C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 18, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 77 Headlines 3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash. CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M. TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit New Securities Fraud Cases BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit VERTEX PHARMA: Brodsky & Smith Announces Securities Suit Filing WALGREEN: Coughlin Stoia Files Securities Fraud Suit in Illinois WALGREEN CO: Schatz Nobel Files Illinios Securities Fraud Suit Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Facing 1 Inactive Injury Suit in Ohio ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Majestic Star to Perform Pa. Site Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 38 Cases Pending Against Met-Pro at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Briefing on 2 Dana Holding Appeals Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 41T Claims Pending v. Dana Holding at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Records $18M Receivable for CCR Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Park-Ohio Still Faces 385 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Inc. in Arbitration with Equitas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NYMAGIC Has $52.4M A&E Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Houston Wire Continues to Face Injury Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Great Lakes Dredge Has No Active Open Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Getty Realty, Unit Face Suit in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DXP Ent. Finalizing Remaining Settlements ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chemtura Still Subject to Liability Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Thomas Properties Accrues $2.8M for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Orion Marine Subject to Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Pending v. Domtar Ind. in U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Sears Holdings Subject to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 114 Actions Pending v. IPALCO Unit at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Current Obligations Total $101M at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ABB Records 9,500 Exposure Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Kaiser Ventures LLC Records 15 Active Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Has $41.3M Reorganization Charges ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Congoleum Cites $31.2M Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Has 1,360 Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Biltrite Liabilities Total $12.6M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ING Groep Has EUR66M Balance for A&E Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Canadian Pacific Adjusts Liability Estimate ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal Has 449 Pending French Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArcelorMittal USA May Spend $8MM in 2008 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Summary Judgment Bid in Hauman Suit Okayed ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ky. Court Affirms Hendleys' Remand Motion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Feldman Mall Incurs $1.4M for Abatement ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Incurs $511T Losses at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EMC Insurance Has $7.4M for Claims at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: GenCorp Inc. Records 169 Claims at Feb. 29 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 25 Claims Pending v. Ameron Int'l. at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reading Int'l. Incurs $7.1M for Remediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Oxford Residential Uses $807T for Cleanup ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Boss Holdings Inc. Facing Exposure Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NTS Comms Incurs $31T for Tex. Site in 2007 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Committee Moves to End G-I Holdings' Stay ASBESTOS LITIGATION: G-I Holdings Inc. Faces 3 Building Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Amerex Cleanup at Okla. Site Ended on Sept. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Seeks High Court Review on Libby Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Va. Man's Estate Sues 10 Firms in Illinois ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norfolk MP Campaigns v. Law Lords Decision ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ADAO Files Suit v. CBS Corp. Over CSI Toys ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Pensioner's Death to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Couple to Pay $2,000 Over MassDEP Breaches ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Railway Board Worker's Widow Seeks Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.K. Inquest Links Sailor's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pig Shelter Exposure Led to Farmer's Death ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Color Stillman Gets GBP65T in Compensation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.Y. Town Worker Fired for "Whistleblowing" ASBESTOS ALERT: Total Environmental Fined $12T for Mishandling ********* 3M CO: Minnesota Court Certifies Age Discrimination Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Chief Judge of Ramsey County, Minnesota has ruled that an age discrimination suit filed by five 3M employees may proceed as a class action on behalf of about 6,000 Minnesota-based current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45. On December 2004, a current and a former employee of the company filed a purported class action, seeking to represent a class of all current and certain former salaried employees employed by 3M Co. in Minnesota below a certain salary grade who were aged 46 or older at any time during the applicable period to be determined by the court (Class Action Reporter, Nob. 7, 2007). The plaintiffs in the case are Clifford Whitaker, 60, and Michael Mucci, 55. According to the lawsuit, since at least 2001, the company acted "to elevate younger employees to the company's leadership and to remove employees over the age of 45 -- perceived as less able or willing to accept and apply new business methodologies adopted by the company." The suit also alleges that the company disproportionately selects younger employees for a leadership-training program called "Six Sigma." The complaint asserts that the plaintiffs suffered various forms of employment discrimination on the basis of age in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and seeks injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory damages (which they seek to treble under the statute), including back and front pay, punitive damages (limited by statute to $8,500 per claimant) and attorneys' fees. In January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to join four additional named plaintiffs. This motion was unopposed by the Company and the four plaintiffs were joined in the case, although one claim has been dismissed following an individual settlement. The class certification hearing was held in December 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 21, 2008). The District Court of Ramsey County in Minnesota recently granted certification to a class of about 6,000 Minnesota-based current and former 3M salaried employees over the age of 45. According to Susan Coler, Esq., a partner at Sprenger + Lang and one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, "Almost all age discrimination class and collective actions have alleged discrimination in termination decisions, and the remainder of the cases have alleged discrimination in hiring." "3M's overt statements about its preference for younger employees in decisions such as selections for leadership training and promotions led us to make challenges beyond discriminatory terminations," Ms. Coler adds. In addition to a court order requiring 3M to change business practices, the suit seeks millions of dollars in damages to compensate class members for the pay and benefits they should have received. The suit also seeks up to three times the economic losses suffered by class members, punitive damages to deter 3M from engaging in similar conduct in the future, and to send the message to other employers that age discrimination will not be tolerated. The plaintiffs' lawyers also are actively exploring a parallel suit on behalf of non-Minnesota employees. "3M's practices and attitudes that we allege resulted in systemic discrimination in Minnesota applied across the country. We are developing a nationwide case to allow non-Minnesota salaried employees to recover as well," said Thomas J. Henderson, Esq., another Sprenger + Lang partner and attorney for the plaintiffs. 3M Co. -- http://www.3M.com-- is a diversified technology company with a global presence in various businesses, including industrial and transportation, healthcare, display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and protection services, and electro and communications. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Suits in N.Y., Del. Over JPMorgan Chase Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. is facing purported class actions in New York and Delaware over a proposed merger agreement entered into between the Company and JPMorgan Chase & Co., according to Bear Stearns' April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. Beginning March 17, 2008, various stockholders of the Company filed several purported class action lawsuits against it, its board of directors, and certain of its present and former executive officers. Among other things, these actions allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and obligations to the Bear Stearns stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger. Five of these actions have been filed with the Supreme Court of the State of New York and consolidated under the caption, "In re Bear Stearns Litigation." Two actions have been filed with the Delaware Court of Chancery where the plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate their cases in Delaware. JPMorgan Chase is named as a defendant in certain of these cases. In each of these actions, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the proposed merger and enjoin JPMorgan Chase from voting the 95 million shares acquired pursuant to a Share Exchange Agreement, other injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages. On April 9, 2008, the Delaware Chancery Court granted JPMorgan Chase's and Bear Stearns' motion to stay the Delaware action in favor of the New York action, at least until the preliminary injunction motion is resolved. The Delaware court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate their cases. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Several N.Y. Suits Alleging ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors face several putative class actions commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York purporting to represent the interests of participants in the Company's Employee Stock Ownership Plan during the time period of December 2006 through the present, according to the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. These actions allege that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs and to the other participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP by: -- failing to prudently manage the ESOP's investment in Company securities; -- failing to communicate fully and accurately about the risks of the ESOP's investment in the Company's stock; -- failing to to avoid or address alleged conflicts of interest; and -- failing to monitor those who managed and administered the ESOP. In connection with these allegations, each plaintiff asserts claims for violations under various sections of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and seeks reimbursement to the ESOP for all losses, an unspecified amount of monetary damages and imposition of a constructive trust. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. BEAR STEARNS: Faces Multiple Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors are facing three purported securities fraud class action suits in New York, according to the company's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. Various shareholders of the Company have commenced purported class actions against it on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the Company between Dec. 14, 2006, and March 14, 2008. The three actions, commenced with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, allege that the defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results and that as a result of those false statements, the Company's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In connection with these allegations, the Complaint asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. -- http://www.bearstearns.com/ -- is a holding company. The Company through its broker-dealer and international bank subsidiaries, Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.; Bear Stearns Securities Corp.; Bear Stearns International Limited; Bear Stearns Bank plc; Bear Stearns Global Lending Limited; Custodial Trust Company; Bear Stearns Financial Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Capital Markets Inc.; Bear Stearns Credit Products Inc.; Bear Stearns Forex Inc.; EMC Mortgage Corporation; Bear Stearns Commercial Mortgage, Inc.; Bear Stearns Investment Products Inc. and Bear Energy L.P is an investment banking, securities and derivatives trading, clearance and brokerage firm serving corporations, governments, institutional and individual investors globally. The segments of the Company are capital markets, global clearing services and wealth management. CELLCYTE GENETICS: Faces Multiple Shareholder Lawsuits in Wash. --------------------------------------------------------------- CellCyte Genetics Corporation, formerly Shepard Inc., is facing three shareholder lawsuits that were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, according to the company's April 11, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suits are: 1. "Armbruster v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al, No. C08-0047," 2. "Tolerico v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No. C08-0163," and 3. "Pruitt v. Cellcyte Genetics Corporation, et. al., No. C08-0178." The three lawsuits are virtually identical and allege, inter alia, that the Company and its officers and directors filed misleading statements with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the Company's products, and that the Company posted misleading information regarding an officer on its Web site. The lawsuits claim that investors purchased the company's stock based on the alleged misleading statements and the plaintiffs are seeking monetary relief. None of the lawsuits has been certified for class-action status. CellCyte Genetics Corp. -- http://www.cellcyte.com-- formerly Shepard Inc., is a development-stage company. The company is developing clinical-stage therapeutic agents and treatments for oncology, diabetes, heart, liver, lung and kidney diseases, as well as for stem cell bone marrow and organ transplants. CHANNELLOCK INC: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Alleged False Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Channellock, Inc., is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, alleging it sells tools by falsely claiming they were "Made in the USA," CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Blake R. Stewart brings this action on behalf of all purchasers of defendant's tool products, including the "Channellock 8" Retaining Ring Pliers, that were manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by Channellock to California consumers. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- judgment declaring this action to be a proper class action; -- damages according to proof; -- an order declaring that Channellock violated the provisions of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- an order, pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17204 and pursuant to the equitable powers of the court, enjoining Channellock, its subsidiaries, affiliates, and successors, agents, servants, officer, directors, employees, and all persons, acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from engaging in conduct violative of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; -- an oder, pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 17204, requiring Channellock to provide restitution to compensate, and to restore all persons in interest, including all class members, with all monies acquired by means of defendant's unfair competition to the extent permitted by California law; -- a declaration that Channellock violated Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7; -- a declaration that Channellock violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and that plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780; -- punitive damages to the extent permitted by law pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780(a)(4); -- plaintiff's reasonable attorneys' fees as it relates to all three causes of action pursuant to Civil Code Section 1780 as it relates to the first cause of action and pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 as it relates to the second and third causes of action; -- costs of suit incurred; -- prejudgment interest as allowed by law; and -- such other and further relief as the court finds just, equitable and proper, including, but not limited to, the remedy of disgorgement. The suit is "Blake R. Stewart et al. v. Channellock, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-2008-00081963-CU-BT-CTL," filed with the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Representing the plaintiffs are: John H. Donboli, Esq. JL Sean Slattery Del Mar Law Group, LLP 322 8th Street, Suite 105 Del Mar, CA 92014 Phone: (858) 793-6244 Fax: (858) 793-6005 CHEVY CHASE: Accused of Overcharging Minorities in Calif. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chevy Chase Bank and BF Saul Wholesale Lending are facing a class-action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging that the companies charge minority homebuyers higher fees and interest than they charge white people, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Washington H. Cobb seeks redress for racially discriminatory lending practices under the Equal Opportunity Act, 15 USC Section 1691, et seq. and the Fair Housing Act, 42 USC Section 3601 et seq. This class action challenges the defendants' racially discriminatory mortgage lending practices. According to the complaint, the defendants established a specific, identifiable and uniform credit pricing system, a component of which, referred to as the "Discretionary Pricing Policy," authorized an unchecked, subjective surcharge of additional points and fees to an otherwise objective risk-based financing rate. These subjective, additional finance charges directly lead to minorities receiving home loans with higher interest rates and higher fees and costs than similarly situated non-minority borrowers. This class action is brought pursuant to the ECOA and the FHA on behalf of all minority borrowers who entered into residential mortgage loan contracts that were originated, financed or purchased by defendants, and who were harmed by defendants' discriminatory conduct. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) the nature and scope of defendants' policies and procedures concerning the assessment of yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees on mortgage loans they fund; (b) whether defendants are creditors under the ECOA because, in the ordinary course of business, they participate in the decision of whether or not to extend credit to consumers; (c) whether defendants' policies and procedures regarding yield spread premiums and other discretionary fees are a facially neutral credit pricing system that has effected racial discrimination in violation of the ECOA; (d) whether there are statistically significant disparities between the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on minorities and the amount of the discretionary charges imposed on Caucasians that are unrelated to creditworthiness; (e) whether defendants have any legitimate business justification for their policies and procedures; (f) whether there is a less discriminatory alternative to these policies and procedures; (g) whether the court can enter declaratory and injunctive relief; and (h) the proper measure of disgorgement or monetary relief. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order determining that the action is a proper class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs; -- a judgment granting extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including rescission, restitution, reformation, attaching, impounding, or imposing a constructive trust upon, or otherwise restricting, the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten funds to ensure that plaintiff and the class have an effective remedy; -- a judgment awarding plaintiff and the class compensatory damages according to proof; -- a judgment awarding punitive damages to plaintiff and the class; -- a judgment granting declaratory and injunctive relief and all relief that flows from such an injunctive and declaratory relief; and -- a judgment or other order granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Washington H. Cobb et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank et al., Case No. CV08-02474," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. (afriedman@bffb.com) Wendy J. Harrison, Esq. (wharrison@bffb.com) Bonnet, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, PC 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Phone: (602) 274-1100 CLEAN HARBORS: Settles Louisiana Suits Over Plaquemine Facility --------------------------------------------------------------- A tentative deal was reached for the settlement of several purported class actions filed in Louisiana against a subsidiary of Clean Harbors, Inc., according to the company's March 10, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. In September 2002, various plaintiffs filed five lawsuits based in part upon allegations relating to ownership and operation of a deep injection well facility near Plaquemine, Louisiana, by Clean Harbors Plaquemine, LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries. The plaintiffs seek an order declaring the facility to be located within the banks or boundaries of a body of surface water under state law, payment of civil penalties of $27,500 per violation per day from and after Nov. 17, 2003, and an additional penalty of $1.0 million for damages to the environment, plus interest. The plaintiffs also seek an order requiring the facility to remove all waste disposed of since September of 2002, and in general, to conduct an investigation into and remediate the alleged contamination at the facility, as well as damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage, natural resources damages, costs of litigation, and attorney's fees. On Oct. 17, 2006, CH Plaquemine (which operated at a loss during the past two years prior to that date) ceased operations and filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts. On Dec. 28, 2006, the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court transferred the venue of the CH Plaquemine bankruptcy case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Louisiana,where such case is now pending. The Company believes that the filing of that Chapter 11 petition by CH Plaquemine will have no adverse effect on the Company's other operations. On Sept. 13, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court approved a global settlement of the five lawsuits, pursuant to which CH Plaquemine has conditionally agreed to settle all of the pending lawsuits, subject to certain contingencies and court proceedings which must still take place before the settlement can be consummated. Among the conditions to the settlement is that the Bankruptcy Court approve as fair and reasonable a class action settlement of one of the five lawsuits which was filed as a class action, and that CH Plaquemine successfully confirm a plan of reorganization that incorporates the terms of the settlement. A motion to approve the class action settlement documents was filed on Nov. 28, 2007, and a fairness hearing was held on April 14, 2008. Clean Harbors, Inc. -- http://www.cleanharbors.com/-- through its subsidiaries, is a provider of environmental services and an operator of non-nuclear hazardous waste treatment facilities in North America. The Company performs environmental services for over 45,000 customers, including more than 325 Fortune 500 companies, in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and Mexico. It performs environmental services through a network of more than 100 service locations, and operates six incineration facilities, nine commercial landfills, six wastewater treatment operations, and 20 transportation, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs), as well as six polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) management facilities, and two oil and used oil products recycling facilities. Clean Harbors operates in two segments: Technical Services and Site Services. COPART INC: Reaches Settlement in Ga. Lawsuit Over Storage Liens ---------------------------------------------------------------- Copart, Inc., settled a lawsuit filed with the State Court for the County of Chatham, Georgia over allegations that the company charges unreasonable amounts for storage liens. On Sept. 16, 2005, Richard M. Gray filed the suit seeking relief, including class certification, damages, fees, costs and expenses. The company's motion for summary judgment was heard on Jan. 31, 2007, and was denied. Subsequent thereto, the parties agreed to settle the case without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and a dismissal with prejudice was filed on Jan. 23, 2008, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31, 2008. Copart, Inc. -- http://www.copart.com/-- is a provider of salvage vehicle sales services in the U.S. It also provides vehicle suppliers, primarily insurance companies with a range of services to process and sell salvage vehicles over the Internet through its virtual bidding second-generation (VB2) Internet auction technology. COPART INC: La. Court Dismisses Claims in FCS Antitrust Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismisses several claims in a purported antitrust class action suit filed against Copart, Inc., according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan 31, 2008. On July 28, 2006, Foreign Car Sales and Service LLC filed the suit against Copart with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, originally alleging antitrust violations and unfair trade practices. Relief sought originally included class certification based on both unfair trade practices and Sherman Act violations, damages, fees, costs and expenses. On Jan. 5, 2007, the Magistrate required FCS to amend its complaint. A First Amended Complaint was rejected, and a Second Amended Complaint was submitted Feb. 16, 2007, in which FCS abandoned its unfair trade practices claims, and now relies simply on breach of contract claims. On Aug. 23, 2007, Copart filed: -- a motion to dismiss claims for improper venue; -- a motion to dismiss for failure to join persons needed for just adjudication; -- a motion to dismiss for lack of diversity jurisdiction; -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for failure to state claim; and -- a motion to dismiss load out fee class action for lack of diversity jurisdiction. On Feb. 22, 2008, the court granted the motions to dismiss with regard to all claims, leaving only the anti-trust claim pending. The suit is "F.C.S. L.L.C. v. Copart Inc., Case No. 3:06-cv- 00535-FJP-SCR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Judge Frank J. Polozola presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Kimuel Wayne Lee, Esq. 16137 Berryhill Drive Baton Rouge, LA 70817 Phone: 225-751-3775 Representing the defendants is: Charles A. Schutte, Jr., Esq. (cschutte@gmstl.com) Guglielmo, Marks, Schutte, Terhoeve & Love 320 Somerulos Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Phone: 225-387-6966 Fax: 225-387-8230 COTT CORP: High Court Rejects Appeal on Dismissal of Fees Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an appeal in connection with the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging improper use and collection of deposits and container recycling fees by beverage companies, including Cott Corp., in British Columbia, according to Cott's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. In January 2005, Cott was named as one of many defendants in the action captioned "The Consumers' Association of Canada and Bruce Cran v. Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd. et al.," filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada (Class Action Reporter, March 15, 2007). This claim has been brought under the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act as a class action, but has not been certified as a class action yet. The plaintiffs are suing over 30 defendants, consisting of beverage manufacturers, retailers and Encorp Pacific (Canada), the government-approved steward of British Columbia's container deposit program, alleging the improper use and collection by the defendants of deposits and container recycling fees pursuant to the British Columbia container recycling program. The relief sought by the plaintiffs includes a declaration that CDN$70 million in container deposits were unlawfully converted by the defendants and are held on constructive trust for consumers and the repayment of CDN$60 million collected as container recycling fees. The defendants, including Cott, brought and argued a summary trial application in January 2006. On June 2, 2006, the British Columbia Supreme Court granted the summary trial application, which resulted in the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action against the company and the other defendants. On June 26, 2006, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action to the British Columbia Court of Appeals. The appeal was denied. A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was also rejected on Dec. 20, 2007. In February 2005, similar class action claims were filed in a number of other Canadian provinces. Claims filed in Quebec have since been discontinued, but is unclear how the dismissal of the British Columbia case will impact the other cases. Cott Corp. -- http://www.cott.com/-- is a non-alcoholic beverage company and a provider of retailer brand soft drink. In addition to carbonated soft drinks, the Company's product lines include clear, still, and sparkling flavored waters, juice-based products, bottled water, energy drinks and ready-to- drink teas. The Company operates its business in North America through its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages Inc., in the U.S. and through Cott Corp. in Canada. The Company operates its International business through several subsidiaries, including its indirect wholly owned subsidiary, Cott Beverages Ltd., in the U.K., and Europe, and through an indirect 90% owned subsidiary, Cott Embotelladores de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., in Mexico. ELI LILLY: Judge Says He May Not Certify Zyprexa Classes -------------------------------------------------------- A district judge says he probably won't give class-action status to patients and insurers who paid for Zyprexa for FDA-approved uses, FiercePharma reports. According to Judge Jack Weinstein, he does not expect the plaintiffs to be able to claim punitive damages. The case "ought to be settled," he said. "I really think that we're not dealing with very much money." FiercePharma notes, however, that Judge Weinstein also said he might reconsider his position before his final ruling. He did say he would consider certifying a class of off-label purchasers. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 31, 2008, Eli Lilly and Co. is facing several purported federal class action suits in New York over the side effects and improper promotion of the drug, Zyprexa. The CAR recounted that two lawsuits were filed in 2005 with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York purporting to be nationwide class actions on behalf of all consumers and third-party payors, excluding governmental entities, which have made or will make payments for their members or insured patients being prescribed Zyprexa. These actions have been consolidated into a single lawsuit, which is brought under certain state consumer protection statutes, the federal civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute, and common law theories, seeking a refund of the cost of Zyprexa, treble damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Two additional lawsuits were then filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2006 on similar grounds. As with the product liability suits, these lawsuits allege that the company inadequately tested for and warned about side effects of Zyprexa and improperly promoted the drug. Eli Lilly and Co. -- http://www.lilly.com/-- discovers, develops, manufactures and sells products in one business segment, pharmaceutical products. The Company also has an animal health business segment. It manufactures and distributes its products through owned or leased facilities in the U.S., Puerto Rico and 25 other countries. Eli Lilly and Company's products are sold in approximately 135 countries. The Company also conducts research to find products to treat diseases in animals and to increase the efficiency of animal food production. FORD MOTOR: 1991-2001 Explorer Lawsuit Settlement Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County, ended seven years of litigation on April 15, 2008, when he approved the Ford Explorer class action settlement and found that it was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The class action was brought on behalf of all people and entities residing in California who bought, owned or leased, a new or used 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorer in California between 1990 and August 9, 2000, and who either still own their Explorer or who sold, ended their lease, or otherwise disposed of it after August 9, 2000. Filed in 2003, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit claimed that defendant, Ford Motor Co., violated California's statutory Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. According to the report, the claim stems from a class action suit filed on behalf of more than 414,000 Californians who bought Explorers and later claimed they had lost resale and trade-in value because of reports about rollover accidents and a nationwide recall of Explorer Firestone tires in 2000. The plaintiffs say that Ford knew about a dangerous design flaw that made the Explorer unsafe and too likely to roll over, yet concealed it, and instead marketed and sold the Explorer as a safe vehicle. The plaintiffs want class members to get compensation from Ford for the excess money they say they paid for their Explorers, as well as money from the profits Ford earned on California Explorer sales, and other legal costs. Earlier, the Center for Auto Safety, a Ralph Nader-founded group based in Washington, D.C. filed a legal challenge with the Sacramento Superior Court (Calif.) to the settlement of the massive Ford Explorer lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, April 10, 2008). The Settlement The Associated Press learned from a New Jersey attorney and co- counsel for the SUV owners who brought the lawsuit that the settlement applies to about one million people in California, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas. It will allow vehicle owners to apply for $500 vouchers to buy new Explorers or $300 vouchers to buy other Ford or Lincoln Mercury products, Kevin P. Rodd said. The settlements apply to Explorers from model years 1991 through 2001, he said. Filed less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing, the consumer group claims the deal approved in December rewards lawyers in the case with $25 million in fees but provides Explorer owners with "no real benefits." A new ford Explorer lists for about $25,000 to $30,000. Superior Court of California's Approval Judge David De Alba of the Superior Court of California's recent approval means that California, Illinois, Connecticut, and Texas consumers who bought, owned or leased 1991-2001 model year Ford Explorers can get benefits from the settlement. Consumers must act by April 29, 2008, to get benefits, which include discount certificates worth $500 toward the purchase or lease of a new Ford Explorer or $300 toward the purchase or lease of any other new Ford, Lincoln, or Mercury. See Ford Explorer Cases on the net: http://www.explorercasuit.com/ The case is "Ford Explorer Cases, JCCP Nos. 4226 and 4270." Representing the plaintiffs is: Henry Rossbacher, Esq. (hhr@rossbacher.xhost.com) The Rossbacher Firm 611 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1650 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 895-6500 Fax: (213) 895-6161 Web site: http://www.rossbacherlaw.com FREMONT-RIDEOUT HEALTH: Faces CA Suit Over Labor Code Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fremont-Rideout Health Group is facing a class-action complaint filed on April 23, 2008, with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yuba alleging it cheated 500 nurses, technicians and therapists of overtime on 12-hour shifts and violated other sections of the Labor Code, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is a class action brought by DAvid Cooke and Glenn Green pursuant to the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of all non-exempt, hourly California employees of Fremont-Rideout who were employed as Registered Nurses or Licensed Vocational nurses or Monitor Technicians or Respiratory Therapists who worked 12-hour workdays during the period March 28, 2004, to the date the class may be certified and notice given. This class action complaint asserts claims for relief under California wage and hour law for the defendants: (1) failure to provide meal periods in compliance with governing wage and hour law; (2) failure to provide a third rest break for employees who worked 12-hour shifts; (3) failure to pay overtime at one and one half the hourly rate for schedules requiring them to work 12 hours; (4) failure to provide an accurate itemized statement of the hours and wages earned by employees working 12-hour shifts; (5) failure to pay the amount due to employee class members who quit or were discharged; and (6) for defendant's unlawful, unfair and fraudulent conduct in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by implementing null and void alternative week schedules and then failing to pay class members overtime wages that were due in violation of California Labor Code sections 510, 511, 1194 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (b) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by means of relief protocols and other systematic practices that had the effect of denying class members compliant meal periods within the first five hours of their shifts in violation of California Labor Code sections 512, 226.7 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (c) whether defendants had a policy or practice to violate California wage and hour laws and regulations by directing class members to inaccurately or improperly report meal periods in violation of California Labor Code applicable Wage Order regulations; (d) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by their systematic failure to authorize and permit class members to take paid third rest breaks in violation of California Labor Code section 226.7 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (e) whether defendants violated California wage and hour law by failing to itemize the automatic computer deductions and by misreporting actual gross pay and net pay in violation of California Labor Code section 226 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (f) whether defendants' failure to pay overtime due resulted in a failure to timely pay wages upon separation in violation of California Labor Code sections 201, 202, 203 and applicable Wage Order regulations; (g) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour statutes and regulations are unlawful business practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (h) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law are unfair business practices under California Business and Professions Codes Section 17200, et seq.; (i) whether the alleged violations of wage and hour law were likely to deceive plaintiffs and were therefore, fraudulent under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.; (j) whether class members are entitle to mandatory interest on unpaid wages as provided for in California labor Code Section 218.6 and whether such interest is due at a rate of 10% or some other rate; and (k) whether class members are entitle to restitution or other equitable relief, including injunctive relief. The plaintiffs ask the court: -- for compensatory damages; -- for restitution of all monies due to plaintiffs, and disgorged profits from the unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices of defendants; -- for statutory damages and/or penalties as allowed by California wage and hour statutes and regulations; -- for interest accrued to date; -- for costs of suit and expenses incurred; -- for reasonable attorney's fees; -- for punitive and exemplary damages in an amount commensurate with defendants' ability to pay and sufficient to deter such conduct in the future; -- for injunctive relief; and -- for all such other and further relief that the court may deem just and proper. The suit is "David Cooke et al. v. Fremont-Rideout Health Group, et al., Case No. 08-0000278," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Yuba. Representing the plaintiffs are: William A. Kershaw, Esq. Lyle W. Cook, Esq. Kershaw W. Cutter & Ratinoff, LLP 401 Watt Avenue Sacramento, CA 95864 Phone: (916) 448-9800 Fax: (916) 669-4499 ILLINOIS: ISTHA Faces Lawsuit Over Bungled Toll System ------------------------------------------------------ The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is facing a class- action complaint filed on April 15, 2008, with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging it bungled its I-Pass transponder system, which issues 85,000 notices of toll violations each day -- many of them erroneous -- and makes it impossible to contest them, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Marvin Kushner brings this action to secure redress for the improper and unconstitutional practices of the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority in sending violation notices. Mr. Kushner brings this suit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2) on behalf of all persons issued notice of violation who did not either receive a hearing or have their violations canceled as a result of communication with ISTHA. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether notices in the form represented violate due process; and (b) whether notices in the form represented comply with Illinois law governing such notices. Mr. Kushner asks the court for: -- a declaration in the form represented are violative of due process; -- an injunction restraining defendants from taking any action against customers based on such notices; -- damages including a refund of all fines imposed pursuant to such notices, except pursuant to a judgment of a court; -- punitive damages; -- attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; -- such other or further relief as the court deems proper. The suit is "Marvin Kushner et al v. Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, et al., Case No. 08CV2148," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiff are: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Zachary A. Jacobs, Esq. Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC 120 S. LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Phone: (312) 739-4200 Fax: (312) 419-0379 KADANT INC: Faces Litigation in Mass. Over Defective Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Kadant, Inc., is facing a purported class action that was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of consumers who purchased defective decking and railing products manufactured by its discontinued operation. Specifically, the company was named as a co-defendant in a consumer class action brought by Terrence Fisher, Joseph Jennings, Paula Moore, and Larry Boylen on behalf of a putative class of individuals who own GeoDeck(TM) decking or railing products manufactured by Composites LLC between April 2002 and October 2003. The complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, under Docket Number 1:07-CV-12375- JLT, on Dec. 27, 2007, and notice was served on the Company on Jan. 7, 2008. Other defendants are Kadant Composites LLC and Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. The complaint in this matter purports to assert, among other things, causes of action for unfair and deceptive trade practices, fraud, negligence, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it seeks unspecified compensatory damages and punitive damages under various state consumer protection statutes. In subsequent disclosures filed with this litigation, the plaintiffs claim that such damages exceed $50 million, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 29, 2007. The suit is "Fisher et al v. Liberty Diversified Industries, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:07-CV-12375-JLT," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Joseph L. Tauro presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq. (nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com) Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP 35 E. State Street Media, PA 19063 Phone: 610-891-9880 Fax: 610-891-9883 - and - Kristen Marquis Fritz, Esq. (kfritz@tenlaw.com) Thornton & Naumes LLP 30th Floor 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-720-1333 Fax: 617-720-2445 Representing the plaintiffs are: John G. Fabiano, Esq. (john.fabiano@wilmerhale.com) WilmerHale LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617-742-9100 Fax: 617-526-5000 - and - Edward William Little, Jr., Esq. (elittle@mccarter.com) McCarter & English, LLP 225 Franklin street Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-345-7018 Fax: 617-204-8018 MEEKER COUNTY: Woman Sues Over Strip Searches in Jail ----------------------------------------------------- Meeker County and Sheriff Mike Hirman are facing a federal class-action lawsuit filed by a Big Lake resident with the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Hutchinson Leader reports. The lawsuit alleges that 23-year-old Gail Lynn Simpson was subjected to strip searches on different occasions prior to being admitted to the Meeker County Jail, including one instance of booking photographs taken of her bare breasts. The complaint alleges that Ms. Simpson was arrested on four different occasions from September 2004 to April 2005. Each of the arrests involved misdemeanor charges ranging from driving after revocation to theft. In each case, Ms. Simpson was taken to the jail, where she was instructed to remove all her clothing, and while standing naked was told to stand with her feet wide apart with her hands over her head. She was told to squat and turn around, then her hair was searched. Ms. Simpson, Hutchinson Leader recounts, was booked into the Meeker County Jail a fifth time on Nov. 28, 2007, after reporting to the jail on her own to serve time for a failure to pay child support, another misdemeanor. On that occasion, she was asked if she had any body piercings, and she told the officer she had breast piercings. She was asked to show her breasts to the booking officer, who photographed them. She then was strip searched by the officer in the same manner as the previous four arrests. The report relates that the complaint challenges the county's strip-search policy, saying it violates the Fourth and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. The suit "seeks redress for the defendants' unlawful and unconstitutional policy, custom and/or practice of strip searching all arrestees brought to the Meeker County Jail." Ms. Simpson is seeking in excess of $75,000. She is represented by Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi of Minneapolis. Jon K. Iverson, Esq., of Iverson Reuvers Attorneys at Law, in Bloomington, Minn., who was hired through the Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust to represent the county, told Hutchinson Leader that the county acted within guidelines established by the legal system. "We will evaluate the facts and circumstances (of the lawsuit)," Mr. Iverson said, but Meeker County's strip-search policy "comports with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure law." MODTECH HOLDINGS: Calif. Court Mulls Certification of Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The California Superior Court for Alameda County has yet to certify a class in a lawsuit against Modtech Holdings, Inc., alleging labor violations. On Jan. 25, 2006, TRICO Pipes, Aram Hodess, Micah Long and the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 159 on behalf of those persons the company employed on California public work projects from Jan. 25, 2002, up to the filing of the complaint, commenced a class action suit against the company and Bayside Solutions, Inc. The complaint alleges that Modtech failed to pay these individuals general prevailing wage rates, overtime rates, and required rates for holiday work. The suit also alleges that the company failed to employ registered apprentices, thereby denying such apprentices the opportunity to earn wages. Bayside Solutions is a temporary labor service used by the company and TRICO Pipes is a joint labor management committee in the plumbing and pipe fitting industry in Contra Costa County. The complaint seeks restitution for all underpayments of wages, attorneys' fees and costs. The court has not yet certified the class. The company reported no development in the matter in its April 14, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Modtech Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.modtech.com/-- designs, manufactures, markets and installs modular and relocatable classrooms and commercial and light industrial modular buildings. The Company is a provider of modular classrooms in California and Florida and is a provider of commercial and light industrial modular buildings in California, Florida, Arizona, Nevada and other neighboring states. The Company's modular classrooms include standardized units prefabricated at its manufacturing facilities, as well as customized units that are modular in design but constructed on site using components it manufactures. The Company also designs and manufactures modular, portable buildings to customer specifications for an array of uses, including governmental, healthcare, educational, airport and correctional facilities; office and retail space; daycare centers, libraries, churches, construction trailers, golf clubhouses, police stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants, and sales offices. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Faces Del. Suit Over Electronic Arts Offer ---------------------------------------------------------------- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., is facing a purported class action suit in Delaware over offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all of the Company's shares. On March 7, 2008, Patrick Solomon, a stockholder of the Company, filed a purported class action complaint with the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the company and certain of its officers and directors. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, allegedly refusing to explore premium offers by Electronic Arts, Inc., to acquire all of the Company's shares, enacting a bylaw amendment allegedly designed to entrench the current board by preventing stockholders from nominating and electing alternative directors, agreeing to an amendment to a management agreement with ZelnickMedia and issuing a proxy statement for the 2008 Annual Meeting that allegedly contains misleading and incomplete information. The complaint seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, rescissory and other equitable relief and damages, according to Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. New York-based Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- http://www.take2games.com/-- is a global publisher, developer and distributor of interactive entertainment software, hardware and accessories. The Company operates in two segments: publishing and distribution. The publishing segment consists of Rockstar Games, 2K Games, 2K Sports and 2K Play publishing labels. The Company develops, markets and publishes software titles for gaming and entertainment hardware platforms, including Sony's PLAYSTATION3 and PlayStation2 computer entertainment systems; Sony's PSP (PlayStationPortable) system; Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Xbox video game and entertainment systems; Nintendo's Wii, GameCube, DS and Game Boy Advance, and for the personal computers and Games for Windows. The Company's distribution segment, which includes its Jack of All Games subsidiary, distributes its products, as well as software, hardware and accessories produced by others to retail outlets in North America. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: GTA Suit Settlement Hearing Slated for May ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a fairness hearing in May 2008 for the proposed settlement in the matter, "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK." Case Background In July 2005, the defendants -- Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., and its subsidiary Rockstar Games � were subjects of four purported class actions. Two of the four complaints were filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, one was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the other was filed with the Circuit Court in St. Clair County, Illinois (Class Action Reporter, Jan. 11, 2008). The plaintiffs, alleged purchasers of the defendants' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas First Edition game manufactured before July 20, 2005, assert that the company engaged in consumer deception, false advertising and breached an implied warranty of merchantability and were unjustly enriched as a result of the company's alleged failure to disclose that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden" content, which resulted in the game receiving a Mature 17+ (M) rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board rather than an Adults Only 18+ rating. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation later transferred all the cases to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which consolidated them under the caption, "In re Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation (No. II), 06-MD-1739 (SWK)(MHD)." Settlement In the last half of 2007, the defendants reached a settlement in the matter. Under the terms of the settlement, class members will be able to claim benefits if they swear that they: (a) bought a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas before July 20, 2005; (b) were offended and upset by the ability of consumers to modify and alter the game's content using the third- party Hot Coffee modification; (c) would not have bought the game had they known that consumers could modify and alter the game's content using the third-party Hot Coffee modification; and (d) would have returned the game, upon learning the game could be modified and altered, if they thought this possible. Settlement class members who attest to these facts may apply for benefits that range from an exchange of the game disk for an edited copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas to a cash payment of up to $35 for consumers who submit detailed proofs of purchase. The actual value of all cash payments under the settlement will depend on the number of class members that apply for benefits. Take-Two has committed to spend at least $1.025 million on settlement benefits, and the settlement generally caps the defendants' out-of-pocket costs at no more than $2.75 million, in addition to the costs of providing notice to class members and paying a fee to plaintiffs' counsel. In November 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the foregoing consumer class actions and set a date for a hearing on final approval in May 2008, according to Take-Two's March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. A copy of the settlement notice is available at: http://gtasettlement.com/Default.htm The suit is "In Re: Grand Theft Auto Video Game Consumer Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01739-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Locks Law Firm PLLC 110 East 55th St. New York, NY 10022 Phone: (888) 8LLF NYC Representing the company is: Jeffrey S. Jacobson, Esq. Debevoise & Plimpton LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 909-6000 TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks to Dismiss N.Y. Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has yet to rule on motions seeking for the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud class action filed against Take- Two Interactive Software, Inc. In February and March 2006, four purported class action complaints were filed against the company, its former chief executive officer, its former chief financial officer, its former chief global operating officer, and four of its former directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. A fourth complaint brought in Michigan was voluntarily dismissed. The complaints allege that the company violated Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making or causing the company to make untrue statements or failing to disclose in certain press releases and SEC periodic reports that, among other things, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas contained "hidden"content which should have resulted in the game receiving an "AO" rating from the ESRB rather than an "M" rating. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and their costs. In July 2006, the court appointed a lead plaintiff. In September 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint which included claims regarding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas as well as claims relating to the backdating of stock options. This complaint was filed against the company, its former CEO, its former CFO, its former Chairman of the Board, and two officers of its Rockstar Games subsidiary. On April 16, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which included additional allegations based on an investigation conducted by the Special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors, currently comprised of Strauss Zelnick, John Levy and Grover Brown (Special Litigation Committee), of options backdating and the Company�s restatement of financial statements relating to options backdating. This complaint was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, its former Chief Financial Officer, its former Chairman of the Board, two of its directors and one former director, its Rockstar Games subsidiary, and one officer and one former officer of Rockstar Games. On June 25, 2007, the company, and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to these motions to dismiss on Sept. 4, 2007, and reply briefs were filed on Oct. 4, 2007. Now that briefing on the motions to dismiss is complete, the company is awaiting a decision by the Court. The company reported no development in the matter in its March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The suit is "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Shirley Wohl Kram presiding. Representing the plaintiff is: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. (srudman@lerachlaw.com) Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendants is: Molly S. Boast, Esq. (msboast@debevoise.com) Debevoise & Plimpton, LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212 909-6000 Fax: 212 909-6836 TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of Retirees' N.Y. Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants in the suit captioned "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06- cv-00688-MBM" -- which includes Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. -- are seeking for either the dismissal of the matter or consolidation with another case. On Jan. 30, 2006, the St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System filed a suit against the company, as nominal defendant, and certain of the its officers and directors and certain former officers and directors with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The factual allegations in this action are similar to the allegations contained in the federal securities class actions pending in New York captioned, "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK." The plaintiff asserts that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duty by selling company stock while in possession of certain material non-public information and breached their fiduciary duty and violated Section 14(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the U.S. Exchange Act by failing to disclose material facts in the company's 2003, 2004 and 2005 proxy statements in which the company solicited approval to increase share availability under its 2002 Stock Option Plan. The plaintiff seeks the return of all profits from the alleged insider trading conducted by the individual defendants who sold company stock, unspecified compensatory damages with interest and their costs in the action. A motion to stay the action pending the determination of an investigation by the Special Committee was filed with the court. On Oct. 4, 2006, the court issued an order granting the motion and staying the proceedings for a period of 150 days from the date of the order. On Jan. 17, 2007, the plaintiffs moved for an order granting limited relief from the court's Oct. 4, 2006 stay of the proceedings in order to file an amended derivative and class action complaint. On Feb. 22, 2007, the counsel for the Special Litigation Committee advised the Court that the Special Litigation Committee had completed its investigation and rendered a report. On March 23, 2007, counsel for the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the complaint based on, among other things, its conclusion that "future pursuit of this action is not in the best interests of Take-Two or its shareholders." The plaintiff subsequently conducted discovery concerning the Special Litigation Committee's motion to dismiss. On Aug. 24, 2007, the plaintiff filed an Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint. The Amended Derivative and Class Action Complaint alleges among other things that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the issuance of proxy statements in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005. On Sept. 24, 2007, the Special Litigation Committee moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint or to consolidate certain of its claims with "In Re Take-Two Interactive Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:06-cv-00803-SWK." The company reported no development in the matter in its March 11, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Jan. 31, 2008. The suit is "St. Clair Shores General Employees Retirement System v. Eibeler, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-00688-MBM," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Michael B. Mukasey presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: James Joseph Sabella, Esq. (jsabella@gelaw.com) Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. 