/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080325.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 59
Headlines
ADVANCE AMERICA: Eight Circuit Considers Appeal in "McGinnis"
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Litigation in Ark. Over "Usurious Loans"
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Ark. Suit for Violating 2001 Settlement
ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces Former Customers' Suit in Florida
ADVANCE AMERICA: Opposes Arbitration in BankWest Customers' Suit
ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
ADVANCE AMERICA: Mo. Loan Renewals Lawsuit Dismissed Voluntarily
ADVANCE AMERICA: Pa. Court Compels Arbitration in "Johnson" Case
ADVANCE AMERICA: Pa. Court Compels Arbitration in "King" Lawsuit
ADVANCE AMERICA: Unit Faces Lawsuits in S.C. Over Credit Check
APPLIED MICRO: Tentative Settlement Reached in Derivative Suit
CKX INC: Faces Del. Consolidated Suit Over 19X Merger Agreement
FAIRCHILD CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Suit Going Private Proposal
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settles Suits Over Consumer Information Theft
FOLLETT CORP: Fla. Students' Suit Over Textbooks' Pricing Junked
MANNATECH INC: Reaches Settlement in Texas Securities Lawsuit
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Minnesota
MF GLOBAL: KGS Sets May 9 as Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline
ONLINE VACATION: "Kay" Suit Dismissed with Prejudice in FL Court
OPNEXT INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for April 21
SEARS ROEBUCK: May 1 Hearing Set for $15.5M Ill. Suit Settlement
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Baristas Win in "Jou Chau" Suit Over Tip Money
* Melvyn Weiss Pleads Guilty in Kickback Scheme
New Securities Fraud Cases
FORCE PROTECTION: Strauss Announces SC Securities Suit Filing
MF GLOBAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
MICHAEL BAKER: Dreier Announces Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
NEUROMETRIX INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
OPNEXT INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
PMI GROUP: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
SOCIETE GENERALE: Weiss & Lurie Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
SUNOPTA INC: Alfred Yates Jr. Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UBS AG: Girard Gibbs Files Auction Rate Securities Suit in N.Y.
VERTEX PHARMA: Dreier LLP Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
WELLPOINT INC: Brower Piven Announces IN Securities Suit Filing
*********
ADVANCE AMERICA: Eight Circuit Considers Appeal in "McGinnis"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has yet to rule on
an appeal by Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc., that
seeks to compel arbitration in the purported class action
"Brenda McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc.
et al."
The putative class action was filed on Feb. 27, 2007, with the
Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas. The suit is alleging
violations of the Arkansas usury law, the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and a 2001 class action settlement agreement
entered into by the Company's prior subsidiary in Arkansas.
The complaint alleges that the Company's current subsidiary made
usurious loans under the Arkansas Check Cashers Act beginning on
May 15, 2001. It seeks compensatory damages in amount equal to
twice the interest paid on the loans, a declaration that the
contracts are void, enforcement of the 2001 class action
settlement agreement, attorneys fees and costs.
The Company filed a complaint with the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Arkansas seeking to compel Ms. McGinnis
to arbitrate her claims and stay the above identified state
court action.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the Company's complaint based
upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Company filed an
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in
July 2007.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S. Advance America Servicing of
Arkansas, Inc., is a subsidiary of Advance America, Cash
Advance.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Litigation in Ark. Over "Usurious Loans"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. faces a purported
class action, captioned "Kelvin White v. Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of Arkansas, Inc., et al.," 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 May 31, 2007, Kelvin White and two other individuals filed a
lawsuit with the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, Arkansas.
The suit is generally alleging violations of the Arkansas usury
law, the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and a 2001
class action settlement agreement entered into by the company's
prior subsidiary in Arkansas. It also alleges that the
company's current subsidiary made usurious loans under the
Arkansas Check Cashers Act.
Thus, the suit seeks compensatory damages in amount equal to
twice the interest paid on the loans, a declaration that the
contracts are void, enforcement of the 2001 class action
settlement agreement, attorneys' fees and costs.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Faces Ark. Suit for Violating 2001 Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is facing a
purported class action captioned "Phyliss Garrett v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas, Inc., et al.,"
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 July 3, 2007, Phyliss Garrett filed a motion for contempt
with the Circuit Court of Clark County, Arkansas, alleging a
violation of the 2001 class action settlement agreement entered
into by the company's prior subsidiary in Arkansas and
incorporated into a court order.
The relief sought by the plaintiff and its defenses are
substantially similar to those at issue in the matter, "Brenda
McGinnis v. Advance America Servicing of Arkansas, Inc. et al."
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Still Faces Former Customers' Suit in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.; its subsidiary
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC; and certain of its
officers, directors, and employees continue to face a putative
class action in Florida that was commenced by former customers,
Wendy Betts and Donna Reuter, 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 suit was filed in February 2001 with the Circuit Court of
Palm Beach County and alleges that McKenzie, by and through the
actions of certain officers, directors and employees, engaged in
unfair and deceptive trade practices and violated Florida's
criminal usury statute, the Florida Consumer Finance Act and the
Florida Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
The suit, "Betts and Reuter v. McKenzie Check Advance of
Florida, LLC et al.," seeks unspecified damages, and McKenzie or
the other defendants could be required to refund fees and
interest collected, refund the principal amount of payday cash
advances, pay multiple damages and pay other monetary penalties.
The Circuit Court recently permitted Tiffany Kelly to join as a
plaintiff and the Company is seeking to compel arbitration of
her claims.
Ms. Reuter's claim has been held to be subject to binding
arbitration, which the company expects to proceed in parallel
with this case.
The trial court has denied the company's motion to compel
arbitration of Ms. Kelly's claims and it has appealed that
decision.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Opposes Arbitration in BankWest Customers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc.,
continues to resist efforts to conduct class arbitration in the
purported class action "King and Strong v. Advance America, Cash
Advance Centers of Georgia, Inc., et al.," 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. 6, 2004, Tahisha King and James E. Strong, who were
customers of BankWest, the lending bank for whom the company,
marketed, processed and serviced payday cash advances in
Georgia, filed a putative class action against the company,
William M. Webster, IV, its chief executive officer, and other
unnamed officers, directors, owners and "stakeholders."
The suit alleges various causes of action including that the
company's Georgia subsidiary made illegal payday loans in the
state in violation of Georgia's usury law, the Georgia
Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.
The complaint alleges that BankWest was not the "true lender" on
the advances that were marketed, processed and serviced for
BankWest in Georgia and the company, was the "de facto" lender.
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys' fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.
The company removed the state court action to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under the caption,
"Strong v. Georgia Cash America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-
02611-WSD."
However, the action was remanded back to the State Court of Cobb
County in December 2005. The action is thus proceeding in state
court.
The company and the other defendants denied the plaintiffs'
claims and asserted that all of the claims are subject to
mandatory and binding individual arbitration pursuant to
arbitration agreements signed by each plaintiff.
