/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080305.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 5, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 46
Headlines
ALCOA: Erin Brockovich Leads West Australia Anti-Pollution Suit
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Continues to Face Wash. Suit for "Overbilling"
BLUE CROSS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Minnesota
BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suit by Pallet Recyclers
BRONCO DRILLING: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Sale to Allis Chalmers
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit by Malibu Fire Victims Looms
CANADA: Faces Environmental Suit Over Toxic Dump at Labrador
CAREER EDUCATION: Sued Over Criminal Justice College Degrees
CONNECTICUT: Judge Favors with Greenwich in Beach Access Suit
DATA RETURN: Faces Employee Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Lease Fees
DONJOY INC: Faces Suit Filed by Canadians Injured by Pain Pumps
GEORGIA: Ex-Teachers Granted Back Pay in Retirement System Suit
GEORGIA NATURAL GAS: Overcharged Customers Commence Lawsuit
GNG PHARMA: Reaches Settlement in Airborne Dietary Drug Lawsuit
HERBALIFE INT'L: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Minton" Case
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Settles TCPA Lawsuit for $7 Million
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Del. Suit Over UGC Merger
MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Vanilla Ice Cream Over Undeclared Pecans
NORTHWESTERN CORP: MT Court Says "McGreevey" Settlement Invalid
NORTHWESTERN CORP: S.D. Court Mulls Arguments in Securities Suit
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Two Putative Securities Fraud Suits in Fla.
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Several Title Insurance Lawsuits
OLD REPUBLIC: Subsidiaries Face Calif., Wash. Customers' Suits
PALO ALTO: Recalls Supplement Products Over Aildenafil Content
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Consolidated Merger Suit in Tennessee
PONZI LITIGATION: MI Residents File Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme
QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over WI Consumer Laws Violations
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Bid in "Carey" Suit
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces Putative Shareholder Lawsuits in Calif.
WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls Four Bean Salad for Possible Health Risk
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kansas Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
New Securities Fraud Cases
LEVITT CORP: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
SALLIE MAE: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences
*********
ALCOA: Erin Brockovich Leads West Australia Anti-Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American anti-pollution campaigner Erin Brockovich announced
that at least two American law firms are prepared to pursue
Alcoa in the United States on behalf of residents who live near
the miner's alumina refineries south of Perth, at Wagerup,
Pinjarra and Kwinana, ABC Online reports.
According to The Australian, most residents who claim to be
affected by Alcoa's three alumina refineries have signed up to
battle the company in a U.S. court for allegedly damaging their
health because of refinery emissions.
About 160 residents from nearby Yarloop have complained of
respiratory problems, skin irritation, sore throats and eyes,
nose bleeds, cancers and organ failure during the past 11 years,
The Age relates.
Ms. Brockovich, The Australian writes, met several of these
residents in 2007 and convinced the U.S. law firm she works for
as director of environmental research -- Masry & Vititoe -- to
champion their cause on a no-win, no-fee basis. The Age says
that Masry & Vititoe has formed an alliance with Shine Lawyers
in a bid to take Alcoa to court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
where the company is based.
Simon Morrison, of Shine Lawyers, confirmed that the residents
will not have to pay any money initially to join the claim, ABC
notes.
"The US law firms involved in this claim do operate claims on
what we call a contingent basis, which means no fee is payable
to them unless the claim succeeds," Mr. Morrison explained.
"The next step for them is to obviously conduct some
investigations of their own on the core issues surrounding the
litigation . . . That would then follow what we call a forum
application, in other words, bringing the matter in front of a
judge in America, to test that issue of whether this is a case
that can actually be brought in the United States."
Alcoa, according to The Australian, has consistently denied that
there is a problem with any of its operations. The Age cites
Alcoa of Australia's managing director, Alan Cransberg, as
saying that independent studies showed the refinery met the
world's most stringent health and environmental standards.
"Alcoa believes there is no basis to the allegations made,
however, if legal action is forthcoming we will vigorously
defend in the appropriate forum our performance and reputation,"
Mr. Cransberg said in a statement.
The Age recalls that the West Australian government, in 2006,
gave Alcoa the go-ahead to almost double its alumina production
at Wagerup, but attached 42 environmental conditions, including
a commitment to reduce odor emissions by 36% and buy back land
from residents who wanted to leave.
To Alcoa's denial of wrongdoing, Ms. Brockovich said, "If I had
a dime for every time a company said there was nothing wrong,
I'd be a millionaire."
Scopical News recounts that Ms. Brockovich was instrumental in
delivering a class action lawsuit against U.S. energy company
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, later owned by now defunct
power giant Enron. Despite limited legal training, Ms.
Brockovich managed to settle the lawsuit with PGE in 1996, and
won nearly $400 million in payout.
For more information, contact:
Masry & Vititoe
5707 Corsa Ave.
2nd Floor
Westlake Village, CA 91362-4058
Phone: (818) 991-8900
(800) 561-5500 (Toll Free)
Fax: (818) 991-6200
- and -
Shine Lawyers
Level 1 5 Kitchener Street
Toowoomba, QLD 4350
Phone: 07 4699 4699
Fax: 07 4638 5481
e-mail: law@shine.com.au
Web site: http://www.shine.com.au
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Continues to Face Wash. Suit for "Overbilling"
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Medical Response, a unit of Emergency Medical Services
L.P., continues to face a purported class action in Washington
for allegedly overbilling patients.
On Dec. 13, 2005, a lawsuit purporting to be a class action was
commenced against AMR in Spokane, Washington, in Washington
State Court, Spokane County.
The complaint alleges that AMR billed patients and third party
payors for transports it conducted between 1998 and 2005 at a
higher level than contractually permitted.
It alleges that the company engaged in an ongoing practice of
overcharging patients under a contract sanctioned and monitored
by city government (Class Action Reporter, April 12, 2007).
The suit specifically alleges that patients picked up within the
city of Spokane are billed for more-expensive "advanced life
support" services when they only need cheaper "basic life
support". The ALS base rate is $480, compared with the BLS rate
of $348.
The lawsuit was brought on behalf of Spokane residents Lori E.
Davis-Bacon and Lorraine and Doug Bacon. It was certified as a
class action in June 2006.
However, the size and membership of the class has not yet been
determined, according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
For more details, contact:
D. Roger Reed, Esq. (drreed@reedgiesa.com)
Reed & Giesa, P.S.
222 North Wall, Suite 410
Spokane, Washington 99201
Phone: 509-838-8341
Fax: 509-838-6341
- and -
Paul J. Dayton, Esq.
Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC
Wells Fargo Center
999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, Washington 98104-4088
Phone: 206-682-3333
Fax: 206-340-8856
BLUE CROSS: Faces Labor Code Violations Lawsuit in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota is facing a class-action
complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota accusing it of Labor Code violations, CourtHouse News
Service reported.
Named plaintiff Sarah LePage brings the action pursuant to 28
USC Section 1331, Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 USC Section 216(b); and Section 601(e)(1) of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 USC Section 1132(e)(1).
The suit alleges that the defendant has not paid Ms. LePage and
the similarly situated individuals any compensations for time
worked before their shift begins and after their shift has
ended, but prior to leaving the work site. According to the
complaint, the amount of uncompensated time the plaintiff and
the similarly situated individuals spend or have spent on
required work activities amounts to at least 20 minutes per day
per person. Each person engages in the same uncompensated
activities each day.
Ms. LePage also alleges that they have also been denied
compensation for attending mandatory meetings at the direction
of defendant, and such meetings frequently cut into their
statutorily-required rest periods.
Ms. LePage brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all individuals who were,
are or will be employed by defendant as a representative at one
or more of defendant's Minnesota call centers at any time within
the applicable limitations period until the final disposition of
the case.
Ms. LePage wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendant violated the minimum wage
requirements of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,
Minn. Stat. Section 177.24, by not paying Ms. LePage or
members of the Minnesota class for the time they
spent performing required duties before and after
their scheduled work shifts;
(b) whether the defendant violated the overtime
compensation requirements of the Minnesota Fair Labor
Standards Act, Minn. Stat. Section 177.25, by not
paying Ms. LePage or members of the Minnesota class for
time worked in excess of 48 hours per week;
(c) whether Ms. LePage and the Minnesota class members are
non-exempt employees entitled to overtime compensation
for overtime hours worked under the overtime pay
requirements of the MN FLSA;
(d) whether defendant's actions violated the recordkeeping
requirements of the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act,
Minn. Stat. Section 177.30, by failing to make and keep
records of the time Ms. LePage and members of the
Minnesota class spent performing required duties
before and after their scheduled work shifts as well as
of the time Ms. LePage and members of the Minnesota
class spent working overtime hours;
(e) the proper measure of damages sustained and the proper
measure of restitution recoverable by members of the
Minnesota class;
(f) whether the defendant's actions were willful; and
(g) whether the defendant's actions constitute quantum
merit and whether the defendant was unjustly enriched
as a result of its conduct.
Ms. LePage requests for the following relief:
-- certification of the lawsuit as a class action on behalf
of the proposed class;
-- designation of Ms. LePage as representative of the
class;
-- a declaration that the practices complained of violate
ERISA Section 209(a), 29 USC Section 1129(a);
-- appropriate equitable and injunctive relief to remedy
the defendant's violations of ERISA Section 209(a);
-- a declaration that the defendant has breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to credit the plaintiff and
the class with compensation for all work performed, as
required by ERISA and the terms of the 401(k) Plan and
Pension Plan;
-- an order requiring that the defendant remedy its
breaches of fiduciary duty by crediting Ms. LePage and
the class with compensation for all of their past,
present, and future uncompensated work; and
-- attorneys' fees and costs of suit.
The suit is "Sarah LePage et al v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Minnesota, Case No, 08 CV 584 RHK/JSM," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Charles V. Firth, Esq.
Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
Halunen & Associates
220 south Sixth Street, Suite 2000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 605-4098
Fax: (612) 605-4099
BRAMBLES INDUSTRIES: Faces Antitrust Suit by Pallet Recyclers
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of pallet recyclers has sued Brambles Industries -- the
parent company of the Commonwealth Handling Equipment Pool or
CHEP -- alleging numerous violations of U.S. antitrust law,
Pallet Enterprise reports.
According to Pallet Enterprise, the lawsuit, which was filed
last month in federal court, could have a significant impact on
the pallet industry as a whole if the court decides to certify
it with class action status. If certified, the lawsuit would
apply to any recycler in the lower 48 states that has received
CHEP pallets under the normal course of business in the past
four years.
The complaint alleges that "CHEP has used and continues to use
threats of legal action against recyclers, as well as actual
lawsuits, civil and criminal, with the intention of unlawfully
transferring a portion of its business operational costs onto
pallet recyclers." The lawsuit also contends that CHEP's
actions have created an unfair market situation that lowers its
costs while increasing that of its rivals. It further claims
that CHEP's actions have developed barriers to entry for new
companies that are scared away by CHEP's business practices.
Jim Taylor, president and owner of Best Pallet in Fort Smith,
Ark, has spearheaded the class action effort, the report
relates. Mr. Taylor started the Web site
http://www.chepclassaction.com/more than a year ago and has
worked tirelessly to put together a coalition of recyclers that
would challenge CHEP. Other plaintiffs include ITNOLAP Pallet &
Crating Inc. of Murfreesboro, Tenn.; Pallet Express Inc. of
Greensboro, N.C.; and Goeman's Wood Products of Hartford, Wis.
Pallet Enterprise says that although CHEP has encountered other
cases in the past, this is the first class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of pallet recyclers. Unlike previous cases in
Georgia and Ohio, the new lawsuit focuses mainly on antitrust
concerns and not questions of proprietary pallet ownership,
property abandonment or unjust enrichment.
The report observes that class action status presents a whole
new situation for recyclers because previous legal efforts
focused on only one or two companies. Those served as primarily
legal precedent that could have been relied on in further
litigation.
Pallet Entreprise writes that while CHEP has been compensating
recyclers for the return of stray pallets for a number of years
through its Asset Recovery Program, many recyclers contend that
they pay amounts to far less than the service is worth. Besides
some fuel increases, CHEP has refused to revisit its ARP
compensation levels or negotiate on a regional basis. While
costs continue to go up for recyclers, CHEP has been able to
keep its costs flat. All of this has happened at a time that
CHEP has experienced strong profit growth.
The recyclers' complaint seeks monetary damages as well as a
permanent injunction that would prohibit CHEP from activities
that push its business costs onto the backs of recyclers. The
injunction aspect of the complaint could have a major impact on
CHEP's recovery practices depending on what shakes out in the
long run, the report says.
Representing the recyclers are Herbert Schwartz of Bailey and
Gaylen, in Houston, Texas, and Joe Byars of Christian and Byars,
Fort Smith, Ark. The group behind the current lawsuit admits
that it could take years to settle and are willing to go as long
as it takes.
Pallet Enterprise says that the recyclers have asked for a jury
trial, which CHEP will likely oppose. The report further states
that given the high stakes of the lawsuit, it could take a long
time for the case to be decided if the court decides to hear the
lawsuit at all. The first major hurdles are getting the court
to certify the class action status and determine that there is
sufficient cause to allow the case to proceed.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Herbert T. Schwartz, Esq.
Bailey & Galyen
Clear Lake Office
18333 Egret Bay Blvd
Suite 120
Houston, TX 77058
Phone: (866) 715-1529
(281) 335-7744
Fax: (281) 335-4774
Web site: http://www.galyen.com
- and -
Joe D. Byars Jr., Esq. (jdbyars@cox-internet.com)
Christian & Byars
502 Garrison Ave
Ft. Smith, Arkansas 72901
Phone: (479) 782-9147
Fax: (479) 782-3623
BRONCO DRILLING: Faces Okla. Lawsuit Over Sale to Allis Chalmers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronco Drilling is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 28, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, alleging that the company's directors
would cheat shareholders in their proposed sale to Allis
Chalmers, CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Frank Goff brings the stockholder class action
on behalf of the holders of Bronco Drilling common stock arising
out of defendants' efforts to sell the company via an unfair
process to Allis-Chambers. In pursuing the unlawful plan to
solicit shareholder approval of their proposed sale, each of the
defendants violated applicable law by directly breaching and
aiding the other defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties
of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good faith and fair
dealing.
According to the complaint, the acquisition is designed to
unlawfully divest Bronco Drilling's public stockholders of a
large portion of the valuable assets of the company for grossly
inadequate consideration when the defendants know that these
assets will continue to produce substantial revenue and
earnings.
The plaintiff brings the action on behalf of all holders of
Bronco Drilling stock who are being and will be harmed by the
defendants' actions.
Mr. Goff wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the individual defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of undivided loyalty, independence or
due care with respect to plaintiff and the other
members of the class in connection with the
acquisition;
(b) whether the individual defendants are engaging in self-
dealing in connection with the acquisition;
(c) whether the individual defendants have breached their
fiduciary duty to secure and obtain the best value
reasonable under the circumstances for the benefit of
plaintiff and the other members of the class in
connection with the acquisition;
(d) whether the individual defendants are unjustly
enriching themselves and other insiders or affiliates
of Bronco Drilling;
(e) whether the individual defendants have breached any of
their other fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the other
members of the class in connection with the
acquisition, including the duties of good faith,
diligence, honesty and fair dealing;
(f) whether the individual defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of candor to plaintiff and the other
members of the class in connection with the acquisition
by soliciting a shareholder vote in favor of the
acquisition contract based upon inadequate disclosures;
(g) whether the individual defendants, in bad faith and for
improper motives, have impeded or erected barriers to
discourage other offers for the company or its assets;
(h) whether Bronco Drilling and Allis-Chalmers aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duties; and
(i) whether plaintiff and the other members of the class
would be irreparably harmed were the transactions
complained of consummated.
Mr. Goff demands injunctive relief as follows:
-- declaring that this action is properly maintainable as a
class action;
-- declaring and decreeing that the acquisition agreement
was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of
defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable;
-- enjoining defendants, their agents, counsel, employees
and all persons acting in concert with them from
consummating the acquisition, unless and until the
company adopts and implements a procedure or process to
obtain a merger agreement providing the best possible
terms for shareholders;
-- directing the individual defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction which is in the
best interests of Bronco Drilling's shareholders until
the process for the sale or auction of the company is
completed and the best possible consideration is
obtained for Bronco Drilling;
-- rescinding, to the extent already implemented, the
acquisition agreement or any of the terms thereof
including the o shop clause and termination fee; and
-- awarding plaintiff the costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts'
fees.
The suit is "Frank Goff et al. v. Bronco Drilling Company, Inc.,
Case No. CJ-2008-1868," filed with the District Court of
Oklahoma County, state of Oklahoma.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Dan L. Holloway, Esq.
Kenyatta Bethea, Esq.
Marissa T. Osenbaugh, Esq.
Holloway Bethea & Osenbaugh
3035 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 102N
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
Phone: (405) 246-0600
Fax: (405) 146-0601
CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit by Malibu Fire Victims Looms
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit will be filed this week with the
Sacramento Superior Court alleging the state's indifference to
years of reports about partying at the top of Corral Canyon,
which led to a in November 2007, Malibu Times says.
The report explains that the fire, which is Malibu's worst since
1993, began in the early hours of Nov. 24 after a campfire
started inside an area known as The Cave at the top of Corral
Canyon Road got out of control. The fire burned 4,900 acres and
destroyed 86 structures, including 53 homes.
Five suspects, the report points out, have been charged with two
felonies related to the fire. Although they have not denied
being at the campfire, their attorneys have said any wrongdoing
committed was not a crime. Three suspects -- Brian David
Franks, Brian Alan Anderson, and William Thomas Coppock, -- have
pleaded not guilty, while Eric Matthew Ullman and Dean Allen
Lavorante appeared in court for the first time in February but
did not make formal pleas.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are 18 homeowners who lost their
homes in the fire. According to their spokesperson, Brooke
Halpin, the plaintiffs are asking for $30 million, but that
number could increase if the number of plaintiffs goes up.
"They [State Parks officials] were aware for years that the park
on top of Corral Canyon was a problem spot and did nothing about
it," said Mr. Halpin, whose home was damaged in the fire. He is
not part of the suit.
Mr. Halpin said that local attorney Jay Devitt, Esq., and two
law firms, which he did not identify, are representing the
plaintiffs.
State Parks spokesperson Roy Stearns told Malibu Times that he
had not heard about the plan to file the suit.
Mr. Halpin told Malibu Times that he expects the suit to be
filed Wednesday or Thursday. A press conference to formally
announce the suit will take place at 2:00 p.m. at the top of
Corral Canyon Road.
CANADA: Faces Environmental Suit Over Toxic Dump at Labrador
------------------------------------------------------------
An environmental class action against the provincial and federal
governments was initiated by a Happy Valley-Goose Bay farmer
claiming that contamination from a toxic dumpsite at 5 Wing
Goose Bay ruined his livelihood, Jamie Baker writes for The
Telegram.
According to the report, Tom Angiers is one of about a dozen
farmers who owned land along the Trans-Labrador Highway near the
south escarpment of 5 Wing Goose Bay, which had previously been
home to an old United States Air Force dump commonly known as
Stillwater.
An investigation by Transcontinental Media in August 2004
revealed that National Defense asked the provincial government
to cease any new agricultural land leasing in the area based on
concern about the threat of possible contamination migration
from the old dumpsite.
The Telegram says that the class action, slated to be on the
docket at Supreme Court in early June, claims that once that
information became public, it immediately cast shadows of doubt
over adjacent farms.
