C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 16, 2008, Vol. 10, No. 97 Headlines ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court's Certification of "Simmons" BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowder Due to Undeclared Shrimp CARROLS CORP: Court Still to Rule on Motions in Ex-Workers' Suit FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Reverses Ruling in Antitrust Lawsuit FOSTER WHEELER: Court Approves TCE Pollution Suit Settlement FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California GOOGLE INC: Faces California Suit Over Labor Laws Violations GREEN COUNTY BOE: Faces Voters' Suit With Fixed Election Claim HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Espresso Beans Over Undeclared Milk HOLLINGER INC: Settles Suit with Davidson Kempner Management LLC HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Illinois Suit Alleging ERISA Violations HOT SPRINGS: Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Over Sewer Rates IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal INDIAN TRUST: June Ruling Will Include Dollar Figure, Judge Says KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Ca. Labor Lawsuit KEYBANK USA: Enabled College Loan Ponzi Scheme, Suit Claims MALT-O-MEAL: Recalls Wheat Cereals Due to Possible Health Risk MOTOROLA INC: D.C. Court Stays Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards MOTOROLA INC: Reaches $20MM Agreement in Iridium Securities Suit MOTOROLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Securities Fraud Suit MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Adelphia Securities NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints NORTH COAST ENERGY: Settles Landowners' Royalties Litigation NORTHERN LEASING: Appeals Court Allows Fraud Suit to Proceed NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi-Scheme REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Morgan Keegan Select Funds SCOR S.E.: Settles Converium Shareholders' Lawsuit in U.S. SODEXHO INC: Accused of Stealing Union Dues in Mississippi Suit SOUTHERN CO: Appeals Denial of Dismissal Bid in Mirant IPO Suit SPANISH BROADCASTING: Lawsuit Accuses 'La Mega FM' of Fraud STATE FARM: Faces Lawsuit in California Over "Make Whole Rule" TAKE 2 INTERACTIVE: Enters Into Stipulation Staying Maulano Suit TITLE COS: Accused of Bilking Consumers in Series of Suits USANA HEALTH: Denies Liability in California Ex-Associates' Suit USANA HEALTH: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in Utah VERITAS SOFTWARE: Settlement Hearing in Delaware Suit is July 31 * Ohio Employer Class Action Summit to be Held on June 4 Asbestos Alerts ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Reverses Ruling in Pilkington ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Old Republic Net A&E Reserves Total $152.4M ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Pride Int'l. Units Still Face Miss. Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Records 29,599 Abex Claims at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Injury Cases Still Ongoing v. ConEd, Units ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ConEd Incurs $32M Costs from N.Y. Explosion ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Company Records 8,790 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Estimates $113M Liabilities at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Starwood Accrues $2M for Abatement at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Caterpillar Inc. Has Pending Asbestos Suits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CBS Faces 72,870 Pending Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ladish Co. Dismissed from Mississippi Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Case v. PepsiAmericas, Inc., Ongoing ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court OKs Board Ruling in Kirk Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Court Favors Defendants in Conrail Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 1,725 Actions Pending v. TriMas at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: General Cable Records 34,717 Cases at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: California Water Reaches Settlement in Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Faces 130,810 Claims in U.S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Records $23.1M for N.Y. Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler's U.K. Units Face 346 Claims ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Has $14.2M Net Gain at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Records $35M Claims Reserves ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Units Still Face Cases in Miss. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Transocean Unit Has 1,006 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 450 Actions Pending v. McKesson Corporation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gardner Denver Still Faces Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Anadarko Petroleum Still Faces Injury Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allegheny Faces 838 W.Va. Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 60 Claims Pending Against Dalmine at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Cites $22.4M March Liability ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Standard Motor Records 3,480 Cases at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 71 Lawsuits Pending v. Ameren at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 185 Claims Pending Against Rogers at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Odyssey has $326.2M Losses, LAE at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Int'l. Reserves $3.598B at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FirstEnergy Still Party to Exposure Actions ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Exposure Lawsuits Pending v. Boss Holdings ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alleghany Cites $22.7M Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Suits v. MeadWestvaco Rise to 460 at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SCC Affiliates Still Face Asarco Litigation ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Damage, Injury Cases Still Pending v. Grace ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 460 Damage Claims Remain v. Grace at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Still Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Records $917M of Coverage at March 31 ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace Has $276.4M Libby Liability at March ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Grace, Employees Expend $3M for Libby Case ASBESTOS LITIGATION: N.J. Appeal to Grace Case Dismissal Pending ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AbitibiBowater Faces 800 Open Bowater Cases ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Regal Case v. 68 Firms Filed in Ill. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Supreme Court Junks Canadian Cases in R.I. ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Shawvers Sue 31 Corporations in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Widow Files Suit v. 50 Firms in W.Va. Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Insurers May Sue Scottish Gov't. on Ruling ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Edwards Kin Sues 35 Firms in Texas Court ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cases Account for Half of Ill. Law Division ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chick to Serve 15-Month Pa. Prison Sentence ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Preston Grandfather to Get 5-Figure Payout ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Inquest Rules on Crewe Works Employee Death ********* ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Appeals Court's Certification of "Simmons" -------------------------------------------------------------- Anadarko Petroleum Corp. is appealing a decision by the District Court in Caddo County, Oklahoma, that certified a class in the matter, "Ivan J. Simmons, Madaline M. Thompson and Gaylon Lee Mitchusson v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation," according to Anadrako's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. In the suit, which was filed in February 2004, the plaintiffs claim that Anadarko failed to correctly pay royalties on gas, arguing that costs associated with compression, gathering, dehydration, and processing should not have been deducted or factored into the royalty calculation. They are seeking an award of monetary and punitive damages. In January 2008, the district judge issued an order certifying the case as a class action. The defined class generally includes all royalty interest owners in Oklahoma wells where Anadarko is or was the operator, working interest owner or lessee and relates only to payment of hydrocarbons produced from those wells since 1985. The company has admitted no liability for this matter and has filed an interlocutory appeal of this class certification order with the Oklahoma Supreme Court seeking a reversal of the District Court's certification order. Currently, no hearing date has been scheduled with regard to the Company's appeal. Anadarko Petroleum Corp. -- http://www.anadarko.com/-- is an oil and gas exploration and production company with 2.43 billion barrels of oil equivalent of proved reserves as of Dec. 31, 2007. The Company's major areas of operation are located onshore in the U.S., the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, and Algeria. Anadarko also has production in China and a development project in Brazil. It markets natural gas, oil and natural gas liquids and owns and operates gas gathering and processing systems. In addition, Anadarko has hard minerals properties that contribute operating income through non-operated joint ventures and royalty arrangements in several coal, trona (natural soda ash) and industrial mineral mines located on lands within and adjacent to its Land Grant holdings. The Land Grant is an eight million acre strip running through portions of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where the Company owns most of its fee mineral rights. BLOUNT FINE: Recalls Clam Chowder Due to Undeclared Shrimp ---------------------------------------------------------- Blount Fine Foods of Fall River, MA is recalling Blount All Natural New England Clam Chowder, Net Wt. 20 oz with Lot: 0424086D, Sell by date: 6/23/2008, because it may contain undeclared shrimp. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to shrimp run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Our firm has recovered 1,385 of 1,416 units produced, 31 units are in distribution. Blount New England Clam Chowder was distributed through the following supermarket chains: -- Shaw's Supermarkets (in Massachusetts and Connecticut), -- Omni Foods (in Weston, MA), Donelan Market (in Acton and Littleton, MA), -- The Cirelli Marketplace store (Middleboro, MA), and -- The Blount Factory Store (Warren, RI). The product is identified as a 20oz plastic cup with a film seal and plastic lid. The dark blue product label reads: Blount Signature Soups All Natural New England Clam Chowder, Keep Refrigerated. The lot code and sell by date are printed in black ink on the bottom of the cup. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product containing shrimp was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of shrimp. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by an isolated, temporary breakdown in the company's production and packaging processes. Consumers who have purchased Blount All Natural New England Clam Chowder are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers who have health-related concerns should contact their physician. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-274-2526. Additional information is available at http://www.blountfinefoods.com CARROLS CORP: Court Still to Rule on Motions in Ex-Workers' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York has yet to rule on certain motions filed in connection with a purported class action suit against Carrols Corp. On Nov. 30, 2002, four former hourly employees of the company commenced a lawsuit, "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP." The lawsuit alleges, in substance, that Carrols violated certain minimum wage laws under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and related state laws by requiring employees to work without recording their time and by retaliating against those who complained. The plaintiffs seek damages, costs and injunctive relief. They also seek to notify, and eventually certify, a class consisting of current and former employees who, since 1998, have worked, or are working, for Carrols. As a result of the July 21, 2005 status conference, the parties agreed to withdraw the plaintiff's requests for certification and national discovery, as well as the defendant's motion to disqualify counsel and related motions, in order to allow both sides limited additional discovery. Carrols has since filed a motion for summary judgment as to the existing plaintiffs that the court has under consideration. On Jan. 19, 2007, the plaintiffs re-filed their certification and national discovery requests, which Carrols oppose. Carrols also moved to disqualify the plaintiffs from representing the class and to strike the purported evidence presented in support of their certification motion. The parties are still awaiting the court's decisions on these matters. The company reported no further development with regard to the case in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2008. The suit is "Dawn Seever, et al. v. Carrols Corp., Case No. 6:02-cv-06580-DGL-MWP," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, Judge David G. Larimer, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Patrick J. Solomon, Esq. (psolomon@theemploymentattorneys.com) Dolin, Thomas & Solomon, LLP 693 East Avenue Rochester, NY 14607 Phone: 585-272-0540 Fax: 585-272-0574 Representing the defendants is: Helen N. Baker, Esq. (hbaker@freebornpeters.com) Freeborn & Peters 311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-360-6256 Fax: 312-360-6995 FORD MOTOR: First Circuit Reverses Ruling in Antitrust Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the certification of a nationwide class of buyers and lessees in the purported class action, "In re New Market Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation Cases," which names Ford Motor Co. as one of the defendants. This according to Ford's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. Initially, eighty-three purported class actions on behalf of all purchasers of new motor vehicles in the U.S. since Jan. 1, 2001, were filed in various state and federal courts against numerous defendants, including Ford, General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW Group, the National Automobile Dealers Association, and the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association (Class Action Reporter, March 7, 208). The federal and state complaints allege, among other things, that the manufacturers, aided by the dealer associations, conspired to prevent the sale to U.S. citizens of vehicles produced for the Canadian market and sold by dealers in Canada at lower prices than vehicles sold in the U.S. The complaints seek injunctive relief under federal antitrust law and treble damages under federal and state antitrust laws. The federal court actions have been consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. On March 21, 2007, the U.S. District Court ruled that it will certify classes of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states between Jan. 1, 2001, and April 30, 2003, for damages under various state law theories. The company appealed the class certification order, and in March 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the order certifying a class of all purchasers of new vehicles in 20 states between Jan. 1, 2001, and April 30, 2003, for damages under various state law theories. The court also remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. The company reported no further development in the matter. Ford Motor Co. -- http://www.ford.com/-- is a producer of cars and trucks. The Company and its subsidiaries also engage in other businesses, including financing vehicles. Ford operates in two sectors: Automotive and Financial Services. The Automotive sector includes the operations of Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Premier Automotive Group, and Ford Asia Pacific and Africa/Mazda segments. The Financial Services sector includes the operations of Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford Credit), which is engaged in vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance. FOSTER WHEELER: Court Approves TCE Pollution Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania gave final approval to a $1.6-million settlement by Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. of a lawsuit over trichloroethylene ground contamination. In March 2006, a complaint was filed by Sarah Martin and Jeffrey Martin against Foster Wheeler Energy before the Court of Common Pleas, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. The case was subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The complaint was filed on behalf of the Martins and more than 25 others similarly situated whose wells were contaminated with a hazardous substance TCE that was released at the company's site. It seeks to recover costs of environmental remediation and continued environmental monitoring of alleged class members property, diminution in property value, costs associated with obtaining healthy water, the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, statutory, treble and punitive damages and interest and the costs of the suit. In April 2007, the court preliminarily approved a class action settlement that had been jointly filed by the plaintiffs and the company. Under the terms of the preliminary settlement deal, the company would pay the class and its counsel a total of approximately $1,600,000 in exchange for a release by class members of all claims with respect to the matters that are the subject of the litigation. The release would not extend to the claims of those who opt-out of the settlement. The class, which is agreed upon only for the purposes of the settlement, consists of three categories of persons who own or live on property in, or within approximately 150 feet of, the area in which TCE is inferred to exist in the groundwater. One of the three categories of the class would include those persons who live in residences at which TCE was detected in private wells in 2004. The preliminary settlement was subject to the class members' opt-in/opt-out process and the holding of a fairness hearing before the court. A number of the class members opted-out of the preliminary settlement, and a number of them objected that the preliminary settlement was not fair. After the December 2007 fairness hearing, the court entered an order approving the settlement on a final basis, according to Foster Wheeler's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 28, 2008. The suit is "Martin et al. v. Foster Wheeler Energy Corp., Case No. 3:06-cv-00878-ARC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Judge A. Richard Caputo, presiding. Representing the defendants are: Kerry A. Dziubek, Esq. (kerry.dziubek@aporter.com) Arnold & Porter 399 Park Ave. New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-715-1022 - and - Marianne J. Gilmartin, Esq. (mjg@stevenslee.com) Stevens & Lee, PC 425 Spruce St., Suite 300 Scranton, PA 18503 Phone: 570-343-1827 Representing the plaintiffs are: Thomas W. Grammer, Esq. (tgrammer@feldmanshepherd.com) Feldman, Shepherd, Wohlgelernter, Tanner & Weinstock 1845 Walnut St. 25th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-567-8300 - and - John Krisa, Esq. Krisa, McDonough, Cosgrove & Krisa, P.C. Route 6, Scranton Carbondale Highway Blakely, PA 18447 Phone: 717-383-3205 FOXHOLLOW TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuits in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- Foxhollow Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of ev3, Inc., is facing three purported shareholder class action suits filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. The three shareholder class action complaints were filed separately in July 2006, August 2006 and February 2007, against the company and two of its officers. The plaintiffs are seeking to represent a class of purchasers of the company's common stock from May 13, 2005, to Jan. 26, 2006. The complaint generally alleges that false or misleading statements were made concerning the company's management and seeks unspecified monetary damages. A motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend on Sept. 5, 2007, and the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Oct. 19, 2007. The first identified complaint is "Margaret Kovarik, et al. v. FoxHollow Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-CV-04595," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Brower Piven The World Trade Center-Baltimore 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD Phone: 410-986-0036 Cotchett Pitre Simon & McCarthy San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650-697-6000 Fax: 650-697-0577 e-mail: info@cpsmlaw.com Federman & Sherwood 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: 405-235-1560 e-mail: wfederman@aol.com Schatz & Nobel, P.C. 330 Main Street Hartford, CT 06106 Phone: 800-797-5499 Fax: 860-493-6290 e-mail: sn06106@AOL.com - and - Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP 3 Bala Plaza E Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com GOOGLE INC: Faces California Suit Over Labor Laws Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Google Inc. is facing a class-action complaint before the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara alleging Labor Code violations, CourtHouse News Service reports. The complaint alleges that Google, through two