In April 2006, the State Court of Cobb County entered a consent
order, which was jointly submitted by the parties, whereby the
parties agreed and consented to arbitration of all claims raised
by plaintiffs in this action and to stay all proceedings pending
the outcome of arbitration on plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs filed a demand for arbitration seeking to
arbitrate their claims in a class action or representative
status.
In March 2007, the appointed arbitrator issued an interim order
holding that payday loans are not subject to Georgia law, that
federal preemption applies and that the mere existence of a
contractual prohibition on class actions does not violate
Georgia public policy.
However, the arbitrator did not believe there was sufficient
evidence to determine if the arbitration agreements were
procedurally or substantively unconscionable and ordered
additional discovery on that issue.
Both parties have filed pleadings seeking reconsideration of the
interim order. The Company intends to continue to deny
plaintiffs' claims and resist their efforts to conduct class
arbitration.
The parties are currently in dispute over the scope of the
discovery requests made by the plaintiffs, and Cash America
appealed a State Court ruling on this issue imposing sanctions
against Cash America that included a State Court ruling striking
Cash America's arbitration defense.
On July 6, 2007, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued its opinion
affirming the State Court's ruling. Cash America is seeking
certiorari to appeal this decision to the Georgia Supreme Court.
On Sept. 24, 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to review
the decision.
The company and the other defendants have denied the plaintiffs'
claims and intend to continue to resist the plaintiffs' efforts
to conduct class arbitration.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: N.C. Appeals Court Mulls Consolidation of Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has yet to rule on a motion
to consolidate the purported class action, "Kucan et al. v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers of North Carolina, Inc. et
al.," with two other similar cases filed in the state.
On July 27, 2004, John Kucan, Welsie Torrence and Terry Coates,
each of whom was a customer of Republic Bank & Trust Co., the
lending bank for whom the company marketed, processed and
serviced payday cash advances in North Carolina, filed a
putative class action with the General Court of Justice for the
Superior Court Division for New Hanover County, North Carolina
against the company and William M. Webster, IV, its chief
executive officer.
The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the relationship
between the company's North Carolina subsidiary and Republic was
a "rent a charter" relationship and therefore Republic was not
the "true lender" on the payday cash advances it offered.
The lawsuit also claims that the payday cash advances were made,
administered and collected in violation of numerous North
Carolina consumer protection laws.
It seeks an injunction barring the subsidiary from continuing to
do business in North Carolina, the return of the principal
amount of the payday cash advances made to the plaintiff class
since August 2001, the return of any interest or fees associated
with those advances, treble damages, attorneys' fees and other
unspecified costs.
On Dec. 30, 2005, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motion for arbitration, staying the proceedings and denying
class certification. The plaintiffs have appealed the order to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
The plaintiffs in this case and two other North Carolina cases
currently before the Court of Appeals filed a petition, which
the company has opposed, for discretionary review and
consolidation of the cases.
The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the consolidated
cases in January 2007. The company is awaiting a ruling from
the Court of Appeals.
The company reported no development in the matter in its
Feb. 29, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Mo. Loan Renewals Lawsuit Dismissed Voluntarily
----------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in the matter "Cynthia Williams v. Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of Missouri, Inc.," which was
filed with the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, dismissed the
case voluntarily.
On Aug. 6, 2007, Cynthia Williams filed a class action suit
against the Company's Missouri subsidiary with the Circuit Court
of St. Louis County alleging violations of certain Missouri loan
laws and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
The complaint alleges the Company's subsidiary in Missouri
exceeded the maximum lawful interest rate, illegally limited the
number of loan renewals, and failed to adequately reduce the
principal amount of the loan when a customer obtained a loan
renewal.
The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys
fees, interest, costs and a constructive trust and equitable
lien on all money paid by the class.
The company removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri and filed a motion to further
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.
The company's motion was granted and, in response, the plaintiff
dismissed the case voluntarily, 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.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
ADVANCE AMERICA: Pa. Court Compels Arbitration in "Johnson" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
issued an order compelling arbitration in the purported class
action "Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love and Bonny Bleacher v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al."
On Aug. 1, 2007, Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love, and Bonny
Bleacher filed a putative class action lawsuit against Advance
America and two of its subsidiaries alleging that the company
provided lines of credit to borrowers in Pennsylvania without a
license required under Pennsylvania law and with interest and
fees in excess of the amounts permitted by Pennsylvania law.
The complaint seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment
that the monthly participation fee charged to customers with a
line of credit is illegal, an injunction prohibiting the
collection of the monthly participation fee and damages equal to
three times the monthly participation fees paid by customers
since June 2006.
In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless deemed otherwise by the arbiter,
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 suit is "Sharlene Johnson, Helena Love and Bonny Bleacher v.
Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:07-cv-03142-JF," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge John P. Fullam
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Irv Ackelsberg, Esq. (iackelsberg@langergrogan.com)
Langer & Grogan PC
1600 Market St.
Suite 2020
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-419-6549
Fax: 215-419-6546
Representing the defendants are:
Phillip E. Stano, Esq. (phillip.stano@sablaw.com)
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: 202/383-0261
- and -
Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. (aschwartz@mdwcg.com)
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
1845 Walnut St., 17th Fl.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-575-2765
Fax: 215-575-0856
ADVANCE AMERICA: Pa. Court Compels Arbitration in "King" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted a Motion to Compel Arbitration filed by Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers, Inc., and Cash Advance Centers of
Pennsylvania, LLC, in connection to the purported class action,
"Raymond King and Sandra Coates v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC."
The suit was filed on Jan. 18, 2007, on behalf of customers of
BankWest -- the lending bank for which the company marketed,
processed, and serviced payday cash advances in Pennsylvania.
The plaintiffs are alleging various causes of action, including
that the Pennsylvania subsidiary made illegal payday loans in
the state in violation of Pennsylvania's usury law, the
Pennsylvania Consumer Discount Company Act, the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, the
Pennsylvania Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act and the
Pennsylvania Credit Services Act.
The complaint further alleges that BankWest was not the "true
lender" on the advances that the company marketed, processed and
serviced for BankWest in Pennsylvania and that the company was
the "lender in fact."
The complaint seeks compensatory damages, attorneys fees,
punitive damages and the trebling of any compensatory damages.
The Company filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in March 2007.
In January 2008, the trial court entered an order compelling the
purported class representatives to arbitrate their claims on an
individual basis, unless deemed otherwise by the arbiter,
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 suit is "King et al. v. Advance America, Cash Advance
Centers of Pennsylvania, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-00237-JF," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania under Judge John P. Fullam.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
David A. Searles, Esq. (dsearles@donovansearles.com)
Donovan Searles, LLC
1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-732-6067
Fax: 215-732-8060
- and -
Deborah Zuckerman, Esq. (dzuckerman@aarp.org)
AARP Foundation Litigation
601 E. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20049
Phone: 202-434-6045
Fax: 202-434-6424
Representing the defendants is:
Mark J. Levin, Esq. (levinm@ballardspahr.com)
Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
1735 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
Phone: 215-864-8235
ADVANCE AMERICA: Unit Faces Lawsuits in S.C. Over Credit Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
A subsidiary of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc., is
facing several purported class actions that were recently
transfered to the U.S. District Court for the District of South
Carolina, 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.