"The people in the agricultural zone couldn't make a go of it
after the federal government asked the province to put the
moratorium on and it became publicly known -- their produce was
then stigmatized and no one would buy it," said St. John's
lawyer Ches Crosbie, who is handling the class action.
The report points out that like many bases across Canada, 5 Wing
Goose Bay, which was built by the U.S. during the World War II
and handed over to Canada in the 1970s, has a spotty
environmental legacy.
When the story originally broke, Transcontinental obtained a
series of comprehensive environmental studies going back as far
as 1991 that identified varying degrees of contamination at
Stillwater, up to and including drums containing varying
products, fuel and oil, and even traces of the banned pesticide
DDT and other hazardous materials, the report further relates.
In addition to Stillwater, other areas around the base were also
singled out as being of concern including three tank farms as
well as an area where chemicals and fuel were often dumped on
the ground and set on fire as part of firefighter training.
The provincial government said that the moratorium on
agricultural land leasing in the area -- commonly referred to as
the Lake Melville Agricultural Reserve -- will remain in effect
until environmental work and long term remediation plans are in
place, The Telegram notes. Environmental experts have estimated
it would take more than 10 years and at least $100 million to
clean up some 77 known and 24 suspected contaminated sites at
the base.
The statement of claim indicates that, as a result of the
situation, Mr. Angiers has lost his equity in his 165-acre farm,
which also consists of a barn, house, and multi-purpose
processing building. It also suggests that Mr. Angiers'
mortgage with Farm Credit Canada is in arrears.
The statement of claim further insists that the federal
government is responsible for unsafe disposal of contaminants at
the dump, which "foreseeably posed an unreasonable risk of
migration and contamination of surrounding lands and water
tables." It asserts that the province "ought to have known of
the unsafe disposal of contaminants and the unreasonable risk of
migration" to the farm lands.
The complaint contends that both the province and federal
governments are liable for "negligence for exposing them to risk
of destruction of the marketability of their lands and produce
and all improvements made, together with special damages." It
says that the situation has resulted in "mental anguish at the
prospect of surrendering land of unique amenity, and the
prolonged interruption of a way of life, and mental anguish as
to the risk to health caused by the contaminants."
Mr. Crosbie calls the case an unusual one, based on the fact it
is an environmental class action that does not include health
claim issues. He told The Telegram, "I'm including only claims
that have to do with loss of interest and enjoyment of land,
loss of land value and marketability due to the pollution."
CAREER EDUCATION: Sued Over Criminal Justice College Degrees
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corp. and Sanford Brown College are facing a
class-action complaint filed with the Circuit Court of the
County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, alleging that the
company "sells" college degrees in criminal justice by
misrepresenting tuition, the quality of the staff, job placement
services, and transferability of credits, CourtHouse News
Service reports.
The plaintiffs bring the class action pursuant to Rule 52.08 of
the Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 407.025 RSMo
on behalf of all Missouri citizens who were paying students of
the associate and bachelor degree programs in criminal justice
st Sanford Brown College during the period from Jan. 1, 2003,
through Jan. 1, 2008.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq.) by
purposefully employing a pattern and practice of deception,
fraud, and misrepresentation in the sale of the Criminal Justice
Degree Programs to potential students. The plaintiffs allege
that the employees and agents of the defendants made
misrepresentations to them which deceived them to believe that
associate and bachelor criminal justice degrees from SBC were
valuable when in reality the degrees had little to no practical
value in the real world.
The plaintiffs want the court to rule on:
(a) whether the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act,
Section 407.010 RSMo, et seq., was violated by the
defendants' acts and omissions, as alleged; and
(b) whether plaintiffs and members of the class have
sustained injury by reason of defendants' actions and
omissions.
The plaintiffs request for injunctive relief enjoining the
defendants from utilizing the deceptive and unfair business
practices, and judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and members
of the class and against the defendants, and award the
plaintiffs actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
for a sum greater than $25,000, punitive damages in an amount to
be proven at trial, the plaintiffs' reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees incurred, but in no event any total sum greater
than $4,999,99, and for such other and further relief as the
court deems proper under the premises.
The suit is "Janet Blake et al. v. Career Education Corporation,
et al., Case No. 0822-CC000777," filed with the Circuit Court of
the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Matthew C. Casey, Esq.
Matthew J. Devoti, Esq.
100 North Broadway, Suite 1000
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Phone: (314) 421-0763
Fax: (314) 421-5059
CONNECTICUT: Judge Favors with Greenwich in Beach Access Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Janet C. Hall has granted the town of
Greenwich a partial victory by rejecting a Stamford bicyclist's
request to add a discrimination claim to his pending lawsuit
claiming that Greenwich's beach access fees for out-of-towners
are unconstitutional, Greenwich Time reports.
In her six-page ruling in February 2008, Judge Hall upheld the
town's argument that Paul Kempner, 77, a Stamford shoreline
resident, could not pursue a discrimination claim himself
because a town policy change giving Mr. Kempner and others over
the age of 65 free access to town beaches made his claim moot.
The report recounts that before last beach season, the town
revised its beach access policy allowing people 65 years old and
over in for free regardless of where they live.
"The plaintiff's proposed class contains residents over the age
of 64 who cannot have standing," Judge Hall wrote. "The town's
beach access policy as it currently exists does not require them
to pay any fee to enter the town's beach parks."
Mr. Kempner filed the class action lawsuit in 2006 on free
speech and discrimination claims, arguing that the town's policy
of charging out-of-towners more to use town beaches
discriminates against non-residents and deprives free speech
rights.
Last year, Judge Hall ruled that Mr. Kempner could sue the town
on his claim that it violated his individual free speech rights,
and a trial is expected to begin on that issue on April 15,
2008.
In her February ruling, Judge Hall declined to qualify
Mr. Kempner and his fellow plaintiff, James P. Schwartz, 51, of
Stamford, as representatives of all non-Greenwich residents,
finding that Kempner has not shown evidence that a large number
of Connecticut residents outside of Greenwich might ever seek to
exercise their free speech rights at Greenwich beaches.
"The plaintiff's proposed class makes no distinction between
those residents of the State of Connecticut who have suffered or
will suffer a violation of their rights . . . and those who have
not, or will not suffer injury because they have never engaged
in speech in a Greenwich beach park," Judge Hall's decision
said.
Judge Hall also ruled that even with Mr. Schwartz's addition as
a plaintiff, Mr. Kempner did not meet the standard of
"numerosity," proving there was a significant number of people
likely to be deprived of their free speech rights by the policy.
"This evidence does nothing to persuade the court that there are
so many citizens in Connecticut who desire access to the
traditional public forums of Greenwich that joinder of them
would be impractical," Judge Hall wrote.
DATA RETURN: Faces Employee Suit for Failing to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Web hosting provider Data Return LLC is facing a class-action
lawsuit brought about by its employees for allegedly failing to
pay staff overtime for their services, Hostsearch.com reports.
The lawsuit states that Data Return's staff were employed on a
40-hours-a-week basis, but that the company policy required them
to be "on call" 24 hours a day. The lawsuit further suggests
that staff were made to carry Blackberries and respond to
e-mails and telephone calls on an ongoing basis. The complaints
against the company suggested its actions did not consider its
staff's need for sleep and that lack of sleep had caused some
staff members' illness.
Based in Irving, Texas, Data Return LLC was purchased by
Terremark around May 2007. The purchase of the company from
Saratoga Partners cost the company $85 million. Data Return had
around 250 customers located throughout the United States at the
time of purchase. Its customers included H&R Block, BMW North
America, HP and LEGO.
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Lawsuit in California Over Lease Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
The DirecTV Group is facing a class-action complaint filed on
Feb. 28, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, accusing it and its affiliates of
charging people lease fees for DirecTV receivers since March 1,
2006, while misrepresenting that the customers were buying the
boxes, CourtHouse News Service reports.
The lawsuit is a class action brought by named plaintiff Matt A.
Gomric and all other persons who subscribe to DirecTv television
services and who were charged lease fees for receivers they
owned to recover such fees improperly collected. The complaint
asserts that improper collection of lease fees for non-leased or
improperly leased property constitutes unfair, unlawful, and
fraudulent conduct.
Mr. Gomric brings the action on behalf of:
(i) all persons who, prior to March 1, 2006, owned a
DirecTV receiver and were charged a "leased receiver"
fee by DirecTv; and
(ii) all persons who, after March 1, 2006, owned a DirecTV
receiver and were charged a "leased receiver" fee by
DirecTV.
Mr. Gomric wants the court to rule on:
(a) whether the defendants' conduct constitutes unfair and
deceptive conduct;
(b) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched;
(c) whether the defendants' purported lease fee is
unconscionable;
(d) whether the defendants' conduct violates California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 and 17500
et seq.;
(e) whether the defendants' conduct violates the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act;
(f) alternatively, whether the defendants' conduct violates
the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS Section
505/1, et seq.;
(g) whether the acts complained of warrant imposition of a
constructive trust; and
(h) whether Mr. Gomric and the class have been damaged and,
if so, the proper measure of such damages.
Mr. Gomric requests judgment as follows:
-- for an order certifying the class under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and appointing
plaintiff and his counsel of record to represent the
class;
-- for restitution, disgorgement and other equitable
relief as the court deems proper;
-- that pursuant to section 17203 and 17204 of the Business
and Professions Code, defendants be permanently enjoined
from performing or proposing to perform any of the
aforementioned acts of unfair, unlawful and fraudulent
business practices;
-- for compensatory damages sustained by plaintiff and all
other similarly situated as a result of defendants'
unlawful acts and conduct;
-- for punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code Section
1780(a)(4);
-- declaratory relief that:
(a) any purported lease between the class and defendants
as described is void and unenforceable;
(b) that at the election of the individual class
members, the "lease" or the equipment may be
rescinded;
(c) class members are the legal owners of the receivers
they purchased; and
(d) any purported arbitration agreement between the
class and defendants is not applicable, and/or void
and unenforceable;
-- for a permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from
engaging in the conduct and practices complained of;
-- for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit,
including expert witness fees.
