award, which was granted by a jury in 2007. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Jan. 15, 2007, the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California awarded a minimum of $2.5 million to the workers at Chinese Daily News in Monterey Park, California, in relation to the newspaper's willful violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. The jury verdict in the class action suit found that Chinese Daily News violated California provisions on overtime pay and meal and rest periods, as well as the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit is "Lynne Wang et al. v. Chinese Daily News Inc et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-01498-CBM-JWJ," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, with referral to Judge Jeffrey W. Johnson. Representing defendants are: Steven D. Atkinson, Esq. (satkinson@aalrr.com) Scott K. Dauscher, Esq. (sdauscher@aalrr.com) Thomas A. Lenz, Esq. (tlenz@aalrr.com) Mark T. Palin, Esq. (mpalin@aalrr.com) Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo 17871 Park Plaza Dr, Ste 200 Cerritos, CA 90703-8597 Phone: 562-653-3200 Fax: 562-653-3333 Representing plaintiffs is: Randall R. Renick, Esq. Randall R Renick Law Offices 128 N Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 626-585-9608 Fax: 626-585-9610 ENDOSCOPY CENTER: NV Suit Accuses Clinic of Using Dirty Syringes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2008, with the District Court in Clark County, Nevada, accusing it of potentially exposing as many as 40,000 patients to HIV and hepatitis by treating them with used syringes over a four-year period, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiffs Michael Cordero and Richard Taylor claim that during the period from March 2004 until Jan. 11, 2008, Endo Center treated class members with dirty syringes that were previously exposed to unknown persons. A used syringe or dirty syringe is a defective product that is unfit for its intended use because the dirty syringe exposes persons to communicable disease from the prior person that the dirty syringe was used upon, the report notes. The plaintiffs bring the class action on behalf of of all other persons who were treated with dirty syringes previously used for unknown persons at the Endo Center during the time period. They want the court to rule on: (a) whether Endo Center had a common practice during the time periods March 2004 through Jan. 11, 2008, to re- use syringes for persons receiving needle injections; (b) whether a "dirty syringe" is a defective product; and (c) whether Endo Center distributed "dirty syringes." The plaintiffs ask the court to enter an order: -- directing payment of costs to be tested for Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV antibody; -- directing payment of general damages in excess of $10,000; -- directing payment of special damages in excess of $10,000; -- directing payment of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- directing payment of reasonable attorneys' fees; and -- directing payment of costs of suit. The suit is "Michael Cordero et al v. Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada, LLC, Case No. A558091," filed with the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. Representing plaintiffs is: Will Kemp, Esq. (hkj@hkj-law.com) Harrison, Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway Seventeenth Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 FAMILY DOLLAR: Recalls Magnetic Dart Boards Posing Risks to Kids ---------------------------------------------------------------- Family Dollar, of Charlotte, N.C., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 250,000 FUN 'N SAFE Magnetic Dart Boards. The company said small magnets at the ends of the darts can detach. Magnets found by young children can be swallowed or aspirated. If more than one magnet is swallowed, the magnets can attract each other and cause intestinal perforations or blockages, which can be fatal. No injuries have been reported. The magnetic dart board is about 15 inches wide with a black, white, green, and red bulls eye checkered design and was sold with six 4-inch long magnetic darts. The darts magnetically adhere to the dart board when thrown. "Made in China" is embossed on the back of the board. These recalled dart boards were made in China and were being sold exclusively at Family Dollar stores nationwide from January 2001 through January 2008 for about $5. A picture of the recalled dart board is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08201.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from children and return the board and all of the darts to a Family Dollar store for a refund. For additional information, contact Family Dollar at (800) 547- 0359 between 8:30 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.familydollar.com FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Calif. Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. The purported stockholder class action, titled "Danny McCasland, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman," was filed on Oct. 31, 2007, and names the company and certain of its current officers, including one officer who is a director, as defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed two other purported stockholder class actions with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under the captions: -- "Yuk Ling Lui, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman," and -- "Victor Albertazzi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FormFactor, Inc., Igor Y. Khandros, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman." The plaintiffs filed these actions following the Company's restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007. The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that the defendants knowingly issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results prior to the restatements. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, equitable relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The three actions have been consolidated. The consolidated suit is "McCasland v. Formfactor, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-05545-SI," filed with the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. (shawnw@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 100 Pine Street Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-288-4545 Fax: 415-288-4534 Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. (aplutzik@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 - and - Arthur L. Shingler, III, Esq. (ashingler@scott-scott.com) Scott + Scott, LLC 600 B. Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-233-4565 Fax: 619-233-0508 Representing the defendants is: Robert P. Varian, Esq. (rvarian@orrick.com) Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-773-5700 Fax: 415-773-5759 FORMFACTOR INC: Faces Stockholder Derivative Litigation in Del. --------------------------------------------------------------- FormFactor, Inc., is facing stockholder derivative lawsuits filed with the the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. The purported stockholder derivative action was filed on Nov. 19, 2007, and names the Company as a nominal defendant and certain of its directors and officers as defendants. The suit is captioned, "John King, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant FormFactor, Inc. v. Dr. Igor Y. Khandros, Dr. Homa Bahrami, Dr. Thomas J. Campbell, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Lothar Maier, James A. Prestridge, Harvey A. Wagner, Ronald C. Foster and Richard M. Freeman, and FormFactor, Inc." Subsequently, another plaintiff filed a second purported stockholder class action under the caption, "Joseph Priestley, Derivatively on Behalf of FormFactor, Inc. v. Igor Y. Khandros, Mario Ruscev, James A. Prestridge, Thomas J. Campbell, Harvey A. Wagner, G. Carl Everett, Jr., Homa Bahrami, Lothar Maier, William H. Davidow and Joseph R. Bronson, and FormFactor, Inc." The plaintiffs filed the actions following the Company's restatement of its financial statements for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2006, for each of the fiscal quarters for that year, and for the fiscal quarters ended March 31 and June 30, 2007. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated applicable law by issuing, and permitting the Company to issue, materially false, and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results prior to the restatements. The plaintiffs seek to recover monetary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. FormFactor, Inc. -- http://www.formfactor.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures, sells and supports precision semiconductor wafer probe cards. Semiconductor manufacturers use the Company�s wafer probe cards to perform wafer probe test on the whole wafer in the front end of the semiconductor manufacturing process. FormFactor offers products and solutions that are custom designed for semiconductor manufacturers� wafer designs. GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Lawsuit Over Anti-Depressant Medication -------------------------------------------------------------- Faith Gibson, a Surrey, Canada resident, launched a class-action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which manufactures Paxil, a commonly-used anti-depressant medication, CKNW reports. Ms. Gibson claims, in court documents, that she had been prescribed Paxil during and after her pregnancy, which resulted to her daughter Meah born with cardiovascular birth defects. The suit alleges Glaxo-Smith-Kline failed to notify pregnant women about the risks associated with the drug and suggests the company targeted pregnant women, who are often susceptible to depression. Based in Middlesex, England, GlaxoSmithKline plc creates and discovers, develops, manufactures and markets pharmaceutical products, including vaccines, over-the-counter medicines and health-related consumer products. HERCULES OFFSHORE: Still Faces Texas Lawsuit Over TODCO Purchase ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hercules Offshore, Inc., continues to face a consolidated lawsuit filed with the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, in relation to TODCO's proposed acquisition of the company. On March 19-20, 2007, two stockholder lawsuits were filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, both alleging that the board of directors of TODCO breached their fiduciary duties in approving the proposed acquisition of TODCO by Hercules Offshore, Inc. The first suit, pending in the 333rd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16397, is a purported stockholder class action against the TODCO directors, and contains claims for breach of fiduciary duty. The second suit, pending in the 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2007-16357, is a stockholder derivative action purportedly filed on behalf of TODCO against the TODCO directors and the company, and contains: -- claims for breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, good faith and/or fair dealing; -- corporate waste; -- unlawful self dealing; and -- claims that the defendants conspired, aided and abetted and assisted one another in a common plan to breach these fiduciary duties. Both complaints allege, among other things, that the TODCO directors engaged in self-dealing in approving the proposed acquisition by the Company by advancing their own personal interests or those of TODCO's senior management at the expense of the stockholders of TODCO, utilized a defective sales process not designed to maximize stockholder value, and failed to consider any value maximizing alternatives, thus causing TODCO stockholders to receive an unfair price for their shares of TODCO common stock. The second suit also alleges that the Company conspired, aided and abetted or assisted in these violations. The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition by the company, rescission if the acquisition is consummated, imposition of a constructive trust in favor of plaintiffs upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants, attorneys' fees and expenses associated with the lawsuit and any other equitable relief the court deems just and proper. On Aug. 29, 2007, the two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Hercules Offshore, Inc. -- http://www.herculesoffshore.com-- provides shallow-water drilling and liftboat services to the oil and natural gas exploration and production industry in the Gulf of Mexico, and internationally. MASTERCARD: 30 Million Credit Card Users Get Offer to Join Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- About 30 million credit card users have gotten a class action lawsuit offer in the mail, WQAD says. The class action offer first got plenty of people confused over its legitimacy because it requested credit card information, according to the report. However, the Better Business Bureau clarified that the offer is legitimate. According to WQAD, the offer stems from a lawsuit claiming that Mastercard, Visa and Diner's Club charged millions of people hidden fees when they used their credit card overseas or bought something from another country. Those people could now be eligible for money back if a settlement is approved. Anyone who used one of the credit cards overseas between 1996 and 2006 could get a refund of $25 or more, the report notes. For more information, log in to the settlement administrator Web site http://www.ccfsettlement.com/or call 1-800-954-9890. MUNIRE FURNITURE: Recalls Cribs Failing Safety Standards -------------------------------------------------------- Munire Furniture Inc., of Piscataway, N.J., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 24,000 Majestic Curved Top and Flat Top Cribs, Essex Cribs, Brighton/Sussex Cribs and Captiva Cribs. The company said the cribs fail to meet the federal safety standards for cribs. The four support brackets on the mattress support spring are too long. The brackets prevent the spring from lowering to the full 26 inch minimum height in its lowest position, allowing children inside to crawl over the railing, posing a fall hazard. No injuries have been reported. The cribs are wooden. The recalled cribs include: -- Majestic Curved Top cribs with model number 9500; -- Majestic Flat Top cribs with model number 9000; -- Essex cribs with model number 7100; -- Brighton/Sussex cribs with model number 9100 and -- Captiva cribs with model number 5100. Only cribs with manufacture dates between November 1, 2005, and November 1, 2007 are included in the recall. The crib model number is printed on the white label on the bottom inside of the right side rail. The crib manufacture date is printed on either the white label near the model number or on the white label located on the bottom of the headboard. Cribs with a green sticker on the mattress frame are not included in the recall. These recalled cribs were manufactured in Indonesia and were being sold at specialty juvenile product stores nationwide from November 2005 through November 2007 for between $400 and $600. Pictures of the recalled cribs are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202d.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08202e.jpg Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled cribs and contact Munire Furniture to receive replacement spring brackets. For additional information, contact Munire Furniture Inc. at (866) 586-9639 between 8:00 a.m. And 6:00 p.m. ET or visit the firm's Web site: http://www.munirefurniture.com ONEOK INC: Kans. Court Favors Defendants in Appeal of Nev. Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of ONEOK, Inc. and several of its subsidiaries on an appeal in two separate class actions filed against them by owners of residential real estate in Reno County, Kansas relating to certain gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kansas. In early 2001, two separate class actions were filed against the defendants in connection to gas explosions in Hutchinson, Kansas. The suits, which were both filed with the District Court of Reno County, Kansas, are: -- "Loyd Smith, et al v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., Western Resources, Inc., Mid Continent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., and ONEOK Gas Transportation, L.L.C., Case No. 01-C-0029," and -- "Gilley et al. v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Western Resources, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., ONEOK Gas Transportation L.L.C. and Mid Continent Market Center, Inc., Case No. 01-C-0057." The court certified two separate classes of claimants, which included all owners of residential real estate in Reno County, Kansas, whose property had allegedly declined in value, and owners of businesses in Reno County whose income had allegedly suffered. Both cases were adjudicated in September 2004 and resulted in jury verdicts. In the class action relating to the residential claimants, the jury awarded $5 million in actual damages, which was covered by insurance. In the business owners' class action, the jury rendered a defense verdict awarding no actual damages. The jury rejected claims for punitive damages in both cases. In a separate hearing on the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, the court awarded $2,047,406 in fees and $646,090.78 in expenses, which was also covered by insurance. On April 11, 2005, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial and denied a post-trial motion filed by the defendants. The business-class plaintiffs and residential-class plaintiffs filed notices of appeal. The company filed a notice of appeal of the residential class action verdict and the attorney fee award. The cases were transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court. On Oct. 26, 2007, the Kansas Supreme Court issued unanimous opinions on the appeals of the class action verdicts. The Court: -- affirmed the no-damage verdict in favor of defendants in the Gilley business class, and -- reversed the $5 million actual damage verdict and $2.6 million attorneys fees and costs awarded to the Smith residential class, with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendants. The plaintiffs' rights to file a motion for a rehearing expired without them taking any action, and the Court's judgment was entered as directed on Dec. 20, 2007. This case and all other cases regarding the gas explosions have been fully resolved, according to ONEOK, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. ONEOK, Inc. -- http://www.oneok.com-- purchases, gathers, processes, transports, stores and distributes natural gas. The Company�s largest distribution markets are Oklahoma City and Tulsa, Oklahoma; Kansas City, Wichita, and Topeka, Kansas, and Austin and El Paso, Texas. Its energy services operation is engaged in wholesale and retail natural gas marketing and trading activities, and provides services to customers in many states and Canada. The Company is the sole general partner and owns 45.7% of ONEOK Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, which gathers, processes, stores, and transports natural gas in the U.S., and owns a natural gas liquids (NGLs) system that connects much of the NGL supply in the Mid-Continent region with key market centers. The Company has four business segments: ONEOK Partners, Distribution, Energy Services and Other. ONEOK PARTNERS: Court Mulls Class Certification in Price I, II -------------------------------------------------------------- The 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County, Kansas has yet to rule on the certification of a class in a consolidated lawsuit against several subsidiaries of ONEOK Partners, L.P., according to ONEOK, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The consolidated suits are: -- "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., Case No. Case No. 99C30 (Price I) (f/k/a Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al.);" and -- "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case No. 03C232 (Price II)." The plaintiffs in Price I brought the suit on May 28, 1999, against MidContinent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Field Services Co., ONEOK WesTex Transmission, L.P., and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, L.P., formerly Koch Hydrocarbon, LP -- all of which were recently acquired by the company -- as well as approximately 225 other defendants. The plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims that the defendants had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners throughout the U.S. by intentionally understating both the volume and the heating content of purchased gas. After extensive briefing and a hearing, the court refused to certify the class sought by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then filed an amended petition limiting the purported class to gas producers and royalty owners in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and limiting the claim to under measurement of volumes. They are seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005, on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action. The court has not yet ruled on the class certification issue. The plaintiffs filed Price II on May 12, 2003, after the court denied class status in Price I. The plaintiffs claim that 21 groups of defendants, including MidContinent Market Center, ONEOK Field Services, ONEOK WesTex Transmission, and ONEOK Hydrocarbon, intentionally underpaid gas producers and royalty owners by understating the heating content of purchased gas in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. Price II has been consolidated with Price I for the determination of whether either or both cases may properly be certified as class actions. The plaintiffs in this suit are also seeking an unspecified amount of damages. Like Price I, oral argument was conducted on April 1, 2005, in relation to the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action. The court has not yet ruled on the class certification issue. ONEOK Partners, L.P., -- http://www.oneok.com� formerly Northern Border Partners L.P., owns and manages natural gas gathering, processing, storage, interstate and intrastate pipeline assets, natural gas liquids (NGLs) gathering and distribution pipelines, and storage and fractionators, connecting much of the natural gas and NGL supply in the Mid- Continent region with various market centers. The Company operates through four segments: Gathering and Processing segment, Natural Gas Liquids segment, Pipelines and Storage segment and Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines segment. PFIZER INC: N.Y. Court Dismisses Torcetrapib-Related Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a class-action securities complaint against Pfizer Inc., whose share price dropped by 11 percent after it suspended testing of its anti-cholesterol drug torcetrapib late in 2006, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to court documents, on Dec. 26, 2006, Pfizer announced that it was halting clinical trials of the developmental drug torcetrapib. By close of the next trading day, the price of Pfizer common stock had declined by 10.62%. The plaintiffs then brought a class action against Pfizer and three of its current and former officers and directors. They seek recovery against defendants under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Recently, Judge Kaplan found that the lead plaintiffs -- the Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association Accrual Fund -- "have not pleaded with particularity facts sufficient to support their allegation that defendants' statements were materially misleading." The suit is "In Re: Pfizer, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 06 Civ. 14199(LAK)," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. PFIZER INC: Throws Questions About Celebrex and Bextra RX Bills --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc. last month asked Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn to compel plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the company to provide answers to certain questions relating to the prescription of painkillers Celebrex and Bextra, The Madison St. Clair Record recounts. However, class action attorney Stephen Tillery, Esq., won't tell Pfizer who prescribed the pills for his clients or who paid for the pills. "Complete pharmacy records are vital to discovering the details of plaintiffs' use of Celebrex and Bextra and are relevant to plaintiffs' claim that they have been injured due to the prescription and purchase of Celebrex and Bextra," Pfizer's attorney, Robert Shultz, Esq., wrote. According to Mr. Shultz, Mr. Tillery has refused to produce information about how much the plaintiffs or their insurers paid for the pills. Mr. Tillery also has not produced