/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/080408.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 8, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 69
Headlines
ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over MBRP; Still Faces Another
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Total Loss Valuation Lawsuit
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in MUWA Members' Litigation
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Court Ruling in Similar Insurance Case
ALLSTATE CORP: Denial of Remand Motion in LAG's Suit Appealed
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Suits Over Worker Classification Issues
ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Suit Over 1999 Overhaul
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Declines to Hear Appeal in ERISA Matter
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: High Court Affirms Dismissal of "Huntley"
BEAR STEARNS: Johnson & Perkinson Files ERISA Suit in New York
CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits
GRILL CONCEPTS: Calif. Suit by Ex-Hourly Employee Still Stayed
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit v. Directors
IRIDIUM WORLD: Judge Gives Shareholders Go-Ahead in 9-Yr. Suit
JUPITERIMAGES CORP: Discovery Ensues in FL FACTA Violations Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Halts Action in Vista Lawsuit
MONSANTO CO: Oct. 27, 2008 Trial Set for ERISA Violations Suit
MONSANTO CO: Third Circuit Affirms Nixing of American Seed Suit
MONSANTO CO: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Agent Orange Suit
MONSANTO CO: Faces Canadian Suits Over Chemical Testing at a CFB
MOTIVE INC: July 1 Hearing Set for $7M Securities Suit Agreement
NATIONAL BEEF: Certiorari Petition Deadline Set in "Schumacher"
OCWEN LOAN: Still Faces Ill. Mortgage Servicing Practices Suit
QUANEX CORP: Plaintiff's Shareholder Claims Upheld by Tex. Court
ROYAL GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of $9,182,764 Settlement
ROYAL WINDOW: Pa. Court Okays $2.4M "Window Coverings" Agreement
TJX COS: July 15 Hearing Set for $6.5M Security Breach Agreement
New Securities Fraud Cases
ARTHROCARE CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Florida Shareholder Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Stull Stull & Brody Commences Suit in California
MERCK & CO: Bernard M. Gross Law Offices Files Securities Suit
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Johnson & Perkinson Files Shareholder Suit
*********
ALLSTATE CORP: Settles Lawsuit Over MBRP; Still Faces Another
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corp. reached a settlement in one of several
purported class action suits filed against it with regard to its
medical bill review processes.
Initially, a number of state and nationwide class actions were
filed with various state courts, challenging the legal propriety
of Allstate Corp.'s medical bill review processes on a number of
grounds, including, among other things, the manner in which
Allstate determines reasonableness and necessity.
These lawsuits, which to a large degree mirror similar lawsuits
filed against other carriers in the industry, allege these
processes result in a breach of the insurance policy and, in
some cases, the plaintiffs also allege fraud. The plaintiffs
seek monetary damages in the form of contractual and extra-
contractual damages.
The Company denies the plaintiffs' allegations.
One nationwide class action and one statewide class action have
been certified.
A settlement of the statewide class action for an amount that is
not material has been preliminarily approved by the court.
Allstate reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in Total Loss Valuation Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action with regards to
the valuation of total loss automobiles.
The nationwide putative class action that was filed against
Allstate is challenging its use of the company's automated
database in valuing total loss automobiles.
To a large degree, this lawsuit mirrors similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.
The plaintiffs allege that flaws in the database result in
valuations to the detriment of insureds. They are seeking
actual and punitive damages.
The lawsuit is in the early stages of discovery, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Discovery Ongoing in MUWA Members' Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in a purported class action lawsuit filed
against the Mississippi Windstorm Underwriters Association board
members and an Allstate Corp. subsidiary.
The suit was filed by some members of MWUA against the MWUA
board members and the companies they represent, including an
Allstate subsidiary, alleging that the Board purchased
insufficient reinsurance to protect the MWUA members.
In general, the seeks a variety of remedies, including actual
and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and declaratory
relief.
The plaintiffs' motion for class certification is pending. As
of the moment, discovery is ongoing.
Allstate reported no development in the matter in its Feb. 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Awaits Court Ruling in Similar Insurance Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in a purported class action challenging the
adjustment and settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims by
Allstate Corp. are now awaiting a ruling from the Louisiana
Supreme Court in a similar case involving another insurance
carrier, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
Earlier, in a putative class action in Louisiana, the trial
court ruled that Allstate's and other insurers' flood, water and
negligent construction exclusions do not apply to man-made
floods (i.e., floods caused by human negligence), and do not
apply to flooding in the New Orleans area to the extent it was
caused by human negligence in the design, construction and
maintenance of the levees.
Allstate and other insurers pursued an interlocutory appeal and
in June 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the trial court's ruling.
The matter has been remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings which have been consolidated along with other
putative class and individual actions brought against the
Company and other insurers, challenging the adjustment and
settlement of Hurricane Katrina claims.
The trial court has issued an order staying all insurance
coverage issues pending the decision of the Louisiana Supreme
Court in a case involving a similar challenge to the flood
exclusion of another carrier.
Also, the plaintiffs in the class action had filed a petition
with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Fifth Circuit's
decision not to certify the matter to the Louisiana Supreme
Court.
On Feb. 19, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court denied plaintiffs'
petition, and thus, declined to review the Fifth Circuit's
decision.
Lastly, in January 2008, Allstate filed with the trial court a
motion to effectuate the mandate of the Fifth Circuit or for
leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment based on
Allstate's water damage exclusion. That motion was denied.
Allstate then filed a new motion with the Fifth Circuit
requesting that it recall its mandate and reform to clarify that
its earlier ruling—that Allstate's flood exclusions
unambiguously exclude coverage for flood losses sustained when
the levees failed—applies with equal force to Allstate's water
damage exclusion. The Fifth Circuit denied the motion to recall
the mandate.
The parties and the District Court are now awaiting a ruling
from the Louisiana Supreme Court in the above referenced case
involving another carrier.
Once that ruling is issued, the federal court will have to
decide what effect, if any, the ruling has on the matters before
it.
In general, the suit above seeks a variety of remedies,
including actual and punitive damages in unspecified amounts and
declaratory relief.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Denial of Remand Motion in LAG's Suit Appealed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a purported class action filed by The
Louisiana Attorney General with state court against Allstate
Corp. and other insurers are appealing to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the denial of a remand motion
filed in the matter.
The suit was brought on behalf of Road Home fund recipients
alleging that the insurers have failed to pay all damages owed
under their policies.
The suit seeks a variety of remedies, including actual and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts and declaratory relief.
The insurers removed the matter to federal court. The district
court has denied plaintiffs' motion to remand the matter to
state court and plaintiffs are appealing that decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, according to the
company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Suits Over Worker Classification Issues
------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corp. faces several lawsuits involving worker
classification issues, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
These lawsuits include several certified class actions
challenging the overtime exemption claimed by the Company under
the Fair Labor Standards Act or state wage and hour laws.
In these cases, the plaintiffs seek monetary relief, such as
penalties and liquidated damages, and non-monetary relief, such
as injunctive relief.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Seeks Summary Judgment in Suit Over 1999 Overhaul
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corp. has moved for summary judgment in a certified
class action suit that was filed by former employee agents who
terminated their employment prior to the company's agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.
These plaintiffs have asserted breach of contract and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 claims.
In general, the plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive
damages, and equitable relief.
The court approved the form of class notice which was sent to
approximately 1,800 potential class members in November 2007.
Fifteen individuals opted out.
The Company has moved for judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Declines to Hear Appeal in ERISA Matter
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit declined to hear
an appeal for a putative nationwide class action suit filed by
former employee agents of Allstate Corp., alleging various
violations of Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
including a worker classification issue.
The plaintiffs are challenging certain amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan and are seeking to have exclusive agent independent
contractors treated as employees for benefit purposes.
In general, the suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages,
and equitable relief.
This matter was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court, was
the subject of further proceedings on appeal, and was reversed
and remanded to the trial court in 2005.
In June 2007, the court granted Allstate's motion to dismiss the
case.
Following the plaintiffs' filing of a notice of appeal, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an order in
December 2007 stating that the notice of appeal was not taken
from a final order within the meaning of the federal law, and
thus not appealable at this time.
Responses to the order were filed in mid-December, according to
the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2007.
The Allstate Corp. -- http://www.allstate.com/-- serves as the
holding company for Allstate Insurance Co. Its business is
conducted principally through Allstate Insurance Company,
Allstate Life Insurance Co. and their affiliates (collectively,
including Allstate Corp., Allstate). Allstate is primarily
engaged in the personal property and casualty insurance business
and the life insurance, retirement and investment products
business. It conducts its business primarily in the U.S.
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY: High Court Affirms Dismissal of "Huntley"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the purported
class action, "Huntley v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No.
2:05-cv-06887-LMA-DEK," according to Allstate Corp.'s Feb. 27,
2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007.
An Orleans Parish, Louisiana resident initiated the purported
federal class action against the Allstate Indemnity Co. over its
insurance coverage in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 24, 2006). Doris L. Huntley filed
the suit on behalf of all insured property owners in Louisiana
who suffered a "total loss," at least partially from wind
damage, as a result of the hurricanes.
The suit alleges that although the covered property is a "total
loss," the Company failed to timely adjust or appraise its
insureds' losses, including failing to pay face value of the
policy.
The suit was based on Louisiana's "Valued Policy Law," La. R.S.
22:695(a). That statute requires insurers to pay the entire
amount of loss on any insured structures, as long as any portion
of the loss resulted from a covered peril.
Specifically, the statute provides that "if the insurer places a
valuation upon covered property and uses such valuation for
purposes of determining the premium charge to be made under the
policy, in case of total loss the insurer shall compute and
indemnify or compensate any covered loss of, or damage to, such
property which occurs during the term of the policy at such
valuation without deduction or offset, unless a different method
is to be used in the computation of loss, in which latter case,
the policy, and any application therefore, shall set forth in
type of equal size, the actual method of such computation by the
insurer."
In other words, the insurer must pay the policy limits for a
"total loss" unless a different method of computation was
clearly set forth in the application and policy. The suit
relies on this statute for recovery of the full value of loss.
The trial court later dismissed the putative class action
brought against Allstate and other insurers, holding that the
law did not apply where the cause of the policyholder's total
loss was due in part to a non-covered peril, such as flood.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of the case (Class Action Reporter,
Nov. 8, 2007).
The U.S. Supreme Court then denied the plaintiffs' petition for
review.
The suit is "Huntley v. Allstate Indemnity Company, Case No.
2:05-cv-06887-LMA-DEK," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Lance M. Africk
presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Andre Phillip LaPlace, Esq. (alaw@andrelaplace.com)
Law Offices of Andre P. LaPlace
2762 Continental Dr., Suite 103
Baton Rouge, LA 70808-3240
Phone: 225-924-6898
- and -
Gregory Michael Porobil, Esq.
(greg1excell@bellsouth.net)
Gregory Porobil, Attorney at Law
3300 Bienville St.
New Orleans, LA 70119
Phone: (504) 822-3600
BEAR STEARNS: Johnson & Perkinson Files ERISA Suit in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson has filed a complaint against The Bear
Stearns Companies Inc. (NYSE: BSC) with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint, on behalf
of participants and beneficiaries who obtained Company stock
through an employee stock ownership plan between December 14,
2006, and the present, seeks redress under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The complaint alleges the failure of the plan fiduciaries to act
solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,
and to exercise the required skill, care, prudence and diligence
in administering the retirement plan, as is required by ERISA.
For more information, contact:
James F. Conway, III, Esq.
Eben F. Duval, Esq.
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free)
e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com/
CINTAS CORP: Still Faces Race, Gender Discrimination Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corp. is still facing several purported class actions in
Michigan, Ohio and California, alleging either racial or sex
discrimination towards employees, according to the company's
April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.
Serrano Litigation
The company is a defendant in a purported class action, "Mirna
E. Serrano, et al. v. Cintas Corp.," which was filed on May 10,
2004, and pending with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
"Serrano" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women in
hiring into various service sales representative positions
across all divisions of Cintas throughout the U.S.
On Nov. 15, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
intervened in the Serrano lawsuit.
The Serrano plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.
Avalos Litigation
Cintas is a defendant in another purported class action, "Nelly
Blanca Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation," currently pending
with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
"Avalos" alleges that Cintas discriminated against women,
African-Americans and Hispanics in hiring into various service
sales representative positions in Cintas' Rental division only
throughout the U.S.
On April 27, 2005, the EEOC intervened in the claims asserted in
Avalos.
The Avalos plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.
Ramirez Litigation
The claims in "Avalos" originally were brought in the previously
disclosed lawsuit captioned, "Robert Ramirez, et al. v. Cintas
Corporation (Ramirez)," which was filed with the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 20, 2004.
On May 11, 2006, however, those claims were severed from Ramirez
and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, where the case was re-named "Avalos."
The non-service sales representative hiring claims in the
Ramirez case that have not been dismissed remain pending with
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
but were ordered to arbitration and stayed pending the
completion of arbitration.
The Ramirez purported class action claims currently in
arbitration include allegations that Cintas failed to promote
Hispanics into supervisory positions, discriminated against
African-Americans and Hispanics in service sales representative
route assignments and discriminated against African-Americans in
hourly pay in Cintas' Rental division only throughout the United
States.
The Ramirez plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.
No filings or determinations have been made in "Ramirez" as to
class certification.