The suit is "Matt A. gomric et al v. The DirecTV Group, Inc.,
Case No. C08 01197," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.
Representing Mr. Gomric is:
Jonathan Shub, Esq. (jshub@seegerweiss.com)
Seeger Weiss LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
Phone: (215) 564-2300
DONJOY INC: Faces Suit Filed by Canadians Injured by Pain Pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed by Saskatchewan residents Sean
Schroeder and Curtis Veinot against Donjoy Inc. and affiliated
companies on behalf of Canadians injured by pain pumps.
These are portable medical devices which deliver local
anesthetic directly to a surgical site following surgery.
Donjoy's products have been linked to a serious adverse reaction
known as chondrolysis. This is a painful and debilitating
condition involving a loss of cartilage. It entails premature
destruction of the joint surface and can result in functional
disability. Joint replacement surgery may be necessary.
Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Veinot both underwent shoulder surgery in
which Donjoy pain pumps were used. Their shoulder joints have
never been the same since. Both have developed chondrolysis,
and suffer chronic pain and disability. Their lawyer, David
Klein, says, "We allege that Donjoy failed to adequately test
its product before marketing it, and that it failed to properly
warn doctors and patients about the risks of chondrolysis. We
are very concerned that the product is still being marketed and
used in a manner that is unsafe for patients."
Klein Lyons is one of Canada's most experienced class action law
firms in a broad range of areas including pharmaceuticals,
defective products and commercial litigation.
For more information, contact:
David Klein
Klein Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors
Suite 1100, 1333 West Broadway
Vancouver, B.C.
Tel: (604) 874-7171
Fax: (604) 874-7180
Web site: http://www.kleinlyons.com/
GEORGIA: Ex-Teachers Granted Back Pay in Retirement System Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Fulton County Superior Court Judge Alice Bonner is
granting about 15,000 retired Georgia educators back pay as part
of a class-action lawsuit against the state's teachers
retirement system, the Associated Press reports.
According to AP, the tab for the court order released on Feb. 29
could run as high as $500 million. Judge Bonner says the money
will come out of the retirement system's reserves and will not
affect benefits for future retirees.
The lawsuit, filed in 2004, claimed that the state used
incorrect data to determine the life expectancy of teachers,
which meant retirees got less money than they were due. The
Georgia Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that the retirement system
was liable for the payments.
Judge Bonner's court order awards the named plaintiffs in the
case -- Larrie Grant Plymel and Corinne Monroe -- $75,000 each.
The state is expected to appeal the order.
GEORGIA NATURAL GAS: Overcharged Customers Commence Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three Atlanta residents filed lawsuits against Georgia Natural
Gas and SCANA Energy last week, alleging that the companies
overcharged long-time customers in 2007, The Atlanta Journal-
Constitution reports. The lawsuits will seek class action
status and triple damages from both marketers.
According to the report, the lawsuits come as the state Public
Service Commission weighs a full investigation of the marketers'
pricing plans. Both Georgia Natural Gas and SCANA have denied
wrongdoing.
Atlanta Journal relates that both gas marketers are trying to
reach settlements that would stave off that probe.
As reported in ajc.com on Feb. 21, 2008, Georgia Natural Gas has
offered to settle its variable-rate dispute with the PSC by
agreeing to improve communications with customers and donate
$1 million to a low-income heating assistance program. SCANA,
ajc.com wrote, has not offered to settle.
Jason Doss, Esq., an attorney with the Page Perry law firm, said
the lawsuits will go forward unless the two companies reimburse
customers for the amount they were overcharged -- times three.
The alleged overcharges stem from changes to standard variable
rate plans at both companies, Atlanta Journal explains. Georgia
Natural Gas enacted a new version of that plan in December 2006,
and SCANA followed in March 2007. New customers were put on the
new plans while the old ones stayed on the old plans, which were
discontinued for new customers.
Old customers could be switched to the new plans, but they had
to know to ask. The new plans were significantly cheaper.
Based on average household usage, the PSC estimates that
customers on the old plans paid Georgia Natural Gas between
$128.40 and $170.40 more than new customers since the new plan
began. Customers on SCANA's old plan paid $107.30 more,
according to the same estimates.
The Georgia PSC votes this week on whether to launch a
full-scale investigation of the pricing plans.
For more information, contact:
Jason Doss, Esq. (jdoss@pageperry.com)
Page Perry LLC
1040 Crown Pointe Parkway
Suite 1050
Atlanta, Georgia 30338
Phone: (770) 673-0047
Fax: (770) 673-0120
GNG PHARMA: Reaches Settlement in Airborne Dietary Drug Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Airborne dietary supplement, which claims to help ward off
the cold and flu, has reached a tentative settlement in a class
action lawsuit that the company misrepresented its product, The
Consumerist reports.
Boxes of Airborne used to cite a study by "GNG Pharmaceutical
Services Inc." that said it tested 120 people and 47% showed
little or no cold flu symptoms, versus 23% of a placebo.
However, an ABC news investigation revealed that GNG was a two-
man operation started up just to make the Airborne study, and
had no clinic, scientists or doctors.
Following the negative publicity, Knight-McDowell Labs removed
references to the GNG study from its packages.
HERBALIFE INT'L: Calif. Court Certifies Class in "Minton" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California partially
granted class-action status to a lawsuit against Herbalife
International, Inc., and certain of its independent
distributors.
The suit, "Minton v. Herbalife International, et al.," was filed
on Feb. 17, 2005, with the Superior Court of California, County
of San Francisco. The suit was served on the company on
March 14, 2005. The company then moved to transfer the case to
the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The suit is challenging the marketing practices of certain
Herbalife International independent distributors and the company
under various state laws prohibiting "endless chain schemes,"
insufficient disclosure in assisted marketing plans, unfair and
deceptive business practices, and fraud and deceit.
The plaintiff alleges that the Freedom Group system operated by
certain independent distributors of Herbalife International
products places too much emphasis on recruiting and encourages
excessively large purchases of product and promotional materials
by distributors. The plaintiff also alleges that Freedom Group
pressured distributors to disseminate misleading promotional
materials.
The plaintiff seeks to hold Herbalife International vicariously
liable for the actions of its independent distributors and is
seeking damages and injunctive relief.
On Jan. 24, 2007, the Superior Court denied class certification
of all claims, except for the claim under California law
prohibiting "endless chain schemes."
That claim was granted California-only class certification,
provided that class counsel is able to substitute in as a
plaintiff a California resident with claims typical of the
class.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is
known for its weight loss products. Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products. Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements. The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function. Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Settles TCPA Lawsuit for $7 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Ohio County in the State of West Virginia
gave final approval to a settlement of a purported class action
filed against Herbalife International, Inc., and certain of its
distributors.
Filed on July 16, 2003, the complaint, "Mey v. Herbalife
International, Inc., et al.," alleged that certain telemarketing
practices of certain company distributors violate the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The complaint sought to hold the
company vicariously liable for the practices of its
distributors.
More specifically, the plaintiffs' complaint alleged that
several of the company's distributors used pre-recorded
telephone messages and auto-dialers to contact prospective
customers in violation of the TCPA's prohibition of such
practices.
The company's distributors are independent contractors and, if
any such distributors in fact violated the TCPA, they also
violated the company's policies, which require its distributors
to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws.
On April 21, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in West Virginia (Class Action Reporter,
May 25, 2006).
The Company and the other defendants eventually reached a
binding settlement with the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the
settlement, the defendants collectively will pay $7 million into
a fund to be distributed to qualifying class members.
The settlement received preliminary approval from the Court. In
January 2008, it received final approval, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Herbalife International, Inc. -- http://www.herbalife.com/-- is
known for its weight loss products. Herbalife also makes
dietary supplements as well as skin and hair care products. Its
weight management products include dietary shakes, protein
snacks, energy enhancers, appetite suppressants, and digestive
supplements. The company also offers a variety of supplements
that target men's and women's health, reduce stress, and support
immune system function. Herbalife sells its plethora of
products through a network of more than 1 million independent
distributors located in more than 60 countries.
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc., is facing two purported securities
fraud class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, according to the company's
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Between Dec. 19, 2007, and Feb. 1, 2008, two putative class
actions were filed against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers and directors purportedly on behalf
of purchasers of securities during the periods July 20, 2007, to
Nov. 16, 2007, or July 20, 2007, to Jan. 10, 2008.
These complaints allege that the defendants violated Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of allegedly false and
misleading statements concerning our financial results,
prospects, and condition, relating, in particular, to its
transactions with Franklin Credit Management.
The first identified complaint is "Stephen Ellman, et al. v.
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, et al., Case No. 07-CV-
01276," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, Judge Michael H. Watson presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
David P. Meyer, Esq. (dmeyer@dmlaws.com)
David P. Meyer & Associates Co LPA
1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-224-6000
Fax: 614-224-6066
Representing the defendants is:
Robert Ward Trafford, Esq.
(rtrafford@porterwright.com)
Porter Wright Morris & Arthur
41 S. High Street, Suite 2800
Columbus, OH 43215-6194
Phone: 614-227-2000
Fax: 614-227-2149
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Faces ERISA Violations Lawsuit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. faces a class action that was filed
on Feb. 20, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.
The putative class action was filed against the Company, the
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated Pension Review Committee, the
Huntington Investment and Tax Savings Plan Administrative
Committee, and certain of the Company's officers and directors
purportedly on behalf of participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan between July 20, 2007, and the present.
The complaint seeks to allege breaches of fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA relating to the Company's stock being offered
as an investment alternative for participants in the Plan.