records of the doses that doctors prescribed or the number of pills the plaintiffs took, as well as did not divulge whether any client sought a refund or received one. Madison Record recounts that Mr. Tillery sued Pfizer in 2005, on behalf of Ricky Lott, Gerald Sumner, Sandy Becker and Mike Baldwin. He alleged that Pfizer deceptively promoted Celebrex and Bextra as superior to other non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The plaintiffs, Madison Record notes, claim economic injury. They seek damages equal to the difference between what they paid and what they would have paid if they had known the truth about the drugs. Pfizer served questions on the plaintiffs in September and requested production of documents. In December, Mr. Shultz wrote, Mr. Tillery objected to most of the requests and provided less than 20 pages of heavily redacted pharmacy records. Mr. Tillery claimed physician-patient privilege and a constitutional right to privacy. However, Mr. Shultz responded in his motion that the right to privacy "does not protect against disclosure of medical information relevant to a plaintiff's claim." He said that "Pfizer is entitled to investigate the decisions of plaintiffs' prescribing physicians in order to respond to plaintiffs' claims. . ." Noting that Mr. Tillery alleges deception in advertising, Mr. Shultz argued that the influence of advertising on physicians was directly relevant. "Plaintiffs have not completely answered whether they or their physician saw any allegedly misleading advertisements or promotional materials . . . Plaintiffs merely state that they 'recall seeing' advertisements either in television or magazines, but fail to describe the date and substance of any advertising and fail to state how they were misled in any way," Mr. Schultz wrote. According to Madison Record, Mr. Shultz seeks to learn about reasons why doctors prescribed Celebrex and Bextra, the responses of the patients, and other medicines they took. He also wants to know what physicians told patients about the pills. The report notes that Judge Mendelsohn has tentatively set an April 22 hearing on Mr. Tillery's motion to certify a class action. But first, the judge will hold hearings on a Pfizer motion to transfer the case to Cook County and a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen Tillery, Esq. (stillery@koreintillery.com) Korein Tillery LLC Gateway on the Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 241-4844 Fax: (314) 588-7036 The defendant is represented by: Robert H. Shultz, Jr. (rshultz@hrva.com) Heyl Royster Voelker & Allen PC 103 West Vandalia, Suite 100, P.O. Box 467 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: 618-656-4646 Fax: 618-656-7940 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Iowa -------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Life Insurance Co., a unit of Principal Financial Group, Inc., continues to a face a purported class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, alleging violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. A trustee of Fairmount Park Inc. Retirement Savings Plan filed the purported class action over allegations that the company received secret kickbacks from mutual funds. Originally, the putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Nov. 8, 2006. The suit alleges, among other things, that Principal Life breached its alleged fiduciary duties while performing services to 401(k) plans by failing to disclose, or adequately disclose, to employers or plan participants the fact that Principal Life receives "revenue sharing fees from mutual funds that are included in its pre-packaged 401(k) plans" and allegedly failed to use the revenue to defray the expenses of the services provided to the plans. The plaintiff further alleges that these acts constitute prohibited transactions under Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The plaintiff seeks to certify a class of all retirement plans to which Principal Life was a service provider and for which Principal Life received and retained "revenue sharing" fees from mutual funds. The plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief. Principal Life's Motion to Transfer Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa was granted. It is aggressively defending the lawsuit. The suit is "Ruppert v. Principal Life Insurance Company, Case No. 4:07-cv-00344-HDV-TJS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Judge Harold D. Vietor presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Klint L. Bruno, Esq. (kbruno@koreintillery.com) Korein Tillery 209 South LaSalle, Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-759-7510 Representing the defendant is: Joel S. Feldman, Esq. (jfeldman@sidley.com) Sidley, Austin et al. 10 South Dearborn Street, Bank One Plaza Chicago, IL 60603 Pone: 312-853-7000 Fax: 312-853-7036 PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Remaining Suit in Iowa -------------------------------------------------------------- Principal Financial Group, Inc., and Princor Financial Services Corp. are seeking for the dismissal of sole remaining lawsuit that was filed against them in Iowa. Initially, two purported class actions -- one alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the other alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 -- were filed against the defendants. On Aug. 28, 2007, two plaintiffs filed two putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against the company and Princor Financial (Principal Defendants). One of the lawsuits alleges that the Principal Defendants breached alleged fiduciary duties to participants in employer- sponsored 401(k) plans who were retiring or leaving their respective plans, including providing misleading information and failing to act solely in the interests of the participants, resulting in alleged violations of ERISA. The second suit is based upon the same facts and alleges violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The allegations of the second suit include alleged omissions and misrepresentations by the Principal Defendants related to mutual fund shares purchased by plan participants rolling out of employer-sponsored retirement plans. The Plaintiffs dismissed the second suit which was based upon the same facts and alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The defendants have filed a request to dismiss the remaining lawsuit, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Principal Financial Group, Inc. -- http://www.principal.com-- is a provider of retirement savings, investment and insurance products and services. R&G FINANCIAL: Settles Securities, Derivative Litigation in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- R&G Financial Corporation has reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims with the lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action originally filed in 2005. Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice being provided to the class and final approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the Company and the other settling defendants will pay the plaintiffs an aggregate of $39 million. The Company also announced that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the shareholder derivative litigation filed against the Company in 2005. The derivative settlement is also subject to notice and approval from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In connection with these settlements, the Company agreed to certain corporate governance enhancements which will, among other things, impose additional director independence requirements. As part of the global settlement, the Company will pay approximately $29 million and the Company's insurers and certain individual defendants will pay an aggregate of approximately $11 million. "I am pleased with the settlement that we reached with the plaintiffs," said Rolando Rodriguez, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company. "Today is another significant step in our efforts to fully address our pending legal and regulatory matters." The Company had been in discussions, led by a mediator, with the lead plaintiffs and the derivative plaintiffs regarding a settlement. Case Background On May 26, 2005, investors sued R&G Financial claiming that the financial