C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 25, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 82 Headlines BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches Settlement in Investors' Lawsuit in Canada CAPITAL BLUEECROSS: June 2008 Hearing Set for "Love" Settlement CENTENE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal of Junked Ma. Suit Heard CENTRO PROPERTIES: US Litigation Funders to Represent Investors CONTAINER SHIPPERS: Face Florida Lawsuit Over Price Fixing DAN-DEE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in California DENDREON CORP: Provenge-Related Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed DIEDRICH COFFEE: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in California HAIN PURE: Workers May Get Back Wages as Part of Suit Settlement HOMELAND SECURITY: Mayors & Judges Join Texas Border Fence Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Wage & Hour Suits in Penn. and Calif. KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case KINDER MORGAN: AK Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal of "Johnson" LENDING TREE: Faces Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit in Illinois MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated TX Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed NALGE NUNC: Faces California Suit Over "Lexan" Plastic Bottles NESTOR TRAFFIC: Earns Favorable Ruling in OH Speed Program Case NETFLIX INC: Lawyers Awarded $2MM in Consumer Fraud Suit Deal OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Residents Suing "Unneighborly" Camp OSB LITIGATION: May 29 Hearing Set for $2.35M OSB Antitrust Deal PACIFIC PREMIER: Still Faces SMLA Violations Suit in Missouri PACIFIC STEEL: Faces CA Suit Over Alleged Airborne Contamination R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Considers Appeal in "Schwab" Case REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Suits Over "Light Cigarettes" Reassigned SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Litigation SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over FAA Safety Violations TALON INT'L: Files Reply Brief in Calif. Shareholder Litigation UNITEDGLOBALCOM INC: May 16 Hearing Set for $25M Suit Settlement VEOLIA WATER: Sued for Overestimating Customers' Water Usage * Reed Smith Announces Several Leadership Changes in D.C. New Securities Fraud Cases BLACKSTONE GROUP: Dyer & Berens Files N.Y. Securities Fraud Suit CREDIT SUISSE: Spector Roseman Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY WELLS FARGO: Whatley Drake Files Securities Fraud Suit in Calif. Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Colonial Faces 86 Hilco Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: J. C. Penney Records $43Mil for Remediation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Stehman Action Still Pending v. Ballantyne ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOTAL S.A. Still Involved in Exposure Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: H.B. Fuller Settles Two Suits for $93,000 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Ind. Cites $579M Settlement at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has $1.4B Liabilities at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Int'l. Has $936M NARCO Receivable ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Still Facing Travelers Suit in NY ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Has 51,952 Bendix Claims at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NARCO Records $1.67B for Bendix Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Liability Claims Still Pending v. CSK Auto ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Flips Ruling to Favor Nelson ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Xethanol May Pay for Cleanup at Spring Hope ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 299 Claims Still Pending v. Nevamar at Dec. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shell Chem. Indemnifies Kraton Polymers LLC ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Lawsuits Ongoing v. Kaanapali Land ASBESTOS LITIGATION: DFH, Premix Continue to Face Injury Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hazard Exposure Claims Still Pending v. CSX ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Upholds Judgment in Sandy Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Issues Split Ruling in Martin Action ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wirt County Worker Sues 50 Companies in Va. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW MP Calls for Baryulgil Issue Resolution ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aussie Teacher Loses Job for Whistleblowing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dempseys Sue Union Carbide et al. in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cottingley Rower's Death Linked to Asbestos ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Posen Fined $6,500 for Mishandling Pipes ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Inc. Cites $4.2M Net Adjustments ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 81,103 Claims Pending v. Crane at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court OKs $2.15M Verdict in Norris Lawsuit ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Gets Adverse Verdict in Baccus Claim ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Incurs $22.5M for Settlement, Defense ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Records $328M Asset at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Liability Drops to $928M at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Seeing $55M Asbestos Payments in '08 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Calif. Court Affirms Ruling to Favor Garzas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dana Seeks Dismissal of Claimants' Appeals ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hacker Couple Sue 3M Co., et al. in Texas ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Queensland Laborer Gets Payout from Hardie ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Links Welsh Worker's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EPA Examines Blue Star Vicinity for Hazards ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Utah Worker Sues 59 Companies in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Links Telford Mom's Death to Hazard ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wear Valley Scandal Investigation Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hardie's Restructuring Not to Affect Payout ASBESTOS ALERT: OSHA Imposes $1,500 Fine on ACM & Environmental ********* BIOVAIL CORP: Reaches Settlement in Investors' Lawsuit in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------- Biovail Corporation and the named individual defendants have entered into an agreement to settle the class-action shareholder litigation brought by the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan. On Sept. 21, 2005, the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan commenced a securities class action in Canada against Biovail and several of its officers. The action is purportedly prosecuted on behalf of all individuals other than the defendants who purchased Biovail's common stock between Feb. 7, 2003, and March 2, 2004. In a statement of claim, CCWIPP said it sustained losses of about CDN$481,000 from a series of stock purchases during the 13-month period because it relied on statements made by the company and four executives (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 27, 2005). Though none of the allegations have been proven in court, the suit named former chairman and chief executive officer Eugene Melnyk, senior vice-president Brian Crombie, and vice-presidents John Miszuk and Ken Howling as defendants. In its statement of claims, the pension plan revealed that it purchased a total of 231,000 shares of Biovail in six transactions on the Toronto Stock Exchange in August and October 2003 at prices ranging from CDN$55.09 in August to CDN$33.93 in October. It also sold 5,200 shares at CDN$31.42 a share in October 2003. Additionally, the plan said in its statement of claim that Biovail's stock price in 2003 and early 2004 depended on two drugs: hypertensive Cardizem LA, which was launched on April 2, 2003, and antidepressant Wellbutrin XL, which was launched in the third quarter of 2003. Generally, the claim seeks damages in excess of CAD$100,000,000 for misrepresentation and breaches of Section 134 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, and Sections 36 and 52 of the Competition Act, R.S. 1985, c. C-34, as well as class wide punitive and exemplary damages. The claim essentially relies on the same facts and allegations as those cited in the complaint. The claim was served on the company and named officers on Sept. 29, 2005. Under the terms of the settlement agreement in the Canadian Action, the parties have agreed that the sole source of compensation for the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action will be the settlement amount previously agreed to in the proposed settlement of the parallel U.S. securities class action, as announced by the Company on December 11, 2007. The settlement is subject to final approval by the Ontario Superior Court. The settlement agreement in the Canadian Action contains no admission of wrongdoing by Biovail or any of the named individual defendants, nor is the Company or any of the individual named defendants acknowledging any liability or wrongdoing by entering into the agreement. Biovail Corp. on the Net: http://www.biovail.com/. CAPITAL BLUEECROSS: June 2008 Hearing Set for "Love" Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida will hold a fairness hearing on June 13, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed settlement by certain defendants in the class action, "Rick Love, M.D., et al., v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al., Case No. 03-21296." The hearing will be held at the U.S. Courthouse, Courtroom IV, Tenth Floor, Federal Justice Building, 99 Northeast Fourth Street, in Miami, Florida. Any objections or exclusions to and from the settlement must be made on or before May 25, 2008, and May 30, 2008, respectively. Deadline for the submission of accomplished claim forms is on June 30, 2008. The defendants involved in the proposed settlement are: -- Capital BlueCross; -- Capital Advantage Insurance Co.; and -- Keystone Health Plan Central. The case is over payments to physicians, physicians groups, and physician organizations. The suit generally alleges that during a period of 8-1/2 years beginning in May 1999, Highmark and other insurers "engaged in a conspiracy to improperly deny, delay and/or reduce payment to physicians, physician groups and physician organizations by engaging in several types of allegedly improperly conduct," (Class Action Reporter, Dec. 28, 2007). The suit further alleges that the improper conduct violated the federal statute known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. For more details, contact: Highmark/Mountain State Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 3775 Portland, OR 97208-3775 Phone: (866) 486-1725 Web site: http://www.highmarkphysiciansettlement.com/ Harley S. Tropin, Esq. (hst@kttlaw.com) Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (305) 372-1800 or (305) 377-0662 Fax: (305) 372-3508 Archie Lamb, Esq. (Alamb@ArchieLamb.com) 2900 1st Avenue Birmingham, AL 35233 Phone: (205) 324-4644 or (800) 324-4425 Fax: (205) 324-4649 -- and -- Edith M. Kallas, Esq. (ekallas@whatleydrake.com) Whatley Drake & Kallas LLC 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, New York 10036 Phone: 212-447-7070 Fax: 212-447-7077 Web site: http://www.whatleydrake.com/ CENTENE CORP: Oral Argument in Appeal of Junked Ma. Suit Heard -------------------------------------------------------------- Oral argument related to an appeal of the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit against Centene Corp. was heard by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The consolidated class action dismissed by the Court was originally two separate class actions filed in July 2006 and August 2006, respectively. Both class actions were filed against the company and certain of its officers and directors. Both were filed on behalf of purchasers of the company common stock from June 21, 2006, through July 17, 2006. The suits allege that the company and certain of its officers and directors violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false statements prior to the announcement of the company's fiscal 2006-second quarter results. According to the suits, these allegedly materially false statements had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing the company's preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance. The suits were consolidated on Nov. 2, 2006, and an amended consolidated complaint was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in January 2007. The consolidated class action asserts the same allegations, on behalf of purchasers of the company's common stock from April 25, 2006, through July 17, 2006. According to suit, the allegedly materially false statements issued by the company had artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock, which subsequently dropped after the issuance of a press release announcing its preliminary fiscal 2006-second quarter earnings and revised guidance. At the company's request, the court dismissed the Consolidated Lawsuit on June 29, 2007. However, the plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal order, and briefing on the appeal has been completed. Oral argument on the appeal was held on April 18, 2008, according to the company's April 22, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Larry Elam, et al. v. Centene Corp., et al., Case No. 06-CV-1142," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Catherine D. Perry presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Jill S. Abrams, Esq. (jabrams@abbeyspanier.com) Abbey & Gardy 212 E. 39th Street New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-889-3700 - and - Joe D. Jacobson, Esq. (jacobson@stlouislaw.com) Green & Jacobson, P.C. 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: 314-862-6800 Fax: 314-862-1606 Representing the defendants are: Jason M. Bohm, Esq. (jbohm@sidley.com) Sidley & Austin 1 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: 312-853-0526 Fax: 312-853-7036 - and - Edwin L. Noel, Esq. (enoel@armstrongteasdale.com) Armstrong Teasdale, LLP One Metropolitan Square, Suite 2600 St. Louis, MO 63102-2740 Phone: 314-621-5070 Fax: 314-621-5065 CENTRO PROPERTIES: US Litigation Funders to Represent Investors --------------------------------------------------------------- Centro Centro Properties Group investors burned by the collapse of the property manager's share price have a unique choice of two class actions, with separate counsel and separate litigation funders -- a move that could shake up the existing funding arrangements for shareholder class actions in Australia. The US-based litigation funder Commonwealth Legal Funding, LLC is to team with law firm Slater & Gordon to represent investors who purchased CNP and CER stapled securities between August 7, 2007, and February 15, 2008. As with existing litigation funders, CLF indemnifies litigants who sign with it from adverse costs and meets any "security for costs" orders. But a significant CLF advantage is that it takes a lower percentage of the net amount recovered, from 15 to 30 per cent, compared with a top rate of 40 per cent for the other proposed Centro class action. James Higgins, Esq., of Slater & Gordon, says Centro investors now have a simple choice. "The CLF-Slater & Gordon class action offers cheaper participation rates, greater discounts to larger shareholders, and further discounts if certain recovery thresholds are met." "This is the first time two major funders have competed like this, and we believe the offer is the most competitive litigation funding agreement offered to date," Mr. Higgins adds. Slater & Gordon began contacting major institutional shareholders yesterday after being authorized by CLF at the weekend to release its litigation funding proposal. Litigation funding allows a stress-free attempt at recovering investment losses, with little work involved other than signing the funding agreement and providing trading data. Under Australian law, Slater & Gordon will be paid at court- approved hourly rates for the work it does, and will also recover its expenses if the case is successful. Litigation funders like CLF take a percentage of the net amount recovered, after expenses and legal fees, for advancing all expenses and accepting the risk of any adverse cost award. About Centro Properties Centro Properties Group -- http://www.centro.com.au/-- is a Melbourne, Australia-based company that comprises the operations of Centro Property Trust and its entities, which are engaged in property investment, property management, property development and funds management. The company operates in two business segments: property ownership business and services business. The Company derives income from retail property rentals of shopping center space to retailers across Australasia and the United States. It also derives income from its retail property investments in listed and unlisted entities. Its services business activities include incorporating funds management, property management and development and leasing. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2007, the Company acquired New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Heritage Property Investment Trust and Galileo Funds Management, as well as assumed full ownership of its United States management operations. CONTAINER SHIPPERS: Face Florida Lawsuit Over Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- A class-action antitrust complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida accuses: -- Horizon Lines, Inc. -- Horizon Line, LLC -- Sea Star Line, LLC -- Trailer Bridge, Inc. -- Crowley Maritime Corporation and -- Crowley Liner Services, Inc. of conspiring to fix prices for "domestic noncontiguous off shore trades services," CourtHouse News Service reports. Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services are merchandise shipping services, primarily by container and barge, in the coastwise (i.e. domestic) trade. These services are governed by the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the "Jones Act," 46 USC Section 100 et seq. Named plaintiff C C 1 Limited Partnership brings this action on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services between Puerto Rico and the United States, or its territories and possessions, directly from defendants, their predecessors or their controlled subsidiaries and affiliates from at least as early as April 21, 2004, or earlier. The plaintiff alleges that during the class period, the defendants conspired to allocate markets or engage in other anticompetitive conduct concerning Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services sold in the United States and its territories and possessions. Because of the defendants' unlawful conduct, the plaintiff and the other class members paid artificially inflated prices for Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services and, as a result, have suffered antitrust injury to their business or property. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy among themselves to allocate the market for or engage in other anticompetitive conduct concerning Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services sold in the United States, and its territories and possessions; (b) the identity of the participants in the conspiracy; (c) the duration of the conspiracy alleged in the complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by defendants and their co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy; (d) whether the alleged conspiracy violted Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (e) whether the conduct of defendants and their co- conspirators, as alleged in the complaint, caused injury to the business and property of plaintiff and other members of the class; (f) the effect of defendants' conspiracy on the prices of Domestic Noncontinguous Offshore Trades Services sold in the United States and its territories and possessions during the class period; and (g) the appropriate measure of damages sustained by plaintiff and other members of the class. This action is instituted under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 USC Sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages and costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees against defendants for the injuries sustained by plaintiff and the members of the class by reason of the violations, of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 USC Section 1. The suit is "C C 1 Limited Partnership et al v. Horizon Lines et al., Case No. 08-21125," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Representing the plaintiffs is: Michael A. Hanzman, Esq. Michael A. Hanzman PA 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 700 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Phone: (305) 529-9100 Fax: (305) 529-1612 DAN-DEE: Fakhimi & Associates Files Overtime Suit in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Law offices of Fakhimi & Associates, a litigation firm with experience in both defending and prosecuting class action lawsuits, have filed a representative Class Action lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Dan-Dee Transportation. According to the complaint, Dan-Dee Transportation has failed to pay its drivers who transport petroleum products throughout the state of California overtime wages. The lawsuit alleges that the truck drivers involved would regularly work more than 40 hours a week and were not compensated for the time they worked over 40 hours at a 1.5 rate as required by federal law. The lawsuit is in early stages of litigation. The suit is "Case Number: CV08 � 01920," filed with the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For more information, contact: Houman Fakhimi, Esq. Fakhimi & Associates 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 620 Santa Ana, California 92707 Phone: 888-529-2188 Web site: http://www.employmentlawteam.com DENDREON CORP: Provenge-Related Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman granted Dendreon Corp.'s request and dismissed the consolidated class action suit filed by shareholders, according to Seattle Post Intelligencer. Seattle Post recounts that in 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration declined to approve Dendreon's Provenge prostate cancer treatment. Specifically, on Feb. 17, 2007, the FDA inspected the Provenge manufacturing facility and found various "chemistry, manufacturing, and controls" violations. However, in a press release dated March 1, 2007, and in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission dated March 14, 2007, Dendreon did not mention the violations and instead said it anticipated a response from the FDA about the treatment's approval by May 15. On March 29, 2007, Dendreon said an FDA advisory committee had determined that Provenge was both safe and effective. That day, the company's stock jumped to $12.93 from $5.22 a share. Over the course of the following week, three Dendreon directors, including Chief Executive Officer Mitchell Gold, sold thousands of shares of the company's stock -- at prices as high as $15.32 a share. Mr. Gold alone sold 24.5% of his holdings. When, on May 9, 2007, Dendreon reported that the FDA had asked for additional information before approving Provenge, the company's stock tumbled to $6.33 a share. Shareholders then filed various lawsuits against the company and some of its directors alleging that they had concealed negative information about Provenge's chances of getting approved. The plaintiffs argued that Dendreon and certain directors had violated securities laws by omitting the material information and benefited by selling stock at an artificially high price. The plaintiffs charged that the company's stock would never have jumped so much if the company had reported on the results of the FDA's inspection of its facility. The various lawsuits were ultimately consolidated in October 2007, under the caption, "McGuire v. Dendreon Corp., et al.," and designated a lead plaintiff. In her recent ruling, Judge Pechman acknowledged that information about the inspections was material. However, she said that while the company may have omitted information, Dendreon did not mislead its investors since the company never said that Provenge would be approved, only that the FDA would take action on its application. Judge Pechman also said that the timing of the directors' stock sales was not "suspicious or unusual." Dendreon Corp. -- http://www.dendreon.com/-- is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutics that harness the immune system to fight cancer. DIEDRICH COFFEE: Settles Labor-Related Litigation in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Diedrich Coffee, Inc., reached a tentative settlement in a purported class action suit over allegations that it violated labor laws, according to the company's April 21, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 5, 2008. On Sept. 21, 2006, a purported class action complaint entitled, "Jason Reid; Kimberly Cornia, et al. v. Diedrich Coffee, et al." was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by two former employees, who worked in the positions of team member and shift manager. The case involves the issue of whether employees and former employees who worked in California stores during specified time periods were deprived of overtime pay, missed meal and rest breaks. In addition to unpaid overtime, this case seeks to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief on behalf of the current and former employees in the purported class. The parties have now agreed to a tentative settlement wherein the Company will pay up to a maximum of $900,000 to resolve all the outstanding matters in this law suit. This settlement is subject to court approval. As of March 5, 2008, the Company has estimated that the required amount to settle these claims is $693,000 and has recorded an accrual for this estimated amount. Diedrich Coffee, Inc. -- http://www.diedrich.com/-- is a specialty coffee roaster, wholesaler and retailer. The Company sells brewed, espresso-based and various blended beverages primarily made from its own fresh roasted premium coffee beans, as well as light food items, whole bean coffee and accessories, through Company operated and franchised retail locations. HAIN PURE: Workers May Get Back Wages as Part of Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Between 500 and 750 current and former employees of Hain Pure Protein Corp. of Bethel Township could receive back wages as part of a class-action settlement order entered by Judge Samuel Kline, Lebanon Daily News reports. The suit was filed by Shirley Ann Sweigert and Arnaldo Velez on behalf of themselves and other employees of Hain and its predecessor, College Hill Poultry Inc., who worked in the evisceration, cut-up, deboning, packing, quality-control and shipping departments of the poultry-processing plant along Route 22 between Oct. 16, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2006. The civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs through Unionville attorney Philip Downey, Esq., on Oct. 16, 2006, with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. The suit was later dismissed and moved to the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas on Sept. 20, 2007. The suit alleged that Hain and College Hill violated state and federal laws by failing to compensate employees for time spent waiting to obtain equipment; walking to and from work stations; preparing, donning, doffing and sanitizing safety equipment; sanitizing themselves; and other activities in connection with job functions before and after paid time and during unpaid breaks. The parties reached an agreement and filed a joint motion for approval with the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 7, 2008. Hain has operated the plant since July 1, 2005. College Hill had owned it until Jan. 24, 2004. During the interim period, CHP Acquisition LLC owned the plant, but CHP Acquisition was not a party to the suit or settlement. Anyone wishing to opt out of the settlement must do so by May 30, 2008. The period for filing objections to the settlement agreement is until June 13, 2008. A fairness hearing is scheduled before Judge Kline at 1:30 p.m. on June 27. The terms of the proposed settlement are: -- From June 1, 2005, through Dec. 31, 2006, employees included in the suit were compensated, on average, $10 per hour. The settlement provides an additional $6.25 per week. -- From Oct. 16, 2003, through Jan. 24, 2004, average compensation was $9 per hour. The settlement provides an additional $5.63 per week. -- From Oct. 16, 2002, through Oct. 16, 2003; average compensation was $9 per hour. The settlement provides an additional $4.50 per week. HOMELAND SECURITY: Mayors & Judges Join Texas Border Fence Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- A coalition of Texas mayors, county judges and economic development commissioners is joining a federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's efforts to build 153 miles of fencing along the Texas-Mexico border, the Washington Post reports. According to Washington Post, the Texas Border Coalition, whose membership collectively represents more than 6 million people who live along the state's southern border, cited the lack of consultation required under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2007 as the principle reason for the legal challenge. Texas Border Coalition Chairman Chad Foster said on April 15, 2008, that they do not have many options. Mr. Foster, also the mayor of Eagle Pass, said that they had been meeting with the DHS since 2006 and it "has repeatedly ignored TBC's pleas for cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local governments in order to foster smart, effective border security measures." Brownsville Herald recounts that five Rio Grande Valley residents filed the original lawsuit in February 2008, with the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, in response to lawsuits that the U.S. Department of Justice brought earlier this year seeking access to land where the border fence is planned. Washington Post, meanwhile, says that TBC is joining in a lawsuit brought last week against Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff by Cameron County landowner Eloisa Tamez. A federal judge has not yet certified the suit as a class action. This suit challenges the way Homeland Security officials have sought the rights to build a 15-foot-high fence, using lawsuits to gain access to survey land along the border. Eagle Pass was the first city to be sued for access, and a federal judge has ordered it to open its property to surveyors. The federal government has since brought separate lawsuits against more than 50 South Texas landowners. The Brownsville Herald report writes that the addition of the TBC as a plaintiff would seem to add considerable weight to the case against DHS. The coalition's joining in the lawsuit comes at a time when the fence is getting greater publicity -- a development the group's officials hope could slow construction of the border barrier. Brownsville Herald points out that local officials from El Paso to Brownsville have been vocal opponents of the fence since Congress first ordered it in 2006. They have lobbied heavily, arguing the fence would mean loss of land, adverse environmental effects and damage to the cultural and economic ties with Mexico. Meanwhile, Hidalgo County has worked out a deal for a combined levee-border wall that satisfies Homeland Security's mandate while partially addressing needed repairs to the county's deteriorated levee system. Hidalgo County Judge J.D. Salinas was among those who voted for the Texas Border Coalition to join the lawsuit. "It shouldn't affect our project at all," the judge said of the levee-wall initiative. "It's a separate issue with the private landowners." Peter Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, who is now representing the coalition, has filed a motion seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, which would expand it to all affected property owners along the U.S.-Mexico border. "(The suit) seeks uniformity in treatment for all property owners. That's not happening right now," Mr. Schey told Brownsville Herald. "How well they fair really depends on their resources. . . . It's a checkerboard situation right now -- 80 percent of the landowners don't have lawyers." Within the lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that lands owned by well connected property owners have been ignored by Homeland Security, including a Cameron County property owned by Dallas billionaire Ray L. Hunt. Mr. Hunt is chairman and chief executive officer of Hunt Realty Investments Inc., which owns Hunt Valley Development, according to public records on file with the Texas Secretary of State. Hunt Valley developed Sharyland Plantation in Mission and McAllen. No date has been set for U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's ruling on the motion seeking class-action status. According to Brownsville Herald, Homeland Security plans call for 370 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the U.S. border with Mexico by the end of 2008. As of March 17, 2008, construction was complete on 309 miles of fencing and barriers, mostly in New Mexico, Arizona and California, department spokeswoman Amy Kudwa told Brownsville Herald. "We are confident we'll have it finished by the end of the year," Ms. Kudwa said. JONES FINANCIAL: Settles Wage & Hour Suits in Penn. and Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Jones & Co., L.P., the principal operating subsidiary of The Jones Financial Cos., L.L.L.P., settled several wage and hour lawsuits that were filed against the company in California and Pennsylvania, according to the company's March 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Jones Financial has been sued in putative class actions that allege it has misclassified its financial advisors as exempt from overtime pay, improperly deducted certain business expenses and otherwise failed to comply with certain state and federal wage and hour laws. Those consolidated actions are: -- "Booher, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., (National class under federal statutes);" -- "Ellis, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Pennsylvania only class);" -- "Weaver, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (Ohio only class);" and -- "O'Brien, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. (New York only class)." The fifth lawsuit, "Thill, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P." is pending before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and involves a California only putative class. The California and Pennsylvania courts have entered coordination orders. No class has yet been certified and the Partnership has denied the claims. On Sept. 28, 2007, entered into two settlement agreements related to several wage and hour class actions, which were filed against Edward Jones in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The first Settlement Agreement resolves the federal and state claims of a California Class. The second Settlement Agreement resolves the federal and state claims of individuals in all other states. The Settlement Classes provided for by these agreements consist of all individuals who are or were employed by Edward Jones in the position of Financial Advisor, a/k/a Investment Representative and salaried or commissioned Financial Advisor Trainee, in the United States during the relevant class periods, including any limited partners who hold such positions, and all current and former general partners who were in such positions during the class periods for the time period before they became general partners. On Sept. 28, 2007, the parties filed formal settlement stipulations with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Subsequently, on Feb. 1, 2008, the court granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval. The final approval hearing in that case is set for June 2008. On December 17, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania gave the parties permission to proceed with a settlement of the federal claims, but dismissed the state claims without prejudice, ruling in part that the state and federal claims could not proceed in the same action. Subsequent to dismissal of the state law claims, a new action was filed in Ohio state court once again asserting state law claims. On Feb. 26, 2008, Edward Jones removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Thereafter, counsel for the plaintiffs who had been proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed two additional lawsuits in the Northern District of Ohio, one of which asserts primarily federal law claims and one of which asserts primarily state law claims, and the parties voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit pending with the Pennsylvania court. Despite the new filings, the two Settlement Agreements remain in place. Edward Jones agreed to pay $21.0 million to settle the claims of the California Class and up to a maximum of $19.0 million to settle claims of the National Class. The California Fund, including all interest thereon, is a common fund that is not the separate property of Edward Jones and will not revert to Edward Jones, from which all claims of the California Class, as well as attorney's fees, litigation expenses, enhancements and claims administration fees and costs associated with the California Class will be paid. The National Class Fund will be made on a claims-made basis with unclaimed funds to remain the property of Edward Jones. The National Class Fund will also include attorney's fees, litigation expenses, enhancements, administrative costs, and any other fees or costs associated with the settlement. The $21 million for the California Fund was transferred to an escrow account in February 2008 and was charged against previously established legal expense accruals. The cost of the National Class settlement will also be charged against previously established expense accruals. Des Peres, Mo-based The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. -- http://www.edwardjones.com-- is engaged in long-term investing. The Company offers its customers low-risk investments such as certificates of deposit; government, municipal and corporate bonds; mutual funds; common stocks of companies with histories of solid growth and sound management; retirement plans and IRAs (individual retirement accounts), and life insurance products, including annuities. It also provides checking, loans and savings services; college savings programs; estate planning options; fixed-income investments, and unit investment trusts. The Company has more than 8,500 offices in the U.S., more than 500 offices in Canada and more than 100 offices in the U.K. KINDER MORGAN: September 2008 Trial Scheduled for "Heimann" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- A September 2008 trial is slated a class action against Kinder Morgan CO2 Co., captioned, "J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD, individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P., Case No. 04-26-CL," which was filed with the Eight Judicial District Court, Union County New Mexico. The suit was filed by J. Casper Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro Ltd., individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit, New Mexico (Class Action Reporter, Sept. 28, 2007). It involves a purported class action against Kinder Morgan CO2 alleging that it has failed to pay the full royalty and overriding royalty on the true and proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide produced from the Bravo Dome Unit in the period beginning Jan. 1, 2000. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive fraud, breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of the implied covenant to market, and claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief. The purported class is comprised of current and former owners, during the period January 2000 to the present, who have private property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas leases held by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of Public Lands, the United States of America, and those private royalty interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo Dome Unit. The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class previously certified as a class action by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter "Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012." They allege that Kinder Morgan CO2's method of paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement of the Feerer Class Action. Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a motion to compel arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action settlement agreement, which motion was denied. Kinder Morgan CO2 appealed this decision to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the trial court. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted further review in October 2006, and after hearing oral argument, the New Mexico Supreme Court quashed its prior order granting review. In August 2007, Kinder Morgan CO2 filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking further review. The Petition was denied in December 2007. The case is now proceeding in the trial court as a certified class action and the case is set for trial in September 2008, according to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Kinder Morgan Management, LLC -- http://www.kindermorgan.com-- is a limited partner in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and manages and controls its business and affairs pursuant to a delegation of control agreement. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned approximately 29.2% of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s limited partner interests. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. is the owner and operator of an independent refined petroleum products pipeline system in the U.S. The Company's voting shares are owned by Kinder Morgan, G.P., Inc., of which Knight Inc. owns all the outstanding common equity. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is the general partner of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in North America, operating, either for itself or on behalf of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. On April 30, 2007, the Company acquired the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc. KINDER MORGAN: AK Supreme Court Mandates Dismissal of "Johnson" --------------------------------------------------------------- The Arkansas Supreme Court mandated the Circuit Court for Miller County, Arkansas to dismiss in its entirety the class action captioned "Weldon Johnson and Guy Sparks, et al. v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et al., No. 04-327-2," which names Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and several other firms, including its subsidiaries, as defendants. The suit was filed on Oct. 8, 2004. The other defendants in the suit aside from Kinder Morgan Energy are: -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.; -- Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.; -- KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.; -- Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.; -- Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.; -- Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC; -- Tejas Gas, LLC; -- Midcon Corp.; and -- CenterPoint Energy, Inc. The complaint was served on the Kinder Morgan defendants on Oct. 21, 2004. It purports to bring a class action on behalf of those who purchased natural gas from the defendants from Oct. 1, 1994, to the date of class certification. The suit alleges that CenterPoint by and through its affiliates has artificially inflated the price charged to residential consumers for natural gas that it allegedly purchased from the non-CenterPoint defendants. The complaint further alleges that in exchange for CenterPoint's purchase of such natural gas at above market prices, the non- CenterPoint defendants sell natural gas to CenterPoint's non- regulated affiliates at prices substantially below market, which in turn sells such natural gas to commercial and industrial consumers and gas marketers at market price. The complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants, and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. On June 8, 2007, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over any Arkansas plaintiffs' claims that consumers were overcharged for gas in Arkansas and mandated that any such claims be dismissed from this lawsuit. On Feb. 14, 2008, the Arkansas Supreme Court clarified its previously issued order and mandated that the trial court dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, according to Kinder Morgan Management, LLC's Feb. 28, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Kinder Morgan Management, LLC -- http://www.kindermorgan.com/-- is a limited partner in Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., and manages and controls its business and affairs pursuant to a delegation of control agreement. As of Dec. 31, 2007, the Company owned approximately 29.2% of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.'s limited partner interests. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. is the owner and operator of an independent refined petroleum products pipeline system in the U.S. The Company's voting shares are owned by Kinder Morgan, G.P., Inc., of which Knight Inc. owns all the outstanding common equity. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. is the general partner of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan, Inc., is an energy transportation and storage company in North America, operating, either for itself or on behalf of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. On April 30, 2007, the Company acquired the Trans Mountain pipeline system from Knight Inc. LENDING TREE: Faces Invasion of Privacy Lawsuit in Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Lending Tree, LLC, is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging its employees gave "a handful of mortgage lenders" confidential passwords by which the lenders illegally gained access to consumers' credit reports and personal and financial information, including Social Security numbers, income and employment information, CourtHouse News Service reports. Named plaintiff Eugene Miller, Jr., brings this action on behalf of all persons throughout the United States whose consumer credit reports, personal information, and financial information were intentionally and illegally distributed by a representatives and agents of the Defendant in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et. seq. because the defendant deliberately and recklessly did not maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of such information for the permissible purposes outlined under FCRA. The defendant's actions constitute violations of FCRA, as well as common law negligence, breach of contract, and invasion of privacy. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether the defendant's employees sold, disseminated or otherwise provided access to plaintiff's and the class members' consumer reports, personal information, and financial information within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d)(1) without plaintiff's and the class members' authorization; (b) whether the defendant or its agents had a permissible purpose under FCRA to sell, disseminate or otherwise provide access to plaintiff's and the class members' consumer reports, personal information, and financial information within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(d)(1); (c) whether the defendant is a consumer reporting agency as defined by 15 U.S.C. Section 1681a(f); (d) whether the defendant violated the FCRA by failing to properly maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of consumer reports, personal information and financial information to the permissible purposes outlined under FCRA; (e) whether the defendant violated FCRA when it allowed its employees access to plaintiff and the class members' consumer reports, personal information, and financial information; (f) whether the defendant violated FCRA when its employee sold, disseminated or otherwise provided access to consumer reports, personal information and financial information to unauthorized third parties in violation of FCRA; (g) whether the defendant's conduct was intentional; (h) whether the defendant's conduct was reckless; (i) whether the defendant was negligent in collecting and storing personal and financial information of its clients; (j) whether the defendant took reasonable steps and measures to safeguard the personal and financial information of its clients; (k) whether the defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and the class to protect the personal and financial information of its clients; (l) whether the defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in storing its clients' personal and financial information by storing that information on its computer systems in their physical possession; (m) whether the defendant breached a duty by failing to keep plaintiff's and the class members' personal and financial information secure; (n) whether the defendant was negligent in failing to keep plaintiff's and the class members' personal and financial information secure; (o) whether the plaintiff and the class members sustained damages, and if so, what is the proper measure of those damages; and (p) whether statutory damages are proper in this matter. The plaintiff asks the court to enter an order: -- certifying this matter as a class action with plaintiff as class representative, and designating plaintiff's counsel as class counsel; -- finding that the defendant purposefully and recklessly violated the FCRA due to its failure to maintain reasonable procedures designed to limit the furnishing of reports to the permissible purposes outlined under FCRA; -- finding that the defendant is responsible for its employees' actions as an agent of the Defendant; -- requiring the defendant to pay actual damages sustained or statutory damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; -- enjoining the defendant from actions which place consumers at a risk of future security breaches; -- requiring the defendant to pay the plaintiff and class reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and -- providing for the other legal and equitable relief as justice requires. The suit is "Eugene Miller, Jr., et al. v. Lending Tree, LLC, Case 1:07-cv-99999," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Representing the plaintiffs are: Larry D. Drury, Esq. James R. Rowe, Esq. Larry D. Drury, Ltd. 205 W. Randolph, Suite 1430 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Phone: 312.346.7950 MICHAELS STORES: Consolidated TX Securities Fraud Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with prejudice all of the lead plaintiff's claims in a consolidated class action against Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors. Initially, on Sept. 6, 2006, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund filed a putative class action on behalf of itself and former holders of Michaels Common Stock. The lawsuit named Michaels Stores and all of its then-current directors as defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts in Michaels Stores' annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005 and 2006, including, among other things: -- that Michaels' reported financial results inflated its reported earnings by not properly recording stock-based compensation expense relating to the granting of stock options; -- that problems with Michaels' internal controls prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; and -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in the granting of backdated stock options. The plaintiff asserted claims against all of the defendants of violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and violations of Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the defendants and equitable or injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option grants. Lead Plaintiff Named, Consolidated Complaint Filed By an order dated Dec. 8, 2006, MLAF was named the lead plaintiff in this action. On Nov. 27, 2006, Albert Hulliung and James and Christine Ziolkowski (who had previously filed two separate stockholder derivative actions, which were consolidated on Nov. 7, 2006) filed a consolidated class action complaint against Michaels and certain of its former officers and directors on behalf of a class of other former shareholders. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 1993 through 2006, including, among other things, failing to disclose Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating practices and the fact that Michaels and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of those practices. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the proxy statements failed to disclose: -- that Michaels had problems with its internal controls that prevented it from issuing accurate financial reports and projections; -- that because of improperly recorded stock-based compensation expenses, Michaels' reported financial results violated GAAP; -- that Michaels' public disclosures presented an inflated view of Michaels' earnings by understating Michaels' past compensation expenses; -- that Michaels faced substantial liability for its past and ongoing backdating practices; and -- that Michaels' directors had received and acquiesced in the granting of backdated stock options. The plaintiffs asserted claims against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and sought, among other relief, an indeterminate amount of damages from the defendants, as well as an award of attorneys fees and costs. Consolidation of Lawsuits By an order dated Feb. 1, 2007, the MLAF action was consolidated with the Hulliung/Ziolkowski action (Class Action Reporter, April 9, 2008). In that action, on May 21, 2007, the MLAF filed a motion for leave to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint. As proposed, the Amended Complaint names Michaels and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts in Michaels' annual proxy statements for 2004, 2005, and 2006, including, among others, failing to disclose: -- Michaels' and the defendants' alleged option backdating practices -- information regarding transactions and holdings of Michaels Common Stock by certain trusts owned by or for the benefit of two of Michaels' former officers and directors and their family members; and -- that Michaels and the defendants had reported false financial statements as a result of those practices. Furthermore, the Amended Complaint makes allegations regarding the Company's financial restatement of periods prior to 2006, as well as the recently completed merger with entities affiliated with Bain Capital Partners LLC, and The Blackstone Group. In the Amended Complaint, the lead plaintiff asserts claims against all defendants for violations of Section 14(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief: -- an indeterminate amount of damages, -- pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, -- an award of attorneys fees and