The complaint seeks money damages and equitable relief,
according to the company's Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Riccio v. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated et
al., Case No. 2:08-cv-00165-GLF-TPK," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Judge Gregory
L. Frost presiding.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Mark D. Lewis, Esq. (mlewis@kitricklaw.com)
Kitrick & Lewis Co LPA
515 E. Main Street, Suite 515
Columbus, OH 43215
Phone: 614-224-7711
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Del. Suit Over UGC Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in a
consolidated class action filed with the Delaware Court of
Chancery regarding the company's announcement on January 18,
2005 of the execution by UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. and the company
of the agreement and plan of merger for the combination of the
two companies under Liberty Global.
Since January 2005, 21 lawsuits were filed with the Delaware
Court of Chancery, and one lawsuit was filed with the Denver
District Court, State of Colorado, all purportedly on behalf of
public stockholders.
The defendants named in these actions include UnitedGlobalCom
and former directors of UnitedGlobalCom and Liberty Global.
The allegations in each of the complaints, which were
substantially similar, assert that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care, good faith and candor
and that various defendants have engaged in self-dealing and
unjust enrichment, approved an unfair price, and impeded or
discouraged other offers for UnitedGlobalCom or its assets in
bad faith and for improper motives.
The complaints sought various remedies, including damages for
the public holders of UnitedGlobalCom's stock and an award of
attorney's fees to plaintiffs' counsel.
On Feb. 11, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
all 21 Delaware lawsuits into a single action, "In re
UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. 1012-
VCS)."
Also, on April 20, 2005, the Denver District Court, State of
Colorado, issued an order granting a joint stipulation for stay
of the action filed in that court, pending the final resolution
of the consolidated action in Delaware.
On January 7, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court was formally
advised that the parties had reached a binding agreement,
subject to the Court's approval, to settle the consolidated
action for total consideration of $25 million (inclusive of any
award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel).
A stipulation of settlement setting forth the terms of the
settlement and release of claims was filed with the Delaware
Chancery Court on Feb. 20, 2008, according to its Feb. 26, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Liberty Global, Inc. -- http://www.lgi.com/-- is an
international broadband communications provider of video, voice
and Internet access services, with consolidated broadband
operations in 16 countries (excluding Belgium). LGI's
operations are primarily in Europe, Japan and Chile. Through
its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries, UPC Holding BV (UPC
Holding) and Liberty Global Switzerland, Inc. (LG Switzerland),
LGI provides broadband communications services in 10 European
countries (excluding Belgium).
MAYFIELD DAIRY: Recalls Vanilla Ice Cream Over Undeclared Pecans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mayfield Dairy Farms is voluntarily recalling half-gallon
rectangular paper cartons of Mayfield Vanilla Classic Ice Cream
with a code date of 01/30/09 and a Universal Product Code number
of 75243 20144.
The recall was initiated because the affected product contains
pecans, which are not listed on the label. No other code dates
or Mayfield Dairy Farms products are involved in this recall.
Some individuals with allergies to pecans run the risk of a
serious reaction if they consume this product. No allergic
reactions have been reported.
This recall includes only 250 units. The affected product was
distributed in parts of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and
Florida. The majority of the product has been recovered and
Mayfield's delivery drivers and distributors are working with
retail stores to actively recover the remaining product.
This recall includes only half-gallon rectangular paper cartons
of Mayfield Vanilla Classic Ice Cream with a code date of
01/30/09 and plant code of 47225. Consumers should look for
this information on the end of the carton. The UPC number is
75243 20144. No other code dates or Mayfield Dairy Farms
products are involved in this recall.
The company apologizes for any inconvenience to its customers.
Consumers who purchase the product may return it to the place of
purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with
questions can contact the company at 1-800-MAYFIELD (1-800-629-
3435).
The Tennessee Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug
Administration have been notified of this voluntary recall.
NORTHWESTERN CORP: MT Court Says "McGreevey" Settlement Invalid
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Montana has
suggested that a proposed settlement in the class action
"McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana Power Co., et al., Case no.
2:03-cv-00001-SHE," which names Northwestern Corp. as defendant,
is invalid since the plaintiffs' attorneys had not secured the
court's permission to engage in settlement discussions.
The company was one of several defendants named in the class
action filed by former shareholders of The Montana Power Co.,
most of whom became shareholders of Touch America Holdings, Inc.
as a result of a corporate reorganization of the Montana Power
Co.
The suit claims that the disposition of various generating and
energy-related assets by The Montana Power Co. were void because
of the failure to obtain shareholder approval for the
transactions.
The plaintiffs in the suit are thus seeking to reverse those
transactions, or receive fair value for their stock as of late
2001, when shareholder approval should have been sought.
The company is named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased The Montana Power L.L.C., which the plaintiffs are
claiming is a successor to the Montana Power Co.
In June 2006, the company and the "McGreevey" plaintiffs entered
into an agreement to settle the claims that were brought.
In November 2006, a Bankruptcy Court finally approved the
agreement and the claims were discharged. The plaintiffs'
attorneys and the company filed a joint motion to dismiss the
claims against the company in the McGreevey lawsuits and no
objections were filed.
On March 16, 2007, the federal court denied the motions to
dismiss the company from the McGreevey lawsuits questioning the
benefits of the settlement to be received by the class members
in the settlement and the authority of the plaintiffs' counsel
to have negotiated the settlement without a class having been
certified by the federal court.
On Jan. 11, 2008, the U.S. District Court in Montana suggested
that the settlement agreement was invalid because the
plaintiffs' attorneys had not secured the court's permission to
engage in settlement discussions, according to its Feb. 26, 2008
form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "McGreevey, et al. v. Montana Power Co., et al.,
Case No. 2:03-cv-00001-SEH," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Montana, Judge Sam E. Haddon presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Wade Dahood, Esq.
Knight Dahood Mclean Everett & Dayton
P.O. Box 727
Anaconda, MT 59711-0727
Phone: 406-563-3424
Fax: 406-563-7519
Milton Datsopoulos, Esq. (mdatsopoulos@dmllaw.com)
Datsopoulos Macdonald & Lind
201 W. Main, Central Square Building, Suite 201
Missoula, MT 59802
Phone: 406-728-0810
Fax: 406-543-0134
- and -
Allan M. McGarvey, Esq. (amcgarvey@mcgarveylaw.com)
McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey,
745 S. Main Street
Kalispell, MT 59901-2529
Phone: 406-752-5566
Fax: 406-752-7124
Representing the defendants is:
Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq. (kim@bkbh.com)
Browning Kaleczyc Berry & Hoven
PO Box 1697
Helena, MT 59624-1697
Phone: 406-443-6820
Fax: 406-443-6883
NORTHWESTERN CORP: S.D. Court Mulls Arguments in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota has yet
to issue a ruling on shareholder class action pending against
Northwestern Corp., d/b/a NorthWestern Energy, according to the
company's Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
In November 2005, the company and its directors were named
defendants in a shareholder class action and derivative action,
"City of Livonia Employee Retirement System v. Draper, et al."
The plaintiff claims, among other things, that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by not sufficiently negotiating
with Montana Public Power Inc. and Black Hills Corp., two
entities that had made public, unsolicited offers to purchase
NorthWestern.
On April 26, 2006, Livonia amended its complaint to add
allegations that company directors had erred in choosing the
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure Limited offer because it was not
the most attractive offer they had received for the company.
The parties have entered into a settlement agreement which
provides that NorthWestern will redeem the existing shareholder
rights plan either following shareholder approval of the Merger
Agreement with BBI or upon termination of the Merger Agreement
with BBI -- whichever occurs first.
The Board may adopt a new shareholder rights plan if the
shareholders approve adoption of such a plan in advance or, in
the event that circumstances require timely implementation of
such a plan, the Board seeks and receives approval from
shareholders within 12 months after adoption.
After limited confirmatory discovery, the settlement agreement
has been filed. In December 2006 the federal court indicated it
would not approve the settlement because it did not provide any
benefit to the class members.
Based on the federal court's order, the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice on the condition that the
federal court would retain jurisdiction over any award of
attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs' lawyers have filed a motion seeking discovery in
advance of its motion for an award of attorneys' fees. The
motion was denied. The plaintiffs then filed a request for
attorneys' fees and costs aggregating $9.9 million, to which
request the company had responded, arguing that plaintiffs'
lawyers are entitled to no fees.
The plaintiffs filed a reply in May 2007. On May 24, 2007, the
company notified the federal court of the MPSC unanimous
direction to its staff to draft an order rejecting the proposed
BBI transaction, noting that unless the BBI transaction was
approved, the plaintiffs' argument for benefit to the estate
would be moot and suggested that the federal court delay any
ruling until the Montana Public Service Commission (MPSC)
reaches a final decision on the BBI transaction.
On July 25, 2007, the company advised the federal court that the
Merger Agreement was terminated based on the action by the MPSC
denying consideration of the revised proposal and denying
approval of the transaction. At the time, the company noted
that there could be no benefit to our shareholders justifying an
attorneys' fee award in light of the termination of the BBI
transaction.
On Dec. 13, 2007, the federal court ordered additional
simultaneous briefing on the issue of whether, in light of the
BBI termination, the Livonia litigation had benefited the
company's shareholders.
Briefings concluded in January 2008 and the company is currently
awaiting a decision by the federal court.
The suit is "City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System v.
Draper, et al., Case No. 4:05-cv-04178-LLP," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Dakota, Judge Lawrence
L. Piersol presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Randall J. Baron, Esq. (randyb@csgrr.com)
Darren J. Robbins, Esq. (darrenr@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 231-1058
Fax: (619) 231-7423
- and -
Willie Briscoe, Esq.