holding company issued false and misleading financial statements to the investing public. The class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased R&G common stock from April 21, 2003, through and including April 25, 2005. The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. According to the complaint, R&G's financial statements were materially false and misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose: -- that the company's earnings quality had been significantly weakened by the company's use of more aggressive assumptions to generate gain on sale income, as well as to the value it retained in its interest only residuals in securitization transactions; -- that R&G's methodology used to calculate the fair value of its IO residual interests was incorrect and caused the company to overstate its financial results by at least $50 million; -- that the company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; -- that the company lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial condition of the company; and -- that as a result, the value of the company's net income and financial results were materially overstated at all relevant times. On April 25, 2005, after the close of trading, R&G shocked the investing public when it announced that it would restate its earnings for 2003 and 2004. On this news, R&G stock fell $8.14 per share, or 35 percent, to close at $15.04 on April 26, 2005, a two-year low. On June 27, 2005, competing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel were filed with court. Judge John Sprizzo heard oral arguments on July 25, 2005 and, on July 26, 2005 signed an Order consolidating all related cases into one class action, as "In re R&G Financial Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 05 Civ. 4186 (JES)," and appointing lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, according to an update posted by at the Web site of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2006). SILICON IMAGE: Ninth Circuit Hears Appeal in Calif. Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues to hear an appeal in connection with the dismissal of the fourth consolidated amended securities fraud complaint in a purported class action against Silicon Image, Inc. The lawsuit, "Curry v. Silicon Image, Inc., Steve Tirado, and Robert Gargus," was filed on Jan. 31, 2005, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case was filed on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from Oct. 19, 2004 to Jan. 24, 2005. The suit asserts that the company and certain of its officers and directors made alleged misstatements of material facts and violated certain provisions of Sections 20(a) and 10(b) of the U.S. Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On April 27, 2005, the court issued an order appointing a lead plaintiff and approving the selection of lead counsel. In July 2005, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which dropped Robert Gargus, but added Dr. David Lee as individual defendant. The consolidated amended complaint also expanded the class period from June 25, 2004 to April 22, 2005. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in September 2005. On Dec. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint, which extended the end of the class period from April 22, 2005, to Oct. 13, 2005, and added additional factual allegations under the same causes of action against the company, Mr. Tirado and Dr. Lee. The complaint also added a new plaintiff, James D. Smallwood. The defendants, on Feb. 9, 2006, filed a motion to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint. This request was granted by the court on June 21, 2006, with leave to amend. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a third consolidated amended complaint (by the court established deadline of July 21, 2006), which the defendants again sought to be dismissed. Subsequently, on Feb. 23, 2007, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs filed a fourth consolidated amended complaint, which was again dismissed by the court at the defendants' behest, without further leave to amend. Final judgment was entered in favor of the defendants on Sept. 25, 2007. On Oct. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal of the court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellants' opening brief was due on Feb. 28, 2008, and the company's answer is due on or before April 14, 2008, according to the company's Feb. 27, 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 Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:05-cv-00456-MMC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Judge Maxine M. Chesney. Representing the plaintiffs are: Aaron H. Darsky Esq. (adarsky@schubert-reed.com) Schubert & Reed, LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-788-4220 Fax: 415-788-0161 Merrick Scott Rayle, Esq. (mrayle@lshllp.com) Lovell Stewart Halebian, LLP 212 Wood Street Pacific Grove, CA 93950-3227 Phone: 831-333-0309 Fax: 831-333-0325 - and - Richard A. Speirs, Esq. (rspeirs@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Phone: 212-223-3900 Representing the defendants is: Emmett C. Stanton, Esq. (estanton@fenwick.com) Fenwick & West, LLP Silicon Valley Center, 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041-2008 Phone: 650-988-8500 Fax: 650-938-5200 SOLUTIA INC: Class Certified in Consolidated Pension Plan Case -------------------------------------------------------------- A class was certified in a consolidated lawsuit that claims Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their age, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Since October 2005, current or former participants in the Solutia Inc. Employees' Pension Plan have filed three class actions alleging that the Pension Plan is discriminatory based upon age and that the lump sum values of individual account balances in the Pension Plan have been, and continue to be, miscalculated. Two of these cases are: -- "Davis, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan," and -- "Hammond, et al. v. Solutia, Inc. Employees' Pension Plan." The two are still pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Those two cases have been consolidated with similar cases against Monsanto Co., and Monsanto Company Pension Plan, and Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, Pharmacia Corp., Pharmacia and Upjohn, Inc., and Pfizer Inc. Those two cases that were consolidated with the Solutia suits are: -- "Walker et al. v. The Monsanto Pension Plan, et al." and -- "Donaldson v. Pharmacia Cash Balance Pension Plan, et al." The plaintiffs seek to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief (including money damages awarded by the creation of a common fund) on behalf of themselves and the nationwide putative class of similarly situated current and former participants in the Pension Plan. A Consolidated Class Action Complaint was filed by all of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case on Sept. 4, 2006. The Complaint alleged three separate causes of action against the Pension Plan: -- the Pension Plan violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by terminating interest credits on prior plan accounts at the age of 55; -- the Pension Plan is improperly backloaded in violation of ERISA; and -- the Pension Plan is discriminatory on the basis of age. In September 2007, the second and third of these claims were dismissed by the court. By consent of the parties, the court certified a class in September 2007 with respect to the Pension Plan on the plaintiffs' claim that the Pension Plan discriminated against employees on the basis of their age by only providing interest credits on prior plan accounts through age 55. Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals, heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers. Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a lesser extent, by using distributors. SOLUTIA INC: Parties Settle N.Y. Lawsuits Over SIP Plan ------------------------------------------------------- Parties in two purported class actions against current and former officials of Solutia Inc. have reached a settlement in the cases, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Two companion purported class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suits are: -- "Dickerson v. Feldman et al., Case No. 1:04-cv- 07935-LAP," filed in October 2004; and -- "Reiff v. Metz, Case No. 07-06011," filed in June 2007. The suits were filed against a number of defendants, including Solutia's former officers and employees and the Solutia Employee Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee. The company was not named as a defendant. The actions alleged breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA and sought to recover alleged losses to the Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan during the period December 16, 1998, to the date the action was filed. The plaintiffs in both cases alleged the investment of SIP Plan assets in our common stock was imprudent, and the actions sought monetary payment to the SIP Plan to recover the losses resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well as injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, costs and interest. In addition, the plaintiffs in these actions filed a proof of claim for $269 million against the company. In December 2007, the company, the named defendants, and the plaintiffs reached a global settlement in principle which would resolve the Dickerson and Reiff lawsuits on a class wide basis. Solutia, Inc. -- http://www.solutia.com/-- together with its subsidiaries is a global manufacturer and marketer of a variety of high-performance, chemical-based materials, which are used in a range of consumer and industrial applications. Solutia has two segments. The Performance Products segment manufactures performance films for laminated safety glass and after-market applications and specialties, such as water treatment chemicals, heat transfer fluids and aviation hydraulic fluid. The Integrated Nylon segment consists of an integrated family of nylon products, including high-performance polymers and fibers. Solutia sells its products directly to end users in various industries, principally by using its own sales force, and, to a lesser extent, by using distributors. SPRINT NEXTEL: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Billing for Roaming Charges --------------------------------------------------------------- Sprint Nextel Corporation is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 28 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York accusing it of billing for roaming charges despite promising that subscribers to its PCS International Plan would not incur those charges, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Andrey Torkiver claims that the defendant failed to disclose to consumers that Sprint customers who subscribed to Sprint PCS International would incur substantial roaming charges while traveling internationally. This civil action is brought as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b) and (c)(4)(b) and case law thereunder, on behalf of all wireless subscribers to Sprint PCS International Plans, from inception of these plans to present, who were charged and paid international roaming fees. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant breached its contracts with the class members by charging their standard international roaming fees despite their express representation that Sprint PCS International Plan was to minimize these charges substantially; (b) whether defendant violated Section 349 of the New York General Business Law, in that they engaged in deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of their business; (c) whether defendant violated Gen. Bus. L., Section 350 by engaging in false advertising in the conduct of their businesses; (d) whether defendant engaged in unfair, deceptive and/or misleading practices when it concealed the fact that the class members would incur international roaming charges for calls made outside of the Sprint network notwithstanding their enrollment in Sprint PCS International Plans; (e) whether defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of plaintiff and the class; (f) whether defendant acted negligently, as alleged; (g) whether plaintiff and the class are entitled to restitution of all monies acquired by defendant from plaintiff and the class and the general public as a result of defendant's unlawful conduct, and if so, the appropriate measure of damages; (h) the appropriate form of injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief. The plaintiff demands judgment as follows: -- compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, together with interest; -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; -- for an order awarding plaintiff and the class restitution of all monies acquired by defendant from plaintiff, the class, and the general public, as a result of defendant's wrongful practices; -- for an order awarding the plaintiff and the class pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, as well as their reasonable attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs; -- for an order imposing a constructive trust upon all monies and assets defendant has acquired from plaintiffs and the class as a result of defendant's unlawful, unfair, fraudulent and deceptive practices; -- for an order awarding plaintiffs and the class equitable and declaratory relief, as the court deems appropriate; and -- for an order awarding such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "Andrey Torkiver et al v. Sprint Nextel Corporation et al., Case No. 08 852," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Representing the plaintiffs is: Marina Trubitsky, Esq. Marina Trubitsky & Associates, PLLC 11 Broadway, Suite 861 New York, New York 10004 Phone: (212) 732-7707 T-MOBILE USA: Faces Calif. Suit Over $18 "Upgrade Fee" Charges -------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile USA, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging it charges customers an $18 "upgrade fee" for new wireless phones, without disclosing it until the next bill comes, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Philip Martinet claims that the fee: (i) was not disclosed by T-Mobile's sales representatives at the time the subscribers obtain new phones or handsets; (ii) was not charged at the time of the sale; and (iii) appears as a line item charge on the customer's next T- Mobile invoice. The Plaintiff brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 on behalf of T-Mobile subscribers in the United States assessed an $18 "upgrade fee" for obtaining new wireless telephones and handsets. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether T-Mobile breached its contracts with the members of the class; (b) whether T-Mobile charged class members fees in violation of the contracts between T-Mobile and the members of the class; and (c) whether T-Mobile violated California Civil Code Section 1750 et seq., California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. and Section 17500 et seq., and similar consumer statutes in other states as alleged. The plaintiff seeks: -- an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of the class; -- restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to plaintiff and members of the class; -- damages according to proof; -- costs of suit; -- both pre- and post-judgment interest on any and all amounts awarded; -- an award of treble or punitive damages under applicable law; -- an award of attorney's fees appropriate pursuant to the provisions of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and other similar states' statutory provisions; and -- declaratory judgment and injunctive relief declaring any and all mandatory arbitration clauses and class action waiver of rights to participation in contracts and terms and conditions of service as unconstitutional, unconscionable and unenforceable and enjoining enforcement thereof. The suit is "Philip Martinet et al v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 08CV381," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Representing plaintiffs are: Joseph G. Dicks, Esq. (jdicks@dicks-workmanlaw.com) Linda G. Workman, Esq. (lworkman@dicks-workmanlaw.com) Dicks & Workman, APC 750 B Street, Suite 2720 San Diego, California 92101 Phone: (619) 685-6800 Fax: (619) 557-2735 VISHAY INTERTECHNOLOGY: Ninth Circuit Mulls Appeal in "Proctor" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal in the