C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 7, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 48 Headlines ALABAMA: Man Jailed For Not Paying Traffic Fines Sues Florence ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Comer" Case ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Seat Belts AMERICAN WEST: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Substandard Homes CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Accuses El Grupo Mayan of Bilking Citizens CANADA: Students Disqualified in Woodlands School Lawsuit CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Grants Summary Judgment Motion in "Morrell" CAREMARK RX: Continues to Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Suit CAREMARK RX: Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Suit by Non-ERISA Members CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Seeks Stay on Proceedings in Ala. Lawsuit CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders' Lawsuit CONSECO LIFE: Accused of Illegal Rate Hikes in Calif. Lawsuit CVS CAREMARK: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Pharmacists' Lawsuit FORD MOTOR: Court Grant Leave to Appeal Petition in N.J. Lawsuit FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Mulls Canadian Antitrust Suit Appeal FORD MOTOR: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Calif. GILEAD SCIENCES: Nixing of CA Securities Lawsuit Still on Appeal GORTON'S SEAFOOD: Recalls Adulterated Battered Fish Fillets INFATINO LLC: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard LORILLARD INC: Faces Calif. Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits LORILLARD INC: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in "Engle" Lawsuit LORILLARD INC: La. High Court Denies Review Petitions in "Scott" LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Sanders" Seeks Supreme Court Review LORILLARD INC: Second Circuit Stays Proceedings in "Schwab" Case LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Liability in "Discrimination Impact" Affirmed MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Claims Valuation Suit in California MICROSOFT: e-Mails Show Knowledge of Error in "Vista" Lawsuit NEW YORK: Sued by Two Men Busted on Loitering Law QUAKER OATS: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mixes Posing Health Risk REBELETTE INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard New Securities Fraud Cases ENERNOC INC: Federman & Sherwood Announces Securities Fraud Suit ENERNOC INC: Roy Jacobs Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in Mass. SLM CORP: Charles Johnson Announces Filing of NY Securities Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Appeals Court OKs Dismissal of Beavers Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Temple-Inland Still Faces Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: United Fire's A&E Loss Reserves Total $5Mil ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel's Cases Rise to 325 at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Universal Forest Has Site Cleanup Reserves ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sunoco Inc. Faces Potential 3rd Party Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Solutia Still Involved in Asbestos Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rogers Faces 175 Pending Claims at Dec. 30 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Parsons Case v. Reynolds Units Still Stayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Beloit Subject to Asbestos Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Ind. Action v. PepsiAmericas Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PepsiAmericas Accrues $4Mil for Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OfficeMax Continues to Face Injury Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Rules v. Plaintiff in Kellogg Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Cites Net Reserves of $121.9M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Has $36M for Remaining Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minerals Technologies Still Faces 26 Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation Has 207 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.W. Grainger Inc. Faces 2,800 Plaintiffs ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Appeal Court Favors Black & Veatch ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Ford Motor ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Suits Pending v. Advance Auto, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 426 Lawsuits Pending v. AK Steel at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Records $22.9M Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 826 W.Va. Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Reserves $1.3B for Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AMETEK Continues to Face Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 538 Claims Pending v. Constellation & BGE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Still Pending v. Flowserve ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fitzgerald Briefed on Johns-Manville Issues ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Claimants Asks Court to Extend Period ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 40 Speights Claimants Appeal on Expungement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Deadline on Grace's Appeal Set for April 14 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Minn. Court Favors Plaintiffs in Northshore ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oregon Court Affirms Newman's Remand Motion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ill. AG Sues Bldg. Owner for Cleanup Breach ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Vancouver Workers Back to Work After Scare ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Worker Sues Chesterton, 29 Firms in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mining Sites' Hazard Limit Set Last Feb. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Americana Tenants Awarded $7,500 in Damages ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Groups Blast Canadian Gov't. Over Policies ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 160 Workers to File Lawsuit v. Japan Gov't. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links U.K. Worker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rigby's Widow Raises Awareness of Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanover Has $19.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lawsuits v. ENSCO Pending in Miss., Calif. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Suits Pending v. Curtiss-Wright in Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Offshore Faces Lawsuit from TODCO ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Cites $376.8M Dec. Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records 131,340 U.S. Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $27.6M for N.Y. Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has 342 U.K. Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CIRCOR Records $9.7M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Home Operator Given CDN50,000 Fine ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wendell Couple of W.Va. Sues 38 Companies ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Faces 105,700 Open Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Sealing Involved in 9 Trials in '07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Appealing $1.4M in Verdicts for '07 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Settlement Commitments Total $76Mil ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Garlock Has $381.5M Coverage at Dec. 31 ********* ALABAMA: Man Jailed For Not Paying Traffic Fines Sues Florence -------------------------------------------------------------- A man filed a federal class action lawsuit against Florence, Alabama, who jailed him after being unable to pay fines for numerous misdemeanor traffic violations, the Associated Press reports. Matthew Dendy, 19, is described by his attorney, Robert Gonce, Esq., as indigent. Times Daily relates that between Feb. 27 and May 5, 2007, Mr. Dendy was sentenced to varying fines and jail terms, and on May 24, 2007, part-time Municipal Court Judge James Hall II sentenced him to 444 days in jail or a fine of $6,653. AP says that the suit, filed on Feb. 28, 2008, claims that Mr. Dendy's constitutional rights were violated by the court automatically imposing jail time and failing to examine the reasons why he could not pay the fines. According to Times Daily, the lawsuit also includes a claim that Mr. Dendy was denied medical care while incarcerated and that he must pay a fee to obtain medical services at the Lauderdale County Detention Center, where he is being held. Some say that the ability to pay fines can be questioned, Times Daily notes. "Fines are punishment; you can sit in jail in lieu of paying your fines," Tracy Roberts, assistant general counsel with the Alabama League of Municipalities, said. "If you have the ability to have income, but you do not earn income, you aren't exactly indigent (totally lacking income)." Times Daily points out that currently, the inability to pay fines and court costs is translated into jail time. Florence converts fines and costs against defendants into days spent in jail at a rate of $15 per day of jail time. The suit claims, however, that the statutory rate is $25 per day of jail time. Mr. Gonce said that the city will be served papers on the suit and that Police Chief Rick Singleton and Judge Hall will have 20 days to respond to the charges before a trial date is set. The plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Gonce, Esq. (rgonce@alalawyers.com) Gonce, Young, Collum-Butler & Messer 09 North Court Street Florence, Alabama 35630 Phone: (256) 767-7411 (256) 764-1481 Fax: (256) 767-0320 ALPHARMA INC: Still Faces N.J. Suit Alleging FLSA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Alpharma, Inc. continues to face a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, which is alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The complaint alleges that, among other things: -- over 200 of the Company's U.S. based Pharmaceuticals sales representatives were denied overtime pay, in violation of state and federal labor laws, by being paid for forty hour weeks even though they worked in excess of fifty-five hours per week, and -- that the Company violated federal record-keeping requirements. The suit is "Jackson v. Alpharma, Inc., Case No. 3:07-cv-03250- GEB-JJH," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: James E. Cecchi, Esq. Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Slstein, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Phone: (973) 994-1700 Fax: (973) 994-1744 e-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com Representing the defendants is: Michael T. Bissinger Day Pitney, LLP PO Box 1945 Morristown, NJ 07962-1945 Phone: (973) 966-6300 Fax: (973) 966-1015 e-mail: mbissinger@daypitney.com ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Fifth Circuit Considers Appeal in "Comer" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has yet to issue a ruling on an appeal regarding the dismissal the of all defendants, including Allegheny Energy, Inc., from the purported class action, "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW." The suit was filed on April 19, 2006 against Allegheny Energy, Inc., and numerous other companies with coal-fired generation facilities. It was brought on behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in Mississippi who were harmed by Hurricane Katrina. The named plaintiffs allege that the emission of greenhouse gases by defendants contributed to global warming, thereby causing Hurricane Katrina and plaintiffs' damages. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. On Dec. 6, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint on jurisdictional grounds and joined a motion filed by other defendants to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. At a hearing on Aug. 30, 2007, the Court granted the motion to dismiss that Allegheny Energy had joined, and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against all defendants. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of that ruling on Sept. 17, 2007, and the appeal will now proceed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Comer, et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Case No. 1:05-cv-00436-LTS-RHW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Judge L. T. Senter, Jr. presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: F. Gerald Maples, Esq. Meredith A. Mayberry, Esq. F. Gerald Maples, PA 902 Julia Street New Orleans, LA 70113 Phone: 504/569-8732 e-mail: federal@geraldmaples.com mmayberry@geraldmaples.com - and - Randall Allan Smith, Esq. Stephen M. Wiles, Esq. Smith & Fawer 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 3702 New Orleans, LA 70170 Phone: 504/525-2200 Fax: 504/525-2205 e-mail: rasmith3@bellsouth.net smwiles@smithfawer.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces Lawsuit in Calif. Over Seat Belts ----------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 29, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California accusing the company of refusing to inspect or replace seat belts in cars that have been involved in accidents, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Robert Watts claims that Allstate refused to pay for inspecting and repairing the seat belts in his 2005 Honda Civic after they were damaged in a collision. Mr. Watts says Allstate promised to pay for "the direct and accidental loss" to insured cars but does not make good on its promise, leaving policyholders in danger and in violation of the law in most states. Mr. Watts demands restitution and an injunction on charges of breach of contract, bad faith, fraud and RICO violations. This class action complaint asserts claims for relief for the following: (i) breach of contract; (ii) bad faith; (iii) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (iv) fraud/misrepresentation; (v) unfair competition; and (vi) racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations violations. Mr. Watts brings the action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of any person insured by Allstate for any length of time from 1998 to the present who was involved in a collision in which automatic seat belt tensioners activated, after which Allstate failed to underwrite the inspection and replacement of the seat belts in the vehicle. Mr. Watts requests for the following relief: -- that the court determine that the action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- that the court find that Allstate has violated Business and Professions Coed Section 17200 by developing and implementing a uniform policy of wrongfully declining to underwrite the post-collision inspections and repairs of Allstate-insured vehicles; -- that the court find that Allstate has violated 18 USC Section 1962(c) by preventing third party auto-repair shops from inspecting and repairing defective seat belt tensioners in Allstate-insured vehicles; -- that the court find that Allstate has violated 18 USC Section 1962(c) by operating its own line of auto-repair shops in part to further its implementation of its uniform scheme to wrongfully avoid underwriting post- collision inspections and repairs to Allstate-insured vehicles; -- that the court find that Allstate's violations as described have been knowing and willful; -- that Allstate be ordered and enjoined to pay restitution to plaintiffs and the class due to Allstate's unlawful and unfair and fraudulent activities, pursuant to Business and Professions Code Sections 17200-05; -- that Allstate further be enjoined to cease and desist from unlawful and unfair and fraudulent activities in violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, pursuant to Section 17203; -- that Mr. Watts and the class be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Rule 23(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable law; -- for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with Allstate's ability to pay and sufficient to deter such conduct in the future; -- that the court award such other and further relief as the court may deem appropriate. The suit is "Robert Watts et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company et al., Case No. 08 1236," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Wendy C. York, Esq. Timothy B. Nelson, Esq. York Law Corporation 1111 Exposition Boulevard, Building 500 Sacramento, CA 95815 Phone: (916) 643-2200 Fax: (916) 643-4680 AMERICAN WEST: Faces Lawsuit in Nevada Over Substandard Homes ------------------------------------------------------------- American West Homes is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada alleging it built and sold dozens of substandard homes, CourtHouse News Service reports. Residents of the Classics Development subdivision bring this action on behalf of homeowners of approximately 100 homes within the the Classics Development. The complaint alleges defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that all persons who planned to purchase and who did in fact purchase said structures would do so without inspection of the defects -- which include patent defects, latent defects and defects which defendants knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known would occur. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' willful misconduct, plaintiffs sustained damages in an amount precisely unknown but believed to be within the jurisdiction of the court, in that plaintiffs have been and will be required to perform investigations and works for repair, restoration, and construction to portions of the structures to prevent further damage and to restore the structures to their proper condition and will suffer damages in an amount in excess of $10,000, the full nature and extent of which shall be ascertained according to proof of trial. The suit is "Linda Bennett et al v. American West Homes, Inc., Case No. A558243," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Representing the plaintiffs are: Craig D. Fuller, Esq. 4250 Executive Square, Suite 555 La Jolla, CA 92037 - and - Mark A. Lobello, Esq. The LoBello Law Firm 2061 E. Sahara, 2dn Floor Las Vegas, NV 89104 Phone: (702) 870-8000 CALIFORNIA: Lawsuit Accuses El Grupo Mayan of Bilking Citizens -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accuses El Grupo Mayan Palace of bilking U.S. citizens of "hundreds of millions of dollars" in Mayan Resorts timeshares, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint names the following as defendants: -- Desarollo Marina Vallarta SA de CV, -- El Grupo Mayan Palace, -- Daniel Chavez Moran, -- Daniel Omar Chavez, -- Scott Erikson, -- Casey Jon Owens, -- Canamere Inc., -- Huffsmith-Kohrville Inc., -- Preferred Vacations Inc., -- Premium Travel Services Inc., -- Resort Solutions Inc., -- Seven Oceans US Inc., -- AZM Marketing LLC, -- Resort Quality Controls Inc., -- Resort Condominiums International LLC, and -- Resorts International Marketing Corp. The plaintiffs brings the action under Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1961, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act (RICO) and California state law, seeking monetary and injunctive relief. This case concerns a conspiracy operating and managing resorts in Mexico -- the Mayan Resorts -- which has bilked U.S. citizens out of hundreds of millions of dollars through the use of high pressure fraudulent sales tactics that are comparable to the worst tactics ever employed by used car salesmen in a Hollywood movie. The complaint states that the "defendants earn hundreds of millions each year from such sales by systematically misrepresenting in sales presentations and documents the value of the timeshares they are selling. Defendants as part of their scheme also have misled Plaintiffs as to their rights under Mexican law." The plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who purchased a Mayan Resorts timeshare within the preceding four years and executed a document waiving their right to have their deposit returned if the contract was canceled within five business days. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the Mayan Resorts defendants falsely represented the nature of the cancellation waiver; (b) whether the defendants falsely represented, failed to disclose and concealed the investment value of the timeshare units; (c) whether the defendants conspired with others to falsely represent the Rental Return of the timeshare rentals; (d) whether the defendants' acts constitute violations of the federal RICO statute, 18 USC Section 1961 et seq.; (e) whether the defendants' activities related to their failure to disclose that the five day right to cancellation could not be waived constitute violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (f) whether the fact that the five business day right to cancel was non-waivable was material and relevant information under California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (g) whether the defendants' conduct is unlawful, unfair or fraudulent within the meaning supplied by California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (h) whether the defendants' acts constitute unfair competition within the meaning of California's Unfair competition Law, Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (i) whether the defendants' acts constitute false advertising within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.; (j) whether the defendants' acts constitute common law fraud; (k) whether the defendants' acts constitute fraud in the inducement; (l) whether the defendants' acts constitute civil conspiracy to defraud; (m) whether the defendants' acts constitute breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing; (n) whether the defendants' acts constitute negligence; (o) whether the defendants' acts constitute gross negligence; (p) whether the defendants' acts constitute negligent misrepresentation; and (q) whether the defendants' acts constitute grossly negligent misrepresentation. The plaintiffs request that the court grant the following relief: -- grant judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against the defendants; -- grant temporary and permanent injunctive relief; -- declare that the defendants' conduct constitutes violations of the statutes and common law cited; -- award the plaintiffs an appropriate amount in monetary damages as determined at trial, including pre- and post- judgment interest; -- award the plaintiffs attorneys' fees and the costs of bringing this action; -- award the plaintiffs treble damages against all defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of $75,000 to be proven at trial together with prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees; -- impose exemplary and punitive damages against defendants in an appropriate amount to be determined at trial; and -- grant the plaintiffs such other relief as is just and appropriate. The suit is "Jessica Monugian et al. v. Desarollo Marina Vallarta S.A. de C.V. et al., Case No. CV08-01497," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kevin J. Barry, Esq. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 1999 Harrison street, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 874-1000 Fax: (510) 874-1460 CANADA: Students Disqualified in Woodlands School Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- A class-action lawsuit filed by the survivors of New Westminster's Woodlands school has been delayed yet again, CKNW reports. The suit alleges students suffered years of physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the school. According to CKNW, a full third of the applicants has been thrown out of the lawsuit. Specifically, students who allegedly suffered abuse at the school prior to 1974 have been told they cannot sue the provincial government because laws at that time make it nearly impossible to do so. However, lawyer David Klein, who represents the former students, says that itis the government, not the laws, preventing victims from seeking compensation. Mr. Klein says he is appealing the decision. The Class Action Reporter reported on Dec. 4, 2007, that Poyner Baxter filed the class action in 2002 against the Government of British Columbia on behalf of an estimated 1,500 former residents of Woodlands School. Subsequently, the province's Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit, seeking to represent all victims in the class. The court eventually awarded "carriage" to Poyner Baxter. In March 2005, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison of the British Columbia Supreme Court certified the suit as a class action. For more information on the case, contact: Jim Poyner (jim@poynerbaxter.com) Poyner Baxter, LLP #408 - 145 Chadwick Court North Vancouver, B.C. Phone: (604) 988-6321 Fax: (604) 988-3632 CAREMARK INC: Tenn. Grants Summary Judgment Motion in "Morrell" --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted a motion for partial summary judgment in the matter, "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633." Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.), a subsidiary of Caremark Rx, Inc. that merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., was named as a defendant in the putative class action, which was filed on July 2004 by an individual named Robert Moeckel. The suit was brought purportedly on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits Plan, which is an employee benefit plan sponsored by a former Caremark client. The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief, alleges that Caremark acts as a fiduciary under ERISA and has breached certain alleged fiduciary duties under ERISA. In November 2007, the court granted Caremark Inc.’s motion for partial summary judgment finding that it is not an ERISA fiduciary under the applicable PBM agreements and that the plaintiff may not sustain claims for breach of fiduciary duty, according to CVS Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. The suit is "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-00633," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Judge Aleta A. Trauger presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Rebecca Cothran Blair, Esq. John A. Day, Esq. Branham & Day P.C. 5300 Maryland Way, Suite 300 Brentwood, TN 37027 Phone: (615) 742-4880 e-mail: rblair@branhamday.com jday@branhamday.com - and - Mike Miller, Esq. Solberg Stewart Miller & Tjon 1129 Fifth Avenue South P.O. Box 1897 Fargo, ND 58107-1897 Phone: (701) 237-3166 e-mail: mmiller@solberglaw.com Representing the defendants are: Paul Savage Davidson, Esq. Joseph A. Woodruff, Esq. Jennifer L. Weaver, Esq. Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis Nashville City Center 511 Union Street, Suite 2100 Nashville, TN 37219 Phone: (615) 244-6380 Fax: (615) 244-6380 e-mail: pdavidson@wallerlaw.com joseph.woodruff@wallerlaw.com jennifer.weaver@wallerlaw.com - and - Frank E. Pasquesi, Esq. Foley & Lardner LLP Phone: 312.832.5176 e-mail: fpasquesi@foley.com CAREMARK RX: Continues to Faces Pharmacy Benefit Managers' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Caremark Rx, Inc., which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., continues to face the consolidated class action, "In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. No. 06-md-01782-JF," which is pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Initially, various lawsuits were filed alleging that Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. Bellevue Drug Litigation In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against AdvancePCS in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The claims were initially sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and AdvancePCS. North Jackson Litigation In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark, Caremark Inc., AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March 2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.), and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The case against Caremark and Caremark Inc. was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the AdvancePCS case was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and AdvancePCS. The arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in Caremark’s court case. Consolidation In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark has appealed a decision which vacated the order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending. The consolidated action is now known as the "In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, Case No. No. 06-md-01782- JF." CVS Caremark reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. CAREMARK RX: Discovery Ongoing in Cal. Suit by Non-ERISA Members ---------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action filed with the Superior Court of the State of California against Caremark Rx Inc., which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., on behalf of all California members of non-ERISA health plans and/or all California taxpayers. Caremark and its subsidiaries Caremark Inc. (now known as Caremark, L.L.C.) and AdvancePCS (acquired by Caremark in March 2004 and now known as CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.) have been named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in California state court by an individual named Robert Irwin, purportedly on behalf of California members of non-ERISA health plans and/or all California taxpayers. The lawsuit, which also names other Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) as defendants, alleges violations of California’s unfair competition laws and challenges alleged business practices of PBMs, including practices relating to pricing, rebates, formulary management, data utilization and accounting and administrative processes. Discovery in the case is ongoing, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. CAREMARK RX: Plaintiff Seeks Stay on Proceedings in Ala. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Lauriello who had sued Caremark Rx, Inc. over a 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others is seeking for a stay in his case against the company. Caremark, which merged with CVS Corp. to form CVS Caremark Corp., was named in a putative class action filed in 2003 in Alabama state court by Mr. Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants in the lawsuit include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed the next month by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming Caremark, several insurance companies and attorneys and law firms involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was subsequently stayed by the court as a later-filed class action. In 2005, the trial court in the Lauriello case issued an order allowing the Lauriello case to proceed on behalf of the settlement class in the 1999 securities class action. Mr. McArthur then sought to intervene in the Lauriello case and to challenge the adequacy of Mr. Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class counsel. The trial court denied Mr. McArthur’s motion to intervene, but the Alabama Supreme Court subsequently ordered the lower court to vacate its prior order on class certification and allow McArthur to intervene. Caremark and other defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint in intervention filed by Mr. McArthur. In November 2007, the trial court dismissed the attorneys and law firms named as defendants in the McArthur complaint in intervention, and denied the motions to dismiss that complaint filed by Caremark and the insurance company defendants. In January 2008, Mr. Lauriello filed a motion to dismiss Mr. McArthur’s complaint in intervention, appealed the court’s dismissal of the attorney and law firm defendants, and filed a motion to stay proceedings pending his appeal, according to CVS Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. CNA FINANCIAL: Parties Settle Health Care Policyholders' Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the purported class action, "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co., et al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK," which names CNA Financial Corp., an 89%-owned subsidiary of Loews Corp, and Continental Casualty Co. (CCC), as defendants, have reached binding agreement settling the matter, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, which is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, is a class action on behalf of certain California long term health care policyholders, alleging that CCC and CNAF knowingly used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing these policies, which according to plaintiff, would inevitably necessitate premium increases (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 9, 2007). The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of various California statutes. CCC and CNAF have denied the material allegations of the amended complaint and intend to vigorously contest the claims. On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a class action. CCC and CNAF have appealed the grant of class certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit refused to hear the appeal on an interlocutory basis. In April 2007, the Court denied CCC’s and CNAF’s motions for summary judgment with the exception of the motion relating to plaintiffs’ claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which was dismissed. The claim under CLRA involved a provision for claims of awards for attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages. In June 2007, CCC and CNAF filed a motion to reconsider the denial of summary judgment on the fraud claim. In July 2007, the Court denied the motion for reconsideration. On Oct. 10, 2007, CCC, CNA and the plaintiffs reached agreement on terms, subject to entering into a binding settlement agreement. On Jan. 8, 2008, parties entered into a binding agreement settling the case on a nationwide basis for the policy forms potentially affected by the allegations of the complaint. Under the settlement agreement, CCC will provide certain enhanced benefits to eligible class members including certain non-forfeiture benefits, opportunities to exchange policies and free health screenings. The agreement, which is subject to notice to the class as well as Court approval, did not have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, cash flows or results of operations of the Company. The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al., Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Philip S. Gutierrez presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Wayne S. Kreger, Esq. Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North Santa Monica, CA 90405 Phone: 310-396-9600 e-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com - and - Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. Neblett Beard and Arsenault 2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190 Alexandria, LA 71309-1190 Phone: 318-487-9874 e-mail: rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com Representing the defendants are: Brent R. Austin, Esq. Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606-1229 Phone: 312-201-2848 e-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com - and - Stan Karas, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Phone: 213-443-3000 e-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com CONSECO LIFE: Accused of Illegal Rate Hikes in Calif. Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Conseco Life Insurance is facing a class-action complaint filed on March 4, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California accusing it of illegally imposing "staggering" rate hikes on policyholders that "are so huge and so sudden that they cannot possibly be based on expectations as to future mortality," CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint states that the court ruled against the defendant in a previous national class action "Rosenbaum et al. v. Philadelphia Life Insurance Co.," (Conseco's predecessor). After that ruling, "Defendant Conseco Life was forced to return all the unlawful cost of insurance charges, plus interest, to its policyholders. The policies at issue in this action have the exact same cost of insurance provisions as the policies adjudicated by this Court in the Rosenbaum Action," the complaint states. Named plaintiff Celedonia X. Yue brings the action on behalf of all owners of Valuelife and Valuterm universal life insurance policies administered by defendant. The plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the defendant to reverse the unlawful increases in cost of insurance charges on the policies and to fulfill their contractual and other obligations to the class. The plaintiff seeks a corresponding declaration that the defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges for the policies in accordance with the terms of the policies and reinstate the cost of insurance charges that existed before the recent unlawful increases. The plaintiff also seeks corresponding monetary relief requiring defendant to repay to the class, or restore to the accumulation accounts of the policies, the amount of any unlawful overcharges. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's actions to increase the cost of insurance charges on the policies violated the terms of the policies; (b) whether Conseco Life breached its contracts with the plaintiff and members of the class; (c) whether the defendant breached obligations of good faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff and members of the class; (d) whether the defendant committed acts of unfair competition as defined by California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (e) whether the plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to specific performance, injunctive relief or other equitable relief against the defendant; and (f) whether the plaintiff and class members are entitled to receive incidental monetary relief or, alternatively, damages as a result of the unlawful conduct by the defendant alleged. The plaintiffs request for judgment providing: -- injunctive relief to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the defendant, its representatives, and all] others acting with it or on its behalf: (a) from changing the cost of insurance and the attendant cost of insurance charges, other than for expectations as to future mortality experience, respecting the policies; and (b) from increasing the cost of insurance charges for the policies and requiring those charges to be returned to the levels that existed prior to the unlawful increases imposed by defendant; -- injunctive relief requiring the defendant, its representatives, and all others acting with it or on its behalf to reinstate any policyholder whose policy was canceled or surrendered as a result of the intended unlawful cost of insurance increases; -- incidental or other monetary relief in the form of repayments to the plaintiff and members of the class of all overcharges resulting from the cost of insurance increases complained of and payment of such amounts into the accumulation accounts of the policies; -- alternatively, general damages, consequential damages, and other incidental damages in a sum to be determined at the time of trial; -- restitutionary relief requiring defendant to disgorge and divest all money received from policyholders as a result of, or caused by, the artificial and sham increase in the cost of insurance (mortality) charges; -- a declaration that the increases in cost of insurance charges are in material breach of the policies and that defendant must determine the cost of insurance charges as explicitly set forth in the policies; -- attorneys' fees expended and incurred in recovery of benefits and enforcement of the terms of the policies against defendant in a sum to be determined at the time of trial; -- costs of suit incurred; and -- award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest. The suit is "Celedonia X. Yue et al. v. Conseco Life Insurance et al., Case No. CV08-01506 CAS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Timothy P. Dillon, Esq. (timothy@dillon.net) Law Office of Timothy P. Dillon 361 Forest Avenue, Suite 205 Laguna Beach, California 92651 Phone: (949) 376-2800 Fax: (949) 376-2808 - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@BFFB.com) Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. 