Provost and Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: (214) 744-3000
e-mail: provost_dallas@yahoo.com
Representing the defendants are:
Filiberto Agusti, Esq. (fagusti@steptoe.com)
Scott T. Bielicki, Esq. (sbielicki@steptoe.com)
David F. Rifkind, Esq. (drifkind@steptoe.com)
Andrew Sloniewsky, Esq. (asloniewsky@steptoe.com)
Steptoe and Johnson, LLP
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-429-6428
202-429-6751
202-429-8094
202-429-6759
- and -
Roberto Antonio Lange, Esq. (rlange@dehs.com)
Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith
P.O. Box 1030
Sioux Falls, SD 57101-1030
Phone: 336-2880
Fax: 335-3639
OFFICE DEPOT: Faces Two Putative Securities Fraud Suits in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc., faces two putative class actions that were
filed against the company and certain of its executive officers,
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
according to its Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 29, 2007.
The allegations in the lawsuits, which were both filed in
November 2007, primarily relate to the accounting for vendor
program funds. Each of the lawsuits were filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Judge
Daniel T. K. Hurley presiding, and are captioned as follows:
* "Nichols v. Office Depot, Steve Odland and Patricia
McKay (Case Number, 07-14348)," filed on Nov. 6, 2007;
* "Sheet Metal Worker Local 28 v. Office Depot, Steve
Odland and Patricia McKay (Case Number, 07-81038),"
filed on Nov. 5, 2007;
On Jan. 4, 2008, certain parties in "Nichols v. Office Depot,
et. al.," moved to consolidate the two class action lawsuits.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@csgrr.com)
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-750-3000
Fax: 561-750-3364
Representing the defendants is:
Alvin F. Lindsay, III, Esq. (aflindsay@hhlaw.com)
Hogan & Hartson
1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-459-6500
Fax: 305-459-6550
OLD REPUBLIC: Continues to Face Several Title Insurance Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Co., a principal title
insurance subsidiary of Old Republic International Corp.,
continues to face purported class actions over title insurance
in state and federal courts in Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania and Texas.
The plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC or by state rating bureaus with the state insurance
regulators, ORNTIC was required, but failed, to give consumers
reissue and refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions.
The actions seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief,
according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company. The Company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.
OLD REPUBLIC: Subsidiaries Face Calif., Wash. Customers' Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic Title & Escrow, Ltd. and Old Republic Title
Company, both of which are subsidiaries of Old Republic
International Corp., face two separate purported class actions
filed by customers in California and Washington.
During the fourth quarter of 2007, purported class action
lawsuits were filed against two of the Company's title agency
subsidiaries -- Old Republic Title & Escrow, Ltd. and Old
Republic Title Company -- with the Superior Court of Washington,
King County, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, respectively.
The action in Washington alleges that the Company's subsidiary
overcharged customers for escrow-related fees and did not
disclose to customers that it would keep interest or credits or
benefits in lieu of interest on money deposited into escrow.
The action in California is brought by and on behalf of Hispanic
home buyers in Monterey County against various real estate
developers, brokers, mortgage brokers, mortgage lenders,
mortgage loan servicers, as well as the Company's title agency
subsidiary, and alleges that the title agency failed to provide
adequate disclosures to protect the buyers from the abusive
sales and predatory lending practices of the other defendants.
Both actions seek damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
Old Republic International Corp. -- http://www.oldrepublic.com/
-- is an insurance holding company. The Company is engaged in
the single business of insurance underwriting. It conducts its
business through a number of regulated insurance company
subsidiaries organized into three major segments: General
(property and liability), Mortgage Guaranty and Title insurance
segments.
PALO ALTO: Recalls Supplement Products Over Aildenafil Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Alto Labs, 265 SW Port St. Lucie Blvd., Suite 252, Port St.
Lucie, FL 34984, is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of
the company's supplement products sold under the name Aspire36
and Aspire Lite.
Palo Alto Labs is conducting this recall after being informed by
representatives of the Food and Drug Administration that lab
analysis by FDA of Aspire36 and Aspire Lite samples found that
the products contained Aildenafil in trace amounts and Dimethyl
sildenafil thione (sulfoaildenafil) a purported analog of
Sildenafil, an FDA-approved drug used as treatment for male
Erectile Dysfunction.
Sulfoaildenafil is close in structure to Sildenafil and is
expected to possess a similar pharmacological and adverse event
profile. This may pose a threat to consumers because the
analogue may interact with nitrates found in some prescription
drugs (such as nitroglycerin) and may lower blood pressure to
dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high blood pressure,
high cholesterol, or heart disease often take nitrates. ED is a
common problem in men with these conditions, and consumers may
seek these types of products to enhance sexual performance.
Aspire36 and Aspire Lite are sold nationwide. The products are
sold as a blister pack containing one liquid capsule or a bottle
containing either three or 12 liquid capsules.
Consumers who have Aspire36 and Aspire Lite in their possession
should stop using them immediately. In the event of any adverse
side effects due to the consumption of these products, consumers
should contact a physician right away. Any adverse events that
may be related to the use of these products should be reported
to the FDA's MedWatch Program by phone at 1-800-FDA-1088 or by
fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787.
The Company is advising consumers to return any unused Aspire36
and Aspire Lite, for a refund of the full purchase price, to the
retail location from which it was purchased or to the Company
directly if it was purchased from the Company as a part of its
Direct Response Program. Consumers can call 1-(877)240-3340 for
instructions on the return and refund process.
Palo Alto Labs conducts stringent quality control testing on
both raw materials and finished products. Previous testing
protocols did not include a test for the presence of Aildenafil
or sulfoaildenafil but Palo Alto Labs assures consumers that
this deficiency has been rectified. Palo Alto Labs apologizes
for any inconvenience and expresses its concern for the health
of consumers by conducting a voluntary recall action. Palo Alto
Labs promises to ensure quality and integrity of all its
products and the company is working closely with the FDA in the
recall process.
PERFORMANCE FOOD: Faces Consolidated Merger Suit in Tennessee
-------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Food Group Co. faces a consolidated class action in
Tennessee over certain merger agreement by and among VISTAR
Corp., Panda Acquisition, Inc., and the Company, according to
its Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007.
In January 2008, three of the Company's shareholders filed three
separate class actions against the Company and its individual
directors in the Chancery Court for the State of Tennessee, 20th
Judicial District at Nashville
The suits are styled as:
-- "Crescente v. Performance Food Group Company, et al.,
Case No. 08-140-IV;"
-- "Neel v. Performance Food Group Company, et al., Case
No. 08-151-II;" and
-- "Friends of Ariel Center for Policy Research v. Sledd,
et al. Case No. 08-224-II."
The allegations in all three suits arise from the Company's
Jan. 18, 2008 public announcement of entering into a certain
merger agreement by and among VISTAR Corp., Panda Acquisition,
Inc., and the Company.
VISTAR Corp. is a foodservice distributor controlled by
affiliates of The Blackstone Group with a minority interest held
by an affiliate of Wellspring Capital Management LLC.
Two of the lawsuits also include The Blackstone Group and
Wellspring Capital Management as named defendants, and one
includes VISTAR Corporation as a named defendant.
All three lawsuits were filed with the Chancery Court for the
State of Tennessee, specifically in the 20th Judicial District
at Nashville.
Each complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duties
against the Company's directors, alleging, among other things,
that the consideration to be paid to the Company's shareholders
pursuant to the merger agreement is unfair and inadequate, and
not the result of a full and adequate sale process, and that the
Company's directors engaged in "self-dealing."
Two of the complaints also allege aiding and abetting or undue
control claims against The Blackstone Group, Wellspring Capital
Management LLC and VISTAR.
The complaints each seek, among other relief, class
certification, an injunction preventing completion of the merger
and attorneys' fees and expenses.
By order entered Jan. 28, 2008, the Neel case was transferred to
Chancery Court Part IV where the Crescente case is pending.
An agreed order has entered by the Court on Feb. 14, 2008
consolidating the Crescente and Neel cases and appointing
counsel for those plaintiffs as co-lead counsel for the renamed
consolidated matter, "In re: Performance Food Group Co.
Shareholders Litigation, Case No. 08-140-IV."
On Feb. 22, 2008, a motion to reconsider the consolidation order
was filed by Friends of Ariel Center for Policy Research. That
motion is scheduled to be heard on March 7, 2008.
Discovery requests have been served by the plaintiffs on the
defendants and various third parties.
Performance Food Group Co. -- http://www.pfgc.com-- markets and
distributes food and non-food products to customers in the
foodservice or food-away-from-home industry. It markets and
distributes over 68,000 national and its own brand food and non-
food products to over 41,000 customers in the foodservice or
food-away-from-home industry. It has two segments. The
Broadline distribution segment markets and distributes more than
65,000 national and own brand food and non-food products to more
than 41,000 customers, including street customers, such as
independent restaurants, and certain corporate-owned and
franchisee locations of chains, such as Burger King, Church's,
Subway and Zaxby's. The Customized distribution segment focuses
on serving casual and family dining chain restaurants, such as
Outback Steakhouse, Ruby Tuesday and T.G.I. Friday's. Products
offered under the Company's own brands include canned and dry
groceries, tabletop sauces, meat, baked goods, shortenings and
oils.
PONZI LITIGATION: MI Residents File Lawsuit Over Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action complaint was filed with the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Michigan against an Oakland
County resident who bilked more than $350 million from 14
Michigan residents in Ponzi Scheme.
A news conference is set for today, March 5, 2008, at 1:00 p.m.
with attorneys and plaintiffs addressing media.
The news conference is to announce the class action filed
against Frank J. Bluestein, individually, as well as these other
defendants:
-- The Maximum Financial Group, Inc., a Michigan
corporation,
-- Questar Capital Corporation, a Michigan corporation, and
-- Gunnallen Financial, Inc., a Florida corporation,
jointly and severally.
The investors were defrauded out of their life savings in a 12-
year long ponzi scheme.