purported class action captioned "Proctor et al v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 04134-JF," in connection with a permanent injunction restraining the plaintiffs from prosecuting the case. Following Vishay's Feb. 22, 2001 announcement of a proposed tender offer for the publicly-held shares of Siliconix, 12 separate class and derivative actions were filed with California and Delaware state courts against Vishay, Siliconix, and various officers and directors of both companies. In August 2002, purported shareholder Rebecca Proctor filed a complaint with the California Superior Court against, among others, the Vishay Defendants. The complaint purported to bring direct and derivative causes of action solely based on Vishay's supposed misappropriation of Siliconix sales subsidiaries. In January 2005, an amended class action complaint was filed with the Superior Court of California on behalf of all non- Vishay stockholders of Siliconix against Vishay, Ernst & Young LLP (the independent registered public accounting firm that audits the Company's financial statements), Dr. Felix Zandman, Executive Chairman and Chief Technical and Business Development Officer of Vishay, and as a nominal defendant, Siliconix. The suit made various claims against Vishay and the other defendants for actions allegedly taken in respect of Siliconix during the period when Vishay owned an 80.4% interest in Siliconix. It sought injunctive relief and unspecified damages. In May 2005, Vishay successfully completed a tender offer to acquire all shares of Siliconix that were not already owned by Vishay. Following the announcement of Vishay's intent to make the tender offer, several purported class-action complaints were filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery. These actions were consolidated into a single class action and a settlement agreement was reached with the plaintiffs, who effectively represented all non-Vishay stockholders of Siliconix. The settlement agreement was approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery in October 2005. The Proctor plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with the Superior Court of California in November 2005. In June 2006, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued a permanent injunction restraining the Proctor plaintiffs from prosecuting the Proctor action. An appeal of the injunction order brought by a former stockholder of Siliconix was dismissed by the Delaware Supreme Court in January 2007. Also in June 2006, the Proctor litigation was removed from the Superior Court of California to federal District Court there. The District Court granted a motion by Ernst & Young to dismiss the complaint and a motion by Vishay for summary judgment, effective Oct. 15, 2007. The Proctor plaintiffs thereafter filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is pending, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Proctor et al v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-04134-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Judge Jeremy Fogel presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Joseph H. C. Wood, Esq. (jhcwlaw@yahoo.com) Attorney at Law 425 California Street Nineteenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2296 Phone: 415-421-6100 Fax: 415-421-1815 Representing the defendants are: Daniel H. Bookin, Esq. (dbookin@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP 275 Battery Street, 25th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8786 Fax: (415) 984-8701 Alan R. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@kramerlevin.com) Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212-715-9100 Fax: 212-715-8000 - and - Patrick Edward Gibbs, Esq. (patrick.gibbs@lw.com) Latham & Watkins LLP 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: 650-328-4600 Fax: 650-463-2600 WORLDCOM INC: Carbon County Gets $49,000 as Settlement for Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon County's lawsuit against WorldCom Inc. has been settled for $49,000, The Morning Call says. Commissioners at a county Retirement Board meeting were told by county Controller Robert Crampsie that Carbon got a $49,000 settlement from the class action lawsuit against WorldCom as a result of stock losses associated with what Mr. Crampsie called the largest corporate fraud scandal in the United States. Morning Call points out that a total of $6.1 billion was awarded to thousands who joined the suit. However, Mr. Crampsie said, the county's award amounts to just 5% of what the county lost as a result of the stocks. According to the report, Carbon County officials had initially aimed to regain $970,000 in retirement funds lost to the WorldCom accounting scandal. Authorities said that WorldCom executives inflated revenue. Carbon County's pension plans had held stock in the company. Carbon was among public entities that in 2003 asked the federal government to help them recoup the money, but were told they would have to sue on their own, Morning Call recounts. The same year, the collapse of Texas energy trading company Enron cost the county $327,000. YAHOO! INC: Still Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. continues to face two purported securities fraud class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On May 11, 2007, the first of two purported securities class actions was filed against Yahoo! and certain of its officers and members of the board of directors. The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiff Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky, under the caption, "Ellen Rosenthal Brodsky v. Yahoo! Inc. et al., Case No. 2:2007cv03125." The second lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiff Manfred Hacker, under the caption, "Manfred Hacker v. Yahoo! Inc et al., Case No. 2:2007cv03902." The plaintiffs in both cases allege, among other things, violation of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 sections 10(b) and 20(a), as well as Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs generally claim that Yahoo! issued false, deceptive or misleading statements concerning its advertising business, financial results, and sales and growth potential between April 8, 2004, and July 18, 2006. The complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet brand. To its global users, it provides owned and operated online properties and services. To its advertisers, it provides tools and marketing solutions. Many of Yahoo!'s services are free to its users. YAHOO! INC: Faces Calif. Stockholder Suits Over Microsoft Offer --------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. faces several purported class actions that were filed with the California Superior Court, Santa Clara County in connection to Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited proposal to acquire the company, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Since Feb. 1, 2008, four separate shareholder lawsuits have been filed against Yahoo!, members of the Board of Directors and selected former officers by plaintiffs Edward Fritsche, the Thomas Stone Trust, Tom Turberg and the Congregation Beth Aaron. The plaintiffs in the California Lawsuits purport to assert class claims on behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except defendants and their affiliates. In addition, certain of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert shareholder derivative claims on behalf of Yahoo!. The complaints allege that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties in connection with Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo!. The plaintiffs in two of the lawsuits allege that Microsoft's Feb. 1, 2008 unsolicited proposal to acquire Yahoo! is inadequate and that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties by favoring Microsoft's unsolicited proposal. The plaintiffs in the other Lawsuits allege that the Yahoo! Board of Directors breached fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to negotiate a transaction with Microsoft or other potential bidders in the past and presently. The complaints in the California Lawsuits seek declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet brand. To its global users, it provides owned and operated online properties and services. To its advertisers, it