/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080313.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 13, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 52 Headlines AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations AUCTION RATE: Auction Rate Securities Losses Investigated BEIGEL & BEIGEL: Settles $1.99-Million Suit in Tel Aviv Court BEMIS CO: Still Faces Labelstock Suits in State, Federal Courts BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger CANADA: Faces Claims Over Abuse of Deaf Students at Schools CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $125,000 Lawsuit Over Unlawful Charges CEMA CONSTRUCTION: Construction Worker's NY Wage Suit Certified CENTERLINE HOLDING: Class Period in NY Securities Suit Extended DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Renters' Overcharging Lawsuit in Calif. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in California DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Antitrust Violations DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Suits in California Over PCRTA Program ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder FIRST BANCORP: P.R. Court Approves $74.25M Securities Suit Deal GAYLORD GAS: Parent Firm May Settle Price-Gouging Lawsuit GEORGIA: ACLU Sues Over Failed Privately-Run Alternative School GRAEME REEVES: Abused and Mutilated Aussie Women Prepare to Sue GRANT PRIDECO: Tex. Court Mulls Consolidation of Merger Lawsuits HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: CD CA Securities Suit Dismissed Partially ISRAEL DISCOUNT: Accused of Switching Customer Accounts KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: April 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Deal MICROSOFT CORP: Objects to Certification of "Vista" Lawsuit NASH FINCH: Settles Minn. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75 Mln. NEW YORK LIFE: $14MM ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Still Await Suit Settlement Payment NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. SCIELE PHARMA: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit SUNOPTA: Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Mar. 28 UNITED PARCEL: Seeks Review of Class Certification of "Hohider" VALUECLICK: Mediator in Adware Lawsuit Proposes $1.5M Settlement VALUECLICK INC: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit * PRI Compares Legal Climates in All 50 U.S. States New Securities Fraud Cases MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Maryland MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing ********* AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Penna. Lawsuit Over Labor Code Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- AT&T Mobility is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the top cellular carrier violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by refusing overtime pay to a former corporate recruiter and possibly others with similar job responsibilities, Jeffrey Silva of the RCRNews.com reports. The lead plaintiff, Wayne Masters -- regional corporate recruiter/staffing coordinator from May 9, 2007, to Nov. 30. 2007 -- claims that AT&T's refusal to authorize payment for all of the hours that he and other class members worked each business week, as well as its failure to keep accurate payroll records with respect to him and other class members was part of a policy, pattern and practice of denying overtime pay to class members. The suit refers to Spherion as a staffing agency that technically was Mr. Masters' employer even though he was supervised by and worked exclusively with AT&T Mobility. The suit stated that "Masters continued to work in excess of 40 hours per week after June, 29, 2007. However, after that date, AT&T failed to pay or authorize Spherion to pay Masters for the overtime that he earned and was entitled to." The plaintiffs' lawyers are seeking back overtime pay and other compensation for employees, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. "We have not seen this suit, so we have no comment," Walt Sharp, an AT&T spokesman, said. AT&T Mobility does business as the New AT&T, formerly known as Cingular Wireless. AUCTION RATE: Auction Rate Securities Losses Investigated --------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, is investigating alleged securities fraud in connection with the sale of Auction Rate Securities by: -- Citigroup, Inc., -- Bear Sterns, -- Goldman Sachs, -- J.P. Morgan Securities, -- Lehman Brothers Holdings, -- Merrill Lynch, -- Morgan Stanley, -- RBC Dain Rauscher, -- Wachovia Corp., -- UBS, -- H&R Block, and -- E*Trade. On May 31, 2006, an investigation conducted by the Securities Exchange Commission revealed that the Auction Rate Securities were manipulated by certain broker-dealers conducting the auctions. Among other things, the SEC alleged that these broker-dealers improperly intervened in sales and collaborated with favored customers by asking them to bid at auctions and then compensating them with higher-than-clearing rates in the secondary market. The broker-dealers engaged in such market manipulations in order to support the "no failed auction" marketing claim so that investors would believe the Auction Rate Securities auction market was healthier than it actually was. As a result, certain of the Broker Dealers described above paid a total of $13 million in fines, were censured by the SEC and ordered to "cease and desist" from committing future violations. For more information, contact: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 39 Broadway, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10006 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 e-mail: info@zlk.com Web site: http://www.zlk.com BEIGEL & BEIGEL: Settles $1.99-Million Suit in Tel Aviv Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Beigel & Beigel Food Ltd. settles the $1.99-million lawsuit filed against it with the Tel Aviv District Court, Yitzhak Danon of The Globes reports. The lawsuit, filed by Adv. Reuven Cohen, claims that Beigel & Beigel had misled consumers of its oriental sesame biscuits by failing to inform them that the package sizes had been reduced from 500 grams to 400 grams and 250 grams to 200 grams, while leaving the price unchanged. Under the recent settlement, the snack food manufacturer will offer retail customers 337,483 packets of its oriental sesame biscuits with an extra 25% free. The value of the settlement is worth an estimated $273,504. BEMIS CO: Still Faces Labelstock Suits in State, Federal Courts --------------------------------------------------------------- Bemis Co., Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Co., continue to face several purported class actions in both state and federal courts that are alleging a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Federal Actions Six lawsuits purporting to represent a nationwide class of labelstock purchasers were initially filed against the company. On Nov. 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of the federal class actions for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before the Honorable Chief Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie. On Nov. 20, 2007, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants have petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an appeal of the district court's decision granting class certification. At this time, a discovery cut-off and a trial date have not been set. State Court Actions The Company has also been named in three lawsuits filed in the California Superior Court in San Francisco. These three lawsuits, which have been consolidated, seek to represent a class of all California indirect purchasers of labelstock and each alleged a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. Finally, the Company has been named in one lawsuit in Vermont, seeking to represent a class of all Vermont indirect purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in Nebraska seeking to represent a class of all Nebraska indirect purchasers of labelstock, one lawsuit in Kansas seeking to represent a class of all Kansas indirect purchasers of labelstock, and one lawsuit in Tennessee, seeking to represent a class of purchasers of labelstock in various jurisdictions, all alleging a conspiracy to fix prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry. Bemis Co., Inc. -- http://www.bemis.com/-- is a manufacturer of flexible packaging products and pressure sensitive materials, which sells its products to customers throughout the U.S., Canada, South America and Europe, as well as Asia Pacific and Mexico. It operates in two segments: Flexible Packaging and Pressure Sensitive Materials. BRIGHT HORIZONS: Faces Suit in Mass. Over Bain Capital Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., faces a consolidated class action lawsuit filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court in Massachusetts in connection with the proposed merger between the company, and Bain Capital Partners, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In connection with the proposed Merger between the Company and affiliates of Bain Capital Partners, the Company has been named as a defendant, along with the Company's Board of Directors, and Bain, in putative class actions filed with the Massachusetts state court. The suits are: -- "Aaron Solomon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-0214," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court; and -- "William Smith, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated shareholders, v. Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 08- 0467," filed with the Middlesex County Superior Court. On Feb. 26, 2008, the Massachusetts state court consolidated these lawsuits into a single action. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Merger is the product of a flawed process and that the consideration to be paid to the Company's stockholders is unfair and inadequate. The lawsuits further allege that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, ignoring certain alleged conflicts of interest of one of the Special Committee's financial advisors, taking steps to avoid a competitive bidding process, and improperly favoring a merger over other potential transactions. The lawsuits further allege that Bain aided and abetted the directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The lawsuits seek, among other things, class certification, injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the Merger, and monetary relief. Watertown, Massachusetts-based Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Inc. -- http://www.brighthorizons.com-- is a provider of workplace services for employers and families. Workplace services include center-based child care, education and enrichment programs, elementary school education, back-up care, before and after school care, summer camps, vacation care, college preparation and admissions counseling (College Coach), and other family support services. CANADA: Faces Claims Over Abuse of Deaf Students at Schools ----------------------------------------------------------- A Saskatchewan-based law firm that specializes in class actions is moving ahead with a claim on behalf of deaf students who say they were physically and sexually abused at boarding schools across Canada over four decades since the mid-1950s, The Canadian Press reports. According to Canadian Press, the first of several claims against provincial governments was filed by lawyer Tony Merchant on March 11, 2008, in Edmonton on behalf of students who stayed at the Alberta School for the Deaf between 1955 and 1996. Merchant Law Group told National Post that the suit against the Alberta government is the first of what will be claims against every province except New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The statement of claim was filed in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in Edmonton. TheStar.com also relates that the lawsuit against Alberta is part of a proposed class action involving 12 Canadian schools for the deaf. Mr. Merchant said the claim covers more than 61,500 students who attended the schools between the said period. Students at the schools ranged in age from about 10 to 17 years, National Post notes. The claim, which contains allegations not proven in court, alleges repeated abuse on the part of teachers, house parents and fellow students during that time, according to Canadian Press. The alleged victims were easy prey for their abusers, Mr. Merchant said, because they were only able to communicate using sign language, a skill that was discouraged at the school during that time. "Unfortunately, deaf children were ideal victims for this kind of abuse, imprisoned in a world with ineffectual communication and inadequate safeguards," said Mr. Merchant. He said information lawyers have gathered leads them to believe that thousands of students -- almost entirely young girls -- were sexually and physically abused at schools around the country. "We've been contacted by a series of people in various provinces over abuse in schools in their provinces and we intend to launch proceedings province by province based on the wrongdoing to which students were subjected," Mr. Merchant added. The Alberta claim uses three former students as representatives for the class, Canadian Press writes. One male student, who attended the school from 1972 to 1982, claims he was subjected to repeated physical abuse including being strapped, slapped, caned, choked and hit with various objects. Two female students say they were raped, one by a house parent and the other by an older student. The latter student claims that after one of the attacks, she became pregnant and had an abortion against her will. The claim alleges that the provincial government breached its duties both to care for the children and to provide them with an appropriate education. "The employees and agents, and through them, the government, acted in bad faith with careless disregard for the safety of the non-hearing and communication-restricted children in their care," the claim says. For more information, contact: Tony Merchant, Q.C. (merchant@merchantlaw.com) Evatt Merchant (emerchant@merchantlaw.com) Merchant Law Group LLP Phone: (888) 567-7777 (877) 359-7777 Web site: http://www.merchantlaw.com/ CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces $125,000 Lawsuit Over Unlawful Charges ------------------------------------------------------------ Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE: CEL) was served with a purported class action lawsuit with the District Court of Central Region, by plaintiffs claiming to be subscribers of the Company. The plaintiffs claim that the company unlawfully charged its subscribers for providing them with call details records. If the lawsuit is certified as a class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately $125,000. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. For more information, contact: Shiri Israeli Investor Relations Coordinator Phone: +972-52-998-9755 e-mail: investors@cellcom.co.il - and - Ehud Helft (ehud@gkir.com) Ed Job (ed.job@ccgir.com) Investor Relations Contact CCGK Investor Relations Phone: +1-866-704-6710 (US) or +1-646-213-1914 CEMA CONSTRUCTION: Construction Worker's NY Wage Suit Certified --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Walter B. Tolub of the New York Supreme Court granted class certification to New York City construction workers of bankrupt company Cema Construction Corp., Bankruptcy Law 360 reports. The workers accuse the company of failing to pay prevailing wages to employees who worked on public construction projects. CENTERLINE HOLDING: Class Period in NY Securities Suit Extended --------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announced that shareholders of Centerline Holding Company (NYSE:CHC) who purchased shares of the Company between December 5, 2006, and December 28, 2007, have only until March 18, 2008, to move for appointment as Lead Plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Prior to the filing of KGS' case, the earliest a shareholder could have purchased Centerline shares to be included in this class action was March 12, 2007. No class has yet been certified in the action. Centerline and certain of its officers and directors are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). On December 28, 2007, Centerline shocked shareholders when it issued a press release stating it had sold its "$2.8 billion tax-exempt affordable housing bond portfolio" to a third party and had transformed the Company's business model to a pure asset management firm. As a result, Centerline disclosed that it would be slashing its annual dividend from $1.68 per share to only $0.60 per share. Further, Centerline disclosed that Defendants had entered into agreement with a related party owned by certain of the Defendants called The Related Companies, L.P., whereby TRCLP would provide the Company with $131 million in financing and would receive 12.2 million shares of newly-issued convertible preferred stock that would pay certain Company insiders an 11% dividend. On this news, Centerline stock fell from $10.27 per share on December 27, 2007, to close at $7.70 per share on December 28, 2007, representing a 25% single-day decline, on unusually heavy trading volume of 4,152,688 shares. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 12 East 41st St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 Cell phone: 504-301-7900 Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com DIGIMARC CORP: Ruling on Securities Suit Appeal Expected in 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Digimarc Corp. is expecting the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon to issue this year a ruling on an appeal against the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud lawsuit filed against the company. Beginning in September 2004, three purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon against the company and certain of its current and former directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's securities during the period April 17, 2002 to July 28, 2004. These lawsuits were later consolidated into one action for all purposes. The amended complaint, which sought unspecified damages, asserted claims under the federal securities laws relating to the company's restatement of its financial statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004 and alleged that the company issued false and misleading financial statements and issued misleading public statements about the company's operations and prospects. On Aug. 4, 2006, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice and entered judgment in the Company's favor. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appeal was stayed pending the recent U.S. Supreme Court's determination in another case of issues relating to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and briefing is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year. The Company anticipates oral argument and a decision in 2008. The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Garcia et al. v. Digimarc Corp. et al., Case No. 3:04-cv-01455-BR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Judge Anna J. Brown presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Gary M. Berne, Esq. (gberne@ssbls.com) Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC, 209 S.W. Oak Street, Fifth Floor Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 227-1600 Fax: (503) 227-6840 - and - Gary I. Grenley, Esq. (ggrenley@grebb.com) Paul H. Trinchero, Esq. (ptrinchero@grebb.com) Grenley Rotenberg Evans Bragg & Bodie PC 1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 241-0570 Fax: (503) 241-0914 DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Renters' Overcharging Lawsuit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces a purported class action lawsuit that was filed with the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, California, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit was filed on July 20, 2007, against DTG Operations, Inc., and the Company by Marquis Smith, on his behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated. It is seeking to recover amounts alleging overcharges to California renters for loss damage waivers on complimentary upgrade rentals and for the issuance of a permanent injunction. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through Company-owned stores. The Company has two rental car brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a network of Company-owned stores and franchisees. DTG also leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other services to franchisees. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Wage, Hour Violations Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit that was filed with the Superior Court for Orange County, California, alleging violations of state wage and hour laws. The suit was filed on Sept. 23, 2007, against the Company and DTG Operations, Inc., by Maria Albayero, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees in California. The lawsuit is an action for alleged violations of wage and hour laws including not providing and compensating for missed meal and rest periods, failure to reimburse uniform maintenance, as well as other things. The suit seeks payment of wages, damages, penalties and injunctive relief, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through Company-owned stores. The Company has two rental car brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a network of Company-owned stores and franchisees. DTG also leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other services to franchisees. DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Calif. Suit Alleging Antitrust Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., faces a purported class action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California, alleging antitrust violations. The suit, "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," was filed on Nov. 14, 2007, by Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The lawsuit claims that the pass through of the California Trade and Tourism Commission and Airport Concession Fees authorized by legislation effective in January 2007 constitute antitrust violations of the Sherman Act and the California Unfair Competition Act. The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief to stop the pass through, restitution, damages and fees, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Shames et al. v. Hertz Corporation et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California, Judge Marilyn L. Huff presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Dennis James Stewart, Esq. (dstewart@hulettharper.com) Hulett Harper Stewart 550 West C. Street, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 338-1133 Fax: (619) 338-1139 Representing the defendants are: Michael L. Weiner, Esq. (mweiner@skadden.com) Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036-6522 Phone: (212) 735-2666 Fax: (917) 777-2632 Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Esq. (jlevee@jonesday.com) Jones Day 555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 243-2572 Fax: (213) 243-2539 - and - Thomas Patrick Brown, Esq. (tbrown@omm.com) O'Melveny & Myers LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 984-8947 Fax: (415) 984-8701 DOLLAR THRIFTY: Faces Suits in California Over PCRTA Program ------------------------------------------------------------ Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is facing a purported class actions that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of California in connection to the Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program. On Dec. 13, 2007, and Dec. 14, 2007, purported class actions were filed against the Company, by Thomas Comisky and Isabel Cohen, respectively, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. These lawsuits claim a violation of rights guaranteed under the Free Speech and Free Association Clauses by compelling out-of- state visitors to subsidize the Passenger Car Rental Tourism Assessment Program, that the Program violates the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by limiting the assessment to airport locations renting to out-of-state travelers and a violation of the California Constitution by not maintaining segregated accounts for the pass through funds. These suits seek injunctive relief to stop the pass through, a refund of all assessments, damages and fees, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. -- http://www.dtag.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is primarily engaged in the business of daily rental of vehicles to business and leisure customers through Company-owned stores. The Company has two rental car brands, Dollar and Thrifty, both of which operate through a network of Company-owned stores and franchisees. DTG also leases vehicles to franchisees for use in the daily vehicle rental business, sells vehicle rental franchises worldwide, and provides sales and marketing, reservations, data processing systems, insurance and other services to franchisees. ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS: Continues to Face Suit by TEPPCO Unitholder ---------------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Products Partners L.P. remains a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed by a unitholder of its TEPPCO Partners, L.P. affiliate, a publicly traded Delaware limited partnership. On Sept. 18, 2006, Peter Brinckerhoff, a purported unitholder of TEPPCO Partners, filed a complaint with the Court of Chancery of New Castle County in the State of Delaware, in his individual capacity, as: -- a putative class action on behalf of other unitholders of TEPPCO, and -- derivatively on behalf of TEPPCO. The suit concerns, among other things, certain transactions involving TEPPCO and Enterprise Products or its affiliates. The complaint names as defendants TEPPCO, its directors, and certain of its affiliates; Enterprise Products and certain of the company's affiliates; EPCO, Inc.; and Dan L. Duncan, the chairman and controlling shareholder of EPCO. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants have caused TEPPCO to enter into certain transactions with the company or its affiliates that are unfair to TEPPCO or otherwise unfairly favored the company or the company's affiliates over TEPPCO. These transactions are alleged to include the joint venture to further expand the Jonah Gas Gathering System -- located in the Greater Green River Basin of southwestern Wyoming -� entered into by TEPPCO and one of the company's affiliates in August 2006 and the sale by TEPPCO to one of the company's affiliates of the Pioneer gas processing plant in March 2006. The Jonah system gathers and transports natural gas produced from the Jonah and Pinedale fields to regional natural gas processing plants and major interstate pipelines that deliver natural gas to end-use markets. The complaint seeks: -- rescission of these transactions or an award of rescissory damages with respect thereto; -- damages for profits and special benefits allegedly obtained by defendants as a result of the alleged wrongdoings in the complaint; and -- awarding plaintiff costs of the action, including fees and expenses of his attorneys and experts. The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. -- http://www.epplp.com-- is a North American midstream energy company providing a range of services to producers and consumers of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, and certain petrochemicals. FIRST BANCORP: P.R. Court Approves $74.25M Securities Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico gave final approval to the $74.25 million settlement of a consolidated securities fraud class action against First BanCorp. Initially, the company and certain of its officers and directors and former officer and directors were named as defendants in five separate securities class actions filed between Oct. 31, 2005, and Dec. 5, 2005, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. All securities class actions were later consolidated into one case, under the caption, "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations." In 2007, First BanCorp reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims with lead plaintiffs in a shareholder class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Class Action Reporter, March 6, 2007). The U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico later issued a preliminary order approving the stipulation of settlement filed in connection with a $74.25-million settlement of a class action brought on behalf of First BanCorp's shareholders (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 7, 2007). Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to notice being provided to the class and final approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, First BanCorp will pay the plaintiffs $74,250,000. On Nov. 28, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico approved the settlement of all claims in the consolidated securities class action relating to the accounting for mortgage-related transactions named, "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigation." The suit is "In Re: First BanCorp Securities Litigations, Case No. 3:05-cv-02148-GAG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, Judge Gustavo A. Gelpi presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Charles S. Hey-Maestre, Esq. De Jesus, Hey & Vargas Law Office 1060 Borinquena St. Santa Rita Bldg., Suite C-8 San Juan, PR 00925 Phone: 787-758-8950 Fax: 787-758-8911 e-mail: fedcases@djhv-derechopr.com Glenn Carl James-Hernandez, Esq. James Law Offices PMB 501, 1353 Rd. 19 Guaynabo, PR 00966-2700 Phone: 787-763-2888 Fax: 787-763-2881 e-mail: jameslawoffices@centennialpr.net Andres W. Lopez, Esq. (andreswlopez@yahoo.com) Andres W. Lopez Law Office 207 Del Parque St., Third Floor San Juan, PR 00912 Phone: 787-406-9075 Fax: 787-641-4544 - and - PHV Kevin McGee, Esq. (kmcgee@zsz.com) Zwerling, Schachter & Swerling, LLP 595 South Federal Highway, Suite 600 Boca Raton, FL 33432, US Phone: 561-544-2500 Fax: 561-544-2501 Representing the defendants are: PHV Joseph S. Allerhand, Esq. (joseph.allerhand@weil.com) Weil, Gotshal & Manges 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153, US Phone: (212) 310-8945 Fax: (212) 310-8007 - and - Eyck O. Lugo-Rivera, Esq. (elugo@mocpr.com) Martinez Odell & Calabria P.O. Box 190998 San Juan, PR 00919-0998 Phone: 787-274-2903 Fax: 787-764-5664 GAYLORD GAS: Parent Firm May Settle Price-Gouging Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- Inergy Propane may resolve a class action lawsuit filed against it for price-gouging customers this winter, Traverse City Record Eagle reports, citing company officials. As noted in the Class Action Reporter on March 6, 2008, Lawrence Friedman, Esq., an attorney and resident of Crawford County, initially filed the class-action lawsuit against Gaylord Gas and its parent company Inergy Propane, LLC, on Feb. 14. He amended his original complaint to include as defendants Petoskey Propane and all other companies owned by Inergy Propane in the state of Michigan -- Blue Flame, Lagasco Propane, McBride Oil & Propane, Northwest Energy, Pearl Gas, ProGas Propane and Quality Propane. Mr. Friedman filed his original lawsuit against Gaylord Gas after he was charged $3.49 a gallon. During the course of his lawsuit, he said he found that customers were being charged upward of $4.49 a gallon. Mr. Friedman alleged that the company charged at least $1 above the state's average retail propane price of $2.45 in January. Now, Inergy will try to settle the dispute with the plaintiff, who challenged their pricing policy under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, the Record Eagle says. According to the report, Inergy officials said a resolution would affect all customers, not just Mr. Friedman. That means customers from the Inergy-owned companies will be affected. "The company is looking forward to resolving the issue on behalf of everyone," Inergy spokeswoman Debbie Hagen told Record Eagle. Ms. Hagen, however, declined to disclose details of the pending agreement. The company contends the average price their propane customers paid this winter was $2.22 per gallon, below the state average. However, most customers sign a fixed price contract and those who don't face fluctuating rates. "I have met with Inergy Propane executives and they have demonstrated good faith efforts to resolve the situation. I