The class action seeks to hold the defendants liable for over
$350,000,000 bilked from investors during a series of
transactions involving phony businesses.
The plaintiffs and other investors in this case will attend the
news conference along with their attorneys representing Sommers
Schwartz, P.C., J. Thompson & Associates, and Paul L. Nine.
For more information, contact:
Sommers Schwartz, P.C.
2000 Town Center, Suite 900
Southfield, MI 48075-1100
Phone 248-355-0300
e-mail: info@sommerspc.com
Web site: http://www.SOMMERSPC.COM/
QUIZNOS SUB: Franchisees Sue Over WI Consumer Laws Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A group of franchisees of Quiznos Sub today filed a Class Action
Complaint against the company in Milwaukee County Circuit Court
(State of Wisconsin).
The lawsuit, alleges multiple violations of Wisconsin's consumer
protection laws. Among other things, the Complaint charges that
Quiznos exploited its Wisconsin franchisees through deceptive
trade practices, breached promises about the costs of operating
a Quiznos restaurant and that the company failed to act in good
faith by executing on a scheme designed to build the brand at
the expense of its franchise owners.
The Complaint stems from a November 5, 2007 decision of Judge
William C. Griesbach in a lawsuit filed by the same franchisees
in a Wisconsin federal court, "Westerfield, et al. v. The
Quizno's Franchise Company LLC, et al. (Case No. 06-C-1210)."
Judge Griesbach's decision encouraged the franchisees to pursue
their state law claims in Wisconsin state courts.
"Following the federal court ruling, Quiznos publicly announced
that they had won this lawsuit and that it was over, but that
cannot be further from the truth," said franchisee and plaintiff
John Schodron, who operates a Quiznos restaurant in Slinger,
Wisc. "We will continue to fight Quiznos' deceptive practices
and policies that harm the franchisees no matter where that
fight has to take place until we get the justice and fair
treatment we deserve."
The Wisconsin Complaint is one of many class action lawsuits
pending around the United States against Quiznos Sub that
challenges the company's business practices as deceptive and
unfair. These actions include a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, "Siemer,
et al. v. The Quizno's Franchise Company LLC, et al., Case No.
07-C-2170," and two in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado:
-- "Brunet, et al. v. The Quizno's Franchise Company LLC,
et al., Case No. 07-CV-01717" and
-- "Bonanno, et al. v. The Quizno's Franchise Company LLC,
et al., Case No. 06-CV-02358."
According to the Toasted Subs Franchisee Association, Inc., an
independent Quiznos franchisee organization comprised of
hundreds of franchisees from across the United States, the
filing of the Milwaukee County action is a message to Quiznos'
executives that the fight is far from over.
"Quiznos has given franchisees no alternative to litigation.
They have refused our efforts over the years to work with them
and have ignored our concerns" said TSFA president Danny
Kessels. "The goal of these lawsuits has always been to right
the wrongs of the past and, more importantly, to allow the
franchisees that are still alive in this system to get a fair
chance at success by selling the best product on the market."
The TSFA was started in 2001 as a means to address the concerns
of the Quiznos franchisee community. "We will continue to fight
for change until those changes are universal throughout the
Quiznos system and Quiznos acknowledges the harm it caused to
thousands of franchisees over the years," added Mr. Kessels.
Denver-based Quiznos has more than 4,900 locations in 15
countries and 425 in Canada, where it boasts it is growing
fastest among quick-service restaurant chains.
SEI INVESTMENTS: Awaits Ruling on Dismissal Bid in "Carey" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has not yet
ruled on a proposal to dismiss SEI Investments Distribution Co.,
or SIDCO, a subsidiary of SEI Investments Co., in the
consolidated class action, "Stephen Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter &
Associates, Ltd., et al."
The PBHG Complaint is purportedly made on behalf of all persons
who purchased or held PBHG mutual funds from Nov. 1, 1998, to
Nov. 13, 2003, and relates generally to various market timing
practices allegedly permitted by the PBHG Funds.
The suit names as defendants some 36 persons and entities,
including various persons and entities affiliated with Pilgrim
Baxter & Associates, Ltd., various PBHG Funds, various alleged
market timers, various alleged facilitating brokers, various
clearing brokers, various banks that allegedly financed the
market timing activities, various distributors/underwriters and
others.
The PBHG Complaint alleges that the company was the named
distributor/underwriter from November 1998 until July 2001 for
various PBHG funds in which market timing allegedly occurred
during that period.
It generally alleges that the prospectus for certain PBHG funds
made misstatements and omissions concerning market-timing
practices in PBHG funds.
The PBHG Complaint also alleges that the company violated
Sections 11 and 12 (a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940, and that the company breached its fiduciary
duties, engaged in constructive fraud and aided and abetted the
breach by others of their fiduciary duties.
It does not name the company or any of its affiliates as a
market timer, facilitating or clearing broker or financier of
market timers. The PBHG Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement and restitution.
In 2006, the plaintiffs submitted a proposed form of order
dismissing SIDCO from the action, but the court has not yet
acted on the proposed order. The company had not made any
provision relating to this legal proceeding.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Carey v. Pilgrim Baxter & Associates, Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 1:04-cv-01151-JFM," filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, Judge J. Frederick Motz
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Marc A. Topaz, Esq. (mtopaz@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz and Kessler LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: 16106677706
Fax: 16106677056
- and -
William C. Fredericks, Esq. (bill@blbglaw.com)
Bernstein Litowitz Berger and Grossman LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Phone: 12125541400
Fax: 12125541444
Representing the defendants are:
Thomas Walter Dymek, Esq. (tdymek@stradley.com)
Stradley Ronon Stevens and Young LLP
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 12155648000
Fax: 12155648120
- and -
Stephanie Glaser Wheeler, Esq. (wheelers@sullcrom.com)
Sullivan and Cromwell LLP
125 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004
Phone: 12125587384
Fax: 12125583354
SONIC SOLUTIONS: Faces Putative Shareholder Lawsuits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonic Solutions and various of its executive officers and
directors face two putative shareholder class actions that were
filed in California, according to its Feb. 25, 2008 form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
On Oct. 4, 2007, a putative shareholder class action was filed
with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California against the company and certain of its executive
officers and directors on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs comprised of persons that purchased the company's
shares between Oct. 4, 2002, and May 17, 2007.
This action alleges various violations of the Exchange Act and
the rules promulgated thereunder, and is based on substantially
similar factual allegations and claims as in the derivative
actions.
On Nov. 16, 2007, a second putative shareholder class action was
filed with the Superior Court of California for the County of
Marin against the company and certain of its executive officers
and directors on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs
comprised of persons that purchased shares of the company
between July 12, 2001, and May 17, 2007.
The second action alleges breach of fiduciary duties, and is
based on substantially similar factual allegations and claims as
in the other lawsuits.
Sonic Solutions -- http://www.sonic.com-- develops and markets
computer software related to digital media, such as data,
photographs, audio and video in digital formats. Its product
lines focus on the two optical disc-based digital media formats,
the Compact Audio Disc and the Digital Video Disc, as well as
the High Definition Digital Video Disc and Blu-ray Disc formats.
Sonic's Professional Products Group offers hardware and software
authoring solutions for creating packaged media releases in DVD-
Video, DVD-read only memory, as well as HD DVD and BD next-
generation, high-definition and high-density disc formats. The
Roxio Division offers a number of digital media software
application products under the Roxio brand name. The Advanced
Technology Group develops software and software components that
it supplies to the other two operating units and that it
licenses to personal computer application and consumer
electronics developers.
WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls Four Bean Salad for Possible Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walker's Food Products Company of North Kansas City, Missouri,
is recalling its 16oz., 5-lb. and 10-lb. containers of Four Bean
Salad because of potential contamination with Clostridium
botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness
or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product, even if it does not
look or smell spoiled. Botulism, a potentially fatal form of
food poisoning, can cause the following symptoms: general
weakness, dizziness, double vision, and trouble with speaking or
swallowing. Difficulty in breathing, weakness of muscles,
abdominal distension, and constipation may also be common
symptoms. People experiencing these problems should seek
immediate medical attention.
The recalled Four Bean Salad was distributed to distributors in
Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa for ultimate distribution
to retail stores and restaurants. The product in the 16 oz.
containers was packaged under the Kay's Gourmet brand name. The
product in the 5-lb. and 10-lb. containers was packaged under
the Walker's Food Products Co. brand name. The containers are
round clear plastic packages, which have an expiration date
stamped on the bottom surface. The expiration dates subject to
recall are 12/23/07 thru 04/5/08.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
Walker's Food Products became aware of the problem after being
notified by another company they had received beans that had
been recalled due to being potentially contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum. The manufacturer of the beans and FDA
are continuing to investigate the source of this problem.
Consumers who have purchased 16 oz., 5-lb. and 10-lb. containers
of the Four Bean Salad are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1-800-725-2372.
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Kansas Court Yet to Certify Natural Gas Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Kansas state court has yet to rule on a motion seeking class
certification for a lawsuit filed against Williams Partners L.P.
along with its other subsidiaries.
In 2001, the defendants were named in the purported nationwide
class action in Kansas state court that had been pending against
other defendants, generally pipeline and gathering companies,
since 2000.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have engaged in mis-
measurement techniques that distort the heating content of
natural gas, resulting in an alleged underpayment of royalties
to the class of producer-plaintiffs and sought an unspecified
amount of damages.
The defendants have opposed class certification and a hearing on
plaintiffs' second motion to certify the class was held on
April 1, 2005. Parties are still awaiting a decision from the
court.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Williams Partners L.P. -- http://www.williamslp.com-- is a
partnership formed by The Williams Companies, Inc. (Williams),
to own, operate and acquire a diversified portfolio of
complementary energy assets. The Company is principally engaged
in the business of gathering, transporting and processing
natural gas and fractionating and storing natural gas liquids.