labor contractors, forces hundreds of "site reliability engineers" to work overtime for no pay as they "design, debug, and manage its search engine." The co-defendant labor contractors are Workforce Logic and Duran Human Capital Partners. The plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who are or have been employed by defendants as contract SRE Sourcers with Google within the State of California at any time between June 20, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2007. The plaintiff wants the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants, or any of them, had a policy or practice of suffering or permitting of-the-clock overtime work; (b) whether such policy and practice is unlawful; (c) whether defendants, or any of them, failed to pay contract SRE Sourcers for overtime hours worked; and (d) whether defendants, or any of them, violated Business and Professions Code Section 17200 not paying contract SRE Sourcers wages for all overtime hours worked. The plaintiff asks the court to: -- determine that this action may proceed as a class action under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and Rule 23(b)(1) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; -- determine that the defendants have violated the overtime provisions of the Labor Code Wage Orders as to the plaintiff and the California class; -- determine that the defendants have violated the overtime provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act as to the the plaintiff and the collective class; -- determine that the defendants have violated California Labor Code Section 226 for willful failure to provide the required wage statements to the plaintiff and the California class; -- determine that the defendants have violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time records of all the hours worked by the plaintiff and the collective class; -- to determine that the defendants' violations are willful; -- award them liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA; -- award them interest and penalties, including civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code Sections 2699, et seq; -- to order and enjoin the defendants to pay restitution due to their unlawful activities, pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; -- enjoin the defendants to cease and desist from unlawful activities in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and -- award reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, Labor Code Section 1194, Labor Code Section 218.5, 29 USC Section 216 and other applicable law. The suit is "Maryam Broome et al. v. Google, Inc. et al, Case No. 108CV112386," filed before the Superior court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. Representing the plaintiffs are: Peter Rukin, Esq. John Hyland, Esq. Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 725 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-421-1800 Fax: 415-421-1700 GREEN COUNTY BOE: Faces Voters' Suit With Fixed Election Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- The Green County Board of Elections is facing a class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that it unconstitutionally threw a county election to the Republican candidate by disqualifying all 542 absentee ballots after allegedly finding two unspecified "irregularities," neither of which could be determined to have affected a voter, CourtHouse News Service reports. This is an action for nominal damages and injunctive relief brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution seeking to redress the deprivation by the Defendants of the constitutionally secured right of the Plaintiffs and the class of 542 disenfranchised absentee voters to vote in the November 7, 2006, General Election for a candidate for the office of Green County Court Clerk. The plaintiffs claim that Democratic candidate Carolyn Scott won the Nov. 7, 2006 election for Green County clerk, with 2,536 votes -- 364 of them absentee ballots. Republican Billy Joe Lowe got 2,385 votes -- 178 of them absentee. The plaintiffs further claim these 542 voters were disenfranchised when the Elections Board threw the race to the Republican, turning a 151-vote defeat into an unconstitutional, 35-vote win. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- judgment declaring that the plaintiffs and all 542 absentee voters who cast ballots in the General Election for the office of Green County Court Clerk have the right under the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment thereto, to have their votes counted; -- judgment awarding nominal damages of $1.00; -- temporary injunction enjoining the Board of Elections of Green County, Kentucky, from complying with the Judgment of the Special Judge of the Green Circuit Court and certifying a winner in the General Election for the office of Green County Court Clerk until the merits of this action are adjudicated; -- judgment declaring and ordering that the 542 absentee ballots cast in the General Election for the office of Green County Court Clerk be counted and that the Board of Elections of Green County, Kentucky certify the winner of the General Election for the office of the Green County Court Clerk only after counting such absentee votes; -- declaration, alternatively, enjoining the Board of Elections to take all necessary steps to hold a new General Election for the office of Green County Court Clerk at the earliest possible date consistent with the requirements of Kentucky law; -- trial by jury; -- an award of a reasonable fee for the Plaintiffs' attorneys pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; -- any and all other relief to which they may appear to be entitled. The suit is "Washington Vaughn et al v. Board of Elections of Green County et al, Case No. 1:08-CV-72-R," filed with the U.S. District Court for the western District of Kentucky. Representing the plaintiffs are: Hon. Joseph H. Mattingly III Mattingly, Nally-Martin & Fowler, PLLC Attorneys at Law 104 W. Main Street - P.O. Box 678 Lebanon, Kentucky 40033 Phone: 270-692-1718 - and - Hon. Erin Brady Pike Attorney at Law 121 South Seventh Street, Suite 100 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Phone: 502-584-5955 HARRY & DAVID: Recalls Espresso Beans Over Undeclared Milk ---------------------------------------------------------- Harry and David, of Medford, Oregon, is voluntarily recalling approximately 66,500 8 oz. bags of Harry and David Chocolate Covered Select Blend Espresso Beans because they may contain milk not declared on the ingredient statement. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The product was made by Sanders Candy Factory, Inc., Baldwin Park, CA. It was distributed throughout the United States under the Harry and David brand only in Harry and David stores. Harry and David is recalling 8 oz. bags of Chocolate Covered Select Blend Espresso Beans with "Best if used by" dates after 8/28/05, sold prior to April 5th, 2008. The "Best if used by" date is located in the lower right hand corner of the nutrition label on the back of the bag. Bags subject to this recall do NOT have a "Contains milk, soy" statement on the nutrition label. These products are packaged in 8 oz. clear plastic bags, tied at the top with a tan ribbon. There have been no illnesses or injuries reported to date. Anyone concerned about an illness/injury should contact a physician immediately. This problem, which was discovered on April 3, 2008, occurred because the ingredient statement of the bulk product delivered to Harry and David by the manufacturer did not list milk as an ingredient. Consumers with product may return it to any Harry and David retail store for a full refund. Consumers with questions about the recalled product may phone the Harry and David Customer Service division at 800-233-1101, 24 hours a day. HOLLINGER INC: Settles Suit with Davidson Kempner Management LLC ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hollinger Inc. has entered into a term sheet with Davidson Kempner Management LLC and certain of its affiliates and Sun- Times Media Group, Inc. DK is the holder of approximately 42% of the outstanding principal amount of Hollinger's secured notes issued pursuant to indentures dated March 10, 2003 and September 30, 2004. Hollinger holds an approximate 70% voting interest and 19.7% equity interest in Sun-Times. In order to become effective, the Settlement must be approved by an order issued by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Hollinger and its subsidiaries, Sugra Ltd. and 4322525 Canada Inc. are currently subject to proceedings in Canada under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and in the United States under Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. An agreement between Hollinger and Sun-Times was filed by the Applicants with the Ontario Court on April 10, 2008, in connection with the CCAA proceeding. The Settlement replaces the Sun-Times Agreement. The Settlement provides that DK will withdraw its motion seeking the bankruptcies of the Applicants, and that DK will support Court Approval of the Settlement and the other relief sought by the Applicants in their Notice of Motion dated April 10, 2008. As soon as possible after Court Approval, the 14,990,000 Class B Common Stock of Sun-Times owned directly or indirectly by Hollinger will be converted into Class A Common Stock of Sun- Times on a one-for-one basis and an additional 1,499,000 Class A Common Stock of Sun-Times will be issued to Hollinger. The Settlement provides that the Exchanged Shares and the Additional Shares, which provide security for the Notes, will be voted by the indenture trustees of the Notes for the benefit of and at the direction of the Noteholders (with certain restrictions). The indenture trustees will be entitled to exercise all other rights attached to the Exchanged Shares and the Additional Shares and may realize upon the Exchanged Shares and the Additional Shares in any commercially reasonable manner. Upon the later of (i) Court Approval and (ii) immediately after the next annual meeting of Sun-Times' shareholders scheduled for June 17, 2008, the six directors appointed by Hollinger to the board of directors of Sun-Times (G. Wesley Voorheis, William Aziz, Edward Hannah, Peter Dey, Brent Baird and Albrecht Bellstedt) will submit their resignations from that board. Sun-Times and Hollinger will cooperate to maximize the recoverable portion of the class action insurance settlement proceeds payable to them and such proceeds shall be allocated so that Sun-Times receives 85% of such proceeds, and Hollinger receives 15% of such proceeds. Hollinger and Sun-Times agree to divide their respective recoveries from the insolvency proceeding of The Ravelston Corporation Limited and certain affiliates equally as between them. A standard CCAA claims process shall be implemented immediately for all claims against the Applicants, as outlined in the Settlement. Sun-Times' claims will continue to be dealt with as previously outlined in the Sun-Times Agreement. Upon Court Approval, Hollinger will pay to Sun-Times the reasonable fees and costs incurred by Sun-Times in connection with the CCAA proceedings from August 1, 2007 to the date of Court Approval, subject to a cap of US$2,000,000 in the aggregate. Subject to certain reserves, all cash of the Applicants shall be distributed to the creditors who have proved claims in accordance with the claims process. Distributions will be determined on a non-consolidated basis giving effect to inter- company claims but including only 50% of a claim by 432 against Hollinger in the aggregate amount of approximately $342,500,000 and subject to these payments: (a) first, to pay a transaction fee to DK of $1,500,000 in consideration of the Settlement; (b) second, to pay the reasonable legal costs of the indenture trustees of the Notes up to and including Court Approval; and (c) third, to pay the reasonable legal costs of DK up to and including Court Approval; provided that the total amount paid pursuant to items (a) through (c) shall not exceed $4,500,000. The Settlement provides that John D. Ground, a retired justice of the Ontario Court of Justice (Commercial List), shall be appointed as an officer of the Court to perform the role of litigation trustee (the Litigation Trustee) of all claims and causes of action in favor of the Applicants on such terms as may be agreed between the Applicants and justice Ground and subject to approval by the Court. An advisory committee shall be established to provide advice and direction to the Litigation Trustee comprised of the Litigation Trustee, one representative of DK and one representative of the Applicants. Upon Court Approval, G. Wesley Voorheis will resign as an officer and director of the Applicants and their subsidiaries. The appointment of William Aziz, or an entity controlled by him, as the Chief Restructuring Officer of the Applicants and an officer of the Court shall be sought as part of the Court Approval. For more information, contact: G. Wesley Voorheis - Chief Executive Officer William E. Aziz - Chief Financial Officer Hollinger Inc. Phone: 416-363-8721 ext. 237 or ext. 262 e-mail: wvoorheis@hollingerinc.com or baziz@hollingerinc.com HOSPIRA INC: Still Faces Illinois Suit Alleging ERISA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc., continues to face a class action lawsuit in Illinois alleging that the spin-off of the company from Abbott Laboratories adversely affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc." On Nov. 18, 2005, the complaint was amended to assert an additional claim against Abbott and the company for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The company has moved to dismiss the new claim. By order dated Dec. 30, 2005, the Court granted class-action status to the lawsuit. The new claim in the amended complaint is not subject to the class certification ruling. As to the sole claim against the company in the original complaint, the court certified a class defined as: "all employees of Abbott who were participants in the Abbott Benefit Plans and whose employment with Abbott was terminated between August 22, 2003 and April 30, 2004, as a result of the spin-off of the HPD/creation of Hospira announced by Abbott on August 22, 2003, and who were eligible for retirement under the Abbott Benefit Plans on the date of their terminations." The company reported no further development in the matter in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Robert W. Gettleman presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: Paul William Mollica, Esq. Meites, Mulder, Burger & Mollica 208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1410 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: 312-263-0272 Representing the company is: James F. Hurst, Esq. (jhurst@winston.com) Winston & Strawn LLP 35 West Wacker Drive 41st Floor, Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-558-5230 HOT SPRINGS: Appeals Court Revives Lawsuit Over Sewer Rates ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit challenging the city of Hot Springs' decision to charge higher sewer rates to residents outside its city limits has been revived by the state Court of Appeals, the Associated Press reports. According to the AP, the appeals court reversed last week Garland County Circuit Judge John Homer Wright's decision in favor of the city. The appeals court judges have ordered new hearings in the class-action suit. The report recalls that residents living outside the Hot Springs city limits sued the city in 2004 after the city enacted a rate schedule that was significantly higher for them than for those inside city limits. The 2004 ordinance also imposed a higher debt-service charge for residents outside the city limits. The appeals court said Judge Wright was wrong to issue summary judgment because there were unanswered questions about the city's contract with the residents that should have been heard at trial, the AP notes. IKANOS COMMS: Plaintiffs Appeal N.Y. Securities Suit Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action suit filed against Ikanos Communications, Inc., certain of its directors and officers and two investment banks, are appealing the dismissal of their case, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 30, 2008. In November 2006, three putative class action suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the company, its directors, an executive officer and a former executive officer. These lawsuits allege certain misrepresentations by the company in connection with its initial public offering in September 2005, the follow-on offering in March 2006, and thereafter concerning its business and prospects. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages. The lawsuits were consolidated and an amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2007. The amended complaint alleges the same claims. On June 25, 2007, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs opposed this motion, and a hearing on it was heard on Jan. 16, 2008. On March 10, 2008, the court ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. On March 25, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's dismissal order and permission for them to file a second amended complaint. The defendants have opposed this motion to reconsider. The company reported no further development in the matter. The suit is "Panther Partners Inc., et al. v. Ikanos Communications, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-12967-PAC," filed before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Paul A. Crotty, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs is: David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq. (drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Representing the defendant is: James N. Kramer, Esq. (jkramer@orrick.com) Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP The Orrick Building, 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: 415-773-5700 Fax: 415-773-5759 INDIAN TRUST: June Ruling Will Include Dollar Figure, Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who is presiding over the nearly 12-year- old Indian Trust case, told lawyers that he intends to place a dollar figure on the government's mismanagement of the individual Indian trust, according to Glacier Reporter. "I assure you that one way or another, the result of this case will be a dollar figure," Judge Robertson said during a pretrial hearing. The judge also said that the government did not want him to reach such a conclusion, but that he had long believed the public needed to know how much money is at stake in the long-running class-action lawsuit. Glacier Reporter recounts that Judge Robertson previously stated that he wants the case to be concluded after a trial that begins June 9, 2008. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 11, 2008, Judge Robertson issued a strict timeline to the "Cobell v. Kempthorne" case's lawyers at a March 5 hearing, saying it is "time to bring this to a conclusion." Case Background The lawsuit began in 1996 with a filing by Elouise Cobell, a member of the Blackfeet Tribe of Montana. It was originally assigned to Judge Royce Lamberth, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the case reassigned in 2006. The class action suit is based on the government's admitted mismanagement of a land trust, which the Congress called a "Broken Trust," that was established in 1887. The Broken Trust was to handle the proceeds from the government-arranged leasing of 11 million acres of Indian lands, mostly in the West. As the papers presented to Judge Robertson noted, the trust was mismanaged by the government almost from its inception. Despite repeated orders from Congress and the Courts, the government is still years away from its long-promised accounting of the accounts, (Class Action Reporter Jan. 8, 2008). The government had proposed in March 2007 to pay $7 billion partly to settle the lawsuit. However, the proposal was rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimated that the government's liability could exceed $100 billion. The Interior Department estimates that it has spent $127 million on its accounting in the past five years. Interior Can't Account for Owed Money In late January 2008, a Legal Times report wrote, Judge Robertson issued a 165-page opinion concluding that the Interior Department is incapable of performing an accurate accounting of the land trust fund. According to another report by the Associated Press, Judge Robertson said that the department's accounting for billions of dollars owed to America Indian landholders has been "unreasonably delayed" and is ultimately impossible. April Hearing Results During a March 5 status hearing, which the judge set to move the case forward, he set out a schedule for the next few months that will allow both sides to argue how the trial should proceed. Judge Robertson scheduled a hearing on April 21, aimed to set the "content and shape" for the final proceedings to start on June 9. During the April hearing, the judge said, "My stewardship of this case will be something with a dollar sign," Glacier Reporter notes. "This is about dollars in the IIM (Individual Indian Money Trust)," Judge Robertson said. "Dollars in and dollars out." At issue in the upcoming June trial will be a claim by the Indian plaintiffs for $58 billion. That is how much the plaintiffs say the government profited by its mismanagement and use of the Indians' Individual Indian Trust money, according to Glacier Reporter. Under trust law, the plaintiffs say that the trust beneficiaries are entitled to whatever benefit the government obtained from the use of their trust funds. Glacier Reporter says that government lawyers told the judge they will resist any effort to give a large sum to the Indians. They contend that little money is missing from the trust accounts. The suit is "Elouise Pepion Cobell, et al. v. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the Interior, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-01285-JR," filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under Judge James Robertson. Representing the plaintiffs are: Mark Kester Brown, Esq. (mkesterbrown@attglobal.net) 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2000 Phone: 775-542-4938 Fax: 202-318-2372 Dennis M. Gingold, Esq. (dennismgingold@aol.com) 607 14th Street, NW 9th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-824-1448 Fax: 202-318-2372 Richard A. Guest, Esq. (richardg@narf.org) Keith M. Harper, Esq. (harper@narf.org) Native American Rights Fund 1712 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-2976 Phone: 202-785-4166 Fax: 202-822-0068 - and - Elliott H. Levitas, Esq. (elevitas@kilpatrickstockton.com) Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP 607 14th Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-508-5800 Fax: 202-508-5858 Representing the defendants are: Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Esq. (robert.kirschman@usdoj.gov) Sandra Peavler Spooner, Esq. (sandra.spooner@usdoj.gov) U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L Street, NW Suite 10008 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: 202-616-0328 KELLY SERVICES: Appeals Class Certification in Ca. Labor Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Services, Inc., is appealing a ruling that granted class- action status to a lawsuit brought on behalf of the company's employees working in the State of California. The claims in the lawsuit relate to alleged misclassification of personal attendants as exempt and entitled to overtime under state law and alleged technical violations of a state law pertaining to information furnished on employee pay stubs. On April 30, 2007, the trial court certified two sub-classes that correspond to the claims in the case. The company is currently preparing motions for summary judgment on both certified claims. The company reported no new development in the matter in its May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2008. Kelly Services, Inc. -- http://www.kellyservices.com/-- is a global temporary staffing provider operating in 30 countries and territories throughout the world. KEYBANK USA: Enabled College Loan Ponzi Scheme, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Keybank USA is facing a class-action complaint filed with the Superior Court of the State of California over alleged Ponzi scheme, CourtHouse News Service reports. This class action is filed on behalf of California students who enrolled in Silver State Helicopters vocational school (SSH), accusing KeyBank USA, of Ohio, of predatory lending and enabling fraud. According to the complaint, California students trying to learn job skills were ripped off by an Ohio bank that teamed up with sham vocational schools to leave students with piles of debt and no education. KeyBank Education Resources and Great Lakes Educational Loan Services defraud students at sham vocational schools by offering high-priced loans, and when the schools' Ponzi schemes collapse, the students are left with piles of debt and no education, the complaint states. The complaint claims that tuition and lending scams at unlicensed and unregulated trade schools have proliferated in recent years, and have only recently been subjected to congressional investigation. "Their growth has been fueled by unscrupulous lenders that have willingly and irresponsibly 'partnered' with these sham operations to provide expensive private loans to the high-risk students these schools tend to attract," the complaint states. "In this particular case, KeyBank partners with SSH as the latter's 'preferred' lender and followed its usual script from which it has reaped millions of dollars over the years. Like KeyBank's previous failed vocation school 'partners', SSH was unregulated and unaccredited and, when its Ponzi scheme collapsed, SSH filed bankruptcy filed bankruptcy, leaving its students with nothing but KayBank's threats to enforce the loans." The plaintiffs claim the defendants based themselves in Ohio to facilitate their scam. "Because the laws of Ohio exempt Ohio-domiciled banks from that state's consumer protection laws, the Bank, in complicity with the sham schools, has preyed on unsuspecting California resident students with legally repugnant adhesive loan documents containing Ohio choice of law, forum selection, and anti-class action arbitration clauses and, using these perceived impenetrable 'shields', has engaged in a long-time pattern of intentionally flaunting both federal and California consumer protection laws," the complaint states. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether defendants engaged in "commerce" in making the loans to the proposed class; (b) whether defendants and SSH were affiliated with each other or had business arrangement in connection with SSH's solicitation of prospective students and offering of tuition financing from defendants; (c) whether defendants and SSH intentionally violated FTC regulations by knowingly and intentionally omitting the required Holder Rule Notice from the Notes and insisting SSH omit the language from the Service Contract Agreement thereby enabling defendants to argue in litigation with California residents that the Holder Rule is inapplicable to it as a matter of law because the Notices is in neither the Service Contract Agreement nor the Note; (d) whether California or Ohio Choice of Law rules apply; (e) whether defendants' fraudulent and deceptive acts in violation of 16 CFR 433.2 (i.e. by failing to include the required language in the Note) constitute a predicate unlawful, unfair or deceptive act or practice under the UCL; and (f) whether the defendants and SSH aided and abetted each other in carrying out their conduct alleged. The plaintiffs asks the court for: -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and each of them from reporting to any credit agency any default by plaintiffs and the proposed class under the Notes; -- an order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining defendants and each of them from enforcing the Notes against plaintiffs and the proposed class or taking any action in furtherance of enforcement efforts; -- other orders or judgments as the court may consider necessary to prevent the use or employment by defendants of any practice which constitutes unfair competition under the UCL; -- attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5; -- statutory costs of suit; and -- such other and further relief as the court may deem proper. The suit is "Matthew C. Kilgore et al v. Keybank USA, NA., Case No: RoI09386980," filed with the Superior Court of the State of California. Representing the plaintiffs are: Andrew A. August, Esq. Kevin F. Rooney, Esq. Pinnacle Law Group, LLP 425 California Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415-394-5700 Fax: 415-394-5003 MALT-O-MEAL: Recalls Wheat Cereals Due to Possible Health Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Malt-O-Meal is voluntarily recalling its unsweetened Puffed Rice and unsweetened Puffed Wheat Cereals produced with "Best If Used By" codes between April 8, 2008 (coded as APR0808) and March 18, 2009 (coded as MAR1809) because they may have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. The recalled product was distributed nationally, marketed under the Malt-O-Meal brand and as some private label brands including Acme, America's Choice, Food Club, Giant, Hannaford, Jewel, Laura Lynn, Pathmark, Shaw's, ShopRite, Tops and Weis Quality. A comprehensive listing of impacted products can be found at http://www.malt-o-meal.com/recallinfo No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this situation. All other Malt-O-Meal products are unaffected by this action and are safe for continued sale and consumption. The products affected by this recall represent less than one- half of one percent of the company's annual production of ready- to-eat cereal. "Our first and highest priority is the safety of the consumers who use our products," said Malt-O-Meal President and CEO Chris Neugent. "It's important that we spread the word about this situation quickly and broadly in order to remove even the slightest possibility that someone will consume something harmful. We apologize for this situation and promise to do everything to complete the recall as quickly as possible." The recall was initiated after the company's internal routine food safety testing detected the presence of Salmonella in a product produced on March 24, 2008. The company immediately commenced an investigation to determine the root cause of this one positive finding as well as the extent of any possible exposure. Initial results from this follow-up investigation indicate that additional product may have been exposed to this contaminant. Thus, out of an abundance of caution to protect consumers, the company has chosen to voluntarily remove all unsweetened Puffed Rice and unsweetened Puffed Wheat products with "Best If Used By" codes between April 8, 2008 (coded as "APR0808") and March 18, 2009 (coded as "MAR1809"). Investigation into the source of the Salmonella has determined a root cause of this situation and corrective measures have been taken to ensure that there is no reoccurrence of this issue. Persons infected with Salmonella may experience a variety of symptoms and illnesses. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, persons infected with Salmonella may experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in more severe illnesses, some potentially life threatening. Consumers who have purchased any products covered by this recall are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1- 877-665-9331. Information regarding this recall, including images of the Malt-O-Meal product packaging, also will be posted to the company's website at http://www.malt-o- meal.com/recallinfo MOTOROLA INC: D.C. Court Stays Suit Over Cellular Phone Hazards --------------------------------------------------------------- The District of Columbia Superior Court issued a stay order in the matter, "Dahlgren v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," which accuses Motorola, Inc., and several other companies of failing to inform customers that cellular phones have harmful health effects. The suit was filed on Sept. 9, 2002, and contains class claims alleging deceptive and misleading actions by defendants in falsely stating that cellular phones are safe and by failing to disclose studies that allegedly show cellular phones can cause harm. The suit seeks injunctive and equitable relief, actual damages, treble or statutory damages, punitive damages and a constructive trust. On Dec. 9, 2005, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the matter. On March 5, 2008, the court stayed "Dahlgren" pending the outcome in another matter captioned, "Murray v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- is engaged in providing technologies, products and services for mobile phones. The Company's portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories, digital entertainment devices, wireless access systems, voice and data communications systems, and enterprise mobility products. The segments of the Company include Mobile Devices Segment, Home and Networks Mobility Segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions Segment. MOTOROLA INC: Reaches $20MM Agreement in Iridium Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Motorola Inc. reached a tentative $20�million settlement in the matter, "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al.," which is pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Initially, the company was named as one of several defendants in the securities class actions arising out of alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Iridium satellite communications business (Class Action Reporter, April 28, 2008). The suits were later consolidated under the caption, "Freeland v. Iridium World Communications, Inc., et al." It was originally filed on April 22, 1999. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal securities laws arising from alleged material misrepresentations or omissions regarding difficulties in the satellite communications business of Iridium World Communications, Ltd., Iridium, LLC, and Iridium Operating, LLC. The alleged class consists of purchasers of all Iridium securities during the period from Sept. 9, 1998, to March 29, 1999. On Jan. 9, 2006, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. In April 2008, the parties reached an agreement in principle, subject to court approval, to settle all claims against Motorola in exchange for Motorola's agreement to pay $20 million, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. The suit is "Freeland, et al. v. Iridium World Comm, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-01002" filed before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, under Judge Nanette K. Laughrey. Representing the plaintiffs are: Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr., Esq. (dgt@ftllaw.com) Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran 1050 30th Street NW Washington, DC 20007 Phone: 202-337-8000 Fax: 202-337-8090 - and - Eric J. Belfi, Esq. (ebelfi@murrayfrank.com) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP 275 Madison Avenue, Suite 801 New York, NY 10016 Phone: 212-682-1818 Fax: 212-682-1892 Representing the defendants are: Jeffrey L. Willian, Esq. (jwillian@kirkland.com) Kirkland & Ellis 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: 312-861-2000 Fax: 312-861-2200 - and - James F. Moyle, Esq. (james.moyle@cliffordchance.com) Clifford Chance U.S. LLP 31 West, 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-878-8508 Fax: 212-878-8375 MOTOROLA INC: Seeks Dismissal of Illinois Securities Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Motorola, Inc., and certain of its current and former officers and directors are seeking the dismissal of a purported class action suit that was brought on behalf of purchasers of Motorola securities between July 19, 2006, and Jan. 5, 2007. The suit, "Silverman v. Motorola, Inc., et al.," was filed on Aug. 9, 2007, before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 as well as, in the case of the individual defendants, the control person provisions of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The factual assertions in the complaint consist primarily of the allegation that the defendants knowingly made incorrect statements concerning Motorola's projected revenues for the third and fourth quarter of 2006. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief relating to the purported artificial inflation in the price of Motorola shares during the class period. An amended complaint was filed on Dec. 20, 2007, and Motorola moved to dismiss that complaint in February 2008, according to the company's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. The company reported no further development in the matter. The suit is "Eric Silverman, et al. v. Motorola, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-04507," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge James B. Moran, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY, 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 Fax: 631-367-1173 Miller Law LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL, 60603 Phone: 312-676-2665 e-mail: info@MillerLawLLC.com - and - Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA, 19087 Phone: 610-667-7706 Fax: 610-667-7056 e-mail: info@sbtklaw.com MOTOROLA INC: Continues to Face Suits Over Adelphia Securities -------------------------------------------------------------- Motorola, Inc., continues to face several lawsuits that are consolidated under the matter, "In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," which is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Motorola's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 29, 2008. Argent Litigation On July 23, 2004, Motorola was named as a defendant in a purported class action, "Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., et al. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., et al." The complaint was filed against Scientific Atlanta and Motorola in the U.S. District Court for the the Southern District of New York. It generally alleges a claim arising under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to Adelphia securities. The suit seeks compensatory damages and other relief. Motorola filed a motion to dismiss the matter on Oct. 12, 2004, which is awaiting decision. Stocke Litigation On Dec. 22, 2003, Motorola was named as a defendant in the matter, "Stocke v. John J. Rigas, et al." The case was originally filed in Pennsylvania and was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York as related to "In re Adelphia Communications Corp. Securities and Derivative Litigation," which consists of at least fourteen individual cases and one purported class action, "Argent," that were filed in or have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Motorola and several other individual and corporate defendants are named in the amended complaint. As to Motorola, the complaint makes generally the same allegations as "Argent." The complaint seeks return of the consideration paid by plaintiff for Adelphia securities, punitive damages and other relief. In March 2008, the "Stocke" plaintiff agreed to become a member of the purported class in "Argent" and the Stocke action was dismissed by the court as a stand-alone action. The company reported no further development in the matter. Motorola, Inc. -- http://www.motorola.com/-- is engaged in providing technologies, products and services for mobile phones. The Company's portfolio includes wireless handsets, wireless accessories, digital entertainment devices, wireless access systems, voice and data communications systems, and enterprise mobility products. The segments of the Company include Mobile Devices Segment, Home and Networks Mobility Segment and Enterprise Mobility Solutions Segment. NL INDUSTRIES: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Lead-Based Paints ------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc., a subsidiary of Valhi, Inc., as well as other former manufacturers of lead pigments for use in paint and lead-based paint, and the Lead Industries Association, which discontinued business operations in 2002, have been named as defendants in various legal proceedings seeking damages for personal injury, property damage and governmental expenditures allegedly caused by the use of lead-based paints. This according to NL Industries' May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. Certain of these actions have been filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities or their public housing authorities and school districts, and certain others have been asserted as class actions. These lawsuits seek recovery under a variety of theories, including public and private nuisance, negligent product design, negligent failure to warn, strict liability, breach of warranty, conspiracy/concert of action, aiding and abetting, enterprise liability, market share or risk contribution liability, intentional tort, fraud and misrepresentation, violations of state consumer protection statutes, supplier negligence and similar claims. The plaintiffs in these actions generally seek to impose on the defendants responsibility for lead paint abatement and health concerns associated with the use of lead-based paints, including damages for personal injury, contribution and/or indemnification for medical expenses, medical monitoring expenses and costs for educational programs. A number of cases are inactive or have been dismissed or withdrawn. Most of the remaining cases are in various pre-trial stages. Some are on appeal following dismissal or summary judgment rulings in favor of either the defendants or the plaintiffs. Valhi, Inc. -- http://www.valhi.net/-- is a holding company and operates through its wholly owned and majority-owned subsidiaries, including NL Industries, Inc., Kronos Worldwide, Inc., CompX International, Inc., and Waste Control Specialists, LLC. The Company operates in three segments: chemicals, component products and waste management. Its chemicals segment is operated through its majority ownership of Kronos. It operates in the component products industry through its majority ownership of CompX. It operates its waste management segment through WCS, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, which owns and operates a West Texas facility for the processing, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous, toxic and certain types of low-level radioactive waste. NORTH COAST ENERGY: Settles Landowners' Royalties Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ North Coast Energy, Inc., a subsidiary of EXCO Resources, Inc., settled a putative class action suit over the payment of royalties in West Virginia, according to EXCO's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suit, "PRC Holdings, LLC, et al. v. North Coast Energy, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-C-80E," was filed before the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia on Oct. 11, 2006. Certain landowners and lessors in West Virginia brought it for themselves and on behalf of other similarly situated landowners and lessors in West Virginia. Specifically, the suit alleges that North Coast Energy has not been paying royalties to the plaintiffs in the manner required under the applicable leases, has provided misleading documentation to the plaintiffs regarding the royalties due, and has breached various other contractual, statutory and fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs with regard to the payment of royalties. In the case, "The Estate of Garrison Tawney v. Columbia Natural Resources, LLC," announced in June 2006, the West Virginia Supreme Court held that language such as "at the wellhead" and similar language contained in leases when used in describing how to calculate royalties due lessors was ambiguous and, therefore, should be construed strictly against the lessee. Accordingly, in the absence of express language in a lease that is intended allocate between a lessor and lessee post-production