am optimistic we will reach a resolution very soon," Mr. Friedman said in a written statement. Meanwhile, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox also is investigating the company after numerous complaints of excessively high prices reached his office, the report adds. Mr. Cox issued a notice of intended action last week, the first step before hauling the business into court. Record Eagle recalls that Forty-Sixth Circuit Trial Judge Janet Allen heard arguments on the Inergy case in February and agreed that Inergy-owned companies charged at least $1 more per gallon than competing companies. She ruled that anyone who paid more than $3 per gallon deserves the option to return the gas and get a refund without any fees. GEORGIA: ACLU Sues Over Failed Privately-Run Alternative School --------------------------------------------------------------- In a case with national implications, the American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Georgia filed a class action lawsuit against the Atlanta Independent School System and Community Education Partners for violating students' constitutional right to an adequate public education. CEP is a for-profit corporation paid nearly $7 million a year by the city to run its alternative school, which is among the most dangerous and lowest performing schools in Georgia. "The appalling performance of Community Education Partners is matched by the dereliction of the city of Atlanta in its duty to provide students with an adequate public education," said Emily Chiang, a staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "It is a national disgrace that the Atlanta school system has handed over its constitutional responsibility to a private, for- profit corporation and let the taxpayers and children of Atlanta pay the price." The ACLU's lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of eight students, charges that the school district and CEP are in violation of multiple federal and state constitutional obligations, including the students' right to be free from unreasonable searches. AISS-CEP was designed as a privately-run, taxpayer-funded alternative middle and high school for students with behavioral problems. However, the placement process is often arbitrary and students who do not belong at AISS-CEP are given few meaningful opportunities to challenge compulsory assignment to the school. CEP has run alternative schools in Houston, Philadelphia, Richmond, Orlando, and Florida's Pinnellas and Bay districts through contracts with public school systems since 1995. In 2005, CEP's annual revenues totaled $70 million. Since its contract began with AISS in 2002, Atlanta's taxpayers have paid CEP a total of $36,570,941. CEP's record nationwide is similarly poor and suggests a political strategy to win contracts and increase profits, not a commitment to education, according to the ACLU. The performance and practices of the AISS-CEP school is abysmal by nearly every available measurement. For example: * Not a single child at the school made it to senior year in 2006; * The school has a "no homework" policy and also prohibits students from taking supplies home -- including books. * AISS-CEP has no cafeteria, no gym and no library; * Students are subjected to full body pat-down searches that include even the soles of their feet every day, and all students -- both boys and girls -- are forced to lift their shirts up to their necks in front of the search team; * Watches, jewelry, purses, combs, brushes, keys, and money in excess of five dollars are all considered contraband and are strictly prohibited -- girls are not permitted even to bring tampons into the building; * In 2006-2007, 91.1 percent of students failed to achieve proficiency in math and 65.8% failed to achieve proficiency in reading on Georgia's statewide Criterion- Referenced Competency Tests. * Fewer than 23 percent of students at the school met or exceeded standards across all subjects, compared to two nearby alternative schools where over 50% of students did; and * The AISS-CEP School alone accounted for 67.7% of all reported incidents of battery, 46% of all reported incidents of vandalism, and 20% of all reported incidents of gun possession in the district. "Parents and taxpayers deserve better than a system that simply funnels their children through a pathway to prison," said Reggie Shuford, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "It would be a stretch to even call this a school since there is little to no academic instruction and its students are treated like criminals -- it is nothing more than a warehouse largely for poor children of color." The education practices at the AISS-CEP school range from the bizarre to the blatantly unconstitutional. For example, no functional curriculum exists at the school and teachers spend little time instructing students. Rather, students spend most of the day filling out worksheets, for which they receive no feedback. Teachers employed by AISS-CEP are extremely inexperienced relative to their local peers. In 2006-2007, teachers at AISS-CEP averaged only 0.94 years of experience compared to teachers in other local alternative schools, who averaged 19.07 years and 10.58 years, respectively. "Under this arrangement, students suffer while a private company prospers and nobody is held accountable," said Mawuli Davis, a cooperating attorney from the law firm Davis Bozeman. "If Atlanta is going to farm out its responsibilities to a third party, it must still uphold its constitutional obligations to these children." Attorneys on the case are Chiang, Shuford, and Larry Schwartztol of the ACLU Racial Justice Program, Nancy Abudu of the ACLU Southern Regional Office, Chara Jackson of the ACLU of Georgia, and cooperating attorneys Davis and Robert Bozeman of Davis Bozeman. ACLU Racial Justice Program on the net: http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice/index.html GRAEME REEVES: Abused and Mutilated Aussie Women Prepare to Sue --------------------------------------------------------------- A public meeting on the New South Wales far south coast is expected to hear the extent of serious misconduct allegations leveled against former obstetrician and gynecologist Graeme Reeves, ABC Online reports. According to ABC Online, Dr. Reeves is being investigated over claims of sexual assault and genital mutilation while practicing in Sydney and at Bega and Pambula hospitals over a period of 14 years. Dr. Reeves, Sydney Morning Herald relates, is also specifically accused of a string of botched surgeries, inappropriate internal and breast examinations and verbal abuse. Reports have revealed that Dr. Reeves' work as an obstetrician and gynecologist had been monitored since 1997 and include suspicions regarding his mental health, News-Medical.Net says. Anonymous reports also suggest that Dr. Reeves's conduct towards his patients and nursing/theater staff at Pambula Hospital was unprofessional and raises questions why patients continued to be referred to him despite doubts over his competency and character. ABC Online recalls that Dr. Reeves was banned from practicing obstetrics in 1997 but continued to do so on the far south coast. He went before the Medical Board over the breaches and was deregistered in 2004. Up to 200 of Dr. Reeve's former patients attended a forum in New South Wales, ahead of a likely launch of a series of legal claims. News-Medical says that in the forum, lawyers briefed former patients on their options along with patient action groups. Lorraine Long, from the victims' support group, told ABC Online that the forum gave more women the opportunity to come forward and make preparations for a class action for compensation. "We've had about 1,200 emails and at the moment, we have documented about 550 complaints," Ms. Long said. "The majority of the people are from the Bega Valley [but] there are a lot from the northern Sydney suburbs where the doctor once practised, so a lot of those people have made contact as well." According to News-Medical, an independent inquiry into the NSW Health System will investigate the allegations against Dr. Reeves and how he was hired by the Southern Area Health Service, despite his past record. Critics say NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher needs to explain why no action was taken when the issue was first raised in Parliament in September 2007. Minister Reba, News-Medical notes, has promised that the Government will take responsibility for any damages resulting from proven malpractice. SMH says that the federal government health advisory group -- Health and Hospitals Reform Commission -- says professional standards will be under review in the wake of revelations about Dr. Reeves. The Commission is tasked with designing a major shake-up to the health system. "Quality, and obviously structural issues around those sorts of professional matters will be part of our brief," Christine Bennett, the commission chairperson, told journalists in a meeting in Canberra, following a question about Dr. Reeve's case. GRANT PRIDECO: Tex. Court Mulls Consolidation of Merger Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- The 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, has yet to rule on a motion that seeks for the consolidated of several purported class actions against Grant Prideco, Inc. The company was are aware of five shareholder lawsuits that have been filed in connection with the proposed merger between it and National Oilwell Varco. These lawsuits, each of which has been filed in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, against the company, its board of directors and, in one case, National Oilwell Varco, are as follows: -- "Mark Bornstein, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-76092," In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 269th Judicial District; -- "Catholic Medical Mission Board, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-76418," In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 55th Judicial District; -- "Thomas Gray, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2007-76419," In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 133rd Judicial District; -- "Roslyn Feder, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al.," In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 61st Judicial District; and -- "Kenneth Engberg, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated vs. Grant Prideco, Inc., et al., Cause No. 2008-02244," In the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 281st Judicial District. Each of the plaintiffs in these five lawsuits alleges that they are stockholders of us and each of these five lawsuits is brought as putative class action. Each of these lawsuits alleges that the proposed merger consideration is inadequate and that the company's and its individual directors breached fiduciary duties owed to its stockholders in connection