costs, and -- equitable or injunctive relief, including the rescission of stock option grants. On July 3, 2007, the court granted the motion of the lead plaintiff, Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, for leave to file the proposed amended complaint. On July 5, 2007, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which names Michaels and certain of its current and former officers and directors as defendants. Dismissal of Consolidated Complaint On April 18, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with prejudice all of the lead plaintiff's claims in a consolidated class action against Michaels Stores, Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors. In its order, the court ruled that (1) claims could not stand against those defendants who had left Michaels years before the relevant proxies were issued, (2) allegedly inaccurate statements in Form 10-Ks were not actionable because the proxy statements did not specifically incorporate those Form 10-Ks by reference, and (3) the lead plaintiff failed to plead that the proxy statements were an "essential link" in any purported loss suffered by the class. The Court stated, "with these claims for proxy fraud, plaintiffs essentially attempt to do through the backdoor what they are barred from doing through the front." The suit is "Hulliung v. Bolen et al., Case No. 3:06-cv-01083," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Judge David C. Godbey presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: William B. Federman, Esq. (wfederman@aol.com) Federman & Sherwood 10205 N Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Phone: 405/235-1560 Fax: 405/239-2112 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Provost Umphrey Law Firm 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Phone: 214/744-3000 Fax: 214/744-3015 e-mail: Provost_Dallas@yahoo.com Representing the defendants are: Patricia J. Villareal, Esq. (pjvillareal@jonesday.com) Jones Day PO Box 660623, 2727 N Harwood St. Dallas, TX 75266-0623 Phone: 214/969-2973 Fax: 214/969-5100 - and - Michael L. Smith, Esq. (mls@bickelbrewer.com) Bickel & Brewer 1717 Main St., Suite 4800 Dallas, TX 75201 Phone: 214/653-4034 Fax: 214/653-1015 NALGE NUNC: Faces California Suit Over "Lexan" Plastic Bottles -------------------------------------------------------------- Nalge Nunc International Corporation is facing a class-action complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging it makes polycarbonate "Lexan" plastic bottles, under "Nalgene" and other brands, that leak toxic Bisphenol A into contents, exposing consumers to miscarriages and breast cancer, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the complaint, NNIC manufactures, distributes, advertises, labels and sells reusable beverage bottles widely used by consumers. These come in a variety of types, including, but not limited to, the NALGENE "Wide-Mouth" and "Narrow-Mouth Bottles" made of polycarbonate plastic. Named plaintiff Lani FeliX-Lozano brings this action Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of all other consumers who purchased the defendant's Bottles during the Class Period, which is defined as the four years preceding the filing date of this Complaint. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale of the Bottles were deceptive, unlawful or unfair in any respect, thereby violating California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code � 17200 et seq.; (b) whether defendant's practices in connection with the marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale of the Bottles were deceptive or likely to deceive consumers in any respect, thereby violating California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 et seq.; (c) whether defendant fraudulently concealed risks associated with use of the Bottles in its marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale of the Bottles: (d) whether defendant breached implied warranties in its sale of the Bottles, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and members of the Class and subclasses; (e) whether defendant breached California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code �1750 et seq., in its marketing, advertisement, promotion, labeling and sale of the Bottles, thereby causing harm to plaintiff and class members; and (f) whether defendant's conduct as set forth above injured consumers and if so, the extent of the injury. The plaintiff asks the court for: -- an order certifying that the action may be maintained as a class action. -- an award of equitable relief pursuant as follows: (a) enjoining defendant from continuing to engage, use, or employ any practices found to violate the UCL, FAL and CLRA as set forth herein; and (b) restoring to plaintiff and class/subclass members all monies that may have been acquired by defendant as a result of such practices. -- an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5. -- actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the Third and Fourth Causes of Action; -- punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial for the for the Third Cause of Action; -- an award of costs and any other award the Court might deem appropriate; and -- pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. The suit is "Lani Felix-Lozano et al. v. Nalge Nunc International, Corp.," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Representing the plaintiff are: Howard M. Rubinstein, Esq. (howardr@pdq.net) Attorney at Law 914 Waters Avenue, Suite 20 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (832) 715-2788 - and - Harold M. Hewell, Esq. (hmhewell@hewell-lawfirm.com) Hewell Law Firm, APC 402 W. Broadway, Fourth Floor San Diego, California 92128 Phone: (619) 235-6854 Fax: (619)235-9122 NESTOR TRAFFIC: Earns Favorable Ruling in OH Speed Program Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a consolidated class action suit against Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc. -- a wholly owned subsidiary of Nestor, Inc. -- that the City of Akron does have power under home rule to enact civil penalties for violating a traffic signal light and speeding, according to the company's April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The court accepted the case for determination of the question in relation to two cases naming Nestor Traffic, and the City of Akron, as defendants (Class Action Reporter, Nov. 13, 2007). Initially, two purported class actions were filed that seek damages and injunction against the city's speed program. These cases, which have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, are: 1. "Mendenhall v. City of Akron, et al., Case No. 5:06-cv- 00139-DDD;" and 2. "Sipe, et al. v. Nestor Traffic Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:06-cv-00154-DDD." Both actions were originally filed with the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, but were later removed to federal court. Mendenhall Litigation In "Mendenhall," which was filed on Jan. 19, 2006, the plaintiff brought a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against city of Akron and all of its city council members in their official capacity and the company, alleging federal and state constitutional violations. On Feb. 17, 2006, the defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiff, which was completed on Oct. 20, 2006. The plaintiff amended her complaint on Aug. 8, 2006, to include equal protection violations among her federal constitutional claims. The company filed an answer to that amended complaint on Aug. 18, 2006. Sipe Litigation In "Sipe," which was filed on Jan. 23, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a complaint and class action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and for a money judgment in an unspecified amount against the company, various past and present employees of the company and the city of Akron and alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, common plan to commit fraud, violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, nuisance, conversion, invasion of privacy, negligence, and federal constitutional violation. On Feb. 17, 2006, the company and the other defendants filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on March 24, 2006. On May 19, 2006, the court ruled that the Akron ordinance permitting photo enforcement of speeding laws was a proper exercise of municipal power under the Ohio Constitution, but deferred ruling on the alleged due process violations pending an opportunity for discovery by the plaintiffs, which was completed on Oct. 20, 2006. Questions Before Ohio Supreme Court With respect to both of the cases, final resolution can be determined only after disposition of the Court's certified question to the Ohio Supreme Court, namely: "Whether a municipality has the power under home rule to enact civil penalties for the offense of violating a traffic signal light or for the offense of speeding, both of which are criminal offenses under the Ohio Revised Code." On Feb. 7, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case for determination of the question presented. The Ohio Supreme Court has received briefs from all parties, and oral arguments were heard on Sept. 18, 2007. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the municipality does have power under home rule to enact civil penalties for violating a traffic signal light and speeding. This ruling will permit the federal court to resolve any remaining Constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs, including issues related to due process. For more details, contact: Jacquenette Geggus Corgan, Esq.(j.corgan@justice.com) [Mendenhall Plaintiff] Ste. 201, 190 North Union Street Akron, OH 44304 Phone: 330-535-8160 Fax: 330-762-9743 Antoni Dalayanis, Esq. [Sipe Plaintiff] 5th Floor, 12 East Exchange Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-315-1060 Fax: 800-787-4089 e-mail: lawyer@bright.net - and - Michael J. Defibaugh (defibmi@ci.akron.oh.us) [Mendenhall & Sipe Defendant] City of Akron, Law Department Ste. 202, 161 South High Street Akron, OH 44308 Phone: 330-375-2030 Fax: 330-375-2041 NETFLIX INC: Lawyers Awarded $2MM in Consumer Fraud Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The California Court of Appeal, First District, has awarded $2 million in attorneys fees to Gutride Safier -- a San Francisco class action law firm -- for its representation of Netflix Inc. in the matter "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884," Leigh Jones of The National Law Journal reports. On Sept. 23, 2004, Frank Chavez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed the class action against the company in the California Superior Court for City and County of San Francisco. The Company entered into an amended settlement under which Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005, and were a member on Oct. 19, 2005, are eligible to receive a free one-month upgrade in service level and Netflix subscribers who were enrolled in a paid membership before Jan. 15, 2005, and were not a member on Oct. 19, 2005, are eligible to receive a free one-month Netflix membership of either the 1, 2 or 3 DVDs at-a-time unlimited program. The Court issued final judgment on the settlement on July 28, 2006, awarding plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $2.1 million. In granting the fee award, the appeals court determined that the lower court properly calculated the attorney fees, which were about 22% of the settlement, valued at $7.3 million. The suit is "Frank Chavez v. Netflix, Inc., A Foreign Corp. et al., Case No. CGC-04-434884." Representing the plaintiffs is: Adam Gutride Law Offices 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 Phone: (415) 271-6469 Representing the company is: Keith Eggleton, Esq. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Phone: (650) 493-9300 Fort more details, visit http://www.netflix.com/settlementor http://netflixsettlementsucks.com/ OORAH CATSKILL: Gilboa Residents Suing "Unneighborly" Camp ---------------------------------------------------------- A group of Gilboa residents is suing Oorah Catskill Retreat for not being a good neighbor, Mark Repasky writes for Capital News 9. The residents claim that the summer camp is trying to push them out of their homes and there is nothing the village or county can do, Mr. Repasky explains. Dave Lewis, one of the complainants, related to Capital News that 11 years ago, he bought his hilltop home, where he planned to spend his time in peace and quite. However, since 2006 when Oorah Catskill bought the camp that had been there for 50 years, Mr. Lewis has faced loudspeakers blasting and stadium lights shining right into his kitchen window at all hours of the day and night. Another resident, Joe Kraus, said that there are "97 of those high intensity lights." Homeowners Barbra and Joseph Kraus said that they would know when the noise starts "because it's so loud the siding on the house vibrates." According to Mr. Repasky, the owners of Oorah Catskill have already heard complaints against the camp. In June 2007, the county Health Department shut the camp down for two days, and in July immigration authorities arrested 31 undocumented workers. Ms. Kraus said that the value of their property "has been destroyed." The report says that Mr. Lewis and his neighbors have tried going to the camp to no avail. They have also tried going to the Village of Gilboa and Schoharie County, but said there is not much they can do there because there is no ordinance on the books. Mr. Kraus told Capital News, "Gilboa still functions like it's in the 17th century. We have no laws that protect the people from anything." Now, the residents are filing a $10-million class action lawsuit to see if it gets any results. According to Capital News, Oorah Catskill is out of reach. OSB LITIGATION: May 29 Hearing Set for $2.35M OSB Antitrust Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing on May 29, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. for the proposed settlements by Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., Georgia- Pacific LLC -- f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp. -- and Huber (J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC) totaling $2,350,000 in the matter, "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06- cv-00826-PD." The hearing will be held before Judge Paul S. Diamond at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 601 Marks St., in Philadelphia, PA 19106. Under the settlement, Ainsworth agreed to pay $1,300,000, Georgia-Pacific agreed to Pay $1,200,000, and Huber agreed to pay $850,000 into a settlement fund. Case Background As reported in the April 10, 2008 edition of the Class Action Reporter, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania certified a class in the lawsuit composed of consumer end-users of Oriented Strand Board who indirectly purchased new OSB manufactured and sold by one or more of the following manufacturers in the U.S. from June 1, 2002 through Feb. 24, 2006: -- Louisiana-Pacific Corp., -- Weyerhaeuser Co., -- Georgia-Pacific LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corp., -- Potlatch Corp., -- Ainsworth Lumber Co. Ltd., -- Norbord Industries, Inc., -- Tolko Industries, Inc., and -- J.M. Huber Corp. and Huber Engineered Woods LLC Initially, several complaints were brought on behalf of direct purchasers of OSB during the period from June 1, 2002, through the present, and allege violations of the antitrust laws by defendants' actions in reducing the available supply of OSB and fixing the price at which it was sold. The cases were later consolidated and a consolidated amended class action complaint was filed on March 31, 2006. Discovery of millions of pages of documents and nearly 100 depositions were later completed. The Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint and for judgment on the pleadings in August 2007 (Class Action Reporter, Oct. 24, 2007). For more details, contact: OSB Class Notice Request c/o The Notice Company P.O. Box 778 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: 1-800-401-0819 e-mail: http://www.OSBnotice.com The suit is "In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:06-cv- 00826-PD," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Paul S. Diamond presiding. Representing the defendants are: William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll 1100 New York Avenue N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 - and Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Esq. (jcorrigan@srk-law.com) Spector Roseman and Kodroff 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-496-0300 Representing the company are: Barack S. Echols, Esq. (bechols@kirkland.com) James Howard Mutchnik, Esq. (jmutchnik@kirkland.com) James H. Schink, Esq. (kschink@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 200 East Randolph Drive, Suite 7500 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-3144 and 312-861-2350 - and - Sherry A. Swirsky, Esq. (sswirsky@schnader.com) Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, LLP 1600 Market St., Ste. 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-751-2000 Fax: 215-972-7475 PACIFIC PREMIER: Still Faces SMLA Violations Suit in Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., and Pacific Premier Bank continues to face a purported class action suit filed filed with the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. The suit, "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al.," was filed in February 2004. It is alleging various violations of Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act by charging and receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination fees, interest rates, and other charges. The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected charges and interest plus the right to rescind the mortgage loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges and interest against the principal amounts due on the loans. The trial court denied the Bank's motion for dismissal due to limitations without comment in 2005 and the company's motion to dismiss due to federal preemption of state law because the Bank is a federal savings bank was denied in August 2006. The Bank has answered the plaintiffs' complaint and the parties have exchanged and answered initial discovery requests. The company reported no development in the matter in its April 15, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 15, 2008. Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.net/home/-- serves as the holding company for Pacific Premier Bank, which provides banking services within its targeted markets in Southern California businesses. PACIFIC STEEL: Faces CA Suit Over Alleged Airborne Contamination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Steel Casting Co. is facing a class-action complaint filed April 22 in and for the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda accusing it of polluting the air with magnesium, nickel, particulates and other toxins from its three plants in Berkeley, CourtHouse News Service reports. According to the complaint, for 75 years, PSC has been releasing toxic fumes and hazardous metals, magnesium, nickel and particulate matter on its downwind neighbors in the homes surrounding the three industrial plants off Second Street in Berkeley, California. As a proximate result of defendants' acts of omission and commission arising from the negligent operation of PSC, plaintiffs have endured inconvenience, nuisance, trespass upon their owned or leased property, battery unto their persons, violation of their right to quiet enjoyment of their homes, and such ordinary emotional distress as is reasonably foreseeable from suffering defendants' acts and omissions. Named plaintiff Rosie Lee Evans brings this action on behalf of all persons proximately damaged by defendants' conduct of polluting the downwind neighborhood with airborne contamination including particulate matter, manganese, nickel, noxious fumes and odors generating from PSC. Plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants committed and participated in the acts alleged; (b) whether defendants breached duties of care; (c) whether defendants acted recklessly and willfully; (d) whether defendants committed violations of law; (e) whether defendants' conduct constitutes negligence; (f) whether defendants' conduct constitutes battery; (g) whether defendants' conduct constitutes trespass; (h) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a public nuisance; (i) whether defendants' conduct constitutes private nuisance; (j) whether defendants' conduct constitutes intentional misrepresentation; (k) whether defendants' conduct constitutes a violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.; (l) whether plaintiffs are entitled to damages for nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of legal rights, emotional distress, among other damages and, if so, what is the appropriate means of calculating such monetary damages; and (m) what is the liability of defendants, and each of them, for causing these damages suffered by all plaintiffs as a proximate result of plaintiffs' exposure to the harmful or offensive emissions from PSC. Plaintiff ask the court for: -- an order certifying the proposed class; -- compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial or other expedited alternative procedures adopted by the court; -- punitive and exemplary damages in an amount appropriate and sufficient to punish defendants, and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct in the future; -- an order requiring defendants to implement appropriate mitigation procedures, staffing and equipment upgrades to restore and preserve the quality of the air in the residential neighborhood downwind of PSC; -- penalties, disgorged profits and attorneys' fees pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.; -- costs of removal of any harmful substances from plaintiffs' real and personal property and all other related remedial action; -- interest on the amount of any economic losses, at the prevailing legal rate; -- reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to California Civil Code 1021.5; and -- for costs of suit and any and all such other relief as the court deems just and proper. The suit is "Rosie Lee Evans et al. v. Pacific Steel Casting Company, Case No. RG08-383068," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda. Representing the plaintiffs is: Timothy P. Rumberger, Esq. (tim@rumbergerlaw.com) Law Offices of Timothy P. Rumberger 2161 Shattuck Avenue, Suite 200 Berkeley, California 94704-1313 Phone: (510) 841-5500 Fax: (510) 841-5501 R.J. REYNOLDS: Second Circuit Considers Appeal in "Schwab" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has yet to issue a ruling with regards to an appeal of an earlier court order certifying a class in the matter, "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG." The lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on May 11, 2004, and names as defendants R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Reynolds American, Inc., and several other tobacco manufacturers. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and treble damages against each defendant, jointly and severally, for all losses and damages suffered as a result of the defendants' alleged wrong-doings complained of, including pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements of the action, including attorneys' fees and experts' fees and costs. They also seek temporary, preliminary and permanent equitable and injunctive relief, including enjoining future wrong- doing, rescission, disgorgement of the defendants' ill-gotten funds, and attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust upon or otherwise restricting the proceeds of defendants' ill-gotten funds. The plaintiffs brought the case pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, challenging the practices of the defendants in connection with the manufacturing, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of cigarettes that were labeled as "lights" or "light." They have estimated damages to the class to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Any damages awarded to the plaintiffs based on defendants violation of the RICO statute would be trebled. On Sept. 25, 2006, the court issued its decision, among other things, granting class certification. On Nov. 16, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted the defendants' motions to stay the district court proceedings and for review of the class certification ruling. Oral argument occurred on July 10, 2007. A decision in the matter is pending, according to Reynolds American, Inc.'s Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "[Schwab] McLaughlin v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01945-JBW-SMG," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Jack B. Weinstein presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. (lnussbaum@kaplanfox.com) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-687-1980 Fax: 212-687-1980 William P. Butterfield, Esq. (wbutterfield@cmht.com) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Ave. NW, Ste. 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-408-4600 Fax: 202-408-4699 Representing the defendants are: Mark A. Belasic, Esq. (mabelasic@jonesday.com) Jones Day 901 Lakeside Avenue, North Point Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 586-3939 Fax: 216-579-0212 - and - Peter A. Bellacosa, Esq. (peter_bellacosa@ny.kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis Citigroup Center 153 East 53rd Street New York, NY 10022-4675 Phone: (212) 446-4800 Fax: (212) 446-4900 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Mo. Suits Over "Light Cigarettes" Reassigned --------------------------------------------------------------- Two purported class actions over "light cigarettes" that were filed in Missouri against entities affiliated with Reynolds American, Inc., and several other manufacturers have been reassigned to a single general division, according to the company's Feb. 27, 2008 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. Reynolds American was incorporated as a holding company in the state of North Carolina on Jan. 5, 2004, and its common stock is listed on the NYSE under the symbol RAI. On July 30, 2004, RAI combined the U.S. assets, liabilities and operations of Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., formerly known as Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., and referred to as B&W, an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco p.l.c., referred to as BAT, with R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a wholly owned operating subsidiary of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of RAI. These July 30, 2004, transactions generally are referred to as the B&W business combination. As a result of the B&W business combination, B&W owns approximately 42% of RAIs outstanding common stock, and previous RJR stockholders exchanged their shares of RJR common stock for approximately 58% of RAIs outstanding common stock. Collora Litigation The suit "Collora v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.," was filed with the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri in May 2000. On Dec. 31, 2003, a judge certified a class defined as "all persons who purchased Defendants' Camel Lights, Camel Special lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes in Missouri for personal consumption between the first date the Defendants placed their Camel Lights, Camel Special Lights, Salem Lights and Winston Lights cigarettes into the stream of commerce through the date of this Order." The plaintiffs seek mandatory injunctive relief sufficient to inform consumers of, among other things, the fact that "light" smoke is actually more mutagenic than regular tobacco smoke. The plaintiffs claim that while promoting "low" tar and nicotine deliveries, the defendants designed light cigarettes to deliver higher levels of tar and nicotine than could be measured by the standard testing apparatus, therefore achieving support for the claim that the cigarettes were "light" and that they contained "low tar and nicotine." On Dec. 22, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reassign "Collora" to a single general division. On April 9, 2007, the Missouri Circuit Court granted the plaintiffs' motion. On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs motion to reassign Collora and the following cases to a single general division: "Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.," and "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp." Black Litigation In "Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.," a case filed in November 2000 in Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Missouri, B&W removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Sept. 23, 2005. On Oct. 25, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand, which was granted on March 17, 2006. The plaintiffs motion for class certification is scheduled to be heard on April 16, 2008. As discussed above, this case and certain other cases have been reassigned to a single general division. Reynolds American, Inc. -- http://www.reynoldsamerican.com/-- is a holding company. It has two business segments: RJR Tobacco and Conwood. RAI's wholly owned subsidiaries include R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc.; Lane, Limited; R.J. Reynolds Global Products, Inc.; and Conwood Co., LLC, Conwood Sales Co., LLC; Scott Tobacco LLC; and Rosswil LLC, which are collectively referred to as the Conwood companies. The RJR Tobacco segment consists of the primary operations of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. The Conwood segment consists of the Conwood companies and Lane. RAI's wholly owned operating subsidiaries Santa Fe and GPI, among others, are included in All Other. SCORES HOLDING: Discovery is Ongoing in "Diaz" Litigation --------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the purported class action, "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB- THK," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Scores Holding Company Inc., formerly Adonis Energy, Inc. On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a purported class action suit and collective action on behalf of all tipped employees against the company and other defendants alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws. The suit is captioned, "Siri Diaz et al. v. Scores Holding Company, Inc.; Go West Entertainment, Inc. a/k/a Scores West Side; and Scores Entertainment, Inc., a/k/a Scores East Side, Case No. 07 Civ. 8718," which was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On Nov. 6, 2007, the plaintiffs served an amended purported class action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations of federal and state wage/hour laws. On Feb. 21, 2008, the plaintiffs served a second amended complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs. The amended complaint alleges that Scores Holding and the other defendants are "an integrated enterprise" and that the company jointly employ the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and reply papers were submitted on March 14, 2008. The matter is now under judicial deliberation. At the same time, the plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a class of the servers, bartenders and dancers. The company opposed that motion, and the matter is also under judicial deliberation. Discovery into both the procedural and substantive issues is ongoing, according to the company's April 15, 2008 Form 10KSB filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2007. The suit is "Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-08718-RMB-THK," filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Richard M. Berman presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Tammy Marzigliano, Esq. (tm@outtengolden.com) Outten & Golden Law Firm 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 Representing the defendants is: Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq. (GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com) Greenberg Traurig, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Phone: (212) 801-9209 Fax: (212) 805-9209 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuits Over FAA Safety Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. is facing two purported class action suits that were filed by persons who purchased air travel from the airline while it was allegedly in violation of the Federal Aviation Administration's safety regulations, according to the company's April 18, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. On March 6, 2008, the FAA notified Southwest Air that it will be fined approximately $10 million in connection with an incident concerning its potential non-compliance with an airworthiness directive. Southwest Air started an "informal conference" with the FAA, which is a process through which the airline and the FAA may explore common ground (or differences) to determine whether the matter will be formally litigated or resolved. The FAA is continuing to audit the airline's compliance with airworthiness directives. In connection with the incident, the airline has been named as a defendant in two putative class actions on behalf of persons who purchased air travel from it while it was allegedly in violation of FAA safety regulations. Claims alleged by the plaintiffs in these two putative class acti