costs such as the costs of marketing the product and transporting it to the point of sale, no post-production costs may be deducted from the lessor's royalty payment due from the lessee. The claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the company are similar to the claims alleged in the Tawney case. The plaintiffs are seeking common law and statutory compensatory and punitive damages, interest and costs and other remedies. Effective March 18, 2008, the company entered into an agreement to settle all claims arising in the matter for $40,000. In connection with this settlement, all claims alleged by the plaintiffs are scheduled to be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement is awaiting final approval by the court before a dismissal can be entered. EXCO Resources, Inc. -- http://www.excoresources.com/-- is a public oil and natural gas acquisition, exploitation, development, and production company with principal operations in Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. NORTHERN LEASING: Appeals Court Allows Fraud Suit to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ A New York appeals court refused to dismiss fraud claims against officers of equipment-leasing company Northern Leasing Systems, the Associated Press reports. According to the report, those company officials are accused of hiding overcharges in contracts with small businesses. A lawyer for the plaintiffs says overcharges by Northern Leasing for insurance waivers on office equipment could total $180 million over the past decade. The AP notes that plaintiffs in the appeal are from New York, Missouri, Texas and Washington. Northern Leasing attorney Abraham Skoff, Esq., had said that the leasing company did not instruct independent sales outlets to hide the fine print of contracts or refuse to hand out copies. The case now goes back to trial court in Manhattan, which will first decide whether to certify it as a class-action suit, the AP says. New York-based Northern Leasing leases credit card processing and other office equipment. NUTRISYSTEM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- NutriSystem, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors filed a motion seeking the dismissal of a consolidated class action suit filed against them that alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, according to NutriSystem's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. The suits were first filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 9, 2007. They purport to bring claims on behalf of a class of individuals who purchased the company's common stock between Feb. 14, 2007, and Oct. 3 or Oct. 4, 2007. The complaints allege that the defendants issued various materially false and misleading statements relating to the company's projected performance that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of its securities. These suits were consolidated in December 2007 under the caption, "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07- cv-04215-MK." On Jan. 3, 2008, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel pursuant to the requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 7, 2008. The consolidated amended complaint raises the same claims but alleges a class period of Feb. 14, 2007, through Feb. 19, 2008. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated suit on May 6, 2008. The plaintiffs' opposition is due July 7, 2008, and defendants' reply is due on Aug. 6, 2008. The suit is "Kairalla v. NutriSystem, inc. et al., Case No. 2:07-cv-04215-MK," filed in the the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Marvin Katz, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: Deborah R. Gross, Esq. (debbie@bernardmgross.com) Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, PC 100 Penn Square East John Wanamaker Bldg., Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: 215-561-3600 Fax: 215-561-3000 David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. (DRosenfeld@csgrr.com) Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 58 South Service Rd., Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Phone: 631-367-7100 - and - Leon W. Silverman, Esq. (leon@steinandsilverman.com) Stein & Silverman PC 230 S. Broad St. 18th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: 215-985-0255 Fax: 215-985-0342 Representing the defendants is: Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq. (kpohlmann@morganlewis.com) Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Phone: 215-963-5740 Fax: 215-963-5001 PUBLIC SERVICE: Dismissal of N.J. Transition Bond Suit Appealed --------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a class-action complaint filed against Public Service Electric & Gas Co. in relation to a transition bond that the company charges its customers appealed the dismissal of their case to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, according to PSE&G's May 6, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. On April 23, 2007, PSE&G and PSE&G Transition Funding LLC were served with a copy of a purported class-action complaint challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of New Jersey's Competition Act, seeking injunctive relief against continued collection from PSE&G's electric customers of the transition bond charge of PSE&G Transition Funding, as well as recovery of TBC amounts previously collected. Notice of the filing of the complaint was also provided to New Jersey's Attorney General. Under New Jersey law, the Competition Act, enacted in 1999, is presumed constitutional. On July 9, 2007, the same plaintiff filed an amended complaint to also seek injunctive relief from continued collection of related taxes as well as recovery of such taxes previously collected and also filed a petition with BPU, requesting review and adjustment to PSE&G's recovery of the same charges. PSE&G and Transition Funding filed a motion to dismiss the amended Complaint (or in the alternative for summary judgment) on July 30, 2007, and PSE&G filed on Sept. 30, 2007, a motion with the BPU to dismiss the petition. On Oct. 10, 2007, the defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint was granted by the court. On Nov. 21, 2007, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. Briefing of the appeal has been completed. PSE&G reported no further development in the matter. Public Service Electric and Gas Co. -- http://www.pseg.com/-- is an operating public utility company engaged principally in the transmission and distribution of electric energy and gas in New Jersey. RAYMOND JAMES: Faces Ohio Lawsuit Over Alleged Ponzi-Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial Services is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Common Pleas Court in Butler County, Ohio alleging it aided and abetted a seven-year Ponzi scheme in which Jerry Rose took millions of dollars from 200 investors, many of them retirees, for which Rose was sentenced to 20 years in prison, CourtHouse News Service reports. This action arises from the unlawful sale of unregistered securities to plaintiffs and members of the class. The plaintiffs claim Mr. Rose was not a registered investment adviser but claimed to be running a "private mutual fund, illegally pooling the money from these investors and investing it with Defendants." They claim Raymond James was "fully aware of Rose's unlawful actions, and provided Rose with substantial assistance, encouragement, and the instrumentalities to facilitate the unlawful sales. . . . (S)ubstantially all of the funds invested by Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been lost. Plaintiffs, and other members of the Class, include elderly retirees who were dependent upon the money squandered by Rose and Defendants for their everyday living expenses." The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether the transactions between class members, Mr. Rose and Raymond James constitute securities under Ohio law; (b) whether the security was registered in accordance with Ohio law; (c) whether defendants knew or should have known that the funds invested by Mr. Rose were the funds of individual members of the class; (d) whether Mr. Rose and defendants engaged in the sale of unregistered securities to members of the class; (e) whether defendants knew or should have known that Mr. Rose was not licensed to sell securities in the State of Ohio; (f) whether defendants aided and abetted Mr. Rose in his scheme to sell unregistered securities; (g) whether defendants sold or entered into a contract for the sale, and participated or aided Mr. Rose or the Rose Entities in the sale or contract for sale, of securities in violation of R.C. Chapter 1707, et seq.; (h) whether defendants provided substantial assistance and encouragement to Mr. Rose in his transactions with members of the class, and in investing and trading through accounts owned, controlled, or held in the name of Mr. Rose or the Rose Entities which contained the funds of members of the class; and (j) whether defendants are jointly and severally liable for all losses sustained by plaintiffs and members of the class. The plaintiffs ask the court: -- to certify this suit as a class action under Rule 23 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure; -- for compensatory damages, including market adjusted losses, for the plaintiffs and members of the class in an amount to be determined at trial; -- for interest, costs and attorneys fees; -- for declaratory and injunctive relief; and -- for such other relief the court deems appropriate. The suit is "Jesse S. Venable et al. v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc.," filed in the Common Pleas Court in Butler County, Ohio. Representing the plaintiffs are: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Nicole M. Lundrigan, Esq. Strauss & Troy The Federal Reserve Building 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Phone: 513-621-2120 Fax: 513-629-9426 REGIONS FINANCIAL: Faces Suits Over Morgan Keegan Select Funds -------------------------------------------------------------- Regions Financial Corp. and certain of its affiliates were named in class action suits filed in federal courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds and shareholders of Regions, according to Regions Financial's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008. Filed in late 2007 and early 2008, the complaints contain various allegations, including that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. No class has been certified and at this stage of the lawsuits, Regions cannot determine the probability of a material adverse result or reasonably estimate a range of potential exposures, if any. Regions Financial Corp. is a financial holding company that operates throughout the South, Midwest and Texas. The Company provides traditional commercial, retail and mortgage banking services, as well as other financial services in the fields of investment banking, asset management, trust, mutual funds, securities brokerage, insurance and other specialty financing. Regions' business segments are General Banking/Treasury; Investment Banking, Brokerage and Trust, and Insurance. The Company conducts its banking operations through Regions Bank, a state-chartered commercial bank. As of Dec. 31, 2007, Regions operated approximately 2,000 banking offices in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. SCOR S.E.: Settles Converium Shareholders' Lawsuit in U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------- SCOR S.E. disclosed that it had settled a U.S. class action suit brought by shareholders of Converium Holding Ltd., the Swiss reinsurer that SCOR acquired last year, Sarah Veysey writes for Business Insurance. SCOR said that it entered into the settlement with buyers of Converium securities in the United States during the first quarter of 2008. The Converium security holders alleged that Converium misrepresented and omitted material information in various public disclosures. The claims originally had been made in a class action lawsuit filed in 2004. Business Insurance recounts that the plaintiffs in that suit sought to represent a class of all buyers of Converium shares between December 2001 and September 2004. The U.S. court, however, limited the class to U.S.-resident buyers of Converium shares between January 2002 and September 2004. The plaintiffs had asked the court to reconsider that decision. While the court was considering that request, SCOR reached an agreement to settle claims of the certified class before the U.S. court, as well as the claims of non-U.S. purchasers of Converium securities that were proceeding in the Netherlands. The aggregate settlement amount was EUR74 million (US$114.5 million), SCOR said. SCOR said it planned to launch arbitrations with directors and officers insurers "in order to maximize the recoveries." Business Insurance notes the company as saying that it had "booked conservative recoveries," and noted that the settlement is expected to have no impact on its 2008 earnings. SCOR S.E. -- formerly known as Scor Regroupe -- is engaged in the provision of insurance and reinsurance. The Group provides cover for the risk associated with sectors such as credit, surety, and politics. Its activities include the coverage of large industrial risks and derivative risks. It also provides alternative reinsurance including securitisation. The Group operates mainly in Europe, North America and Asia. In 2007, the Group acquired Converium, ReMark and Compagnie Parisienne de Parking. SODEXHO INC: Accused of Stealing Union Dues in Mississippi Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Sodexho Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, state of Missouri alleging it deducted union dues from employees and pocketed the money, CourtHouse News Service reports. The class consists of all Sodexho employees since 2003 who paid union dues and were not paid the prevailing wage. Named plaintiffs David and Edward Muehlheausler contend that since 2003, Sodexho has deducted $93 a month -- 2% of their earnings -- for union dues. But they say Sodexho never gave the money to a union, is not a union-approved contractor, threatened to fire David Muehlheausler if he did not make the forced, and phony, payments of "union dues," and, they say, Sodexho does not pay employees the prevailing wage. The plaintiffs want the court to rule on: (a) whether "union dues" deducted from paychecks of the class members were being paid to an international union; (b) whether the defendant represented to class members that "union dues" deducted from class members' paychecks were paid to an international union when they were not actually being paid to any international union; (c) whether the defendant violated Missouri law by misrepresenting to plaintiff and class members that the "union dues" deducted from their paychecks were going to an international union when they were not going to any international union; and (d) whether the defendant violated Missouri law requiring private contractors to pay the prevailing hourly rate of wages for "construction" work. The plaintiffs ask the court for: -- an order maintaining the suit as a class action pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.08 and that the classes be certified; -- an order determining that all purported union dues that were collected by defendant from 2003 to the present from the weekly paychecks of plaintiffs and class members were collected in violation of Missouri law; -- an order directing the defendant to disgorge all purported union dues collected from plaintiff and class from 2003 to the present; -- an order finding that the defendant willfully and intentionally violated Missouri Revised Statute, Section 290.230.1; -- an order certifying plaintiffs as class representative and appointing their counsel as counsel for the class; -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class compensatory damages, to include any monies illegally or improperly deducted from the weekly paychecks of plaintiff and class and further awarding to the workers any damages caused by such deductions; -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class their consequential and incidental damages; -- an order awarding total plaintiffs and members of the class damages in excess of $25,000; -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law; -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class punitive damages as provided by law; -- an order imposing a constructive trust and equitable lien against all money paid by the plaintiffs and class to wrongfully taken or withheld by defendant; -- an order awarding plaintiffs and class attorney's fees and costs as provided by law; -- an order for declaratory relief declaring that the deduction of purported international union dues from the weekly paychecks of plaintiffs and class was due to the negligent misrepresentations and omissions by defendant and resulted in the unjust enrichment of defendant; -- an order for a preliminary injunction requiring all future deduction of "union dues from the weekly paychecks of plaintiffs and class be deposited in a court-created escrow account (instead of being paid to defendant) pending final resolution of the disputes and controversies alleged; -- an order that the defendant abide by the terms of the spoilation letter; and -- an order awarding the plaintiffs and class such other and further relief as may be just and proper. The suit is "David Muehlheausler et al v. Sodexho, Inc.," filed before the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, State of Missouri. Representing the plaintiffs are: Erich Vieth, Esq. John Campbell, Esq. Simon * Passante, PC 701 Market Street, Ste. 1450 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: 314-241-2929 Fax: 314-241-2029 SOUTHERN CO: Appeals Denial of Dismissal Bid in Mirant IPO Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Southern Co. is appealing a ruling that denied its motion to dismiss certain claims in a securities fraud class action involving Mirant Corp.'s initial public offering, according to Southern Co's May 7, 2008 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2008. In November 2002, Southern Co., certain of its former and current senior officers, and 12 underwriters of Mirant's IPO were added as defendants in a class action that several Mirant shareholders originally filed against Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 29, 2008). Several other similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into the litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The amended complaint is based on allegations related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market, alleged false statements and omissions in Mirant's prospectus for its initial public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant, and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant. The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant securities between Sept. 26, 2000, and Sept. 5, 2002. In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. The remaining claims do not allege any improper trading and marketing activity, accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the part of Southern Co. but seek to impose liability on Southern Co. based on allegations that Southern Co. was a "control person" as to Mirant prior to the spin-off date. Southern Co. filed an answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in September 2003. The plaintiffs have also filed a motion for class certification. During Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the securities litigation was stayed, with the exception of limited discovery. Since Mirant's plan of reorganization has become effective, the stay has been lifted. On March 24, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration requesting that the court vacate that portion of its July 14, 2003 order dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based upon Mirant's alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities involving the California energy market. Southern Co. and the other defendants have opposed the plaintiffs' motion. On March 6, 2007, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, reinstated the California energy market claims, and granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to compel certain class certification discovery. On March 21, 2007, the defendants filed renewed motions to dismiss the California energy claims on grounds originally set forth in their 2003 motions to dismiss, but which were not addressed by the court. On July 27, 2007, certain defendants, including Southern Co., filed motions for reconsideration of the court's denial of a motion seeking dismissal of certain federal securities laws claims based upon, among other things, certain alleged errors included in financial statements issued by Mirant. The suit is "In Re Mirant Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Judge Richard W. Story, presiding. Representing the plaintiffs are: David Andrew Bain, Esq. (dbain@bain-law.com) Law Office of David A. Bain, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-724-9990 Fax: 404-724-9986 - and - Nichole Tara Browning, Esq. (nba@classlaw.com) Chitwood & Harley 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-3900 Representing the defendants are: Jessica Perry Corley, Esq. (jcorley@alston.com) Alston & Bird 1201 West Peachtree Street One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 Phone: 404-881-7000 - and - Gordon Lee Garrett, Jr., Esq. (ggarrett@jonesday.com) Jones Day-Atlanta 1420 Peachtree Street, NE Suite 800 Atlanta, GA 30309-3053 Phone: 404-521-3939 SPANISH BROADCASTING: Lawsuit Accuses 'La Mega FM' of Fraud ----------------------------------------------------------- The Spanish Broadcasting System and All Star Vacation Marketing Group is facing a class-action complaint in federal court alleging it defrauded listeners of 97.9 "La Mega FM" in a bogus radio contest that misrepresented its prizes as all-expense-paid vacations, then demanded the winners pay a $399 "fee" and other costs, CourtHouse News Service reports. The plaintiff