45 Rockefeller Center, 630 Fifth Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10111 Phone: 646-722-8520 Fax: 212-755-6503 Representing the defendants is: Leonard D. Steinman, Esq. (lsteinman@blankrome.com) Blank Rome, LLP The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10174 Phone: 212-885-5524 Fax: 917 332-3746 THORNBURG MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.M. ------------------------------------------------------------- Thornburg Mortgage, Inc., is facing a consolidated securities fraud class action filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, according to the company's March 11, 2008 Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. On Aug. 21, 2007, a securities class action complaint, entitled "Slater v. Thornburg, et al.," was filed with the District Court for the District of New Mexico against the Company and certain of its officers and directors. Subsequently, three similar class action complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York, and one more was filed in the District of New Mexico. All five complaints allege that the Company and the other named defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements in financial reports filed with the SEC, press releases and other public statements, which resulted in artificially inflated market prices of the Company�s common stock, and that the named plaintiff and members of the putative class purchased common stock at these artificially inflated market prices. Two complaints allege a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005, through Aug. 17, 2007, one alleges a class period running from Oct. 6, 2005 through Aug. 20, 2007, and two more allege a class period running from April 19, 2007, through Aug. 14, 2007. Each complaint seeks unspecified money damages. The five actions have been formally consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, and will be litigated as a single proceeding The Company believes the allegations are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously. The suit is "Slater v. Thornburg et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00815- JB-WDS," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, Judge James O. Browning presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard A. Sandoval, Esq. (rsandoval@branchlawfirm.com) Branch Law Firm 2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW Albuquerque, NM 87104 Phone: 505-243-3500 Fax: 505-243-3534 Stuart L. Berman, Esq. (sberman@sbtklaw.com) Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 610-667-7056 Fax: 610-667-7706 - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. Kaplan, Kilsheimer & Fox 850 Third Avenue 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: (212) 687-1980 Representing the defendants is: Robert Badal, Esq. (robert.badal@hellerehrman.com) Heller Ehrman LLP 333 South Hope Street 39th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3043 Phone: (213) 689-0200 Fax: (213) 614-1868 TRIBUNE CO: 7th Circuit Dismisses Two Class Action Suits -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a securities class action and an Employee Retirement Income Security Act class action brought in the wake of the circulation scandal at two of the Tribune Co.'s New York newspapers, Securities Law360 reports. The court ruled on April 2 that the inflated circulation figures at Newsday and Hoy may not have been so obvious to Tribune's senior management and that the plaintiffs failed to allege any unusual or suspicious trading of stock during the class period. The Seventh Circuit also pointed out that Tribune began an internal investigation directly after the first lawsuits came in and that it was entitled to a "reasonable amount of time to investigate until it had a full story to disclose." "In sum, the plaintiffs fail to establish the primary liability of any individual defendant, and the alleged misconduct is not imputable to Tribune by the doctrine of respondeat superior," Judge Terence T. Evans wrote. The court also dismissed the ERISA lawsuit for similar reasons, pointing out that the retirement plan fiduciaries did not actually know about the circulation fraud being perpetrated by Newsday and Hoy employees. The first case is "Kenneth Pugh et al. v. Tribune Co. et al., Case No. 06-3898." As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Oct. 4, 2007, the first case was filed in February 2004 as a purported class action with the New York Federal Court by certain advertisers of Newsday and Hoy, alleging that they were overcharged for advertising as a result of inflated circulation numbers at these two publications. The purported class action also alleges that entities that paid a Newsday subsidiary to deliver advertising flyers were overcharged. The second case is "City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement et al. v. Tribune Co. et al., Case No. 06-3909." The CAR reported on Oct. 3, 2007, that several class actions were filed against Tribune and certain of its current and former directors and officers as a result of the circulation misstatements at Newsday and Hoy. These suits, which were subsequently consolidated, alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and other managerial and director failings under the federal securities laws and ERISA. The securities class action lawsuit and the consolidated ERISA class action lawsuit were both dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 29, 2006. WORKSTREAM INC: N.Y. Court Certifies Class in Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York certified as a class action a securities fraud lawsuit filed against Workstream, Inc., its chief executive officer, and former chief financial officer. The class action suit was filed on Aug. 10, 2005, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the company's common shares during the period from Jan. 14, 2005, to and including April 14, 2005. The suit alleges, among other things, that management provided the market misleading guidance as to anticipated revenues for the quarter ended Feb. 28, 2005, and failed to correct this guidance on a timely basis. The action claims violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a) of the U.S. Exchange Act, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount as well as the award of reasonable costs and expenses, including counsel and expert fees and costs. In December 2005, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added additional plaintiffs and sought to elaborate on the allegations contained in the complaint. The defendant's counsel filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was denied. The defendants have answered the amended complaint, denying its material allegations. The Court has certified the case as a class action and has approved notice to the class. The defendants contend that the deadline for taking discovery has expired, but the plaintiffs have asked the Court for additional time to pursue discovery. The Company and the individual defendants have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, based upon a recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The plaintiffs have responded to that motion, which was argued on Sept. 28, 2007, and is awaiting court decision. The court has certified the case as a class action, according to Workstream's April 14, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Feb. 29, 2008. The suit is "Schottenfeld Qualified Associates LP et al. v. Workstream, Inc. et al., Case No. 7:05-cv-07092-CLB," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Charles L. Brieant presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Ronen Sarraf, Esq. (ronen@sarrafgentile.com) Sarraf Gentile, LLP 485 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 868-3610 Fax: (212) 918-7967 - and - Ralph M. Stone, Esq. (rstone@lawssb.com) Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212) 239-4340 Fax: (212) 239-4310 Representing the defendants is: David M. Doret, Esq. H. Robert Fiebach, Esq. Cozen and O'Connor 45 Broadway Atrium New York, NY 10006-3792 Phone: 212-509-9400 New Securities Fraud Cases BLACKSTONE GROUP: Schatz Nobel Files Securities Suit in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of The Blackstone Group L.P. pursuant and traceable to the Company's initial public offering on or about June 25, 2007. The Complaint charges that Blackstone and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Blackstone, through its subsidiaries, provides alternative asset management and financial advisory services worldwide. According to the Complaint, on or about June 21, 2007, Blackstone filed with the SEC a Form S-1/A Registration Statement for the IPO. On or about June 25, 2007, the Prospectus with respect to the IPO, which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective and, including the exercise of the over-allotment, more than 133 million shares of Blackstone's common stock were sold to the public at $31 per share, thereby raising more than $4 billion. The Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to disclose that certain of the Company's portfolio companies were not performing well and were of declining value and, as a result, Blackstone's equity investment was impaired and the Company would not generate anticipated performance fees on those investments or would have fees "clawed-back" by limited partners in its funds. On March 10, 2008, Blackstone issued a press release announcing its financial results for the full year of 2007 and the fourth quarter of 2007, the periods ending December 31, 2007. Among other disclosures, Blackstone announced that it was writing down its investment in Financial Guaranty Insurance Company by $122 million. As of April 15, 2008, Blackstone common stock traded in a range of $17-$17.50 per share, approximately 45% below the IPO price of $31.00 per share. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Saxena White Files Mass. Securities Fraud Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saxena White P.A. has filed a lawsuit on behalf of shareholders of The First Marblehead Corporation with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint, filed on behalf of Sheetmetal Workers Local 28 Pension Fund, seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who purchased First Marblehead securities between August 10, 2006, through April 7, 2008, inclusive. First Marblehead provides outsourcing services for private education lending in the United States. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants reported quarter after quarter of seemingly strong financial results and touted the Company's ability to complete additional securitizations despite a difficult operating environment in the lending industry. As a result of Defendants' statements, the stock traded as high as $57.56 per share during the Class Period. The veracity of defendants' Class Period statements was first called into question on November 26, 2007. At that time, Friedman, Billings, Ramsey downgraded First Marblehead to under- perform from market-perform, citing an increased risk that loss reserves associated with securitization might not be sufficient. This meant that the previously reported value of First Marblehead's back-end rights and all management-supplied estimates of future earnings were in jeopardy. On December 4, 2007, Moody's Investors Service announced that it was performing a review of the Company and that it might lower ratings on $822 million of securities created by First Marblehead from 2003 through 2007. Subsequently, on March 26, 2008, Moody's downgraded 18 classes of notes in 11 First Marblehead student loan securitizations, affecting approximately $1.09 billion of the Company's asset-backed securities. On April 8, 2008, First Marblehead lost over a third of its value after The Education Resources Institute, Inc., the Company's guarantor of private student loans, filed for bankruptcy protection. As a result, the Company may incur substantial losses arising from defaults on its student loans. After the TERI bankruptcy announcement, First Marblehead's stock sank to $4.89, a decline of 36.5% from the day before. The Company's stock had already fallen 50 percent in the several months since the truth of its precarious financial position was finally revealed. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 9, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Joseph White, Esq. Greg Stone, Esq. Saxena White P.A. 2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Web site: http://www.saxenawhite.com/ GLOBAL CASH: Holzer & Fistel Commences NY Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC discloses that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. and various individuals and other entities on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired shares of Global common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's September 22, 2005 Initial Public Offering, and who held such shares of Global common stock until November 14, 2007. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, certain of its current and former directors, as well as certain of its controlling shareholders and underwriters, violated the Securities Act of 1933 by, among other things, maintaining deficient internal controls, improperly computing commissions the Company was required to pay to many of its customers, and understating the Company's expenses during 2005, resulting in an overstatement of the Company's gross profit margins and net income. The complaint alleges the disclosure of the forgoing resulted in a decline in the value of the Company's common stock price, which caused damages to the Class. For more information, contact: Holzer Holzer & Fistel, LLC 1117 Perimeter Center West, Suite E-107 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 Phone: (770) 392-0090 Fax: (770) 392-0029 Toll-Free: (888) 508-6832 Web site: http://www.holzerlaw.com/ HARMONY GOLD: Schiffrin Barroway Files NY Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP filed a class action with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of American Depository Receipts and call options and sellers of put options of Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited (NYSE/Nasdaq: HMY) between April 2, 2007 and August 7, 2007, inclusive. The Complaint charges Harmony Gold and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Harmony Gold is a gold producer that operates 22 individual mines and projects across the world. 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 the Company's costs had significantly increased throughout 2007; (2) that the Company had underreported these increased costs in its previously issued financial statements; (3) that the Company had experienced a significant decrease in gold production for the third quarter 2007 due to production problems at various sites, which had already materialized at the time its Class Period statements were made; (4) that the Company had failed to disclose the full impact that these production problems would have on the Company's financial and operational results; (5) that, as a result of the Company's understatement of its costs and its lower production for the quarter, the Company had understated its operating costs and overstated its net profit for the third quarter; (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times; (7) that the Company would be forced to take substantial charges in the fourth quarter 2007 to remedy such failures, causing the Company to report a net loss for the quarter; (8) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (9) that, as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis when made. On August 6, 2007, Harmony Gold reported preliminary financial and operational results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year 2007 (ended June 30, 2007). The Company warned that its financial results for the quarter were "expected to differ significantly from those of the three previous quarters as well as from the analysts' consensus." For the fourth quarter, the Company stated that it expected to report a headline loss of between 130 and 160 SA cents per share, compared with a headline profit of 58 SA cents per share for the third quarter. This quarterly loss was primarily the result of the Company recording significantly higher costs for the quarter, and included a 25 to 28 percent increase in the Company's total cash operating costs as a result of "the newly installed accounting software system that resulted in some of the March quarter's costs being captured in the June 2007 quarter." Thus, the Company had substantially understated its costs in previous quarters and was forced to take substantial charges in the fourth quarter to remedy such underreported costs. Additionally, the Company reported that its cost base had increased by 8 to 12 percent from the previous six months. Finally, the Company announced that its Chief Executive Officer had resigned, "with immediate effect." On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.45 per share, or over 18 percent, to close on August 6, 2007, at $11.02 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume. The following day, the Company's shares declined an additional $1.57 per share, or over 14 percent, to close on August 7, 2007, at $9.45 per share, again on heavy trading volume. This closing price on August 7, 2007 represented a two-day decline in the Company's shares of $4.02 per share, or 29.8 percent, and a cumulative decline of $7.25 per share, or over 43.4 percent, from the value of the Company's shares at their Class Period high of $16.70 on April 25, 2007. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 16, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Darren J. Check, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) 1-610-667-7706 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com INVERNESS MEDICAL: Federman Files Massachusetts Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood discloses that on April 10, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Inverness Medical Innovations Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from the date of the Company's secondary public offering on or about November 14, 2007, through April 10, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com ISTAR FINANCIAL: Schatz Nobel Initiates Securities Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Schatz Nobel Izard P.C., which has significant experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of securities fraud, filed a lawsuit seeking class action status with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock of iStar Financial Inc. pursuant or traceable to the Company's secondary public offering on or about December 13, 2007. The Complaint charges that iStar, a finance company focusing on the commercial real estate industry, and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws. Specifically, on or about October 9, 2007, iStar filed a Form S-3 Shelf Registration Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission. On or about December 13, 2007, iStar filed a Prospectus Supplement to the Shelf Registration Statement (the Registration Statement) with respect to the Secondary Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, and more than 8 million shares of iStar common stock were sold to the public at $28.41 per share, thereby raising more than $227 million. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently failed to disclose that iStar was then being negatively impacted by the adverse conditions in the credit markets and was failing to recognize more than $200 million of losses on its corporate loan and debt portfolio. On February 28, 2008, iStar announced its financial results for the fourth quarter of 2007 and fiscal year 2007. For the fourth quarter, the Company reported a loss of $78.7 million or $0.62 per share. iStar further reported that its fourth quarter financial results were impacted by $134.9 million of charges associated with the "impairment of two credits" and that the Company had increased its loan loss provisions by $113 million. In response to this announcement and subsequent analyst downgrades, iStar stock declined from $22.85 per share on February 27, 2008, to $13.98 per share on March 6, 2008. Interested parties may move the court no later than June 13, 2008, for lead plaintiff appointment. For more information, contact: Wayne T. Boulton, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Schatz Nobel Izard P.C. 20 Church Street, Suite 1700 Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: (800) 797-5499 e-mail: firm@snilaw.com Web site: http://www.snilaw.com MONEYGRAM INTL: Federman Files Securities Lawsuit in Minnesota -------------------------------------------------------------- Federman & Sherwood discloses that on March 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed with the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota against MoneyGram International, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is from January 24, 2007, through January 14, 2008. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Class. For more information, contact: K. Lynn Nunn, Esq. (kln@federmanlaw.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Web site: http://www.federmanlaw.com SCHWAB YIELDPLUS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a class action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of any class of the Schwab YieldPlus Fund