provides tools and marketing solutions. Many of Yahoo!'s services are free to its users. YAHOO! INC: Faces Del. Stockholder Lawsuits Over Microsoft Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Inc. faces several purported class actions that were filed with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in connection to Microsoft Corp.'s unsolicited proposal to acquire the company, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Since Feb. 11, 2008, three separate shareholder lawsuits have been filed against Yahoo! Inc., and the members of the company's Board of Directors by these plaintiffs: -- The Wayne County Employees' Retirement System, -- Ronald Dicke, and -- The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit along with The General Retirement System of the City of Detroit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to assert class claims on behalf of all Yahoo! stockholders, except defendants and their affiliates. The plaintiffs generally allege that defendants breached fiduciary duties by rejecting Microsoft Corp.'s Feb. 1, 2008 unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! Inc. without fully informing themselves whether Microsoft would offer additional consideration and that defendants are not acting in the best interests of shareholders and are seeking to entrench themselves. One of the Delaware Lawsuits alleges that the Board of Directors have pursued various blocking transactions, adopted an employee severance plan, and a shareholder rights plan in violation of fiduciary duties. The complaints in the Delaware Lawsuits seek unspecified damages, declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as well as an award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. Yahoo! Inc. -- http://www.yahoo.com-- is a global Internet brand. To its global users, it provides owned and operated online properties and services. To its advertisers, it provides tools and marketing solutions. Many of Yahoo!'s services are free to its users. New Securities Fraud Cases AMBAC FINANCIAL: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. filed a class action suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. between October 19, 2005, and January 15, 2008, inclusive against Ambac and certain of its officers and directors for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company issued materially false and misleading statements about Ambac's business and financial results and materially misrepresented, inter alia, its exposure to collateralized debt obligations and subprime mortgages. It is also alleged that defendants failed to mark down the Company's CDO and other mortgage-backed security assets in a timely manner, resulting in the Company issuing materially false and misleading financial statements and results. Moreover, it is alleged that certain executives of the Company reaped millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of Ambac shares during the Class Period at artificially inflated prices. It is also alleged that on January 16, 2008, Ambac announced its preliminary fourth quarter 2007 results which included an estimated net loss of $3.4 billion for the fourth quarter, including an approximate $1.1 billion loss that was attributed to CDOs backed by subprime mortgages. As a result, it is alleged the price of Ambac stock plummeted on January 16, 2008, to close at $12.97 per share, a 38% decline from the prior day close. If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court no later than March 17, 2008 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: Karen H. Riebel, Esq. (khriebel@locklaw.com) Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: (612) 339-6900 SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of securities of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. between October 30, 2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges SiRF and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. SiRF develops and markets semiconductor and software products that are designed to enable location- awareness utilizing Global Positioning System and other location technologies. The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business relationships, and prospects. Specifically, the defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that there were not sufficient amounts of orders by major customers to meet the targets set by the Company; (2) that SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. and its system- on-chip product line would result in overall lower margins and would adversely affect SiRF's existing product line, resulting in lower gross margins for the Company's products; (3) that SiRF was not adequately equipped to deal with competition from other companies offering superior technology, specifically with regard to cellular- enabled products; (4) that SiRF was being forced to decrease prices due to market pressures, which would adversely affect earnings and lead to lower gross margins going forward; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On February 4, 2008, the Company shocked investors when it announced an 89% year over year decrease in fourth quarter profits. For fourth quarter 2007, the Company reported net income of $0.7 million, as compared to $9.1 million in net income for fourth quarter 2006. Further, the Company stated that its net loss for fiscal 2007 was $10.4 million, as compared to net income of $2.4 million for fiscal 2006. Additionally, the Company gave a "miserable outcome" for the first quarter, predicting a loss of 4 cents per share. Upon the release of this news, the Company's shares fell $8.91 per share, or 54.76 percent, to close on February 5, 2008 at $7.36 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. 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) or 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com SUNOPTA INC: Scott+Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott+Scott LLP filed a class action against SunOpta Inc. and certain officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The action is on behalf of those purchasing SunOpta common stock during the period beginning August 8, 2007, to January 25, 2008, inclusive, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements and material omissions regarding the Company's reported earnings and that, as a result, the price of the Company's securities was inflated during the Class Period, thereby harming investors. According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's reported earnings. In addition, among other things, defendants falsely stated that the Company's internal controls were adequate and that the Company's financial statements were prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. As a result, on January 24, 2008, Defendants informed shareholders that "significant issues" would cause the Company to write down $12 to $14 million pre-tax. In addition, Defendants' disclosed that the Company's quarterly and annual financial statements for the fiscal year 2007 could no longer be relied upon and that it would likely be required to restate its financial statements for previous quarters. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 28, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Scott+Scott, LLP Phone: (800) 404-7770 or (860) 537-5537 e-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Eric J. O'Bell Files LA Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC filed a class action lawsuit against Superior Offshore International Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company in connection with Superior Offshore's Initial Public Offering on or about April 20, 2007, or who purchased shares thereafter through January 9, 2008. The complaint charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with making a series of materially false and misleading statements in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, violation of the Securities Act of 1933. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 28, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Eric J. O'Bell, Esq. (ejo@obelllawfirm.com) Law Offices of Eric J. O'Bell, LLC 3500 North Hullen Street Metairie, Louisiana 70002 Phone: 504-456-8677 Fax: 504-456-8624 ********* 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 * * *