Initially, seven separate putative class actions were filed in
South Carolina against the company's subsidiary, Advance
America, Cash Advance Centers of South Carolina, Inc., and
several other unaffiliated defendants.
These suits were filed by:
1. John and Rebecca Morgan, on Aug. 27, 2007, with the
Horry County Court of Common Pleas;
2. Margaret Horne, on Sept. 6, 2007, with the Spartanburg
County Court of Common Pleas;
3. Tawan Smalls, on Sept. 10, 2007, with the Charleston
County Court of Commons Pleas;
4. Chadric and Lisa Wiley, on Sept. 27, 2007, with the
Richland County Court of Common Pleas;
5. Mildred Weaver, on Sept. 27, 2007, with the Darlington
County Court of Common Pleas;
6. Lisa Johnson and Gilbert Herbert, on Oct. 2, 2007,
with the Georgetown County Court of Common Pleas; and
7. Kimberly Kinney, on Oct. 12, 2007, with the Marion
County Court of Common Pleas.
The allegations and relief sought are similar in each case. The
plaintiffs allege that the company's South Carolina subsidiary
violated the South Carolina Deferred Presentment Services Act
and the Consumer Protection Code by failing to perform a credit
check and evaluate a customer's ability to repay the advance.
Each complaint seeks an injunction to prohibit the company from
continuing its operations, the return of fees and interest,
actual damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
Each of the lawsuits has been removed to the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina.
South Carolina-based Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.
-- http://www.advanceamericacash.com-- is a provider of payday
cash advance services in the U.S.
APPLIED MICRO: Tentative Settlement Reached in Derivative Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case "In re Applied Micro
Circuits Corporation, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No.
06-cv-04269-JW," brought on behalf of Applied Micro Circuits
Corporation, Inc. pending before the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California have reached a
tentative settlement.
The plaintiffs in that case recently sent a notice of that
tentative settlement to AMCC's shareholders notifying them that
they intend to seek final approval of the settlement from the
Court on May 5, 2008.
This settlement impacts all current AMCC shareholders because it
seeks to extinguish claims in favor of AMCC worth tens of
millions of dollars. If you are an AMCC shareholder and wish to
object to the proposed settlement, the settlement notice
requires that you do so by April 18, 2008.
Case Background
The settling plaintiffs first filed the derivative action,
purportedly for the benefit of AMCC, on July 11, 2006. The
action alleges that certain former and current AMCC officers and
directors engaged in a practice commonly referred to as stock
option backdating.
Backdating involves the use of hindsight to pick stock option
grant dates where AMCC's stock price was lower than the actual
date of the grant. The recipient of the backdated stock option
receives a paper profit equal to the number of shares underlying
the stock option multiplied by the difference between AMCC's
stock price on the backdated grant date and the actual grant
date.
As part of its own internal investigation and financial
restatement, AMCC announced that it needed to recognize $95
million in compensation expenses as a result of stock option
backdating. The Company arrived at that $95 million figure
after first predicting up to $200 million in compensation
expenses might have to be restated to account for improperly
backdated options.
On January 28, 2008, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the claims
they brought purportedly on behalf of AMCC. The settlement
seeks to release all of the defendants named in the action as
well as other individuals, which includes current and former
officers and directors of AMCC, from liability to the Company in
connection with the backdating activities. In exchange for
releasing these claims, the Company is purportedly receiving a
few corporate governance reforms. These reforms are coming
after extensive remedial measures that were already undertaken
by the Company prior to the settlement being reached by the
parties. Importantly, while there is an insurance payment to
reimburse certain Company expenses, the proposed settlement does
not provide for any monetary recovery from the individual
defendants or any current or former officer of AMCC. This means
that no person who received backdated options from AMCC is being
required to pay money or return any backdating proceeds to the
Company.
The Court ordered, on February 27, 2008, that notice be sent to
current AMCC shareholders informing them of the terms of the
proposed settlement and that a final approval hearing has been
set for May 5, 2008 for the Court to determine whether the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate.
Any current AMCC shareholder who held stock as of January 28,
2008, and who continues to hold some of their AMCC stock has a
right to appear at the final approval hearing and object to the
settlement.
Deadline to file for objection is on April 18, 2008.
The suit is "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corporation, Inc.
Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. 06-cv-04269-JW," with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Honorable James Ware, presiding.
CKX INC: Faces Del. Consolidated Suit Over 19X Merger Agreement
---------------------------------------------------------------
CKX, Inc., is facing a consolidated litigation in Delaware over
a merger agreement with 19X, Inc., and 19X Acquisition Corp.,
according to the Company's March 3, 2008 Form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Initially, a lawsuit was filed on Dec. 14, 2007, with the
Delaware Chancery Court against the Company, its directors, 19X
Inc. and 19X Acquisition Corp. The complaint was filed by a
purported stockholder of the Company, and it seeks class-action
status to represent all of the Company's public stockholders.
The complaint alleges that the sale price is too low and that
the Company's directors have therefore breached their fiduciary
duties by approving the transaction.
The lawsuit also seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction
preventing the defendants from consummating the merger.
Alternatively, if the merger is consummated, the complaint seeks
rescission or recessionary damages in an unspecified amount.
In addition, the complaint seeks "Class compensatory damages" in
an unspecified amount, as well as the costs and disbursements of
the action, experts' fees and the fees of plaintiff's attorneys.
On Feb. 1, 2008, another summons and complaint was filed with
the Delaware Chancery Court against the defendants by another
purported shareholder of the Company.
The complaint is identical to the complaint filed on Dec. 14,
2007.
Subsequently, the two cases have been consolidated and the
plaintiffs have been given leave to file a consolidated amended
complaint.
CKX, Inc. -- http://ir.ckx.com/-- is a company founded on
Feb. 7, 2005, that owns and develops entertainment content and
intellectual property. CKX holds, among other assets, the
rights to the name, image and likeness of Elvis Presley; the
operations of Graceland; and an 80% interest in the name,
likeness, trademarks, and licensing agreements of Muhammad Ali
including Ali's "Greatest Of All Time" (or G.O.A.T.) slogan.
FAIRCHILD CORP: Del. Court Dismisses Suit Going Private Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a consolidated lawsuit
against Fairchild Corp. in connection to a going private
proposal by FA Holdings I, LLC, according to the company's
March 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007.