2901 N. Central, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phone: (602) 776-5902 Fax: (602) 274-1199 CVS CAREMARK: Reaches Settlement in Calif. Pharmacists' Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- CVS Caremark Corp. reached a tentative settlement for a purported class action filed in California against the company by Gabe Tong, purportedly on behalf of current and former pharmacists working in the company’s California stores. The lawsuit alleges that CVS failed to provide pharmacists in the purported class with meal and rest periods or to pay overtime as required under California law. In October 2007, CVS reached a conditional agreement, which is subject to approval by the court to resolve this matter, according to CVS Caremark's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. CVS Caremark Corp. -- http://www.cvs.com-- is a provider of prescriptions and related healthcare services in the U.S. The Company fills or manages more than one billion prescriptions annually. FORD MOTOR: Court Grant Leave to Appeal Petition in N.J. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has granted the company's petition for leave to appeal the class certification order in the matter "Danvers Motor Co., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:2002cv02197." In November 2000, a putative nationwide class of Ford dealers brought suit with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that the Company's recently-introduced Blue Oval Program violated state and federal law (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 27, 2006). The plaintiffs specifically allege that Ford's Blue Oval Certified Program, which was designed to reward dealers who obtained high customer satisfaction ratings, violated the Robinson-Patman Act, the Automobile Dealer's Day in Court Act, and various state laws. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and unspecified damages (including compensatory, statutory, treble, and punitive damages). On Jan. 31, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey certified a nationwide class of dealers who were franchisees of Ford Motor Company's Ford Division at any time during the period mid-2000 through March 2005. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has granted the company's petition for leave to appeal the class certification order, and its appeal is pending, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Danvers Motor Co., et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:2002cv02197," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Eric Lewis Chase, Esq. Bressler, Amery & Ross, Esqs. 325 Columbia Turnpike Florham Park, NJ 07932 Phone: (973) 514-1200 e-mail: echase@bressler.com - and - Richard Lloyd Hertzberg, Esq. Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, & Davis, LLP Metro Corporate Campus One PO Box 5600 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Phone: (732) 549-5600 e-mail: rhertzberg@greenbaumlaw.com Representing the defendants are: James Steven Dobis, Esq. Dobis Russell & Peterson 326 South Livingston Avenue Livingston, NJ 07039 Phone: 973-740-2474 e-mail: jdobis@drp-law.com FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Mulls Canadian Antitrust Suit Appeal -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal in connection to the certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases," which names Ford Motor Co., as one of the defendants. Initially, eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001 have been filed in various state and federal courts against numerous defendants, including Ford, General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association. The federal and state complaints allege, among other things, that the manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations, conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada at lower prices than vehicles sold in the U.S. The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states between Jan. 1, 2001 and April 30, 2003 for damages under various state law theories. The company intends to appeal. The company's appeal of the class certification order is pending, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com-- is a producer of cars and trucks. The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in other businesses, including financing vehicles. Ford operates in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services. The Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments. The Financial Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit), which is engaged in vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance. FORD MOTOR: Mich. Court Mulls Motion to Dismiss ERISA Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the dismissal of a purported class action against Ford Motor Co., and several of the company's current or former employees and officers, which is alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The suit, "Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No. 06-cv-11718," originally filed by Theodore Nowak and Gary Brockway on April 7, 2006 (Class Action Reporter, July 31, 2007). The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated ERISA by failing to prudently and loyally manage funds held in employee savings plans sponsored by Ford. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege among other claims that the defendants violated fiduciary duties owed to plan participants by continuing to offer Ford Common Stock as an investment option in the savings plans. The company's motion to dismiss currently is pending before the court, according to its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Nowak, et al. v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No. 06-cv-11718," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Representing the plaintiffs are: Elizabeth A. Leland, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. Keller Rohrback LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206-623-1900 Fax: 206-623-3384 e-mail: bleland@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com lsarko@kellerrohrback.com - and - Jayson E. Blake, Esq. The Miller Law Firm 950 W. University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Phone: 248-841-2200 e-mail: jeb@millerlawpc.com Representing defendants are: Michelle Thurber, Esq. Czapski of Dickinson Wright (Detroit) 500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000 Detroit, MI 48226-3425 Phone: 313-223-3500 e-mail: mczapski@dickinsonwright.com - and - Robert N. Eccles, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers 1625 Eye St., NW Washington, DC 20006-4001 Phone: 202-383-5315 Fax: 202-383-5414 e-mail: beccles@omm.com FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Faces Labor Code Violations Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Fry's Electronics is facing a class-action complaint filed on Feb. 28, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara accusing it of violating the Labor Code. This is a class action for violation of California wage and hour laws brought on behalf of current and former Fry's employees who have been employed by Fry's in the State of California, at any time between Feb. 22, 2004, and who have been employed anywhere in the United States between Feb. 22, 2004, and the date of notice is mailed to the class. The plaintiffs allege that during the relevant time period, they were not paid all earned and vested 'vacation' pay, worked over 40 hours in a week or over eight hours in a day time without receiving the proper pay rate, received pay stubs that were inaccurate, were required to purchase shirts from Fry's bearing a corporate logo and were not indemnified fr the expense of the shirts, and plaintiffs and the class of Fry's employees who worked throughout the United States for Fry's who worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were not properly paid for the hours worked. The plaintiffs request judgment as follows: -- that this action be certified as a class action; -- that plaintiffs be appointed as representatives of the classes they seek to represent; -- that counsel for plaintiffs be appointed as class counsel; -- for all vested vacation wages earned; -- for waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 203; -- for interest; -- for attorneys' fees and costs; -- for the difference between earned overtime wages and the paid overtime wages, earned for hours worked in excess of eight in a day of 40 in a week; -- for statutory waiting time penalties up to 30 days; -- for all unpaid overtime wages earned for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week; -- for liquidated damages; -- for indemnification of costs and associated with the purchasing of defendants' shirts with the defendants' logo on them; -- for indemnification of costs associated with maintaining the uniform shirts; -- for damages and penalties for violation of Labor Code Section 226; and -- for restitution to the class of wages owed. The suit is "Manuel Rubio et al. v. Fry's Electronics et al., Case No. 108CV-106994," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter K. Levine, Esq. Albert J. Gopin, Esq. 5455 wilshire Boulevard. Suite 1259 Los Angeles, California 90036 Phone: (323) 934-1234 Fax: (323) 934-1230 e-mail: frys.peterlevine@neverbox.com GILEAD SCIENCES: Nixing of CA Securities Lawsuit Still on Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California of the fourth amended complaint in a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit against Gilead Sciences, Inc. is still on appeal. On May 12, 2006, the federal court executed orders dismissing in its entirety and with prejudice the fourth consolidated amended complaint associated with a purported class action against: -- the company, -- the chief executive officer, -- chief financial officer, -- former executive vice president of operations, -- executive vice president of research and development, -- senior vice president of manufacturing, and -- senior vice president of research. The complaint is generally alleging that the defendants violated federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged false and misleading statements. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal. The company reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "In re Gilead Sciences Securities litigation, Case No. 03-CV-4999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Martin J. Jenkins presiding. Representing thee plaintiffs are: Eric J. Belfi, Esq. Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP 100 Park Avenue New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-907-0878 Fax: 212-818-0477 e-mail: ebelfi@labaton.com Robert S. Green, Esq. Green Welling LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2750 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-477-6700 Fax: 415-477-6710 e-mail: RSG@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM - and - David Jude George, Esq. 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 e-mail: dgeorge@csgrr.com Representing the defendants are: John C. Dwyer, Esq. Grant P. Fondo, Esq. Cooley Godward, LLP Five Palo Alto Square, 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155 Phone: 650-843-5000 Fax: 650-857-0663 e-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com gfondo@cooley.com GORTON'S SEAFOOD: Recalls Adulterated Battered Fish Fillets ----------------------------------------------------------- Gorton's Seafood, based in Gloucester, Mass., is voluntarily recalling one frozen seafood product with a specific date code because the product may have been adulterated with pills. While there has been only one isolated case of adulteration and no reports of illness from the product, the company is taking this action as a precautionary measure. The following product is subject to recall: * Gorton's 6 Crispy Battered Fish Fillets 11.4 oz -- UPC #4440015770 Date code: 7289G1 Best if used by date: April 2009 The product included in this recall was produced on October 16, 2007, and distributed to retail outlets in Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. The product is being removed from retail outlets, and consumers are urged to look in their freezers for products bearing this particular code. Gorton's is conducting an investigation into the source of the problem and working with the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Food & Drug Administration. There have been no reported illnesses from consumers. Consumers who have the product may return it to Gorton's for a refund by calling 800-896-9479. Consumers may report any complaints to FDA's local district complaint coordinators located on the FDA web site: http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/complain.html INFATINO LLC: Recalls Infant Rattles Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 2,000 Infantino Lamb Grabby Rattles. The company said the tail-piece on the rattles can detach, posing a choking hazard to young children. Infantino has received eight reports of the tail piece on the rattle detaching. No injuries have been reported. The recalled Infantino Lamb Grabby Rattles are shaped like a lamb with an Infantino elliptical-shaped logo stamped on the front right foot of the lamb. Only rattles with date code 0907 printed on the back of the left ear of the lamb are included in the recall. The production batch code is printed in a dial format with the year in the middle of a circle and an arrow pointing to the number on the circle that indicates the month. Rattles that do not have a date code are not included in the recall. These recalled rattles were manufactured in China and were being sold at Wal-Mart, Babies "R" Us and other specialty stores nationwide from September 2007 through February 2008 for between $3 and $4. Picture of the recalled rattle is found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08208a.jpg Consumers are advised to immediately take the recalled toys away from young children and contact Infantino for a replacement rattle or a product of equal value. For additional information, contact Infantino toll-free at (888) 808-3111 between 8:00 a.m. And 4:00 p.m. PT or visit the firm's Web site: http://service.infantino.com LORILLARD INC: Faces Calif. Tobacco Marketing, Advertising Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., continues to face class actions in California that were on appeal to the either the California Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Brown Litigation One of the suits is "Brown v. The American Tobacco Company, Inc., et al.," which was filed with the Superior Court, San Diego County, California on June 10, 1997. The California court granted defendants' motion to decertify the class. The class decertification order was affirmed on appeal, but the California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. The class originally certified in "Brown" was composed of residents of California who smoked at least one of defendants' cigarettes between June 10, 1993 and April 23, 2001 and who were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. Daniels Litigation The second case is "Daniels v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al.," which was filed with the Superior Court, San Diego County, California on Aug. 2, 1998. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment during 2002 and dismissed the case. Both the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court have affirmed the case's dismissal. The plaintiffs have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review "Daniels," but the Court has not determined whether it will hear the case. Prior to granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the court had certified a class composed of California residents who, while minors, smoked at least one cigarette between April 1994 and Dec. 31, 1999 and were exposed to defendants' marketing and advertising activities in California. Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company, whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs (Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary); exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary). LORILLARD INC: Fla. Court Decertifies Class in "Engle" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida entered an order that formally decertified the class in the matter, "Engle v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., et al.," which names Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., as one of the defendants. The case was originally filed with the Circuit Court, Dade County, Florida on May 5, 1994. It was later certified as a class action on behalf of Florida residents, and survivors of Florida residents, who were injured or died from medical conditions allegedly caused by addiction to smoking. The case was tried between 1998-2000 in a multi-phase trial that resulted in verdicts in favor of the class. During 2006, the Florida Supreme Court issued a ruling that, among other things determined that the case could not proceed further as a class action. During February 2008, the trial court entered an order on remand from the Florida Supreme Court that formally decertified the class, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company, whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs (Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary); exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary). LORILLARD INC: La. High Court Denies Review Petitions in "Scott" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Supreme Court denied both parties' separate petitions for review of the matter, "Scott v. The American Tobacco Company, et al.," which names Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp. The suit was filed with District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana on May 24, 1996. It was filed as a class action on behalf of certain cigarette smokers resident in the State of Louisiana. In June 2004, the court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the case. The plaintiffs in the case were awarded approximately $591 million to fund cessation programs for Louisiana smokers. The court final judgment also reflected its award of prejudgment interest. In February 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal issued a ruling that, among other things: -- reduced the amount of the award by approximately $328 million; -- struck the award of prejudgment interest, which totaled approximately $440 million as of Dec. 31, 2006; and -- ruled that the only class members who are eligible to participate in the smoking cessation program are those who began smoking by Sept. 1, 1988, and whose claims accrued by Sept. 1, 1988. The Louisiana Court of Appeal has returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings. During January 2008, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied plaintiffs' and defendants' separate petitions for review, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Loews Corp. -- http://www.loews.com-- is a holding company, whose lines of business its subsidiaries are engaged in include commercial property and casualty insurance (CNA Financial Corporation (CNA), an 89%-owned subsidiary); production and sale of cigarettes (Lorillard, Inc. (Lorillard), a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of offshore oil and gas drilling rigs (Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., a 51%-owned subsidiary); exploration, production and marketing of natural gas and natural gas liquids (HighMount Exploration & Production LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary); operation of interstate natural gas transmission pipeline systems (Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, a 70%-owned subsidiary), and operation of hotels (Loews Hotels Holding Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary). LORILLARD INC: Plaintiff in "Sanders" Seeks Supreme Court Review ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the matter, "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-02281-SI," which was filed with U.S. District Court for Northern District of California is seeking for a review of the dismissal of the case from the U.S. Supreme Court. On June 9, 2004, Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., and other major cigarette manufacturers, along with the Attorney General of the State of California, were sued by a consumer purchaser of cigarettes in a putative class action alleging violations of the Sherman Act and California state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The plaintiff seeks treble damages of an unstated amount for the putative class as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. All claims are based on the assertion that the Master Settlement Agreement (http://ag.ca.gov/tobacco/msa.php)together with certain implementing legislation enacted by the state of California, constitute unlawful restraints of trade. On March 28, 2005 the defendants' motion to dismiss the suit was granted. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argument was heard on Feb. 15, 2007, and the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on Sept. 26, 2007 affirming dismissal of the suit. On Jan. 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a petition seeking certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Sanders v. Lockyer, et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-02281- SI," filed with U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, Judge Susan Illston presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Thad Alan Davis, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges, LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-443-3000 e-mail: thaddavis@quinnemanuel.com Representing the defendants are: D. Eric Shapland, Esq. Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe LLP 601 S. Figueroa Street 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-5758 Phone: 213-689-0200 Fax: 213-614-1868 e-mail: eshapland@hewm.com Margaret Eve Spencer, Esq. California Attorney General Antitrust 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3664 Phone: 415-703-5543 Fax: 415-703-5480 e-mail: margaret.spencer@doj.ca.gov - and - Patrick J. Gregory, Esq. Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 333 Bush Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-544-1900 Fax: 415-391-0281 e-mail: pgregory@shb.com LORILLARD INC: Second Circuit Stays Proceedings in "Schwab" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stayed proceedings in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and names Lorillard, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Loews Corp., as one of the defendants. The case is a nationwide "lights" class action that was filed on May 11, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York several tobacco manufacturers, including Lorillard, Inc. (Class Action Reporter, July 17, 2007). The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each defendant, jointly and severally, for all losses and damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged wrong-doings complained of, including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees and costs. They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent equitable and/or injunctive relief, including enjoining future wrong- doing, rescission, disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten funds, and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten funds. The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, challenging the practices of the defendants in connection with the manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light." They have estimated damages to the class to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs based on defendants violation of the RICO statute would be trebled. The case was certified as a nationwide class action involving lights cigarettes. Defendants including the company appealed the certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit has agreed to review the class certification order, and it has stayed all activity before the trial court until the appeal is concluded, according to Loews Corp.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack B. Weinstein presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-1980 (fax) e-mail: lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com William P. Butterfield, Esq. Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202.408.4600 Fax: 202.408.4699 e-mail: wbutterfield@cmht.com Representing the defendants are: Mark A. Belasic, Esq. Jones Day 901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 586-3939 Fax: 216-579-0212 e-mail: mabelasic@jonesday.com - and - Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4675 Phone: (212) 446-4800 Fax: (212) 446-4900 e-mail: peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com LUFKIN INDUSTRIES: Liability in "Discrimination Impact" Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals gave a split decision on Feb. 29, 2008, in a class action lawsuit charging Lufkin Industries with racially unfair hiring and promotion policies, The Lufkin Daily News reports. According to Lufkin Daily, the Appeals Court affirmed Lufkin Industries' liability for the "discriminatory impact" of a history of subjective promotional policies. However, the Court refused the charge that the company was unfair to blacks in hiring for the foundry division. The Court, in its 26-page decision, described the 12-year-old suit a "wide-ranging, complex discrimination case." It is known to be the largest class-action of its kind, Lufkin Daily says. The report recalls that in 2005, a federal court awarded $3.4 million in back pay to the nearly 700 employees named in the suit for decades of alleged racial workplace behavior and hiring practices. To date, no money has been awarded in the case. A split decision, Lufkin Daily notes, means that the decision on how much money to pay to the employees and attorneys involved will be saved for another time. Nacogdoches attorney Tim Garrigan, Esq., who represents the class members, said that the Appeals Court's affirmation of the case "means that civil rights are still viable here in East Texas." The suit is "McClain, et al., v. Lufkin Industries, Case No. 9:97-cv-00063-HC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, under Judge Howell Cobb. Representing the plaintiffs are: Morris J. Baller, Esq. (mjb@gdblegal.com) Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen 300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510-763-9800 Fax: 15108351417 Timothy B. Garrigan, Esq. (tbgstugar@cox-internet.com) Stuckey Garrigan & Castetter 2803 North Street, P.O. Box 631902 Nacogdoches, TX 75963-1902 Phone: 936/560-6020 Fax: 19365609578 Representing the company is: Christopher V. Bacon, Esq. (cbacon@velaw.com) Vinson & Elkins 1001 Fannin St., Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77002-6760 Phone: 713/758-2222 Fax: 17136155014 MERCURY INSURANCE: Settles Claims Valuation Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative settlement was reached in a class action questioning Mercury Insurance Corp.'s use of certain automated database vendors to assist in valuing claims for medical payments, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit, "Marissa Goodman, et al. v. Mercury Insurance Co." was filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court on June 16, 2002. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking class-action certification to include all of the company's insureds from 1998 to the present who presented a medical payments claim, had the claim reduced using the computer program and whose claim did not reach the policy limits for medical payments. On Jan. 11, 2007, the Court certified the requested class, and class notice has been sent to approximately 14,000 class members. The Company has appealed the class certification ruling, and the Court of Appeal has stayed the case pending their review. The Plaintiff alleges that these automated databases systematically undervalue medical payment claims to the detriment of insureds. The Plaintiff is seeking actual and punitive damages. The case has been coordinated with two other similar cases, and also with ten other cases relating to total loss claims. The Court denied the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment holding that there is an issue of fact as to whether Ms. Goodman sustained any damages as a result of the Company’s handling of her medical payments claim. The Company and the Plaintiff have agreed to settle the claims for an amount that is immaterial to the Company’s operations and financial position. The settlement is subject to review and approval by the Court. Mercury General Corp. -- http://www.mercuryinsurance.com-- and its subsidiaries are engaged primarily in writing automobile insurance principally in California. MICROSOFT: e-Mails Show Knowledge of Error in "Vista" Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Internal Microsoft e-mail messages released with court documents in a class-action suit suggest that the software giant bowed to pressure from Intel Corp. in the run-up to the release of Windows Vista, allowing computers to be labeled "Windows Vista Capable" despite concerns that they were not up to the task of running the operating system, news.ebrandz.com reports. According to the report, a Microsoft executive said that Microsoft was pressured by partner Intel Corp. to certify some chips as capable of running the Windows Vista operating system to help Intel meet earnings estimates. The e-mail has come to light as a result of a lawsuit filed in March 2007 against Microsoft, news.ebrandz points out. The e-mails were introduced as evidence in the case, which was recently granted class-action status. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted class-action status to the lawsuit, which is alleging that Microsoft unjustly enriched itself by promoting PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" even when they could only run a bare-bones version of the operating system called "Vista Home Basic." The slogan, CAR noted, was emblazoned on PCs during the 2006 holiday shopping season as part of a campaign by Microsoft to maintain sales of Windows XP computers after the launch of Windows Vista was delayed. According to news.ebrandz, the e-mails show that the company's own executives were frustrated by hardware requirements for Vista. The e-mails also suggest that Intel was worried about keeping up with demand, so it put pressure on Microsoft to lower its standards for the "Vista Ready" marketing program and accept an older chip that could not run Vista's Aero interface. Aero, news.ebrandz explains, is one of the most marketed features in Vista; it is the cool-looking graphical interface that critics say resembles a Mac. However, Aero only works with PCs running newer graphics hardware. The lawsuit alleges that the e-mail messages show that Microsoft went along with misrepresenting the capabilities of computers with some Intel chipsets, and that consumers wound up with badly working computers as a result. news.ebrandz notes that the decision was made over the objection of some Microsoft officials, who expressed concern that Intel's 915 chipset was not capable of properly displaying Vista's graphics features, according to e-mails released on Feb. 27, 2008. "In the end, we lowered the requirements to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the 915 graphics embedded," John Kalkman, a Microsoft general manager who handles relations with personal- computer makers, said in one message. Motherboards are the main circuit boards in PCs. In another message, executive Mike Ybarra put it more succinctly: "We are caving to Intel." In a statement, Microsoft said the e-mail messages "reflect part of an active discussion about how best to implement the Windows Vista Capable program." Vista was widely released in January 2007. Microsoft confirmed the authenticity of the e-mails on March 2, 2008. Intel, the biggest maker of computer processors, said the messages' allegations were unfounded. "With respect to the statement in the e-mail from one John Kalkman, we have no idea who he is and we are absolutely certain he would have zero visibility into Intel's financials, Intel's financial forecasts or anything to do with any particular quarter at any time," said Chuck Mulloy, a spokesman for the Santa Clara, California-based Intel. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Todd Bishop got its hands on the entire 300-pages worth of Microsoft e-mails that are part of the lawsuit regarding Microsoft's Vista Capable logo program. The e-mails (a 3.5-MB PDF file) can be accessed at: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaexhibitsone.pdf The suit is "Kelley v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-00475- MJP," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Representing the plaintiff is: Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154 Phone: 206-467-6477 Fax: 206-467-6292 e-mail: office@gmtlaw.com Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com NEW YORK: Sued by Two Men Busted on Loitering Law ------------------------------------------------- Two men busted on a loitering law declared unconstitutional 25 years ago have filed a federal class-action suit accusing New York City and the New York Police Department of false arrest, Daily News reports. If the suit is certified as a class-action case, it will cover others illegally arrested and could cost the city a considerable amount of money, according to the report. A Daily News computer review found that 2,513 people have been arrested under the law since it was thrown out in 1983. The suit is related to a pending class-action case accusing the NYPD of arresting thousands of people under an anti-panhandling law that was ruled unconstitutional in 1992. In 2006, the city agreed to pay former beggar Eddie Wise $100,000 to drop his complaint. That suit remains active as dozens more panhandlers came forward with similar claims. In the new suit, Paul Casale, a midtown ad agency coordinator, and Anthony Garcia, a married Brooklyn dad, were busted at the Port Authority in March 2007 and strip-searched. Mr. Casale, who lives on the upper West Side, was walking with Mr. Garcia, who is on public assistance, when they were approached by cops on a sidewalk outside the bus depot, their lawyers said. Mr. Casale, who had never before been arrested, had run into Mr. Garcia, a friend, who had just put a woman friend on a bus. Katie Rosenfeld, Esq., said it was unclear why the two men were arrested but the cops did so under a law voided in 1988. The men were taken into custody under a law that made a person guilty of loitering if they were unable to give a "satisfactory explanation" as to why they were in a transportation facility. "This action seeks to end -- finally, for all time -- this pattern and practice of unconstitutional conduct by police officers in the NYPD," the suit says. "You can't arrest someone for not having a sufficient explanation -- but they do," said Matthew Brinckerhoff, Esq., another lawyer on the case. "It's even crazier when [the statute is] long dead." The men are suing even though the charges were eventually dropped. The suit also challenges the enforcement of a second subsection of the penal code, one that made it illegal to solicit "deviant" sex in a public place. QUAKER OATS: Recalls Pancake, Waffle Mixes Posing Health Risk ------------------------------------------------------------- The Quaker Oats Co. announced the products in the recall are a small quantity of Aunt Jemima Pancake & Waffle Mix: Original, Original Complete and Buttermilk Complete, which may have potential salmonella contamination. No other Aunt Jemima, frozen Aunt Jemima or Quaker products are affected. The products, sold in 2 pound and 5 pound boxes with Best Before dates of "FEB 08 09 H" through "FEB 16 09 H" stamped on the top, contain the following UPC codes: * 30000 43272: Aunt Jemima Buttermilk Complete, 5 lb. * 30000 05040: Aunt Jemima Original, 2 lb. * 30000 05070: Aunt Jemima Original Complete, 2 lb. * 30000 05300: Aunt Jemima Buttermilk Complete, 2 lb. Salmonella is a food borne illness that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. No illnesses have been reported in connection with this issue to date. There is very low risk of illness when preparation directions on box are followed and product is not consumed raw or undercooked. Salmonella bacteria is killed at a temperature of 160� F. If consumers have this product with the indicated UPC codes and Best Before dates, they should return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling the toll-free hotline at 1-800- 407-2247 or by logging onto http://www.auntjemima.com. Quaker is in the process of recovering the product involved. Quaker knows specifically to which customer warehouses the product was shipped. Approximately 98% of the product is within Quaker's control. The 2% of product which is outside of Quaker's control was shipped to a limited number of retail and mass merchandiser stores (no direct distribution to West Coast). Of that small quantity, the vast majority likely has not been placed on store shelves. Product was shipped to 17 states including Texas, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Illinois, Florida, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Ohio, New York, New Mexico, Kansas and Utah. REBELETTE INTL: Recalls Hoodies Posing Strangulation Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Rebelette International Trading Corp., of South El Monte, Calif., in cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is recalling about 4,800 Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts. The sweatshirt jackets have a drawstring through the hood which poses a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist by drawstrings in upper garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts. No injuries have been reported. The recalled hooded sweatshirts have a drawstring at the neck. They zip up the front, and are either blue with pink stripes on the sleeves with "Red Hot Chili Steppers" printed on the front, or brown with blue stripes on the sleeves with "Powder Puffs Touch League" on the front. The sweatshirts were sold in children's sizes small, medium, large, and sizes 4, 5, 6, and 6X. "REBELETTE of Los Angeles" is printed on the collar label. These recalled hoodies were manufactured in China and were being sold at Marshalls Stores and specialty children's clothing retailers nationwide from July 2007 through September 2007 for about $15. Pictures of the recalled hoodies are found at: http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207a.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207c.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207b.jpg http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml08/08207d.jpg Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the hood to eliminate the hazard, or return the sweatshirt to either the place of purchase or to Rebelette International for a full refund. For additional information, contact Rebelette International collect at (626) 448-9988 between 9:00 a.m. And 5:00 p.m. PT Monday through Friday. New Securities Fraud Cases