with the proposed merger. Additionally, in the Bornstein suit, the plaintiff alleges that National Oilwell Varco aided and abetted the alleged breach of fiduciary duty by us and our board of directors. The plaintiffs in each of these actions seek certification of their lawsuits as class actions, seek to enjoin the proposed merger and also ask for other legal and equitable relief, including an award of attorneys' fees and costs of court. On Jan. 17, 2008, the company filed a motion requesting that all of these shareholder actions be consolidated with the Bornstein case in the 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The Court has not yet ruled on this motion to consolidate, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Grant Prideco, Inc. -- http://www.grantprideco.com-- is a player in drill stem technology development and drill pipe manufacturing, sales, and service. HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: CD CA Securities Suit Dismissed Partially ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for Central District of California has dismissed individual defendants from a class action initially naming as defendants HiEnergy and its former officers and directors Bogdan Maglich, Barry Alter and Gregory Gilbert and an alleged control person of HiEnergy, Phillip Gurian. In October 2004, the suit was filed, on behalf of a class of persons who acquired the stock of the Company during the period from February 22, 2002, through July 8, 2004. In January 2005, the Company was officially served and has retained legal counsel to defend it and assert all available defenses. In February 2005, plaintiff's counsel filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging various violations of the federal securities laws, generally asserting the same claims involving Philip Gurian, Barry Alter, and the Company's failure to disclose their various securities violations including, without limitation, allegations of fraud (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2005). The First Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and declaratory relief. The case will now proceed against HiEnergy. Deadline to file for class exclusion is on April 19, 2008. Deadline to file individual lawsuits is on June 23, 2008. The suit is "In re: HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 8:04-CV-01226-DOC (JTLx)," filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge David O. Carter. Representing the plaintiffs are: Kenneth Catanzarite, Esq. (kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com) Jim T. Tice, Esq. (jtice@catanzarite.com) Catanzarite Law Offices 2331 W Lincoln Ave Anaheim, CA 92801 Phone: 714-520-5544 - and - Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com) Rosen Law Firm 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508 New York, NY 10118 Phone: 212-686-1060 ISRAEL DISCOUNT: Accused of Switching Customer Accounts ------------------------------------------------------- Israel Discount Bank (TASE: DSCT) is facing a $5.12-million class-action suit with the Tel Aviv District Court, Yitzhak Danon of The Globes reports. The lawsuit claims that the bank transferred customers to more expensive management fees packages on current accounts after the expiry of the benefits period without the customers' consent. Claimants, Ron Ozeri and Liat Miali allege that they were initially charged a low management fees package on current accounts (such as the basic NIS 10 per month fee package, or special no-fee package). After a year, the bank switched them to a more expensive fee package, "Discount Fix Package," at a cost of NIS 30 per month, the report says. Israel Discount Bank is one of Israel's leading financial groups. With over 210 branches and offices in Israel and in 18 financial centers around the world, the Bank is well positioned to provide a full range of domestic and international financial products and services. As a major banking group, the Bank prides itself on its longstanding dedication to its customers and to the community. KEYSTONE AUTOMOTIVE: April 2008 Hearing Set for Calif. Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles set an April 2008 hearing to consider approval of a proposed settlement for two purported class actions against Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., over its merger agreement with LKQ Corp. On July 16, 2007, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with LKQ Corp., a Delaware corporation, and LKQ Acquisition Company, a California corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of LKQ Corp., by which LKQ Corp., has agreed to acquire the Company. The merger agreement is subject to shareholder and regulatory approval. The merger is expected to close in the fourth quarter of calendar 2007. On July 18, 2007, two putative class actions were filed against the Company and its directors in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles in connection with the Company's proposed merger with LKQ Corp. pursuant to the terms of a definitive merger agreement between the Company, and LKQ Corp. The suits are: -- "Lynch v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Case No. BC374399," and -- "Shoys v. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc., Case No. BC374480." The lawsuits purport to represent a class of all holders of the Company's common stock, allege self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty and challenge the adequacy of the process employed by the Company and the share price to be paid to the Company's stockholders in the merger. The lawsuits seek to enjoin the proposed merger and request payment of attorneys' fees. On Sept. 17, 2007, Keystone entered into a conditional memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs' counsel and the other named defendants in the actions pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle the actions, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval of the final settlement. The hearing at which the court will consider approval of the settlement is scheduled for April 2008, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Keystone Automotive Industries, Inc. -- http://www.keystone- auto.com/ -- is a distributor of aftermarket collision replacement parts produced by independent manufacturers for automobiles and light trucks. Keystone distributes products primarily to collision repair shops throughout most of the United States and certain areas in Canada. It also recycles and produces chrome plated and plastic bumper, and remanufactures alloy and steel wheels. The Company's principal product lines consist of automotive body parts, bumpers and remanufactured alloy wheels, light truck accessories, as well as paint and other materials used in repairing a damaged vehicle. MICROSOFT CORP: Objects to Certification of "Vista" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 a lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. alleging that the company 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." According to the CAR report, the slogan 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. A subsequent CAR report on March 7, 2008, stated that internal Microsoft e-mail messages released with court documents as evidence in a class-action suit suggested that the software company bowed to pressure from partner 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. According to the e-mails, Microsoft was pressured by Intel to certify some chips as capable of running the Windows Vista operating system to help Intel meet earnings estimates. In an update, vnunet.com relates that Microsoft has appealed against the court's decision affording class action status to the Vista lawsuit. The company has also asked for the trial to be temporarily halted to prevent the further disclosure of the e-mails that have proved highly embarrassing. Accordng to Computerworld, Microsoft petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear its challenge of the case's class-action status. The separate motion to stay the suit's proceedings pending the appeal was filed with Judge Pechman on March 6. Microsoft said in its petition that the court had made "errors" in allowing the case to be opened up to class action status as it exposed the company to potentially huge numbers of complaints that had little relevance. "Microsoft produced nearly 50,000 pages of documents in the course of class discovery at a substantial cost," the company said. "The sheer size of Microsoft makes this process an enormous and costly undertaking . . . Without a stay, Microsoft fully expects to spend substantial additional sums in out-of- pocket discovery expense, not to mention the lost productivity of employees whose testimony will be required." Many of these documents have proved embarrassing for Microsoft as they show senior management expressing grave concerns about Vista and the Vista Capable campaign. The company's petition to the Ninth Circuit spelled out two questions it thinks the appellate court should consider, Computerworld notes. The first was Judge Pechman's decision to base the call for class-action status on Washington state law because Microsoft is headquartered there. The second questions Judge Pechman's approval of a "price inflation" theory, which argues that PC buyers paid more than they would have without the Vista Capable program, since Microsoft's marketing boosted demand and increased the prices of systems that could run the lowest-priced and lowest-powered version of the operating system, Vista Home Basic. According to Computerworld, Microsoft hopes to have a ruling on its appeal within 90 days, which would push back several tentative deadlines in the lawsuit, including a trial start in October, if the stay request is granted. 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 NASH FINCH: Settles Minn. Securities Fraud Suit for $6.75 Mln. -------------------------------------------------------------- Nash Finch Company, a leading national food distributor, signed a Stipulation of Settlement which, if approved by the Court, will fully resolve all of the claims in a putative securities fraud class action lawsuit pending with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. On Dec. 19, 2005, and Jan. 4, 2006, two purported class actions were filed against the company and certain of the company's executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock during the period: * from Feb. 24, 2005, the date the company announced an agreement to acquire two distribution divisions from Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., and * through Oct. 20, 2005, the date the company announced a downward revision to its earnings outlook for fiscal 2005. One of the complaints was voluntarily dismissed on March 3, 2006, and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 30, 2006. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants violated the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false statements regarding, among other things, the integration of the distribution divisions acquired from Roundy's, the performance of the company's core businesses, its internal controls, and its financial projections, so as to artificially inflate the price of the company's common stock. The defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the Court denied on May 1, 2007 (Class Action Reporter, July 25, 2007). Pursuant to the recent settlement, which is subject to certain conditions, $6.75 million will be paid into a settlement fund that will be distributed to members of a class of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February 24, 2005, the date the Company announced an agreement to acquire certain assets from Roundy's, through and including October 20, 2005, the date the Company announced a downward revision to its earnings guidance for fiscal 2005. The settlement payment will be funded in full by the Company's insurance coverage. Notice of the settlement must be provided to the class and then it is subject to final approval by the Court. "We believed, and continue to believe, that this case lacks merit and had planned to defend the litigation vigorously," said Alec Covington, President and Chief Executive Officer of Nash Finch. "However, after reaching an accommodation that will be fully covered by our directors and officers insurance and is acceptable to our insurance carrier, we have agreed to the settlement so that we can eliminate the distraction and expense of further litigation. We believe that our shareholders are best served with this matter behind us and our attention focused on our business and the implementation of our strategic plan, Operation Fresh Start." The suit is "In Re: Nash Finch Co. Securities Litigation, Case No. 0:02-cv-04736-JMR-FLN," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, under Judge James M. Rosenbaum, with referral to Judge Franklin L. Noel. Representing the plaintiffs are: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. (g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com) Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield 332 Minnesota St., Ste. E-1250 St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: 651-287-2100 Connie M. Cheung, Esq. (conniec@lcsr.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudma & Robbins LLP 100 Pine St., Ste. 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 288-4545 Fax: (415) 288-4534 - and - Vernon J. Vander Weide, Esq. (vvanderweide@hsvwlaw.com) Head Seifert & Vander Weide 333 S. 7th St., Ste. 1140 Mpls, MN 55402-2421 Phone: 612-339-1601 Fax: 612-339-3372 Representing the defendants is: Michael J. Bleck, Esq. (mbleck@oppenheimer.com) Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly, LLP 45 S. 7th St., Ste 3300 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: 612-607-7000 Fax: 612-607-7100 NEW YORK LIFE: $14MM ERISA Suit Settlement Granted Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bruce W. Kauffman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted final approval to a $14-million class action settlement in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 lawsuit against New York Life Insurance Co., Jeff Casale of the Business Insurance reports. The lawsuit was filed by employees alleging that the insurer mismanaged its pension funds by exclusively investing in its own mutual funds. The suit stems from allegations that NYL improperly invested billions of dollars in assets of various NYL-sponsored employee benefit plans into NYL mutual funds in a scheme to boost profits and help the funds appear more attractive to investors, according to the original complaint filed in November 1999. Furthermore, the suit alleges that NYL's actions drained millions of dollars in "excessive and easily avoidable" fees and expenses as the insurer's trustees continued to invest in "inappropriate and over-priced NYL-proprietary vehicles" when better-performing options were available from investment managers unaffiliated with NYL. The plaintiffs argued that NYL's investment advisor also was president of the insurer's mutual funds and that trustees who approved the pension investments were not made aware of options that would have been less expensive to maintain. NYL denied the allegations and "asserted that the plans' investments, or menu of investment options in the case of the 401(k) plans, have at all times been prudently selected," according to a statement by the insurer. They further contended that ERISA does not prohibit the investment of a retirement plan's assets in proprietary mutual funds offered by the plan's sponsor, provided that the investments and fees are appropriate. Recently, Judge Kauffman affirmed the settlement in "Mehling et al. vs. New York Life Insurance Co." The judge awarded $4.2 million of the settlement as attorney fees and administrative costs for the plaintiff party. The remaining amount will be deposited in the New York-based NYL retirement plans to directly benefit the plans' participants who were involved in the settlement class. In addition to the monetary settlement, NYL also agreed to receive independent advice on their investments through May 31, 2010. In an NYL statement sent to the Business Insurance, an NYL spokesman said, "The company's receptivity to a settlement centered on the fact that the bulk of the settlement monies would go to work for the affected employee and agent participants in the plans. The result is a reaffirmation of New York Life's commitment to its employees and agents through the company's highly competitive benefit and pension plans." NORTEL NETWORKS: Investors Still Await Suit Settlement Payment -------------------------------------------------------------- Investors who won a US$2.4-billion settlement in a U.S. global class-action suit against Nortel Networks Corp. two years ago could be getting closer to collecting compensation if lawyers in the United States and Canada succeed in court bids to speed up the payment of most of the proceeds to eligible shareholders, Ottawa Citizen reports. The report notes that the settlement, whose value has dropped to roughly US$1.23 billion because of Nortel's flagging share price, covers lawsuits stemming from allegations of accounting and disclosure irregularities at the company. Under the court-mediated global settlement agreement, which, according to the report, is considered one of the largest in class-action history, Nortel agreed to pay close to $809 million in cash for two groups of class-action members. It also agreed to issue 628.7 million common shares, representing 14.5% of its equity at that time. Because Nortel has implemented a 10-for-1 stock consolidation since the settlement was reached, the number of shares to be issued now totals about 62.9 million. And while the money put aside for the cash portion of the settlement has been earning interest, the original estimated US$2.4 billion value of the settlement was based on Nortel's share price at that time. The stock price has tumbled since then. Nortel shares, Ottawa Citizen notes, which traded as high as US$31.63 just over a year ago, closed Friday last week at US$6.75 on the New York Stock Exchange, down 53 cents. At that level, the stock portion of the settlement would be valued at US$425 million. Under the proposed payment arrangement, shareholders who have already been ruled eligible for compensation by claims administrator Garden City Group Inc. would receive 75% of the cash put aside by Nortel for the claim and 100% of common shares to be issued as part of the settlement. Judges in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and New York overseeing the cash-and-shares settlement are being asked to approve a plan for early distribution to close to half a million investors, lawyers involved in the process told Ottawa Citizen. New York lawyers have already filed their motion for an early interim payment before the Southern District of New York court after lawyers representing all sides in the settlement agreed on the early payment. Lawyers are expected to file a similar motion in Quebec Superior Court, confirmed Quebec lawyer Philippe Trudel, of Trudel & Johnston LLP, who is working on behalf of Quebec claimants involved in two separate Nortel class actions. Filings by lawyers for claimants in Ontario, where Nortel is based, and British Columbia are also imminent. Mr. Trudel said that if all courts approve the petitions for the new arrangement, eligible shareholders could receive compensation "significantly faster" than the many months it will take for a court review of some contested claims and legal challenges over how much some of the lawyers are to be paid for their role in the settlement. Those items would be covered out of the remaining 25% of the settlement cash. "The fact is the process of revision is going to take time," Mr. Trudel shared to Ottawa Citizen. "The consensus is the money is there, let's give it to investors. Distributing 100 per cent of the shares would avoid a second issue and the costs associated with that." Mr. Trudel said the new court petitions ask judges to allow 7,640 claimants who filed after November 2007's closing date and whose claims have been ruled valid by the claims administrator to be part of any early partial distribution. Those late claimants are included in a total of 296,029 claims that have been declared eligible by Garden City from all jurisdictions for compensation for Nortel I -- the action covering the period from Oct. 24, 2000, to Feb. 15, 2001 -- and 174,158 claims for Nortel II, for the period from April 24, 2003, to April 27, 2004. Rejected claims total 69,979 for Nortel I and 88,065 for Nortel II. Out of that, 360 Nortel I claims will be put before the court for review, said Mr. Trudel. In Nortel II, there have been 378 requests for review. NUTRISYSTEM INC: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Pa. ---------------------------------------------------------------- NutriSystem, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors face a consolidated class action filed with the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits were first commenced on Oct. 9, 2007. The complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2007, and Oct. 3, 2007, or Oct. 4, 2007. The complaints allege that the defendants issued various materially false and misleading statements relating to the Company's projected performance that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of its securities. These actions were consolidated in December 2007 under the captioned, "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-04215-MK." On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended complaint is due to be filed on March 7, 2008. The suit is "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04215-MK," filed with the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Marvin Katz presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square East John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Rd., Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 - and - Leon W. Silverman, Esq. (leon@steinandsilverman.com) Stein & Silverman PC 230 S. Broad St. 18th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-985-0255 Fax: 215-985-0342 Representing the defendants is: Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq. (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Phone: 215 963-5740 Fax: 215-963-5001 SCIELE PHARMA: Reaches $4.65M Settlement in Ga. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sciele Pharma, Inc., f/k/a First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp., reached a tentative $4.65 million settlement for a consolidated securities fraud class action that was filed against it, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 22, 2002, the company, certain former and current officers and directors were named as defendants in a consolidated securities lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs in the class action alleged in general terms that the company violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(a) of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 and that the company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs claim that the company issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market in connection with the company's public offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing" activities. The amended complaint also alleged controlling person liability on behalf of certain of the company's officers under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. On Sept. 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed, without prejudice, the class action. Although the lawsuit was dismissed, the court granted the plaintiffs the right to refile provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendant's fees and costs associated with filing the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiffs did not file a second amended complaint as permitted, but instead filed a motion asking the District Court to reconsider its Sept. 29, 2004 order and lift the condition that they must pay defendants' fees and costs before further amendment. On June 22, 2005, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion and gave them another opportunity to amend if they pay defendants' fees and costs. Once again, plaintiffs chose not to file a second amended complaint. Instead, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On Sept. 18, 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was a "shotgun pleading" that did not satisfy the pleading requirements under the federal rules. The Court of Appeals, however, disagreed with the remedy ordered by the District Court. Instead of dismissing the Amended Complaint with a right to further amend if Plaintiffs paid Defendants� fees and costs, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court should have ordered Plaintiffs to replead under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e). The Court of Appeals also held that plaintiffs' claims under the Securities Act of 1933 must meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) because those claims sound in fraud. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's orders and remanded with instructions to order a repleading. On April 20, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On June 29, 2007, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, which is currently pending. The parties recently engaged in a mediation that led to an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the class action for an amount up to $4.65 million. The suit is "In re First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-02332-JOF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia under Judge J. Owen Forrester. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dab@classlaw.com) Chitwood Harley Harnes, LLP 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E., 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Representing the defendants is: John Patterson Brumbaugh, Esq. (pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com) King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30303-1763 Phone: 404-572-5100 SUNOPTA: Securities Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set for Mar. 28 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, reminds shareholders of the March 28, 2008 deadline to file lead plaintiff applications for the class action lawsuit against SunOpta, Inc. (NasdaqGS:STKL) with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The suit is filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company between August 8, 2007, and Jan. 25, 2008, inclusive. SunOpta and certain of the Company's officers and directors are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 12 East 41st St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 Cell phone: 504-301-7900 Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com UNITED PARCEL: Seeks Review of Class Certification of "Hohider" --------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service, Inc., is seeking for a review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of a decision that certified a class in the matter, "Hohider v. United Parcel Servic, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC." The case was certified as a class action on July 2007. In it, the plaintiffs have challenged certain aspects of the Company's interactive process for assessing requests for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of over 35,000 current and former employees. They are seeking backpay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees. In August 2007, the Company filed a Petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to hear the appeal of the trial court's recent certification order. The company reported no development in the case at its Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Hohider v. United Parcel Servic, et al., Case No. 2:04-cv-00363-JFC," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Judge Joy Flowers Conti presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Christian Bagin, Esq. (christian@wienandandbagin.com) Wienand & Bagin 312 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 600 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-1916 Phone: (412) 281-1110 Fax: 412-281-8481 - and - Donald A. Broggi, Esq. (dbroggi@scott-scott.com) Scott + Scott 600 B Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 233-4565 Representing the defendants are: Joseph E. Culleiton, Esq. (jculleiton@reedsmith.com) Reed Smith 435 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1886 Phone: (412) 288-7216 - and - R. Steve Ensor, Esq. (steve.ensor@alston.com) Alston & Bird 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: (404) 881-7448 VALUECLICK: Mediator in Adware Lawsuit Proposes $1.5M Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The mediator in a consolidated class action suit pending with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against ValueClick, Inc., proposed to settle the case for a one- time payment of $1.5 million. On April 20, 2007, two putative class actions were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Mireille Carrier, and Settlement Recovery Center. The suits are alleging that defendants ValueClick, Inc.; Commission Junction; and Be Free, engaged in unfair business practices resulting in harm to affiliates and merchants on their affiliate networks. According to the complaints, ValueClick has failed to take reasonable steps to address malicious adware and adware users on its networks (Class Action Reporter, June 28, 2007). The following are a few examples identified in the complaints of how adware may result in harm to ValueClick's affiliates and merchants: -- by unlawfully diverting earned commissions from legitimate affiliates; -- by fraudulently causing merchants to pay commissions and fees for traffic that was not generated by legitimate affiliate activity; -- by threatening the integrity of merchant affiliate programs; and -- by exposing merchants to liability for breach of their contracts with affiliates. The lawsuits also allege that ValueClick has a motive to allow unlawful adware activity on its networks because adware results in increased revenues to ValueClick. The lawsuits seek payment of monetary damages to affiliates and merchants as well as changes in ValueClick's corporate practices related to adware and compliance. The complaints have been consolidated into one action. A formal mediation in this matter occurred on Feb. 25, 2008. At the end of the mediation session, the mediator made a "mediator's proposal" that the action be settled for a one time payment of $1.5 million, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit "Settlement Recovery Center LLC v. Valueclick Inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-02638-FMC-CT," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. (jefff@hbsslaw.com) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: 510-725-3000 - and - Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq. (knassiri@nassiri-jung.com) Nassiri and Jung 251 Kearny Street, Suite 501 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-373-5699 Representing the defendants is: S. Ashlie Beringer, Esq. (aberinger@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4200 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-298-5718 VALUECLICK INC: Faces Consolidated Calif. Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ValueClick, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to the company's Feb. 29, 2008 form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 17, 2007, a purported securities fraud class action was filed by Carl Waldrep, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, presuming to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of ValueClick, Inc. between Nov. 1, 2006, and July 27, 2007. The lawsuit alleges violations of certain federal securities laws and is brought against the Company, its Executive Chairman and its Chief Administrative Officer. Since Aug. 17, 2007 and through the date of this filing, one other similar purported class action was filed, and both actions have since been consolidated. The suit is "Carl Waldrep, et al. v. ValueClick, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2007cv05411," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Dean D. Pregerson presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. (dbacine@barrack.com) Barrack Rodos and Bacine 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-963-0600 - and - Mary K. Blasy, Esq. (maryb@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman and Robbins 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-231-1058 Representing the defendants is: Michael B. Smith, Esq. (mbsmith@gibsondunn.com) Gibson Dunn and Crutcher 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Phone: 650-849-5300 * PRI Compares Legal Climates in All 50 U.S. States --------------------------------------------------- The Pacific Research Institute released its report comparing the legal climates of all 50 states. Tort Liability Index: 2008 Report, Florida ranked the worst in terms of tort costs and litigation risks, while North Dakota ranked the best. In a separate ranking, the study also evaluated the tort laws of each state. Colorado had the best tort laws on its books, while Rhode Island had the worst. "In the competition for jobs and capital investment among the states, those states that suffer from high tort costs and litigiousness will continue to lose jobs and businesses to states with superior tort systems. PRI developed the Index as a tool for governors and state legislators to assess their tort systems and to enact laws that will improve the business climate of their states," said Dr. Lawrence J. McQuillan, co-author of the study and director of Business and Economic Studies at PRI. North Dakota may be #1, but consigned to "sucker" status By merging the quantitative tort costs ranking with the tort laws ranking, the study divided the states into four groups: saints, sinners, suckers, and salvageables. Saints: States that have relatively low tort costs and/or few litigation risks and relatively strong tort rules on the books. These states are well positioned to contain their tort liability costs in the future if the rules are implemented as written. These states include Alaska, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Utah. Sinners: States that have relatively high tort costs and/or high litigation risks and relatively weak tort rules on the books. The sinners are likely to face high and rising tort liability costs in the future if lawsuit abuse continues unchecked. These states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Suckers: States that have weak tort rules on the books because they currently have relatively low tort costs and/or few litigation risks and, therefore, foolishly believe that they are not vulnerable and reform is not needed. These states include Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia. Salvageables: States that have moderate to high relative tort costs and/or moderate to high litigation risks, yet have moderate to strong tort rules, probably as a result of recent reforms. These states include Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas. "While North Dakota may top our list in terms of low tort costs, the state lacks strong tort reform laws and could be the next target for trial lawyers looking to strike gold," said Dr. McQuillan. "By the same measure, Floridians should take heart. Although their state presently has the highest tort costs and risks, Florida has among the best tort laws in America due to recent reforms. As a 'salvageable' state, Florida's tort climate should improve as a result of its reforms." "On the other hand, some states are slow to reform. New York is a 'sinner' state in this edition of the Index as well as the last," added Dr. McQuillan. Best and Worst Tort Costs In its quantitative ranking, the study uses 13 variables in two areas -- monetary tort losses and litigation risks. These "output" rankings are free of any subjective influence. In addition to North Dakota, the top five states are Alaska, North Carolina, Iowa, and Virginia. At the bottom are Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Montana, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and last, Florida. Best and Worst Tort Laws The study uses 28 variables to examine which states have rules on the books that, if implemented and enforced, reduce lawsuit abuse and tort costs. These rules are controlled by voters, legislators, and/or judges, either directly or indirectly in each state. The states that have the best overall tort rules on the books, and that will be heading in the right direction if the rules are fully implemented, are Colorado, Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Indiana, Florida, and Michigan. At the bottom are Pennsylvania, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Vermont, and last, Rhode Island. "Enormous resources are wasted today on the unnecessary and unproductive redistribution of wealth that occurs with excessive tort litigation," said co-author Hovannes Abramyan, a PRI public policy fellow. "Meaningful tort reform translates into a better legal environment in which to invest human, physical, and financial capital -- the ingredients for self-sustaining economic growth and prosperity. We hope that our rankings will encourage state officials and residents to enact tort reforms or to enforce and defend strongly those they have on the books." About PRI For 29 years, the Pacific Research Institute (PRI) -- http://www.pacificresearch.org/-- has championed freedom, opportunity, and individual responsibility through free-market policy solutions. PRI is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. New Securities Fraud Cases MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation, announced that class action lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland asserting claims on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Municipal Mortgage & Equity, (PINKSHEETS: MMAB) between May 3, 2004 and January 29, 2008, inclusive, including those who purchased shares in connection with the Company's February 3, 2005 Secondary Public Offering and through the Company's dividend reinvestment plan. Brower Piven is one of the counsel that has filed lawsuits for plaintiffs asserting these claims. MuniMae provides debt and equity financing to developers of multifamily and commercial properties in the United States. The complaints filed allege that the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, issued materially false and misleading registration statements, proxy statements, proxy-prospectuses, and other periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as public statements through press releases and statements reported in the press. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Charles J. Piven, Esq. (piven@browerpiven.com) Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Phone: 410/332-003 or 410-986-0036 e-mail: hoffman@browerpiven.com Web site: http://www.browerpiven.com MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: Federman Announces Securities Suit Filing ------------------------------------------------------------- On January 30, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (NYSE: MMA). The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from January 30, 2003 through January 28, 2008. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.comwww.federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: KGS Commences Securities Fraud Suit in MA ------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC (KGS) has filed a class action lawsuit against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC (PINKSHEETS: MMAB) (formerly NYSE: MMA) in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of the Company between May 3, 2004, and Jan. 29, 2008, inclusive. MMA and certain of the Company's officers and directors are charged with making a series of materially false and misleading statements related to the Company's business and operations in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. MMA provides debt and equity financing to developers of multifamily and commercial properties in the United States. The complaint alleges that the Company, and certain of its officers and directors, failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by them, pertaining to MMA's business prospects, financial condition and financial performance. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company and the other defendants misled investors concerning the adequacy of the Company's internal controls and the value and performance of its tax-exempt bond portfolio. The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the true financial condition and operations of the Company. On January 28, 2008, MMA announced a reduction in its dividend and a delay in the filing of its restated financials. The following day, MMA disclosed that the foregoing restatement would have a significant effect on the Company's ongoing business -- causing shares of MMA to close at $9.19 per share, down almost 50% from the prior day's close. Interested parties may move the court no later than March 31, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Lewis Kahn, Esq. (lewis.kahn@kgscounsel.com) Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC 12 East 41st St., 12th Floor New York, NY 10017 Toll free 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100 Cell phone: 504-301-7900 Web site: http://www.kgscounsel.com SIRF TECHNOLOGY: Schatz Nobel Announces Securities Suit Filing -------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. announced that a lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of SiRF Technology Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq:SIRF) between October 30, 2007, and February 4, 2008, inclusive. The Complaint charges that SiRF and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants knew but concealed the following: (i) SiRF's acquisition of Centrality Communications, Inc. was having an adverse impact on SiRF's results due to the similar products sold by Centrality which were cannibalizing SiRF's sales; (ii) SiRF's major customers were not placing orders at sufficient quantities for SiRF to meet the aggressive targets; (iii) Centrality's System-on-Chip (SoC) product line had lower gross margins than SiRF's products and defendants knew that although the Centrality acquisition would increase revenues in the fourth quarter, it would also significantly lower SiRF's gross margins; (iv) competitive pressures were having a more adverse impact on the Company than acknowledged by defendants, as SiRF's customers were moving to cellular-enabled products which SiRF could not adequately compete with; (v) as of October 30, 20007, fourth quarter gross margins would be down significantly because of the lower SoC product line margins; and (vi) downward pricing pressures were accelerating and would lead to lower margins and earnings in future quarters. On February 4, 2008, the Company announced disappointing financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal 2007. On February 5, 2008, SiRF's stock fell $8.91 per share to close at $7.36 per share, a one-day decline of 54%. Interested parties may move the court no later than April 8, 2008 for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard, P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com ********* 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 * * *