In early August 2006, three lawsuits were filed with the
Delaware Court of Chancery, purportedly on behalf of the public
stockholders of the Company, regarding a going private proposal
by FA Holdings I, LLC, a limited liability company led by
Jeffrey Steiner and Philip Sassower, Chairman of The Phoenix
Group LLC.
The defendants named in these actions included Jeffrey Steiner,
Eric Steiner, Robert Edwards, Daniel Lebard, Michael Vantusko,
Didier Choix, Glenn Myles, FA Holdings I, LLC, and the Company.
Each of the complaints asserted that the individual defendants
had breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders and that the FA Holdings offer of $2.73 for each
share of the Company's stock was inadequate and unfair.
The suits sought injunctive relief, rescission of any
transaction, damages, costs and attorneys' fees.
On Sept. 21, 2006, the Company announced that FA Holdings I,
LLC, had withdrawn its proposal, and on Dec. 5, 2006, that
discussions with FA Holdings regarding a potential transaction
had been terminated.
On March 2, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation with the
Delaware Court of Chancery seeking to dismiss the consolidated
action, and on March 6, 2007, the Delaware Court of Chancery so
ordered.
Fairchild Corp. -- http://www.fairchild.com/-- operates in
three segments: PoloExpress, Hein Gericke and Aerospace. The
first two segments are engaged in the design and retail sale of
motorcycle apparel, protective clothing, helmets, and technical
accessories for motorcyclists in Europe. In addition, Hein
Gericke is engaged in the design and distribution of motorcycle
apparel in the U.S. Aerospace segment stocks a variety of
aircraft parts and distributes them to commercial airlines and
air cargo carriers, fixed-base operators, corporate aircraft
operators and other aerospace companies worldwide. In addition,
the Company's Aerospace segment performs component repair and
overhaul services.
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Settles Suits Over Consumer Information Theft
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. -- a Georgia-based
corporation formerly known as Certegy, Inc. -- settled several
purported class actions over stolen consumer information,
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 July 3, 2007, the company reported that one of its database
administrators had misappropriated consumer information. To
date, it has seen no evidence of the stolen information being
used for anything other than marketing purposes.
Nevertheless, multiple putative class actions were filed against
the company, seeking monetary damages. Those class actions were
settled in January 2008.
In February 2008, the court indicated that preliminary approval
of the settlement would be granted, but a formal written order
has not yet been entered.
Jacksonville, Fla.-based Fidelity National Information Services,
Inc. -- http://www.fidelityinfoservices.com-- is a provider of
core processing services, card issuer and transaction processing
and mortgage-related services to financial institutions,
mortgage lenders and servicers.
FOLLETT CORP: Fla. Students' Suit Over Textbooks' Pricing Junked
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed by two Daytona Beach College
students against the country's largest collegiate-bookstore
chain, which runs the UF Bookstore, was dismissed by a federal
judge on Monday, last week.
The Community College students filed the lawsuit with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida accusing
Follett Corp. of overcharging for textbooks (Class Action
Reporter, Feb. 9, 2007).
The five-count complaint alleges breach of the contract between
Follett and the college, violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and a civil conspiracy.
Co-plaintiffs Thomas Rebman and Danny Brandner accuse Follett of
unfair and illegal pricing practices and sought to recover at
least $5 million in damages. They have charged the Follett
Higher Education Group and Daytona Beach Community College of
overcharging students pennies on each used-book sale and
underpaying them when buying books back.
Follett, the company that contracts with Buena Vista
University's Lehnus Campus Bookstore, is being charged with
rounding book prices up to the nearest quarter.
The U.S. District Court of Orlando concluded that the case,
which sought to recover $5 million in damages from Follett, was
not grounds for a lawsuit, and any financial losses the students
suffered were not sufficient for the compensation they sought.
The suit is "Rebman et al. v. Follet Higher Education Group,
Inc. et al., Case No: 6:06-cv-01476-JA-KRS," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida under Judge
John Antoon II, with referral to Judge Karla R. Spaulding.
Representing the defendants are:
Sanford Lewis Bohrer, Esq. (sbohrer@hklaw.com)
Scott D. Ponce, Esq. (sponce@hklaw.com)
Holland & Knight LLP
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 3000
P.O. Box 015441
Miami, FL 33131-5441
Phone: 305/374-8500 or 305/789-7575
Fax: 305-789-7799
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert Sheridan Thurlow, Esq.
Robert S. Thurlow, P.A.
415 Canal St.
New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168-7009
Phone: 386/424-1530
Fax: 386/424-1493
e-mail: dianeeyre@bellsouth.net
- and -
Marc A. Wites, Esq. (mwites@wklawyers.com)
Wites & Kapetan, P.A.
4400 North Federal Highway
Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
Phone: 954/570-8989
Fax: 954/354-0205
MANNATECH INC: Reaches Settlement in Texas Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mannatech, Incorporated, and counsel for the lead plaintiff have
reached a settlement in the securities class action lawsuit
"Jonathan Crowell v. Mannatech, Inc., et al., Civil Action No.
3:07-CV-00238-K," filed with the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas.
Initially, the company was named in three separates securities
class actions.
The first suit was filed on Aug. 1, 2005, Mr. Jonathan Crowell
against the Company and Samuel L. Caster, its chief executive
officer.
The plaintiff brought the putative class action on behalf of
himself and all others who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between August 10, 2004, and May 9, 2005,
inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.
The second lawsuit was filed on Aug. 30, 2005, by Richard
McMurry against the Company; Mr. Caster; Terry L. Persinger, the
Company's president and chief operating officer; and Stephen D.
Fenstermacher, its chief financial officer.
The third case was filed on Sept. 5, 2005, by Michael Bruce
Zeller against the Company, Mr. Caster, Mr. Persinger, and Mr.
Fenstermacher.
These three lawsuits were initially filed and consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. On
Jan. 29, 2007, the consolidated action was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On
March 29, 2007, upon joint motion of the parties, the
consolidated suit was transferred to the docket of Judge Ed
Kinkeade.
The Mannatech Group -- consisting of Austin Chang, Naomi S.
Miller, John Ogden, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 51
Pension Fund -- has been appointed as lead plaintiff. Lerach
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has been appointed as
lead counsel and Provost Umphrey LLP has been appointed local
counsel for the putative class.
On May 21, 2007, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended consolidated complaint. However, on July 12, 2007, the
Lead Plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated class action
complaint.
This Second Amended Complaint is substantively similar to the
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed on March 22,
2007, but expands the class period to July 5, 2007.
The Second Amended Complaint rendered moot the defendants'
motion to dismiss and the Court denied the motion as moot and
set a briefing schedule such that the defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint was due Aug. 27, 2007
(Class Action Reporter, Sept. 24, 2007).
However, the recent settlement, which is subject to, among other
things, preliminary and final Court approval, would resolve all
the claims in the litigation.
Without admitting any liability or wrongdoing of any kind, the
Company has agreed to authorize payment to the plaintiff class
of $11.25 million. This settlement payment would be funded by
both the Company's insurer and the Company itself.
Because the litigation is a class action, the settlement is
subject to the preliminary approval of the Court as well as the
Court's final approval after notice of the terms of the
settlement has been provided to all class members. Timing of
the approval process is dependent on the Court's calendar.
Relevant purchasers of Mannatech stock have a right to opt out
of the class, class members may object to the terms of the
settlement, and final consummation of settlement must await the
entry of final judgment approving the settlement as fair to all
class members. However, such settlements are not uncommonly
approved without material modification, and barring any unusual
developments, the Company expects that this approval process
will be completed within a 4-6 month period.
The suit is "Crowell v. Mannatech Inc. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-
00238," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, under Judge Ed Kinkeade.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
David J. George, Esq. (dgeorge@lerachlaw.com)
Robert J. Robbins, Esq. (rrobbins@lerachlaw.com)
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
120 E Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561/750-3000
Fax: 561/750-3364
Representing the defendants is:
Edward S. Koppman, Esq. (ekoppman@akingump.com)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
1700 Pacific Ave., Suite 4100
Dallas, TX 75201-4618
Phone: 214/969-2846
Fax: 214/969-4343
MAXIM INTEGRATED: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline is April 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm reminds persons who purchased shares or
options of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Pink Sheets:MXIM)
(formerly Nasdaq: MXIM) during the period from April 29, 2003,
through January 17, 2008, that the deadline to ask the Court to
be appointed as lead plaintiff is on April 7, 2008.
Earlier, the law firm filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the common stock and
options of Maxim, during the period from April 29, 2003, through
Jan. 17, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008).
The complaint charges that Maxim and certain of its former
officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by engaging in improper stock option
backdating that caused the issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements during the Class Period.
The complaint asserts that on Jan. 17, 2008, the Company
announced that it would be restating its financial statements to
record between $550 million and $650 million of additional
stock-based compensation expense and that its previously issued
financial statements could no longer be relied on. As a result
of these adverse disclosures, the Company's stock price has
declined 22%.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 7,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
350 fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Multiple Suits Over Sprint Fidelis Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., is facing several purported class actions in
both state and federal courts over its recalled Sprint Fidelis
family of defibrillation leads, according to the company's
March 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 25, 2008.
On Oct. 15, 2007, the Company voluntarily suspended worldwide
distribution of its Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation
leads. This decision was based on a variety of factors that,
when viewed together, indicated that suspending distribution was
the appropriate action.
At the time, Sprint Fidelis lead viability was trending lower
than other Company defibrillation leads, but had not then become
statistically significant.
The leads are used to deliver therapy in patients with ICDs, but
are generally not used in pacemaker patients.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration subsequently classified
the Company's action as a Class I recall.
Approximately 120 lawsuits regarding the Fidelis leads have been
filed against the Company, including approximately 30 putative
class actions. In general, these suits allege claims of product
liability, warranty, negligence, unjust enrichment, emotional
distress and consumer protection violations.
Eighteen of the lawsuits have been filed in state court,
generally alleging similar causes of action.
The Plaintiffs' counsel in several of the suits filed in federal
court asked for consolidation and coordination of those suits
under multidistrict litigation rules. Medtronic did not oppose
those requests.
On Feb. 21, 2008, the judicial panel on MDL ordered the cases to
be handled before the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota for pretrial MDL proceedings.
Medtronic, Inc. -- http://www.medtronic.com-- is engaged in
medical technology, alleviating pain, restoring health, and
extending life for people around the world.
MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc., is facing a purported securities fraud class
action with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota, captioned "Kurzweil v. Medtronic, Inc. et al Case No.
07-04564."
On Nov. 8, 2007, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of
Section 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint is brought on behalf of persons or entities who
purchased securities of Medtronic during the period June 25,
2007, through Oct. 15, 2007.
The complaint alleges that "materially false and misleading"
representations were made as to the market acceptance and use of
the Fidelis defibrillator leads to artificially inflate
Medtronic's stock price, according to the company's March 4,
2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 25, 2008.
The suit is "Kurzweil v. Medtronic, Inc. et al Case No. 07-
04564," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Robert C. Finkel, Esq. (rfinkel@wolfpopper.com)
Wolf Popper LLP
845 3rd Ave
New York, NY 10022
212-451-9620
- and -
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq. (rhagstrom@zelle.com)
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette
500 Washington Ave. S. Ste. 4000
Mpls, MN 55415
Phone: 612-339-2020
Fax: 612-339-9100
Representing the defendants are:
Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq.
(michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com)
WilmerHale LLP
399 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10022
Phone: 212-937-7220
- and -
Patrick S. Williams, Esq. (pwilliams@briggs.com)
Briggs & Morgan, PA
80 S. 8th St. Ste. 2200
Mpls, MN 55402
Phone: 612-977-8400
Fax: 612-977-8650
MF GLOBAL: KGS Sets May 9 as Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Gauthier Swick, LLC, announced that shareholders of MF
Global, Ltd., who purchased shares of the Company in its Initial
Public Offering on or about July 20, 2007, or in the open market
thereafter through February 28, 2008, have only until May 9,
2008, to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
KGS has filed a class action lawsuit against MF with the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
MF and certain of its officers and directors are charged with
including, or allowing the inclusion of, materially false and
misleading statements in the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO, in violation of
the Securities Act of 1933. In particular, the Complaint
alleges that only on February 28, 2008 -- after defendant Man
Group, MF Global's corporate parent sold over $3.213 billion of
its own stock in connection with the IPO -- MF revealed the
truth about the Company, including that its risk monitoring,
management and control systems were so deficient that an
employee trader, trading for his own account, had accumulated
almost $150 million in unauthorized trading losses in a period
of less than 24 hours. Subsequently, on this news, MF shares
have fallen precipitously.
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
Phone: 1-866-467-1400, ext. 100
ONLINE VACATION: "Kay" Suit Dismissed with Prejudice in FL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit "Joseph Kay v
Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 07-
61619."
Joseph Kay had sued the Registrant in November 2007 in a
putative class action lawsuit with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The plaintiff had claimed that the Registrant violated the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act and sought class action
status to represent all consumers of the Registrant since
December 4, 2006.
Speaking of the dismissal, Ed Rudner, CEO of Online Vacation
Center Holdings Corp. said, "We are very pleased with the
court's decision. We never thought that we did anything wrong
and believe that this lawsuit was without merit."
Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp. --
http://www.onlinevacationcenter.com-- based in Plantation,
Florida, is focused on internally growing and developing its
group of diversified vacation marketers with a range of products
that can be cross-marketed to its extensive customer base and
provide a high degree of personalized service to help customers
research, plan and purchase a vacation.
OPNEXT INC: Lead Plaintiff Appointment Deadline Set for April 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, representing Opnext investors, reminds
present and former shareholders of Opnext, Inc., that the
deadline for lead plaintiff appointment requests is on April 21,
2008.
The Rosen Law Firm filed a class action with the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf
of all purchasers of Opnext, Inc. (NASDAQ: OPXT) stock from the
date of the Company's Initial Public Offering on February 14,
2007, through February 13, 2008 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22,
2008).
The complaint charges that Opnext and certain of its present and
former officers, directors, and control persons violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially inaccurate Registration Statement and Prospectus
in connection with the Company's IPO.
According to the Complaint, on or about February 14, 2007, the
Opnext commenced its IPO priced at $15.00 per share for over 16
million shares of stock. The Complaint asserts that Opnext's
Registration Statement was materially false because:
(i) the Company's reported net income for the quarter and
six months ended December 31, 2007, was overstated; and
(ii) the Company's reported net loss for the fiscal year
ended March 31, 2006, was understated.
The Complaint further alleges that on February 13, 2008, the
Company announced, among other things, the Company's previously
issued financial statements could no longer be relied upon and
that it had to restate them. As a result of these adverse
disclosures, Opnext's stock price dropped, damaging investors.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 21,
2008.
For more information, contact:
Laurence Rosen, Esq. (lrosen@rosenlegal.com)
Phillip Kim, Esq. (pkim@rosenlegal.com)
The Rosen Law Firm P.A.
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5508
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Weekends Tel: (917) 797-4425
Toll Free: 1-866-767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Web site: http://www.rosenlegal.com
SEARS ROEBUCK: May 1 Hearing Set for $15.5M Ill. Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
will hold a fairness hearing on May 1, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., in
connection with the proposed $15,500,000 settlement in the
matter, "Thomas G. Ong, et al., v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., et
al., Case No. 03-04142."
The hearing will be held before Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer at
the Everett McKinley Dirksen Building, Courtroom 2119, 219
Southern Dearborn Street, in Chicago, Illinois.
Any objections or exclusions to or from the settlement must be
made by April 14, 2008. Claim forms should be filed on or
before July 8, 2008.
Case Background
The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
defendants issued materially false and misleading press releases
and other statements regarding Sears' credit card operations
during the Class Period -— Oct. 24, 2001, through and including
Oct. 17, 2002 —- in an effort to make those operations appear
more stable and profitable than they actually were.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, the defendants concealed material adverse information
concerning the financial condition, performance and prospects of
Sears' credit card operations, and that the Sears Defendants
issued a series of falsely positive statements in which, inter
alia, they allegedly:
-- misrepresented the performance and quality of Sears'
credit card operations and concealed the deteriorating
condition of those operations;
-- misled the investing public into believing that the
delinquency and charge-off rates of Sears' credit card
products were comparable to, or better than, those of
other leading credit card issuers; and
-- failed to disclose that Sears' reserves for bad credit
card debt were materially inadequate.
The Complaint alleges that these purported material
misrepresentations and omissions caused Sears' and SRAC's public
statements issued during the Class Period to be materially false
and misleading, in violation of the federal securities laws.
For more details, contact;
Settlement Administrator
Ong v. Sears Roebuck and Co. Securities Settlement
c/o Complete Claim Solutions, LLC
P.O. Box 24793
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
Phone: (866) 591-7266
e-mail: info@searsroebuckacceptancecorpbondsettlement.com
Carol V. Gilden, Esq. (cgilden@cmht.com)
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312- 357-0370
Fax: 312-357-0369
- and -
Robert M. Roseman, Esq.
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C.
1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
Phone: 888-844-5862 or (215) 496-0300
Fax: (215) 496-6611
e-mail: classaction@srk-law.com
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Baristas Win in "Jou Chau" Suit Over Tip Money
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett issued an
injunction preventing Starbucks Coffee Co.s' shift supervisors
from sharing in future tips, the Associated Press reports.
On Oct. 8, 2004, a former hourly employee of the company filed
the suit, which alleges that the company violated the California
Labor Code by allowing shift supervisors to receive tips.
More specifically, the suit alleges that since shift supervisors
direct the work of baristas, they qualify as "agents" of the
company and are therefore excluded from receiving tips under
California Labor Code Section 351, which prohibits employers and
their agents from collecting or receiving tips left by patrons
for other employees.
It is further alleged that because the tipping practices violate
the Labor Code, they also are unfair practices under the
California Unfair Competition Law.
In addition to recovery of an unspecified amount of tips
distributed to shift supervisors, the suit seeks penalties under
California Labor Code Section 203 for willful failure to pay
wages due. The plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees and costs.
On March 30, 2006, the Court issued an order certifying the case
as a class action, with the plaintiff representing a class of
all persons employed as baristas in the state of California
since Oct. 8, 2000.
In March 2007, notice of action was sent to approximately
120,000 potential members of the class. Trial is currently set
for February 2008.
At the February 2008 trial for the class action, "Jou Chau v.
Starbucks Coffee Co.," Judge Cowett ordered Starbucks to pay its
California baristas more than $100 million US in back tips the
coffee retailer paid to shift supervisors.
The judge said baristas were entitled to $86 million plus
interest in back tips. She added that Starbucks' practice was a
violation of a state law.
In the AP report, Starbucks official Valerie O'Neil said that
the company will appeal the ruling.
Starbucks Corp. -- http://www.starbucks.com/-- purchases and
roasts whole bean coffees and sells them, along with fresh,
rich-brewed coffees, Italian-style espresso beverages, cold
blended beverages, various complementary food items, coffee-
related accessories and equipment, a selection of premium teas
and a line of compact discs, primarily through Company-operated
retail stores.
* Melvyn Weiss Pleads Guilty in Kickback Scheme
-----------------------------------------------
Famed shareholders' attorney Melvyn I. Weiss, known for filing
securities class-action lawsuits against publicly traded
companies, pleaded guilty to participating in a criminal
conspiracy in which he and others agreed to hide "secret"
payments to individuals who would serve as named plaintiffs in
suits that delivered millions of dollars in fees.
As a result of his plea agreement with federal prosecutors in
Los Angeles, Weiss will avoid a trial set for August, according
to a statement from Weiss attorney Benjamin Brafman. Under the
plea deal, Weiss could get a prison sentence of up to 33 months,
but the U.S District Court for the Central District of
California may decide to substitute a period of home confinement
and community confinement for up to half of any prison sentence,
the statement said.
Mr. Weiss also agreed to pay $10 million in fines and forfeiture
penalties.
The plea would settle allegations Weiss and other former
attorneys at the Milberg Weiss law firm agreed to share part of
the firm's fees with lead plaintiffs in "several of the
thousands" of class-action suits the firm filed over the past 40
years, according to Mr. Brafman.
"I deeply regret my conduct and apologize to all those who have
been affected, including all of the wonderful and extremely
talented lawyers and other employees of the firm, none of whom
had any involvement in any wrongdoing," Mr. Weiss said in the
statement.
Last month, William S. Lerach, a former partner at Milberg
Weiss, was sentenced to two years in federal prison on similar
charges in a decision handed down by U.S. District Judge John F.
Walter (BestWire, Feb. 12, 2008).
Mr. Lerach, who pleaded guilty last September to charges of
conspiring to obstruct justice and making false statements under
oath, previously agreed to forfeit $7.75 million to the
government and to pay a $250,000 fine in connection with his
plea (BestWire, Sept. 19, 2007).
The New York-based firm once known as Milberg Weiss Bershad
Hynes & Lerach obtained settlements valued at hundreds of
millions of dollars, and sometimes billions, from life insurers
including Prudential, Metropolitan Life, John Hancock and New
York Life.
It also played a role in getting millions in settlements by
representing physicians in a nationwide class-action
racketeering suit against large health insurers, a case which
stemmed from alleged claims-payment practices dating back to
1990.
In 2004, the firm renamed itself Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman after Lerach split off to form his own San Diego-based
firm, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.
Mr. Lerach retired from that firm last August.
"It is important for the public and legal community to note that
despite his plea, Mr. Weiss provided access to the courts for
millions of victims of corporate wrongdoing," Mr. Brafman said
in the statement.
Separately, Milberg Weiss issued a statement saying that Weiss
will resign and the firm will change its name to Milberg LLP.
"It is with deep disappointment that we have learned that Melvyn
I. Weiss has engaged in misconduct and has agreed to plead
guilty to conspiracy charges in the Central District of
California," said Sanford Dumain, a member of Milberg LLP's
executive committee. "Having previously believed former
leaders' assurances of their innocence, the firm is now seeking
to find a fair and appropriate resolution of remaining issues so
that we can continue our work on behalf of injured investors and
consumers."
In September, a federal grand jury in Los Angeles handed down an
expanded indictment that named Weiss, superseding an earlier
indictment naming the firm; alleged paid plaintiff Seymour M.
Lazar; and attorney Paul T. Selzer, who is alleged to have
served as an intermediary to launder illegal "kickback" payments
for Lazar (BestWire, Sept. 21, 2007).
Also in September, former senior Milberg Weiss partner Steven G.
Schulman agreed to plead guilty to a racketeering charge. Former
name partner David Bershad pleaded guilty to the same charges as
Lerach in May 2007. Bershad and Schulman were indicted in 2006
on 20 counts, including obstructing justice, perjury, bribery
and fraud (BestWire, May 19, 2006).
"None of the lawyers or staff remaining at the firm has ever
been implicated in this misconduct," Mr. Dumain said. "More than
two years ago, as the issues were coming to light, the firm,
under the guidance of current management, implemented state-of-
the-art compliance procedures regarding case-starting and
referral fees to help ensure that past problems would not occur
again."
New Securities Fraud Cases
FORCE PROTECTION: Strauss Announces SC Securities Suit Filing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Notice is given that a class action lawsuit was filed with the
United States District Court for the District of South Carolina
Charleston Division, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Force Protection, Inc., between August 14, 2006,
and February 29, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint charges Force Protection and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to
disclose to plaintiff and the class members adverse facts in
regard to the operation of the business and the financial
performance of the company.
The complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
company's operations, financial viability and performance. As a
result of these materially false and misleading statements and
omissions, plaintiff alleges that the price of Force Protection
common stock was artificially inflated during the Class Period.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all those that
purchased or otherwise acquired Force Protection common stock
during the Class Period.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Richard S. Wayne, Esq. (rswayne@strausstroy.com)
Thomas P. Glass, Esq. (tpglass@strausstroy.com)
Joseph J. Braun, Esq. (jjbraun@strausstroy.com)
Strauss & Troy
150 East Fourth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: 800-669-9341
(513) 621-2120
MF GLOBAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities
class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of MF Global, Ltd. (NYSE: MF)
pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on July 19, 2007, or thereafter on the open market through
February 28, 2008.
The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the
market concerning MF Global's operations and internal controls,
thereby artificially inflating the price of MF Global stock.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 9, 2008,
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Howard G. Smith, Esq. (howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com)
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
Phone: (215)638-4847
Toll-Free: (888)638-4847
Web site: http://www.howardsmithlaw.com
MICHAEL BAKER: Dreier Announces Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of investors who purchased Michael Baker
Corp. common stock during the period from March 19, 2007,
through February 22, 2008, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that MBC and certain of the Company's
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
MBC, together with its subsidiaries, provides engineering and
energy services for public and private sector clients in the
United States and internationally. The Company's energy segment
provides a full range of services for operating third-party oil
and gas production facilities worldwide.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
misled investors by making materially false and misleading
statements concerning MBC's financial results, which included
overstating the Company's revenue for the first, second and
third fiscal quarters of 2007.
On February 22, 2008, after the market closed, MBC announced
that it would be restating its previously issued financial
statements for those fiscal quarters in order to correct
"errors" in the Company's recognition of revenue from domestic
managed services projects in the energy business segment. MBC's
previously reported net income of $18 million for the first
three quarters of 2007 was materially overstated by as much as
$12.5 million. The February 22, 2008 announcement further
disclosed that the Company was still evaluating whether it would
need to restate earnings for fiscal year 2006. As a direct and
proximate result of this news, on February 23 the price of MBC
stock declined $8.53 per share to close at $27.57 per share, a
one day decline of 24%, on extremely high trading volume.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment deadline.
Dreier LLP on the net: http://www.dreierllp.com
NEUROMETRIX INC: Brower Piven Announces Securities Suit Filing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of NeuroMetrix Inc. between October 27, 2005
and March 6, 2007, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 16, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven, Esq.
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
OPNEXT INC: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of its client and a proposed
class of persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of
Opnext, Inc. (NasdaqGS:OPXT) pursuant or traceable to the
Company's February 14, 2007 Initial Public Offering.
The complaint charges Opnext and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On
February 13, 2008, the Company unexpectedly announced that it
would be restating earnings for the fiscal years ended March 31,
2006 and March 31, 2007, and for the three month periods ended
December 31, 2006, September 30, 2006 and June 30, 2006, due to
errors in its financial statements. As a result, previous
figures for these periods could no longer be relied upon.
The complaint alleges that, in the Registration Statement filed
in connection with the Company's IPO, the defendants failed to
disclose or indicate that the financial statements contained in
the Registration Statement understated the Company's net loss by
$1 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006. Moreover,
net income was overstated by $0.7 million for the three-month
period ended December 31, 2006 and understated by $0.1 million
for the three-month period ended September 30, 2006. Finally,
net loss was understated by $0.5 million for the three-month
period ended June 30, 2006.
In response to this news, shares of the Company's stock declined
more than 16%, to close on February 13, 2008, at $4.65 per
share. This closing price represented a cumulative loss of
$10.35, or 69%, since the time of its IPO.
Interested parties may move the court no later than April 21,
2008, for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Steven J. Toll, Esq. (stoll@cmht.com)
Laura Armstrong, Esq. (larmstrong@cmht.com)
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
West Tower, Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (888) 240-0775
(202) 408-4600
PMI GROUP: Brower Piven Announces Calif. Securities Suit Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announced that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced with the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of The PMI Group, Inc. between
November 2, 2006, and March 3, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and/or directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 12, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven
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
SOCIETE GENERALE: Weiss & Lurie Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Lurie filed a class action lawsuit
against Societe Generale and two individuals associated with it
was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
American Depositary Receipts and all United States residents and
citizens who purchased Societe Generale shares between August 1,
2005, and January 23, 2008.
The complaint charges Societe Generale and certain of its
executive officers with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. It alleges that defendants misrepresented or
omitted material information regarding Societe Generale's
internal controls, risk management procedures, policy and
practices; and exposure to subprime real estate loans and
collateralized debt obligations.
It also alleges that one of the defendants engaged in insider
trading before the disclosure of billions of dollars of write-
downs in connection with the Company's subprime exposure and the
loss of more than $7 billion as a result of a "massive fraud" by
"unauthorized" trading over a period of two years by one of its
derivatives traders.
This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased Societe Generale securities.
For more information, contact:
Joseph H. Weiss, Esq.
James E. Tullman, Esq.
Joshua Rubin, Esq.
Weiss & Lurie
The French Building
551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600
New York City 10176
Phone: (888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025
e-mail: infony@weisslurie.com
SUNOPTA INC: Alfred Yates Jr. Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
SunOpta Inc. between August 8, 2007, through January 25, 2008,
inclusive.
The Complaint charges SunOpta and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
SunOpta is an operator of high-growth businesses, focusing on
integrated business models in the natural and organic food,
supplements and health and beauty markets.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:
(1) that defendants artificially inflated the Company's
financial results and failed to properly account for
results of operations, which resulted in an
overstatement of the Company's profitability;
(2) that the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles;
(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial
controls;
(4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements about its financial well-being and future
business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
when made.
On January 24, 2008, after the market closed, the Company
shocked investors when it reported its anticipated financial
results for 2007, disclosing for the first time that it expected
to incur write-downs and provisions in the range of $12 million
to $14 million.
Moreover, the Company stated that it would likely restate
financial results from previous quarters. The Company
attributed the write-downs to inventory within the SunOpta Fruit
Group's berry operations, as well as difficulties in collecting
for services and equipment provided to a customer of the SunOpta
BioProcess Group. Finally, the Company stated that it was not
able to give revenue and earnings guidance for 2008. Upon the
release of this news by the Company, the Company's shares
declined $3.51 per share, or 36.72 percent, to close on January
25, 2008 at $6.05 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of SunOpta Inc. common stock during the Class Period.
For more information, contact:
Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. (yateslaw@aol.com)
Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC, Pittsburgh
Toll free: 800-391-5164
Phone: 412-391-5164
Fax: 412-471-1033
UBS AG: Girard Gibbs Files Auction Rate Securities Suit in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP filed a class action lawsuit
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of persons who purchased Auction Rate
Securities from UBS AG , UBS Securities LLC and UBS Financial
Services Inc. between March 21, 2003, and February 13, 2008,
inclusive, and who continued to hold such securities as of
February 13, 2008.
The class action is brought against UBS AG and its subsidiaries
UBS Securities LLC and UBS Financial Services Inc.
The Complaint alleges that UBS violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by deceiving investors
about the investment characteristics of auction rate securities
and the auction market in which these securities traded.
Auction rate securities are either municipal or corporate debt
securities or preferred stocks which pay interest at rates set
at periodic "auctions." Auction rate securities generally have
long-term maturities or no maturity dates.
The Complaint alleges that, pursuant to uniform sales materials
and top-down management directives, UBS offered and sold auction
rate securities to the public as highly liquid cash-management
vehicles and as suitable alternatives to money market mutual
funds. According to the Complaint, holders of auction rate
securities sold by UBS and other broker-dealers have been unable
to liquidate their positions in these securities following the
decision on February 13, 2008 of all major broker-dealers
including UBS to "withdraw their support" for the periodic
auctions at which the interest rates paid on auction rates
securities are set.
The Complaint alleges that UBS failed to disclose the following
material facts about the auction rate securities it sold to the
class:
(1) the auction rate securities were not cash alternatives,
like money market funds, but were instead, complex,
long-term financial instruments with 30 year maturity
dates, or longer;
(2) the auction rate securities were only liquid at the
time of sale because UBS and other broker-dealers were
artificially supporting and manipulating the auction
rate market to maintain the appearance of liquidity and
stability;
(3) UBS and other broker-dealers routinely intervened in
auctions for their own benefit, to set rates and
prevent all-hold auctions and failed auctions; and
(4) UBS continued to market auction rate securities as
liquid investments after it had determined that it and
other broker dealers were likely to withdraw their
support for the periodic auctions and that a "freeze"
of the market for auction rate securities would result.
For more information, contact:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq. (dcg@girardgibbs.com)
Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. (jkl@girardgibbs.com)
Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. (ams@girardgibbs.com)
Girard Gibbs LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Phone number: (866) 981-4800
Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com
VERTEX PHARMA: Dreier LLP Announces Securities Suit Filing in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dreier LLP announced that a class action lawsuit was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of investors who purchased Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated publicly traded securities during the period from
June 12, 2007, through November 2, 2007, inclusive.
The Complaint alleges that, among other things, during the Class
Period Defendants misled investors by making materially false
and misleading statements concerning the development of Vertex's
new HCV protease inhibitor: telaprevir or VX-950. Ultimately,
Vertex intends to use the inhibitor in a new drug targeted at
the treatment of Hepatitis C. Among other things, the Complaint
alleges that Defendants made positive statements concerning VX-
950 and the Company's PROVE 2 trial while simultaneously failing
to disclose unfavorable data uncovered during the PROVE 2 trial.
On November 2, 2007, before the market closed, the Company
disclosed the truth concerning the PROVE 2 trial. As a direct
and proximate result of this news, the price of Vertex stock
declined $2.74 per share to close at $28.90 per share, a one day
decline of 9%, on extremely high trading volume.
Dreier LLP on the net: http://www.dreierllp.com/
WELLPOINT INC: Brower Piven Announces IN Securities Suit Filing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation announces that a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of WellPoint, Inc. between
January 23, 2008, and March 10, 2008, inclusive.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the Company,
and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal
securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities and
causing Class members to overpay for the securities.
Interested parties may move the court no later than May 19, 2008
for lead plaintiff appointment.
For more information, contact:
Charles J. Piven
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
*********
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 * * *