Avalos, Serrano Consolidation
On July 10, 2006, "Avalos" and "Serrano" were consolidated for
all pretrial purposes, including proceedings on class
certification.
The consolidated case is known as "Mirna E. Serrano/Blanca Nelly
Avalos, et al. v. Cintas Corporation (Serrano/Avalos)," and
remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
No filings or determinations have been made in Serrano/Avalos as
to class certification.
Grindle Litigation
On Feb. 20, 2007, a separate lawsuit was filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Wood County, Ohio, captioned, "Colleen Grindle, et
al. v. Cintas Corporation."
It was brought on behalf of a class of female employees at
Cintas' Perrysburg, Ohio location who allegedly were denied
hire, promotion or transfer to service sales representative
positions on the basis of their gender.
The Grindle plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory
damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies.
No filings or determinations have been made in "Grindle" as to
class certification.
Houston Litigation
A class action, captioned, "Larry Houston, et al. v. Cintas
Corporation (Houston)," was filed with the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on Aug. 3, 2005. It was
brought on behalf of African-American managers alleging racial
discrimination.
On Nov. 22, 2005, the court entered an order requiring the named
plaintiffs in the Houston lawsuit to arbitrate all of their
claims for monetary damages.
Cintas Corp. -- http://www.cintas.com/-- provides specialized
products and services to businesses of all types throughout the
U.S. and Canada. The products and services provided by Cintas
include uniforms and apparel; mats, mops and towels; restroom
and hygiene service; first aid and safety; fire protection;
branded promotional products; document shredding and storage;
cleanroom resources, and flame resistant clothing.
GRILL CONCEPTS: Calif. Suit by Ex-Hourly Employee Still Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A purported class action lawsuit filed by a former hourly
restaurant employee of Grill Concepts, Inc., remains stayed
pending mediation.
One of the company's former hourly restaurant employees filed
the class action in June 2004 against the company with the
Superior Court of California of Orange County. The company
requested, and was granted, a motion to move the suit from
Orange County to Los Angeles County.
The lawsuit was then filed with the Superior Court of California
for the County of Los Angeles in December 2004. The plaintiff
alleged violations of California labor laws with respect to
providing meal and rest breaks.
It sought unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments on behalf of the plaintiffs and other purported class
members.
In April 2007, the California Supreme Court unanimously held
that payments for missed meal or rest breaks are considered
wages or premium pay, not penalties. As a result, claims for
missed meal and rest breaks under the California Labor Code will
be governed by a three or four-year statute of limitations for
the payments required under the Labor Code, rather than a one-
year statute.
The case has been placed in a stay status pending mediation in
the summer of 2008, according to the company's April 3, 2008
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 30, 2007.
Grill Concepts, Inc. -- http://www.dailygrill.com/-- develops,
owns, operates, manages and licenses full-service upscale casual
dining restaurants under the name Daily Grill and fine dining
restaurants under the name The Grill on the Alley.
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Suit v. Directors
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California has dismissed a shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging that Hewlett-Packard Co.'s board
of directors violated its own policies in 2005 when it granted
more than $40 million in a severance package to former Hewlett-
Packard Co. Chief Executive Officer Carly Fiorina, who
spearheaded the company's failed merger with Compaq Computer
Corp, The National Law Journal reports.
The suit was filed by several pension plans against Mr. Fiorina
and eight current and former board members, including former
Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, who was indicted about two years ago
on four felony counts, including conspiracy, by then-California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Those charges were later
dropped.
In the suit, the plaintiffs had alleged that Hewlett-Packard
violated its own policies by not obtaining shareholder approval
before granting Mr. Fiorina's severance package. The suit,
which also includes derivative claims, later claimed that recent
allegations of "pre-texting," which were part of an internal
investigation into boardroom leaks, were done in order to hide
the specifics of the Compaq merger and Mr. Fiorina's termination
benefits.
Law Journal says that in Judge Whyte's March 28 order, he said
that the plaintiffs failed to prove that demanding books and
records from the HP board of directors was futile. Their
arguments, he said, do not "support plaintiffs' proposed
inference that the directors who approved Fiorina's severance
and benefits package were concerned of their own alleged
wrongdoing in connection with the failed Compaq merger, that
they were afraid Fiorina would disclose these purported
wrongdoings, and that the severance and benefits package was
paid to keep Fiorina silent regarding the failed Compaq merger."
Regarding the recent investigation of the boardroom leaks, Judge
Whyte noted that the allegations "do not give rise to a
reasonable inference that the directors' launch of the
investigation was for the purpose of covering up their own
purported wrongdoing in connection with the Compaq merger or the
alleged cover up of 'hush money' to Fiorina."
A lawyer for the HP directors, Jonathan Dickey, Esq., of Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, said that the leak information, which was added
later in the case, failed "to show why these plaintiffs would
not be required to make demand on the board because all the
directors were somehow implicated in this wrongdoing." As to
whether the severance package violated company policies, the
"court clearly sided with us in concluding that they were lawful
payments," he said.
Michael J. Barry, Esq., of Grant & Eisenhofer, who represents
the pension plans, declined to comment.
The plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael J. Barry, Esq. (mbarry@gelaw.com)
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
29th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 646-722-8500
Fax: 646-722-8501
The defendants are represented by:
Jonathan Dickey, Esq. (jdickey@gibsondunn.com)
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166-0193
Phone: (212) 351-2399
Fax: (212) 351-6399
IRIDIUM WORLD: Judge Gives Shareholders Go-Ahead in 9-Yr. Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey has given shareholders the
green light to proceed with a nine-year-old class action lawsuit
that involves events from Iridium World Communication's so-
called darker days, FP Legal Post reports.
The report relates that Judge Laughrey has allowed shareholders
to sue Motorola Inc. over statements that the company made back
when Iridium was having problems getting the venture off the
ground. Motorola was Iridium's main backer.
"Much of this case centers on the strength of Iridium, and
Plaintiffs have properly alleged that insiders knew even before
commercial launch that the company was shaky," the judge wrote.
"The Court, therefore, denies Motorola's request to grant
summary judgment against class members who purchased shares
prior to December 23, 1998."
The case is Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd., and
is filed with the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
(Washington).
JUPITERIMAGES CORP: Discovery Ensues in FL FACTA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the matter, "Grabein v. Jupiterimages
Corporation, Case No. 1:2007cv22288," which was filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
On or about Aug. 31, 2007, Wayne Grabein brought a claim against
Jupiterimages Corp. d/b/a clipart.com for alleged violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act as amended by the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transaction Act.
Specifically, Mr. Grabein alleges in his complaint that
Jupiterimages violated FACTA by "providing and/or printing"
prohibited information on a purported receipt allegedly provided
to Mr. Grabein. Mr. Grabein seeks nationwide class action
certification for all individuals who have received similar
receipts.
Mr. Grabein also seeks to recover for himself and the defined
class for alleged willful violations of FACTA: statutory
damages, punitive damages, cost and attorneys' fees, interest as
permitted by law, and a permanent injunction.
Jupiterimages has denied the allegations in the complaint and
asserted numerous affirmative defenses.
The Court has issued a scheduling order setting the case for
jury trial in September 2008.
No motion for class certification has been filed yet. The
parties are currently engaged in discovery, according to
Jupitermedia Corp.'s April 4, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended Dec. 31, 2007.
The suit is "Grabein v. Jupiterimages Corporation, Case No.
1:2007cv22288," filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Judge Donald L. Graham presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
John Elliott Leighton, Esq. (Leighton@Leesfield.com)
Leesfield Leighton & Partners
2350 S. Dixie Highway
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: 305-854-4900
Fax: 305-854-8266
Jay Mitchell Levy, Esq. (jay@jaylevylaw.com)
Jay M. Levy, P.A.
9130 S. Dadeland Boulevard
Suite 1510, Two Datran Center
Miami, FL 33156
Phone: 305-670-8100
Fax: 305-670-4827
- and -
Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. (msarelson@sarelson.com)
Sarelson, P.A.
1401 Brickell Avenue
Suite 510
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 3053790305
Fax: 8004219954
Representing the defendants is:
Todd R. Legon, Esq. (tlegon@lpflaw.com)
Legon Ponce & Fodiman PA
1111 Brickell Avenue
Suite 2150
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-444-9991
Fax: 305-444-9937
MICROSOFT CORP: Court Halts Action in Vista Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington granted Microsoft Corp.'s request to halt
proceedings in the "Vista Capable" class action lawsuit pending
results from the company's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, The Seattle Times reports.
As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 26, 2008, that
Microsoft had filed a motion asking Judge Pechman to freeze the
case while the company asks the Ninth Circuit to review her
ruling certifying it as a class action.
According to a separate CAR report on Feb. 25, 2008, Judge
Pechman granted class-action status to the lawsuit against
Microsoft which alleges 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."
Microsoft challenged Judge Pechman's decision, stating that the
court had made "errors" in allowing the case to be opened up as
a class action as it exposed the company to potentially huge
numbers of complaints that had little relevance.
In asking for the stay, Seattle Times relates, Microsoft argued
that proceeding with the case while "important legal questions .
. . which have significance far beyond this case" were under
appeal, left the parties uncertain about the class-action status
of the case. That meant that they would have to go to the
extensive effort of preparing to argue a class-action case, when
the Ninth Circuit could ultimately rule that the class
certification was in error.
It would "cost Microsoft a substantial sum of money for
discovery and divert key personnel from full-time tasks; would
intrude on sensitive pricing decisions and strategies by OEMs,
wholesalers, and retailers; and would jeopardize Microsoft's
goodwill with class members all with respect to claims that
might not proceed on a class basis at all," the company's
lawyers wrote in a filing last month.
In her freeze order dated April 3, 2008, Judge Pechman wrote:
All further proceedings, including discovery, in this action
are stayed until the later of the (1) denial of Microsoft's
petition for permission to appeal or (2) the Ninth Circuit's
entry of its mandate following disposition of Microsoft's
appeal, if accepted. The Court also vacates the scheduling
order in this action.
Seattle Times says that apart from the actual legal costs,
Microsoft was facing a PR mess because of the discovery process
in the case. Sensitive e-mails detailing executive concerns
about Windows Vista and Microsoft's marketing strategy were
disclosed as evidence in the case. Presumably, more documents
would come out in the next few months as the case advanced
toward trial. The judge's stay puts a lid on that, pending the
Ninth Circuit's decision.
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/
MONSANTO CO: Oct. 27, 2008 Trial Set for ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An Oct. 27, 2008 trial is scheduled for a consolidated suit
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois against the Monsanto Company Pension Plan over alleged
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.
On June 23, 2004, two former employees of Monsanto and Pharmacia
filed a purported class action suit with the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Illinois against Monsanto and the
Monsanto Company Pension Plan, which is referred to as the
"Pension Plan."
The suit claims that the Pension Plan has violated the age
discrimination and other rules under ERISA from Jan. 1, 1997
(when the Pension Plan was sponsored by Pharmacia, then known as
Monsanto Company) and continuing to the present.
In January 2006, a separate group of former employees of
Pharmacia filed a similar purported class action with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois against
Pharmacia, the Pharmacia Cash Balance Plan, and other
defendants.
On July 7, 2006, the plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to add
Monsanto and the Pension Plan as additional defendants. On
Sept. 1, 2006, the court consolidated these lawsuits with two
purported class actions also pending with the same court against
the Solutia Company Pension Plan, under "Walker v. Monsanto,"
the first filed case.
The court conducted a class certification hearing on Sept. 12,
2007. Prior to the hearing, all parties agreed the case should
proceed as a class action and also agreed on a definition of the
respective classes.
The court issued a scheduling order that sets a deadline of June
2008 for parties to file dispositive motions. Trial is
scheduled to begin Oct. 27, 2008, according to the company's
April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008.
The suit is "Walker et al v. Monsanto Company Pension Plan, The
et al, Case No. 3:04-cv-00436-DRH-CJP," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Judge
David R. Herndon presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Eric L. Dirks, Esq. (dirks@sshwlaw.com)
Stueve, Siegel et al.
330 West 47th Street, Suite #250
Kansas City, MO 64112
Phone: 816-714-7100
Fax: 816-714-7101
- and -
Michael B. Marker, Esq. (mmarker@rexcarr.com)
Rex Carr Law Firm
412 Missouri Avenue
East St. Louis, IL 62201-3016
Phone: 618-274-0434
Fax: 618-274-8369
Representing the defendants is:
Gretchen Dixon, Esq. (dixon.gretchen@arentfox.com)
Arent Fox, PLLC
1050 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-775-5772
MONSANTO CO: Third Circuit Affirms Nixing of American Seed Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit affirmed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
denying class-action status to a suit filed against Monsanto Co.
over an alleged monopoly of the biotech corn seed market,
according to Monsanto's April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.
American Seed Co. of Spring Grove, Pennsylvania filed the suit
on July 26, 2005, supposedly on behalf of direct purchasers of
corn seed containing the company's transgenic traits. American
Seed alleges that the company have monopolized or attempted to
monopolize markets for glyphosate-tolerant corn seed, European
corn borer-protected corn seed and foundation corn seed.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, and
injunctive relief.
On Nov. 13, 2006, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
On April 1, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision denying class
certification.
The suit is "American Seed Co. Inc. v. Monsanto Co. et al. Case
No. 1:05-cv-00535-SLR," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, Judge Sue L. Robinson presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Richard L. Horwitz, Esq. (rhorwitz@potteranderson.com)
Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP
1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Flr.
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
Phone: (302) 984-6000
- and -
Joelle Eileen Polesky, Esq. (jpolesky@skfdelaware.com)
Smith, Katzenstein, & Furlow
The Corporate Plaza, 800 Delaware Ave., P.O. Box 410
Wilmington, DE 19899
Phone: (302) 652-8400
Representing the defendants are:
Steven D. De Salvo, Esq. (desalvos@howrey.com)
Peter E. Moll, Esq. (Mollp@howrey.com)
John J. Rosenthal, Esq. (rosenthalj@howrey.com)
Pro Hac Vice
MONSANTO CO: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Agent Orange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York dismissing a class action suit filed against Monsanto
Co. and other manufacturers of the herbicide Agent Orange.
The Vietnam Association of Victims of Agent Orange filed the
suit, styled, "VAVAO, et al. v. The Dow Chemical Company, et
al.," which was assigned to Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
The suit generally alleges that the defendants conspired with
the U.S. Government to commit war crimes and crimes against
humanity in connection with the spraying of the herbicide.
On March 10, 2005, the District Court granted the motions to
dismiss and for summary judgment filed by Monsanto and other
defendants in the case.
The plaintiffs have appealed the District Court's judgment to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard
oral argument on June 18, 2007.
On Feb. 22, 2008, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the judgment of the district court, according to the
company's April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.
The suit is "Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent
Orange/Dioxin et al. v. Dow Chemical Company et al, Case No.
1:04-cv-00400-JBW-JMA," filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, under Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Constantine Peter Kokkoris, Esq. (cpk@kokkorislaw.com)
Abberley & Koolman, 521 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10175
Phone: 212-349-9340
Fax: 212-587-8115
MONSANTO CO: Faces Canadian Suits Over Chemical Testing at a CFB
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Co. is facing several purported class action lawsuits
in Canada over a variety of chemicals used by it during the
course of a 30-year program to control weeds and vegetation at a
Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown, New Brunswick, according to
the company's April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended
Feb. 29, 2008.
In one such purported class action suit styled, "Dobbie, et al.
v. The Attorney General of Canada," which is pending with the
Federal Court of Canada in Ottawa, Canada, individuals who
either served at or live by a Canadian Forces Base in Gagetown,
New Brunswick, brought an action against the Canadian government
for injuries supposedly suffered as the result of exposure to a
variety of chemicals used by it during the course of a 30-year
program to control weeds and vegetation at the facility.
Thereafter, purported class actions have been filed by
plaintiffs against the Canadian government in at least four
provinces, including Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and
Ontario.
On Jan. 12, 2007, in the Newfoundland action, the Canadian
government filed a third party action against Dow Chemical and
the company, as manufacturers of Agent Orange, seeking
contribution for any injuries plaintiffs may have suffered as
the result of the spraying of Agent Orange chemicals in 1967 and
1968.
On Aug. 1, 2007, the trial court in the case pending in
Newfoundland certified a class of all individuals who were at
CFB Gagetown between 1956 and the present and who claim they
were exposed to dangerous levels of dioxin or hexachlorobenzene
while on the base.
On Sept. 18, 2007, the Court of Appeal granted the application
of the Canadian government, Dow, and Monsanto for leave to
appeal the trial court's class certification decision.
On Dec. 17, 2007, in the New Brunswick action, the Canadian
government filed a third party action against Dow Chemical and
the company, as manufacturers of Agent Orange, seeking
contribution for any injuries plaintiffs may have suffered as
the result of the spraying of Agent Orange chemicals in 1967 and
1968.
Monsanto Co. -- http://www.monsanto.com-- together with its
subsidiaries, is a global provider of agricultural products for
farmers.
MOTIVE INC: July 1 Hearing Set for $7M Securities Suit Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas will
hold a fairness hearing on July 1, 2009, at 2:00 p.m. with
regard to the proposed settlement ($7,000,000 in cash & 2.5
million shares of Motive common stock) in the matter, "In re
Motive, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. A-05-CV-
923-LY."
The hearing will be held before, Judge Lee Yeakel at the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, U.S.
Courthouse 200 West 8th Street, Austin, TX 78701.
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before May 21, 2008. Deadline for the submission of
a claim form is on July 20, 2008.
Case Background
On or after Nov. 1, 2005, five securities class actions were
filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas against Motive and certain of its officers and directors.
The Court consolidated these actions by order dated Jan. 18,
2006. The suit was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Motive
common stock between June 24, 2004, and Oct. 26, 2005,
inclusive.
On Oct. 27, 2006, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, which added Motive's former outside
auditor, Ernst & Young, and R. Logan Wray, Motive's chief
operating officer during the relevant period, as defendants.
On Feb. 1, 2007, the Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint asserting:
-- claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 against Motive, Scott L.
Harmon, Paul M. Baker, Eric L. Jones, Michael LaVigna,
Michael J. Maples, Thomas Meredith, David Sikora, John
D. Thornton, and E&Y; and
-- claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S.
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, against Motive, Mr. Harmon, Mr.
Baker, Mr. Wray, and E&Y.
The Complaint alleged that the Defendants, in connection with
Motive's June 2004 initial public offering and during the
Company's first year as a publicly traded entity, issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's operations and financial condition.
The Complaint further asserted that, as a result of the alleged
conduct, the price of Motive common stock was artificially
inflated, causing damage to the Lead Plaintiffs and the other
members of the Class who purchased or otherwise acquired Motive
common stock during the Class Period.
On April 18, 2007, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Complaint. The Lead Plaintiffs filed an omnibus memorandum in
opposition to the motions to dismiss on July 9, 2007.
Defendants filed reply memoranda in support of their motions to
dismiss on Aug. 30, 2007, and Aug. 31, 2007.
While Defendants' motions to dismiss were pending, certain
parties began discussing a possible resolution of the Class
Action and participated in a formal mediation with the
assistance of an experienced mediator on Oct. 8, 2007.
At this mediation, the parties reached a tentative agreement to
settle the Class Action.
The Defendant E&Y is not participating in this partial
settlement, and the Lead Plaintiffs continue to prosecute the
claims asserted in the Class Action against E&Y.
The Lead Plaintiffs have, in fact, filed an amended complaint
amending their allegations against E&Y. By Order of Severance
dated March 7, 2008, the Court severed all issues and disputes
between Lead Plaintiffs and E&Y from this Class Action into a
separate and distinct cause of action entitled, "Paskowitz, et
al. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, Civil Action NO. A-08-CA-188-LY."
For more details, contact
Motive, Inc. Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170500
Milwaukee, WI 53217
Phone: (866) 963-9973
e-mail: info@MotiveSecuritiesSettlement.com
Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. (gcastaldo@sbtklaw.com)
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Phone: (610) 667-7706 or (610) 822-2238
Fax: (610) 667-7056
- and -
William B. Federman, Esq.
Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Phone: (405) 235-1560
Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com
NATIONAL BEEF: Certiorari Petition Deadline Set in "Schumacher"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An April 29, 2008 deadline has been set for filing a petition
for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the
dismissal of the matter, "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:02-cv-01027-CBK," which names National Beef
Packing Company, the beef processor owned by U.S. Premium Beef,
LLC, as a defendant.
The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of South Dakota on July 1, 2002 against:
-- Farmland National Beef Packing Co., L.P. (FNBPC or the
predecessor to NBP [National Beef Packing Company LLC]),
-- ConAgra Beef Co.,
-- Tyson Foods, Inc., and
-- Excel Corp.
The suit is seeking certification of a class of all persons who
sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on a basis affected
by the cash price for cattle, during the period from April 2,
2001, through May 11, 2001, and for some period up to two weeks
thereafter.
The case was filed by three named plaintiffs on behalf of a
putative nationwide class that plaintiffs estimate is comprised
of hundreds or thousands of members.
The complaint alleged that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the U.S.D.A. to purchase cattle
offered for sale by the plaintiffs at a price substantially
lower than was justified by the actual and correct price of
boxed beef during this period.
The plaintiffs also sought recovery against all defendants under
a theory of unjust enrichment.
The case was certified as a class-action matter in June of 2004.
The plaintiffs claimed damages against FNBPC in the amount of
approximately $4.5 million plus prejudgment interest, attorneys'
fees and court costs.
The claim is subject to reduction in an unknown amount by the
number of class members who have opted out of the class. Trial
began March 31, 2006.
On April 13, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of FNBPC
but against the other defendants. The other defendants have
filed an appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.
The plaintiffs did not appeal the verdict for the Company but no
final judgment will be entered until after the appeal is
decided.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment against the other
defendants and the District Court has dismissed plaintiffs'
complaint with prejudice.
The deadline for filing a petition for certiorari with the
Supreme Court is April 29, 2008, according to the company's
April 4, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 23, 2008.
The suit is "Schumacher, et al. v. IBP, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:02-cv-01027-CBK," filed with the U.S. District Court of South
Dakota, Judge Charles B. Kornmann presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Elizabeth J. Anderson, Esq.
David F. Herr, Esq.
Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand
3300 Wells Fargo Center, 90 S. 7th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4140
Phone: (612) 672-8200
Fax: (612) 672-8397
Representing the defendants are:
William H. Baumgartner, Jr., Esq.
(wbaumgartner@sidley.com)
Sidley Austin LLP
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603
Phone: (312) 853-7000
Fax: (312) 853-7036
- and -
Patrick E. Brookhouser, Jr., Esq.
McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO
1601 Dodge St., Suite 3700, First Natl. Tower
Omaha, NE 68102-1627
Phone: (402) 341-3070
Fax: (402) 341-0216
OCWEN LOAN: Still Faces Ill. Mortgage Servicing Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as successor in interest to Ocwen
Federal Bank and Ocwen Financial Corporation are defendants in
several potential class actions challenging Ocwen's mortgage
servicing practices.
To date, no such lawsuit has been certified by any court as a
class action.
On April 13, 2004, these lawsuits were consolidated in a single
proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Illinois under the caption, "Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage
Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604."
ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-ASAP3
reported no development in the matter in its April 4, 2008 Form
10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB Mortgage Servicing
Litigation, MDL-1604, Master Docket No. 04cv2714," filed with
the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Judge Charles R. Norgle, Sr. presiding.
QUANEX CORP: Plaintiff's Shareholder Claims Upheld by Tex. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C. discloses that in orders dated
March 13, 2008, and March 14, 2004, the 125th Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas denied in part the defendants'
Special Exceptions and upheld the plaintiff's shareholder claims
against Quanex Corporation's board of directors and Gerdau S.A.
Following the Court's ruling, the plaintiff believes that the
lawsuit will now proceed to discovery and the class
certification stage.
The plaintiff's claims challenge the sale of the Vehicular
Products Segment of Quanex Corporation to Gerdau S.A. and its
subsidiary, Gerdau Delaware. The lawsuit seeks additional
monies for all of Quanex's shareholders and the disclosure of
additional information to Quanex shareholders relating to the
Merger Agreement.
The lawsuit was filed on January 10, 2008, and is being brought
on behalf of all shareholders of Quanex Corporation, excluding
defendants and any persons, firms, trusts, corporations, or
other entities related to or affiliated with them. No class has
yet been certified in the action. Quanex Corporation has
scheduled a special shareholder meeting on April 22, 2008, for
shareholders to consider and vote upon the Merger Agreement.
Any shareholder of Quanex may have the right to intervene and
may retain counsel of his or her choice.
For more information, contact:
Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
The Brualdi Law Firm P.C.
29 Broadway, Suite 2400
New York, New York 10006
Phone: (877) 495-1187
(212) 952-0602
e-mail: tleger@brualdilawfirm.com
Web site: http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/
ROYAL GROUP: N.Y. Court Mulls Approval of $9,182,764 Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has yet to approve the proposed $9,182,764.18 (CDN$9,000,000)
settlement in the matter, "In re Royal Group Technologies Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 06 Civ. 0822."
Royal Group, which was acquired by Georgia Gulf Corp on Oct. 3,
2006, and certain of its former officers and former board
members were named as defendants in two shareholder class action
suits pending with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice
concerning, among other things, alleged inadequate disclosure to
shareholders during the cumulative period of Feb. 26, 1998, and
Oct. 18, 2004, of related party transactions.
In March 2007, Royal Group entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement with the respective plaintiffs in each
case, after a mediation process among Royal Group and the
plaintiffs, for the full settlement of all claims raised in
those actions against Royal Group and all of the defendants on
behalf of class members in return for the payment of Canadian
dollar $9.0 million towards a global settlement fund by Royal
Group and its insurer.
Following execution of the stipulation and agreement of
settlement, Royal Group paid the Canadian dollar $9.0 million
settlement amount in cash into escrow.
The settlement is conditional upon, among other things, approval
by both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the
corresponding orders approving the settlement becoming final.
By order dated Dec. 17, 2007, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice approved the settlement and subject to all conditions to
the stipulations and settlement agreement being satisfied
including final approval of the settlement by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, dismissed the
Ontario action.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
has scheduled a hearing on March 6, 2008, to consider whether to
approve the settlement, 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.
For more details, contact:
Royal Group Securities Class Action
c/o Crawford Class Action Services,
Claims Administrator
2813 Wehrle Drive
Williamsville, New York 14221
Phone: 1-866-640-9997
Fax: (519) 578-4016
e-mail: rgtadmin@crawco.ca
Web site: http://www.rgtsettlement.ca/
Rick Nelson, Esq.,
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900,
San Diego, California 92101
Phone: 1-800–449-4900
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com
- and -
David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
Labaton Sucharow LLP
140 Broadway
New York, New York 10005
Phone: 1-800-321-0476
Web site: http://www.Labaton.com
ROYAL WINDOW: Pa. Court Okays $2.4M "Window Coverings" Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
gave final approval to a proposed $2.4-million settlement by
Royal Window Coverings (USA) L.P. of a consolidated class action
over "Window Coverings."
"Window Coverings" means vertical blinds, horizontal blinds,
mini-blinds, shutters, components of vertical blinds, horizontal
blinds and shutters, including without limitation extruded
polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) slats and vanes, valences,
valence clips, rails, internal mechanisms, channel panels
designed to hold vertical blind slats and valences, and related
products (Class Action Reporter, July 26, 2007).
In April 2007, two class action complaints were filed against
Royal by direct purchasers of "Window Coverings" for the purpose
of effectuating the settlement. These cases were subsequently
consolidated.
The plaintiffs alleged in their complaints that Royal attempted
to enter into a contract, combination or conspiracy to fix,
maintain, raise or stabilize the prices of Window Coverings sold
in the United States in violation of the federal antitrust laws.
They further allege that as a result of the attempted
conspiracy, they and other direct purchasers of Window Coverings
have been injured by paying more for Window Coverings than they
would have paid in the absence of the illegal conduct.
In their complaints, the plaintiffs also sought recovery of
treble damages, together with reimbursement of costs and an
award of attorneys' fees.
As the suits were consolidated, the court appointed two lead
plaintiffs -- Blind Builders USA Inc. and Presidential Window
Coverings -- to serve as representatives of the Class.
The court also appointed the law firms of Kohn Swift & Graf,
P.C., and Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios, LLP, to serve as
Class Counsel.
The parties to the litigation would later negotiate a settlement
for the matter. on May 15, 2007, the Court granted preliminary
approval of a Settlement Class defined as:
All persons (excluding the defendants, their parents,
predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates, their co-conspirators
and government entities) who purchased Window Coverings:
(1) directly from Royal Window Coverings (USA) L.P (and
its current and former direct and indirect parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, predecessors,
successors, and assigns);
(2) in the U.S., from a facility located in the U.S., or
from a facility located outside the United States for
use or resale in the U.S.;
(3) for fabrication, assembly, and resale to commercial
or residential contractors or for installation in
commercial or residential buildings; and
(4) did so at any time during the period from June 1, 2002,
through December 31, 2002.
The Class does not include national retailers that sell finished
or replacement "Window Coverings."
The plaintiffs, on behalf of the Class, have entered into a
Settlement Agreement with Royal dated April 4, 2007, under which
Royal has paid into escrow the sum of $2,400,000.
The Settlement Agreement gives Royal the right to withdraw from
the Settlement Agreement in the event that the total dollar
amount of sales of Window Coverings to persons who exercise the
right to be excluded from this settlement exceeds $500,000 in
the aggregate during the Class Period.
Class Counsel will ask the Court for reimbursement for expenses
incurred in prosecuting the case, up to $100,000, and for
counsel fees, not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Fund, with
accrued interest.
Litigation expenses include, but are not limited to, costs for
economic experts, and for document reproduction.
Class Counsel intend to apply to the Court for incentive awards
to be paid to the Class Representatives in amounts not to exceed
$25,000 for each plaintiff.
Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs and
Incentive Awards will be on file at the office of the Clerk of
the Court after Aug. 17, 2007.
The final approval hearing of the settlement was held on
Nov. 19, 2007. On Nov. 29, the Court entered an order granting
final approval of the settlement, 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 "Blind Builders USA Inc. v. Royal Window Coverings
(USA) L.P., Civil Action No. 07-1387," filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
For more information, contact:
Settlement Administrator
Royal Window Coverings Settlement
P.O. Box 58968
Philadelphia, PA 19102-8968
Phone: 1-800-644-7835
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. (jkohn@kohnswift.com)
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C
One South Broad Street
Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389
Phone: 215 238-1700
Fax: 215 238-1968
Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. (ghansel@preti.com)
Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios LLP
One City Center
P.O. Box 9546
Portland, ME 04112-9546
Phone: 207-791-3000
Fax: 207-791-3111
TJX COS: July 15 Hearing Set for $6.5M Security Breach Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts will
hold a fairness hearing on July 15, 2008, with regard to the
proposed $6.5-million settlement by The TJX Cos., Inc., and
Fifth Third Bancorp in the matter, "In Re: TJX Companies Retail
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, MDL No.
1838."
Any objections and exclusions to and from the settlement must be
made on or before June 24, 2008.
The deadline to submit Claim Form for Driver's License
Replacement Cost, and to sign up for credit monitoring and
identity theft insurance is on May 29, 2008. The Deadline to
submit Claim Form to Be Used by Claimants for Merchandise
Vouchers/Checks-in-Lieu is on Oct. 13, 2008.
Case Background
The lawsuit challenges TJX's practices regarding the prior
retention of customers' personal information on its computer
system. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants failed to adequately
safeguard that system and, as a result, unauthorized people
gained access to customers' personal and financial information.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that TJX failed to maintain
adequate security for credit and debit card information, check
transaction information, and driver's license or government
identification information.
According to the Plaintiffs, TJX's inadequate security measures
and Fifth Third's inadequate monitoring of TJX allowed
unauthorized people to access and steal this information to
commit fraud and identity theft.
The case asserted claims for negligence and related common-law
and statutory causes of action stemming from the Computer
Intrusion, and seek various forms of relief including damages,
related injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 9,
2008).
Settlement
The settlement provides vouchers, cash benefits (checks-in-
lieu), credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, and
reimbursements to those affected by the computer system
intrusion(s).
The claimants include:
-- people who returned merchandise without a receipt and
were previously sent letters by TJX notifying them
that their driver's license or other identification
information was compromised; and
-- those who used a credit card, debit card, or check at
any of the TJX stores in the U.S., Canada or Puerto
Rico during Dec. 31, 2002 through Sept. 2, 2003 or May
15, 2006 through Dec. 18, 2006, and incurred certain
costs related to the intrusion.
Under the settlement, TJX will also hold a future, one-time,
special event reducing prices 15% at T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, T. J.
Maxx 'n More, Marshalls MegaStore, HomeGoods, A.J. Wright,
Winners and HomeSense stores for one day. Additionally, TJX has
taken steps to enhance the security of its computer system.
For more details, contact:
TJX Settlement Administrator
PO Box 3775
Portland, OR 97208-3775
Phone: 1-866-523-6770
Web site: http://www.tjxsettlement.com/
The suit is "In Re: TJX Companies Retail Security Breach
Litigation, Case No. 1:07-cv-10162-WGY, MDL No. 1838," filed
with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
Judge William G. Young presiding.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Janet G. Abaray, Esq. (jabaray@burgsimpson.com)
Lopez, Hodes, Restaino, Milman & Skikos
Suite 2090, 312 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Phone: 513-852-5600
Fax: 513-852-5611
- and -
William A. Baird, Esq. (tbaird@maklawyers.com)
Milstein, Adelman & Kreger LLP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: 310-396-9600
Fax: 310-396-9635
Representing the defendants are:
Richard D. Batchelder, Jr., Esq.
(rbatchelder@ropesgray.com)
Ropes & Gray LLP
One International Place
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-951-7515
Fax: 617-951-7050
- and -
Malcome A Heinicke, Esq.
Munger, Tolles & Olson
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415-512-4009
New Securities Fraud Cases
ARTHROCARE CORP: Coughlin Stoia Files Florida Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP has filed a class
action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of
ArthroCare Corp. (NASDAQ:ARTC) common stock during the period
between August 4, 2006, and January 23, 2008.
The complaint charges ArthroCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. ArthroCare designs, develops, manufactures, and markets
medical devices for use in soft-tissue surgery. Its products
are based on the patented soft-tissue surgical controlled
ablation technology called Coblation technology.
The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose that the Company's reported financial results were
materially overstated due to the improper inclusion and
recognition of revenue attributable to purported purchases" of
medical devices by DiscoCare, Inc., an ArthroCare "sales agent"
for the sale of ArthroCare medical devices.
More specifically, the defendants violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices in numerous material respects by, inter
alia:
(i) recognizing revenue where payment for the shipment of
ArthroCare's products was not unconditional, but was
entirely contingent upon the decision of third-party
payers to pay for the ArthroCare device or the
successful resolution of personal injury lawsuits;
(ii) recognizing revenue from transactions with DiscoCare
where DiscoCare did not have an unconditional
obligation to pay ArthroCare for certain products;
(iii) recognizing revenue from bill and hold transactions
between the Company and DiscoCare involving certain
products which were to be paid for pursuant to the
contingent payment arrangement; and
(iv) materially overstating financial results due to the
improper inclusion and recognition of revenue
attributable to purported "purchases" of medical
devices by a related party, Device Reimbursement
Services.
According to the complaint, during the Class Period, the
Company's stock price rose, reaching a high of $64.84 on
October 31, 2007. As a result of a series of adverse news
stories and partial disclosures concerning the propriety of the
Company's business relationship with DiscoCare and DRS, as well
as the accuracy of the Company's reported financial results,
culminating with an article dated January 23, 2008, the price of
the Company's stock decreased to approximately $38.11 by
January 25, 2008.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all
purchasers of ArthroCare common stock during the Class Period.
The plaintiff is represented by Coughlin Stoia, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.
For more information, contact:
Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
Phone: 800-449-4900
619-231-1058
e-mail: djr@csgrr.com
Web site: http://www.csgrr.com/cases/arthrocare/
CHARLES SCHWAB: Stull Stull & Brody Commences Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a class action lawsuit with the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Charles Schwab Corporation (NASDAQ: SCHW) on
behalf of all persons who purchased Schwab YieldPlus Funds
Investor Shares (NASDAQ: SWYPX) or Schwab YieldPlus Funds Select
Shares (NASDAQ: SWYSX) from March 17, 2005, through March 18,
2008, inclusive.
The Complaint charges that Charles Schwab and certain of the
funds' underwriters, investment advisers, officers and directors
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false
statements regarding the diversification of these funds and the
extent of investments assigned to sub-prime mortgage backed and
related securities. Specifically, the Complaint alleges the
funds' registration statements and prospectuses contained untrue
statements of material facts, and omitted important information
regarding the funds' investments.
On November 15, 2004, the Corporation began offering the Schwab
YieldPlus investment funds through a registration statement and
prospectus. The YieldPlus funds are advertised by the
defendants as 'a safe alternative to money market funds that
preserve principal while being designed with your income needs
in mind.' Throughout the Class Period the Company claimed the
funds were investments in a large, well-diversified portfolio,
that a seasoned team of taxable bond portfolio managers actively
managed the funds, and that investment in Schwab YieldPlus would
return higher yields on cash with only marginally higher risk.
Unbeknownst to investors, more than 50 percent of the funds'
assets were invested in the mortgage industry. Since July 2007,
the share price for the funds has fallen 18%.
Member of the class may, no later than May 16, 2008, request for
appointment as lead plaintiff by the Court.
For more information, contact:
Tzivia Brody, Esq.
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 1-800-337-4983 (toll-free)
Fax: 212-490-2022
e-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
Web site: http://www.ssbny.com/
MERCK & CO: Bernard M. Gross Law Offices Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co. (MRK) and its chairman, president and chief
executive officer, Richard T. Clark, were accused of violating
certain federal securities laws in a purported class action
lawsuit filed on April 4, 2008, according to Dow Jones
Newswires.
The suit, filed by the law offices of Bernard M. Gross in
federal court in Philadelphia, alleges the company "deceived the
investing public regarding the results of the Enhance trial
because the results were not positive or beneficial to Merck."
A Merck representative wasn't immediately available to comment,
Dow Jones says.
The trial results, when disclosed on March 28, 2008, "showed
that there was no statistically significant difference between
patient use of Vytorin versus patients treated with
Simvastatin," the complaint states. The complaint states "these
disclosures caused Merck's stock price to fall" on March 31.
The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Merck common stock between Oct. 22, 2007, and March 28, 2008.
SUPERIOR OFFSHORE: Johnson & Perkinson Files Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Perkinson has filed a class action lawsuit naming
Superior Offshore International, Inc. (NASDAQ: DEEP), several
officers of the Company, and underwriters for an initial public
offering. The action, docket numbered 08-CV-00987, was filed
with the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.
Individuals, families, trusts or other entities that purchased
Superior Offshore common stock between April 20, 2007, and
January 9, 2008, inclusive, have the opportunity to participate
as Lead Plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Class members may do so by
applying to serve in that capacity by April 28, 2008.
The complaint charges the defendants with making a series 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.
For more information, contact:
Eben F. Duval, Esq.
James F. Conway, III, Esq.
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road, P.O. Box 2305
South Burlington, Vermont 05403
Phone: 1-888-459-7855 (toll free)
e-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com
Web site: http://www.jpclasslaw.com/
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent research,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
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 * * *