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Suit Over Natural Gas Royalty Payments
--------------------------------------------------------------
XTO Energy, Inc., continues to face a purported class action
filed on January 2006 with the District Court of Texas County,
Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells in Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs in the suit, "Beer, et al. v. XTO Energy Inc.,"
allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted to them the
royalties to which they are entitled and seek an accounting
regarding the natural gas and other products produced from their
wells and the prices paid for the natural gas and other products
produced, and for payment of the amount allegedly owed since
June 2002, with a certain limited number of plaintiffs claiming
amounts owed for additional time.
A hearing on the class certification has not been scheduled.
The plaintiffs have not alleged, in their petition, an amount
they are seeking.
XTO Energy has informed the trustee -- Bank of America, N.A. --
that it believes that it has strong defenses to this lawsuit and
intends to vigorously defend its position.
However, if XTO Energy ultimately makes any settlement payments
or receives a judgment against it, the trust -- Hugoton Royalty
Trust -- will bear its 80% share of such settlement or judgment
related to production from the underlying properties.
Additionally, if a judgment or settlement increases the amount
of future payments to royalty owners, the trust would bear its
proportionate share of the increased payments through reduced
net proceeds.
XTO Energy further informed the trustee that, although the
amount of any reduction in net proceeds is not presently
determinable, in its management's opinion, the amount is not
currently expected to be material to the trust's annual
distributable income, financial position or liquidity.
Hugoton Royalty Trust reported no development in the matter in
its Feb. 26, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com-- and its
subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.
New Securities Fraud Cases
LEVITT CORP: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson announced the commencement of a class action
lawsuit against Levitt Corp. on behalf of individuals, families,
trusts or other entities that purchased common stock between
January 31, 2007, and August 14, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that Levitt and certain of its officers
and directors violated federal securities laws. On January 31,
2007, Levitt announced a merger with BFC Financial Corp.
Based on BFC stock's closing price on the previous trading day,
the proposed transaction valued Levitt stock at $14.41 per share
-- a premium of 32 percent over the closing price of $10.88 per
share on the previous trading day. During the Class Period,
Defendants failed to disclose the following:
(i) that the Company's Levitt and Sons subsidiary was in
worse financial condition than represented and was
saddled with unneeded land which would not be feasible
to develop for some time. Furthermore, Levitt and Sons
was struggling to complete projects it had already
begun and was often failing to complete construction of
homes that it had already sold;
(ii) Levitt was materially overstating its financial results
because it was failing to timely record an impairment
in the value of its homebuilding inventory at Levitt
and Sons;
(iii) Levitt's loans to Levitt and Sons would not be
recovered; and
(iv) that Levitt and Sons was insolvent.
On August 15, 2007, Levitt announced that the merger agreement
with BFC had been terminated. On this news, Levitt's stock fell
$0.79 per share to close at $2.96 per share. Subsequently, on
November 9, 2007, it was announced that Levitt and Sons filed
for bankruptcy.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 25,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
James F. Conway, III, Esq.
Eben F. Duval, Esq.
Christopher Allen, Esq.
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road
P.O. Box 2305
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Phone: 1-888-459-7855
e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com
SALLIE MAE: Johnson & Perkinson Files Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson hereby announces the commencement of a class
action lawsuit naming SLM Corporation (Sallie Mae) on behalf of
individuals, families, trusts or other entities that purchased
Sallie Mae common stock between January 18, 2007 and January 3,
2008, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that Sallie Mae and certain of its
officers and directors violated federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements.
Specifically, Defendants concealed the following:
(i) the Company failed to engage in proper due diligence in
originating student loans to subprime borrowers,
particularly those attending non-traditional
institutions;
(ii) the Company was not adequately reserving for
uncollectible loans in its non-traditional portfolio;
(iii) the Company had far greater exposure to anticipated
losses and defaults related to its non-traditional loan
portfolio than previously disclosed; and
(iv) given the deterioration of the subprime market and
reductions in federal subsidies, the Company would be
forced to tighten lending standards on both federal
loans and private education loans which would have a
direct material negative impact on its loan
originations going forward.
On January 3, 2008, the Company disclosed that it would be
cutting back on its core business of lending to students by
being "more selective" in making students loans due to turmoil
in the credit markets and a new federal law that slashed
subsidies to the private companies that make government-backed
student loans. On this news, Sallie Mae's stock dropped $2.49
per share to close at $16.67 per share. Sallie Mae traded as
high as $57.98 per share in July 2007.
Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Eben F. Duval, Esq.
Christopher Allen, Esq.
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road
P.O. Box 2305
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Phone: 1-888-459-7855
e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com
Meetings, Conferences & Seminars
* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------
March 3-5, 2008
MEALEY'S EMERGING TRENDS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
A PLAINTIFF/DEFENSE FORUM & DEBATE
Mealeys Seminars
The Four Seasons Los Angeles at Beverly Hills
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 4-5, 2008
SUBPRIME LITIGATION AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT
American Conference Institute
Dallas
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
March 5, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE IN CLASS ACTIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 6, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME-BACKED SECURITIES LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CHALLENGES OF THE MANAGING
GENERAL AGENT MODEL
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 11, 2008
MEALEY'S PRODUCT LIABILITY TELECONFERENCE: DIACETYL LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: ASBESTOS RISK TRANSFER
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 12, 2008
MEALEY'S SUBPRIME MORTGAGE TELECONFERENCE: COVERAGE ISSUES
ARISING FROM SUBPRIME LENDING
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: REINSURANCE/ARBITRATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13, 2008
MEALEY'S NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES CONFERENCE
WHO'S SUING, WHO'S RESTORING AND CAN THEY DO BOTH?
Mealeys Seminars
Loews Philadelphia Hotel
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 13-14, 2008
PRIVACY LAW: DEVELOPMENTS, PLANNING, AND LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 26, 2008
MEALEY'S PHARMACEUTICAL LITIGATION TELECONFERENCE: PREEMPTION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
March 27-28, 2008
ENVIRONMENTAL AND TOXIC TORT LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
March 31 - April 1, 2008
FDA BOOT CAMP
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
April 2, 2008
LEXISNEXIS PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TELECONFERENCE SERIES:
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FOR ATTORNEYS - HAVING THE
HARD CONVERSATIONS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 3-4, 2008
MEALEY'S LEAD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Walt Disney World Swan and Dolphin Resort, Orlando
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 9-12, 2008
MEALEY'S 15th Annual Insurance Insolvency & Reinsurance
Mealeys Seminars
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 10-11, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Wynn, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-320-2227
April 14-15, 2008
MEALEY'S CONFERENCE: FOOD & PRODUCT RECALL BUSINESS STRATEGIES
Mealeys Seminars
The MGM Grand, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 15, 2008
LEXISNEXIS TELECONFERENCE: MANAGING OUTSIDE COUNSEL COSTS
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 16, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: CONSTRUCTION DEFECT &
MOLD LITIGATION UPDATE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 16, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT
Mealeys Seminars
The Gleacher Center, Chicago
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
April 30 - May 1, 2008
ACI LAW FIRM GENERAL COUNSEL SUMMIT
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
April 30 - May 1, 2008
WAGE & HOUR LITIGATION
American Conference Institute
Miami
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
May 1-2, 2008
SECURITIES LITIGATION: PLANNING AND STRATEGIES
ALI-ABA
Boston, MA
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
May 5-6, 2008
MEALEY'S ASBESTOS TRIAL STRATEGIES CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 7, 2008
LEXISNEXIS ETHICS TELECONFERENCE SERIES: CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 8, 2008
MEALEY'S TELECONFERENCE: BENZENE LITIGATION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 8, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (ATLANTA)
Mealeys Seminars
The Atlantic Station Building, Atlanta, GA
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 13-14, 2008
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conference Institute
New York
Web site: https://www.americanconference.com
Phone: 1-888-224-2480
May 15, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION TELECONFERENCE
SERIES: ASSUMING A LEADERSHIP POSITION
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 19-20, 2008
MEALEY'S INSURANCE SUMMIT: CAPITAL MARKETS CONVERGENCE AND
STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS FACING THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY
Mealeys Seminars
The Westin Grand, Washington, DC
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 20-21, 2008
MEALEY'S CONSTRUCTION LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
May 29-30, 2008
MASS LITIGATION
ALI-ABA
Charleston, SC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
June 23-24, 2008
MEALEY'S WRAP INSURANCE CONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
The Signatures at the MGM Grand, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
June 25, 2008
LEXISNEXIS WOMEN IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION SUMMIT: RAINMAKING,
NEGOTIATING AND COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT (NEW YORK)
Mealeys Seminars
The Harvard Club, New York
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
July 10-11, 2008
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2008: PROSECUTION AND
DEFENSE STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
New York
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
July 30, 2008
MANAGING COMPLEX FEDERAL LITIGATION: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO NEW
DEVELOPMENTS, PROCEDURES, & STRATEGIES
Practising Law Institute
Chicago
Phone: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710
October 23-24, 2008
Mass Torts Made Perfect Seminar
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Bellagio, Las Vegas
Phone: 1-800-320-2227
* Online Teleconferences
------------------------
December 13, 2008
MEALEY'S FINITE REINSURANCE TELECONFERENCE
Mealeys Seminars
Phone: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
e-mail: mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 23RD ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
(2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINATION
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING
WRITTEN DISCOVERY
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
TORTS PRACTICE: 20TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2005)
CEB Online
e-mail: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu
Phone: 1-800-232-3444
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY-PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
e-mail: seminars@bigclassaction.com
SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com/Law Education Institute
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
e-mail: customerservice@lawcommerce.com
THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Phone: 800-285-2221
e-mail: abacle@abanet.org
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Janice Mendoza, Freya Natasha Dy, and
Peter Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2008. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *